How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance • Hacker News Board

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#61

Post by lozf » Sun, Jan 04, 2015, 10:43 PM UTC

jodrellblank wrote: post #14

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, an…

It's not just the noting of series of number plates at one location, - it's at many locations simultaneously, and because it's always happening the system that "notices" that vehicle AB123CDE that passed point A at 10:26:32 must have been speeding (or jumping red lights - also under surveillance) to pass point B at 10:29:41 can flag up the relevant series of videos for a humans attention.

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#62

Post by junto » Sun, Jan 04, 2015, 10:53 PM UTC

These systems have a side purpose, some might argue a primary purpose, which is to maintain control of the generql population. People who are likely to protest, regardless of what their beliefs are, are a potential dangerous threat to the status quo. They can be used to stop and harass members of the public who have been tagged as trouble makers. Sheeple are the ideal population, not those who question authority and submit FOI requests.

Surveillance on the other hand is easy. Everyone volunteers to carry a tracking and bugging device with them at all times and pays a monthly fee for the privilege. It is called a mobile telephone.

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#63

Post by RossM » Sun, Jan 04, 2015, 11:21 PM UTC

lozf wrote: post #42

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…

I guess it depends where you are but UK cities are right up there with surveillance on public transport too, both trains and buses[0]. Transport for London have a system that detects if you're still on a platform after a train to each destination has departed, and alerts a human - ostensibly in case you're contemplating suicide or otherwise need help. It stands to reason that implementing the likes of facial recognit…

Got a source on the face-recognition-after-departure? That's a really interesting idea and I'd like to read more.

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#64

Post by carapace » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 12:12 AM UTC

MichaelCrawford wrote: post #53

roel_v wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Beards cause trouble for facial regulation. While I expect bears are the focus of much research, one way to screw with the system is to grow a beard for your ID photo, then shave it off - or vice-versa. However, women don't generally have beards, so I expect that facial recognition is more effective at identifying them than us men.

There are frequencies that reflect from skin but not beards.

I suffer from paranoia myself. I've been thinking for more than twenty-five years about how to handle this and the only thing I can come up with is that we must make our control systems good or devolve into some nightmare scenario.

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#65

Post by roel_v » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 12:17 AM UTC

MichaelCrawford wrote: post #53

roel_v wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Beards cause trouble for facial regulation. While I expect bears are the focus of much research, one way to screw with the system is to grow a beard for your ID photo, then shave it off - or vice-versa. However, women don't generally have beards, so I expect that facial recognition is more effective at identifying them than us men.

Such a system won't need a single ID photo as 'reference'. When it notices someone leaving a house on Wisteria Lane 2401, and walking into an office on 21 Main Street, and there are postal packages send to John Smith on Wisteria Lane 2401 and social security contributions for employee John Smith by an employer registered at 21 Main Street, it doesn't take much to put 2 and 2 together and conclude that the face of that person is that of John Smith. And that's just 2 data points - think about it, how many things are there that tie a person to a name and a location? How irregular are people's movements really? Apart from putting on another mask every day, and moving house every few days, given enough processing power and some time that future system will recognize all but the most determined individuals - although I don't see how anyone can live a 'normal' life without a fixed address, job, phone, internet use, and 0 tolerance for anything that resembles a 'routine'.

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#66

Post by carapace » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 12:18 AM UTC

roel_v wrote: post #39

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 pr…

Well, think about Star Trek --let me finish!-- the computer on the Enterprise always knew where everybody was and it didn't concern anybody unduly. As ubiquitous surveillance becomes pervasive we are confronted with the task of growing into a humane and healthy world polity.

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#67

Post by carapace » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 12:35 AM UTC

tzs wrote: post #60

People worried about surveillance should read the story "The Dead Past" by Isaac Asimov. Here is a link to a copy of it [1]. It makes a point, which is probably not apparent until the twist ending, that is often overlooked (although I see a few commentators here have touched on it). [1] http://www.redlibrary.net/ScienceFiction/Asimov41/27323.html

Also "The Light of Other Days" by Sir Arthur C. Clarke and Stephen Baxter.

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#68

Post by krapp » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 12:37 AM UTC

carapace wrote: post #66

roel_v wrote: post #39

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 pr…

Well, think about Star Trek --let me finish!-- the computer on the Enterprise always knew where everybody was and it didn't concern anybody unduly. As ubiquitous surveillance becomes pervasive we are confronted with the task of growing into a humane and healthy world polity.

It's also worth remembering, no one on board the Enterprise was a member of the public, per se. The Federation is a quasi-military organization, and I don't think anyone wouldn't expect the military, or even a defense contractor or high-tech lab, to at least make sure they know where personnel are at all times ... and in that light, the surveillance on the Enterprise seemed almost lax.

In one episode, crew and officers were being transported while they slept to a pocket dimension and having their organs rearranged by sinister aliens. You would think at the very least, that would set off some alarms. But the computer never seems to keep track of people's whereabouts unless someone asks (for drama's sake, obviously, but still) or even that the first officer apparently was missing a kidney they had only twelve hours ago.

I don't remember getting a sense that the computer was actively keeping track on everyone's position, and constantly recording their movements, keystrokes and conversations.

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#69

Post by lozf » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 12:48 AM UTC

RossM wrote: post #63

lozf wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it depends where you are but UK cities are right up there with surveillance on public transport too, both trains and buses[0]. Transport for London have a system that detects if you're still on a platform after a train to each destination has departed, and alerts a human - ostensibly in case you're contemplating suicide or otherwise need help. It stands to reason that implementing the likes of facial recognit…

Got a source on the face-recognition-after-departure? That's a really interesting idea and I'd like to read more.

I saw a video / TV program where they talked about it a few years back... possibly in the BBC series called "The Tube"(2012)[0].

As I recall it wasn't doing actual facial recognition, but object / shape recognition, and comparing the objects in an area over time. So you'd have the outline of a person sitting on a bench and if they're still there after all destinations served by that platform (obviously depending on the line) have had at least one train, it'd be flagged up as suspicious as apparently some jumpers like to contemplate first.

Of course there must be a fair few false positives - people waiting to meet friends to either travel together or head out maybe etc, heck - I've even met someone to buy a laptop on a tube platform before... and I don't know how well it would cope if the person moved about between trains - but that didn't seem to matter much for their use case, and I'm sure they must have better tech in place by now.

Sorry I can't be more precise with a source, but I'll let you know if I find anything helpful.

[0] http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01cmsfd/episodes/guide

Re: How Britain Exported Next-Generation Surveillance

#70

Post by asuffield » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 4:26 AM UTC

pdkl95 wrote: post #35

asuffield wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 w…

All the marketing people that I've worked with have used it to do things that you could never do before. Tracking the path people take through your website, which pages they land on, what they spend time reading and what they click through, who comes back tomorrow to buy something - it shows you what works and what doesn't on a level you can't otherwise get. Mapping that onto market segments lets you further narrow this down to just work on the things that are important to the people who buy your product, when most visitors to your site are random click-through traffic that will never buy anything, and feeds back useful information to your product design process.

The degree of focus that this permits is how startups and small companies can find and target their market quickly, where a large company could just market to everybody and see who responds. It's hard to tell how much of the tech startup boom has been driven by this, but after working for and with a few of them, third party analytics is critical because you usually don't have the time or money to find your market without it. Before we had analytics the strategy was "make a lucky guess and verify it before you run out of money". Now the default strategy is "measure who is interested and go directly to them".

I'll accept that large, successful companies don't really get much out of this sort of thing - they already know who buys their product, and have the scale and resources to target everybody. They probably do use analytics just because it's there, and not because they need to.