7 ms·

Meet the Private Companies Helping Cops Spy on Protesters

198 points by devx 13y ago

danso 13y ago
> Another program, made by Bright Planet and called BlueJay, is billed in a brochure to law enforcement as a "Twitter crime scanner." BlueJay allows cops to covertly monitor accounts and hashtags; three that Bright Planet touts in promotional material are #gunfire, #meth, and #protest. In another promotional document, the company says BlueJay can "monitor large public events, social unrest, gang communications, and criminally predicated individuals," as well as "track department mentions." Bright Planet did not respond to a request for comment. The firehose, which BlueJay presumably collects from, doesn't capture geolocations that aren't already in the public data, right? So it looks like the end of the road for criminals who tweet about their #meth lab and have let Twitter geocode their tweets. Hopefully, that consists of the majority of villains the police have to deal with
- thex86 13y ago
  It's stupid. That is what it is. The industrial surveillance complex that is being set up, do these companies really think people are that naive? And what makes me even more sad about this is that #meth and #protest are considered as dangerous.
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    The Silk Road founder was caught because he was stupid. My friend got robbed at gunpoint this week, her phone and purse were taken. The cops found the suspect because she had Find My iPhone enabled. Simple things often lead to catching bad guys.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      In this context, "stupid" isn't binary. It makes strategic sense for law enforcement to invest in systems that create requirements for criminals to be smart all the time; lots of people can avoid stupidity for short stretches, but far fewer of them can be consistently competent over the long term.
      - res0nat0r 13y ago
        Totally agree.
- DanBC 13y ago
  Many people in the London riots were using BBM to coordinate rioting or looting. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/aug/08/london-riots-facebook-twitter-blackberry http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/aug/08/london-riots-fa... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/blackberry/8688651/London-riots-how-BlackBerry-Messenger-has-been-used-to-plan-two-nights-of-looting.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/blackberry/8688651/Lon... Blackberry claims to help police. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/aug/09/london-riots-blackberrys-police http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/aug/09/london-rio... http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2011/08/09/blackberrys-rim-helps-police-trace-london-rioters/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2011/08/09/blackberry...
thex86 13y ago
I was kinda expecting Palantir to be on the list. In other words, they should have been. I still find it amazing to see how much true 1984 is becoming. I am sure the next phase is thought control, because "crimes" start there and have to be prevented at all costs. Let's get inside the minds of people and put CCTVs and audio recording devices everywhere. In tables under restaurants, in cars, in buses, every possible place. Crime has to be prevented. The future is scary.
- krylonkid 13y ago
  Sounds like the UK where you can be jailed for a tweet.
  - eigenvector 13y ago
    You can be jailed for a tweet pretty much anywhere if that tweet is a direct, credible threat of violence.
    - krylonkid 13y ago
      In the UK you do jail time if it hurts someone's feelings.
      - sanityinc 13y ago
        The law responsible for that was recently overturned: http://reformsection5.org.uk/ http://reformsection5.org.uk/ In short, it is no longer illegal to use what a policeman or court might judge to be "insulting words or behaviour".
- negativity 13y ago
  ...oh, and let's not leave out the fact that these are private companies. This is not Socialism. This is not INGSOC. Even without the totalitarianism, the very same oppression crops up. Instead of the single Big Brother brand name, it's a cottage industry private security firms acting as thought police. Invisible hand of The Market, indeed.
spiritplumber 13y ago
How do you boycott these folks if they don't sell to the general public?
- tokenizer 13y ago
  Boycotting only works effectively in a free society. If someone taxes your by force, and hands some of that money to these companies, then short of becoming an elected member of government, you can't do anything about it.
  - polymatter 13y ago
    You can campaign and support elected officials who promise not to do so. Of course, in the meantime they could be targeted against you and anyone you associate with.
    - vadman 13y ago
      We know politicians always keep their promises :)
    - tokenizer 13y ago
      That's still not actually doing something about it. IMO voting is the same as praying. I mean, sure; Your ruler may decide to grant one or more of your wishes, but you'll never know if it was them, or simply chance. Also, my point was regarding boycotting, and how free association and volunteerism become ineffective when dealing with government or government sponsored corporations. Boycotting on free market ideals, means they don't make money if most people don't like them. This can't happen when the operation itself if funded through tax dollars and currency controls.
    - samstave 13y ago
      >...elected officials who promise... We need an accountability contract; You campaign to do XYZ. You sign it. You get elected. After N month you get audited. if you fail - you lose the position.
- 13y ago
pvnick 13y ago
I actually don't have a problem with private surveillance, regardless of purpose. As long as it's legal (!!!), it's probably more effective than what government agencies like the NSA could do with their more intrusive and illegal methods. I would love to see the NSA domestic surveillance done away with and then have some sort of transparent government incentive for companies that can effectively monitor terrorists, dissent groups, disruptive individuals, whatever, legally. Like private investigators looking into terrorist groups. That's fine, and if the public doesn't like what those dollars are being spent on, such as monitoring peaceful protests (and how are police supposed to know the protestors have peaceful intentions unless they look into them? I've seen some nasty things happen at some of the occupy events in Zugatti park...), they can vote the guys out of office who are in charge of designating targets. It's the complete lack of accountability that causes problems...
- gamerdonkey 13y ago
  I have a problem with surveillance in general and I don't think that private surveillance is really any better. Because it still descends from government, I think you'd end up with most of the same problems in addition to problems resulting from trying to make profit. I mean, what surveillance companies are going to get the most contracts and make the most money? The ones that 'discover' dissent groups, non-peaceful demonstrations, and terrorists. Given that these are relatively rare in our society, a business has incentive to forge evidence on groups and hand them over to law enforcement. Since we're just talking surveillance, no real crimes have to be committed. We can't expect the businesses to be transparent in their methods, because that's their competitive advantage. Whatever government agency signing the checks would be just as happy with this as with their own illegal spying, because they get to point to all these 'wins'. I guess my point is that moving a controversial issue from the public sector to the private sector doesn't make it magically better. You can say you're fine with it "as long as it's legal", but that qualifier can be applied to government surveillance, too. The problem is that this kind of surveillance lends itself to corruption. I've seen nasty things happen at Thanksgiving parades. What percentage certainty do we need of a demonstration becoming disruptive before law enforcement comes down on the heads of the organizers? 90%? 50%? How often do you think a protest against the current establishment is going to cross that threshold? Gah, </ramble>
enraged_camel 13y ago
This is normal, expected and working as intended. Adam Smith said it back in 1776 in his book Wealth of Nations: "“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”

