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

Drone ‘Nightmare Scenario’ Now Has A Name: ARGUS

aclu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 95 posts

Re: Drone ‘Nightmare Scenario’ Now Has A Name: ARGUS

#71

Post by logn »

ctdonath wrote: post #68

4th Amendment anyone? ...anyone?

It's been steadily eroded after a couple hundred years of court cases. It's really depressing to see almost all our constitutional rights now gone by this same process. When the government can explain their right to kill citizens extra-judicially in 16 pages, something's gone wrong.

I think we need a second bill of rights which re-establishes our rights in detail (and updates them for the digital age) and explicitly voids all contradicting precedence. That should last us another 200 years.

Specifically to your point, from what I know, surveillance is ok in public places. These drones clearly violate that since they could be watching your backyard BBQ. Worse, they could peer through skylights, into courtyards, through your sunroof, etc. But I'm sure the wise judges will find another reason based on precedent that this is ok.

Re: Drone ‘Nightmare Scenario’ Now Has A Name: ARGUS

#72

Post by maxerickson »

smackay wrote: post #65
maxerickson wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are committing something like the "perfect candidate fallacy". For a bank, making your future more predictable would likely just result in a different rate on the loan (either higher or lower, but they are interested in writing any loan that they think they can price sufficiently well). For the job, the candidates with better measurements would likely get promoted faster, but over time, the companies with more me…

I was not thinking of perfect candidates but rather having a lot of information that was previously inaccessible to those without means and money offers considerable scope for mischief. Even the most innocuous of habits can be used by those with a grudge or who you are in some way competing with to sow seeds of doubt and cause peers or superiors to question your motives, veracity or trustworthiness.

I think I get what you are saying, I guess I find such petty tyranny intolerable today, so more of it isn't very scary.

(I do realize that it is often a complicated thing to deal with)

Re: Drone ‘Nightmare Scenario’ Now Has A Name: ARGUS

#73

Post by mrdub »

If you want to see the kinds of tech research the military has been funding for the ARGUS platform: http://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/technology?term=argus

A few of these include:

Near-realtime Forensic Analysis Capabilities for Moving Target Indicator (MTI) Data

High Resolution 3D Reconstruction from Wide-Area Video

Wide Area Video Image Storage Techniques

Re: Drone ‘Nightmare Scenario’ Now Has A Name: ARGUS

#74

Post by ahallock »

brownbat wrote: post #70

Just listened to the last two episodes of This American Life, about a school in Chicago where there have been 29 kids shot over the last year.[1] On seeing this, immediately wondered if you could combine drones with gunshot detection systems.[2] The drone could hone in on gunshots and follow any vehicle in a drive by in real time without a dangerous car chase.[3] By implication, the drone "nightmare" scenario probabl…

If we want to help those kids, we must address the fundamental reasons those kids were shot. Drones detecting gun shots is a technological bandaid with the side effect of empowering the State even more.

People don't want to address the fundamental problems because they're hard and ugly and uncomfortable. It's much easier to dream about technology solving all our ills, when a lot of our problems are an effect of immorality.

Re: Drone ‘Nightmare Scenario’ Now Has A Name: ARGUS

#75

Post by nonamegiven »

cromwellian wrote: post #7

I'm afraid the genie is out of the bottle. ARGUS uses mobile phone sensors. Cameras are becoming almost "too cheap to meter", and too small to notice. Billions of people now walk around with mobile phone cameras, so chances are you're going to be recorded by someone in public, especially as cameras continue to evolve. It may be some small consolation that consumer cameras are ground level, and decentralized, where as…

The danger and difference is that governments that use these capabilities are dangerous. Not only can they rightly or wrongly harm individuals, they can do so for whole populations.

If you were shunned (rightly or wrongly) by your village for some observed or inferred transgression, you could go somewhere else.

There is no longer somewhere else.

Re: Drone ‘Nightmare Scenario’ Now Has A Name: ARGUS

#76

Post by drucken »

Mass surveillance of individuals by governments in many developed countries is already done via the mobile phone system, and increasingly even by private companies via smartphones.

That cat has been out of the bag for a long time. Drones are just one more cog in this respect.

Re: Drone ‘Nightmare Scenario’ Now Has A Name: ARGUS

#77

Post by philwelch »

smackay wrote: post #29
tekromancr wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if we went the completely opposite way? Forgo ALL privacy? Everyone has access to everyone else's data and metrics. If the genie is all ready out of the bottle, this might be the best outcome.

For the simple reason that not everyone you deal with is altruistic and has your best interests at heart. "anything [said] can and will be used against [the defendant] in the court of public opinion". Release of all information, without the required changes in human behaviour can only lead to self-censorship on a grand scale as people try and cover all the flaws an blemishes that might result in them not getting prom…

The flaws and blemishes are less meaningful if you can see everyone else's flaws and blemishes as well.

Re: Drone ‘Nightmare Scenario’ Now Has A Name: ARGUS

#79

Post by nonamegiven »

jmeekr wrote: post #6

I'm trying to keep the Orwellian thoughts out of my head, but this skips a few steps of creepiness for me. Is this even deemed legal/illegal?

"Is this even deemed legal?"

I'm sure the government itself deems it legal. The rest of us might disagree.

"When the President [or government] does it, that means that it is not illegal."

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22if+the+president+does+it%2C+the...

l'Etat, c'est les

Re: Drone ‘Nightmare Scenario’ Now Has A Name: ARGUS

#80

Post by brigade »

yk wrote: post #67
brigade wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1.8 Gpixel sensors don't exist, due to physics. It's combining 368 sensors. No one stores or transmits uncompressed video outside of RAM. 15Mbps is decent for 1080p24, so 1.8 Gpixel 24fps would be decent at 15Gbps. Assuming say 14 hours of daylight (drones can't stay up indefinitely and night vision has different requirements), that's no more than ~100 TB per mission or day. As for getting the data out, I'd assume th…

1.8 Gpixel sensors don't exist, due to physics. Why don't they exist? ( I imagine it is just a matter of making the chip large enough, to accommodate enough pixels.)

Well, I guess the sensor could theoretically be made using the entirety of a wafer. But it would be useless since the lens needed for such a large sensor would be more than the size and weight of a large ground telescope.
Post reply on HN