Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

How do you defend against the eye in the sky, video surveillance or location tracking ? There seems to be conflicting objectives. When hiding an object you don't want too many people around to see where you hide it. Yet if you record only two person going to exactly the same non standard spot it's pretty much a red flag, then you follow the person in the recording to identify them. Most buildings are probably not valid because they can't be entered easily by both parties.

Yeah, it's a great story, but machine vision + machine learning + surveillance could pull the rug out from the dropgangs market in a second.

But really, other than this fatal flaw, it's a great narrative of the internet spilling into and interfacing with analog markets

London is the most surveilled public space on the planet with full access for law enforcement. Somehow crime still happens there.

Technology is not a magic bullet. It also is also neutral and does not choose sides. Crime will exist for as long as it is profitable. There's even crime and black markets in highly secure, structured environments like prison. "Arms Race" between law and outlaw will continue.

Completely agree. This is how power works.

Note that I said "could" in the original post ... Type 1. Some things "could" be with enough power backing them, Type 2. While others could never be regardless of power backing (eg engineering limits like quantum computing, or even organizational limits like the petro-bolivar?).

With the right backing - political, resources, talent - surveillance tech "could" quickly squash dropgangs, so it belongs to Type 1. (Btw, where talent goes is a key determinant.)

Employ and build trust with a tight circle of local homeless folk, establish delivery methods which circumvent surveillance such as on-foot delivery, chained drops, multiple couriers, etc. Some distribution networks currently employ such methods. It will always be a game of cat and mouse.

Homeless have nothing to lose and everything to gain, busted

It's not a fatal flaw, unless they choose a location with police surveillance, but why would they?

Taking a guess: ML is just too good. Don't forget, it's also a signal to leave surveillance areas, eg "last seen driving into the desert". Any kind of outlier behavior is PART of the detection model ... that's where probabilistic models gain leverage, in fact ...

I think if “he left surveilled areas for no registered reason” is something that law enforcement observes and considers evidence of criminal activity, we’ll have well and truly lost any semblance of being a free society.

"Parallel Construction" ... yep, sad times https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

I don't see how parallel construction applies here.

You are vastly overestimating your adversary here.

This kind of statement is hard to argue, as incentive to conceal technological ability is likely baked into the game. So then what's your threat model?

Well you're still vulnerable to stuff like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayZwAI8H9jA

> Yeah, it's a great story, but machine vision + machine learning + surveillance could pull the rug out from the dropgangs market in a second.

Even when the dead drop could be as subtle as attaching something under a public bench or dropping something in a trash can?

I predict complex urban drop points in subways or steam tunnels to compensate.

in most cities those places are even more heavily monitored through CCTV than a park, so I am not sure if it adds value. On one hand you have the god eye in the sky and in the other CCTV in a metro.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact