FBI Surveillance Vendor Threatens to Sue Tech Reporters for Crime of Journalism
1–10 of 40 posts
Re: FBI Surveillance Vendor Threatens to Sue Tech Reporters for Crime of Journalism
#2 > In warning the site not to disclose the brochure, SSG’s attorney reportedly claimed the document is protected under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), though the notice did not point to any specific section of the law, which was enacted to regulate arms exports at the height of the Cold War.
We really need an overhaul of all these old laws that were enacted for a completely different era, which are now being misused. Another example is 200 year old laws being used to get companies to break encryption.
Re: FBI Surveillance Vendor Threatens to Sue Tech Reporters for Crime of Journalism
#3Time for the Streisand effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Re: FBI Surveillance Vendor Threatens to Sue Tech Reporters for Crime of Journalism
#4I don't know how I feel about hidden surveillance cameras in public. I know I shouldn't have any expectation of privacy in public and all that, but CCTV cameras in plain view are a different matter.
Are we going to live in a world where we're constantly being recorded and analysed by hidden cameras? This makes me very uneasy. Whatever happened to the idea that democratic governments should be for the people?
I'm sure there's no way that this can ever possibly be misused /s.
If agencies are using these for surveillance on specific targets then that's maybe okay, but as far as I'm aware, there is not much regulation regarding hidden cameras in public - at least, not in many parts of the world.
Re: FBI Surveillance Vendor Threatens to Sue Tech Reporters for Crime of Journalism
#5Time for the Streisand effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Eh. Does it even matter? The way news cycles work right now, and with just how much information gets put out there daily, this will barely reach any percentage of the population, and those who do read the article will forget about it in a day or two.
Re: FBI Surveillance Vendor Threatens to Sue Tech Reporters for Crime of Journalism
#6I don't know how I feel about hidden surveillance cameras in public. I know I shouldn't have any expectation of privacy in public and all that, but CCTV cameras in plain view are a different matter. Are we going to live in a world where we're constantly being recorded and analysed by hidden cameras? This makes me very uneasy. Whatever happened to the idea that democratic governments should be for the people? I'm sure…
"But think of the children". This is an excuse that always work when the governments get even more in the lives of the citizens; with it you can ban anything, you can monitor, search, decrypt, forbid, etc.
Re: FBI Surveillance Vendor Threatens to Sue Tech Reporters for Crime of Journalism
#7I don't know how I feel about hidden surveillance cameras in public. I know I shouldn't have any expectation of privacy in public and all that, but CCTV cameras in plain view are a different matter. Are we going to live in a world where we're constantly being recorded and analysed by hidden cameras? This makes me very uneasy. Whatever happened to the idea that democratic governments should be for the people? I'm sure…
> I don't know how I feel about hidden surveillance cameras in public.
Me either. I mean, once people get used to just having cameras on them all the time, they'll basically just ignore the camera and act however they want. No real need for hidden cameras, just have to be patient.
Re: FBI Surveillance Vendor Threatens to Sue Tech Reporters for Crime of Journalism
#8I don't know how I feel about hidden surveillance cameras in public. I know I shouldn't have any expectation of privacy in public and all that, but CCTV cameras in plain view are a different matter. Are we going to live in a world where we're constantly being recorded and analysed by hidden cameras? This makes me very uneasy. Whatever happened to the idea that democratic governments should be for the people? I'm sure…
>Are we going to live in a world where we're constantly being recorded and analysed by hidden cameras?
Yes. Worse - the governments don't even have to spend the time and money setting up these cameras, the consumer is buying and setting up more and more surveillance devices on themselves and those around them (Cellphones, Google Home, Alexa, Nest cameras, Ring cameras, etc. etc.) than ever.
All of it piped into communications networks we know they have untapped access to. All of it being stored and analyzed in places like the NSA's data warehouses, the output of which gets added to things like our XKeyscore profiles. Rise high enough on their undefined terms and they'll make extra effort to analyze your appearance in that network traffic.
Might sound dystopian but that's how it is. It's for our own good, don't you know?
Re: FBI Surveillance Vendor Threatens to Sue Tech Reporters for Crime of Journalism
#9I don't know how I feel about hidden surveillance cameras in public. I know I shouldn't have any expectation of privacy in public and all that, but CCTV cameras in plain view are a different matter. Are we going to live in a world where we're constantly being recorded and analysed by hidden cameras? This makes me very uneasy. Whatever happened to the idea that democratic governments should be for the people? I'm sure…
I imagine perspective explains a lot of the behavior. San Diego's police department has been getting flack for streetlights with cameras in them for example, but San Diego's police department has also been having trouble hiring enough police officers. From the perspective of the PD the cameras probably /are/ for the people because the people are making the (currently) impossible demand that the police force be both effective and also configured in a way that has led to a staffing shortage. Not that I give the same benefit of the doubt to the FBI, but it seems like the Occam's Razor explanation for why LEO would do something that from the outside looks hostile.
Re: FBI Surveillance Vendor Threatens to Sue Tech Reporters for Crime of Journalism
#10Time for the Streisand effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Eh. Does it even matter? The way news cycles work right now, and with just how much information gets put out there daily, this will barely reach any percentage of the population, and those who do read the article will forget about it in a day or two.
Calling Gizmodo a part of the news cycle is pretty generous. If the story was coming from somewhere mainstream like the AP, Reuters, or even CNN or Fox it'd likely stick around for a bit. Gizmodo is mostly niche articles for tech enthusiasts that like bite sized intrigue articles.