Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google IT Technology

'Hack' Creates Fake Google Maps Traffic Jams With 99 Cell Phones (bleepingcomputer.com) 92

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
A German artist illustrated [video] how it is possible to create a virtual traffic jam in Google Maps by walking around the streets of Berlin with 99 cell phones. Qbertino shares a report: Google Maps utilizes GPS and location data from mobile devices to determine if there is traffic congestion on a particular street. The app will then redirect users to less trafficked streets to avoid traffic. Using a hand cart filled with 99 active cell phones connected to Google Maps, artist Simon Weckert showed how he could create fake traffic jams in Google Maps simply by walking around the streets of Berlin. As he would be walking, rather than driving, Google Maps would perceive it to be a traffic jam due to a large number of devices reporting the same slow speed. Google's response to the matter, via blog 9to5Google: Speaking with 9to5Google, a spokesperson from Google has responded to this situation to clarify a few things. In normal usage, Google does use a large number of devices running Maps in a single place as proof of a traffic jam, something this rare and very specific case took advantage of. In the statement below, though, the company does hint that it might use cases like this to further improve how Maps handles traffic data. "Whether via car or cart or camel, we love seeing creative uses of Google Maps as it helps us make maps work better over time."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Hack' Creates Fake Google Maps Traffic Jams With 99 Cell Phones More

'Hack' Creates Fake Google Maps Traffic Jams With 99 Cell Phones

Comments Filter:

  • Clever (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Monday February 03, 2020 @02:39PM (#59686234)
    I rather enjoyed this story because it's the kind of approach that makes sense (lot's of devices in the same area moving slowly) for a developer to implement, but one where no one would do an extensive amount of testing because who the hell expects anyone to walk down the middle of a street with a wagon full of a cell phones. It's also the kind of silly hack that would look clever in a heist film if it were used to fool the police and get them to reroute from the quickest paths.

    But outside of having data from other kinds of sensors (cameras on the street) or a more trusted source, there's only so much tuning you can do to an algorithm to prevent it from getting so easily fooled.

    • Re:Clever (Score:4, Interesting)

      by PolygamousRanchKid ( 1290638 ) on Monday February 03, 2020 @02:52PM (#59686284)

      It's also the kind of silly hack that would look clever in a heist film if it were used to fool the police and get them to reroute from the quickest paths.

      I am surprised that Google Maps did not notice that something was fishy, when they checked the owners of the phones, and found out that they all belonged to Thomas Crown.

      • Re:Clever (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Monday February 03, 2020 @07:12PM (#59687344)

        I am surprised that Google Maps did not notice that something was fishy, when they checked the owners of the phones, and found out that they all belonged to Thomas Crown.

        Google receives anonymized data from cellular companies, so they don't know who owns the phones.

        But otherwise, sure, it would totally make sense for Google to hire a few million people to continuously check the ownership of every cellphone on every street in the world to solve a non-existent problem.

        • Re:Clever (Score:4, Informative)

          by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Tuesday February 04, 2020 @02:12AM (#59688078)

          Google receives anonymized data from cellular companies, so they don't know who owns the phones.

          Err no, not at all. Google maps has nothing to do with cellular location from other companies. They get this info from Android location services and Google Maps location (for non Android devices) directly and it is tied to your profile.

          • ... assuming that you have ever turned on "Location Services" since your initial lockdown of the phone in the store.

      • I am surprised that Google Maps did not notice that something was fishy, when they checked the owners of the phones, and found out that they all belonged to Thomas Crown.

        It's more a case of an "attack" which was never considered and thus a condition which was never checked. Google had no reason to assume one person would own 99 phones so why would they program the ownership of a phone into their validation algorithms.

    • it only worked because he picked a road with no cars going down it a 100 phones stopped doesnâ(TM)t detect if others are still getting past

    • Re:Clever (Score:5, Insightful)

      by account 123 ( 6579132 ) on Monday February 03, 2020 @02:59PM (#59686332)

      there's only so much tuning you can do

      Huh? Is it really a traffic jam if there are 99 phones going slow and everybody else going the normal speed on the same street?

      Change
      if (many slow) then jammed;
      to
      if (many slow and not some fast) then jammed;

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by AK Marc ( 707885 )
        The next "hack" will be to fly a drone with a phone taped to it at 10 mph over real traffic jams to "prove" there's no traffic.

        What I expect will happen is that they'll come up with some way to rate the "value" of the input from various devices, and the next time he tries this (after the fix is implemented), the 99 phones will be mostly ignored. Google already does this with some of their map functions, but hasn't implemented it with traffic sniffing.
        • lol, was hoping for this comment with phones been launched at faster speeds to "prove" the opposite of the article.
          Yeah some value is what I had been thinking too. I had often wondered if Waze did that with hazard/accident reports. Since people can acknowledge your report was correct, your own voting could carry more weight. Interesting stuff.

