Things like ring doorbells on the other hand should be cracked down - the number of times I see people in the UK posting pictures of public areas on facebook is shocking, but if they're just sat there, being deleted unless pulled for a proper reason, that's fine too.
What really does concern me is when things like image recognition come into the picture. A corporation can't montior me by paying someone to sift through CCTV pictures. They can montior me by using automation to process everything though.
This is a good thing, how successful it is remains to be seen.
It shouldn't be recorded in the first place.
That being said, I will never get a Ring doorbell or something similar. I also believe that the tech companies should not be allowed to hoard data about people’s private or public lives at all.
If yes, why them, and not tech firms?
We had abusive neighbours who damaged our belongings before so we essentially had to install a CCTV system. They were coax cameras hooked up to a DVR with no internet functionality (and that data had to be overridden regularly due to the size of the disk).
At the end of the day, if you're under threat of damage to your things, I would recommend a CCTV system. You won't see me recommending Amazon's offerings (or any other "cloud" solution rolls eyes), though.
Any yes, I have been victim of vandalism multiple times. Doesn't mean I want to be surveilled forever. There is no absolute security.
Unless I'm mistaken the UK hasn't drifted off and become and independent island chain separate from Europe
Sometimes people make mistakes, sometimes outright errors. Sometimes people use language to push ideas they like, such as "the EU is Europe" and thus not being a part of the EU is somehow an offence against nature. I'm not sure why these mistakes, errors, and mendacities should go unchallenged and uncorrected.
Every use of "Europe" in that article could be replaced with "EU" and it would be the better for it.
The problem is the there’s no specific term for the people living in either the US or the EU, so we “wrongly” use Americans and European.
Note: I say this as both a US|EU citizen.
Some would argue that's exactly what happened but your point is valid, EU != 'Europe the continent'. The problem is that such imprecise usage is rampant.
I wouldn't say people are "essentially powerless", especially in the EU with GDPR. I can't speak for other parts of the world of course (CCPA is the only thing remotely similar to GDPR that I'm aware of in America).
Question: Wouldn't it be reasonable to have a law that recordings of public areas for the sake of investigation of serious crime be immediately encrypted such that they could only be decrypted by a court order? (Such a law might be enforced by random inspections and huge fines.)
But banning devices from automatically posting everything to the manufacturer's computers without any user intervention is easy, and quite probably enough for the near future.
How about a secret-sharing scheme that requires keys from a certain number of judges?
Now id yo could restrict the police's use of databases to send hate mail to anyone left of the clan (as in Bernie Sanders, not as in left over), that would be a worthy endeavor. But if I have a choice, I'll take a law with teeth and a prosecutor who cares over technology.
The problem is that it is impossible to use public spaces without being recorded -- which is uncomfortable in itself -- and that various people who do not need to have access to the recordings -- which is extra uncomfortable. There is also the unnecessarily large potential for abuse. The default should be that noone has access, and, as far as I can see, it could be.
While I do share your concern, the current rule of thumb - at least in the USA - is that privacy is not expected in public spaces. I can see that since, by definition, that's what makes public public.
I understand that this might not be the law, but I'm interested in if it should be.
But the counter argument would be "Harassed by a doorbell, how so?" and "I have a right to protect my property and my family. My camera allows this to happen."
Unless the legal definition of "in public" changes, the surveillance will continue.
If you take a photo in town square and I'm in the background no worries, that's fine. If you follow me around taking photos of me in town square then that's harassment - not fine.
If your Nest doorbell watches me walk past your house that's also fine. However if your entire street has Nest then has Amazon identified me as having walked down your entire street? If so, that should also be harassment.
The issue isn't that the photo or video was taken, it's the correlation that happens after the fact.
I'm NOT a fan of Teslas sentry mode.
It is? Since how long; when was that law changed?
"you should make sure that the information recorded is used only for the purpose for which your system was installed (for example it will not be appropriate to share any recordings on social media sites)"
This is of course routinely ignored and unenforced
I think if you're in public, you should assume you're going to be recorded. I don't think it should be this way, but it is.
I think the inflection point between surveillance and home security is "cloud." The footage should not be accessible to third parties without a warrant, and it should be under the individual's control. Questions of life, limb, and liberty should not be offloaded to unelected, self-interested, profit seeking corporations like Amazon and Google.
