
New surveillance technology can track everyone in an area for several hours - oftenwrong
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/new-surveillance-technology-can-track-everyone-in-an-area-for-several-hours-at-a-time/2014/02/05/82f1556e-876f-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html
======
asgard1024
I grew up in communist Czechoslovakia. Maybe people will disagree my account,
because I was quite young, but it's interesting. We didn't have gangs and
certainly didn't have bad neighbourhoods (maybe 1 exception). It was a
totalitarian state, and people were very afraid of police, but the
surveillance was nowhere as pervasive as it is now in the U.S. (all the
surveillance was done by people, not much technology).

After the Velvet revolution, it was always argued that the rise in the crime
that followed was because it's now less surveillance and less totalitarian.
Fair enough. Later I visited Western countries and saw they have bad
neighbourhoods and gangs, and a lot of surveillance. I have trouble believing
that argument now.

The point is, _you don 't need all this_, and I want to get this out. History
shows, there is _probably_ a way how to structure society (I mean getting rid
of gangs and bad neighbourhoods) without resorting to too much surveillance.

I think for a justice system to work, people need to have options. If they
have option to have a good life, then they are less likely to commit a crime.
I don't buy this will reduce crime or gangs or bad neighbourhoods, because
these people don't have good options to begin with.

~~~
ericd
I think you're exactly right about the options. If you see blatant criminals
living much more comfortably than you, you don't see any of your peers
succeeding via other routes, and jail doesn't seem that much worse than your
normal existence, then it actually seems pretty rational to try your hand at
crime.

~~~
hnriot
it's just a matter of defining what crime means.

------
beloch
I've read about many game-changing surveillance technologies lately, and
what's public is probably just the tip of the iceberg. I should be in dire
fear of a 1984-style surveillance state thanks to the continuing revelations
about the NSA's spying programs. However, I increasingly find myself numb to
it all. I haven't acted on anything. I don't know what to do so I keep on
living my life as if nothing had happened. If ever Toffler's term, "Future
Shock" applied, it applies to me now. Technology has transformed the world I
live in so fast that I don't know how to respond. Consequently, I do nothing.
I used to think future shock was something that could only happen to my
grandparents!

~~~
eliasmacpherson
Your reaction is normal for someone who didn't see this coming, or believe it
was happening already. Remember how Toffler described how those who dealt with
"Future Shock" successfully, they took control of aspects of their own life.
That's what you have to act on, what you can control. So they question you
should ask yourself is - what can you control? Anything you can control, you
should be able to teach others how to control, be it their computer or their
online behaviour.

That is unless you are happy with the present state of affairs and are
comfortably numb.

~~~
ZoF
Comfortably numb.

------
f_salmon
The major problem with mass surveillance is asymmetry:

Whenever governments get additional power to track what citizens do (and
ultimately _think_ ), citizens need to gain an additional degree of
transparency regarding its government [0], so the system keeps its balance. If
that does not happen - and obviously the opposite is the case for a very long
time now - the degree of abuse of the new power imbalance will continue to
increase, at the cost of the citizen.

[0] (This is something the President has emphasized, but his actions have, as
we must expect from every politician, gone in the opposite direction -
including the persecution of whistleblowers.)

~~~
kenjackson
Huge upvote. In many regards I'm anti-privacy. I think privacy probably causes
more harm than good. But the reason privacy is bad is asymmetry. Not just
citizen vs govt, but also individual vs individual.

I think if they did this camera surveillance and made the data public, that
MIGHT be a step in the right direction.

~~~
f_salmon
> But the reason privacy is bad is asymmetry.

Asymmetry is used to dominate others. Asymmetry is generated via wealth
imbalance (rich dominate poor) and now also via information imbalance
(government/banks/tech companies dominate the consumer/citizen).

We are created equal and should therefor have the same rights. Asymmetry in
wealth and information kills this principle.

------
navyrain
Privacy will be the hot topic of this decade, if not century. Now, when
violent crime is at a historical low, is not the time to give law enforcement
new and invasive capabilities.

~~~
roel_v
Privacy is dead, has been for a decade policy-wise, it's just the implications
are ramping up the last few years. Nobody except some fringe groups does
anything more than pay lip service tot the concept. I say this as someone with
an IRL reputation of rambling about the privacy implications of using
electronic payments (well I used to, I gave up years ago when I realized and
came to terms with the fact that privacy is dead). The cat is out of the bag
people, and there's no putting it back in. Surveillance tech is just like mp3
to the music industry - except this time, 'we' are on the receiving end.

