Surveillance technology

[Argus]

There was a show on TV for some years called Person of Interest. The focal point was a machine which was capable of processing information from virtually every technological source, be it CC cameras or cell phone conversations, baby monitors or emails, and, of course, was also tapped into the intelligence and police computers everywhere and could easily tap into every camera, including those of the police. It was kind of hard to hide anything from it. Even if your cell phone was turned off it could still hear you and know your location.

Does it surprise anyone China is building such a system? A lot has been publicized about all the cameras in the UK, but the Chinese are much further along. For example, they can require every single citizen to have their picture taken by their facial recognition cameras and entered into the system. And there is no ISP  or cell supplier who can deny them access to their databases and servers. Not only can their surveillance system spot you on the street but can backtrack you for a week, and can look for you by looking for known friends and relatives and trailing them too. It's going to be mighty hard to be an anti-government critic in China.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-china-42248056/in-your-face-china-s-all-seeing-state

Edited December 10, 2017 by Argus

[eyeball]

Don't forget this technology can also be deployed against the state.  All it takes is the will to make it happen - perhaps not in China but here in Canada it would be easy, all we need is a political party with candidates that pledge to wear cameras and microphones while in power.  A real media party so to speak. 

[Bonam]

11 hours ago, eyeball said:

Don't forget this technology can also be deployed against the state. 

Can be... but won't be. 

[Argus]

A further expansion of what surveillance technology can achieve. NEver mind what it might be able to achieve in future.

Chinese police are using sunglasses equipped with facial recognition technology to spot criminal suspects.

The glasses, which are being used at a busy train station ahead of the Chinese New Year travel rush, are linked to a central database that contains details of criminal records.

Wearing the technology, police can reportedly view an individual’s personal details, including name, ethnicity, gender and address, almost instantly.

http://nationalpost.com/news/world/police-in-china-are-wearing-high-tech-sunglasses-to-match-faces-in-the-crowd-to-criminal-suspects

[eyeball]

15 minutes ago, Argus said:

http://nationalpost.com/news/world/police-in-china-are-wearing-high-tech-sunglasses-to-match-faces-in-the-crowd-to-criminal-suspects

From the article;

Quote

China is deploying new technologies to monitor people in ways that would unnerve many in the West. Facial recognition has been rolled out in many aspects of everyday life in the country, where there are few privacy concerns.

I think it will be almost ridiculously easy for western governments to steel people's nerves to this stuff.  All it will take is a galvanizing event followed by political and ideological characterization of this technology as just one more tool that our men and women in uniform need to keep our communities and children safe.

Roll it out that way and people will lap it up.  As for fears of facial recognition...how do we square that with the fear of people who cover their faces?

I think we're probably as ripe as we'll ever be for our governments to introduce this technology.

Edited February 9, 2018 by eyeball

[SpankyMcFarland]

Facebook is a surveillance company which we have welcomed into our homes. The whole cultural idea of privacy is disappearing before our eyes. I predict convergence between China and ourselves on this matter in the coming decades. 

[Michael Hardner]

53 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The whole cultural idea of privacy is disappearing before our eyes.

Sort of.  It's hard to say 'privacy' is disappearing, though, when we're talking about privacy as things we 'LIKE' on facebook itserlf.

 

53 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I predict convergence between China and ourselves on this matter in the coming decades. 

A good exercise would be to go back to McLuhan's definitions of media as 'extensions of man'.  So a sword is an extension of the arm, until such a point where swords aren't needed anymore.  There seems to be an arc whereby a technology's usefulness increases, then decreases as different technology supplants it.

[Michael Hardner]

On 12/10/2017 at 11:19 AM, Argus said:

Does it surprise anyone China is building such a system?

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

After you listen to that podcast, you may start to question the automatic right to "privacy".  If it mean an end to crime - and nothing more - I would be all in favour of police having complete surveillance ability of public spaces.  Even with the margin of abusive behaviour by the authorities one could argue that it's still worth the trade-off to give surveillance power to authorities.

We certainly do something like that for electronic communication.  

The system can't be built, though, that will control human behaviour IMO.

[SpankyMcFarland]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Sort of.  It's hard to say 'privacy' is disappearing, though, when we're talking about privacy as things we 'LIKE' on facebook itserlf.

Look at what people are putting up on their Facebook pages and consider how few will abandon that ‘platform’ because of the CA revelations. We are becoming numbed to the idea of MNCs and states, domestic and foreign, watching what we do. 

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Look at what people are putting up on their Facebook pages and consider how few will abandon that ‘platform’ because of the CA revelations.

