A vast hidden surveillance network, powered by the repo industry • Hacker News Board

Re: A vast hidden surveillance network, powered by the repo industry

#141

Post by TeMPOraL » Wed, Mar 05, 2014, 9:20 PM UTC

Crito wrote: post #127

TeMPOraL wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I do, but I don't find them relevant here. Suing you for breaching my privacy is completely independent from the fact that if you caught me lying to you by peeking through the curtains, I'd only have myself to blame.

Spoken like somebody in a privileged position of not having anything that they believe must remain hidden. Me spying on you while you are in your home would be illegal, because you deserve some baseline privacy. Me tracking you around town should similarly be illegal. You "blaming yourself" if I illegally violate your privacy is nothing but senseless and shameless victim blaming.

As I said, if I had something that I believed must remain hidden, then it would be my fault if it somehow became known, regardless of who and how made it happen.

And as I said, it wouldn't stop me from suing you from here to kingdom come for breaking my privacy.

I don't think that mixing those two concepts (having something to hide and a right to privacy) is a good OPSEC.

Re: A vast hidden surveillance network, powered by the repo industry

#142

Post by Crito » Wed, Mar 05, 2014, 9:44 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #141

Crito wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spoken like somebody in a privileged position of not having anything that they believe must remain hidden. Me spying on you while you are in your home would be illegal, because you deserve some baseline privacy. Me tracking you around town should similarly be illegal. You "blaming yourself" if I illegally violate your privacy is nothing but senseless and shameless victim blaming.

As I said, if I had something that I believed must remain hidden, then it would be my fault if it somehow became known, regardless of who and how made it happen. And as I said, it wouldn't stop me from suing you from here to kingdom come for breaking my privacy. I don't think that mixing those two concepts (having something to hide and a right to privacy) is a good OPSEC.

"it would be my fault if it somehow became known, regardless of who and how made it happen."

Shear lunacy. If I break into your home and steal financial documents from you, is that your fault? If I install a camera in your bathroom, would that be your fault?

Break free of the mindframe that those with secrets are keeping something wrong secret.

Re: A vast hidden surveillance network, powered by the repo industry

#143

Post by barrkel » Wed, Mar 05, 2014, 10:48 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #93

barrkel wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you understand how individual letters may not be copyrighted, but an arrangement of them into a large text may be?

No, I can't. It's actually a big philosophical/legal issue involving "illegal numbers"[0], definition of copying and colour of bits[1]. Don't make problems simple and obvious when they're not. [0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number [1] - http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

My argument was by analogy, but you've taken the analogy beyond its breaking point into another domain.

A single fact about a person at a particular place is not much more useful than knowing the placement of a single letter in a word. But if you know the placement of several letters in a word, you can guess the word - and that has a whole bunch more information [1]. Similarly, know several facts about a person's path, more information comes to light that is not evident from single facts alone, in a way that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts; place of work, school of children, likely friends, relatives, partners, potential medical issues, possible infidelity.

The issue you're getting at is a philosophical issue related to the sorites paradox on one hand, and the zero marginal cost of duplicating information on the other. The former is somewhat related to the issue at hand, but the latter definitely isn't.

[1] Semantically, not by Shannon, for the autistic nitpickers out there.

Re: A vast hidden surveillance network, powered by the repo industry

#144

Post by TeMPOraL » Wed, Mar 05, 2014, 11:03 PM UTC

Crito wrote: post #142

TeMPOraL wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said, if I had something that I believed must remain hidden, then it would be my fault if it somehow became known, regardless of who and how made it happen. And as I said, it wouldn't stop me from suing you from here to kingdom come for breaking my privacy. I don't think that mixing those two concepts (having something to hide and a right to privacy) is a good OPSEC.

"it would be my fault if it somehow became known, regardless of who and how made it happen." Shear lunacy. If I break into your home and steal financial documents from you, is that your fault? If I install a camera in your bathroom, would that be your fault? Break free of the mindframe that those with secrets are keeping something wrong secret.

Break free of the mindframe that those with secrets are keeping something wrong secret.

I'm not having that mindset. I actually see three kinds of secrets people might have:

- things they shouldn't be doing in the first place (like tax fraud),

- things that are dangerous should evil people know about them (by government mass surveilence, you installing a camera in my bathroom, etc.),

- things that are inconvenient should morons know about them (like religious/sexual orientation, etc.)

