191–200 of 516 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a use for this that isn’t to enable criminals?
I don’t see how you can have it both ways. Any privacy protections for the average law-abiding citizen is going to help out the criminals too.
The big deal here is not the technology, it is that the FBI is involved in tracking participation of a protest. For the past year we have had not-always-fully-peaceful riots with many deaths and tremendous amount of property loss. Through all this, the FBI never breathed down the neck of the protestors- not even those who could have been actually committing a crime. Most of the people who went to DC did so peacefully…
If the riotors in Portland decided to travel to DC en masse to take down the US government, to hang members of Congress, you betchya it would be the same.
I condemn all violence but there is a major difference of the context.
The big deal here is not the technology, it is that the FBI is involved in tracking participation of a protest. For the past year we have had not-always-fully-peaceful riots with many deaths and tremendous amount of property loss. Through all this, the FBI never breathed down the neck of the protestors- not even those who could have been actually committing a crime. Most of the people who went to DC did so peacefully…
- https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/06/the-fbi-has-identified-...
- https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/fbi-survei...
- https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/fbi-...
The big deal here is not the technology, it is that the FBI is involved in tracking participation of a protest. For the past year we have had not-always-fully-peaceful riots with many deaths and tremendous amount of property loss. Through all this, the FBI never breathed down the neck of the protestors- not even those who could have been actually committing a crime. Most of the people who went to DC did so peacefully…
The big deal here is not the technology, it is that the FBI is involved in tracking participation of a protest. For the past year we have had not-always-fully-peaceful riots with many deaths and tremendous amount of property loss. Through all this, the FBI never breathed down the neck of the protestors- not even those who could have been actually committing a crime. Most of the people who went to DC did so peacefully…
This is similar to 2011 England riots where end result was "By 15 August 2011 around 3,100 people had been arrested, of whom over 1,100 had appeared in court"
As I remember, they went pretty hard in England as well, a judge stated that "an overwhelming obligation on sentencing courts to do what they can to ensure the protection of the public", that "the imposition of severe sentences, intended to provide both punishment and deterrence, must follow" and that "[t]hose who deliberately participate in disturbances of this magnitude, causing injury and damage and fear to even the most stout-hearted of citizens, and who individually commit further crimes during the course of the riots are committing aggravated crimes".
Also, what do you expect them to do after 2 police officers were killed on tape, one lady got killed by her stupidity, pipe bombs found, imbeciles looking for Pelosi to hang... Computers with potentially sensitive data stolen... and god knows what foreign agents could have taken/compromised just blending in...
What would you do if you were in charge of the investigation?
The big deal here is not the technology, it is that the FBI is involved in tracking participation of a protest. For the past year we have had not-always-fully-peaceful riots with many deaths and tremendous amount of property loss. Through all this, the FBI never breathed down the neck of the protestors- not even those who could have been actually committing a crime. Most of the people who went to DC did so peacefully…
I don’t think this has anything to do with “right” or “left”, it has to do with illegally breaking into the Capitol, especially while congress was present. A group of left leaning trespassers would likely have seen, and deserved, a similar response.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you share some resources with more information on this- how does it increase granularity?
Here's Verizon's explainer [1] about how 5G works. Basically, since the frequencies needed to transmit large amounts of data are so high (28 - 39 GHz millimeter wavelength bands), the signal does not reach as far as a 4G tower. Therefore, a higher density of towers is needed (500 feet apart to effectively penetrate buildings [2]), allowing for higher granularity cell-phone triangulation/tracking as a by-product. [1]…
[1] Give it a few minutes and it'll pin point where my desk is inside my office.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a use for this that isn’t to enable criminals?
I don’t see how you can have it both ways. Any privacy protections for the average law-abiding citizen is going to help out the criminals too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding 3 I’ve been thinking of launching a courier service for this that would pollute data on a wide scale. Basically a “phone walking” service that also charges your phone. Could just be a side gig for Uber drivers, having phone lock boxes in their cars. The infrastructure is already there, phone lock boxes for charging exist in airports and nightclubs. This would be one that moves.
Is there a use for this that isn’t to enable criminals?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
3 raises a very interesting and somewhat concerning possibility. In the near future as AI develops more in the crime detection arena you may become a suspect for crimes occurring in your geographical area based on things you are not doing or based on some set of states your smart devices have that match a statistical model of a suspicious person. The idea of becoming a suspect because you didn’t touch your smartphone…
ML is really good at picking up anomalies, and that is scary if, say, law enforcement or prosecutors are doing dragnet surveillance for anomalies in order to drum up charges.