It may be some small consolation that consumer cameras are ground level, and decentralized, where as ARGUS is centralized and easier to regulate, but the way people are sharing more and more of their life stream, it's probably going to be possible for organizations that watch social networks to track people's movements.
I wonder if in some ways, this is a return to a kind of prehistoric small tribal life of everyone knowing where everyone is and what they are doing, and if anonymity and privacy of movement that we cherish is somewhat of a later invention at agriculture, and that modern technology is just increasing the size of our tribe.
1. I think the course to a mass surveillance society is set and inevitable. The culture shift in relation to privacy is evident. Both on the net and offline people gradually get used to the idea of being tracked, observed, analyzed, etc. The virtue of tomorrow is I've done nothing wrong, I have nothing to hide.
2. Google Glass poses an interesting dilemma. I expect it to be as prevalent as smartphones in the next 5 years. Now in this situation how do you frame a question of privacy when virtually everyone is able to live stream and record as they go without anyone knowing about it? Everyone's an agent and when you're out you will be keenly aware of it. It'll be fun to watch how this plays out :)
"The ability to gleam private details about people is having some power over them. The entire modern theory of government rests on limiting and dividing up the power of those in power. With mass surveillance, that balance is broken. Not only do we have private details on individuals, that knowledge is held by a small and unaccountable elite, protected by state secrets.
Even if you live completely lawfully and morally and truly have nothing to hide you can either:
1. Unwittingly do something illegal (there are too many laws on the books for anyone to know they are completely innocent); or do something that can be construed as such, since the police and prosecutors can be fallible;
2. Still live in a society where a small group of individuals can exert blackmail and intimidation on a significant proportion of citizens. Even if that power would be rarely used, it creates an environment of fear. People start to be afraid to speak against abuse, those in power stand less for their own scrutiny."
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.
But now it doesn't matter, because there is no somewhere else.
But in reality this isn't about fighting crime even. It's about making money. It's no secret that our wars our dying down. How will the drone manufacturers make money? They re-purpose their inventions for use at home and they'll begin selling them to foreign allies who will re-sell them to foreign enemies. Add to that the tremendous manpower behind these drones and there's billions to be made.
I am twisted on this issue, but it is definitely an interesting viewpoint to consider.
Like hell it would. People would still find a way to deal in secret.
"The Transparent Society (1998) is a non-fiction book by the science-fiction author David Brin in which he forecasts social transparency and some degree of erosion of privacy, as it is overtaken by low-cost surveillance, communication and database technology, and proposes new institutions and practices that he believes would provide benefits that would more than compensate for lost privacy."
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 promoted (because the other candidates go to the gym more often and lead healthier lives) or getting that mortgage because you like to drink wine a little more than the average person and so your long term health might be put at risk.
The list of possible problems is endless.
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 meaningful measurements would (should?) be more profitable, and there would probably still be interesting work for people with lesser "stats". If a measurement is leading to higher profitability, there is at least one argument that it is fair.
Even for something like healthcare it shouldn't be that scary, if we (as a society) don't want predicted costs to factor into the availability of health care, then we shouldn't pretend to operate under an insurance scheme.
None of that is to say I have any desire to live in a transparent society.
(I do realize that it is often a complicated thing to deal with)
What good will that do?
For one, the people reading and using other people's data (mega-corporations, states, agencies, etc) are not going to forgo any of THEIR privacy.
So, in effect, you are just arguing "let's all go even more 'naked'".
The more, the better for them.
It will always be illegal to fly YOUR drone over the White House. Always. Proceed from there.
Whenever and wherever freedom and enlightenment rear their head in the form of specific people and specific insights, they are systematically fought. By all sorts of specific people for all sorts of specific reasons -- but not by laws of nature, or the laws of progress or whatever is dreamed up. Whatever road we're currently going down, it's one of many possible ones. And every step along it is made of people, decisions, and responsibility.
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward."
-- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
And to look a bit more into this numbers ( and using the numbers from Backblaze ) it seems that the uncompressed video of a single drone over a year would cost $1.5e9, of course divided by the compression ratio. However for 14 days of video the storage cost would be in the ballpark of $60M per drone, that sounds actually quite possible ( especially given an additional factor of ~20 lower costs due to compression and a similar factor of ~20 for five years of HD development).
