Is Big Brother watching you? Is it a good or bad thing?

[Shraytus]

It's no secret that the industrialized nations of NATO, and the Anglosphere to be specific, spy on each others' citizens, with their permission of all things. The UK, for example, with biometric ID cards, detention without trial, and 4.2 million cameras, is Big Brother watching you? Do you think he should be watching us? Or do you think this is a gross invasion of our constitutional rights and privacy? Will the 21st century result in 1984?

[Guest icbones]

We've been on this slippery slope for many years now. Pictures on our drivers licence, sealt belt laws, helmet laws, Bans on toy guns, bans on certain breeds of dogs, But just so people have less private and family time now, we have sunday shoping and most stores are open on stat holidays.

If you send a nasty letter to a politician the Police come by and arrest you with the resulting legal fees and job loss. Ask Jack Carlton.

Canada is a cess pool.

[OddSox]

Canada is a cess pool.

I think you may be confusing all of Canada with the current nanny-government in Ontario...

Edited July 29, 2009 by OddSox

[kimmy]

I think it is entirely reasonable to require someone to provide reliable identification in order to access privileges such as boarding an airplane or driving a car.

I think it is entirely unreasonable for people to assume they have a right to "privacy" when in plain sight in public places.

-k

[OddSox]

I think it is entirely unreasonable for people to assume they have a right to "privacy" when in plain sight in public places.

It depends on the purpose which the surveillance is used for. It's one thing for LE to use a public camera image to solve a mugging, but a totally different ball game if Home Depot is making use the RFID chip in your wallet to track when and where you go to the store.

Will Google eventually be able to provide real-time video of you any where at any time - at your spouse's request? (assuming they pay the $29.95 fee).

Will LE be able to use the GPS chip in your car to track your speed at all times as well as where you go and when? All in the interest of protecting society? Will they even tell you that they have the capability?

[Bonam]

It's a complex issue, because it puts in conflict the need for safety and security with the freedoms of individuals. That being said, I agree with kimmy's point, that one should not expect privacy in public places. But surveillance that extends to the private lives of citizens is something else.

Also, in regards to "big brother" watching you... I think it's important to realize that all this surveillance that we have hardly all goes to one monolithic entity or organization. There are many separate police departments, agencies, private shops, corporations, private individuals, etc, that operate cameras and surveillance devices. The process for the government to obtain video footage from these organizations and individuals is not instantaneous nor effortless, so such footage would generally only be requested to solve a crime, not just for the sake of spying on people.

For example, I have cameras set up around my property. They automatically feed their footage to a computer I have set up, which uses a motion detection algorithm to sift through the data, and highlights interesting segments for review. So if ever anything suspicious was happening around my house, I would know of it. Many businesses do similar things, having cameras around their premises. Things like this should definitely be allowed.

But coming to OddSox' example of a company installing a tracker chip in a vehicle you purchase, without your knowledge, is clearly beyond what should be permissible. So too would be a company keeping constant video surveillance of you wherever you go.

[OddSox]

t coming to OddSox' example of a company installing a tracker chip in a vehicle you purchase, without your knowledge, is clearly beyond what should be permissible. So too would be a company keeping constant video surveillance of you wherever you go.

Any late model car available now has built-in computer modules that track your speed, engine RPMs, brake usage etc. on an ongoing basis -and there have been cases where LE has successfully accessed the information for use in accident investigations. Although not a big secret, it is also not commonly realized by consumers, and in any case they do not have any choice if they want to drive a modern vehicle. I haven't heard of any legal cases where built-in GPS units in cars have been used by LE, but I am sure it's coming if it hasn't already.

As far as that goes, how long is it before LE obtains a warrant for the GPS info in your iPhone or Blackberry if you're a suspect, or even a witness? With some of the current anti-terrorism legislation around the world, even being a suspect is - well, suspect.

