Persistent Surveillance

[Moonlight Graham]

They're looking in people's homes?

http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/are-the-n-s-a-and-g-c-h-q-trading-webcam-pictures

[Michael Hardner]

OK, I read the article. I have to admit that it did not occur to me that they were monitoringprivate cameras. But it's still not concerning to me given the context.

They were testing facial recognition software algorithms, which would be hugely useful for security and not an invasion of privacy IMO.

[eyeball]

I can see why such nonchalance might seem a tad disturbing to people. I mean, I have this image of a beaming Harper patting someone on the head and telling them what a good boy they are.

Of course maybe this should be read instead as an example of the joie de vivre we should all demonstrate in the face of Emmanuel Goldstein.

[GostHacked]

OK, I read the article. I have to admit that it did not occur to me that they were monitoringprivate cameras. But it's still not concerning to me given the context.

They were testing facial recognition software algorithms, which would be hugely useful for security and not an invasion of privacy IMO.

You really have no idea how you are being monitored, so you have no idea what the real impacts are. Again going back to my notion of not quite understanding the technology and what it can do.

[Michael Hardner]

You really have no idea how you are being monitored, so you have no idea what the real impacts are.

Right, but until I have some details and some evidence, am I supposed to just say 'no' to everything ?

Again going back to my notion of not quite understanding the technology and what it can do.

We're 1 and 1 on this. I didn't understand that personal cameras were being monitored, and how but the last disagreement (on keyword searches) but the discussion we had about keyword searches, wherein I explained how the security agencies could provide search criteria without having the data, that was one I understood.

[cybercoma]

Right, but until I have some details and some evidence, am I supposed to just say 'no' to everything ?

Since in this case, not saying no means saying yes, then yeah. You're supposed to so "no" until you understand the situation better.

[Michael Hardner]

Since in this case, not saying no means saying yes, then yeah. You're supposed to so "no" until you understand the situation better.

Fine, but saying 'no' means nothing... it will happen anyway. If you're looking me for outrage at this point, then we have to do better than what has been put forward. It's not shocking.

Furthermore, there's a measure of hyperbole that makes me less interested in pursuing the details of these things. Software that attempts to identify people by eavesdropping on video chat isn't shocking to most people, I would guess.

[Moonlight Graham]

OK, I read the article. I have to admit that it did not occur to me that they were monitoringprivate cameras. But it's still not concerning to me given the context.

They were testing facial recognition software algorithms, which would be hugely useful for security and not an invasion of privacy IMO.

Governments take private webcam pictures of innocent people without a warrant and store them, including nude/sexually explicit pics, and you're cool with that huh? It's illegal and unconstitutional, period. Obviously an invasion of privacy. The only reason they don't store mass amounts of webcam video is because it would be too large from them to store all that video. No doubt if there was no storage issue or other technical limits they would save every webcam chat of every user they could.

They were "testing" this software by capturing millions of users in 2008 alone? 1) I doubt this was just a test, 2) Whether it's a test or not is legally irrelevant 3) Little doubt they're still doing this without warrants, on skype and whatever else they can hack. Given all the leaks, we have to assume that if the gov will hack any kind of technology, & they very likely did and probably still do. That they limited all this to "metadata" is BS, it's just harder to store every type of info (texts. emails, phone calls etc.) given the size of it all. If they have a warrant, then I don't really a problem with it. But the gov shouldn't be able to spy on any Canadian without a warrant

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo

Britain's surveillance agency GCHQ, with aid from the US National Security Agency, intercepted and stored the webcam images of millions of internet users not suspected of wrongdoing, secret documents reveal.

GCHQ files dating between 2008 and 2010 explicitly state that a surveillance program codenamed Optic Nerve collected still images of Yahoo webcam chats in bulk and saved them to agency databases, regardless of whether individual users were an intelligence target or not.

[Michael Hardner]

Governments take private webcam pictures of innocent people without a warrant and store them, including nude/sexually explicit pics, and you're cool with that huh?

Yes, but again you're misrepresenting what happened, which makes me less inclined to follow your line of argument in the future. You have to keep in mind that I don't have the same values as you in this regard, if you want to convince me... and in many cases you still can.

It's illegal and unconstitutional, period.

They seem to think otherwise. I'm not sure what your call to action is here, in any case.

