Persistent Surveillance

[dre]

So if Persistent Surveillance only captures your movements in public spaces how does it invade privacy?

Under the law as it stands I think that would be legal... Similar to google street view. But the spaces where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy would need to be redacted. For example... a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in their front yard because its plainly visible from the street. Google already photographs these spaces and publishes them. In a fence backyard however you DO have the reasonable expectation of privacy, so the publisher would have to identify hundreds of thousands of such spaces in a city and redact them with black blocks.

[GostHacked]

So if Persistent Surveillance only captures your movements in public spaces how does it invade privacy?

There are a few telephone poles, or lamp posts near you. That is considered public property. So let's throw some cameras up there. Don't worry, they are not looking in your window.

I also have the right to freely move around. However, that becomes difficult with all this surveillance. I consider myself less free if all this tracking is happening. Last time I looked I was not cattle. But sure feels like the government is treating us that way.

The electronic/digital medium in which most of this operates makes it easier for the government and security entities to engage in all this surveillance. Regardless of laws, they are broken, then we get apologies, assurance it won't happen again, until the next time they need to apologize for whatever breach of privacy happened.

Checks and balances are there for a reason.

[eyeball]

Collectively we should be encouraging whistle-blowing and ethical-hacking by turning the Edward Snowden's of the world into hero's. Forget V, everyone should wear an Edward Snowden mask in public. Offer nothing less than total resistance, non-compliance and outright disobedience. Vandalize state cameras with paintball guns, slingshots and lasers.

@#$% the State before the State @#$%'s you.

So I wonder what sort of cloaking technology might be coming down the innovation pipe? Whoever comes up with anything effective will make a freaking fortune.

[Michael Hardner]

There are a few telephone poles, or lamp posts near you. That is considered public property. So let's throw some cameras up there. Don't worry, they are not looking in your window.

Not sure how I'm supposed to react to this, as there are thousands of cameras in my city pointed at me.

[dre]

Not sure how I'm supposed to react to this, as there are thousands of cameras in my city pointed at me.

How many of them are pointed at your back porch, and your fenced backyard where Mr and Mrs Hardner frolick around by the pool? And how many of them publish their footage to the general public or even give it to the government?

[Michael Hardner]

How many of them are pointed at your back porch, and your fenced backyard where Mr and Mrs Hardner frolick around by the pool? And how many of them publish their footage to the general public or even give it to the government?

I think it should all go to the general public...

[dre]

I think it should all go to the general public...

Why dont you actually participate in a conversation about this? What about my question about your back yard? What about my counter example to your "mind reading" technology. Why nothing to add besides drive-by one liners in a thread that seems to interest you?

And it CANT all go to the general public. That would be illegal and that isnt going to change. Most places have laws against recording people on private property, except in certain cases such as filming a disaster etc. Real high-res images of activity on private property is pretty much a non-starter. You would be publishing images/video of sex acts, naked children, and all kinds of things you are not allowed to do.

So as I said... all spaces where the owner has a reasonable expectation of privacy would need to be redacted out, and that would make the technology cost prohibitive.

Edited July 21, 2015 by dre

[dre]

BTW theres a number of interesting relevant cases working their way through the courts in various places, that will impact whether or not this kind of technology can be used. Most of them related to drones.

http://www.rt.com/usa/246401-faa-lawsuit-drone-privacy-rules/

In addition to privacy problems, this kind of surveillance poses a public safety issue, and would be a boon for criminals, stalkers, and an extremely useful tool for people that want to do harm to others.

[Michael Hardner]

Why dont you actually participate in a conversation about this? What about my question about your back yard?

I don't think there was a question - there was this: " In a fence backyard however you DO have the reasonable expectation of privacy, so the publisher would have to identify hundreds of thousands of such spaces in a city and redact them with black blocks."

I concur with your point.

What about my counter example to your "mind reading" technology. Why nothing to add besides drive-by one liners in a thread that seems to interest you?