So this seems actually be technology which could on a timescale of five years be available at costs comparable to two or three police cars (plus the costs of the drone, which should be in a similar range). And I for one find this quite creepy.
roughly $50/TB http://blog.backblaze.com/2013/02/20/180tb-of-good-vibration...
I'm no image compressing genius but calculating only the deltas between frames and transmitting only those pixels that actually change by an order of magnitude (with some type of filter) should dramatically reduce bandwidth and storage size and cost by an order of magnitude.
Kind of like a large number of small git commits for slowly changing data - store large amounts of mostly duplicated data with progressive delta changes.
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 they swap an array of 50 HDs or so.
1.8 Gpixel sensors don't exist, due to physics.
I love SparrowOS's (dead) comments - they're so off the cuff and random. Trying to make sense of them is like doing a really hard crossword puzzle. I have noticed one thing about them, however - when he speaks as himself they make complete sense. E.g.
> I had a problem with discipline. I worked at Ticketmaster while in college, but I know I wouldn't have studied more, just knowing my personal psychology.
> If you love programming more than anything, you are probably the kind of person who wants to know assembly language. If your full heart is not into programming, maybe not.
> I wrote my own compiler. Doesn't use REGs to pass values to functions.
They only become incomprehensible when he is relaying, as he puts it, what God says. E.g.
> Replacement So This_is_confusing gate attain imprinted educated comforting sentences awaiting deepness sufficiently scroll thee vacation discovereth knocked narrower I'm_off_today replenish stories 98 etext00 insultingly spunky vintage-vacation excellency overcast chastened prayed miss thirtieth One possesses preferable conquered affects bestowed restrainest feeling field Was surprise_surprise what_a_mess condemned Jove sheep obeying rights precede Austria stumble tide contrition turned Cherubim banquetings commandeth abhorring freely hinder diving sons' Watch_this -unto narrower rested effect loosen ordered kindred opening wail unsound render strongholds ebb blood bitterness Files
It seems almost like his thinking is split into two modes - one rational and the other a stream of consciousness. The first makes sense to the rest of us since there are commonalities which we can relate to (i.e. logic) but the second must contain a great deal of personal references which only he can understand the meaning of. "God's words" are his feelings put into text in a completely unfiltered way.
W/re privacy. It's only a few years away from private companies having this tech available. So a bigger concern might be abuse of this information by an unregulated market.
Yes, definitely, this is what they are gonna use it for... to make your transport better...
If they could put this along the drug routes (if they can deal with the difficulties of monitoring over water) this could have the potential to strangle superficial (surface) drug routes (now that small subs are gaining popularity with traffickers, maybe this would not matter much). Also could be used to cut down on cross border human trafficking.
Certainly, it would seem, tracking a suspect just became much easier and in the future, cheaper then deploying a whole team of people on the ground staking someone out. Altho, I imagine, they would need to have multiple signals to have more certainty that they know who's who.
And yes, I object to a lot of what is already deployed, including CCTV, speed cameras, etc. I don't mind so much on private sites, but it should never happen in public space unless, IMHO, its for a limited operation of some sort.
Reading your contribution makes me think you have been willingly "divided" off in to one camp. For you its border protection. Other will have other issues, drugs, immigrants, terrorists, poor people, ghetto control.... Even so, the second you give an inch, the authorities will encourage mission creep. Then those who approved of the original spin will begin to disapprove, but by then, damage will be done and it will be far too late to reverse it.
See, Im willing to be that the would be many who would approve of these things being armed and taking down targets on US soil. The public will accept it, until granny is taken out.
If we carry on this way, it wont be long until we are all required to carry trackers so some creepy organisation can follow us 24/7 on bloody google maps.
What continually worries me is watching old dystopian scifi films. They are like a check list of today's society. Watch them a year later and you'll be able to tick off more.
But, then, we do keep consenting to it. We do keep voting for it. So, I guess we want it. And who am I to object to the democratic will of the people?
