11 ms·

Secret Cameras Record Baltimore’s Every Move from Above

230 points by coloneltcb 10y ago

WestCoastJustin 10y ago
Seems there are many variants of this type of tech. PBS [1 - video] had once called AGRUS [2 - wiki] (looks older 2013 and more advanced). They also deployed something like this in Rio for the Olympics [3 - blog/video]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13BahrdkMU8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13BahrdkMU8 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARGUS-IS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARGUS-IS [3] http://www.sporttechie.com/2016/08/01/surveillance-blimps-to-provide-an-eye-in-the-sky-for-rio-olympics/ http://www.sporttechie.com/2016/08/01/surveillance-blimps-to...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
cypherpunks01 10y ago
Is there any remote hope for a way to have this happen while preventing abuse? I am not in a very creative mood right now so I can't imagine a scenario where it's not quickly being used incredibly selectively (to "just contradict anything that might be used against the City of Baltimore"), or used to catalog protesters, bulk shipped to the nsa, or many other obvious forms of abuse. Edit: and of course, where is the countersurveillance guide that examines easy techniques to evade a persistent and widespread aerial threat?
- cgearhart 10y ago
  I'd go the other way -- is there any remote hope of stopping this from spreading, regardless of abuses? History has shown that on a long enough time line this will be abused. Under what authority do they operate these systems? Since when has persistent surveillance become permissible? I feel like I'm going to end up a minority here, but this is not a good thing.
  - cypherpunks01 10y ago
    Hmm.. the complementary and problematic fact here is that technology has also shown that on a long enough timeline this will spread. Seems like the only way to halt the spread would be to criminalize it. But since the justice system has repeatedly upheld specific cases of aerial surveillance, that has a good likelihood of becoming generalized without some executive or congressional action? Would anyone step up?
  - yitchelle 10y ago
    The potential of abusive use of technology is there for every single new technology, every single one. The question is how to best control it with somebody we can trust, and the use case is morally OK.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - randcraw 10y ago
    I would paraphrase it as, "unregulated indiscriminate use of surveillance" is not a good thing. And I'd agree, as did the authors of the Bill of Rights. Like unwarranted multi-target wiretaps, surveillance of the general public without oversight is the real threat. One option is to demand that all surveillance be closely regulated (ideally by open courts), and police departments must get authorization before buying/renting any new ISR tech. But until we elect more courageous pols who care more for their oath to uphold the Constitution than protecting their job with knee-jerk militarized responses that satisfy hysterical public backlash to crime, indiscriminate surveillance will only get lazier, more expensive, and more destructive to everyone who isn't dressed in black.
- anonred 10y ago
  While it's not ideal to model real life policies on television, the show Person of Interest actually covers a situation very similar to this. Instead of humans interacting directly with the information and system, the protagonist designs a black-box artificial intelligence (called The Machine) that utilizes NSA-provided feeds to classify persons as national security threats. The only information that law enforcement and the government receive is the social security number of the "person of interest." By being a closed system, this kind of setup circumvents a lot of privacy issues. The AI acts as a neutral 3rd party (provided that the training set is neutral) in classifying individuals and actions. In addition, law enforcement retains full autonomy in deciding if and how to act on the information provided.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    In your example it's art imitating life, and there is indeed a neutrality problem: https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessm...
  - throwaway049 10y ago
    In that show, law enforcement get the full data. The reason the story protagonist only gets SSNs is that this is the only data that can be siphoned out of the system to him undetected, which is necessary as he is using the data without the approval of the NSA.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      Not so. The major plot arc of the last three seasons originates in the fact that law enforcement only gets SSNs too, and finds this insufficient.
- sehugg 10y ago
  Who says it's not already being abused? We don't know how the system is secured, and it's staffed by entry-level temp workers hired by a private company with apparently no oversight.
  - Symbiote 10y ago
    It's also available to anyone with the money, from the company in the article or competitors. (I assume there are no laws forbidding the system in the USA?) For example, a large company could pay to track whether any of its employees attend a protest. An insurance company could measure whether policy holders are exceeding speed limits (approximately). A person could track the movements of their partner or relative.
  - crispyambulance 10y ago
    While I admit that this kind of system can be abused, I am trying to think of a specific, believeable example of abuse. Having lived in Baltimore, I can say that city is literally besieged with crime of all kinds. Its hard to see how a staff worker could abuse the system without having access not only to the cessna cameras but also street cameras and police to do the footwork.
