Persistent Surveillance

[Moonlight Graham]

We are not 100% safe but we are among the safest humans that have ever existed.

Irrational fears ShOULD be discounted. And the government is a big part of the reason we have enemies. If youre really worried about the threat of terrorism you should be questioning policies like our current involvement in Iraq, which blatantly invites retaliation and increases the threat of terrorism.

And also you just assume that these things are going to benefit security without thinking them through. This persistant surveillance thing could actually be a boon for criminals. It could be used to stalk people, to case out potential crime scenes, locate potential victims to victimize, or make sure theres no police cars near a place you plan to commit a crime. Not to mention create business opportunities for people that want to sell services that route people around police road blocks, and that kind of thing.

You have absolutely no idea that this will benefit our security at all. Same goes for all the other surveillance ideas you support. Criminals and terrorists are going to know about these things... they arent just going to casually wander in the ellaborate surveillance dragnet you are hell bent on creating for some strange reason.

Well for anyone capable of rational thought the degree of threat from criminals and terrorists is extremely low.

I would compare you to a parent that wont let their 12 yearold kid play at the public park for fear a stranger will rape them and kill them. Theres quite a few people like that. YES... there is an extremely small chance your child will get abducted by a stranger and beaten or raped or killed. And because that is such a horrible thing to happen it invokes fear in people, and they forget the fact that their children could play in a public park all day every day for a thousand years and the chances of an abduction would still be extremely low. And we COULD make that one in 10 million chance even smaller... we could spend billions of dollars putting security guards in every single park, and maybe the chance would be 1 in 15 million!

But its simply not worth devoting that much resources to these statistically insignificant threats. When governments act on the irrational fears of people like you bad policy is made, which is exactly why we have constitutions and charters, etc.

I agree with all of this. Excellent post Dre.

[Moonlight Graham]

I think I'd like to start thinking of this a different way: as the end of anonymity, rather than as an encroachment on our privacy.

Why do we allow anonymity ? What purpose does it serve ?

Allow anonymity in what sense? Like online forums? Under what circumstances are we anonymous, and how will surveillance change this?

[Michael Hardner]

Allow anonymity in what sense? Like online forums? Under what circumstances are we anonymous, and how will surveillance change this?

Yes, the last question is the one.

Are we 'anonymous' when we are in public or should we be ? When we're online ?

Many times the focus is on privacy, but another way to look at it is anonymity. If I whisper in your ear, or encrypt an email then I am forcing 'privacy' but if I'm whispering in your ear in a public park then all can see that. They can follow me to my home, then look me up on the voters' list because we don't have anonymity.

The inevitability, IMO, is that the technology will make everybody 100% trackable in some sense and at some point.

[eyeball]

I think I'd like to start thinking of this a different way: as the end of anonymity, rather than as an encroachment on our privacy.

Why do we allow anonymity ? What purpose does it serve ?

Are you using the royal we? Because it sure sounds like the sort of idle musing that would preoccupy the mind of someone with power to spare.

In any case the purpose of anonymity is privacy.

[eyeball]

The inevitability, IMO, is that the technology will make everybody 100% trackable in some sense and at some point.

I doubt very much the top couple of percent will will be trackable and I suspect you'll be supportive of whatever argument is used to exempt them.

[Moonlight Graham]

In any case the purpose of anonymity is privacy.

Exactly.

Are we 'anonymous' when we are in public or should we be ? When we're online ?

Many times the focus is on privacy, but another way to look at it is anonymity. If I whisper in your ear, or encrypt an email then I am forcing 'privacy' but if I'm whispering in your ear in a public park then all can see that. They can follow me to my home, then look me up on the voters' list because we don't have anonymity.

Anonymity is privacy. You can't separate the two. Why would an anonymous tipper to the police wish to remain anonymous? Privacy.

The inevitability, IMO, is that the technology will make everybody 100% trackable in some sense and at some point.

I don't agree with this at all. It's only inevitable if we allow it. We're in an unprecedented battle where powerful forces are trying to erode our privacy through technology for their own gains. Governments want to track us, for the sake of "security", and it's essentially all about controlling the populace. In Ontario, we have unconstitutional police "carding" policies so they can track us in their databases, or the boogey men they fear (mostly black people and Muslims), but these policies are being challenged right now. Large private companies are doing everything they can to get as much info on us as they can so they can sell things to us, and so they can sell our personal info to others for profit. 2 decades ago I never had any cashier ask me what my postal code or email address was. Edward Snowden revealed that government was working with private companies so the gov can have access to all the private info businesses have. That's FRIGHTENING!

Laws can't prevent every form of privacy erosion from technology, but they can prevent a lot, including every specific thing I mentioned above. We're at war over our privacy by an unprecedented attack, either fight back or roll over and die.