I am one that will not abandon the platform.  I don't think the revelations should be shocking.  To me, they're not even surprising.

7 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

We are becoming numbed to the idea of MNCs and states, domestic and foreign, watching what we do. 

"Becoming" numbed sounds like we have been fighting it, and we've given up.  Certainly, digital surveillance is a newish thing.  You can call it 'becoming numb' but I would say we're accepting it.  

If you are discouraged by the complacency that I, and others, have responded with then try another tack.  I think we should keep talking about these things, but getting rid of them isn't worth it.

[SpankyMcFarland]

49 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I am one that will not abandon the platform.  I don't think the revelations should be shocking.  To me, they're not even surprising.

"Becoming" numbed sounds like we have been fighting it, and we've given up.  Certainly, digital surveillance is a newish thing.  You can call it 'becoming numb' but I would say we're accepting it.  

If you are discouraged by the complacency that I, and others, have responded with then try another tack.  I think we should keep talking about these things, but getting rid of them isn't worth it.

Accepting it sounds nicer but I don’t see a big difference there. A lot of this is not at a conscious level either. We can talk about them all we like and pretend we have a role here but the direction they are taking is not going to change. 

When we discuss privacy these days we seem to focus on the local variety e.g. neighbours snooping on our health or tax records. The notion that some nerds working for the US government could be looking at the same documents doesnt bother us that much. 

 

Edited March 27, 2018 by SpankyMcFarland

[Michael Hardner]

16 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Accepting it sounds nicer but I don’t see a big difference there. A lot of this is not at a conscious level either. We can talk about them all we like and pretend we have a role here but the direction they are taking is not going to change. 

I see a difference.  One means we have given up, become numb through desensitization and another says we have discussed this as a choice and accepted the choice.

 

We have as much a role as we have with any medium.  Our primary role is to "talk about them".  As with television, it's possible to keep the medium and understand it, and *maybe* change it.

 

17 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

When we discuss privacy these days we seem to focus on the local variety e.g. neighbours snooping on our health or tax records. The notion that some nerds working for the US government could be looking at the same documents doesnt bother us that much. 

Yes, and I noticed that this story about Facebook wasn't even covered properly because it couldn't be.  People simply don't understand how the algorithms work.  So the breach of trust (and it was a breach of trust) is covered much as a 'hack' of personal financial data is even though that never happened.

The US government and Canadian government perhaps care about your Facebook 'likes' (and I hope they do) but they actually do what we're warned about, ie. they eavesdrop on us.  This has come up again and again and it seems like we accept it, in return for a promise of increased security.  I'm ok with that too.

[SpankyMcFarland]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The US government and Canadian government perhaps care about your Facebook 'likes' (and I hope they do) but they actually do what we're warned about, ie. they eavesdrop on us.  This has come up again and again and it seems like we accept it, in return for a promise of increased security.  I'm ok with that too.

It’s not just Facebook (or cellphone calls that Facebook has apparently been logging metadata from). US software used by a hospital, for example, could contain a ‘backdoor’ making it potentially viewable by US agencies. We have no say whatsoever on such surveillance - what is seen and what use is made of it. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

 We have no say whatsoever on such surveillance - what is seen and what use is made of it. 

You do so.  They have to tell you they're collecting your data.

[GostHacked]

On 12/10/2017 at 11:19 AM, Argus said:

There was a show on TV for some years called Person of Interest. The focal point was a machine which was capable of processing information from virtually every technological source, be it CC cameras or cell phone conversations, baby monitors or emails, and, of course, was also tapped into the intelligence and police computers everywhere and could easily tap into every camera, including those of the police. It was kind of hard to hide anything from it. Even if your cell phone was turned off it could still hear you and know your location.

Does it surprise anyone China is building such a system? A lot has been publicized about all the cameras in the UK, but the Chinese are much further along. For example, they can require every single citizen to have their picture taken by their facial recognition cameras and entered into the system. And there is no ISP  or cell supplier who can deny them access to their databases and servers. Not only can their surveillance system spot you on the street but can backtrack you for a week, and can look for you by looking for known friends and relatives and trailing them too. It's going to be mighty hard to be an anti-government critic in China.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-china-42248056/in-your-face-china-s-all-seeing-state

You don't think this technology is being used in North America?? 

[GostHacked]

On 3/27/2018 at 9:18 PM, Michael Hardner said:

You do so.  They have to tell you they're collecting your data.

No they do not have to tell you that. We can look at Cambridge Analytical with the recent crap with Facebook and how they datamined every single US citizen on Facebook.  Were you aware of how that data is collected and used? 

