Atlas of Surveillance
atlasofsurveillance.org
Atlas of Surveillance
1–10 of 140 posts
Re: Atlas of Surveillance
#2There is no surveillance tech anyone can invent that won't be used at home against the domestic populace. And I do mean against. Parallel construction has become just another tool in the arsenal of control.
Re: Atlas of Surveillance
#3Does anyone know what's going on in florida with face recognition?
Re: Atlas of Surveillance
#4Does anyone know what's going on in florida with face recognition?
Reading through a couple of the descriptions it looks like they have a state-wide database for searching face images against FL driver's licence photos. Since all the departments are signed onto the system, they all get the symbol but there may be other reasons/more invasive systems mixed in with the clutter so take that for what it's worth.
Re: Atlas of Surveillance
#5Stuff like this gives me some hope. Where states like China have complete surveillance and control over their citizens, and that's where other fascist states seem to be headed, at least in western countries we are having these debates. And even though it seems like an ever-losing battle, my hope is that we can all be educated enough and band together on things that unite us to fight back against surveillance society controlled and abused by the powerful few.
Re: Atlas of Surveillance
#6There is no surveillance tech anyone can invent that won't be used at home against the domestic populace. And I do mean against. Parallel construction has become just another tool in the arsenal of control.
We really need to start calling "parallel construction" what it is: willful, premeditated perjury.
Re: Atlas of Surveillance
#7There is no surveillance tech anyone can invent that won't be used at home against the domestic populace. And I do mean against. Parallel construction has become just another tool in the arsenal of control.
We really need to start calling "parallel construction" what it is: willful, premeditated perjury.
Genuinely curious, in what context is it perjury? My understanding of parallel construction is:
1. Officer receives information $A through inadmissible means (which may be illegal, but not necessarily)
2. With information $A, officer is able to "prove" that a suspect perpetrated a given crime
3. Officer pieces together proof from possible unrelated, but admissible evidence - $B and $C, let's say.
4. And this is the part where I don't know that perjury is what we're talking about: Officer simply testifies to the truth of $B and $C, and that the suspect committed the crime in question.
Re: Atlas of Surveillance
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
We really need to start calling "parallel construction" what it is: willful, premeditated perjury.
Genuinely curious, in what context is it perjury? My understanding of parallel construction is: 1. Officer receives information $A through inadmissible means (which may be illegal, but not necessarily) 2. With information $A, officer is able to "prove" that a suspect perpetrated a given crime 3. Officer pieces together proof from possible unrelated, but admissible evidence - $B and $C, let's say. 4. And this is the p…
It's still fruit of the poisonous tree but step 3 involves concealing this fact in a manner that is nearly impossible for the defense to prove.
If a random search wasn't a random search, it's perjury to testify that it was a random search. Good luck proving it, though.
Re: Atlas of Surveillance
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
We really need to start calling "parallel construction" what it is: willful, premeditated perjury.
Genuinely curious, in what context is it perjury? My understanding of parallel construction is: 1. Officer receives information $A through inadmissible means (which may be illegal, but not necessarily) 2. With information $A, officer is able to "prove" that a suspect perpetrated a given crime 3. Officer pieces together proof from possible unrelated, but admissible evidence - $B and $C, let's say. 4. And this is the p…
I think the issue is that in the moral sense if something is inadmissible but is used to obtain admissible evidence, everything derived should also be inadmissible (GPL style). In this case the officer in perjuring himself by trying to pass off inadmissible evidence as admissible but this is more of a play on words than actual legal doctrine if I understand it correctly. What I think OP is saying is that it should be perjury and I totally agree.
Re: Atlas of Surveillance
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
We really need to start calling "parallel construction" what it is: willful, premeditated perjury.
Genuinely curious, in what context is it perjury? My understanding of parallel construction is: 1. Officer receives information $A through inadmissible means (which may be illegal, but not necessarily) 2. With information $A, officer is able to "prove" that a suspect perpetrated a given crime 3. Officer pieces together proof from possible unrelated, but admissible evidence - $B and $C, let's say. 4. And this is the p…
1. Officer receives information $A through inadmissible means (which may be illegal, but not necessarily)
2. With information $A, officer is able to "prove" that a suspect perpetrated a given crime
3. Knowing information $A, officer makes up bullshit showing that he reached $A solely from investigating leads from $B and $C.
4. $A is now admissible because the officer can show a link leading to $A from $B and $C, but he wouldn't have been able to without actually knowing what $A was.
For example, if I gave you a billion files to go through and find one thing, you probably wouldn't be able to. If I gave you the same billion files and told you file X was the one you should look at, you can say "oh I knew to look in X because of ".