6 ms·

You basically say mass surveillance is (figuratively) "literally Hitler", and you think that's an "unpopular opinion" on HN? Well, have I got some fortunate ne

You basically say mass surveillance is (figuratively) "literally Hitler", and you think that's an "unpopular opinion" on HN? Well, have I got some fortunate news for you... The fact is, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a police department flying an airplane over an area under their jurisdiction with the intent of surveying the area as an intelligence gathering activity. What's actually absurd is the idea that they shouldn't do this. What the hell might you cite as a reason they shouldn't?

cryoshon 12y ago
The cops are already flying their choppers all over Baltimore and back in order to keep track of the protests/rioters. This is something a bit more insidious than simple crowd/crime spotting for ground units. As the article states, this airplane was likely utilizing a few privacy-smashing technologies such as an aerial Stingray (dirtbox) or an ARGOS camera suite, complete with individual identification and tracking for sustained periods of time. Basically, imagine that airplane having the ability to identify individuals, then track their movements and actions around the city for the duration of its loiter time. Without a warrant. Without any oversight. See the problem?
- diminoten2 12y ago
  Anything the BPD is doing to circumvent warrants is obviously bad and needs to stop. I'm not arguing they should be allowed to do any of that stuff. What I am saying is there's nothing inherently wrong with arial surveillance, to the point where everyone who works for companies offering such services is "evil".
  - ska 12y ago
    I think the problem a lot of people have is with the "mass" part, not the "surveillance" part, of mass-surveillance.
    - diminoten2 12y ago
      Really? That's news to me, I thought the issue primarily revolved around "surveillance".
      - ska 12y ago
        I haven't heard anyone complaining about surveillance limited in scope to something with demonstrable cause. It's warrant-less and widespread data gathering and databases (be they license plates, phone records, image/video or what have you) for speculative use that has people concerned, that I've heard.
    - mpyne 12y ago
      Mass surveillance of the type where a warrant would be required individually is problematic. Flying in public airspace taking video of public locations is just another GoPro ad though. Except, apparently, when it's the police taking the video (though in fairness, the Supreme Court has restricted what police can look at and what sensors police can use, even from public airspace). But, I've got a good solution: Strap the cameras onto the police officers in the plane and call it "body cameras" and all of a sudden it's 100% kosher progressive again, no?
      - ska 12y ago
        > Mass surveillance of the type where a warrant would be required individually is problematic. Yes, yes it is. It isn't at all clear that the potential benefits of allowing it outweigh the potential costs.
      - rmxt 12y ago
        I don't see how you can argue you with a straight (or smug, in your case) face that body cameras are the same as unfiltered, mass, indiscriminate and wholesale video recording of an entire metro area. Body cameras are subject to the visual field of the individual police officer. Body cameras are not wide-lens, 360-degree panoramic, 1080p-4k for each 15-30-60 degree sub-field, that can identify hundreds of people in a given frame. If a police officer's body camera has you in focus, then I would say it is reasonable to assume that they are using their discretion in choosing to interact with you. The same cannot be said for aerial surveillance of the sort in the OP. (Cue an argument stating that, "Well, the operator of the drone is using their discretion!" Can the operator of the drone put forth a reasonable suspicion for all that they are recording information on?)
Karunamon 12y ago
Depends on what their gear is. If they're only looking at things an average person can already see, but on a large scale? Eh, can't really argue with that. If it's in the public eye, it ain't private. If they're trying to read the heat coming off of buildings, or laser-micing windows, or otherwise trying to look into areas that are not public, they need to knock it off and get a warrant based on probable cause first.
- beat 12y ago
  The average person cannot rewind the cross-town movements of thousands of individuals simultaneously.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    Sure they can. Drones can be had for very cheap nowadays. And again, what you do in public is available for anyone who cares to look.
    - beat 12y ago
      Then maybe we should be talking about what people (and governments) should do, rather than what they can do. Perhaps you think it's appropriate for the government to record your every step, just in case. I don't.
      - Karunamon 12y ago
        Perhaps, but that's an open question with a different resolution. It would take nothing short of an act of congress, possibly even constitutional amendments to redefine the current legal doctrine surrounding public and private spaces into what you suggest. Me, I find it very hard to get worked up over someone recording what I'm doing in public.
        beat 12y ago