~~~
f_salmon
If organizations such as the NSA continue to be allowed to exist, then you are
certainly right. But as long as you live in a democracy, you have the
"obligation" to elect the people who will represent your will, that is your
responsibility.

~~~
roel_v
If you think the NSA is our biggest problem, you need to wake up and smell the
roses. Literally _hundreds_ of parties track various parts of your _whole
life_ , online and offline. 'Democracy' can't help us, it's _uncontrollable_ ,
that's my point. It's _emerging behavior_ , call it the social or political
equivalent of Smith's invisible hand.

I'd happily settle for a situation where national intelligence agencies try to
collect everything they can about everybody. But it's not just that, it's
dozens of government agencies at various levels and with various levels of
competence, plus hundreds of private actors who have some way of tracking
something about you.

NSA shmaNSA - I'm much more concerned about the traffic cams in my city,
installed by I-get-paid-by-the-hour consultants or barely competent public
servants, who are supposed to follow all the so-called 'laws' and 'procedures'
when it comes to storage time frames, access control etc.; let alone the fact
that we're being watched 24/7 by itself. In 5 years time, HD cams will be so
cheap that it becomes feasible for a private party to plaster a whole city
with them (and many parties will do this). Slap on some facial recognition,
boom we have untrackable private parties keeping logs of where _every single
person_ walks _in all public spaces_. And hey, storage space is cheap, let's
keep all that data.

 _That_ is the real, practically relevant threat, not a government agency
stepping out of its bounds. And the scary thing is that _there is no realistic
way to avoid that situation_. Some legislation can keep it at bay for a decade
maybe, but long term - we'll have to adapt to the fact that 'privacy' as it
existed in the past is _gone_.

~~~
aragot
It's forbidden to walk on the street with 10 grands. It should be forbidden to
put more than X records of data in a database without a third-party
certification for every order of magnitude your database size is.

And that power has to raise aside from the governments agencies. I know it
might affect startups too, but the people who have gathered data until now
haven't stuck to enough ethics. The danger that data collection represents is
proportional to the square of the size of the db, or of the compatible systems
the data can be bound to.

Right, it's gonna be the theme of the decade.

------
lostcolony
'“I want them to be worried that we’re watching,” Biehl said. “I want them to
be worried that they never know when we’re overhead.”'

He means criminals. But it applies to citizens too. This is the chilling
effect. Right here.

~~~
unclebucknasty
You nailed it. I copied that quote to paste in a comment as well.

Can't upvote this enough.

------
crististm
This is agenda setting for the next generation: "As Americans have grown
increasingly comfortable with traditional surveillance cameras, far more
powerful generation is being quietly deployed...".

Why quietly? What's the problem being upfront if the people are "comfortable"?
People are not comfortable. They will probably confuse the drones with target
practice flying tin cans.

~~~
kiallmacinnes
and if you're in range to shoot at it.. You're probably in range if its
camera... I can see people who try this being charged with all sorts of
crimes! I don't think there's any doubt that shooting at someone else's
property is a crime.. Even if that property is, potentially, involved in
illegal surveillance..

Worse though, what if they confuse a manned aircraft for one of these and
succeed in shooting it down?

------
wavefunction
The thing these companies never mention is that video surveillance doesn't
deter criminals from committing acts of crime, nor does it stop a crime in
progress.

The best result we can hope for from these systems is a record of the event.
And I'm not of the opinion that what we gain from using these systems is worth
the cost we pay.

~~~
roel_v
_The thing these companies never mention is that video surveillance doesn 't
deter criminals from committing acts of crime_

Well that's not as clear as you make it seem. Likelihood of getting caught is
a very strong factor people consider when making to choice to commit a crime
or not; much stronger than e.g. the severity of the punishment. What video
surveillance does, is increase the solve rates, in other words the chance of
getting caught. When this is internalized by criminals, it's not unlikely that
crime rates will go down, i.e. that surveillance will have a deterring effect.

So it's true that putting up a camera doesn't deter by the fact of being
there. What does deter is the pervasive cognition that you're always being
watched. Whether that's a worthwhile trade-off is another question, but one
for which the debate is much harder to win.