198 points by devx 13y ago

danso 13y ago

> Another program, made by Bright Planet and called BlueJay, is billed in a brochure to law enforcement as a "Twitter crime scanner." BlueJay allows cops to covertly monitor accounts and hashtags; three that Bright Planet touts in promotional material are #gunfire, #meth, and #protest. In another promotional document, the company says BlueJay can "monitor large public events, social unrest, gang communications, and criminally predicated individuals," as well as "track department mentions." Bright Planet did not respond to a request for comment. The firehose, which BlueJay presumably collects from, doesn't capture geolocations that aren't already in the public data, right? So it looks like the end of the road for criminals who tweet about their #meth lab and have let Twitter geocode their tweets. Hopefully, that consists of the majority of villains the police have to deal with

thex86 13y ago
It's stupid. That is what it is. The industrial surveillance complex that is being set up, do these companies really think people are that naive? And what makes me even more sad about this is that #meth and #protest are considered as dangerous.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  The Silk Road founder was caught because he was stupid. My friend got robbed at gunpoint this week, her phone and purse were taken. The cops found the suspect because she had Find My iPhone enabled. Simple things often lead to catching bad guys.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    In this context, "stupid" isn't binary. It makes strategic sense for law enforcement to invest in systems that create requirements for criminals to be smart all the time; lots of people can avoid stupidity for short stretches, but far fewer of them can be consistently competent over the long term.
    - res0nat0r 13y ago
      Totally agree.
DanBC 13y ago
Many people in the London riots were using BBM to coordinate rioting or looting. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/aug/08/london-riots-facebook-twitter-blackberry http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/aug/08/london-riots-fa... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/blackberry/8688651/London-riots-how-BlackBerry-Messenger-has-been-used-to-plan-two-nights-of-looting.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/blackberry/8688651/Lon... Blackberry claims to help police. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/aug/09/london-riots-blackberrys-police http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/aug/09/london-rio... http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2011/08/09/blackberrys-rim-helps-police-trace-london-rioters/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2011/08/09/blackberry...