Obviously an invasion of privacy. The only reason they don't store mass amounts of webcam video is because it would be too large from them to store all that video. No doubt if there was no storage issue or other technical limits they would save every webcam chat of every user they could.

Yes, I agree that they would. Since it's software that's doing this, I don't see it as an invasion of privacy. It would be an invasion of privacy if your face set off a flag, and they looked at your images but justifiable in my view.

They were "testing" this software by capturing millions of users in 2008 alone? 1) I doubt this was just a test, 2) Whether it's a test or not is legally irrelevant 3) Little doubt they're still doing this without warrants, on skype and whatever else they can hack. Given all the leaks, we have to assume that if the gov will hack any kind of technology, & they very likely did and probably still do. That they limited all this to "metadata" is BS, it's just harder to store every type of info (texts. emails, phone calls etc.) given the size of it all. If they have a warrant, then I don't really a problem with it. But the gov shouldn't be able to spy on any Canadian without a warrant

1) If it wasn't a test, then as you point out there's no point in randomly grabbing peoples' data.

2) Perhaps

3) Yes, they likely do. It might be metadata but it wouldn't matter to you anyway given your concerns.

I don't think it's realistic to hope that they will stop. It's maybe a better approach to make things less secret, ie. create more publicly accessible cameras to change our collective idea of 'private' so that it doesn't include the town square.

[cybercoma]

Fine, but saying 'no' means nothing... it will happen anyway.

Remember remember the fifth of November.

[Moonlight Graham]

Yes, but again you're misrepresenting what happened,

How so?

They seem to think otherwise. I'm not sure what your call to action is here, in any case.

Of course they think otherwise, they're the government, they want as much control/power as they can get. My call to action is the same as most people who disagree with these programs, which is to uphold the law/constitution as its been for a very long time, which is: you can't spy on someone or search a person without probable cause and/or a warrant. This is enshrined in our Charter under Section 8, and in the US in the 4th amendment:

Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides everyone in Canada with protection against unreasonable search and seizure. This right provides Canadians with their primary source of constitutionally enforced privacy rights against unreasonable intrusion from the state. Typically, this protects personal information that can be obtained through searching someone in pat-down, entering someone's property or surveillance. Section 8 states: "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."

and

US Bill of Rights Amendment IV: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I don't think it's realistic to hope that they will stop. It's maybe a better approach to make things less secret, ie. create more publicly accessible cameras to change our collective idea of 'private' so that it doesn't include the town square.

It's easy to make government to stop doing anything: you pass laws or enforce laws restricting their powers, and then you create proper oversight to ensure they comply.

[Michael Hardner]

How so?

You're leaving out the stated purpose of that action. The government doesn't have the means or desire to store pictures of every Canadian. The fact that this was a test makes sense, and there's a good reason behind the approach - it's not being done for no reason.

My call to action is the same as most people who disagree with these programs, which is to uphold the law/constitution as its been for a very long time, which is: you can't spy on someone or search a person without probable cause and/or a warrant.

My call to action would be to amend the law to allow the government to pursue its stated goals, but to monitor the internal sharing of the data to protect against the types of abuses that would certainly occur.

I don't see the utility in declaring this type of surveillance an invasion of privacy across the board, and ignoring the security benefits of it.

It's easy to make government to stop doing anything: you pass laws or enforce laws restricting their powers, and then you create proper oversight to ensure they comply.

It's not easy to restrict security services, though, I disagree with that. If it weren't for the leaks we wouldn't even know that these were happening, we would only suspect it.

[Moonlight Graham]

You're leaving out the stated purpose of that action. The government doesn't have the means or desire to store pictures of every Canadian. The fact that this was a test makes sense, and there's a good reason behind the approach - it's not being done for no reason.

I'd disagree that the government (Canadian, US, British, whichever) doesn't have the desire to store pictures of every Canadian. It's pretty clear looking at all the NSA leaks that government authorities want as much surveillance ability/power as they can and will do just about anything they can get away with, legal or illegal.