Edited July 29, 2009 by OddSox

[Bonam]

Any late model car available now has built-in computer modules that track your speed, engine RPMs, brake usage etc. on an ongoing basis -and there have been cases where LE has successfully accessed the information for use in accident investigations. Although not a big secret it is also not commonly known by consumers, and in any case they do not have any choice if they want to drive a modern vehicle. I haven't heard of any legal cases where built-in GPS units in cars have been used by LE, but I am sure it's coming if it hasn't already.

Firstly, I have no idea what the abbreviation "LE" stands for. Care to enlighten me?

Secondly, the information you mention is generated and displayed by an onboard unit. And yes, if it is stored, it can then be accessed afterwards, such as in the case of a crash investigation. But this information is not transmitted. Similarly, GPS chips are available so cheaply and in such small sizes precisely because they are incapable of transmitting - they only receive and process signals from the satellites. To transmit something back, through the satellite network, takes a relatively large antenna and quite a bit of power, due to the huge distances involved. As such, current GPS devices are inherently safe from real time tracking and spying. The information can only be accessed after the fact, and such access would only take place, presumably, if there was cause, such as a crash or a criminal act.

Thirdly, while all modern vehicles do include ECUs that read and control (but not necessarily record) the data you mentioned, by far not all "modern" vehicles have built in GPS devices, and, furthermore, if a user feels that any potential privacy concerns outweigh the benefits of a GPS, they can certainly remove the device from their vehicle. My car is just one year old and doesn't include a GPS, nor would I want one, though not because of privacy concerns (I prefer to learn any new route in advance, so I have it in my head).

Edited July 29, 2009 by Bonam

[OddSox]

Also, in regards to "big brother" watching you... I think it's important to realize that all this surveillance that we have hardly all goes to one monolithic entity or organization. There are many separate police departments, agencies, private shops, corporations, private individuals, etc, that operate cameras and surveillance devices. The process for the government to obtain video footage from these organizations and individuals is not instantaneous nor effortless, so such footage would generally only be requested to solve a crime, not just for the sake of spying on people.

It's only a matter of time before all the systems are integrated by default. Data mining of consumers is the ultimate objective of the Googles of the world, and they won't stop until it's a reality. Don't get me wrong, I think Google is great, but it is also very frightening.

Once it is a reality, is there any doubt that government won't stick their nose in - in the interest of society?

I'm glad I'm not a young man anymore (I was a bit of a rebel), even as it is I am very concerned...

[OddSox]

Firstly, I have no idea what the abbreviation "LE" stands for. Care to enlighten me?

Sorry, LE is Law Enforcement.

Secondly, the information you mention is generated and displayed by an onboard unit. And yes, if it is stored, it can then be accessed afterwards, such as in the case of a crash investigation. But this information is not transmitted. Similarly, GPS chips are available so cheaply and in such small sizes precisely because they are incapable of transmitting - they only receive and process signals from the satellites. To transmit something back, through the satellite network, takes a relatively large antenna and quite a bit of power, due to the huge distances involved. As such, current GPS devices are inherently safe from real time tracking and spying. The information can only be accessed after the fact, and such access would only take place, presumably, if there was cause, such as a crash or a criminal act.

Current GPS devices may work as you claim. But, ten years ago it was impossible to put a GPS in a cellular phone - five years from now it is likely that these devices will be a fraction of the current size with a corresponding increase in capabilities. It's coming, and current legislation does not protect consumers at all.

EDIT: I think you may be wrong about the transmitting part - haven't the 'LoJack' and 'OnStar' systems have been around for years, which allow tracking of any vehicle equipped with the correct device?

Thirdly, while all modern vehicles do include ECUs that read and control (but not necessarily record) the data you mentioned, by far not all "modern" vehicles have built in GPS devices, and, furthermore, if a user feels that any potential privacy concerns outweigh the benefits of a GPS, they can certainly remove the device from their vehicle. My car is just one year old and doesn't include a GPS, nor would I want one, though not because of privacy concerns (I prefer to learn any new route in advance, so I have it in my head).

