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

How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 81 posts

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#31

Post by dfc »

JetSpiegel wrote: post #21
MichaelCrawford wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You can use Policeman https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/policeman/ Or on Github for a more bleeding-edge version https://github.com/futpib/policeman/releases

I have always loved requestpolicy but for some reason something about RPContinued makes me nervous. Policeman would be a great alternative if Sync worked[^1]. I cant use policeman if it means I have to jump through the same hoops on every firefox installation in order to get things set up.

[^1]: https://github.com/futpib/policeman/issues/28 Plus issues 92 and 95.

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#33

Post by jamesbrownuhh »

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…

I can certainly outline why that's different, because those cameras would be in a private place and would be collecting /evidence/ in the form of moving pictures, which would need human review - and hence an invasion of privacy - to determine whether a crime did, or did not, occur. That's not a cool hack, that's purely snooping.

A video recording taken inside someone's private home is a world away from a single data point of a car's number plate being noted in a public location at a given date and time.

You've actually made public surveillance sound entirely reasonable. This is not the answer I was hoping for! :)

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#34

Post by jacquesm »

EliRivers wrote: post #16
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

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…

Can you pay for those cards with cash?

In NL they do everything possible to avoid you buying the cards with cash (and there is a surcharge for disposables).

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#35

Post by pdkl95 »

asuffield wrote: post #28
MichaelCrawford wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Now that they call it "analytics" or "big data" everyone seems cool with it. It generates massive value that everybody benefits from. People appreciate that.

I wonder how much real value is actually generated from web bugs. A lot of interesting stuff can be generated from server logs; much more if you use analyzers.

I just wonder how much of the set of "analytics" that requires involving 3rd parties (web bugs and other referrer tricks) is actually useful and a value. The set that is a value "that everybody benefits from" is going to be even smaller.

I'm sure most people want this data, and see a lot of potential use. Usually, there is a big difference between "want" and "need", and I suspect a lot of the current attitude that throws analytics on everything is some experimentation, a limited amount of real value, and a whole lot of people joining in because they can (fad, bandwagon effect, it's what a tutorial said, etc).

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#36

Post by roel_v »

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…

In a few years there will be enough processing power to do facial recognition that will be accurate let's say 90% or so of the time. More than enough to track you everywhere where there is public transport.

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#37

Post by terrywhite »

mahyarm wrote: post #24
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.

Cash still covers too many edge cases that electronic devices cannot to be illegal. Also remember less developed countries.

"Also remember less developed countries."

Don't worry. American corporations are thinking far ahead.

"Branding Nigeria: MasterCard-backed I.D. is also a debit card and a passport" [1]

[1] http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/25/business/branding-nigeria-...

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#38

Post by jacquesm »

jamesbrownuhh wrote: post #33
pgeorgi wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I can certainly outline why that's different, because those cameras would be in a private place and would be collecting /evidence/ in the form of moving pictures, which would need human review - and hence an invasion of privacy - to determine whether a crime did, or did not, occur. That's not a cool hack, that's purely snooping. A video recording taken inside someone's private home is a world away from a single data…

> You've actually made public surveillance sound entirely reasonable.

A video camera in a private home would have a far higher chance of catching crimes in progress than a number plate camera ever did.

So he hasn't done anything to make public surveillance sound entirely reasonable but you're just getting out of it what you want to hear.

The scale:

- kill everybody (crimerate: 0)

- lock everybody up (only crimes committed in prison: probably pretty high)

- total surveillance (crimerate: pretty much what it is today but with a higher rate of solved crimes)

- moderate surveillance (crimerate: pretty much what it is today but with a lower rate of solved crimes)

- no surveillance (crimerate: pretty much what it is today but with an even lower rate of solved crimes, good old policework required to solve a crime, or stupidity on the part o the criminal (probably the majority))

I don't see much difference between total surveillance and no surveillance at all when it comes to the actual crime rate, only to the number of crimes solved and in what way they'll be solved.

Assuming that the majority of the crimes is committed by 'first offenders' is probably a mistake on my part so once all the criminals are safely locked up we can get rid of the surveillance, right?

Surveillance never was about crime. That's just how it is slowly pushed so you can't object against it, after all, who in their right mind wants more crime?

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#39

Post by roel_v »

Meh, it's an inevitable effect of the lowering cost of cameras and image processing. In a few years we will have 'social' data sharing networks (analogous to the blockchain) that will share results of analyses of all sorts of cameras worn by regular people every day and everywhere they go, basically a 'decentralized' pervasive monitoring system, fed by cameras everywhere - shops, car dashboards, phones, on private property, ... Think Facebook tagging is creepy, just wait until you get home from work and find a website with 50 pictures of you during the day in all places you were... Just a few people who contribute footage will be enough to map the vast majority of people. Imagine 10 people walking around in a shopping mall with a Google Glass and a dashcam; with enough processing power, that would be enough to map the locations of thousands of people per day.

I used to care, years ago - but there is no escaping it. The real question is how can we deal with such pervasive monitoring? I don't think anyone has a real answer, or has even tried to answer it (note that I'm not talking about pervasive monitoring by just one actor like the state, since what we will experience will be monitoring of all, by all).

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#40

Post by dllthomas »

jacquesm wrote: post #38
jamesbrownuhh wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can certainly outline why that's different, because those cameras would be in a private place and would be collecting /evidence/ in the form of moving pictures, which would need human review - and hence an invasion of privacy - to determine whether a crime did, or did not, occur. That's not a cool hack, that's purely snooping. A video recording taken inside someone's private home is a world away from a single data…

> You've actually made public surveillance sound entirely reasonable. A video camera in a private home would have a far higher chance of catching crimes in progress than a number plate camera ever did. So he hasn't done anything to make public surveillance sound entirely reasonable but you're just getting out of it what you want to hear. The scale: - kill everybody (crimerate: 0) - lock everybody up (only crimes comm…

You're assuming that a higher chance of being caught has no deterrent effect. My understanding is that this is very much not the case.

On the flip side, you're also ignoring the opportunity for abuse of surveillance, which it may make sense to consider additional crime.

Post reply on HN