San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance • Hacker News Board

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#281

Post by cbnotfromthere » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 9:57 PM UTC

bitL wrote: post #244

cbnotfromthere wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You can still observe it even in FANG that is specifically poaching people from EEU for dirty work (e.g. building internal censorship tools led by Ukrainian/Romanian/non-US devs)." Romania is not and never was part of the EEU aka Eurasian Economic Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Economic_Union

Alright, I meant Eastern (members of) European Union (EEU) vs Western (members of) European Union (WEU). You could see it sometimes abbreviated that way. Didn't occur to me it denotes Eurasian union (I thought that one was largely defunct anyway?).

"I meant Eastern (members of) European Union (EEU) vs Western (members of) European Union (WEU)"

If so then you made another mistake :-) as Ukraine is not a member state of the European Union.

[EEU vs WEU] You could see it sometimes abbreviated that way."

Please don't read my comment as aggressive but I have NEVER seen such abbreviated form.

"Eurasian union (I thought that one was largely defunct anyway?)"

This entity is very much alive and kicking (usually as much as Vladimir Putin wants it to be). The EEU presidency is held throughout 2019 by Armenia.

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#282

Post by bitL » Wed, Apr 03, 2019, 4:42 AM UTC

cbnotfromthere wrote: post #281

bitL wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alright, I meant Eastern (members of) European Union (EEU) vs Western (members of) European Union (WEU). You could see it sometimes abbreviated that way. Didn't occur to me it denotes Eurasian union (I thought that one was largely defunct anyway?).

"I meant Eastern (members of) European Union (EEU) vs Western (members of) European Union (WEU)" If so then you made another mistake :-) as Ukraine is not a member state of the European Union. [EEU vs WEU] You could see it sometimes abbreviated that way." Please don't read my comment as aggressive but I have NEVER seen such abbreviated form. "Eurasian union (I thought that one was largely defunct anyway?)" This entit…

The "Ukrainian" portion was related to "ex-Soviet Union" I mentioned there (cough) ;-) No need to be so academic here lol

With Eurasian union I thought that Ukraine basically killed it and since then Kazakhstan is trying to get rid of cyrilic and Lukashenko is all in to be either the Russian boss and Putin successor or moving Belarus towards EU, so the original Eurasian union idea is toast. At least from my outsider perspective (never visited any ex-Soviet Union countries, just knew some people from there, both pro and anti-western ones).

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#283

Post by NikkiA » Wed, Apr 03, 2019, 1:48 PM UTC

dTal wrote: post #255

ams6110 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you have helped to build Auschwitz if you got paid enough money?

Funnily enough, this isn't some outlandish hypothetical. American IT workers literally helped build Auschwitz. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_during_World_War_II

And they haven't stopped, they just recently built the surveillance system for Duterte that would identify 'drug users' to allow them to be targeted for extra-judicial killings.

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#284

Post by BurningFrog » Wed, Apr 03, 2019, 3:23 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #263

BurningFrog wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How will a streetlight camera affect any of that?

By allowing tracking of every citizen to and from every other citizen's house, place of work or worship, park, street corner or alley 24 hours a day.

I guess that could have some marginal effect.

But I'd be much more worried about eavesdropping on my electronic communication. Which they apparently already do at will.

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#285

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Apr 03, 2019, 3:57 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #284

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By allowing tracking of every citizen to and from every other citizen's house, place of work or worship, park, street corner or alley 24 hours a day.

I guess that could have some marginal effect. But I'd be much more worried about eavesdropping on my electronic communication. Which they apparently already do at will.

What?! Its the standard surveillance technique of security forces worldwide - tracking the movements of a suspect. I'm convinced somebody is trolling here, and it isn't me.

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#286

Post by rak00n » Wed, Apr 03, 2019, 8:57 PM UTC

lostlogin wrote: post #277

rak00n wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt that Google's options are shrinking. There aren't that many companies with similar pay scale or culture.

Isn’t the culture the problem, and that’s why they are leaving?

Ethical ground is definitely part of the culture but not entirty of it.

