Persistent Surveillance

[Michael Hardner]

An excellent podcast on this new technology of persistent and pervasive aerial surveillance. ( Also the name of the company that provides the service. )

http://www.radiolab.org/story/eye-sky/

Background info is here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/company-uses-aerial-footage-technology-to-fight-crime/

An American surveillance company nestled into a small dark room of TVs and computers in Dayton, Ohio, is trying to solve crimes across the globe.

The company, Persistent Surveillance, uses man-powered planes, and high-powered cameras, to capture images of crime from above. A team of analysts use the footage obtained to track criminals from the scene of a crime to their homes or immediate locations.

Police are then alerted to the crimes, which range from burglaries and assaults, to carjacks and murders.

"We don't identify a person, we identify the fact that they came from this house, and went to this house. The officers go there, knock on the door, and typically find the stuff," said Ross McNutt, Persistent Surveillance president and CEO.

My take on this is that, as they say in the podcast, the benefits are tangible and the costs are abstract. As such, I think dialogue needs to start on this new potential increase in surveillance. Personally, I think it's inevitable that this will happen, so I'd like to highlight social responses to deal with that in the discussion.

[Guest]

Can a Marvel comic and movie be far behind?

[bush_cheney2004]

No big deal...the Gladys Kravitz's of the world have been persistently watching neighbours houses for decades and they didn't need no steenkin' aerial survellance. There are private surveillance cameras all over my neighbourhood...I even have a camera DVR in my car to record Big Foot crossings on the road.

Don't worry...you live in Canada !

Edited July 10, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest]

We have Bigfoot too! Or maybe it was a moose.

Edited July 10, 2015 by bcsapper

[Michael Hardner]

Don't worry...you live in Canada !

I'm worried that we're not going to get this.

[dre]

An excellent podcast on this new technology of persistent and pervasive aerial surveillance. ( Also the name of the company that provides the service. )

http://www.radiolab.org/story/eye-sky/

Background info is here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/company-uses-aerial-footage-technology-to-fight-crime/

My take on this is that, as they say in the podcast, the benefits are tangible and the costs are abstract. As such, I think dialogue needs to start on this new potential increase in surveillance. Personally, I think it's inevitable that this will happen, so I'd like to highlight social responses to deal with that in the discussion.

Thats fine as long as no footage of private property is admissible in court without the owners consent.

[Michael Hardner]

Private property includes areas that are public, though. If you commit a crime in your front yard, you're on private property but in the public.

They don't have x-ray surveillance. Yet.

[bush_cheney2004]

License plate readers are also proliferating, fixing a vehicle in place and time, but not necessarily the vehicles owner or driver. Cell phone geo-located data is also readily available. Cameras are everywhere....smartphones are looking for that magic YouTube moment or selfie to die for.

What's a perp supposed to do to earn a dishonest living without getting caught ?

[Moonlight Graham]

You'd have to limit this technology to specific very high crime areas or other defined limited parameters. Otherwise I'd argue it would be unconstitutional in both US and Canada.

[eyeball]

It probably won't be long before we start seeing anti-surveillance clothing and devices being sold to people. Umbrellas certainly come to mind or wearable lasers that point up to thwart camera's from looking down on you.

How much does anyone want to bet that hijabs are as popular as baseball caps in a few years?

[Big Guy]

Interesting technology if available only to law enforcement.

Could be problematic: Private individual uses the technology, traces bank robber with loot to home address. Has two choices - report to police or make money on the situation. Wait till robber leaves home then break in to steal loot or blackmail robber to get part of the loot.

[Michael Hardner]

Otherwise I'd argue it would be unconstitutional in both US and Canada.

Existing frameworks for privacy need to be discussed, because the idea of privacy never considered the 'eye in the sky' unless you're talking about God.

[Michael Hardner]

Umbrellas certainly come to mind or wearable lasers that point up to thwart camera's from looking down on you.

How much does anyone want to bet that hijabs are as popular as baseball caps in a few years?

It doesn't matter. If you listen to the podcast, they are able to do so much with this, it's almost impossible to thwart it.