          • Forget the speed comparisons, I want to see how Google Maps react if smartphones that look like they're in moving cars (drones following the road lanes) suddenly start "crashing" through buildings (drones flying over the buildings). Do they currently track the elevation-from-the-road variable?

            • Do the cut-down sat-nav systems in phones even have an "elevation from the road" parameter? Every sat-nav system which I've seen has only ever reported one altitude value for a position on the map, without jitter or variance, which strongly suggests to me that the value is coming from the map's DEM (digital elevation model) not from reading the actual GPS satellite data. When I've used a GPS system (one component of a sat-nav) in "raw" mode (delivering lat/long/elevation at a couple of Hertz over a serial l

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AK Marc ( 707885 )
            How did I screw up 100 mph? missed it on the "preview" nobody looks at. Kinda kills the joke. At least someone understood what I meant, even if I didn't say it right.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shotgun ( 30919 )

        Could have been that Antifa, BLM or some other protest group showed up to block traffic. In that case, it would have been an actual road block.

        I have noticed though, that GM will show the roads jammed, but then shows it clear if I pass through without slowing down.

      • Motorbikes

    • Seems like it would be easy to fix (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Monday February 03, 2020 @04:33PM (#59686674)
      if (bunch of phones consistently have GPS coordinates within 2 meters of each other )
      { assume they're all in the same car and weight them all as a single data point }

      That's really the only problem I see this highlighting - that Google is assuming each individual phone represents an individual vehicle, and weights them as such in its traffic measuring algorithm. While that's easier to implement, eliminating duplicate phones judged to be inside the same car would yield a more accurate traffic assessment. Right now, a bus full of passengers stalled at the side of the road would fool Google in the same way.

      • The bus breaking down is really good point I hadn't thought of. That makes me wonder whether the google maps folks have actually thought about this.

        On a related note, I wonder if traffic researchers have done this before, or if it would be a new way to understand the interplay between gps guidance and real life traffic.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Agripa ( 139780 )

        if (bunch of phones consistently have GPS coordinates within 2 meters of each other ){ assume they're all in the same car and weight them all as a single data point }

        GPS is not that consistent between receivers.

        • Unless you're looking at a DGPS system. Which is another couple of zeros on the expensive end of the price. Different kettle of electrons.
      • In your pseudo-code : IF (bunch of phones within small distance) AND (bus company advertises on that route) THEN (flag all phones as "PROBABLY_POOR_PEOPLE" and disconnect all services) It is very much to Google's benefit to identify such contaminant sub-humans in their database and exclude them from their profitable advertising sales.

    • But outside of having data from other kinds of sensors (cameras on the street) or a more trusted source, there's only so much tuning you can do to an algorithm to prevent it from getting so easily fooled.

      As a software developer I have to say, there is a lot you can do using the data at hand that is simple and obvious.

      But employers frown on doing it without there being a bug report. Now there is a bug report. That makes solving it easy.

  • Is it really? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Dorianny ( 1847922 ) on Monday February 03, 2020 @02:40PM (#59686238) Journal
    A "hack" is something that makes a system function in unintended or unexpected ways. Gmaps is functioning exactly as intended, this is simply "abuse" of the system not a hack

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by vux984 ( 928602 )

      "Gmaps is functioning exactly as intended,"

      Is it intended and expected to report a traffic jam where there isn't one? Didn't think so.

      "this is simply "abuse" of the system not a hack"

      I'm not sure why you are splitting hairs over whether a hack can only affect implementation defects but not design or specification flaws? After all, practically every hack out there results in the computer doing exactly what the computer was programmed to do with the hackers input.

      • "Gmaps is functioning exactly as intended,"

        Is it intended and expected to report a traffic jam where there isn't one? Didn't think so.

        Gmaps doesn't know anything about the number of cars on the road. It would be more accurate for google to call it a cell-jam rather then a traffic-jam

        "this is simply "abuse" of the system not a hack"

        I'm not sure why you are splitting hairs over whether a hack can only affect implementation defects but not design or specification flaws? After all, practically every hack out there results in the computer doing exactly what the computer was programmed to do with the hackers input.

        A hackers aim is either to break-out of the programs memory-space typically using a buffer-overflow exploit to write to non-program memory regions or to use program functions to perform operations not intended by the programmers such as reading or overwriting system files

        • Re:Is it really? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by vux984 ( 928602 ) on Monday February 03, 2020 @03:40PM (#59686482)

          Most people wouldn't and couldn't even understand your definition of hack; so its a bit absurd to argue that it's the only definition that can be used.