~~~
thenmar
Would you mind citing a source for the somewhat counterintuitive claim that
likelihood of getting caught weighs more heavily than severity of punishment?

~~~
roel_v
Well I have to cop out from this one a bit, it was one of the central points
of the course on criminal psychology I took as part of my law degree but I
don't have references at hand. My books from that time are in storage because
I'm moving.

Of course one can't quantify exactly _how much_ several factors come into play
when making a decision, but basically the overall conclusion from experiments
was: as long as the severity of the punishment outweighs the benefits of the
crime (e.g. a fine of at least 11$ for stealing 10$), that severity doesn't
matter very much any more. So punishing all theft by death is only a marginal
deterrent. The policy focus should be on increasing the chance of getting
caught. (death penalty is an exaggerated and probably silly and untrue
example, but the fact that people still steal in places with Shariah law which
punishes theft by loss of a hand shows that extreme punishment is not an
absolute deterrent).

But yeah - I can't point you to the literature. Coincidentally I read in the
news paper a few days ago that my prof from that course is caught up in a
scandal about a book on an unsolved murder and hasn't been heard from for 2
weeks, so I can't really expect he'll answer an email about it either ;)

------
worldsayshi
“We can’t even see what they are doing in their backyard. And, by the way, we
don’t care.”

No, but you can see where those who attended the demonstration lives.

------
EGreg
This is where it starts getting scary. It's not the surveillance with people
behind the computer I'm worried about. It's the surveillance with computers
tracking everything, cross-referencing everything, and then being used to dig
up dirt on anyone in order to put them away at any time.

~~~
negativity

      Defense network computers. New... powerful... hooked into 
      everything. Trusted to run it all. 
    
      They say it got smart... A new order of intelligence. 
      Then it saw ALL people as a threat, not just the ones on 
      the other side. Decided our fate in a microsecond: 
    
      Extermination. 
    
      There was a nuclear war... A few years from now... All 
      this... this whole place... everything... it's gone... 
    
      Just gone. 
    
      There were survivors... Here... there... Nobody even knew 
      who started it. 
    
      It was The Machines, Sarah.

~~~
EGreg
Could be worse. We could have Collossus

------
gojomo
Sounds a lot like the DARPA 'ARGUS', a drone with a 1.8 gigapixel sensor that
"can observe and record an area half the size of Manhattan":

[http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/1/3940898/darpa-gigapixel-
dro...](http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/1/3940898/darpa-gigapixel-drone-
surveillance-camera-revealed)

~~~
mxfh
I'm afraid this Wide Area Motion Imagery (WAMI) is a real thing in the
industry now, and not going away.

It's even covered by the OGC [1], see their primer on the topic [2]

DARPA ARGIS-IS is already deployed to UAVs[3] and actually gives you video,
not jaggy-looking stitched DOP slideshows [4]. it looks like DARPA is way
ahead of Northrop Grumman which tries to get into that market with more
traditional expensive optical hardware, compared to DARPA's cheap phone camera
array, yet with inferior results.

[1]
[http://www.opengeospatial.org/node/1759](http://www.opengeospatial.org/node/1759)

[2]
[https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=50485](https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=50485)
[pdf]

[3]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5129332](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5129332)

[4]
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGxNyaXfJsA#t=120](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGxNyaXfJsA#t=120)
[video]

------
icu
Every time I read about the rise of the American surveillance state I always
ask myself this, "would our founding forefathers actually agree to this?"

I cannot see how they would allow for persistent surveillance as proposed in
this article. I would even go so far as to say the same about all of the NSA
revelations.

The problem I think is that the general public is disinterested and ignorant
of our nation's roots. Until such a time that Joe and Jane Average get angry
and active our America will continue down this evil path of no return.

------
kens
This technology seems not too bad at first - "each person appears as a single
pixel indistinguishable" \- but after thinking about this, it's really a big
deal for three reasons.

First, it would be trivial to tie this in to the network of surveillance
cameras, so you can see a person in detail when they walk past a camera.
You're now not an anonymous pixel but HD video.

Second, by correlating the "pixels" with even coarse celltower location over
time, you should be able to match a cellphone with every person. In other
words, you now know their identity and track almost everyone's location to
within a foot. No GPS needed.

Third, this information could be stored for all time and easily accessed.

I think this really is a "game-changing" technology as far as privacy goes. It
ties together location, identity, and images very tightly in a way they
haven't been connected before.

------
otoburb
This article casts McNutt (the retired Air Force officer with the PhD from
MIT) in an exemplary light with his actions of engaging with the ACLU.
However, despite the serious nature of the article, this particular quote
stood out in a humourous manner:

“And by the way, after people commit crimes, they drive like idiots.”

