Slashdot Mirror

From the above:

From the Wikileaks statement released in advance of the ruling:

* The US Grand Jury reportedly possesses a sealed indictment, which could be used to extradite Assange to the United States.

* Secret subpoenas have been served on ISPs and online services for the private data of WikiLeaks staff and supporters.

* Special task-forces have been setup by various various US intelligence agencies, including the Pentagon, CIA, FBI, and the US State Department.

* Associates of WikiLeaks have been detained and interrogated at US and UK airports, their equipment confiscated, and attempts have been made to turn them into informants.

* If the indictment is unsealed upon Assange's extradition to Sweden he faces further removal from Sweden to the United States.

* Meanwhile, an unprecedented extralegal denial of service by Visa and Mastercard has cut off funding to WikiLeaks, almost shutting down WikiLeaks' publishing activity.

* If the extradition to Sweden is quashed in the outcome of the court judgement, he faces extradition from the United Kingdom.

* Both Swedish and UK governments have been coordinating with the US, taking steps to facilitate a US extradition request in either eventuality. Assange cannot take steps to avoid either risk. For 539 days he has been detained without charge in the UK under house arrest.

* Under US pressure the Australian government has relaxed its own extradition law, smoothing any possible extradition from Assange's home country. The Gillard government has also amended legislation to give Australian intelligence agencies powers of surveillance over WikiLeaks supporters.

another piece in the puzzle being built to bring #iPatriot http://www.boingboing.net/2008/08/05/lawrence-lessig-on-t.html

Yes, pharmaceuticals are actually the only place where the patent system works as planned: Every new chemical compound is patentable as entirely new. CHOOOH is NOT viewed as "depending" on CHOOH, but as a totally different thing. Which it actually is.

From the internal point of view -- does the patent system work as it is defined by itself -- it works there. In every other field of endeavour, the legal costs (across everyone) are actually higher than the license revenues. This means, patents on everything but chemical compounds are economically worthless waste, a tax from which only lawyers profit.

If we take a look what patents on pharmaceuticals do elsewhere, the picture looks different:
- http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/14/10-drug-becomes-1500.html
- http://www.palgrave-journals.com/biosoc/journal/v6/n1/abs/biosoc201040a.html
And finally, to top it all off, there are the shenanigans companies like Monsanto are doing.

So from a macro-economic point of view, these patents are doing damage too.

(Note: YMMV. Certain conservative State legislatures are trying to make it illegal to record police, so as to allow the police to cover up any of their criminal acts; however I am confidant that these laws are destined to eventually be fully overturned by the courts.)

Oh, you mean those notoriously conservative state legislatures in Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts? Only two of the twelve states that require two-party consent for recording are "conservative" and those that specifically make it illegal to record cops are all deeply blue. Sorry to break it to you, but conservatives are not particularly trusting of government, it's your wonderful liberal legislatures that try to empower cops to keep people in line.

Sounds nice down there....crazy thing about our student loan system is now there are instances of colleges WITHHOLDING http://boingboing.net/2012/05/08/universities-hold-students-t.html/ your college transcript until your debts are paid off. That means you cannot get a job to REPAY those debts, which basically is indentured servitude. The thing is that the schools are the ones that are not owed the money. The loans are from the government...and they are making the schools into collection agencies. HTF are you supposed to pay your bill off if you cannot GET A JOB WITHOUT YOUR TRANSCRIPT?!?!

This is science at its best. Not only can you not cherry-pick your data to make a conclusive paper, but you also really shouldn't cherry-pick papers to make a conclusion (or vice versa) in life.

Keep in mind that the conclusion you are the living counter-example of is from one study out of many, and that the final study which directly relates one download to one lost sale (the most conservative estimate you can make) arrived at a loss of less than $2/album sold. So that means that even if not everyone were like you, the loss really becomes a sliding scale from $0-$2 per album.

You take all of the papers into account, and a larger pattern does emerge: Yes, any record that goes gold (500k sales) or platinum (1M sales) will see roughly ~$1M-$2M in losses. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_recording_sales_certification )
At the same time, we know that artists are thriving in this environment http://boingboing.net/2009/11/13/labels-may-be-losing.html

What does one do with these conclusions? Well that really depends on who you are: If you're the corporation, you obviously tighten your group and try to squish indie label companies for the sake of the bottom line (and in spite of artistic creativity). If you're the musician, you could "sell-out" because being well known, even if via overproduction and sheer marketing and autotuning, was your life goal, or you can maybe find a nice indie label that will help develop you for you. If you're Fox News, you defend the corporation because they're people too, who cares about our neighbors!

And as the average consumer? Well I guess I'm always impressed by the number of people defending corporations and what they think is "capitalism" in this day and age, when it's really resembling more and more a conspiracy by all the companies to screw over the consumers, rather than a competition to win their favor.

MAFIAA Fire!!!