So install it for the purpose of sharing on social media. Problem solved!
(I'm only half joking)
People are allowed to take photos and videos on a public area, but aren't allowed to leave a recording device there.
 The US is hardly alone in this - they just happen to be the point here.
You typically have to ask for a permit to surveillance any public space and the difficulty of getting one often ranges from hard to illegal.
Alas US cultural hegemony pushes strongly the the rest of the world, especially the western anglosphere
In particular, we ask the Commission to prohibit, in law and in practice, indiscriminate or arbitrarily-targeted uses of biometrics which can lead to unlawful mass surveillance.
So long as it is discriminate and non-arbitrary that can be ok then?
We have seen so many legal justifications and equivocations to laws from the surveillance state that I now assume legal counsel will always find a way to break the prima facie law.
German intelligence broke many German laws with the NSA, while Merkel virtue signaled and decried the NSA (comparing them to the Stasi) and Obama spying on her.
> Biometrische Erkennung im öffentlichen
Raum sowie automatisierte staatliche Scoring Systeme durch KI sind europarechtlich auszuschließen (page 19)
Translated: Biometric recognition in public spaces as well as AI-based, automated scoring systems ran by governments are to be prohibited by European law.
> Flächendeckende Videoüberwachung und den Einsatz von
biometrischer Erfassung zu Überwachungszwecken lehnen wir ab
Translated: We refuse widespread video surveillance as well as usage of biometric recognition for surveillance purposes.
To summarize: Using biometrics or other technology for surveillance, particularly any attempt to recreate China's Social Credit Score, is banned. The exception in the English text is to allow biometric measures for identification (e.g. passports) and access control.
That's ok but an exception for law enforcement and national security would be useful.
This technology is a tool, like all technologies, and as such it may be used positively or negatively.
For instance, here in the UK we have automatic plate recognition cameras that are used to track uninsured or wanted cars. In the same spirit it might be useful to have similar cameras operated by the police to match people with a database of wanted or missing people (with only matches stored and reported for further investigation). Now this may not not work very well yet, there may be caveats and procedures to develop, etc but IMHO this means we should work on it and see if it can become useful rather than killing it off completely so early by having a blanket ban.
In any case, individual member states can draw their own laws on this.
On a side note, the wording in English might give the impression that the German government decides EU law...
The only realistic way to counter this is to say no to surveillance technology from the start.
> But, when pressed, no one can point to cases where this actually helped.
This seems like an early dismissal. It is obvious how facial recognition can help locate suspects for some crime more easily than a police officer hoping to randomly find the suspect while driving around.
> The only realistic way to counter this
Counter what exactly? This just feels like FUD.
Checks and balances on police have been tried and the result wasn't even remotely what politicians promised. Judicial oversight, for example, isn't actually working. Police and judges go through the motions, but judges routinely get so many requests for warrants that they sign almost anything in practice because they have too little time to check each one thoroughly. That's how we get police searching the homes of security researchers who dared to report gaping security holes just because they pissed off whoever had the security issues in the first place. It's a pattern that repeated quite a few times. I don't have the time now to dig up a list of cases that followed this pattern and where, in the end, the researchers walked away scot free, but often with considerable financial damages.
Another example: police has pretty extensive databases with private details of individuals. Officers are only allowed to access records in them when their work assignment warrants it. The software keeps audit logs on database accesses so that misuse can be discovered and held in check. But it turned out that nobody ever checks these logs. This came to light initially when police officers started to leak contact details of lawyers to far-right extremists to have them threatened. Under political pressure, the logs were finally reviewed and they found wide spread abuse of the available databases. The result: two years later, the same lawyers and some politicians receive another set of death threats, even after moving to new addresses they kept painstakingly secret. Again, the trace leads back to police officers leaking personal information.
Politicians are also gradually expanding existing police powers in somewhat bad faith. First, it's just for an extremely narrow set of sufficiently horrible crimes like terrorism or sexual abuse of children. And they swear by all that's holy that this will be all that it's ever going to be used for. Then, maybe two or three years later, when public interest is drawn to other issues, the same parties start to steadily and quietly amend this list time and again. [Curiously, many such law changes get discussed and voted on during big football tournaments (think European Championship or World Championship) when they don't draw much attention. But I can't tell whether that's merely the result of election cycles aligning with these tournaments by chance or a deliberate tactic.]