        Not at all. The right to privacy, while not spelled out explicitly in the Constitution, is recognized by the Supreme Court and the basis of most modern boundaries on what government can and cannot do with regard to surveillance without a warrant. New technology that makes it possible to observe "public" behavior in ways that were previously impossible is still subject to the right to privacy, and courts may well rule it intrusive and unconstitutional. Consider the case of license-reading cameras. Not intrusive, right? But that data, not being collected under warrant, is more or less public, at least obtainable via FOIA requests. It's already been demonstrated that this data can be used to trace someone's address (and other critical addresses, like work or favorite stores) quickly. So it's not just a matter of government collecting "public" data... it's making it available to anyone, some of whom may not have your best interests at heart. Now, imagine you have a violent ex who might well kill you if they could find you. I know multiple people in that situation. And government surveillance data, publicly available with a little effort, could find you. Is that okay? Don't mistake your privilege for society's needs.
beat 12y ago
There are limits to jurisdiction, well defined. For example, police cannot enter your home without your permission, unless they have a warrant from a judge. So if the airplane surveillance is being used to collect and act on data that would normally require a warrant, then "jurisdiction" is not sufficient. Even having the ability to do this is problematic in the eyes of many judges and many civilians (it would be the equivalent of saying "Well, we went into the house with a warrant, but we didn't actually search the house..." So I am citing as a reason they should not do this the traditions and precedents of common law.
- diminoten 12y ago
  > So if the airplane surveillance is being used to collect and act on data that would normally require a warrant, then "jurisdiction" is not sufficient. Very true, I agree. However, I don't see any reason why this would be taking place given what we currently know. Arial surveillance has the distinct advantage of safely observing a public area under their jurisdiction. So yes, they shouldn't avoid warrants by way of arial surveillence (e.g. peeping into back yards), but it's (practically speaking) useful to cover a lot of ground (the same ground they'd already cover) quickly.
  - beat 12y ago
    My concern isn't aerial monitoring of large crowds. It's picking out individuals from within those crowds and data-mining their activities before they joined the crowd. That's two removes away from the original idea of aerial surveillance. The ACLU is right to be concerned about it.
- underbluewaters 12y ago
  I'd go further and say the nature of these new technologies changes what observations should be permitted by law enforcement, with or without a warrant. While automated license plate readers may be collecting the same information that police officers can from a public vantage point, the scale that they can be used at changes the nature of the information. Suddenly it can be used to track the movements of everyone in a city. While it's arguably the "same" information, it vastly changes the calculus of the public benefit vs privacy of the individual. We ought to be having a deliberate debate about how to change our laws to reflect the fundamental differences these new technologies bring about. While it may be legal for law enforcement to fly these surveillance missions now, the public has every right to demand that the laws be changed. The police in Baltimore have proven they are incapable of wielding the privileged status they have without systematically oppressing minorities. It makes sense that we roll back some of the surveillance tools they use to prevent dissent.
rmxt 12y ago
You made the Godwin leap that the GP avoided, and putting words in another's mouth like that is an unfortunate way of polarizing discussion. They shouldn't fly an airplane over their jurisdiction without an express specific intent (e.g., hot criminal pursuit of an individual or individuals) because "gathering intelligence" is not their purpose. Are they in a warzone? Are their taxpaying funders now somehow their subjugated and subservient peoples? Why patrol the area as such? "Intelligence" appears nowhere in the Public Laws of Baltimore that set out the Police Department's purpose (starting on pg. 73 of the PDF linked below). http://archive.baltimorecity.gov/Portals/0/Charter%20and%20Codes/ChrtrPLL/02%20-%20PLL.pdf http://archive.baltimorecity.gov/Portals/0/Charter%20and%20C...
- diminoten 12y ago
  You actually think it's possible to perform police activity as outlined in the Public Laws of Baltimore without executing intelligence operations? How would you know when Bad Things are happening? Are you recommending they exclusively perform reactive services?
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    Unstated assumption: that these "intelligence operations" are both legally permitted, and that even if they are, that they prevent enough crime to justify their existence. Not sure either of those things are true.
  - rmxt 12y ago
    I stand fast by the notion that they shouldn't be performing general "intelligence operations", nor should they be recruiting the FBI to so on their behalf. They should be proactively fighting crime, but that doesn't need to (and legally shouldn't) entail wholesale monitoring of everyone in their jurisdiction (and then some, judging by the range of the drones and the involvement of the FBI). Do you actually think that the Baltimore PD has a cogent sense of probable cause and articuable suspicion for everyone that this device is collecting information on? If not, then this thing has no place being in the sky. This is unnecessary dragnet surveillance so that "boys can play with their toys", not proactive crime fighting with good purpose.