    - lawless123 10y ago
      I could be used to stalk.
      - throwanem 10y ago
        So could a private investigator, and while I don't know anything about PSS's pricing, a PI would probably be easier as well as cheaper. In this context, is one okay and the other not? Why, or why not?
    - bilbo0s 10y ago
      Maybe I'm not thinking about this correctly... but couldn't you use this to stalk your spouse ??? Or neighbor ??? Or anyone else really ??? Could also be used to follow councilmen, or even representatives and senators around and document their meetings. Tip off the other party's operatives, (for a price), and have them waiting with photography equipment at the senator's next liaison. I don't know ??? Maybe I've just got a more corrupt mind than everyone else ? But I could think of quite a few ways to abuse this system. And make a BOATLOAD of money while I'm at it.
- ComodoHacker 10y ago
  >easy techniques to evade a persistent and widespread aerial threat? This particular system is very easy to fool. Just walk into some crowded place, wait a moment, and walk out.
  - Ntrails 10y ago
    Enemy of the state anti surveillance 101: Walk under a bridge
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      Check first if that bridge doesn't have cameras there.
  - lawless123 10y ago
    Crowded places often have cctv, they could track you enter and leave. Then continue following you from above as before. It would be harder though.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
zaroth 10y ago
Still waiting for the blockbuster case where the all-seeing-eye saved the day? At some level this is being sold to the public. Are we getting what we paid for? This technology should be nothing if not incredibly useful. The potential of abuse is so bad because it's so damn useful. So, if it's inevitable that it's going to be created, and inevitable that it's going to be abuse, can we at least try to ensure we use it for good as much as possible?
- ISL 10y ago
  An all-seeing eye is perhaps too apropos.... 'You are wise and powerful. Will you not take the Ring?’ 'No!' cried Gandalf, springing to his feet. 'With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly.' His eyes flashed and his face was lit as by a fire within. 'Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great for my strength. I shall have such need of it. Great perils lie before me.'
  - reddytowns 10y ago
    Here is another opinion on the matter, probably closer to how politicians would feel about it ‘And what business is it of yours, anyway, to know what I do with my own things? It is my own. I found it. It came to me. It is mine, I tell you. My own. My Precious. Yes, my Precious.’ --Bilbo Baggins
- wilbo 10y ago
  There was a great Radiolab episode [1] on this very technology about how this has saved the day multiple times in the civilian world. They also cover the questions you bring up. The radio hosts couldn't come up with a good answer on how to best use it. I highly recommend listening to the Radiolab episode in full. [1] http://www.radiolab.org/story/eye-sky/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/eye-sky/ Edit: Updated to only link to Radiolab. Note to Self's staff was just a guest. The Radiolab episode covers a lot more detail on the Juarez murder covered on the Bloomberg article.
SubiculumCode 10y ago
This ain't your Daddy's 'The Wire' IRL.
cypherpunks01 10y ago
Explanation given for why this is not a threat to civil liberties is: resolution is limited to "one pixel per person"!
- ctack 10y ago
  It's a foot in the door.
  - rainforest 10y ago
    1px is all you need: the article cites instances where they track a pixel to a ground-based camera to get a higher res image.
  - alanwatts 10y ago
    Classic social engineering tactic.
- akerro 10y ago
  Wait for it... wait for it... 5 years and it will be 30px x 30px per person.
  - koffiezet 10y ago
    You mean 30x30Mp?
    - akerro 10y ago
      1x1px is enough to track person. 30x30px is enough to run face detection and recognition. Can't see how 30x30Mpx would be useful? To see what products they is holding in a basket probably. They would be interested in your pressure cooker probably. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/01/new-york-police-terrorism-pressure-cooker https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/01/new-york-polic...
ctack 10y ago
In light of Snowden leaks, this is just another piece in what appears to be a global panopticon construction project.
- ddt_Osprey 10y ago
  There's worse things than Snowden's revelations though, like cheerfully donating your organs to a government that executes you over some religious aerobics classes. [1] I hope this whole panopticon thing doesn't get finished until after we can grow organs in vitro, rendering my donations moot. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Go...
  - ctack 10y ago
    I don't understand what you're saying here. I don't see the connection between organ harvesting and the construction of a global panopticon. You also seem to be supporter of such a panopticon. Could you explain why? Or are you just trolling?
    - throwanem 10y ago
      He's saying, I think, that it's worth keeping a sense of perspective - that there are much worse things than being watched. He's not wrong there.
      - alanwatts 10y ago
        Comparing to the lowest common denominator to feel better about something is often akin to denial.
        throwanem 10y ago
