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

111–120 of 140 posts

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#111

Post by skrebbel »

throwawayway9 wrote: post #103
peacelilly wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Warrants are extremely easy to get, basically rubber stamped. It's so bad that LE will put in things they know are outright unconstitutional, knowing the magistrate won't really read it or care about citizen's rights.

Even an extremely easy to get warrant takes both time and effort, by multiple people, to get. It's incomparable to an automatic feed to all the Ring cameras in a neighbourhood.

It's the difference between surveillance and mass surveillance. The latter is the bigger problem and warrants will solve it.

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#112

Post by jimmySixDOF »

While there is a listing for Drones, I think they may need to add a category for when they are deployed in a Pervasive Wide Area mode like as in "Eyes in the Sky: The Secret Rise of Gorgon Stare and How It Will Watch Us All" [1] as trialed in Baltimore [2] sometime back. Who knows what the current state of play is for this?

[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40796190-eyes-in-the-sky

[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/08/milit...

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#113

Post by mtgx »

easterncalculus wrote: post #101
peacelilly wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine It would go against this and lots of legal precedent supporting it, so definitely an uphill battle.

Even so, going by how slow most bad slows are declared unconstitutional, it could give us a good 20-30 years of not having such surveillance.

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#114

Post by kongtse »

opless wrote: post #93

Why is there nothing in the UK or EU ?

if you read it right, it's all in the construction. so you or better everyone should share this page, as well as if you want to contribute something, register there https://atlasofsurveillance.org/collaborate

https://supporters.eff.org/collaborate-atlas-surveillance

so that the whole thing can also be further developed worldwide

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#115

Post by ajsnigrutin »

dllthomas wrote: post #50
kls wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the end does not justify the means, due to the fact that it is a violation of their 4th Amendment specifically the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. Illegal searches are illegal no matter the sound basis after the fact. As an order of our society, historically police where not supposed to go looking for crime. They where commissioned to enforce the law. One cannot enforce the law b…

All of that is true, and nonetheless the parent comment stands: it will be rhetorically more convincing if you show how this negatively impacts the law-abiding.

Like having a police officer watch you shower, jerk off, and eat pizza in your underwear every day, in your own home, while you have no drugs there, but they think you do?

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#116

Post by ajsnigrutin »

JoeSmithson wrote: post #37
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…

Yes, but what if the cameras are not illegally placed, but in fact put there with a warrant. Then there is nothing illegal going on at all, but it would still be in LE interest to parallel how they know about the drugs, so that they can continue using the camera and maybe find out where the next shipment is going to be as well.

Then the judge would be aware of the warrant, and wouldnt throw the evidence away, because it would be obtained legally.

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#117

Post by ajsnigrutin »

_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.

Technically it could be random....

If you "did nothing wrong", you also drive like you did nothing wrong (5-10 over), hit some yellow lights, etc.

If you know you have a bag of drugs in your car, and a police vehicle pulls at a stop next to you, you can panic.

Also if they do stop you, becase you (eg.) didnt use your turn signal, most people just sigh., give some excuse ("I wanted to, but that black car came, and i had to go around, and the cat, and the wipers, and this and that"), and calmly wait for a ticket... people with drugs usually act different.

And thirdly, police usually know all the drug dealers in their area, know their cars, and just have to catch them with enough drugs to make it worthwile.... so they probably get stopped a bit more often than a normal random commuter does, even if neither of them use turn signals regularly.

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#118

Post by JoeSmithson »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #116
JoeSmithson wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but what if the cameras are not illegally placed, but in fact put there with a warrant. Then there is nothing illegal going on at all, but it would still be in LE interest to parallel how they know about the drugs, so that they can continue using the camera and maybe find out where the next shipment is going to be as well.

Then the judge would be aware of the warrant, and wouldnt throw the evidence away, because it would be obtained legally.

Yes that's precisely my point - there would still be parallel construction but there would be nothing illegal

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#119

Post by deftnerd »

laughinghan wrote: post #62
dllthomas wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I am accused of a crime, I have the right to face my accusers and contest all of the evidence against me. Parallel construction is deliberately depriving me of that right, by lying in court. The fact that it's common shouldn't make us lose track of that.

This isn't a very good argument against parallel construction, because you are able to contest all of the evidence being used in court against you. I don't think arguing against the legitimacy of the investigative means used to acquire evidence is ever an admissible argument by which to contest that evidence before a jury. If those investigative means were a poisonous tree, that's an argument you make to the judge to…

that's incorrect, you're allowed to also have access to evidence the prosecutor doesn't reference directly. For instance, if there is some evidence that someone else committed a crime such as existence of security footage or DNA evidence, they're required to produce it along with all the other evidence during discovery. Of course they might not use that conflicting evidence in court, but it was gathered and thus is legally obligated to be given to the defense.

Withholding evidence from the defense is very incompatible with our justice system.

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#120

Post by throwaway0a5e »

skrebbel wrote: post #111
throwawayway9 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Warrants are extremely easy to get, basically rubber stamped. It's so bad that LE will put in things they know are outright unconstitutional, knowing the magistrate won't really read it or care about citizen's rights.

Even an extremely easy to get warrant takes both time and effort, by multiple people, to get. It's incomparable to an automatic feed to all the Ring cameras in a neighbourhood. It's the difference between surveillance and mass surveillance. The latter is the bigger problem and warrants will solve it.

>Even an extremely easy to get warrant takes both time and effort,

And most importantly a paper trail that can be picked apart in court.

Post reply on HN