cryoshon 12y ago

The cops are already flying their choppers all over Baltimore and back in order to keep track of the protests/rioters. This is something a bit more insidious than simple crowd/crime spotting for ground units. As the article states, this airplane was likely utilizing a few privacy-smashing technologies such as an aerial Stingray (dirtbox) or an ARGOS camera suite, complete with individual identification and tracking for sustained periods of time. Basically, imagine that airplane having the ability to identify individuals, then track their movements and actions around the city for the duration of its loiter time. Without a warrant. Without any oversight. See the problem?

diminoten2 12y ago
Anything the BPD is doing to circumvent warrants is obviously bad and needs to stop. I'm not arguing they should be allowed to do any of that stuff. What I am saying is there's nothing inherently wrong with arial surveillance, to the point where everyone who works for companies offering such services is "evil".
- ska 12y ago
  I think the problem a lot of people have is with the "mass" part, not the "surveillance" part, of mass-surveillance.
  - diminoten2 12y ago
    Really? That's news to me, I thought the issue primarily revolved around "surveillance".
    - ska 12y ago
      I haven't heard anyone complaining about surveillance limited in scope to something with demonstrable cause. It's warrant-less and widespread data gathering and databases (be they license plates, phone records, image/video or what have you) for speculative use that has people concerned, that I've heard.
  - mpyne 12y ago
    Mass surveillance of the type where a warrant would be required individually is problematic. Flying in public airspace taking video of public locations is just another GoPro ad though. Except, apparently, when it's the police taking the video (though in fairness, the Supreme Court has restricted what police can look at and what sensors police can use, even from public airspace). But, I've got a good solution: Strap the cameras onto the police officers in the plane and call it "body cameras" and all of a sudden it's 100% kosher progressive again, no?
    - ska 12y ago
      > Mass surveillance of the type where a warrant would be required individually is problematic. Yes, yes it is. It isn't at all clear that the potential benefits of allowing it outweigh the potential costs.
    - rmxt 12y ago
      I don't see how you can argue you with a straight (or smug, in your case) face that body cameras are the same as unfiltered, mass, indiscriminate and wholesale video recording of an entire metro area. Body cameras are subject to the visual field of the individual police officer. Body cameras are not wide-lens, 360-degree panoramic, 1080p-4k for each 15-30-60 degree sub-field, that can identify hundreds of people in a given frame. If a police officer's body camera has you in focus, then I would say it is reasonable to assume that they are using their discretion in choosing to interact with you. The same cannot be said for aerial surveillance of the sort in the OP. (Cue an argument stating that, "Well, the operator of the drone is using their discretion!" Can the operator of the drone put forth a reasonable suspicion for all that they are recording information on?)

Karunamon 12y ago

Depends on what their gear is. If they're only looking at things an average person can already see, but on a large scale? Eh, can't really argue with that. If it's in the public eye, it ain't private. If they're trying to read the heat coming off of buildings, or laser-micing windows, or otherwise trying to look into areas that are not public, they need to knock it off and get a warrant based on probable cause first.

beat 12y ago
The average person cannot rewind the cross-town movements of thousands of individuals simultaneously.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  Sure they can. Drones can be had for very cheap nowadays. And again, what you do in public is available for anyone who cares to look.
  - beat 12y ago
    Then maybe we should be talking about what people (and governments) should do, rather than what they can do. Perhaps you think it's appropriate for the government to record your every step, just in case. I don't.
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      Perhaps, but that's an open question with a different resolution. It would take nothing short of an act of congress, possibly even constitutional amendments to redefine the current legal doctrine surrounding public and private spaces into what you suggest. Me, I find it very hard to get worked up over someone recording what I'm doing in public.
      - beat 12y ago
        Not at all. The right to privacy, while not spelled out explicitly in the Constitution, is recognized by the Supreme Court and the basis of most modern boundaries on what government can and cannot do with regard to surveillance without a warrant. New technology that makes it possible to observe "public" behavior in ways that were previously impossible is still subject to the right to privacy, and courts may well rule it intrusive and unconstitutional. Consider the case of license-reading cameras. Not intrusive, right? But that data, not being collected under warrant, is more or less public, at least obtainable via FOIA requests. It's already been demonstrated that this data can be used to trace someone's address (and other critical addresses, like work or favorite stores) quickly. So it's not just a matter of government collecting "public" data... it's making it available to anyone, some of whom may not have your best interests at heart. Now, imagine you have a violent ex who might well kill you if they could find you. I know multiple people in that situation. And government surveillance data, publicly available with a little effort, could find you. Is that okay? Don't mistake your privilege for society's needs.