        No doubt. But I've had a while to consider this possibility, having noticed general aviation aircraft loitering over Baltimore for some time now and half surmised something like this may be going on, and you know what? I'm fine with it. Being watched from the sky is hardly ideal, I concede. But also worth considering, I think, is that the next time I get mugged, if there has to be a next time, maybe being watched from the sky will make it possible for the police to catch the son of a bitch who does it. That's one of the things that can happen in Baltimore. It is far from the worst. Indeed, it, and things much worse, happen in Baltimore every day. Don't misunderstand me here - media depictions aside, this is a wonderful city with which I fell in love very quickly, and where I expect and intend to continue living for the remainder of my life. But this is also a city, wonderful though it be in many ways, in which many bad things happen to many innocent people. Being observed from on high by our government bears a certain degree of potential danger, of course. There's an argument to be made, and I think a very cogent one, that that potential danger is outweighed by the very real danger evident in this city's crime statistics. I'm okay with being watched from the sky if it is likely to reduce that danger, and I think that it is. I realize that people who have never been the victim of a violent crime may feel differently about this. I understand that their perspective on a matter such as this may well be different from mine. I also don't think it is unreasonable of me to regard their perspective as incompletely informed. Basing an argument around my personal experience is not something with which I'm wholly comfortable for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that it's often deployed as a tactic against dissent. But there's also something to be said for the idea that there's only so much a virgin can be expected to know about sex. I don't really know if it's reasonable to expect there be a single right answer on a question like this one. But I certainly know where I come down on it.
annnnd 10y ago
I am as concerned about privacy as next person, but I would have thought that this is similar to what the satellites are already collecting for NSA, CIA and similar (and their counterparts in other countries). Is flying Cessna planes really the optimal way of obtaining images? Why not drones (if you can't get satellites)? Or is this just MVP with room for optimization?
- dalke 10y ago
  Satellites are in orbit, so can't be used if you want more than a few minutes of continuous surveillance. Drones have an iffy legal status. Using a piloted light aircraft gets rid of that uncertainty.
  - cromulent 10y ago
    There are over 400 satellites in geostationary orbit, so maybe some of those could be used. However, that places them so high that photography might not be practical.
- revelation 10y ago
  NSA, CIA and all their friends exist for the sole reason that they can't spy on Americans. That's why they exist, because the constitution doesn't apply to foreigners. They would be a walking terrorist organisation otherwise. So your question becomes "why can't the police do what the intelligence services already do?" and the obvious answer is that "because then they stop being police and are instead secret police or Gestapo".
  - alanwatts 10y ago
    >NSA, CIA and all their friends exist for the sole reason that they can't spy on Americans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.#NSA_monitoring_of_King.27s_communications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.#NSA_mon...
    - revelation 10y ago
FollowSteph3 10y ago
Assuming a non-oppressive government I'm all for using this type of technology to stop crime. It is a very powerful tool that will really level the playing field. Many crimes are from repeat offenders and this will just help catch them quicker and more accurately. I suspect crime rates will drop dramatically as a result of these types of technologies. As for privacy we already give more away just to have free online services. Think how much is tracked by Google through their searches, gmail, etc. by Facebook to use their free service. Apple, Microsoft, etc are all known to track all kinds of data on you. It's not like this isn't already happening. They key is to make sure it's not abused, and I think for the most part in first world countries this won't be a big issue. That and the benefits will far outweigh the costs. We just have to prevent it from escalating like in the South Park drone episode ;)
- yclept 10y ago
  All governments are oppressive to different extents.
- redblacktree 10y ago
  I guess the difference for me between Facebook, Google, etc. and the government, is that the former can't imprison me.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  But I can choose not to participate with apple, MS, google, etc. And I do. When did I opt-into surveillance?
  - fixermark 10y ago
    The flip-side of that question is "When can I opt-in to surveillance if I really want that? Can my neighborhood watch be a real neighborhood watch, with collated telemetry and machine learning, but owned by private citizens?" And then we're on the slippery slope to the burbclaves of Snow Crash. ;)
- colejohnson66 10y ago
  > I suspect crime rates will drop dramatically as a result of these types of technologies. Just like how terrorism rates dropped after the PATRIOT Act?
RobertoG 10y ago
"[..] and the funding came from a private donor." That it's interesting. Is just somebody with interest in the company that provide the service, in the line of "the first one is for free"? Because, otherwise, I can't think who could be funding this or their reasons.
- koffiezet 10y ago
