Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area

sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 293 posts

Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area

#131

Post by jflatow »

alva wrote: post #127
bunkydoo wrote: post #111

If I really gave a damn, had 1000 bucks to blow, and had no life I could go plant hidden microphones, pinhole video cameras, and more in just about every conceivable public place too. If anyone argued or brought me to court - I could demonstrate how this is absolutely no different than everyone "secondhand recording" me in their little snap stories and instagrams which do go online forever. My point is, this is some…

> My point is, this is some small potatoes 1980's style shit that is nothing compared to NSA Echelon Absolutely. The "creep" factor of this however is more tangible to the general public so I imagine they will come under significantly more (relative to population size) pressure to answer for this. Microphones hidden under rocks are much easier to understand and perceive as an intrusion and threat, compared to the nat…

It's also eerily reminiscent of the Stasi era. Just take a trip to the Stasi museum next time you are Berlin and perhaps you'll freak out a little too.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/03/lessons-from-...

Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area

#132

Post by partiallypro »

optforfon wrote: post #117
maxxxxx wrote: post #2

If that's true we are moving into a scary world pretty much like 1984 where everything you do is monitored all the time. Add voice, face recognition, surveillance drones, cheap data storage and AI to the mix it seems pretty soon everything you do in a public place will be recorded and analyzed. And all this can be done fully automated. I hope people will recognize that some laws need to change. Surveillance makes sen…

Google has vastly more information on everyone in America. Orders of magnitude. (and by extension maybe foreign intelligence agencies) The government is just playing catch-up! I rather our slightly dysfunctional government have more information about me than an ad company that's the play toy of tech-utopian billionaires

I don't use Google, and prefer they not keep tabs on me all the time...but I think governments have a much...much worse track record on suppressing people than corporations. Google can be wiped from the earth by merely a new invention or a shift in the market to a better product...or financial fraud. Pretty hard to up root an entire legal structure and apparatus that grows every single year and has the ability to jail you or kill you.

What I find terrifying is corporations like Google that have all of this data working hand in hand with the government. This creates two problems, a) the government now has tons more data they shouldn't have giving them more authoritarian abilities and b) that company now has immense lobbying power and can stifle competition for its mere deep relationship with the government. Basically, fascism.

Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area

#133

Post by niccaluim »

jfoutz wrote: post #5
CamperBob2 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's true we are moving into a scary world pretty much like 1984 where everything you do is monitored all the time. Well, not everything. Plant a GPS tracker on a police car or a bug in the restroom at FBI headquarters and you'll soon discover some troubling asymmetries in the modern post-privacy paradigm.

I was thinking the same thing. If no warrant is required then anybody can record whatever they want, right? edit I can't figure out how this could possibly be legal. It seems to me the rule for recording conversations is 1 party consent. [1] There is no way the FBI is participating in those conversations it's recording. I have no problem with law enforcement having special powers, but, isn't that special power a warr…

In California it's two-party consent.

Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area

#134

Post by [deleted] »

nxzero wrote: post #81
jrcii wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've become increasingly convinced that western society will accept anything so long as it's fed, housed, and safe. If that's true, as a society we have a lot of rights that we're not willing to fight for but which the government is highly intent on restricting - an equation for inevitably losing them.

What troubles me most is that I don't know what to say or do, but feel people know this is wrong, yet do nothing.

[deleted]

Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area

#135

Post by themartorana »

optforfon wrote: post #117
maxxxxx wrote: post #2

If that's true we are moving into a scary world pretty much like 1984 where everything you do is monitored all the time. Add voice, face recognition, surveillance drones, cheap data storage and AI to the mix it seems pretty soon everything you do in a public place will be recorded and analyzed. And all this can be done fully automated. I hope people will recognize that some laws need to change. Surveillance makes sen…

Google has vastly more information on everyone in America. Orders of magnitude. (and by extension maybe foreign intelligence agencies) The government is just playing catch-up! I rather our slightly dysfunctional government have more information about me than an ad company that's the play toy of tech-utopian billionaires

Why? One wants you to look at ads more relevant to you than random placement. The other wants you to stay in line, not question your leaders, accept the oligarchy, and if you don't, your life will be made a living hell until you are rendered neutral.

Yeah go government.

Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area

#136

Post by eye2sky »

dredmorbius wrote: post #115
eye2sky wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not David Brin's point[1]. Brin's point is more that the government will inevitably surveil citizens, and since citizens cannot reasonably prevent it, the best option is to try to level the playing field so that citizens can surveil the government back. In other words, reciprocal transparency is the least bad option. [1] Transparent Society, by David Brin

I discuss this pretty regularly with Brin (on G+). We disagree strongly. His point is that souveillance is the solution . I disagree for the reasons expressed by Bruce Schneier (in his famous exchange with Brin) and Yonatan Zunger (in a comment included on my G+ profile page links). Surveillance amplifies power imbalances. Power and People have different mixes of power and vulnerability. Each exploits its strengths a…

I still think you are mischaracterizing Brin. He does not think transparency "solves everything" or is "the solution". He just believes that reciprocal transparency is the least bad option. If there were a better option, such as complete privacy for all, perhaps Brin would prefer that. But realistically, such is not feasible.

Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area

#137

Post by justifier »

aidenn0 wrote: post #126
justifier wrote: post #123

huh? but ca and sf is two party consent? http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-632.html

In many cases federal law trumps state law. State law is likely to not be allowed to hinder a federal investigation. Typically the FBI isn't allowed to record conversations it isn't a party to without a warrant if you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. They are likely going to argue that there is no such expectation of privacy at a public bus stop.

> As the California Supreme Court made clear, federal law (which permits monitoring with the consent of one party) does not preempt more restrictive state eavesdropping laws, even when the monitored communications are interstate. Accordingly, companies that monitor interstate calls for quality control purposes must consult the applicable provisions of state, as well as federal, law. (o)

i feel another commenter, em3rgent0rdr, may have indirectly answered my confusion by stating:

> Even if judges prohibit such evidence on the grounds of it being illegally obtained, you will still find that prosecutors will use that evidence to find other evidence and for constructing a case that doesn't use that illegally obtained evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction (i)

(o) http://www.mofo.com/resources/publications/2006/07/californi...

(i) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11699146

.. completely offtopic, but how unfortunate is that lawfirm's domain?

Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area

#138

Post by cornchips »

bigiain wrote: post #109
cornchips wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hahaha. Can't take a joke? You PC, bro? I was referring to abuse of popup ads and the enormity of the data; over 4000 requests spreading across over 30 mb after a 1:49 video is finished... Obviously, nobody would dump anyone off a bridge for such a thing; but their duties should be... :-)

How do you reckon "Can't take a joke, bro?" is going to play out in court, when the FBI can selectively produce voice-printed recordings of your "conspiracy to commit murder" comments (and claim the rest of the conversation was "unavailable due to technical errors")? And if you don't think the FBI is likely to pull shit like that, how's this sound: "The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearl…

LOL... What voice prints? What conspiracy to commit murder? Was there any planning or intention? You do know that conspiracy must follow intent to commit the offense?

To shorten things up: "Although a person may simply contemplate committing a crime without violating the law, the contemplation becomes unlawful if the same criminal thought is incorporated in an agreement." [1]

1 http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=16...

Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area

#139

Post by [deleted] »

bigiain wrote: post #104
arca_vorago wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would just like to point out something, not entirely focused at you, but because I see that phrase and similar about "well thats democracy for ya.." America is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Democratic Republic. Words have meaning, And I would highly suggest that anyone reading this, begin using that phrase when referencing our government. A democracy is mob rule, and with a "mob" so ruled by propaganda an…

Looks around at my local Australian politics... Nice handbasket here, I wonder where we're going?

[deleted]

Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area

#140

Post by rtpg »

mike_hock wrote: post #4

> If you're going to conduct criminal activity, do it in the privacy of your own home. > That was the original intention of the 4th amendment. Wat. The intention of the 4th amendment was to enable criminal activity, but confine it to private property? Not to protect citizens' privacy from government snooping without probable cause? The intent was to prevent the executive branch from indiscriminately "searching" (and…

The 4th ammendment is meant to protect you from the power imbalance with the government. Or at least that's how it seems to be interpreted by the courts.

Kyllo v. US ruled that heat-cameras mounted on helicopters were considered a "search" and could not be committed without a warrant because most people do not have heat-cameras and helicopters.

But everyone has ears (and microphones obstensibly work as well as ears in public spaces). The government has the right to investigate on the same level as normal citizens, in a way. Binoculars are also fair game, because a lot of people have binoculars.

The "expectation of privacy" is usually evaluated as "if somebody could try to spy on me, would they be able to do so relatively easily?"

In a way, this 4th ammendment interpretation is what protects us from NSA mass-surveillance. Because only very few people have the resources necessary to set up such a network, you can end up with an expectation of privacy.

And while you don't have an expectation of privacy with regards to tor nodes (anybody running a node could be trying to watch you), IIRC expectation of privacy comes in if , as in the recent case, the gov't runs a very large amounts of nodes and cross-references the data to "find" people.

Post reply on HN