Persistent Surveillance

[dre]

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

Only if youre stupid. Any criminal with half a brain is simply going to walk into a crowded mall, or onto a bus or train, and walk off wearing a different colored hoody. Remember these things can only look straight down.

Furthermore, drones will very soon be subject to a whole bunch of regulations that will render this moot. From the transport canada website...

Do not fly...

• Closer than 9 km from any airport, heliport, or aerodrome.

• Higher than 90 metres from above the ground.

• Closer than 150 metres from people, animals, buildings, structures, or vehicles.

• In populated areas or near large groups of people, including sporting events, concerts, festivals, and firework shows.

• Near moving vehicles, avoid highways, bridges, busy streets or anywhere you could endanger or distract drivers.

• Within restricted airspace, including near or over military bases, prisons, and forest fires.

• Anywhere you may interfere with first responders

90 Meters off the ground is not even taller than a tall building, and you wont be able to fly them near large groups of people.

This is neat idea from a techy standpoint but its never going to happen. And in reality it would be more useful to simply put stationary 360 cams all over public spaces anyways.

Edited September 23, 2015 by dre

[GostHacked]

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

News flash : The technology already exists.

[eyeball]

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.

Fishing boats are mandated to put them on the roof and side in 2' letters/numbers....Of course that's in addition to the cameras, GPS, data logger, validator, auditor etc etc.

[eyeball]

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.

I'm sorry about that, I was wrong and take it back.

[cybercoma]

Anonymity and privacy aren't the same thing.

But the statement is true, "the purpose for anonymity is privacy."

[Michael Hardner]

But the statement is true, "the purpose for anonymity is privacy."

But is anonymity a right, or at least are rights to anonymity as clearly defined and provided for in law ?

I feel that we're confusing the two somehow. CCTV cameras in public reduce your anonymity, to my mind, but not necessarily your privacy.

[overthere]

And even if you are a homeowner and pay property tax the information is not public.

It is in Alberta. It takes an address, 5 minutes and $10 to find the owners name(s), mortgage amount, liens , encumbrances via a public government website.

If you lack a computer those requirements become an address, 15 minutes unless the lineup is longer or shorter and $15 at any registry agency and they are all privatized here.

[dre]

But is anonymity a right, or at least are rights to anonymity as clearly defined and provided for in law ?

I feel that we're confusing the two somehow. CCTV cameras in public reduce your anonymity, to my mind, but not necessarily your privacy.

Yes anonymity is a right thats clearly defined in the law. Privacy is a little more hazy. The charter says... "the right to life, liberty and security of the person" and "the right to be free from unreasonable search or seizure". But most of the other laws around privacy are related to what the government is allowed to do with information about you, and a lot of the laws trickle down from English common law.

Anonymity is a little clearer. Almost nobody (including the police in most circumstances) can demand that you identify yourself in public.

Clearly though the legal protection for both needs to be strengthened. New technology has opened the door for the government to intrude in ways that were never intended. Identities are being sold and traded like baseball cards by private companies, millions of pages of personal information are being leaked because the government lacks effective command of their data and IT systems. Private companies lack effective command of their data and IT systems as well.

The only time any of your information or communications should ever be read/accessed/indexed by anyone but the intended recipients is if a court orders it, or you sign a very clear contract with another party authorizing it.

Canada is behind its peers. The EU has initiatives like Safe Harbour, and the US has HIPPA and a number of other statutes.

Edited September 24, 2015 by dre

[dre]

It is in Alberta. It takes an address, 5 minutes and $10 to find the owners name(s), mortgage amount, liens , encumbrances via a public government website.

If you lack a computer those requirements become an address, 15 minutes unless the lineup is longer or shorter and $15 at any registry agency and they are all privatized here.

Link please?

[Michael Hardner]

Yes anonymity is a right thats clearly defined in the law. Privacy is a little more hazy. The charter says... "the right to life, liberty and security of the person" and "the right to be free from unreasonable search or seizure". But most of the other laws around privacy are related to what the government is allowed to do with information about you, and a lot of the laws trickle down from English common law.

Anonymity is a little clearer. Almost nobody (including the police in most circumstances) can demand that you identify yourself in public.

Ok.