Also, this wasn't just a test as you keep claiming, it looks like an an active program they've been using for several years. From this article:

"Optic Nerve, the documents provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden show, began as a prototype in 2008 and was still active in 2012, according to an internal GCHQ wiki page accessed that year. The system, eerily reminiscent of the telescreens evoked in George Orwell's 1984, was used for experiments in automated facial recognition, to monitor GCHQ's existing targets, and to discover new targets of interest. Such searches could be used to try to find terror suspects or criminals making use of multiple, anonymous user IDs....The documents describe these users as "unselected" – intelligence agency parlance for bulk rather than targeted collection."

I don't see the utility in declaring this type of surveillance an invasion of privacy across the board, and ignoring the security benefits of it.

There are security benefits, i 100% agree. But if you're going to use surveillance to search for criminal suspects, you have to do it to where innocent people are not searched and their privacy not breached. That's what the constitution guarantees. There's reasons why this isn't just a law, but a constitutional guarantee. It's the same as why cops looking for a suspect in a neighborhood aren't allowed to randomly search inside people's houses or cars without their permission, let alone hundreds/thousands of them....without a warrant based on reasonable grounds/probable cause they or their property is involved with a crime. Searching inside a lot of random people's houses/cars in a suspected area might also have security benefits, but it's unconstitutional if the police have no reasonable grounds/probable cause.

[Michael Hardner]

Also, this wasn't just a test as you keep claiming, it looks like an an active program they've been using for several years. From this article:

The part where they had to actually have a human look at all the images was part of the test, though. The whole point of the software is to automate that process and only pick out targeted individuals, otherwise why would they even need it ?

There are security benefits, i 100% agree. But if you're going to use surveillance to search for criminal suspects, you have to do it to where innocent people are not searched and their privacy not breached.

Privacy breached = innocent individuals accidentally getting flagged by the software, then being ignored again once the security services realize that it's not the target, at least how the system would be run without abuses. And I expect that without oversight there would be abuses too.

I don't agree that any interception is an invasion of privacy, sorry.

[GostHacked]

Right, but until I have some details and some evidence, am I supposed to just say 'no' to everything ?

We're 1 and 1 on this. I didn't understand that personal cameras were being monitored, and how but the last disagreement (on keyword searches) but the discussion we had about keyword searches, wherein I explained how the security agencies could provide search criteria without having the data, that was one I understood.

If you have no details or evidence to convince you to say yes, then you should say no, until you know more. Typically that is what people do.

Webcams, cellphones, Xbox Kinect, facial recognition, microphones in your TV and other devices. There is a slew of technology you use every day in which you have no clue how it is used or can be used to monitor you.

But your last line proves my point. You were not aware that cameras on PCs (laptops or PC cams or baby monitors) could be used to monitor you. All I can say is ... really? Have you been living under a rock? Webcams were being used to monitor stuff over a decade ago. Just catching up?

[GostHacked]

You're leaving out the stated purpose of that action. The government doesn't have the means or desire to store pictures of every Canadian. The fact that this was a test makes sense, and there's a good reason behind the approach - it's not being done for no reason.

Photo ID, like a drivers license, health card, status card, other forms of ID. They already have those pics and the means to store them.

[Moonlight Graham]

The part where they had to actually have a human look at all the images was part of the test, though. The whole point of the software is to automate that process and only pick out targeted individuals, otherwise why would they even need it ?

Humans will always need to look at innocent people if false matches come up. As they said in the article, they can also target innocent people if they know someone who knows someone who knows a suspect etc. Also, they can work in reverse where they know an offending username and try to find out what their face looks like via webcam, which would mean, as the article says, looking at innocent people's webcam pics if they have similar usernames as the suspect (CoolDude123 vs Cooldude289 etc).

I don't agree that any interception is an invasion of privacy, sorry.

If I intercepted a webcam conversation of yours and captured a picture of your penis and face or you having sex, and stored it on my PC, but had never looked at it up until this point (but possibly could in the future) would you be upset? Would you think that's an invasion of your privacy? I would hope so. If a private company did that to me, I'd also be upset, and if the gov did it I'd be upset too, because it's an invasion of my privacy, no matter who does it. If you want to give consent to being involved in these programs, that's your prerogative, just don't involve me in it or try to take away my constitutional rights.

Also, how would your stance on surveillance be on webcam technology? Would you want public access to all webcam conversions too? The major problem is also that these problems are being designed and implemented in total secrecy without public oversight, knowledge, or consent.