  If you would have read the article: > John is a former Enron trader whose hedge fund, Centaurus Advisors, made billions before he retired in 2012. Since then, the Arnolds have funded a variety of hot-button causes, including advocating for public pension rollbacks and charter schools. Doesn't sound like a pro-privacy activist...
  - r_smart 10y ago
    >Doesn't sound like a pro-privacy activist... Well, funding putting cameras in the sky supports that certainly, but what do pensions and charter schools have to do with privacy?
  - rayiner 10y ago
    If anything I'd imagine teachers unions are full of the "think of the children" types that encourage these sorts of surveillance.
  - RobertoG 10y ago
    You are right. It seems I skipped that part.
gilgongo 10y ago
I'm fine with this because all the data is encrypted until representatives from all three branches of government agree to unlock it (and even then it only decrypts the last 7 days). Oh, wait.
tramov 10y ago
Its been a long time, but in 1988 Sierra Online had a game that featured just this. Tracking "criminals" from above, following the signal from their implants and their every move until they disappeared underground. https://www.mobygames.com/game/manhunter-new-york https://www.mobygames.com/game/manhunter-new-york
Mathnerd314 10y ago
It still needs analysts to work; could they be replaced with machine learning?
- alanwatts 10y ago
  Yes, 99.99% of the data analysis could be done with machine learning which could then send alerts to human operators once a certain pattern of interest is discovered.
graedus 10y ago
This appears to be the FBI surveillance plane John Wiseman tracked using a BeagleBone black, an RTL-SDR dongle, dump1090 and PlanePlotter https://twitter.com/lemonodor/status/605825895295651840 https://twitter.com/lemonodor/status/605825895295651840 http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/how-i-tracked-fbi-aerial-surveillance/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/how-i-tracked-fbi... Correction: The FBI plane is not the primary focus of this article, but it is mentioned: "Occasionally, [Persistent Surveillance's] Cessna has had to share airspace with an FBI airplane. Last year, two days after the Freddie Gray riots began, the FBI flew over Baltimore for five days—actions that were discovered when local aviation enthusiasts noticed a plane’s strange flight orbits on a public website that tracks radar data. According to information and footage released this summer by the FBI, its plane wasn’t doing the sort of wide-area motion imaging that Persistent Surveillance does but instead was zooming in on specific targets. McNutt says the FBI doesn’t coordinate its flights with him, and he doesn’t know what the agency is investigating; however, when his plane is in the air at the same time as the FBI’s, air traffic controllers insist that McNutt’s plane remain at a lower altitude than the federal craft."
- nyqstna 10y ago
  It's interesting to note that FBI has released all of that footage to the public. https://vault.fbi.gov/protests-in-baltimore-maryland-2015/unedited-versions-of-video-surveillance-footage https://vault.fbi.gov/protests-in-baltimore-maryland-2015/un...
rizumu 10y ago
>“Let’s go get some dirt bikes, Sarge!” To better understand this reaction and why the police want to use this technology to their advantage in winning the cat-and-mouse game with Baltimore's urban dirt bikers, see the documentary film "12 O'clock Boys". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOMQY6k16TU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOMQY6k16TU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_O'Clock_Boys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_O'Clock_Boys
athenot 10y ago
There's an easy way to prevent abuse: require the data to be made available to the public in real time. It's not surveillance I object to, it's the coupling of information asymmetry with unaccountability. Maybe when people start flying their own drones and the data gets aggregated into OpenStreetMap (or some similar project), there will be a decent motivation for transparency. After all, if the police forces are doing nothing wrong, what do they have to fear from continual public surveillance? ;)
nyqstna 10y ago
Is this really a surprise? PSS activity has been documented for years.[0] Good rule of thumb: If it's not illegal, people will do it if it is profitable. [0]http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/a-tivo-for-crime-how-always-recording-airborne-cameras-watch-entire-cities/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/a-tivo-for-crime-...
- cypherpunks01 10y ago
  I don't see anyone claiming to be surprised the technology exists, the notable thing is the update on the deployment progression of WAPS systems on civilian populations in the US. I believe the newsworthy thing here is that the system has been in active use in Baltimore for the entire year 2016 so far, which is a surprise, in contrast to the 2014 article you linked that reported the company had "no active contracts inside the United States".
  - nyqstna 10y ago
    It also says: "[McNutt] is lobbying 10 US cities—he won’t name them, apart from Chicago—for longer contracts. He’s also dangling a sizable carrot in front of them: a new analysis center that would have “hundreds” of jobs and would act as a command center for all of the company’s operations nationwide." Obviously one of those was Baltimore. Is it a leap to think that there may be others? Not to be crass, but this isn't gumshoe detective work here. He told us what his company was doing.
sambull 10y ago
Good old "anonymous donor" providing third party technology to collect surveillance.