------
bradleysmith
I don't think this[0] is really new technology. It seems to be a PR/marketing
piece for Persistent Surveillance. Similar systems have been used w/ UAV's in
battle-zones for a while now. [1] [2] [3]

This may be a new implementation in civil uses, but it would surprise me. The
border patrol was using something similar a year or two ago [4]. They've since
abandoned it for towers, if I understand correctly [5].

[0] -
[http://www.persistentsurveillance.com/hawkeye.html](http://www.persistentsurveillance.com/hawkeye.html)

[1] -
[http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/psds2/](http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/psds2/)

[2] - [http://www.aeronautics-
sys.com/?CategoryID=260&ArticleID=284](http://www.aeronautics-
sys.com/?CategoryID=260&ArticleID=284)

[3] -
[http://www.afcea.org/content/?q=2012/08/10/19089](http://www.afcea.org/content/?q=2012/08/10/19089)

[4] - [http://www.blimpinfo.com/uncategorized/border-patrol-
blimp-n...](http://www.blimpinfo.com/uncategorized/border-patrol-blimp-
nogales-az/)

[5] - [http://www.fedagent.com/16-general-news/833-border-patrol-
ab...](http://www.fedagent.com/16-general-news/833-border-patrol-abandons-
persistent-surveillance-mentality)

------
netcan
I think surveillance and piracy have a lot in common. They are both
technological phenomenons at core. Morality, laws and norms come into play,
but they are secondary. Data being recorded and stored forever is the default
way our technology works just like making digital copies is the default way
technology works.

The level of political & moral intervention required to make any impact on
whatever the future holds for surveillance is massive. I'm not pessimistic,
but I am scared/worried. I think avoiding the "natural" progression towards
more surveillance will require as much political force as is/was needed to go
from non democratic to democratic. To use a slightly dated and naive term:
free societies. It's a big task.

I'm not American & US politics dominates on HN (and everywhere else). But, I
am looking to Americans to make a stand on this and draw a line in the sand.
The US has a liberalism deeply embedded in its political identity. It was
there when homesteads could be claimed based on improving land and it exists
today (often in slightly lunatic forms) in many ways. It's harder to get
American to accept speed cameras and inner city police cameras than Europeans.
I hope and think they have it in them. Come on Americans!

------
nairteashop
So what's the "new technology" here? Looks to me like hi-res videos stitched
together? Not saying that that isn't useful to law enforcement, just curious
if I am missing something interesting.

------
downandout
I actually think the potential value of this technology to commercial
businesses far exceeds the value to law enforcement. Walmart could see who is
shopping at Safeway, and send those people targeted mailers. Businesses that
don't have loyalty programs could also see who comes to their store most
often, and offer them special deals. Data about who goes to sporting events,
concerts, etc. would also be quite valuable.

There are just a ton of commercial applications for this that would be
incredibly useful for businesses.

~~~
wavefunction
Great for companies, but when it comes down to it I only care about people.
Why in the hell do I want to become some sort of surveillance pawn to be
quibbled and harassed by Walmart and Target so they can squeeze a few marginal
dollars out of me.

One is not even a business, since they don't pay a living wage to their
employees and rely on US taxpayers to prop up the Walton fortune.

The other (actual) business has apparently never heard of PCI compliance or
decided it was a hassle.

Sounds awesome.

------
diydsp
Nice, but just lotsa cameras....

Make something that could have detected HSBC's drug money laundering with the
same level of detail and I'll be impressed.

------
angersock
_" Dayton Police Chief Richard Biehl, a supporter of McNutt’s efforts, has
proposed inviting the public to visit the operations center to get a glimpse
of the technology in action.

“I want them to be worried that we’re watching,” Biehl said. “I want them to
be worried that they never know when we’re overhead.”"_

These folks want nothing short of terror in everyone, a panopticon.

Imagine a boot stomping on a human face, forever.

------
unclebucknasty
9/11 was the catalyst for all of this. We've been on a slippery slope ever
since.

~~~
icu
I believe it goes much further back and is much more deeper than 911.

In 1975 Senator Frank Church said the following:

"In the need to develop a capacity to know what potential enemies are doing,
the United States government has perfected a technological capability that
enables us to monitor the messages that go through the air. Now, that is
necessary and important to the United States as we look abroad at enemies or
potential enemies. We must know, at the same time, that capability at any time
could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any
privacy left such is the capability to monitor everything—telephone
conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide.

If this government ever became a tyrant, if a dictator ever took charge in
this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has
given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would
be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in
resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within
the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this
technology.