[Moonlight Graham]

Existing frameworks for privacy need to be discussed, because the idea of privacy never considered the 'eye in the sky' unless you're talking about God.

Privacy laws never envisioned the kind of technology we have now, from the internet, cell phones, etc. So yes I agree.

Personally i think we need to tighten privacy laws greatly, not loosen them. Technology companies and governments needs to be better regulated. They'll always act in their interests if they're free to do so unless we stop them.

[Michael Hardner]

I would rather come up with social ways to counter the technology since it is inevitable

[bush_cheney2004]

"Social ways" that use technology have actually accelerated the loss of "privacy".

[Moonlight Graham]

I would rather come up with social ways to counter the technology since it is inevitable

Like what?

Regulating privacy concerns of technology is easy. Just pass some laws, whammo.

[GostHacked]

An excellent podcast on this new technology of persistent and pervasive aerial surveillance. ( Also the name of the company that provides the service. )

http://www.radiolab.org/story/eye-sky/

Background info is here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/company-uses-aerial-footage-technology-to-fight-crime/

My take on this is that, as they say in the podcast, the benefits are tangible and the costs are abstract. As such, I think dialogue needs to start on this new potential increase in surveillance. Personally, I think it's inevitable that this will happen, so I'd like to highlight social responses to deal with that in the discussion.

Wow only if someone had posted something like this before, starting to get the bigger picture now are we Mike?

[GostHacked]

Private property includes areas that are public, though. If you commit a crime in your front yard, you're on private property but in the public.

They don't have x-ray surveillance. Yet.

Actually they have something better, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/01/19/police-radar-see-through-walls/22007615/

WASHINGTON — At least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies have secretly equipped their officers with radar devices that allow them to effectively peer through the walls of houses to see whether anyone is inside, a practice raising new concerns about the extent of government surveillance.

Those agencies, including the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, began deploying the radar systems more than two years ago with little notice to the courts and no public disclosure of when or how they would be used. The technology raises legal and privacy issues because the U.S. Supreme Court has said officers generally cannot use high-tech sensors to tell them about the inside of a person's house without first obtaining a search warrant.

The radars work like finely tuned motion detectors, using radio waves to zero in on movements as slight as human breathing from a distance of more than 50 feet. They can detect whether anyone is inside of a house, where they are and whether they are moving.

[Remiel]

Do you think the day will come when we wish we had Big Brother because it would be less pervasive and invasive than what we have in real life?

[Remiel]

Will the day come when we see that it was never being crazy that made you think people were watching you but rather that people watching you that made you crazy?

[Michael Hardner]

"Social ways" that use technology have actually accelerated the loss of "privacy".

Exactly. If we were using on real names on here, and one of us said the wrong thing on this conversation it's conceivable that we could be subject to a viral mob that would ruin our lives. Social relationships necessarily change as you point out.

And a social counterbalance will develop somehow. Public/private concepts will change perhaps, people will not be so 'social' on social media, perhaps. Behavior will change, and we don't know exactly how.

In the same way that a seemingly private conversation is potentially viewable by everyone, seemingly private areas in our physical environment will be viewable in the same way. It's inevitable, so we can talk about ways that we will be changing our behavior.

[Michael Hardner]

Regulating privacy concerns of technology is easy. Just pass some laws, whammo.

But there are enough tangible benefits to this that the technology will start to happen... somewhere.

And eventually the costs of the technology will drop to the point where private concerns will be able to do this and own the information. Is that better than having it publicly owned ?

[Michael Hardner]

Wow only if someone had posted something like this before, starting to get the bigger picture now are we Mike?

This is just a bigger and more pervasive version of CCTV media redefining public space. The big picture isn't different, just clearer.

And I'm not worried about this, just looking for ways to socialize these changes with "the" public.

[eyeball]

Will the day come when we see that it was never being crazy that made you think people were watching you but rather that people watching you that made you crazy?

What's really crazy is that the notion that souveillance, aiming the telescreens back at the watchers, is a radical and in some minds an even criminal idea.