How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance • Hacker News Board

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#11

Post by pgeorgi » Sun, Jan 04, 2015, 7:25 PM UTC

jamesbrownuhh wrote: post #8

Very interesting article. I've been thinking about this more often recently (perhaps it's watching the 31C3 talks that do it) and I find that I'm becoming increasingly conflicted over the whole issue of surveillance. On one level, my gut instinct is "mass surveillance of innocent people is wrong"... But the moment I think of it from the law enforcement point of view, I realise how desperately I'd want that bulk data…

In an attempt to help you find out where you stand on the issue (that is, I don't expect a response):

80% of sexual abuse of minors happens within existing social contexts, that is "family and friends".

It would be useful to place cameras in every single private room and have them be automatically monitored and the live feed passed to some on-staff LEO when software considers anything suspect.

Are you at peace with that? If so, why? If not, why not?

(Yes, it's an extreme example. Both in terms of privacy intrusion and in the potential of helping law enforcement with a 'worthy cause'. It's why I think this example is particularly helpful to consider one's position)

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#12

Post by rimantas » Sun, Jan 04, 2015, 7:29 PM UTC

pgeorgi wrote: post #11

jamesbrownuhh wrote: post #8

Very interesting article. I've been thinking about this more often recently (perhaps it's watching the 31C3 talks that do it) and I find that I'm becoming increasingly conflicted over the whole issue of surveillance. On one level, my gut instinct is "mass surveillance of innocent people is wrong"... But the moment I think of it from the law enforcement point of view, I realise how desperately I'd want that bulk data…

In an attempt to help you find out where you stand on the issue (that is, I don't expect a response): 80% of sexual abuse of minors happens within existing social contexts, that is "family and friends". It would be useful to place cameras in every single private room and have them be automatically monitored and the live feed passed to some on-staff LEO when software considers anything suspect. Are you at peace with t…

This is not an extreme example. What is extreme is looking at the world from the law enforcement perspective. Why not just lock everybody in the prison already, perfect conditions for surveillance and control.

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#13

Post by eterm » Sun, Jan 04, 2015, 7:30 PM UTC

orf wrote: post #10

eterm wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public transport is tracked too. TFL have removed the ability to use cash on busses now, you must use oyster cards.[1] [1] https://www.tfl.gov.uk/modes/buses/cash-free-buses

Only in London and for good reason, having people pay by cash each stop takes up a ridiculous amount of time on popular routes.

Yeah, transport in London barely functioned until oyster cards were introduced!

Also, I didn't claim that surveillance was the primary reason for oyster cards, but there is no doubt it also functions as an effective large surveillance network.

As for other cities, transport isn't as centralised as it is in London so is vastly harder to implement, but for sure others are looking into similar schemes.

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#14

Post by jodrellblank » Sun, Jan 04, 2015, 7:32 PM UTC

jamesbrownuhh wrote: post #8

Very interesting article. I've been thinking about this more often recently (perhaps it's watching the 31C3 talks that do it) and I find that I'm becoming increasingly conflicted over the whole issue of surveillance. On one level, my gut instinct is "mass surveillance of innocent people is wrong"... But the moment I think of it from the law enforcement point of view, I realise how desperately I'd want that bulk data…

So why can't I see the stored number plate lists?

It's just doing "what a human could do, but much more efficiently" - I could go and stand by the roads and watch and take notes myself, so why is this obviously public information, collected by taxpayer funds, locked in closed databases?

Except it's not what a human could do; I couldn't practically do that; for one thing I can't be in more than one place at a time, and for another I can't dedicate my life to writing down registration plates with no breaks, no income, and no sleep. Similarly, the police could not do it on bulk scale - they can't fund enough people to track every major road junction.

Adding up ten numbers is something a person could do and a computer could do quicker. Adding up ten million numbers is something it feels like a person could do, at first thought, but they really couldn't. Not in a useful time, not without too much error. "Quantity has a quality all it's own", and all that.