230 points by coloneltcb 10y ago

Seems there are many variants of this type of tech. PBS [1 - video] had once called AGRUS [2 - wiki] (looks older 2013 and more advanced). They also deployed something like this in Rio for the Olympics [3 - blog/video]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13BahrdkMU8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13BahrdkMU8 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARGUS-IS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARGUS-IS [3] http://www.sporttechie.com/2016/08/01/surveillance-blimps-to-provide-an-eye-in-the-sky-for-rio-olympics/ http://www.sporttechie.com/2016/08/01/surveillance-blimps-to...

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

cypherpunks01 10y ago

Is there any remote hope for a way to have this happen while preventing abuse? I am not in a very creative mood right now so I can't imagine a scenario where it's not quickly being used incredibly selectively (to "just contradict anything that might be used against the City of Baltimore"), or used to catalog protesters, bulk shipped to the nsa, or many other obvious forms of abuse. Edit: and of course, where is the countersurveillance guide that examines easy techniques to evade a persistent and widespread aerial threat?

cgearhart 10y ago
I'd go the other way -- is there any remote hope of stopping this from spreading, regardless of abuses? History has shown that on a long enough time line this will be abused. Under what authority do they operate these systems? Since when has persistent surveillance become permissible? I feel like I'm going to end up a minority here, but this is not a good thing.
- cypherpunks01 10y ago
  Hmm.. the complementary and problematic fact here is that technology has also shown that on a long enough timeline this will spread. Seems like the only way to halt the spread would be to criminalize it. But since the justice system has repeatedly upheld specific cases of aerial surveillance, that has a good likelihood of becoming generalized without some executive or congressional action? Would anyone step up?
- yitchelle 10y ago
  The potential of abusive use of technology is there for every single new technology, every single one. The question is how to best control it with somebody we can trust, and the use case is morally OK.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- randcraw 10y ago
  I would paraphrase it as, "unregulated indiscriminate use of surveillance" is not a good thing. And I'd agree, as did the authors of the Bill of Rights. Like unwarranted multi-target wiretaps, surveillance of the general public without oversight is the real threat. One option is to demand that all surveillance be closely regulated (ideally by open courts), and police departments must get authorization before buying/renting any new ISR tech. But until we elect more courageous pols who care more for their oath to uphold the Constitution than protecting their job with knee-jerk militarized responses that satisfy hysterical public backlash to crime, indiscriminate surveillance will only get lazier, more expensive, and more destructive to everyone who isn't dressed in black.
anonred 10y ago
While it's not ideal to model real life policies on television, the show Person of Interest actually covers a situation very similar to this. Instead of humans interacting directly with the information and system, the protagonist designs a black-box artificial intelligence (called The Machine) that utilizes NSA-provided feeds to classify persons as national security threats. The only information that law enforcement and the government receive is the social security number of the "person of interest." By being a closed system, this kind of setup circumvents a lot of privacy issues. The AI acts as a neutral 3rd party (provided that the training set is neutral) in classifying individuals and actions. In addition, law enforcement retains full autonomy in deciding if and how to act on the information provided.
- rhizome 10y ago
  In your example it's art imitating life, and there is indeed a neutrality problem: https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessm...
- throwaway049 10y ago
  In that show, law enforcement get the full data. The reason the story protagonist only gets SSNs is that this is the only data that can be siphoned out of the system to him undetected, which is necessary as he is using the data without the approval of the NSA.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    Not so. The major plot arc of the last three seasons originates in the fact that law enforcement only gets SSNs too, and finds this insufficient.
sehugg 10y ago
Who says it's not already being abused? We don't know how the system is secured, and it's staffed by entry-level temp workers hired by a private company with apparently no oversight.
- Symbiote 10y ago
  It's also available to anyone with the money, from the company in the article or competitors. (I assume there are no laws forbidding the system in the USA?) For example, a large company could pay to track whether any of its employees attend a protest. An insurance company could measure whether policy holders are exceeding speed limits (approximately). A person could track the movements of their partner or relative.
- crispyambulance 10y ago
  While I admit that this kind of system can be abused, I am trying to think of a specific, believeable example of abuse. Having lived in Baltimore, I can say that city is literally besieged with crime of all kinds. Its hard to see how a staff worker could abuse the system without having access not only to the cessna cameras but also street cameras and police to do the footwork.
  - lawless123 10y ago
    I could be used to stalk.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      So could a private investigator, and while I don't know anything about PSS's pricing, a PI would probably be easier as well as cheaper. In this context, is one okay and the other not? Why, or why not?
  - bilbo0s 10y ago
    Maybe I'm not thinking about this correctly... but couldn't you use this to stalk your spouse ??? Or neighbor ??? Or anyone else really ??? Could also be used to follow councilmen, or even representatives and senators around and document their meetings. Tip off the other party's operatives, (for a price), and have them waiting with photography equipment at the senator's next liaison. I don't know ??? Maybe I've just got a more corrupt mind than everyone else ? But I could think of quite a few ways to abuse this system. And make a BOATLOAD of money while I'm at it.
ComodoHacker 10y ago
>easy techniques to evade a persistent and widespread aerial threat? This particular system is very easy to fool. Just walk into some crowded place, wait a moment, and walk out.
- Ntrails 10y ago
  Enemy of the state anti surveillance 101: Walk under a bridge
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Check first if that bridge doesn't have cameras there.
- lawless123 10y ago
  Crowded places often have cctv, they could track you enter and leave. Then continue following you from above as before. It would be harder though.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

