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

81–90 of 140 posts

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#81

Post by gonzo41 »

_ah wrote: post #40
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, that they lied about how they got te evidence. Eg, they plant a hidden camera in your house, see you packing drugs and puting them in your car in your own garage, and driving away. Since they got the info that you had the drugs from illegally set cameras, they can't just stop and search your car, but they can "randomly" stop you for a traffic check, and just "randomly" have a drug sniffing dog present…

This already happens. I once had a conversation with a Homeland Security officer at a backyard BBQ, and he said: "When you see on the news that Police randomly stopped a car and discovered a huge cache of drugs... you don't actually think that's random, do you?" TBH I had never thought about it before but now I recognize this pattern everywhere.

That doesn't mean those stops aren't base on intel gained via legal warrants. It's more likely the police are trying to protect a source, either a person or technical means that is providing them greater information.

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#82

Post by stanfordkid »

dllthomas wrote: post #68
bonestamp2 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it already happens and that's why it's a problem. If they discovered that they should "randomly" pull over that vehicle through evidence that was gathered illegally, then it should also be considered a violation of the 4th amendment... which is likely why the EFF has launched this project.

It would be interesting - and likely amusing - to extrapolate how many people must be driving around with huge caches of drugs, based on an assumption that purportedly unrelated traffic stops (or equivalent) were in fact random samples.

I really do think a "google maps" for police activity needs to be created -- including every single arrest, prosecution , subsequent legal claim... you should be able to rate police officers like restaurants on Yelp

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#83

Post by annoyingnoob »

srameshc wrote: post #31

> Police Department signed an agreement with Amazon's home surveillance equipment company, Ring, in 2019 to gain special access to the company's Neighbors app this is the most scary part.

1984

While the programmes could no longer be seen or heard, the screen still functioned as a surveillance device, as after Winston is taken into the Ministry of Love, the audio of his meeting with O'Brien with the telescreen "off" is played back to Winston.

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#84

Post by Cactus2018 »

thewebcount wrote: post #27

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. (…

Commercial system - www.shotspotter.com

(In Baghdad prior to 2009) https://venturebeat.com/2009/04/29/shotspotter-refines-gunsh...

(2013 Washington, DC article with tech overview) https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/shotspotter-de...

(Baltimore, MD 2018 installation) https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-shotspotter...

Recent DC news https://wtop.com/dc/2020/07/court-docs-officer-was-called-aw...

"The D.C. police’s Shotspotter system was turned off for the [Fourth of July, 2020] holiday, presumably because fireworks would have set it off constantly."

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#85

Post by mc32 »

_ah wrote: post #40
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, that they lied about how they got te evidence. Eg, they plant a hidden camera in your house, see you packing drugs and puting them in your car in your own garage, and driving away. Since they got the info that you had the drugs from illegally set cameras, they can't just stop and search your car, but they can "randomly" stop you for a traffic check, and just "randomly" have a drug sniffing dog present…

This already happens. I once had a conversation with a Homeland Security officer at a backyard BBQ, and he said: "When you see on the news that Police randomly stopped a car and discovered a huge cache of drugs... you don't actually think that's random, do you?" TBH I had never thought about it before but now I recognize this pattern everywhere.

They used to say people going the speed limit on the New Jersey turnpike was a tell. I guess it was/is? a major drug trafficking artery.

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#86

Post by Cactus2018 »

kulahan wrote: post #35
thewebcount wrote: post #27

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. (…

From what I've read, by itself, it's not a great system. For example, you can shoot a gun somewhere else to distract officers, and some noises are misclassified as guns (teaching officers to ignore those alarms, making the system ineffective).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/shotspotter-de...

....

Wrapped in a weatherproof container roughly the size of a watermelon, each ShotSpotter sensor combines microphones, hardware, software and a clock linked to the Global Positioning System, which uses satellites and radio navigation to pinpoint precise times and locations.

In the cacophonous urban environment, sensors are calibrated to ignore all sounds except for those that most closely match the “impulsive” sound of an explosion, said James Beldock, a senior vice president for ShotSpotter.

“It’s a very, very sharp wave,” Beldock said. “No other sound works that way.”

The blast of a gun is different from other explosive sounds because it is directional, meaning that the noise changes its frequency as the bullet moves through space. A person may hear a gunshot a half-mile away if the gun is fired toward him. But a person 200 yards away may hear nothing if the gun is fired away from him.

Once sensors register a potential gunshot, they transmit the data to the ShotSpotter computer network for analysis. The computer server compares the time that each sensor logged the sound to calculate the likely location of its source, a process of triangulation and multilateration.

“That sound will reach a sensor 100 yards away at a different time than it reaches a sensor 200 yards away,” Beldock explained.

The more sensors that capture the noise, the more accurate the location. A sound detected by 10 sensors can be located to within two feet, he said.

The computer system also classifies the likely source of the sound based on its sharpness, frequency and consistency across sensors. This is critical, because other impulsive sounds — including fireworks, backfires and helicopters — can also trigger the remote sensors.

....

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#87

Post by mirimir »

_ah wrote: post #40
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, that they lied about how they got te evidence. Eg, they plant a hidden camera in your house, see you packing drugs and puting them in your car in your own garage, and driving away. Since they got the info that you had the drugs from illegally set cameras, they can't just stop and search your car, but they can "randomly" stop you for a traffic check, and just "randomly" have a drug sniffing dog present…

This already happens. I once had a conversation with a Homeland Security officer at a backyard BBQ, and he said: "When you see on the news that Police randomly stopped a car and discovered a huge cache of drugs... you don't actually think that's random, do you?" TBH I had never thought about it before but now I recognize this pattern everywhere.

There's a DEA program called SOD.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R2013...

https://www.deamuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/042215-...

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#88

Post by saghm »

Cactus2018 wrote: post #86
kulahan wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've read, by itself, it's not a great system. For example, you can shoot a gun somewhere else to distract officers, and some noises are misclassified as guns (teaching officers to ignore those alarms, making the system ineffective).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/shotspotter-de... .... Wrapped in a weatherproof container roughly the size of a watermelon, each ShotSpotter sensor combines microphones, hardware, software and a clock linked to the Global Positioning System, which uses satellites and radio navigation to pinpoint precise times and locations. In the cacophonous urban environment, sensors are calibrated to ignore all soun…

> sensors are calibrated to ignore all sounds except for those that most closely match the “impulsive” sound of an explosion

> The blast of a gun is different from other explosive sounds

> “It’s a very, very sharp wave,” Beldock said. “No other sound works that way.”

> Other impulsive sounds — including fireworks, backfires and helicopters — can also trigger the remote sensors

They're calibrated just to hear explosions, and in fact _no other explosive sound works that way_, but then they're triggered by...helicopters? Which are not propelled by explosions?

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#89

Post by peacelilly »

srameshc wrote: post #31

> Police Department signed an agreement with Amazon's home surveillance equipment company, Ring, in 2019 to gain special access to the company's Neighbors app this is the most scary part.

We really need these things to be Closed Circuit by law. Want the data? Get a warrant and seize the device physically. Centralized databases of surveillance information needs to be outlawed criminally.
Post reply on HN