[Michael Hardner]

In any case the purpose of anonymity is privacy.

Anonymity and privacy aren't the same thing.

We don't allow for anonymity in the same way as we allow for privacy. Your name and address are part of the public record, for example so your status as a resident of the city is not anonymous. Is that an invasion of privacy ?

[Michael Hardner]

I doubt very much the top couple of percent will will be trackable and I suspect you'll be supportive of whatever argument is used to exempt them.

You're getting ahead of yourself by making assumptions about me.

[Michael Hardner]

Anonymity is privacy. You can't separate the two. Why would an anonymous tipper to the police wish to remain anonymous? Privacy.

I don't think they're quite the same but I need help figuring out the difference.

It's only inevitable if we allow it.

There are limits to what humans can prevent.

[eyeball]

Anonymity and privacy aren't the same thing.

I didn't say they were.

We don't allow for anonymity in the same way as we allow for privacy.

Again who is this we you keep referring to? Are you speaking for the state or something?

Your name and address are part of the public record, for example so your status as a resident of the city is not anonymous. Is that an invasion of privacy?

No, it's a choice to divulge information that I made.

[dre]

I think I'd like to start thinking of this a different way: as the end of anonymity, rather than as an encroachment on our privacy.

Why do we allow anonymity ? What purpose does it serve ?

Because thats the defacto natural state when you are outside the inner circle of your community. Its not unnatural like you claim.

If you and I bump into each other in nature you know absolutely nothing about me besides what I look like, and my gender. For you to get any more information than that, I have to volunteer it.

Are we 'anonymous' when we are in public or should we be ? When we're online ?

THeres diferent degrees to it. Yes you are anonymous in public.

Anonymous means "not identified by name; of unknown name". People in public can see you, and depending on what you are wearing they might be able to see your face, and if they know you they might recognize you. But if they dont know you then yes... You are anonymous unless you decide not to be.

Various attempts have been made to force people to give up their anonymity... usually targetted against unpopular groups. Theres been talk in some parts of the US of laws forcing immigrants to carry ID. In some cultures homosexuals have been forced to wear distinguishing garments. Some undesirable groups have actually been physically marked.

You are actually a little bit LESS anonymous on the internet despite popular belief because in most cases theres a breadcrumb trail that can be followed from an online action back to your connection at which point its possible to identify you.

Edited September 23, 2015 by dre

[eyeball]

You're getting ahead of yourself by making assumptions about me.

You're the one putting it put there that you have little if any issue with the state or anyone else invading my privacy.

I'm starting to get a better sense of why the government is so dead set against the niqab - they don't want the idea to catch on. People wearing veils in a surveillance state just wouldn't work.

[Michael Hardner]

What does that have to do with me supporting exemptions ? That's your idea not mine.

[eyeball]

Well yeah, I'm just telling you what I think you'll do based on what you're doing.

[Michael Hardner]

Well yeah, I'm just telling you what I think you'll do based on what you're doing.

Well, since none of this will happen in our lifetimes we'll never know, and your comment just stands as an unprovable slur against me. Ok.

[dre]

Your name and address are part of the public record, for example so your status as a resident of the city is not anonymous.

Is it? Tell me what steps you would follow to find out where Bob Jones lived if he wasnt listed in the white pages (which is voluntary). The only way that the city will even know is if hes a homeowner.

Typically the only people that will find out if you move into a residence as a tenant are your landlord, and utilities you buy service from (electric, telecom, gas, etc). All of those entities can keep that information private if they choose (although if you have a landline you must explicitly opt out of being in the white pages). And even if you are a homeowner and pay property tax the information is not public. Try phoning city hall and asking where a person lives... youll be told absolutely nothing.

[Michael Hardner]

Is it? Tell me what steps you would follow to find out where Bob Jones lived if he wasnt listed in the white pages (which is voluntary). The only way that the city will even know is if hes a homeowner.

You would have to go to the voting list for the city, I think, and go through it one by one. Or the homeowners register I think.

Typically the only people that will find out if you move into a residence as a tenant are your landlord, and utilities you buy service from (electric, telecom, gas, etc). All of those entities can keep that information private if they choose (although if you have a landline you must explicitly opt out of being in the white pages). And even if you are a homeowner and pay property tax the information is not public. Try phoning city hall and asking where a person lives... youll be told absolutely nothing.

Aren't voters lists posted somewhere ? I thought they were.

[Bonam]

Well, since none of this will happen in our lifetimes we'll never know, and your comment just stands as an unprovable slur against me. Ok.

You don't think the technology to enable persistent surveillance will exist within your lifetime? What, are you 90 years old or something?