zaroth 10y ago

Still waiting for the blockbuster case where the all-seeing-eye saved the day? At some level this is being sold to the public. Are we getting what we paid for? This technology should be nothing if not incredibly useful. The potential of abuse is so bad because it's so damn useful. So, if it's inevitable that it's going to be created, and inevitable that it's going to be abuse, can we at least try to ensure we use it for good as much as possible?

ISL 10y ago
An all-seeing eye is perhaps too apropos.... 'You are wise and powerful. Will you not take the Ring?’ 'No!' cried Gandalf, springing to his feet. 'With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly.' His eyes flashed and his face was lit as by a fire within. 'Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great for my strength. I shall have such need of it. Great perils lie before me.'
- reddytowns 10y ago
  Here is another opinion on the matter, probably closer to how politicians would feel about it ‘And what business is it of yours, anyway, to know what I do with my own things? It is my own. I found it. It came to me. It is mine, I tell you. My own. My Precious. Yes, my Precious.’ --Bilbo Baggins
wilbo 10y ago
There was a great Radiolab episode [1] on this very technology about how this has saved the day multiple times in the civilian world. They also cover the questions you bring up. The radio hosts couldn't come up with a good answer on how to best use it. I highly recommend listening to the Radiolab episode in full. [1] http://www.radiolab.org/story/eye-sky/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/eye-sky/ Edit: Updated to only link to Radiolab. Note to Self's staff was just a guest. The Radiolab episode covers a lot more detail on the Juarez murder covered on the Bloomberg article.

SubiculumCode 10y ago

This ain't your Daddy's 'The Wire' IRL.

cypherpunks01 10y ago

Explanation given for why this is not a threat to civil liberties is: resolution is limited to "one pixel per person"!

ctack 10y ago
It's a foot in the door.
- rainforest 10y ago
  1px is all you need: the article cites instances where they track a pixel to a ground-based camera to get a higher res image.
- alanwatts 10y ago
  Classic social engineering tactic.
akerro 10y ago
Wait for it... wait for it... 5 years and it will be 30px x 30px per person.
- koffiezet 10y ago
  You mean 30x30Mp?
  - akerro 10y ago
    1x1px is enough to track person. 30x30px is enough to run face detection and recognition. Can't see how 30x30Mpx would be useful? To see what products they is holding in a basket probably. They would be interested in your pressure cooker probably. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/01/new-york-police-terrorism-pressure-cooker https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/01/new-york-polic...

ctack 10y ago

In light of Snowden leaks, this is just another piece in what appears to be a global panopticon construction project.

ddt_Osprey 10y ago
There's worse things than Snowden's revelations though, like cheerfully donating your organs to a government that executes you over some religious aerobics classes. [1] I hope this whole panopticon thing doesn't get finished until after we can grow organs in vitro, rendering my donations moot. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Go...
- ctack 10y ago
  I don't understand what you're saying here. I don't see the connection between organ harvesting and the construction of a global panopticon. You also seem to be supporter of such a panopticon. Could you explain why? Or are you just trolling?
  - throwanem 10y ago
    He's saying, I think, that it's worth keeping a sense of perspective - that there are much worse things than being watched. He's not wrong there.
    - alanwatts 10y ago
      Comparing to the lowest common denominator to feel better about something is often akin to denial.
      - throwanem 10y ago
        No doubt. But I've had a while to consider this possibility, having noticed general aviation aircraft loitering over Baltimore for some time now and half surmised something like this may be going on, and you know what? I'm fine with it. Being watched from the sky is hardly ideal, I concede. But also worth considering, I think, is that the next time I get mugged, if there has to be a next time, maybe being watched from the sky will make it possible for the police to catch the son of a bitch who does it. That's one of the things that can happen in Baltimore. It is far from the worst. Indeed, it, and things much worse, happen in Baltimore every day. Don't misunderstand me here - media depictions aside, this is a wonderful city with which I fell in love very quickly, and where I expect and intend to continue living for the remainder of my life. But this is also a city, wonderful though it be in many ways, in which many bad things happen to many innocent people. Being observed from on high by our government bears a certain degree of potential danger, of course. There's an argument to be made, and I think a very cogent one, that that potential danger is outweighed by the very real danger evident in this city's crime statistics. I'm okay with being watched from the sky if it is likely to reduce that danger, and I think that it is. I realize that people who have never been the victim of a violent crime may feel differently about this. I understand that their perspective on a matter such as this may well be different from mine. I also don't think it is unreasonable of me to regard their perspective as incompletely informed. Basing an argument around my personal experience is not something with which I'm wholly comfortable for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that it's often deployed as a tactic against dissent. But there's also something to be said for the idea that there's only so much a virgin can be expected to know about sex. I don't really know if it's reasonable to expect there be a single right answer on a question like this one. But I certainly know where I come down on it.

annnnd 10y ago

I am as concerned about privacy as next person, but I would have thought that this is similar to what the satellites are already collecting for NSA, CIA and similar (and their counterparts in other countries). Is flying Cessna planes really the optimal way of obtaining images? Why not drones (if you can't get satellites)? Or is this just MVP with room for optimization?

dalke 10y ago
Satellites are in orbit, so can't be used if you want more than a few minutes of continuous surveillance. Drones have an iffy legal status. Using a piloted light aircraft gets rid of that uncertainty.
- cromulent 10y ago
  There are over 400 satellites in geostationary orbit, so maybe some of those could be used. However, that places them so high that photography might not be practical.
revelation 10y ago
NSA, CIA and all their friends exist for the sole reason that they can't spy on Americans. That's why they exist, because the constitution doesn't apply to foreigners. They would be a walking terrorist organisation otherwise. So your question becomes "why can't the police do what the intelligence services already do?" and the obvious answer is that "because then they stop being police and are instead secret police or Gestapo".
- alanwatts 10y ago
  >NSA, CIA and all their friends exist for the sole reason that they can't spy on Americans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.#NSA_monitoring_of_King.27s_communications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.#NSA_mon...
  - revelation 10y ago

FollowSteph3 10y ago

Assuming a non-oppressive government I'm all for using this type of technology to stop crime. It is a very powerful tool that will really level the playing field. Many crimes are from repeat offenders and this will just help catch them quicker and more accurately. I suspect crime rates will drop dramatically as a result of these types of technologies. As for privacy we already give more away just to have free online services. Think how much is tracked by Google through their searches, gmail, etc. by Facebook to use their free service. Apple, Microsoft, etc are all known to track all kinds of data on you. It's not like this isn't already happening. They key is to make sure it's not abused, and I think for the most part in first world countries this won't be a big issue. That and the benefits will far outweigh the costs. We just have to prevent it from escalating like in the South Park drone episode ;)

yclept 10y ago
All governments are oppressive to different extents.
redblacktree 10y ago
I guess the difference for me between Facebook, Google, etc. and the government, is that the former can't imprison me.
CaptSpify 10y ago
But I can choose not to participate with apple, MS, google, etc. And I do. When did I opt-into surveillance?
- fixermark 10y ago
  The flip-side of that question is "When can I opt-in to surveillance if I really want that? Can my neighborhood watch be a real neighborhood watch, with collated telemetry and machine learning, but owned by private citizens?" And then we're on the slippery slope to the burbclaves of Snow Crash. ;)
colejohnson66 10y ago
> I suspect crime rates will drop dramatically as a result of these types of technologies. Just like how terrorism rates dropped after the PATRIOT Act?