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#287

Post by mark212 » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 1:48 AM UTC

Terr_ wrote: post #200

mark212 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s classified the same as other confidential information. There was a senior detective fired because she mishandled the same class of info on a case, so yeah there are serious consequences for breaking these rules. It’s not at all like corporate policies.

So... No criminal charges, just fired? How is that markedly different? The subtext of my post was that virtuously rigorous guidelines with no enforcement mechanism are a paper tiger.

anything short of criminal charges is "no enforcement mechanism"? You do realize that if you're a POST-certified peace officer and terminated for cause (1) you lose your pension and (2) are utterly unemployable by any other law enforcement agency. That means you're in your mid-50s and can't find a job in the field you've worked in for a few decades, and probably can't get hired as a security guard because lack of POST certification means you can't carry a gun on the job.

It's quite a harsh punishment for accessing records inappropriately.

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#288

Post by mark212 » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 1:50 AM UTC

another_comment wrote: post #179

mark212 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there aren’t. This is a few hundred cameras and it’s mostly downtown. San Diego is the eighth largest city in the US and this is a tiny fraction of the city. Evaluate it on the merits, but be clear about what’s really going on.

>> No, there aren’t. This is a few hundred cameras and it’s mostly downtown. Wrong. I've seen these from Pacific Beach to Imperial Beach. That is around 40 miles from North to South. They are _everywhere_. You can spot them by the black antennas sticking out the bottom of the light fixture. Source: I've lived in San Diego for 50 years.

that's a different system. They don't have cameras.

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#289

Post by mark212 » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 1:53 AM UTC

loteck wrote: post #205

mark212 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there aren’t. This is a few hundred cameras and it’s mostly downtown. San Diego is the eighth largest city in the US and this is a tiny fraction of the city. Evaluate it on the merits, but be clear about what’s really going on.

This is factually incorrect. There are currently over 3000 cameras live on this system, with the goal to increase to over 4000. You can see them all here: https://cityiqmapsd.herokuapp.com/

This is inaccurate. Only a small fraction are live. And it would take a lot more than 3,000 cameras to be "city wide" in SD. It's a really large city in geographic terms.

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#290

Post by yellowapple » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 8:49 PM UTC

Reelin wrote: post #245

everybodyknows wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See section 632(b) of California Penal Code: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xh... .

I actually read through that entire document out of curiosity. As far as I can tell it only applies to audio recording (and telegraphs, and cable TV, and a couple other misc items, but not video from what I see). Also, there's the bit right at the top: > Therefore, it is not the intent of the Legislature to place greater restraints on the use of listening devices and techniques by law enforcement agencies than existe…

> So is it a misdemeanor to track your child via their cellphone in CA?

It's worth looking at the whole section:

    CA Penal Code § 637.7 (2017)  
    
    (a) No person or entity in this state shall use an
    electronic tracking device to determine the location or
    movement of a person.
    
    (b) This section shall not apply when the registered
    owner, lessor, or lessee of a vehicle has consented to
    the use of the electronic tracking device with respect
    to that vehicle.
    
    (c) This section shall not apply to the lawful use of an
    electronic tracking device by a law enforcement agency.
    
    (d) As used in this section, “electronic tracking
    device” means any device attached to a vehicle or other
    movable thing that reveals its location or movement by
    the transmission of electronic signals.
    
    (e) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
    
    (f) A violation of this section by a person, business,
    firm, company, association, partnership, or corporation
    licensed under Division 3 (commencing with Section 5000)
    of the Business and Professions Code shall constitute
    grounds for revocation of the license issued to that
    person, business, firm, company, association,
    partnership, or corporation, pursuant to the provisions
    that provide for the revocation of the license as set
    forth in Division 3 (commencing with Section 5000) of
    the Business and Professions Code.

I guess it depends on how you define "vehicle or other movable thing". Children are technically things and they are technically movable, so if the child didn't consent to being tracked, I guess it's technically illegal (and since a child probably does not fit the definition of "vehicle", it's not sufficient for the "owner, lessor, or lessee" of a child - i.e. a parent or guardian - to provide that consent).

However, IIRC there are a lot of cases where a parent's consent is considered to be equivalent to the child consenting, and this might be one of them; as long as the parent consents to the child being tracked, it'd be legal in such a case.

Obligatory "I ain't a lawyer".