Clearly though the legal protection for both needs to be strengthened. New technology has opened the door for the government to intrude in ways that were never intended. Identities are being sold and traded like baseball cards by private companies, millions of pages of personal information are being leaked because the government lacks effective command of their data and IT systems. Private companies lack effective command of their data and IT systems as well.

Maybe, but there's also the question of futility here. And of utility, as there are potential benefits to changing the border of public vs. private.

[dre]

Maybe, but there's also the question of futility here. And of utility, as there are potential benefits to changing the border of public vs. private.

Futility is not an argument. Nothing is inevitable, and the framework that the government has to work through has existed for many many decades and survived through 80 years of rapid technological progress, and the coming and going of all manner of threats.

And theres utility and benefits ascribable to all kinds of things the government isnt allowed to do. And the reality is that we have stuck and excellent balance between security and liberty, and we are safer than ever before.

[Michael Hardner]

Futility is not an argument.

Indeed it is. Prohibition just wasn't a viable set of regulations, nor marijuana legislation as it's futile to enforce something that people want to use en masse.

And theres utility and benefits ascribable to all kinds of things the government isnt allowed to do. And the reality is that we have stuck and excellent balance between security and liberty, and we are safer than ever before.

Sounds pretty complacent.

[dre]

Sounds pretty complacent.

No complacent would be someone that wants to do nothing. Im proposing that the full force of the governments security apparatus, and all the tools at their disposal be brought to bear.

Im someonewhere in the middle between complacancy and your irrational hyper vigilance.

Im like... "Some terrorists might attack us so lets make sure that our multi billions dollar security apparatus is doing their best to identify them and prevent attacks".

Youre like... "Some terrorists might attack us, so lets strip 30 million people of some of their rights, spend billions putting appliances in every ISP to cache and and index private conversations for government data mining, allow warrantless wiretapping, put cameras all over the space, and fill the sky with drones!".

[Michael Hardner]

No complacent would be someone that wants to do nothing. Im proposing that the full force of the governments security apparatus, and all the tools at their disposal be brought to bear.

OK - when you said we have 'stuck and excellent balance [sic]' did you mean as of today, post C-51 ?

Youre like... "Some terrorists might attack us, so lets strip 30 million people of some of their rights, spend billions putting appliances in every ISP to cache and and index private conversations for government data mining, allow warrantless wiretapping, put cameras all over the space, and fill the sky with drones!".

Not billions and billions. It's more about a social change in attitudes towards privacy and anonymity. And focussing on terrorism is misguided. There are other areas of life that would benefit from reducing anonymity to a manageable level.

[dre]

OK - when you said we have 'stuck and excellent balance [sic]' did you mean as of today, post C-51 ?

No I mean before c-51. I would kill that bill completely.

reducing anonymity to a manageable level

Thats putting the cart before the horse. First we need to determine that anonymity is not at a manageable level now. Theres no evidence of this at all. And you have not outlined any benefits yet or weighed those against the cost.

[Michael Hardner]

Thats putting the cart before the horse.

My point is that these things are going to happen anyway, over the next few decades. It will be more and more difficult to adjust so let's rip the band-aid now.

This is futurist stuff, so cost-benefit doesn't work.

[dre]

My point is that these things are going to happen anyway, over the next few decades.

Thats not necessarily true at all. Most of these concepts (privacy, judicial oversight, etc) have already stayed more or less intact for many decades... even though a period of huge technological progress. When phones became digital we didnt allow warrantless wiretaps just because we could. Basic human rights transcend technology.

This is futurist stuff, so cost-benefit doesn't work.

Sure it does... Thats the entire point of it most of time... to predict the costs and benefits of something you might do, before your do it.

[GostHacked]

OK - when you said we have 'stuck and excellent balance [sic]' did you mean as of today, post C-51 ?

Not billions and billions. It's more about a social change in attitudes towards privacy and anonymity. And focussing on terrorism is misguided. There are other areas of life that would benefit from reducing anonymity to a manageable level.

Only if that was applied to the government as well. But we know how that turns out when the cameras are turned inwards. Their double standard should be enough for anyone with some grey matter to say that this is not right.

The social change, is with the public. It's a pushed change via the government. We need to be monitored while the government does not need to be monitored. If Harper wants to go on about the Niqab and being in an open society, let him start by being open himself.