thex86 13y ago

I was kinda expecting Palantir to be on the list. In other words, they should have been. I still find it amazing to see how much true 1984 is becoming. I am sure the next phase is thought control, because "crimes" start there and have to be prevented at all costs. Let's get inside the minds of people and put CCTVs and audio recording devices everywhere. In tables under restaurants, in cars, in buses, every possible place. Crime has to be prevented. The future is scary.

krylonkid 13y ago
Sounds like the UK where you can be jailed for a tweet.
- eigenvector 13y ago
  You can be jailed for a tweet pretty much anywhere if that tweet is a direct, credible threat of violence.
  - krylonkid 13y ago
    In the UK you do jail time if it hurts someone's feelings.
    - sanityinc 13y ago
      The law responsible for that was recently overturned: http://reformsection5.org.uk/ http://reformsection5.org.uk/ In short, it is no longer illegal to use what a policeman or court might judge to be "insulting words or behaviour".
negativity 13y ago
...oh, and let's not leave out the fact that these are private companies. This is not Socialism. This is not INGSOC. Even without the totalitarianism, the very same oppression crops up. Instead of the single Big Brother brand name, it's a cottage industry private security firms acting as thought police. Invisible hand of The Market, indeed.

spiritplumber 13y ago

How do you boycott these folks if they don't sell to the general public?

tokenizer 13y ago
Boycotting only works effectively in a free society. If someone taxes your by force, and hands some of that money to these companies, then short of becoming an elected member of government, you can't do anything about it.
- polymatter 13y ago
  You can campaign and support elected officials who promise not to do so. Of course, in the meantime they could be targeted against you and anyone you associate with.
  - vadman 13y ago
    We know politicians always keep their promises :)
  - tokenizer 13y ago
    That's still not actually doing something about it. IMO voting is the same as praying. I mean, sure; Your ruler may decide to grant one or more of your wishes, but you'll never know if it was them, or simply chance. Also, my point was regarding boycotting, and how free association and volunteerism become ineffective when dealing with government or government sponsored corporations. Boycotting on free market ideals, means they don't make money if most people don't like them. This can't happen when the operation itself if funded through tax dollars and currency controls.
  - samstave 13y ago
    >...elected officials who promise... We need an accountability contract; You campaign to do XYZ. You sign it. You get elected. After N month you get audited. if you fail - you lose the position.
13y ago

pvnick 13y ago

I actually don't have a problem with private surveillance, regardless of purpose. As long as it's legal (!!!), it's probably more effective than what government agencies like the NSA could do with their more intrusive and illegal methods. I would love to see the NSA domestic surveillance done away with and then have some sort of transparent government incentive for companies that can effectively monitor terrorists, dissent groups, disruptive individuals, whatever, legally. Like private investigators looking into terrorist groups. That's fine, and if the public doesn't like what those dollars are being spent on, such as monitoring peaceful protests (and how are police supposed to know the protestors have peaceful intentions unless they look into them? I've seen some nasty things happen at some of the occupy events in Zugatti park...), they can vote the guys out of office who are in charge of designating targets. It's the complete lack of accountability that causes problems...

gamerdonkey 13y ago
I have a problem with surveillance in general and I don't think that private surveillance is really any better. Because it still descends from government, I think you'd end up with most of the same problems in addition to problems resulting from trying to make profit. I mean, what surveillance companies are going to get the most contracts and make the most money? The ones that 'discover' dissent groups, non-peaceful demonstrations, and terrorists. Given that these are relatively rare in our society, a business has incentive to forge evidence on groups and hand them over to law enforcement. Since we're just talking surveillance, no real crimes have to be committed. We can't expect the businesses to be transparent in their methods, because that's their competitive advantage. Whatever government agency signing the checks would be just as happy with this as with their own illegal spying, because they get to point to all these 'wins'. I guess my point is that moving a controversial issue from the public sector to the private sector doesn't make it magically better. You can say you're fine with it "as long as it's legal", but that qualifier can be applied to government surveillance, too. The problem is that this kind of surveillance lends itself to corruption. I've seen nasty things happen at Thanksgiving parades. What percentage certainty do we need of a demonstration becoming disruptive before law enforcement comes down on the heads of the organizers? 90%? 50%? How often do you think a protest against the current establishment is going to cross that threshold? Gah, </ramble>

enraged_camel 13y ago

This is normal, expected and working as intended. Adam Smith said it back in 1776 in his book Wealth of Nations: "“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”