Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US • Hacker News Board

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#131

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 03, 2019, 6:44 AM UTC

t-a4550 wrote: post #129

apo wrote: post #49

> The new balloons promise a cheap surveillance platform that could follow multiple cars and boats for extended periods. And because winds often travel in different directions at different altitudes, the balloons can usually hover over a given area simply by ascending or descending. Stepping back from the details of this story reveals a striking pattern that most public discussions on mass surveillance miss entirely.…

> “Today it's the war on drugs and terror. Tomorrow it's something else.” > “This train has one destination, and it's not even clear if there will be any stops along the way. To understand where we're headed, try reading the Bill of Rights with the assumption that your government knows everything there is to know about you, and where those who attempt to reveal the extent of these capabilities are imprisoned or execu…

[deleted]

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#132

Post by whatshisface » Sat, Aug 03, 2019, 6:49 AM UTC

t-a4550 wrote: post #129

apo wrote: post #49

> The new balloons promise a cheap surveillance platform that could follow multiple cars and boats for extended periods. And because winds often travel in different directions at different altitudes, the balloons can usually hover over a given area simply by ascending or descending. Stepping back from the details of this story reveals a striking pattern that most public discussions on mass surveillance miss entirely.…

> “Today it's the war on drugs and terror. Tomorrow it's something else.” > “This train has one destination, and it's not even clear if there will be any stops along the way. To understand where we're headed, try reading the Bill of Rights with the assumption that your government knows everything there is to know about you, and where those who attempt to reveal the extent of these capabilities are imprisoned or execu…

Can anyone really justify why dictators are bad without resorting to "and they do something bad?" I mean, you couldn't even explain to me why you wouldn't want me as a cosigner on your bank account without resorting to something like, "and then whatshisface does something bad." I think it's reasonable to believe in a slippery slope between "gun is pointed" and "gun is fired." I mean, just to play devil's advocate, you could make me a cosigner and I could help you manage your finances.

You can't prove that dictatorial powers won't be used to perfectly simulate democracy, after all absolute power means the power to hold elections. Likewise, I can't prove that after the surveillance system is completed the government won't put black paper over all their computer screens and never look at anything. But, somehow, that doesn't really change my outlook.

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#133

Post by eitland » Sat, Aug 03, 2019, 6:50 AM UTC

lonelappde wrote: post #80

cherrypicker001 wrote: post #24

I saw a BBC short video while in Europe last summer. It was surreal. The video was basically showing how awesome these aerial surveillance platforms were. At one point the reporter walked out of the control center and started dancing outside. It looked like he was having a lot of fun watching himself from a few thousand feet up. If anyone manages to find it please post it. There was no talk about the privacy implicat…

Hey the good news for us is the ones in the US don't have self-guided missiles attached, right?

FWIW "Kill Decision" describes one scenario where they do have missiles attached.

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#134

Post by vtkacenko » Sat, Aug 03, 2019, 6:58 AM UTC

bob7834 wrote: post #67

apo wrote: post #49

> The new balloons promise a cheap surveillance platform that could follow multiple cars and boats for extended periods. And because winds often travel in different directions at different altitudes, the balloons can usually hover over a given area simply by ascending or descending. Stepping back from the details of this story reveals a striking pattern that most public discussions on mass surveillance miss entirely.…

I’ve maintained for a long time that the only reason we have a “war on terror” is that the ability of the “war on drugs” to strip us of our civil liberties had mostly run its course by 2001. These are the political issues I care most about. I really hoped Obama would curtail the surveillance state. For 8 years I thought “soon, he will try to rollback the patriot act.” That never happened. Instead, we got assisinated…

There was JFK..

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#135

Post by ctrl-j » Sat, Aug 03, 2019, 6:59 AM UTC

t-a4550 wrote: post #129

apo wrote: post #49

> The new balloons promise a cheap surveillance platform that could follow multiple cars and boats for extended periods. And because winds often travel in different directions at different altitudes, the balloons can usually hover over a given area simply by ascending or descending. Stepping back from the details of this story reveals a striking pattern that most public discussions on mass surveillance miss entirely.…

> “Today it's the war on drugs and terror. Tomorrow it's something else.” > “This train has one destination, and it's not even clear if there will be any stops along the way. To understand where we're headed, try reading the Bill of Rights with the assumption that your government knows everything there is to know about you, and where those who attempt to reveal the extent of these capabilities are imprisoned or execu…

> Devil’s advocate here. Who’s to say they won’t use it strictly to deter drug trafficking and terrorism? Couldn’t they take steps to be transparent about what data is collected, and where it goes?

What systems would you put into place to prevent abuse?

What about bad cops who would misappropriate the intel?

What would prevent them from tracking non-terrorist/drug related individuals?