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#15

Post by henrikschroder » Sun, Jan 04, 2015, 7:32 PM UTC

jamesbrownuhh wrote: post #8

Very interesting article. I've been thinking about this more often recently (perhaps it's watching the 31C3 talks that do it) and I find that I'm becoming increasingly conflicted over the whole issue of surveillance. On one level, my gut instinct is "mass surveillance of innocent people is wrong"... But the moment I think of it from the law enforcement point of view, I realise how desperately I'd want that bulk data…

Of course it's useful, and that argument is pretty compelling.

But what you need to consider is not responsible use of the collected data, but the flipside, irresponsible, illegal use of the data by individuals who have access.

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#16

Post by EliRivers » Sun, Jan 04, 2015, 7:35 PM UTC

eterm wrote: post #7

MichaelCrawford wrote: post #2

Well that clinches my decision. I've been getting around on public transit for quite a long time, but have been thinking of getting a car. Now I've decided not to. I'm a generally law-abiding citizen, but I simply do not wish to be tracked. How would you feel were someone to follow you around everywhere you went? Even if they kept their distance, never spoke to you our overtly harmed you in any way, it would be very…

Public transport is tracked too. TFL have removed the ability to use cash on busses now, you must use oyster cards.[1] [1] https://www.tfl.gov.uk/modes/buses/cash-free-buses

That enables them to track the card, but not the person. The card does not have to be tied to a specific person. I suppose you could correlate known journeys someone made and work out which card is their's, or watch someone using the card on CCTV and use the timestamp to identify their card, or once you'd got someone in custody take their card and get their travel history, but if someone simply changes card (and pays cash for it) they vanish again.

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#17

Post by venomsnake » Sun, Jan 04, 2015, 7:38 PM UTC

jamesbrownuhh wrote: post #8

Very interesting article. I've been thinking about this more often recently (perhaps it's watching the 31C3 talks that do it) and I find that I'm becoming increasingly conflicted over the whole issue of surveillance. On one level, my gut instinct is "mass surveillance of innocent people is wrong"... But the moment I think of it from the law enforcement point of view, I realise how desperately I'd want that bulk data…

Lots of stuff is forbidden by the Geneva convention, not because it is not useful, but because it is too useful.

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#18

Post by yuvadam » Sun, Jan 04, 2015, 7:40 PM UTC

Everytime I try to explain why privacy matters, and why dragnet surveillance is one of the worst plagues of our times, I can't help but link to Glenn Greenwald's talk which explains it better than I ever could:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcSlowAhvUk

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#19

Post by Panino » Sun, Jan 04, 2015, 7:41 PM UTC

MichaelCrawford wrote: post #4

handinmouth wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How would you feel were someone to follow you around everywhere you went? On the Web, this happens already (try a browser add-on such as RequestPolicy which will show you the numerous sites that track you all over the Web - often 20 or more per page).

That I find particularly creepy, so I blackhole many of the analytics servers with my /etc/hosts: 127.0.0.1 hosted-pixel.com 127.0.0.1 cdn.hosted-pixel.com When web bugs first appeared, there was a huge public outcry. Now that they call it "analytics" or "big data" everyone seems cool with it. However I can't block everything with hosts; some of the tracking scripts come from the same hosts as I actually use. I'm pla…

> Even if I don't click the button, Facebook knows that it served me the script.

You can stop a lot of trackers by minimizing referer leaks. Firefox has the config option network.http.sendRefererHeader which defaults to 2, "always send referer." 1=same FQDN, 0=never send. So by setting it to 0 or 1, a typical tracker that's gotten past your /etc/hosts entries, adblock, etc. will see you requesting their pixel image but never see the sites that initiated those HTTP GETs.

There are no silver bullets, just good tools, and reducing the referer footprint is one of them.

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#20

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jan 04, 2015, 7:41 PM UTC

conductor wrote: post #9

Tracking and surveillance is everywhere. Mobile phones: location tracking (they keep the cell IDs your phone is connecting to, with a time-stamp), texts, calls meta-data, calls audio. CCTV: ANPR, face recognition Internet: everything Payments: everything except cash (I'm surprised cash is still legal) The list goes on.. Public transport, hotels reservations, etc.

[deleted]