          Hack is more generically meant to make something do something its not supposed to do with clever input. Basically the emphasis is on "use program functions to perform operations not intended by the programmers " and disregarding pretty much everything else you wrote.

          The programmers didn't intend for a single user single-handedly activate the code that flags congestion detected; and to start rerouting other users away from the area; so that's a 'hack'. Sure they didn't 'hack into google and take control of their servers', but its still a hack.

          Just as uber drivers found ways to trip surge pricing by coordinating all going offline at the same time, and then turning their phones back on, creating a fake surge in unmet demand.

          Just as item dupers in MMORPGs generally found sequences of container management/bank/inventory actions/trading, possibly coupled with well placed network traffic interference to result in duplicated items. These are "hacks" too by most people's reckoning.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Nkwe ( 604125 )

          "Gmaps is functioning exactly as intended,"

          Is it intended and expected to report a traffic jam where there isn't one? Didn't think so.

          Gmaps doesn't know anything about the number of cars on the road. It would be more accurate for google to call it a cell-jam rather then a traffic-jam

          "this is simply "abuse" of the system not a hack"

          I'm not sure why you are splitting hairs over whether a hack can only affect implementation defects but not design or specification flaws? After all, practically every hack out there results in the computer doing exactly what the computer was programmed to do with the hackers input.

          A hackers aim is either to break-out of the programs memory-space typically using a buffer-overflow exploit to write to non-program memory regions or to use program functions to perform operations not intended by the programmers such as reading or overwriting system files

          I have always considered a hack to be finding a way to leverage the existing rules of a system to generate an outcome that I desire (and that probably the authors of the rules did not intend or desire.)

    • A "hack" is something that makes a system function in unintended or unexpected ways. Gmaps is functioning exactly as intended, this is simply "abuse" of the system not a hack

      Google maps intention is to re-route traffic where there is a congestion. There was no congestion, just a guy with a trolley full of mobiles, but still google maps re-routed cars, ergo hack.

      • Obviously it depends on how you define "congestion," and they were defining it differently than you.

        Please stop talking about technical words until you broaden your mind to include them.

        • If you believe that googles definition of a traffic congestion includes slow moving mobiles you'd have a point. My belief is that that they believed that it correlated in a way that was shown to be false.

          • If you believe that googles definition of a traffic congestion includes slow moving mobiles you'd have a point.

            It literally does. You don't seem to comprehend how engineering works.

            The app didn't perform poorly because it was distracted, or having a bad day. And it wasn't hacked. It didn't have a bug, either.

            It's definition of traffic congestion includes slow moving mobile phones. Because that is what it knows the location of.

    • Isn't every hack an abuse of the system. You just need to look at the correct component to identify the hack. This wasn't a hack on Gmaps, it was a hack on the algorithm that detects traffic jams, an algorithm designed to filter out such data given the number of people who use maps on their phone while walking the streets and it most definitely did cause the system to function in unexpected ways, or for google "unintended" is the better description.

      • The "algorithm" deals with cell-phone location-data not cars, it detects clusters of slow moving cell-phones. It is far more accurate to call it a a cell-jam rather then a traffic-jam

        • The "algorithm" deals with cell-phone location-data not cars, it detects clusters of slow moving cell-phones. It is far more accurate to call it a a cell-jam rather then a traffic-jam

          I'm curious as to why you think you stated something that was relevant here.

    • A "hack" is something that makes a system function in unintended or unexpected ways. Gmaps is functioning exactly as intended, this is simply "abuse" of the system not a hack

      For years, we watched the MSM attack and destroy the term "hacker", conflating it with crackers, script kiddies, and other criminals. It took a long damn time, but we were able to finally get the term "hacker" into mainstream vernacular, and not always aligned with criminal activity. It may even be too mainstream now with shows like Hack my Life on TV.

      All that said, I'm pretty sure "White Hat Abuser" will not go well for you at parties and interviews. Good luck trying to convince someone you're one of t

  • Wasn't there a song about 99 something or other?

    • Wasn't there a song about 99 something or other?

      99 Luftballons [wikipedia.org]

      The English version retains the spirit of the original narrative, but many of the lyrics are translated poetically rather than being directly translated: red helium balloons are casually released by the civilian singer (narrator) with her unnamed friend into the sky and are mistakenly registered by a faulty early warning system as enemy contacts, resulting in panic and eventually nuclear war, with the end of the song near-identical to the end of the original German version.