How do you prevent citizens from being followed and tracked without a warrant?

And if misuse or abuse does happen, how is that transparently shared with the victim?

This is a weak place to argue that slippery slope doesn't apply, since the government has already had a lot of incidents in the recent past where they said they weren't doing certain surveillance - and then it was leaked that they actually were...

If you could say 100% that these balloons will only ever capture data based on legal warrants - we might have something to discuss. However, I can't think of a system that would guarantee that.

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#136

Post by NhanH » Sat, Aug 03, 2019, 7:00 AM UTC

t-a4550 wrote: post #129

apo wrote: post #49

> The new balloons promise a cheap surveillance platform that could follow multiple cars and boats for extended periods. And because winds often travel in different directions at different altitudes, the balloons can usually hover over a given area simply by ascending or descending. Stepping back from the details of this story reveals a striking pattern that most public discussions on mass surveillance miss entirely.…

> “Today it's the war on drugs and terror. Tomorrow it's something else.” > “This train has one destination, and it's not even clear if there will be any stops along the way. To understand where we're headed, try reading the Bill of Rights with the assumption that your government knows everything there is to know about you, and where those who attempt to reveal the extent of these capabilities are imprisoned or execu…

It's about the priori. The common slippery slope you mention comes from people who believe that historically government abuses power to the extend that they can get away it, and whoever claims otherwise are the one that needs to provide evidence. Of course if you have the opposite priori, then you will ask for the opposite kind of evidence.

I tend to go with the former, since liberal democracies are rarer than totalitarianism and the like.

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#137

Post by rosser » Sat, Aug 03, 2019, 7:09 AM UTC

sprafa wrote: post #102

bob7834 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that Hollywood profits are at a two decade low[1], it’s not clear that’s true. [1] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/01/why-hollywood-as-we-...

They’re low because of television. Hollywood is a cred game. The actual money since the 1950s has been on television. In fact Hollywood has never been as profitable, inflation adjusted, as it was before the commodification of television sets. Source: I study history of film. To think of Hollywood in the 20s, 30s and 40s - think of Silicon Valley. Entire cities were made in huge lots behind LA studios. Nobody does tha…

I've ha-ha-only-seriously described Hollywood as a complicated, interrelated set of financial instruments which as a by-product also produces movies for a while now.

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#138

Post by WarOnPrivacy » Sat, Aug 03, 2019, 7:13 AM UTC

im3w1l wrote: post #57

apo wrote: post #49

> The new balloons promise a cheap surveillance platform that could follow multiple cars and boats for extended periods. And because winds often travel in different directions at different altitudes, the balloons can usually hover over a given area simply by ascending or descending. Stepping back from the details of this story reveals a striking pattern that most public discussions on mass surveillance miss entirely.…

> government, law enforcement The thing is when it gets cheap enough, other players start enter the game too. Companies. Criminal gangs. Or even private individuals. A situation of "if surveillance is outlawed, only outlaws will have surveillance" should be taken into account.

>The thing is when it gets cheap enough, other players start enter the game too. Companies. Criminal gangs. >Or even private individuals.

This last is the worthwhile part. The problem isn't surveillance, it's disproportional surveillance.

That is, people in power can only control the public while they retain a monopoly on power.

Since bulk surveillance is coming, the best outcome is equal surveillance and equal access.

Postscript: Privacy laws tend to lock you and I away from data, not powerful people who ruin lives.

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#139

Post by gsk22 » Sat, Aug 03, 2019, 7:20 AM UTC

lonelappde wrote: post #75

throwaway94232 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I already do this with the cameras that are in an increasing number of airplane seat backs.

Oh, charming: airplanes now have cameras installed against the will of the airlines operating the planes . https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/3022742002

Where does the article say it is against the airline's will? It only says that the airlines have never activated the camera, and currently have no plans to.

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#140

Post by wskinner » Sat, Aug 03, 2019, 7:22 AM UTC

t-a4550 wrote: post #129

apo wrote: post #49

> The new balloons promise a cheap surveillance platform that could follow multiple cars and boats for extended periods. And because winds often travel in different directions at different altitudes, the balloons can usually hover over a given area simply by ascending or descending. Stepping back from the details of this story reveals a striking pattern that most public discussions on mass surveillance miss entirely.…

> “Today it's the war on drugs and terror. Tomorrow it's something else.” > “This train has one destination, and it's not even clear if there will be any stops along the way. To understand where we're headed, try reading the Bill of Rights with the assumption that your government knows everything there is to know about you, and where those who attempt to reveal the extent of these capabilities are imprisoned or execu…

The people in power today aren’t the people in power tomorrow. Even if you trust those in power today, do you trust the next 10 administrations to have sufficient restraint not to abuse their power?