[dre]

You would have to go to the voting list for the city, I think, and go through it one by one. Or the homeowners register I think.

Aren't voters lists posted somewhere ? I thought they were.

No... heres who can access a voters list.

Accessing the voters list

Under the Election Act, registered political parties, Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs), candidates for provincial election, and recall proponents are permitted to use the voters list to communicate with voters.

MLAs and registered political parties may request copies of the voters list at any time. Requests must be in writing and directed to Elections BC, Voter Services, ([email protected]) or 250-356-9325. The voters list for political parties and MLAs is produced twice a year: in May and November.

During a provincial election, each candidate receives one electronic copy of the voters list on CD-ROM from their District Electoral Officer. If a candidate is unable to use the electronic copy, the District Electoral Officer will provide a printed copy. Candidates receive the voters list only for their respective electoral district. On Return Day of the election (the fiftieth day after the writs are issued), candidates must destroy all copies of the voters list or return them to Elections BC for secure destruction.

Recall proponents are provided a copy of the voters list when their recall petition is issued. As with provincial candidates for election, recall proponents will only receive a voters list for their respective electoral district and may only use the list for recall purposes.

Candidates for local elections must contact their local government election official to obtain a copy of the appropriate local government voters list. More information about local elections can be found here.

Also... as with the white pages you can have your name taken off that list. And in any case voting is optional... So its still not accurate to say that your name and address are a matter of public record. Its accurate to say that they MIGHT be unless you dont want them to be.

[dre]

You don't think the technology to enable persistent surveillance will exist within your lifetime? What, are you 90 years old or something?

The technology has existed since the advent of CCTV. We could have spent billions putting cameras everywhere decades ago. The part thats relatively new and still being developed is a means to automate the analysis.

This particular technology however is not as useful. Aerial and Sattelite images are normally taken from almost directly above. You could only recognize a face if someone happens to look up. You could film from an angle but that would not work in areas with tall buildings. This technology would not even be able to see the license plate number on a car, although I guess if the government wanted to use it, they could mandate upwards facing license plates similar to how planes have the number on the bottom.

[Michael Hardner]

No... heres who can access a voters list.

Ok. They used to post them on a pole in my neighbourhood back in the day.

I still think anonymity and privacy are different. Maybe privacy is a right, but anonymity isn't ?

[dre]

Ok. They used to post them on a pole in my neighbourhood back in the day.

I still think anonymity and privacy are different. Maybe privacy is a right, but anonymity isn't ?

I would say they are different... and both are limited rights.

You missed one of my posts earlier... its 161. Anonymity is a right as long as you are legally allowed to refuse to give a stranger your name. If we are in a public space and you know me, then you only get to find out what I choose to reveal. You will know my average height or build... probably my gender... you might see my face if I decide to wear clothing that lets you. But for all intents and purposes I am anonymous. You cant connect me with my actual identiy any more than you can right here on this forum.

None of these rights are absolute, and you can be stripped of any of them if you break the law, or even if theres just reasonable suspicion that youve broken the law.

[Michael Hardner]

you might see my face if I decide to wear clothing that lets you. But for all intents and purposes I am anonymous. You cant connect me with my actual identiy any more than you can right here on this forum.

Right - anonymous means 'no name', whereas private is 'between us only'

None of these rights are absolute, and you can be stripped of any of them if you break the law, or even if theres just reasonable suspicion that youve broken the law.

I think your right to walk in public without being watched isn't guaranteed, so your right to anonymity in public isn't guaranteed in that people can trace you to a location.

[dre]

Right - anonymous means 'no name', whereas private is 'between us only'

I think your right to walk in public without being watched isn't guaranteed, so your right to anonymity in public isn't guaranteed in that people can trace you to a location.

People can only trace you to a location sometimes. And follow someone around for long enough so that they feel threatened and you might be on the wrong side of a stalking or harrassment charge. And once they follow you some "somewhere" they wont necessarily know if its your home or not.

But yes... I followed a stupid drunk guy that was assaulting his stupid drunk wife in front of my house, and lead the police to him... they hauled the guy away. So his anonymity was short lived and didnt protect him from consequences.

[Michael Hardner]

People can only trace you to a location sometimes. And follow someone around for long enough so that they feel threatened and you might be on the wrong side of a stalking or harrassment charge. And once they follow you some "somewhere" they wont necessarily know if its your home or not.

Right but you can be followed pretty easily in public, or with a drone.

But yes... I followed a stupid drunk guy that was assaulting his stupid drunk wife in front of my house, and lead the police to him... they hauled the guy away. So his anonymity was short lived and didnt protect him from consequences.

You were allowed to do that.