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

Drone ‘Nightmare Scenario’ Now Has A Name: ARGUS

aclu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 95 posts

Re: Drone ‘Nightmare Scenario’ Now Has A Name: ARGUS

#81

Post by pcrh »

nonamegiven wrote: post #75
cromwellian wrote: post #7

I'm afraid the genie is out of the bottle. ARGUS uses mobile phone sensors. Cameras are becoming almost "too cheap to meter", and too small to notice. Billions of people now walk around with mobile phone cameras, so chances are you're going to be recorded by someone in public, especially as cameras continue to evolve. It may be some small consolation that consumer cameras are ground level, and decentralized, where as…

The danger and difference is that governments that use these capabilities are dangerous. Not only can they rightly or wrongly harm individuals, they can do so for whole populations. If you were shunned (rightly or wrongly) by your village for some observed or inferred transgression, you could go somewhere else. There is no longer somewhere else.

Being ostracized by one's village was often a death sentence. With no mutual protection against wild animals and no stored food, only the hardy would survive.

Re: Drone ‘Nightmare Scenario’ Now Has A Name: ARGUS

#82

Post by nitrogen »

philwelch wrote: post #77
smackay wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the simple reason that not everyone you deal with is altruistic and has your best interests at heart. "anything [said] can and will be used against [the defendant] in the court of public opinion". Release of all information, without the required changes in human behaviour can only lead to self-censorship on a grand scale as people try and cover all the flaws an blemishes that might result in them not getting prom…

The flaws and blemishes are less meaningful if you can see everyone else's flaws and blemishes as well.

Having their own flaws doesn't stop people from punishing others for those same flaws.

Re: Drone ‘Nightmare Scenario’ Now Has A Name: ARGUS

#83

Post by sciurus »

jrogers65 wrote: post #41

Off-topic: I love SparrowOS's (dead) comments - they're so off the cuff and random. Trying to make sense of them is like doing a really hard crossword puzzle. I have noticed one thing about them, however - when he speaks as himself they make complete sense. E.g. > I had a problem with discipline. I worked at Ticketmaster while in college, but I know I wouldn't have studied more, just knowing my personal psychology. >…

There was a discussion with him in this metafilter comment thread which you may find interesting.

http://www.metafilter.com/119424/An-Operating-System-for-Son...

Re: Drone ‘Nightmare Scenario’ Now Has A Name: ARGUS

#84

Post by philwelch »

nitrogen wrote: post #82
philwelch wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The flaws and blemishes are less meaningful if you can see everyone else's flaws and blemishes as well.

Having their own flaws doesn't stop people from punishing others for those same flaws.

In a negative-sum game perhaps. When comparing to someone else who also has flaws or blemishes, or in settings where you risk your own credibility by being a hypocrite, it won't happen.

Re: Drone ‘Nightmare Scenario’ Now Has A Name: ARGUS

#86

Post by gwern »

cromwellian wrote: post #32

The JSTARS aircraft which has been around for 20+ years is kind of interesting as a forerunner. It can track 600 ground targets (vehicles) over 50,000 sq km using radar. This was 20 years ago, and that is the unclassified portion. We don't really know how it's improved since then, or how many simultaneous targets it can actually track in 2012. During the DC Sniper incident, they were debating posse comitatus and whet…

Could JSTARS-like systems be on the RC-7Bs reportedly deployed (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1...)?

Re: Drone ‘Nightmare Scenario’ Now Has A Name: ARGUS

#87

Post by gfodor »

ahallock wrote: post #74
brownbat wrote: post #70

Just listened to the last two episodes of This American Life, about a school in Chicago where there have been 29 kids shot over the last year.[1] On seeing this, immediately wondered if you could combine drones with gunshot detection systems.[2] The drone could hone in on gunshots and follow any vehicle in a drive by in real time without a dangerous car chase.[3] By implication, the drone "nightmare" scenario probabl…

If we want to help those kids, we must address the fundamental reasons those kids were shot. Drones detecting gun shots is a technological bandaid with the side effect of empowering the State even more. People don't want to address the fundamental problems because they're hard and ugly and uncomfortable. It's much easier to dream about technology solving all our ills, when a lot of our problems are an effect of immor…

False dilemma -- we can address the root causes and also add measures to prevent violence when those causes are not addressed effectively. The OP's point is sound and if you start the argument against universal surveillance by claiming it will not reduce crimes such as these you will not be taken seriously. The question is not if crime will be reduced but at what cost is it worth it. The cameras are coming and the bottom line is we need to decide who sits behind them: a select few, or everyone.

Re: Drone ‘Nightmare Scenario’ Now Has A Name: ARGUS

#88

Post by nonamegiven »

pcrh wrote: post #81
nonamegiven wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The danger and difference is that governments that use these capabilities are dangerous. Not only can they rightly or wrongly harm individuals, they can do so for whole populations. If you were shunned (rightly or wrongly) by your village for some observed or inferred transgression, you could go somewhere else. There is no longer somewhere else.

Being ostracized by one's village was often a death sentence. With no mutual protection against wild animals and no stored food, only the hardy would survive.

Unless they were able to get to and integrate with somewhere else.

But now it doesn't matter, because there is no somewhere else.

Re: Drone ‘Nightmare Scenario’ Now Has A Name: ARGUS

#89

Post by hamai »

znowi wrote: post #69
cromwellian wrote: post #7

I'm afraid the genie is out of the bottle. ARGUS uses mobile phone sensors. Cameras are becoming almost "too cheap to meter", and too small to notice. Billions of people now walk around with mobile phone cameras, so chances are you're going to be recorded by someone in public, especially as cameras continue to evolve. It may be some small consolation that consumer cameras are ground level, and decentralized, where as…

Two thoughts on this: 1. I think the course to a mass surveillance society is set and inevitable. The culture shift in relation to privacy is evident. Both on the net and offline people gradually get used to the idea of being tracked, observed, analyzed, etc. The virtue of tomorrow is I've done nothing wrong, I have nothing to hide . 2. Google Glass poses an interesting dilemma. I expect it to be as prevalent as smar…

User iwwr summarized well the problems with the "nothing to hide" argument:

"The ability to gleam private details about people is having some power over them. The entire modern theory of government rests on limiting and dividing up the power of those in power. With mass surveillance, that balance is broken. Not only do we have private details on individuals, that knowledge is held by a small and unaccountable elite, protected by state secrets.

Even if you live completely lawfully and morally and truly have nothing to hide you can either:

1. Unwittingly do something illegal (there are too many laws on the books for anyone to know they are completely innocent); or do something that can be construed as such, since the police and prosecutors can be fallible;

2. Still live in a society where a small group of individuals can exert blackmail and intimidation on a significant proportion of citizens. Even if that power would be rarely used, it creates an environment of fear. People start to be afraid to speak against abuse, those in power stand less for their own scrutiny."

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4957864

Post reply on HN