I think it's axiomatic that whenever the tools for oppression are put in place it's only a matter of time before they are used. It'll start with something simple. Some national outrage which the party in government responds to by deploying the drones. Then it'll become normalized. And soon enough it'll become "but what have you to fear if you have nothing to hide" - which in a country with so many ways for everyday citizens to be in breach of its byzantine laws really means it becomes almost discretionary whether you're picked up for one thing or another unless you conform to the whims of the ruling elite.
I think Europeans (of which I am one, prior to becoming an American) tend to have a closer relationship to the abuse of totalitarian tools under the guise of good intentions (particularly those of us over a certain age).
Aside from regulation, in this case the FAA could regulate this as their domain, I don't see why others could not. Anyhow, eventually this could improve such that it could be done from satellites. Since there is less regulation there (national and international) it could get a bit tricky.
This is similar to having a law and FAA enforcing it. They don't need to have the tech to prohibit others from using it. Surveillance satellites is a whole other can of works IMHO.
A plurality exists to clamp down on many freedoms. Use cases to deny first amendment rights are popularized - heck our biggest media companies built on the back of the first amendment now wish to see it neutered. Gun rights folks want the Obama administration to pursue second amendment restrictions, yet some of those most vocal about protecting such freedoms cheered on the Bush administration when it wanted to clamp down on speech, or when gay rights pushes are defeated.
Security. Think of the children. Moral outrage. etc
The rich powerful elites have successfully divided the nation to such a degree that they can push through any invasive law they like because they can always bundle together enough of us who hate enough more of us to gain a plurality in its support. More usually they don't need that even. They have the political class in pocket and when it comes to election we have no vote outside of the gerrymandered two sides of the same party system.
Rambling but you get my point.
Well, I know. You know. Others seem to know. We are not special people with special knowledge. So we must presume every one, or at least a majority know. Unless of course we clever people want to label them ignorant, or what ever.
So, tell me, why are "we" voting for this?
At some point, those with the vote need to take some responsibility for what we are voting for, and stop blaming those we give a mandate to.
In general one cannot expect any privacy while in public. That's been established many times over by the courts in the US. On the other hand, tracking recognizable people, I think without a probable cause, would be illegal. On the other hand if they just keep the footage and regressively backtrack activity after an activity was found to be illegal on the ground, then I don't see how using the generated footage would be illegal --and this would help law enforcement to some significant degree (i.e, someone was found stabbed on the sidewalk, no witnesses, let's backtrack the footage and track the attacker forward or backward).
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."
l'Etat, c'est les
During the DC Sniper incident, they were debating posse comitatus and whether or not to bring one of these craft into action to track cars in the vicinity of a reported sniper attack.
It might not work well for criminals trying to avoid being seen by arial cameras during the day, hiding out away from their usual haunts and obscuring their faces. It will probably be a big win for marketing data analytics firms.
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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvCqLWq1nr4 (notice the stabilizer)
On seeing this, immediately wondered if you could combine drones with gunshot detection systems.
The drone could hone in on gunshots and follow any vehicle in a drive by in real time without a dangerous car chase.
By implication, the drone "nightmare" scenario probably kicks in in full when we all put license plates on roofs.
On the upside, no more drive-bys. We stop raising whole classes of kids with PTSD.
On the downside, the returns are probably greater for police who use drones to monitor traffic offenses. So we're probably immediately fined $700 for any rolling stop. Worse case, drones network with traffic signals to turn lights red right before we pass through.
I'm conflicted. I know there's a famous quote about people who trade privacy for security, and how they're all Nazis. But I'm really on board with helping those kids.
I know that before Miranda and some similar cases, there was an epidemic of rubber hose interrogations in police station backrooms. I know there's still a lot of improvement to be made, but some simple changes in the courtroom made sweeping changes to the ways law enforcement interacted with suspects. Maybe some legal scholar can come up with a few guidelines that help the police to use these sorts of technologies to do some good, while still restricting their ability to abuse them.
3. Chase related crashes from just the last few months:
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.
That cat has been out of the bag for a long time. Drones are just one more cog in this respect.
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.