beat 12y ago

There are limits to jurisdiction, well defined. For example, police cannot enter your home without your permission, unless they have a warrant from a judge. So if the airplane surveillance is being used to collect and act on data that would normally require a warrant, then "jurisdiction" is not sufficient. Even having the ability to do this is problematic in the eyes of many judges and many civilians (it would be the equivalent of saying "Well, we went into the house with a warrant, but we didn't actually search the house..." So I am citing as a reason they should not do this the traditions and precedents of common law.

diminoten 12y ago
> So if the airplane surveillance is being used to collect and act on data that would normally require a warrant, then "jurisdiction" is not sufficient. Very true, I agree. However, I don't see any reason why this would be taking place given what we currently know. Arial surveillance has the distinct advantage of safely observing a public area under their jurisdiction. So yes, they shouldn't avoid warrants by way of arial surveillence (e.g. peeping into back yards), but it's (practically speaking) useful to cover a lot of ground (the same ground they'd already cover) quickly.
- beat 12y ago
  My concern isn't aerial monitoring of large crowds. It's picking out individuals from within those crowds and data-mining their activities before they joined the crowd. That's two removes away from the original idea of aerial surveillance. The ACLU is right to be concerned about it.
underbluewaters 12y ago
I'd go further and say the nature of these new technologies changes what observations should be permitted by law enforcement, with or without a warrant. While automated license plate readers may be collecting the same information that police officers can from a public vantage point, the scale that they can be used at changes the nature of the information. Suddenly it can be used to track the movements of everyone in a city. While it's arguably the "same" information, it vastly changes the calculus of the public benefit vs privacy of the individual. We ought to be having a deliberate debate about how to change our laws to reflect the fundamental differences these new technologies bring about. While it may be legal for law enforcement to fly these surveillance missions now, the public has every right to demand that the laws be changed. The police in Baltimore have proven they are incapable of wielding the privileged status they have without systematically oppressing minorities. It makes sense that we roll back some of the surveillance tools they use to prevent dissent.

rmxt 12y ago

You made the Godwin leap that the GP avoided, and putting words in another's mouth like that is an unfortunate way of polarizing discussion. They shouldn't fly an airplane over their jurisdiction without an express specific intent (e.g., hot criminal pursuit of an individual or individuals) because "gathering intelligence" is not their purpose. Are they in a warzone? Are their taxpaying funders now somehow their subjugated and subservient peoples? Why patrol the area as such? "Intelligence" appears nowhere in the Public Laws of Baltimore that set out the Police Department's purpose (starting on pg. 73 of the PDF linked below). http://archive.baltimorecity.gov/Portals/0/Charter%20and%20Codes/ChrtrPLL/02%20-%20PLL.pdf http://archive.baltimorecity.gov/Portals/0/Charter%20and%20C...

diminoten 12y ago
You actually think it's possible to perform police activity as outlined in the Public Laws of Baltimore without executing intelligence operations? How would you know when Bad Things are happening? Are you recommending they exclusively perform reactive services?
- Karunamon 12y ago
  Unstated assumption: that these "intelligence operations" are both legally permitted, and that even if they are, that they prevent enough crime to justify their existence. Not sure either of those things are true.
- rmxt 12y ago
  I stand fast by the notion that they shouldn't be performing general "intelligence operations", nor should they be recruiting the FBI to so on their behalf. They should be proactively fighting crime, but that doesn't need to (and legally shouldn't) entail wholesale monitoring of everyone in their jurisdiction (and then some, judging by the range of the drones and the involvement of the FBI). Do you actually think that the Baltimore PD has a cogent sense of probable cause and articuable suspicion for everyone that this device is collecting information on? If not, then this thing has no place being in the sky. This is unnecessary dragnet surveillance so that "boys can play with their toys", not proactive crime fighting with good purpose.