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

151–160 of 293 posts

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

#151

Post by raquo »

awqrre wrote: post #36
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…

We are moving in a scary world... technology is nice but it makes monitoring too easy. As I see it, updated laws is the only thing that can save us... One of so many examples would be to get rid of car license plates.

I feel that car license plates are a reasonable compromise.

A car provides you with an ability to inflict a lot of damage AND with an ability to escape from the scene quickly. Think hit and runs, road rage, dangerous driving, drunk driving, driving without license, etc.

I'll definitely take lack of anonymity when driving over having to deal with the millions of unaccountable assholes.

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

#152

Post by jflatow »

rayiner wrote: post #143
themartorana wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The government doesn't need to coerce the average person to stay in line. The government is the instrument through which the average person forces the fringe elements to stay in line. The average person, thus, has a lot more to fear from corporations than from the government.

Perhaps you are mistaking the ideal government from the actual government. Governments are repeat offenders, and they lie to the public constantly. Its no secret - look it up. Yet they are so powerful, that it happens anyway.

Its also no secret that the people who control the government have interests in retaining power and accumulating wealth. Politicians don't even deny that they can be bought, money is free speech after all (http://www.amendmentgazette.com/how-spending-money-became-a-...). Congressmen spend more than half of their time fundraising for a reason.

The policies and actions of the government are not intended to protect you, even though sometimes your interests are aligned.

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

#153

Post by srtjstjsj »

awqrre wrote: post #74
dragonwriter wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it will make hit and runs easier to get away with. It won't make liability insurance worse, but it will make coverage that pays for damages in those cases much more expensive.

and let me guess, it will make terrorists harder to catch. most newer cars already broadcast their locations to the car manufacturer ( http://www.businessinsider.com/ford-exec-gps-2014-1 )

The article does not corroborate your claims at all.

> Rather, Ford cars have several on-board services such as "Sync Services Directions" (a navigation device that works with drivers' phones) and 911 Assist, which users have to switch on and opt into. And employers can use a service called "Crew Chief" to monitor their corporate car fleet.

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

#154

Post by rayiner »

jfoutz wrote: post #72
rayiner wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether a warrant is required is a federal Constitutional question. Requiring consent to record a conversation is a statutory creation (and state law at that). State law doesn't define what does or does not violate the Constitution.

It's also federal. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511

That would only apply if the jurisdictional predicate (effect on interstate commerce) were met, which I don't think would be the case here.

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

#155

Post by smsm42 »

imaginenore wrote: post #46
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…

You can't have an expectation of privacy in public places. Facial recognition can be beat by a hat + sunglasses (which is the hugest plot hole in Person of Interest, the characters never even attempt to disguise themselves).

If you followed PoI closely enough (if you did not: spoiler alert!), the main characters do not have to disguise themselves from Samaritan because they snuck in a patch that literally makes Samaritan blind when it sees them. For one reason or another, Samaritan or its accomplices can not locate and remove that patch. That, of course, does not prevent Samaritan from figuring out where they are by other means (like tracking their actions, accomplices, vehicles, etc.) and from Samaritan agents to see them in plain old ways. But by the time a team of dozen commandos comes in guns blazing, it's too late to get the hat on. They would probably disregard the hat.

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

#156

Post by geggam »

bigiain wrote: post #73
acchow wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not to protect citizens' privacy from government snooping without probable cause? > The fact that you can "conduct criminal activity in the privacy of your own home" is a side effect, not a design goal, of the principle that a free society is worth the risk of letting a few criminals slip through the cracks. You can't really separate the two ideas. If you look hard enough, every single person is a criminal. That's…

This is a much deeper problem - there are so many laws, and so little public knowledge of many of them, that it's pretty close to being true that anyone the government wants to coerce into doing something against their own interest can probably be threatened with being charged with something (with at least reasonable chance of success in convicting). When the best unpaid legal advice you can find says "Don't talk to…

When "every single person is a criminal",

That is tyranny ^

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

#158

Post by rayiner »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #148
rayiner wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how that's relevant. The whole point of the government is for it to have a monopoly on law enforcement. They're supposed to be able to do stuff you and I can't do.

That's not the whole point of government, that is a radical statist perspective. See, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles > the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

It's a statist perspective, but hardly radically-so.

From your link:

> The Home Office has explained this approach as "the power of the police coming from the common consent of the public, as opposed to the power of the state. It does not mean the consent of an individual. No individual can choose to withdraw his or her consent from the police, or from a law."

That's the difference between the police and private citizens. Interactions between private citizens must be consensual. Policing, at some level, must necessarily be coercive.

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

#159

Post by [deleted] »

bitL wrote: post #97
imaginenore wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't have an expectation of privacy in public places. Facial recognition can be beat by a hat + sunglasses (which is the hugest plot hole in Person of Interest, the characters never even attempt to disguise themselves).

Your walking style identifies you better than face. Are you going to walk differently once you put a hat and sunglasses on?

[deleted]

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

#160

Post by scrollaway »

imaginenore wrote: post #46
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…

You can't have an expectation of privacy in public places. Facial recognition can be beat by a hat + sunglasses (which is the hugest plot hole in Person of Interest, the characters never even attempt to disguise themselves).

To address your point on Person of Interest (an absolutely wonderful series, recommended to the entire HN audience): There's several instances where the main characters disguise themselves. But it's not practical for general purpose - There is more than facial recognition at play - voice recognition, process of elimination etc and there is no trouble tracking already-identified targets.
Post reply on HN