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

Atlas of Surveillance

atlasofsurveillance.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 140 posts

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#21

Post by richierich93 »

AWildC182 wrote: post #4
netcan wrote: post #3

Does anyone know what's going on in florida with face recognition?

Reading through a couple of the descriptions it looks like they have a state-wide database for searching face images against FL driver's licence photos. Since all the departments are signed onto the system, they all get the symbol but there may be other reasons/more invasive systems mixed in with the clutter so take that for what it's worth.

I live over in West Palm Beach / Palm Beach. The security is nuts. Cameras and high gain antennas all over.

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#22

Post by frandroid »

JoeSmithson wrote: post #19
lmkg wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The principle of the "Fruit of the Poisoned Tree" says that if $A is inadmissible, then evidence derived from $A is inadmissible. The perjury is claiming (possibly a lie by omission) that $B was not derived from $A. Sometimes this involves a (more direct) lie inventing an alternate history for $B. Perjury may or may not be the correct or most applicable transgression. Point is, if $A is what led to the collection of…

That's not right at all. Loads of stuff is inadmissible as evidence but not illegal. For example, in many countries phone intercept is inadmissible. For example, in The Wire, they might hear a drug deal being arranged on the phones, then arrange to be on patrol with a drug dog and find the stash. The phone recording would be inadmissible (even though it would help the prosecution), the evidence used to prosecute woul…

If the evidence they're hearing on the phone is not admissible, there's a good chance it's because they're listening through illegitimate means as well, hmm?

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#23

Post by JoeSmithson »

frandroid wrote: post #20
JoeSmithson wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing inherently wrong with parallel construction, it just means concealing a source. It seems like you have probably leant the term in the context of illegally obtained information, but that is orthogonal to concealing a source. Parallel construction is a completely normal and legitimate process. People who use it like a spooky term akin to "enhanced interrogation" or "extraordinary rendition" are just lo…

So you're fine with money laundering as well? Because parallel construction is inadmissible evidence laundering.

> "So you're fine with money laundering as well?"

Is this your best effort attempt at assuming good faith?

> "parallel construction is inadmissible evidence laundering."

Well, it's concealing a source, which is what I said. If you have an informant who's life would be in danger if they were revealed, then anything they tell you would have to be paralleled. There's nothing illegal about their evidence, they would just never testify to it.

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#25

Post by frandroid »

JoeSmithson wrote: post #23
frandroid wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're fine with money laundering as well? Because parallel construction is inadmissible evidence laundering.

> "So you're fine with money laundering as well?" Is this your best effort attempt at assuming good faith? > "parallel construction is inadmissible evidence laundering." Well, it's concealing a source, which is what I said. If you have an informant who's life would be in danger if they were revealed, then anything they tell you would have to be paralleled. There's nothing illegal about their evidence, they would just…

It's perjury. Read the other replies. There's nothing good faith about perjury. If you're trying to protect a source, get the source protected by a court order.

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#26

Post by RichardHeart »

apazzolini wrote: post #10
pc86 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuinely curious, in what context is it perjury? My understanding of parallel construction is: 1. Officer receives information $A through inadmissible means (which may be illegal, but not necessarily) 2. With information $A, officer is able to "prove" that a suspect perpetrated a given crime 3. Officer pieces together proof from possible unrelated, but admissible evidence - $B and $C, let's say. 4. And this is the p…

1. Officer receives information $A through inadmissible means (which may be illegal, but not necessarily) 2. With information $A, officer is able to "prove" that a suspect perpetrated a given crime 3. Knowing information $A, officer makes up bullshit showing that he reached $A solely from investigating leads from $B and $C. 4. $A is now admissible because the officer can show a link leading to $A from $B and $C, but…

This is called parallel construction.

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#27

Post by thewebcount »

It's really interesting to me that in Los Angeles, we have every technology except for "Gunshot Detection". Anyone know why? It seems like one of the less intrusive forms of surveillance. Isn't this the thing that turns a series of cameras in the direction of a very loud sound? Seems less harmful than specifically copying down every license plate that drives by an intersection, or every face that enters a building. (Which isn't to say they should have it, just that it's an odd omission.)

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#28

Post by JoeSmithson »

frandroid wrote: post #22
JoeSmithson wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not right at all. Loads of stuff is inadmissible as evidence but not illegal. For example, in many countries phone intercept is inadmissible. For example, in The Wire, they might hear a drug deal being arranged on the phones, then arrange to be on patrol with a drug dog and find the stash. The phone recording would be inadmissible (even though it would help the prosecution), the evidence used to prosecute woul…

If the evidence they're hearing on the phone is not admissible, there's a good chance it's because they're listening through illegitimate means as well, hmm?

No, not necessarily. In the UK, for example, all phone intercept is always inadmissible.

The main incentive for paralleling something is to protect the source, to maintain its effectiveness.

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#29

Post by elihu »

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #2

There is no surveillance tech anyone can invent that won't be used at home against the domestic populace. And I do mean against. Parallel construction has become just another tool in the arsenal of control.

The other side of that is that most of these surveillance technologies could potentially be used by the population against the police and public officials.

For instance, protesters don't exactly wear body cameras, but they have been using cell phone cameras to document police violence. Many of the other technologies listed (license plate readers, facial recognition, etc..) could also be used, though it would be harder to use those things as effectively as cameras are used now.

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#30

Post by JoeSmithson »

frandroid wrote: post #25
JoeSmithson wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "So you're fine with money laundering as well?" Is this your best effort attempt at assuming good faith? > "parallel construction is inadmissible evidence laundering." Well, it's concealing a source, which is what I said. If you have an informant who's life would be in danger if they were revealed, then anything they tell you would have to be paralleled. There's nothing illegal about their evidence, they would just…

It's perjury. Read the other replies. There's nothing good faith about perjury. If you're trying to protect a source, get the source protected by a court order.

I have read the other replies, that don't appear to have been made by anyone with any experience of parallel construction.
Post reply on HN