But yet some here still don't get it.

[Michael Hardner]

Thats not necessarily true at all. Most of these concepts (privacy, judicial oversight, etc) have already stayed more or less intact for many decades...

They don't survive major changes in media, though. 'Technological progress' isn't the same as what we've gone through in the last 20 years.

When phones became digital we didnt allow warrantless wiretaps just because we could. Basic human rights transcend technology.

Yes, and no. The technology forces its way into our lives and there's only so much we can do to mitigate that.

Sure it does... Thats the entire point of it most of time... to predict the costs and benefits of something you might do, before your do it.

Nobody did a cost benefit analysis of having the internet in society, or having newspapers replaced by television news then cable news. Why is that ?

[Michael Hardner]

Only if that was applied to the government as well. But we know how that turns out when the cameras are turned inwards. Their double standard should be enough for anyone with some grey matter to say that this is not right.

They don't actually get to decide that either. Can government remove every facebook post and every twitter post that every potential candidate has ever posted ? No. So unless you have never used these media, or somehow never said anything stupid on social media you can't run for office ?

No. I think society will change first.

We need to be monitored while the government does not need to be monitored.

Let's get something straight here: Canadians don't WANT to monitor the government. There are ways they can do that today and they're not interested.

If Harper wants to go on about the Niqab and being in an open society, let him start by being open himself.

That's right.

[bush_cheney2004]

They don't actually get to decide that either.

True...a judge in Canada found this out when a "publication ban" was easily bypassed by a foreign blogger for the Gomery hearings.

[dre]

They don't survive major changes in media, though. 'Technological progress' isn't the same as what we've gone through in the last 20 years.

Yeah they do... THey survived through the advent of the mail, and newspapers, and the radio, then analog phones, then television, then digital phones, then the internet. None of these technologies change the fundamental reasons why we have the right to privacy, or free speech, or freedom of religion, or judicial oversight of charter violations.

Nobody did a cost benefit analysis of having the internet in society, or having newspapers replaced by television news then cable news. Why is that ?

Those arent pieces of legislation. Those are products sold by private companies and people can do their own cost benefit analysis. Iv decided that the internet is worth the cost, but cable TV is not.

[eyeball]

Let's get something straight here: Canadians don't WANT to monitor the government. There are ways they can do that today and they're not interested.

Maybe you don't, but go try telling Snowden and Assange that people aren't interested in what their governments are doing behind closed doors.

[Michael Hardner]

Yeah they do... THey survived through the advent of the mail, and newspapers, and the radio, then analog phones, then television, then digital phones, then the internet.

You are correct, and I stand corrected.

None of these technologies change the fundamental reasons why we have the right to privacy, or free speech, or freedom of religion, or judicial oversight of charter violations.

Fundamentally, yes, but the social constructs around these things change as media changes.

Those arent pieces of legislation. Those are products sold by private companies and people can do their own cost benefit analysis. Iv decided that the internet is worth the cost, but cable TV is not.

Ok, but we're not talking about legislation are we ? Surveillance is increasing and anonymity is decreasing, even apart from the part where speech recognition software pings CSIS when certain word combinations are used.

[GostHacked]

They don't actually get to decide that either. Can government remove every facebook post and every twitter post that every potential candidate has ever posted ? No. So unless you have never used these media, or somehow never said anything stupid on social media you can't run for office ?

No. I think society will change first.

Let's get something straight here: Canadians don't WANT to monitor the government. There are ways they can do that today and they're not interested.

That's right.

But will Harper be open? No. That is the real kicker here.

And anything digital can be manipulated and redacted and erased. Just because I do not use those forms of social media does not mean I do not understand the technology behind the scenes. And that is where the real action takes place. But as an end user you don't see that, let alone even begin to understand it. Talk to the techies, they will tell you how this all works.

Sent out a bad email? Contact your IT department to run a script and clean the email servers.

I will say that yes Canadians DO want the government monitored. This is how we keep them in check with things that go against our way of life. Harper's multiple attempts at passing surveillance bills are proof of that. If you don't want to keep them in check, then how are you to know if the government is doing good? How much do you blindly trust government?

Anyways, turn the cameras in on them and you start to see them act counter to their notion of being open.