[Moonlight Graham]

Webcams, cellphones, Xbox Kinect, facial recognition, microphones in your TV and other devices. There is a slew of technology you use every day in which you have no clue how it is used or can be used to monitor you.

Scary article, the only saving grace is that they actually informed customers (in the fine print nobody reads): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/shopping-and-consumer-news/11399677/Samsung-SmartTV-customers-warned-personal-conversations-may-be-recorded.html

GPS's also scare me, meaning companies (and governments, if they wanted) can track everywhere a person goes through their day (if they use GPS on mobile phones). Using credit card and debit card data, governments could then use bank records to see what you purchased at any location you went to on that GPS. Given that cellphones have microphones, I'm sure authorities and/or companies would be able to listen in on your conversations at any time if they had the desire & means. Not to mention both cameras on your phone to record pics or video.

I agree with GH, MichaelH you should do some more research on the Snowden NSA leaks and how we're being monitored, all of which can be accessed by law enforcement from private companies given certain recent legislation. We have to assume that any technology we have can, is, or could/will be monitored by both private companies and/or governments (unless we pass laws to stop it).

[Michael Hardner]

Humans will always need to look at innocent people if false matches come up. As they said in the article, they can also target innocent people if they know someone who knows someone who knows a suspect etc. Also, they can work in reverse where they know an offending username and try to find out what their face looks like via webcam, which would mean, as the article says, looking at innocent people's webcam pics if they have similar usernames as the suspect (CoolDude123 vs Cooldude289 etc).

That's all fine with me.

If I intercepted a webcam conversation of yours and captured a picture of your penis and face or you having sex, and stored it on my PC, but had never looked at it up until this point (but possibly could in the future) would you be upset? Would you think that's an invasion of your privacy? I would hope so. If a private company did that to me, I'd also be upset, and if the gov did it I'd be upset too, because it's an invasion of my privacy, no matter who does it. If you want to give consent to being involved in these programs, that's your prerogative, just don't involve me in it or try to take away my constitutional rights.

Of course it's not the same thing. There's no presumption of public good in letting private people do this. Would I let a private person stop and question me and search me ? No. Would I let a police officer do it ? Probably.

Also, with regards to your rights - you don't get to decide on what our rights any more than I do, so it's not up to me to change my mind to suit your perception of privacy.

Also, how would your stance on surveillance be on webcam technology? Would you want public access to all webcam conversions too? The major problem is also that these problems are being designed and implemented in total secrecy without public oversight, knowledge, or consent.

No, I think there's still such a thing as private conversations and there should be.

[Michael Hardner]

I agree with GH, MichaelH you should do some more research on the Snowden NSA leaks and how we're being monitored, all of which can be accessed by law enforcement from private companies given certain recent legislation.

I think I will still prefer to learn about these things from discussions with you. I don't presume to know everything, nor will I never change my mind on these things - as I already have changed my position on these things.

I appreciate your perspective.

[Moonlight Graham]

Of course it's not the same thing. There's no presumption of public good in letting private people do this. Would I let a private person stop and question me and search me ? No. Would I let a police officer do it ? Probably.

This is true about the "public good". I just wanted to show that it is an invasion of privacy, only one that many people accept (including yourself) because it may benefit "the public good" (also, what what is considered "the public good" is subjective, so maybe there's a better term we could use)

You and I simply have prioritize privacy differently. There's definitely a scale of privacy vs security that we all weigh differently. Increasing one may decrease the other, and vice versa.

[Michael Hardner]

Ok, I can accept that but it doesn't change my position on whether and how it should be done

[GostHacked]

I think I will still prefer to learn about these things from discussions with you. I don't presume to know everything, nor will I never change my mind on these things - as I already have changed my position on these things.

I appreciate your perspective.

You need to go learn the stuff from other sources as well. Otherwise I do not think you can truly grasp what is really going on.

[socialist]

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

Be a law abiding citizen and you have nothing to worry about. This doesn't concern me at all. Not even one little iota.

[eyeball]

If you want to give consent to being involved in these programs, that's your prerogative, just don't involve me in it or try to take away my constitutional rights.

The problem is how that consent does involve us in it - consent, like its opposite resistance, is all the licence the state needs and it seems to take a lot less than more of these to galvanize it as time goes by.