      I wonder if that's why the "artist" specifically chose 99 phones.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Wolfrider ( 856 )

      Google got 99 problems... ...and a traffic jam ain't one

  • Neat (Score:2)

    by b0bby ( 201198 )

    I think this is amusing, and if this is his art good luck to him. It makes me wonder what several hundred emulated phones could do, with artificial GPS data indicating that they were moving slowly in tandem.

    • Your idea would be even more interesting if their reported locations where chosen to stealthily manipulate traffic, and didn't just use Google Maps but Waze too (they can run at the same time.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by b0bby ( 201198 )

        Yeah, Waze was actually what I was thinking; you could have the fake phones report accidents and potholes for extra credit!
        Hope Google can spot emulated phones or someone is bound to do this.

        • Same thought. I know there bunches of people who complain about Waze sending drivers into "their" neighborhoods--that's how you stop it. Get 99 phones and have one of the homeowners walk up and down the street to generate a "traffic jam" so Waze won't send people through the neighborhood.

  • ...by walking down the street with a cart loaded with phones. Cars unable to pass. Google sees jam.

  • Too obvious (Score:3)

    by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Monday February 03, 2020 @03:40PM (#59686476)
    I've often wondered why cops don't just go around flagging fake "speed traps" in Android Auto just to get people to slow down...
  • Remember the old acronym for Garbage In, Garbage Out? This "hack" just proved it true once again.

  • So Google tracks individuals (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Confirmed creepiness

    • You have to turn on location tracking, and give permission for the maps app to use it.

      Most people consider it a feature to let the map know where you are while you're getting directions from it.

      If you don't want directions, just leave location tracking off. Duh.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Its "just" like a paper map or old GPS unit but it networks in both directions a lot...

  • 99 cellphones moving slowly could easily be a line of pedestrians entering some event. I'd expect that even a few cellphones moving at the road's speed limit would invalidate the initial assumption.

    • Except I'm pretty sure it needs a significant number of phones running google maps directions, in car mode. There is a clear intent to abuse the system here by being dishonest in the app. If you use your phone in bike or pedestrian mode, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't show the road in red.

      So I doubt the algorithm is that dumb. Also note there is almost no other car on the road during the experiment so it's impossible for the algorithm to figure out the road is actually empty. Please explain how it could do be

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        Please explain how it could do better.

        One could assume that 99 phones occupying essentially the same space is a crowd of pedestrians. Or the biggest auto pile-up to date in Berlin.

  • It is a hack. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Monday February 03, 2020 @04:01PM (#59686568)

    A hack is when you know the workings of a system enough to manipulate it to function in a way that it was not intended. This meets that criteria.

    • I am reluctant to call this a hack as I think it's just a misinterpretation of what Google says is a "traffic jam". The system is working as designed.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        Re "The system is working as designed." .. would have detected any such change and detected data from "not" cars/vans/trucks/SUV/.....

    • You are making the assumption that the developer was unaware of this limitation, which I find doubtful. Developers are usually painfully aware of the limitation of their own code. Those are often the sort of detail that tends to get lost in management summaries passing upwards, sideways and outbound communications.

  • This is an excellent example of something that shouldn't be fixed.

    The risk is very low
    This doesn't scale
    The resources to fix it outweigh the benefit of having it fixed
    The impact is very low

    Why is this in the news? It's just a publicity stunt. Your not about to start seeing teenagers doing this for kicks. It's no good as a hack. Can't use it to commit crime as there is no possible profit. It would cost a fortune to do this in a single area. You might crowdsource this once or twice before people got bored wit

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      The ad company asks a lot of city areas for more city/police/road CCTV and direct road camera access...
      Place road flow detection over the smart/cell phone use and GUI the results...
      To protect the collection, profit flow, trusted reputation and inner workings of an ad company again...

  • Hardly. More like exposing a flaw in the system.

      The same thing could happen if the sidewalks are crowded enough with pedestrians and they are using Google maps.

  • Get the premium version of Google Maps and create fake traffic jams along your commute!
  • Here's the answer for all those small local roads wher residents compalin about all the traffic Maps et al route there, causing massive congestion and undue wear and tear on the road surface designed for infrequent light traffic.

  • Sure this guy is testing the limits of the system, but is it hack; that is debatable. Google will probably respond with adding some complexity to an already complex thing, but is this really the best approach? I'd suggest that grasping the limits of this sort of system is a more coherent approach for society in the long run, not adding unnecessary complexity to the whole thing to deal with edge cases, especially those that will increasingly average down as real data scales.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Nuclear war can ruin your whole compile." -- Karl Lehenbauer

Close