[GostHacked]

On 3/27/2018 at 4:17 PM, Michael Hardner said:

The US government and Canadian government perhaps care about your Facebook 'likes' (and I hope they do) but they actually do what we're warned about, ie. they eavesdrop on us.  This has come up again and again and it seems like we accept it, in return for a promise of increased security.  I'm ok with that too.

How much security are you willing to put up with? And what level of rights are you willing to give up?

Don't want to silence
A desperate voice
For the sake of security
No one wants to make
A terrible choice
On the price of being free

Rush, Lock and Key.

[OftenWrong]

On 27/03/2018 at 3:10 PM, Michael Hardner said:

I am one that will not abandon the platform.  I don't think the revelations should be shocking.  To me, they're not even surprising.

"Becoming" numbed sounds like we have been fighting it, and we've given up.  Certainly, digital surveillance is a newish thing.  You can call it 'becoming numb' but I would say we're accepting it.  

If you are discouraged by the complacency that I, and others, have responded with then try another tack.  I think we should keep talking about these things, but getting rid of them isn't worth it.

People are surprised and disappointed that they've been duped into exposing themselves through Facebook etc., by answering personality quizzes, playing games, clicking likes. They didn't know that it would be used as a form of manipulation and control. On another level, our persistent belief that internet freedom of communication is a virtue, allowed it to become a sort of weapon used against us, at an international level that now affects foreign affairs.

[Michael Hardner]

41 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

No they do not have to tell you that. We can look at Cambridge Analytical with the recent crap with Facebook and how they datamined every single US citizen on Facebook.  Were you aware of how that data is collected and used? 

If I had read my agreement then I would have been.  Luckily I don't care.  Nobody has stated that there was a breach of agreement here, just more liberties taken with data than expected.  At least as much as I can tell, since the questions here are complicated and not easy to answer.

[Michael Hardner]

40 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

How much security are you willing to put up with? And what level of rights are you willing to give up?

We've had this discussion before.  Broadly, privacy is to be defined by what people will put up with and suffice it to say I will put up with more than many.

40 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Don't want to silence
A desperate voice
For the sake of security
No one wants to make
A terrible choice
On the price of being free

Rush, Lock and Key.

What is that from ?

[Michael Hardner]

29 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1) People are surprised and disappointed that they've been duped into exposing themselves through Facebook etc., by answering personality quizzes, playing games, clicking likes. They didn't know that it would be used as a form of manipulation and control.
2) On another level, our persistent belief that internet freedom of communication is a virtue, allowed it to become a sort of weapon used against us, at an international level that now affects foreign affairs.

1) You mean they didn't know that it would be used as television is ?

2) I concur that the genie has to be manhandled a bit more, even if he won't go back in the bottle.

[GostHacked]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

If I had read my agreement then I would have been.  Luckily I don't care.  Nobody has stated that there was a breach of agreement here, just more liberties taken with data than expected.  At least as much as I can tell, since the questions here are complicated and not easy to answer.

Not caring is part of the problem.  I doubt you really read the agreement. But the way they collected the data was that even if you opted out of all that, as long as one of your contacts on your friends list DID opt in, then they had access to your data. And since it is complicated I would say that you

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

We've had this discussion before.  Broadly, privacy is to be defined by what people will put up with and suffice it to say I will put up with more than many.

IF you have no idea how the data is being used, you have no idea as to the level of your privacy.  And as you said, you don't care. SO I guess if your data is used against you somehow, you got nothing to complain about.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

What is that from ?

 Really? Try reading.

[eyeball]

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

We've had this discussion before.  Broadly, privacy is to be defined by what people will put up with and suffice it to say I will put up with more than many.

The problem is that you're perfectly willing to see the government forcing what you'll put up with on those of us who are nowhere near as willing.

Worst of all though is how many people are willing to overlook government secrecy.

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, GostHacked said:

1) I doubt you really read the agreement.  

2) IF you have no idea how the data is being used, you have no idea as to the level of your privacy. 

3) And as you said, you don't care. SO I guess if your data is used against you somehow, you got nothing to complain about.

 

1) Did you come to that conclusion because I wrote "If I had read my agreement ..."

2) What does the "level" of my privacy mean ?   I treat everything I post as though anyone could read it, so that's the level of my privacy.

3) Right.  My assumption is that my 'likes' of Peanuts comics and chocolate milk won't be used against me but I could be wrong.  I will assume the risk.

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

The problem is that you're perfectly willing to see the government forcing what you'll put up with on those of us who are nowhere near as willing.

That's how it works, yes.

 

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Worst of all though is how many people are willing to overlook government secrecy.

I have to overlook stupidity every day, so pity me also.