I was on the road for a few days, and only had a phone to reply with - difficult to do long replies that way. Just because we disagree, it doesn't mean that I think everything you say is wrong. This is a conversation, and your challenges to my points are well-placed such as your response about mind-reading technology.

I do think that this is nonsensical: "legal human rights are technology-agnostic."

Human rights are perhaps universal and related to the human spirit, but laws are specific and necessarily tied to technology. The people who founded modern democracy had overall ideas about rights, but you can't automatically extend an idea like 'privacy' into areas of new technology without a legal/societal dialogue.

Protection from search and seizure may have been established to prevent witch-hunts against individuals, which is understandable. But a macro search of all communication based on key words, specifically targeted at violent insurgents is a different thing altogether, so the balance between individual rights and public good needs to happen.

It's not enough for people to say "this is just like mail". Certainly the politics seem to suggest it's not just like mail for many people.

And it CANT all go to the general public. That would be illegal and that isnt going to change. Most places have laws against recording people on private property, except in certain cases such as filming a disaster etc. Real high-res images of activity on private property is pretty much a non-starter. You would be publishing images/video of sex acts, naked children, and all kinds of things you are not allowed to do.

Right, but public property is ok.

So as I said... all spaces where the owner has a reasonable expectation of privacy would need to be redacted out, and that would make the technology cost prohibitive.

Maybe, maybe not. Anyway, we're talking about the social side of this, which is theoretical and nothing would happen soon anyway even if this were possible. We can defer the technical questions.

[GostHacked]

Not sure how I'm supposed to react to this, as there are thousands of cameras in my city pointed at me.

It's an ever creeping and continual increase in public surveillance. More cameras are constantly being installed, not less.

How free do you consider yourself when you are treated like cattle?

[Michael Hardner]

I feel free.

[GostHacked]

I feel free.

On a level of 1-10, how free are you?

[Michael Hardner]

How free am I ? How free do I feel ? Those are different questions. The main thing that constrains me is my own interests. That sounds pretty free.

[GostHacked]

Mike, not sure what your game is as forum facilitator, but no one in their right mind could possibly be alright with all the surveillance. I question anyone's state of mind when they support this ever increasing surveillance.

The real question is where do you draw the line? How much is too much for you? And when do you really understand that you should have made a stand a long time ago?

[Michael Hardner]

My opinion is my own.

I draw the line at cameras looking into private areas- aggregate email and phone scans for keywords don't bother me.

[GostHacked]

My opinion is my own.

I draw the line at cameras looking into private areas- aggregate email and phone scans for keywords don't bother me.

I know you have opinions of your own, but you tend to obfuscate them with rhetorical dialogue. You can draw the line, but you know they will step across it at one point, but by then it might be too late for you to do anything about it.

The cameras are already in your home. Security systems, phones with cameras, game console systems with camera tracking tech. If you think that this is not used for surveillance, then that still goes back to my point that you simply do not understand the technology to understand the impact. All this tech to help you get around also is used by the authorities to monitor your movements and behaviors.

I said some time ago that you should watch out for more hacking done on cars. Jeep is recalling 1.4 million vehicles because of a hacking threat.

[Michael Hardner]

You can draw the line, but you know they will step across it at one point, but by then it might be too late for you to do anything about it.

Isn't that true of any "line" ?

The cameras are already in your home. Security systems, phones with cameras, game console systems with camera tracking tech. If you think that this is not used for surveillance, then that still goes back to my point that you simply do not understand the technology to understand the impact. All this tech to help you get around also is used by the authorities to monitor your movements and behaviors.

I don't think they are doing that. Maybe they *could* do it, but why live my life in fear ?

[GostHacked]

Isn't that true of any "line" ?

I don't think they are doing that. Maybe they *could* do it, but why live my life in fear ?

You are conditioned to love and accept the surveillance state. It's trendy, it's cool, it violates your rights. Oppression and tyranny is gonna be really vogue next year.

It's not living in fear if you inform yourself to the dangers of the ever increasing surveillance state. Do you really think there is a line the authorities won't and have not already crossed? Easier for them to apologize after the fact than get permission in the first place. But again, we simply accept it. It's cool and rad.

