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

Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

aclu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 150 posts

Re: Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

#71

Post by rmxt »

diminoten2 wrote: post #65
rmxt wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is a "hot zone"? People obstructing traffic and breaking a few windows merits recording the location of every cell phone (basically every person over the age of 10) for an extended period of time? That's textbook "unnecessary dragnet surveillance". EDIT: How do you separate out: 1. People in the streets participating in marches. ( maybe articuable suspicion) 2. People in the streets not participating in marches.…

Do you see no difference between recording the location of every cell phone and taking video from the air of city streets?

I am not sure I understand your question. I do see a difference, and that's exactly what I'm pointing out. Video cameras cannot see into homes and they require their attention to be focused on a particular area. Video cameras' very nature forces them to be used in a more selective fashion. The same cannot be said for these hypothetical Stingray laden drones. Hence, they shouldn't be available for use for general "population control," which is what the use in Baltimore amounts to.

Re: Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

#72

Post by Karunamon »

beat wrote: post #68
Karunamon wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure they can. Drones can be had for very cheap nowadays. And again, what you do in public is available for anyone who cares to look.

Then maybe we should be talking about what people (and governments) should do, rather than what they can do. Perhaps you think it's appropriate for the government to record your every step, just in case. I don't.

Perhaps, but that's an open question with a different resolution. It would take nothing short of an act of congress, possibly even constitutional amendments to redefine the current legal doctrine surrounding public and private spaces into what you suggest.

Me, I find it very hard to get worked up over someone recording what I'm doing in public.

Re: Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

#73

Post by mc32 »

dsugarman wrote: post #70

I believe this must be the case but who has the resources to deploy something like this? Does Palantir or some other contractor help mine captured images for data? What is done with this data? There is no way BCPD has the resources for this, does the FBI come in and feed them info? for what, arresting rioters?

It's probably to detect a mutation from protest to violence and likely looking for heat sources (fires). I'd certainly hope that in the event protests turn into rioting and fires are lit someone is ready to send in the FD. A destroyed neighborhood does not help the locals and only inconveniences them. Large destruction would serve to disincentivize investment in a community which needs all the investment it can get.

It's unfortunate that while protesters are a good portion locals, most inciters of the rioting are people who don't have to live with the residue of destruction.

Re: Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

#74

Post by digikata »

Kalium wrote: post #17
vonmoltke wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really any of the modern battlefield surveillance and situational awareness systems could theoretically be turned to the purposes of mass surveillance of civilian populations, given the motivation and resources.

Or that heartbeat detection system used in Nepal by NASA.

I would guess that system would actually be very bad at mass surveillance. The radar system would be tuned to detect very small movements (the heartbeat), and reject clutter in the category of anything not moving and static (debris).

So in a wide area with lots of movement, it's ability to determine if something was a separate object or person, and interesting on top of that would be severely limited.

But this is just a SWAG.

Re: Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

#75

Post by corin_ »

sjm-lbm wrote: post #15
tomswartz07 wrote: post #2

If you're big into crowd-sourcing: There are super-inexpensive RTL-SDR dongles[1] that can be used to track airplanes such as this. I'm not a lawyer, but I've fooled around with these dongles and a few programs enough to discern that Gov't aircraft absolutely need to broadcast their info on the 1090MHz band. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to have a few people pop these up and see if they could monitor the airplanes…

Since, for whatever reason, I enjoy tracking flights as a hobby, here's a couple of extra tidbits: 1) If you are in the right area, Flight Radar 24 might actually give you the equipment for free. See here: http://www.flightradar24.com/free-ads-b-equipment for info. 2) It is unlikely that even aircraft that the government desires to be secret will stop broadcasting ADS-B anytime soon, as one of the major usages is avo…

I know absolutely nothing about this so forgive me if I'm asking a dumb question. ADS-B broadcasts so that other planes can figure out where you are and avoid you, correct? Why can't spy planes stop broadcasting it, but then listen for other planes' ADS-B signals, and just make sure to stay away from them? That way the only crash might be between two different spy planes?

Re: Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

#76

Post by diminoten2 »

rmxt wrote: post #71
diminoten2 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you see no difference between recording the location of every cell phone and taking video from the air of city streets?

I am not sure I understand your question. I do see a difference, and that's exactly what I'm pointing out. Video cameras cannot see into homes and they require their attention to be focused on a particular area. Video cameras' very nature forces them to be used in a more selective fashion. The same cannot be said for these hypothetical Stingray laden drones. Hence, they shouldn't be available for use for general "pop…

In the hypothetical situation where these drones were taking recorded video of publicly accessible areas of Baltimore ("the streets", so to speak), would you have a problem with that?

Re: Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

#77

Post by Kalium »

digikata wrote: post #74
Kalium wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or that heartbeat detection system used in Nepal by NASA.

I would guess that system would actually be very bad at mass surveillance. The radar system would be tuned to detect very small movements (the heartbeat), and reject clutter in the category of anything not moving and static (debris). So in a wide area with lots of movement, it's ability to determine if something was a separate object or person, and interesting on top of that would be severely limited. But this is jus…

By itself, yes. Coupled with other systems, it could potentially be very useful for its ability to determine person-ness of a given thing.

Re: Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

#78

Post by fixermark »

task_queue wrote: post #54
rhino369 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It a tool like any other. It can be used for good or evil. What you are doing in the middle of a Baltimore street isn't in any way private information. It's a public as you get. Sure, it could be used to perpetrate a Holocaust or something, but so could the 101st airborne. If the government wanted to go all Hitler on us, they already can get google data, facebook data, medical records, essentially everything that is…

Do we really want to tie a noose at the end of all the rope we already hand the authorities? There are tools people with power shouldn't have access to, because people with power do not have a good track record of using them in good faith.

On the other hand, if I ever disappear in the woods on a hiking trip, I really want the local PD to have twenty drones on standby they can use to canvass the area instead of hoping their one helicopter spots me.

Re: Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

#79

Post by rhino369 »

task_queue wrote: post #54
rhino369 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It a tool like any other. It can be used for good or evil. What you are doing in the middle of a Baltimore street isn't in any way private information. It's a public as you get. Sure, it could be used to perpetrate a Holocaust or something, but so could the 101st airborne. If the government wanted to go all Hitler on us, they already can get google data, facebook data, medical records, essentially everything that is…

Do we really want to tie a noose at the end of all the rope we already hand the authorities? There are tools people with power shouldn't have access to, because people with power do not have a good track record of using them in good faith.

We trust the federal government with the power to, no exaggeration, annihilate the world.

If the government were going to use its power for evil, it'd go knocking on google/facebook/visa/amazon/comcast/grocery store/school/medical/whatever database to find its enemy.

What do you honestly think is a bigger risk for you? Getting murdered by a criminal or the US government via drone. Cause it's like 40k:2 for the past couple year.

Re: Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

#80

Post by rayiner »

task_queue wrote: post #54
rhino369 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It a tool like any other. It can be used for good or evil. What you are doing in the middle of a Baltimore street isn't in any way private information. It's a public as you get. Sure, it could be used to perpetrate a Holocaust or something, but so could the 101st airborne. If the government wanted to go all Hitler on us, they already can get google data, facebook data, medical records, essentially everything that is…

Do we really want to tie a noose at the end of all the rope we already hand the authorities? There are tools people with power shouldn't have access to, because people with power do not have a good track record of using them in good faith.

If we're assuming bad faith in the part of the government, and we assume the private sector collects all that information, then there is no point opposing surveillance efforts. It would be trivial for the government to storm a Google data center if they really wanted that information.
Post reply on HN