I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the
capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it
that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within
the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss.
That is the abyss from which there is no return." (For verified sources of
this quote visit the Wikipedia page on the Church Committee:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee.))

These words almost exactly cover the situation now as they did nearly 40 years
ago!!!

If anyone thinks the conduct of the Government in the next 40 years will be
different they are dreaming. The United Surveillance Sates of America is an
entrenched practice.

My conclusion is that technologists hold the key to hope in what would
otherwise be a hopeless situation. The hackers here can create technology that
can subvert the Government's tyranny.

Civilian counterintelligence starts with counter-technology.

~~~
unclebucknasty
Interesting quote, but I have to completely disagree with your conclusion that
it's about technology. In fact, even your quote itself from Mr. Church is
clearly stating that only our laws can restrain our technology and maintain
our freedom. You've missed his point entirely.

There have always been examples of government overreach, whether by
technological means or otherwise. But, what we are witnessing today is a near
complete rewriting and reinterpretation of the laws that protect us from such
overreach. The pace of technological innovation has simply served as the
vehicle for implementing this overreach.

Starting with the PATRIOT act and Bush's legal team's loose interpretation of
existing protections, we have seen this country veer dangerously into
dissolution of fundamental rights, torture, extra-judicial killings, wars of
choice, a vastly expanded surveillance state and more. It is not the
technology that has enabled this. It is the laws. And only behind the shock of
9/11 could the collective psyche of the American public be rendered so
unbalanced and so fearful as to allow such fundamental and drastic change to
our country's beliefs, ethos, and laws.

> _...technologists hold the key to hope in what would otherwise be a hopeless
> situation. The hackers here can create technology that can subvert the
> Government 's tyranny"_

That is a dangerous fantasy and a technologists' pipe dream. It is completely
misguided and follows from the common belief that you have articulated above.
As I mentioned, it is the laws, not the technology that pose the foundational
threat. From a technology standpoint, we control nothing. Engaging in a game
of cat-and-mouse with a government whose resources are effectively limitless
and one who is unbounded by any laws would be disastrous. We will lose. We are
losing. Again, from Mr. Church's quote above, "the most careful effort to
resist...is within the reach of the government to know".

So, as much as we like to dream about freedom-fighting hackers saving the day,
it's utter nonsense. If not for whistle-blowers like Snowden, we wouldn't even
know where the battlefield was, let alone how to fight.

The laws need to be clear and they need to protect whistleblowers, so there is
no doubt that they are heroes. We need to restore our protections and return
to our principles. That is what will save us, if anything will.

------
markyc
next step, mount some tranquilizers on them to stop crimes while they happen

next step after that..

------
MarkNederhoed
This is the opposite of a new frontier for privacy.

------
codex
This is fantastic. Safety in public places will increase and increase over
time. I cannot wait.

Surveillance is the new fear of nuclear weapons. In both cases, new technology
generates a huge frothy paranoia among the public which does not, in the end,
amount to anything.

This is because the public feeds on fear and discounts reassuring information.
The net effect of nuclear weapons has been, instead, quite positive--bringing
about a cessation of world wars.

~~~
5sdd09f
not-sure-if-troll-or-just-really-really-stupid.jpg

~~~
nkurz
Here's some excerpts from his recent comments that suggest sincerity by
someone who has a very different worldview than many of the participants here.

Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel peace prize: "Given that Snowden has
undermined Pax Americana, I find this nomination surprising."

Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft: "Sure, I'll take cheaper parts for my
car, and I love getting something for nothing, but on the list of humanity's
problems, non-GPL software is very, very low."

Watchdog Report Says N.S.A. Program Is Illegal and Should End: "They're not
committing crimes against the American people. Not one American has been found
who has been demonstrably harmed by any NSA program. Without harm, there no
criminal act."

Startup failure post-mortems: "If you can't create a successful company, what
makes you think you know why a company was unsuccessful? It's just more mental
masturbation."

Ask PG: Is HN Expired Link Eventual Fix Planned?: "I suspect the fix will
result in a large change to the code base and you want to always
own/understand the code for some reason. So if you can't fix it yourself,
nobody is allowed to, either."

NSA statement does not deny 'spying' on members of Congress: "The real
question is: has an human looked at Congressional metadata, or are they likely
to do so? This question was not asked because, given the data protections in
place, the answer is likely no."

Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move: "If Emacs moves to git, can we call it by
its proper name: git/Emacs?"

It's not a worldview I understand at all, but it's good to have diversity. And
I'll admit, the last one is genuinely funny.