Fear is NOT learning about it. Fear is accepting the surveillance without question. Your authoritative conditioned fear of terrorism is shaping your behavior and reactions to all of this which allows you to love the ever increasing surveillance. You think surveillance will decrease with lower crime rates? Quite the opposite.

[GostHacked]

The other thing, is this surveillance apparatus is also used by criminals. Not sure if anyone has taken that into consideration.

[Michael Hardner]

I haven't learned anything new from these posts.

If you're trying to psychoanalyze me as to why my opinion is different than yours, I don't understand that.

[eyeball]

The cameras are already in your home. Security systems, phones with cameras, game console systems with camera tracking tech. If you think that this is not used for surveillance, then that still goes back to my point that you simply do not understand the technology to understand the impact. All this tech to help you get around also is used by the authorities to monitor your movements and behaviors.

Put a piece of tape on your camera and microphone and voila.

OTOH should I see that the surveillance equipment that tracks my activities at work is out of order I have to stop working and go get the equipment fixed, at my own cost. I'd be in serious trouble if the GPS data record recording my movements indicated that I kept working in the absence of monitoring.

I'm pretty sure most of my beefs with persistent surveillance could be addressed if I had a better ability to monitor the state departments, officials all the way up to the ministerial level, that are subjecting me to monitoring. They should all face the same rigour and threat of consequences I face should they avoid any efforts to monitor them.

I don't think it'll be very long until most people get used to being caught picking their noses, scratching their asses or committing most of the human peccadilloes were all 'guilty' of. There'll be a big collective meh and we'll be a lot more interested in what ethical hackers and whistle blowers are illuminating amongst the dark spots and shadows that big shots and state actors enjoy lurking in.

I said some time ago that you should watch out for more hacking done on cars. Jeep is recalling 1.4 million vehicles because of a hacking threat.

That said, I'm a big fan of using GPS and onboard computers to manage and enforce traffic laws - which we'll eventually be able to live without just about altogether once we shift to hands-free fully automated cars and roads.

[Moonlight Graham]

You can't uninvent technology, and once it's out there it's true that it can sometimes be very difficult to control. But it is possible to control some technology at least to some extent. Banning the use of some technologies won't mean that you'll get 100% compliance, just like you never get 100% compliance with most any laws (people still commit sexual assault, theft, tax and insurance fraud etc. etc.), but it can help in many cases. If you disagree, you're wrong, examples abound. You could also still greatly reduce ie: pirating of software/movies/music if the government really wanted, you go to ISP's and start charging large numbers of random users who do ANY pirating. The fines will pay for the government costs. You can ban drones, you can ban governments and businesses from using just about any technology with good compliance. It's private use that's more difficult to regulate. But virtually any laws that will help protect my privacy I support. Let the lawbreakers pay for any costs associated with increased police vigilance.

If these planes/satellites/drones are difficult or impossible to ban, then I want to have the technology to permanently disable them or blow them out of the sky. In fact, I want our government to blow out of the sky or permanently disable any camera spying on us, possibly including google earth. My view is that our privacy is precious and should be protected when at all possible. Laws regulating cell phone and other tech companies from collecting our private info are a joke. As a democracy, we can make companies do anything we want.

I draw the line at cameras looking into private areas- aggregate email and phone scans for keywords don't bother me.

For Pete's sake man! Do you realize what the government does when they do find a keyword they don't like?...they read your personal messages. If they have a warrant, then I don't mind it, as long as there's strong oversight. But I don't want to live in a 1984 Orwellian state, obviously it doesn't bother you.

[Moonlight Graham]

The other thing, is this surveillance apparatus is also used by criminals. Not sure if anyone has taken that into consideration.

Also true. ie: Criminals will be able to case a joint very easily, know when I leave my house etc.

[Moonlight Graham]

I don't think they are doing that. Maybe they *could* do it, but why live my life in fear ?

You haven't been paying attention to the news then.

[Michael Hardner]

They're looking in people's homes?