To sum it up: if there is a way to put working checks on police powers, politicians haven't found them or don't establish them in a way that is effective. In light of these patterns, the only realistic stance that remains is to either give police full unchecked access to certain tools or none at all. I wish I could subscribe to your view on this matter, and to be fair, many years ago I would have agreed. But I have been disillusioned since.
Of course, there should be checks, controls, limitations placed upon those institutions, and transparency in their workings. But the police is here to protect and serve the community, at least it should be, not to oppress it. I've noticed that this is a difference in the way the police is often seen in Europe vs. in the UK for instance.
The key question when the phrase "protect and serve the community" comes up is "which community?" and the answer is: it primarily serves the interest of the rich and powerful. If you are poor, not in the majority ethnic or in any other way not "mainstream", you have shit times ahead of you. No matter the country, the only difference between a cop in the US and a cop in the UK is better training and less reliance on guns.
Homeless, being a person of color, being LGBT, protesting the government (especially from the left wing) - all common risk factors for adverse interactions with police. If you never have had a negative interaction with police, ask yourself why and prepare for an answer you likely would not have liked to hear.
Ah, so that’s why American cops routinely murder random people and go unpunished - it’s just the lack of training!
(The reality is that there’s a fundamental difference in that in Europe police is just another government branch that’s helping people, like firefighters and doctors; normal people don’t need to fear them and avoid any unnecessary interactions, which seems to be the case in the US.)
I'm German. Our cops are infamous for racial profiling and can, at least according to several independent investigations, even get away with murdering people in their jail cells (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oury_Jalloh).
Better training doesn't prevent racial profiling and this kind of problems.
Jesus hell no. Law enforcement already has too many permissions, and you can bet that there are more than enough people who would like the police to put iris scanners, gait monitors and other crap on each train station and public square. Minority Report and Little Brother should be warning enough, I feel no desire to see science fiction becoming reality.
> but IMHO this means we should work on it and see if it can become useful rather than killing it off completely so early by having a blanket ban.
We need a blanket ban because when you grant the government a single digit of your hand, tomorrow it has your whole arm in a vice. "War on terror!" "War on drugs!", "war on prostitution!", "protect our children from kidnapping!!!" - the list of stuff that people will bring up once the technology is in place is endless, and there are enough voters convinceable with fear mongering that the authoritarians will get what they want.
> In any case, individual member states can draw their own laws on this.
Blanket bans and mandatory requirements cannot be overridden, which is part of why many politicians from all EU countries choose the "Brussels backdoor" to pass shit they would get kicked out of office for at home, and when local voters rightfully complain, they just say "complain in Brussel, not my fault, we are just doing the whims of the EU".
(Side note: this despicable behavior and complicit/ignorant media are a major reason for public trust in the EU eroding!)
> On a side note, the wording in English might give the impression that the German government decides EU law...
Let's be real: Germany, France, Italy and Spain are the dominant powers in the European Union. As long as only the Commission has the right to initiate the passing of laws, most initiatives will come out of these "big four" countries, and there will not be any initiatives where it isn't clear from the beginning that they have a high likelihood of passing.
While private companies are using this data in ways that cause harm quite indirectly (influence, consumerism - societal evils to be sure, but no immediate threat to your life), police and the SS are most likely to cause very active harm with such technologies.
Crime numbers? Completely unaffected. I have no illusion that it is a mechanism to empower executive forces of course, but these invasive mechanism have to justify their existence. They have not done that to any degree at all.
First, the text „lehnen wir ab“ can be read as “we won't accept”, in the sense that these legislators are against it. But legislators all over the world say stuff like that all the time, and in the end they often get overruled or outvoted anyway.
Second, I think in a (negative) sense the German government does decide EU law — just like any other national government within the EU does: IIRC, in at least one of the (confusingly) many entities that decide on EU-wide legislation (Council? Commission? Ah, fuck knows...), all the national governments are represented with one vote each, and unanimity is required, i.e. they each have a veto.
Things like companies being legally responsible for security holes in their products, a right to encryption, open standards in government bodies, no 'hackbacks' from German security agencies, software updates and replacement parts need to be available for the lifetime of a product, all these things in the new government's agenda seem to come from the CCC.