RobertoG 10y ago

"[..] and the funding came from a private donor." That it's interesting. Is just somebody with interest in the company that provide the service, in the line of "the first one is for free"? Because, otherwise, I can't think who could be funding this or their reasons.

koffiezet 10y ago
If you would have read the article: > John is a former Enron trader whose hedge fund, Centaurus Advisors, made billions before he retired in 2012. Since then, the Arnolds have funded a variety of hot-button causes, including advocating for public pension rollbacks and charter schools. Doesn't sound like a pro-privacy activist...
- r_smart 10y ago
  >Doesn't sound like a pro-privacy activist... Well, funding putting cameras in the sky supports that certainly, but what do pensions and charter schools have to do with privacy?
- rayiner 10y ago
  If anything I'd imagine teachers unions are full of the "think of the children" types that encourage these sorts of surveillance.
- RobertoG 10y ago
  You are right. It seems I skipped that part.

gilgongo 10y ago

I'm fine with this because all the data is encrypted until representatives from all three branches of government agree to unlock it (and even then it only decrypts the last 7 days). Oh, wait.

tramov 10y ago

Its been a long time, but in 1988 Sierra Online had a game that featured just this. Tracking "criminals" from above, following the signal from their implants and their every move until they disappeared underground. https://www.mobygames.com/game/manhunter-new-york https://www.mobygames.com/game/manhunter-new-york

Mathnerd314 10y ago

It still needs analysts to work; could they be replaced with machine learning?

alanwatts 10y ago
Yes, 99.99% of the data analysis could be done with machine learning which could then send alerts to human operators once a certain pattern of interest is discovered.

graedus 10y ago

This appears to be the FBI surveillance plane John Wiseman tracked using a BeagleBone black, an RTL-SDR dongle, dump1090 and PlanePlotter https://twitter.com/lemonodor/status/605825895295651840 https://twitter.com/lemonodor/status/605825895295651840 http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/how-i-tracked-fbi-aerial-surveillance/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/how-i-tracked-fbi... Correction: The FBI plane is not the primary focus of this article, but it is mentioned: "Occasionally, [Persistent Surveillance's] Cessna has had to share airspace with an FBI airplane. Last year, two days after the Freddie Gray riots began, the FBI flew over Baltimore for five days—actions that were discovered when local aviation enthusiasts noticed a plane’s strange flight orbits on a public website that tracks radar data. According to information and footage released this summer by the FBI, its plane wasn’t doing the sort of wide-area motion imaging that Persistent Surveillance does but instead was zooming in on specific targets. McNutt says the FBI doesn’t coordinate its flights with him, and he doesn’t know what the agency is investigating; however, when his plane is in the air at the same time as the FBI’s, air traffic controllers insist that McNutt’s plane remain at a lower altitude than the federal craft."

nyqstna 10y ago
It's interesting to note that FBI has released all of that footage to the public. https://vault.fbi.gov/protests-in-baltimore-maryland-2015/unedited-versions-of-video-surveillance-footage https://vault.fbi.gov/protests-in-baltimore-maryland-2015/un...

rizumu 10y ago

>“Let’s go get some dirt bikes, Sarge!” To better understand this reaction and why the police want to use this technology to their advantage in winning the cat-and-mouse game with Baltimore's urban dirt bikers, see the documentary film "12 O'clock Boys". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOMQY6k16TU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOMQY6k16TU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_O'Clock_Boys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_O'Clock_Boys

athenot 10y ago

There's an easy way to prevent abuse: require the data to be made available to the public in real time. It's not surveillance I object to, it's the coupling of information asymmetry with unaccountability. Maybe when people start flying their own drones and the data gets aggregated into OpenStreetMap (or some similar project), there will be a decent motivation for transparency. After all, if the police forces are doing nothing wrong, what do they have to fear from continual public surveillance? ;)

nyqstna 10y ago

Is this really a surprise? PSS activity has been documented for years.[0] Good rule of thumb: If it's not illegal, people will do it if it is profitable. [0]http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/a-tivo-for-crime-how-always-recording-airborne-cameras-watch-entire-cities/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/a-tivo-for-crime-...

cypherpunks01 10y ago
I don't see anyone claiming to be surprised the technology exists, the notable thing is the update on the deployment progression of WAPS systems on civilian populations in the US. I believe the newsworthy thing here is that the system has been in active use in Baltimore for the entire year 2016 so far, which is a surprise, in contrast to the 2014 article you linked that reported the company had "no active contracts inside the United States".
- nyqstna 10y ago
  It also says: "[McNutt] is lobbying 10 US cities—he won’t name them, apart from Chicago—for longer contracts. He’s also dangling a sizable carrot in front of them: a new analysis center that would have “hundreds” of jobs and would act as a command center for all of the company’s operations nationwide." Obviously one of those was Baltimore. Is it a leap to think that there may be others? Not to be crass, but this isn't gumshoe detective work here. He told us what his company was doing.

sambull 10y ago

Good old "anonymous donor" providing third party technology to collect surveillance.