Most of the privacy-related discussions here focus on the second and third kind. I argue that we shouldn't keep only blaming particular technologies (cameras, satellites, big data), but instead we should focus on dealing with evil people and morons. Fighting technology is pointless (sans starting Third World War) and potentially hurtful (all that surveillance tech we're so afraid of can and already does wonders in areas like agriculture, medicine, public safety and social studies).

How about we make sure that social and legal structure deters people from acting on collected data in a malicious way, that makes it easier to get rid of morons in your collective social network, instead of blaming mapping technologies for breaking marriages, or Twitter for government shooting their citizens in a more efficient manner, or Facebook for that boss not hiring you because you're an atheist?

Re: A vast hidden surveillance network, powered by the repo industry

#145

Post by berberous » Wed, Mar 05, 2014, 11:19 PM UTC

__david__ wrote: post #125

berberous wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scan of the license plan is not really the issue, it's the collecting of the scan, tagging it with GPS, and aggregating the scan into large, permanent databases that can be accessed by both government and private corporations. If all you do is scan a plate and display "car payments past due", or discard the scan if the car is not wanted, it's not all that different from a human looking for a car. But these folks…

> The scan of the license plan is not really the issue, it's the collecting of the scan, tagging it with GPS, and aggregating the scan into large, permanent databases that can be accessed by both government and private corporations. I've had this idea in my mind to build the exact same thing, but have it be crowdsourced data and available to everyone for free. Wouldn't you like to know where police cars spend most of…

An amusing story along those lines:

"In 2012, the StarTribune newspaper in Minneapolis tracked the movement of the Mayor R.T. Rybak's car 41 times at license police readers in the prior year. The newspaper put the information on a map and gathered the data through public records requests.

As a result of that report, the mayor directed the police chief to recommend a new policy on data retention, the ACLU said."

Re: A vast hidden surveillance network, powered by the repo industry

#146

Post by argumentum » Wed, Mar 05, 2014, 11:28 PM UTC

berberous wrote: post #21

r0h1n wrote: post #6

I'm curious - how exactly would one refute the following argument put forth by data brokers and repo agents? > But Digital Recognition and other so-called “data brokers” who collect plate scans are fighting Hecht’s bill, arguing that repo agents are not invading privacy when they scan a license plate, which is available for all to see. The data brokers do not disclose the owner of the plates, they point out, though…

The scan of the license plan is not really the issue, it's the collecting of the scan, tagging it with GPS, and aggregating the scan into large, permanent databases that can be accessed by both government and private corporations. If all you do is scan a plate and display "car payments past due", or discard the scan if the car is not wanted, it's not all that different from a human looking for a car. But these folks…

This is right:

> The scan of the license plan is not really the issue

This is wrong:

> it's the collecting of the scan, tagging it with GPS, and aggregating the scan into large, permanent databases that can be accessed by both government and private corporations.

The real issue is the legal requirement that every car must have license plates and that every car must be registered to a "person" (individual or corporation).

If there were no such requirements, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

Re: A vast hidden surveillance network, powered by the repo industry

#147

Post by Crito » Wed, Mar 05, 2014, 11:35 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #144

Crito wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"it would be my fault if it somehow became known, regardless of who and how made it happen." Shear lunacy. If I break into your home and steal financial documents from you, is that your fault? If I install a camera in your bathroom, would that be your fault? Break free of the mindframe that those with secrets are keeping something wrong secret.

Break free of the mindframe that those with secrets are keeping something wrong secret. I'm not having that mindset. I actually see three kinds of secrets people might have: - things they shouldn't be doing in the first place (like tax fraud), - things that are dangerous should evil people know about them (by government mass surveilence, you installing a camera in my bathroom, etc.), - things that are inconvenient sh…

"- things that are inconvenient should morons know about them (like religious/sexual orientation, etc.)"

These can be flat out dangerous for many people. It isn't your place to make that call for other people.

Re: A vast hidden surveillance network, powered by the repo industry

#148

Post by gregimba » Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 5:11 AM UTC

bsder wrote: post #77

r0h1n wrote: post #6

I'm curious - how exactly would one refute the following argument put forth by data brokers and repo agents? > But Digital Recognition and other so-called “data brokers” who collect plate scans are fighting Hecht’s bill, arguing that repo agents are not invading privacy when they scan a license plate, which is available for all to see. The data brokers do not disclose the owner of the plates, they point out, though…

Simple, I have a database wherein I scan the license plates of all known repo men and upload their current whereabouts. That way when they enter the neighborhood, I can stop and have a chat with them. Now see the issue?

I sense a new startup to track police officers.