English auto-translation of the CCC's demands:
But let us wait on their deeds, most of the new government was also part of the old government, which was very prone to increase "security®" to the detriment of everyone already living in the safest time of humanity.
In a country that managed to build a totalitarian nightmare twice in just one century the belief in the state and general fear is already stuffily high in my opinion.
There is some potential for reform-pushing within the Greens and FDP, and I expect we won't see as much of that in the agreement but things will pop up once the chancellor has been elected.
I wonder how the “watchdog” piece of this would work, practically speaking, since nowadays almost anywhere with a decent camera can implement some kind of facial recognition or tracking, and cameras are ubiquitous.
Maybe places will find a workaround like just export the video to a different geographic zone datacenter to analyze it.
I don’t see all governments or businesses agreeing to this because: 1. They wouldn’t want to, 2. It would be hard to prevent if the ways to do it still exist, 3. The “big enough” places will just do it anyway in secret.
Which is also illegal.
Of course the US just builds things like this for political gain and taxation.
0 - https://mailbox.org/en/post/it-companies-warn-eu-plans-to-ba...
1 - https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_...
Only on the card, genuinely asking? If I lose my citizen's card and ask for a new to be reissued is that information not retrieved from a central database for the 2nd card?
The only thing you can do is to be able to prove (or not) that it’s your ID.
Or am I missing something ?
Emphasis mine. This won't do much, and all the surveillance data will be shipped to China anyway. You're already in their database somewhere and they know more about you than the rest of the West combined.
Well, if the source (of the scanner) is even legit, since the app stores provide no way to verify that anyway.
Mass surveillance is imposed and can't be opted-out from (unless you have an invisibility device, in the case of widespread cameras).
QR codes can also be discarded, or new ones issued. Biometrics (e.g. face structure) cannot be replaced once "compromised". I use quotes for the latter, since biometrics are never secret in the first place (e.g. if we could keep our faces, fingerprints, DNA, etc. secret then they'd be useless in criminal investigations!).
If I am in Germany, I can choose not to show a QR code if I _never go out_.
Thankfully I live in the UK with none of this nonsense _and better outcomes_.
If it even matches the source as is. Play Store and App Store are non reproducible.
Obviously there's a risk that the person scanning the QR code does shady things with it but it's rather unlikely the app itself will. It would be caught really quickly.
It's also worth pointing out that Germany DOES recognize natural immunity and allows this to serve in place of a jab. Haven't seen that reported in US news but you can find it in European papers.
That lockdown was not a completely unfounded suggestion though, given that both the number of infected and the number of new cases/day are twice as high as during last year's peak  -- and last year's peak was around Christmas, not in November.
If I get corona I get a bad cold.
Non issue for the vaccinated below 70.
- Unvaccinated people are at greater risk of complications from catching COVID, so limiting the avenues for transmission to them helps curb fatality rates and hospital occupancy.
- And, undoubtedly, it's also an incentive for individuals to get vaccinated. Again, with the goal to reduce the overall number of hospitalizations and deaths.
I’m tired of this argument. Unless one has a medical condition preventing them from being vaccinated, who cares? We somehow got in a state where we protect unvaccinated minority who doesn’t care about how inconvenient they make the lives of everyone else.
One way of convincing people to vaccinate may be to make the ecmo treatment non-coverable under medical insurance for unvaccinated with no confirmed condition preventing vaccination and let’s move on with our lives. What’s the plan otherwise? Another 2 years? 5 years? 10 years?
This wouldn't be such a big problem if the unvaccinated weren't overwhelming the hospitals and ICUs, which affects everybody in case of emergencies or even planned surgeries.
You were infected? -> who were you in close contact with? -> did they get infected?
Result? Negligible impact, rapidly declining. Reducing your contacts by 30% has a much greater impact on spread than vaccination does.
They've studied this and shown it to be untrue.
Check out their weekly reports, the relevant tables are usually around page 21 or 22. In the most recent one, it's on page 24.
The Ms. Wagenknecht said something similar with the numbers presented by you: From 3000 people on the ICU, 2/3 were unvaccinated. A pretty high number of Vaccinated.
Not to mention that at this time the RKI was still counting reported hospitalizations into the "unvaccinated" category if there was no vaccination status known.
