4 ms·

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

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]

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]