I understand, but I do not believe it is as easy as you claim to remove the devices (especially for a consumer that doesn't realize the device is even there or what it is capable of) and there is also a trend in modern society to discount privacy concerns of that nature in favour of the convenience. I have seen countless forum posts where the attitude is "why should I worry" (a la MAD magazine) and it really is a potential 'slippery slope'.

EDIT: I don't believe in GPS units either - as a motorcyclist I prefer getting lost...

Edited July 29, 2009 by OddSox

[Bonam]

Sorry, LE is Law Enforcement.

Ah ok.

Current GPS devices may work as you claim. But, ten years ago it was impossible to put a GPS in a cellular phone - five years from now it is likely that these devices will be a fraction of the current size with a corresponding increase in capabilities. It's coming, and current legislation does not protect consumers at all.

There's actually a physical limitation to how small and how low-power a transmitter which can communicate with satellites is. The signal needs to not be wholly drowned out by the noise when it reaches the receiver, on the satellite, some 20,000 km away. Since the power of a signal falls as 1/r^2, the transmitter will have to be roughly 1 million times more powerful than one that is only designed to communicate with a land station, say, 20 km away.

Now, of course, it is possible to do anyway, you just need a bigger transmitter that uses more power. It's not super huge or anything - you can get a satellite phone and compare it to the size of a cell phone for yourself (or just find some photos online). But adding the capability to transmit to satellites to your car will entail non-negligible extra cost, and the only marketable benefit is that you could signal for help wherever you happened to be on the planet.

Transmitting your information seems like a feature that would make car companies have to raise their prices, without raising the appeal of their products (indeed it could lower it, due to privacy concerns).

I understand, but I do not believe it is as easy as you claim to remove the devices (especially for a consumer that doesn't realize the device is even there or what it is capable of) and there is also a trend in modern society to discount privacy concerns of that nature in favour of the convenience. I have seen countless forum posts where the attitude is "why should I worry" (a la MAD magazine) and it really is a potential 'slippery slope'.

EDIT: I don't believe in GPS units either - as a motorcyclist I prefer getting lost...

An ECU is an integral component of a car and certainly cannot be removed except by someone with extremely specialized knowledge, who would have to replace it with an alternately programmed chip that had the same inputs and outputs. But a GPS device is not an integral component of a car - and could not safely be made integral, since GPS reception is unavailable in many locations (i.e. tunnels, streets in extremely dense, skyscraper-filled, built-up areas, etc). It is furthermore easy to identify, since the types of GPSs that are in cars have big shiny displays and even talk to you.

[OddSox]

An ECU is an integral component of a car and certainly cannot be removed except by someone with extremely specialized knowledge, who would have to replace it with an alternately programmed chip that had the same inputs and outputs. But a GPS device is not an integral component of a car - and could not safely be made integral, since GPS reception is unavailable in many locations (i.e. tunnels, streets in extremely dense, skyscraper-filled, built-up areas, etc). It is furthermore easy to identify, since the types of GPSs that are in cars have big shiny displays and even talk to you.

I see what you're saying - but what about the 'OnStar' systems that even know when you've been in an accident? (at least that's what the commercials say). They must be doing some type of transmitting, even if it's simply by cellular frequencies - it still works. Besides, over the last thirty years I have heard lots of experts telling me what cannot possibly be done - guess what?

EDIT: New cars have the GPS built right into the dash - if you know what you're doing you <might> be able to pull the plug - but it's not going to be easy...and there is no OFF switch.

Edited July 29, 2009 by OddSox

[GostHacked]

I think it is entirely reasonable to require someone to provide reliable identification in order to access privileges such as boarding an airplane or driving a car.

Agreed, you need some level of proving you are who you are.

I think it is entirely unreasonable for people to assume they have a right to "privacy" when in plain sight in public places.

-k

Then you don't mind people intruding on your conversations then? Eavesdropping? IF someone came down and sat next to you while you were having a private conversation what do you do? Move? Tell them to mind their own business??

Soon I won't even be able to have that kind of privacy in my own home. Where is the line drawn? Most of the technology you use can be used to spy on you. Like your own cell phone with a gps and a camera.