Currently that figure is at around 60% of all reported hospitalizations and can be checked by everyone, since the raw data is public.
If you're not vaccinated and not old you will not die to 1-2dp.
It's finished, done, boring now.
Most people with accounts to these platforms have credit-cards, payment history and communication with others. There is nothing particularly special about vaccination QR codes being more unique than any of the other multitudes of data you already provide, willingly, to these tech corps.
Checking logs of a state-run server is way easier.
Which would be a local telco.
> QR codes aren't effective at all as a surveillance mechanism. Why the hell does the government need to monitor which venues you visit based on QR code check-ins? They literally just ask Apple, Google, or any other big tech company about your phones geolocation and IP log history to monitor your whereabouts.
This is about locating a user based on QR code scanned at a venue. All I’m saying: no need to ask Apple or Google. Your telco already knows you have been at a location at the time of the venue.
Telcos can calculate approximately where I was (with accuracy worse than raw unaided GPS - so ±10m at least, and unpredictably wrong if I'm behind a wall or in a vertically built-up area) at a particular point in time - but they don't know the exact timestamp to look for.
For some bizarre reason the European continent has outsourced digital infrastructure. It is then no surprise that what is on offer is not congruent with the values and attitudes of its citizens.
The actual article makes more sense & is a good thing.
One rule for us, one for the rest, it seems.
(For the record, I am absolutely against this, having recently lost my EU citizenship).
But I don't think I said anything offensive or false..
Fuck brexit, but also fuck fingerprinting foreigners (of whom I am now one apparently)...
I would refuse to give fingerprints, if asked, unless compelled to by a court. Same for my children.
There's gotta be a catch somewhere.
> Researchers in the US have used WiFi signals to detect the gait of people through walls and match it to video footage in order to identify individuals.
The various mm-wave bands being used in 5G (and being proposed for "6G") are much more dense (spatially and information theoretically) than the < 5GHz bands, but sparse enough compared to visible light that many obstacles are quite translucent.
mm-wave antenna arrays are kinda just big low frequency eyeballs.
Here's an old comment with some references: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22480444
And a video to drive it home:
It also appears to me that even many who do understand the danger aren't thinking their stance through properly. We live in a data world now more than ever. Data is power, data can be used as a weapon. I'm completely against mass surveillance, the same way I'm against war. At the same time, if the EU forbids any data collection in that regard, even by private companies, then the ones producing and controlling this data will be the likes of the US and China without doubt. Already facial recognition is used in machine learning, to auto-verify IDs, to catch criminals on the run, and for all sorts of other purposes. This is part of a much larger problem. We're under surveillance not just by cameras but microphones in devices all over, satellites, the various sensors in our phones, digital payment, social media activity, and so forth. Heck, most EU citizens have "smart" meters monitoring their electricity use now, which have been found make the leaking of all sorts of private information possible. The internet makes it all possible and in all cases I know about governments have not been proactive in legislation making. A blanket ban seems like an absolutely helpless and populist "solution" to the problem.
Suppose someone found a way to passively and remotely read people's minds. And as a result you can't go anywhere in public unless you were OK with your thoughts being captured and recorded. You could see how that would suck right? And the potential for abuse? Might be great for the police I suppose, and would probably lower the crime rate. But would you want to live like that? Facial recognition isn't that extreme of course, but they are both in the privacy ball park, at least in my opinion. So maybe its just a matter of degree...like what you're willing to put up with / feel comfortable with.
Can a trained chimp do that now? No.
Can a trained chimp recognise a face. Yes.
Computer facial recognition is simply digitising human workflow, like converting a speech to text. I assume people also have a similar problem with electronic transcription or 'word recognition technology'.
Scanning peoples brains and reading their thoughts is literal mind reading science fiction.
"Computer facial recognition is simply digitising human workflow"
I get that, but that one simple change comes with a tremendous increase in power and responsibility. And I'm not convinced the pros outweigh the cons. Maybe if there was an "opt-in" clause then I'd be a little less concerned. Like "If you want the government to keep an eye on you and a record of everywhere you go, sign here."
There are no reason that laws should authorise mass automated face recognition without a judge approval and/or without any crime being committed on the footage.
As far as I know nothing proposed here would prevent facial recognition in case-by-case crime situations like you suggest.