A FireFox plugin to defeat blocking of PirateBay and other trackers.

It's ONLY DNS, after all... Save all your cryin' for the Queen.

http://boingboing.net/2012/05/02/stompy-is-coming.html

They think they have some magic, specific answer to problems in human societies.

Some may, but that's a non-sequitur in this discussion. You seem to be dodging.

Meddling in others' lives is destructive.

Boilerplate libertarian talking points. If you have no idea what you want changed, you probably haven't thought this stuff through very far. You alluded to wanting pot to be legal. Build on that and come up with other things you want to try.

since we haven't tried "smaller" recently

We as in humans or we as in the U.S.? Since I asked what places have a better system, I'm guessing you mean there isn't a better system out there you can point to today. If so, that means a modern society based on libertarian principles would be a big experiment. Perhaps you can tell me how long ago it was that somewhere tried the "smaller" you're after.

I'm not sure why taxing the population of Norway doesn't qualify as an alternate system.

War is an alternate system, but it's a horrible one. Or are you assuming they'll just send checks if we ask nicely? You ignored this (along with most of my reply), so I'll just cut and paste it back in:
Because they're a separate, sovereign nation. Throwing out that concept invites chaos and has led to world wars. I don't want to forcefully annex them.

You've made very little distinction

War versus taxation. War is deplorable, as I hope you agree. Taxation is necessary, as even you've admitted.

Smaller government is also "an alternate system".

As far as I can tell, you want to keep a representative democracy. But you want to convince people they don't want many of the things they want today. Others pushing for radical changes are trying to change the system first. For instance, making unlimited anonymous spending on campaigns legal. I think their approach is likely to be more effective.

government should make access to those courtrooms risky and expensive for those who would misuse them

More vague boilerplate, but the above at least has a real example. You're probably in favor of anti-SLAPP statutes (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), as am I. This is where I originally learned about them. Bully corp tries to silence blogger with a frivolous lawsuit and has to pay blogger $50K in legal fees.

They get the same kind of inhuman treatment.
http://boingboing.net/2012/04/25/tsa-agents-bully-7-year-old-wi.html

What "decrease caused by piracy"? Cracking the DRM on ebooks was trivial. There are more ebooks in open formats or PDF floating around than anyone could possibly want. All DRM did was piss off the paying customers.

The ugly truth of every industry that has bitched and moaned about "piracy" is that all the money wasted on DRM has not gotten them any money in return. The people who are going to "pirate" do it for lots of reasons. Some want a more functional copy that can be moved to other devices, or that they're sure will still work in 5 years if they upgrade to a newer model device. Some just want to not deal with this kind of bullshit - the unskippable ads/previews, annoying nag screens, and other nuisances. Some are the kind of OCD person that archives anything they can get their hands on, which is actually really fucking useful to society when it comes to preserving missing/lost episodes of TV shows or presumed-destroyed literary or computer works from a few decades ago.

Some are never going to be your customers merely because the prices are so goddamn high that they could never afford to purchase. And a decade ago, certain companies (*cough*microsoft*cough*adobe*cough*) used to have a "well we don't really care too much" attitude, because they saw the numbers: putting up with so-called "piracy" led to a lot of self-taught people using their product and then buying it legit at offices or other small business environments. When Adobe started cracking down on "piracy", all of a sudden you saw the rise of the open source movement handing out programs like Paint.Net to compensate. Only the staggering incompetence of the GUI designers and lack of foresight and marketing competence in the discordant linux community have prevented a similar situation on the desktop OS level.

That's right. My HP server has always run CentOS, but you can only run with the full two DVD iso set.

Boing-Boing conveniently just posted a pointer to an appropriate cartoon over at The Oatmeal called How to get More Likes on Facebook.

With an aging population it seems terribly interesting that it could be possible to go after people wirelessly.

This is the important part, not now, but in the future. This is just a demonstration of what is possible, and how the mistakes that are being made now may effect all of us in the future.

From a recent talk by Cory Doctorow, http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html

As a member of the Walkman generation, I have made peace with the fact that I will require a hearing aid long before I die. It won't be a hearing aid, though; it will really be a computer. So when I get into a car—a computer that I put my body into—with my hearing aid—a computer I put inside my body—I want to know that these technologies are not designed to keep secrets from me, or to prevent me from terminating processes on them that work against my interests.

We need to change the way that the industry and the regulators think about these kind of devices. Security by obscurity is just not good enough.

As patients (now and in the future) we should require/demand that all of the software in these devices is open source or they won't get certified for use as implants.
Many people on this site have said something along the lines of "If I were designing these devices then I would use [xyz] to make them secure".
The important point is that geeks like us aren't designing these devices, and for the companies that are designing these devices security isn't a priority.

Good security is expensive, both in terms of employing extra staff with the relevant expertise, and in terms of developer time to implement and test it. Unless peer reviewed security is required by their customers or government regulations, then it is just not enough of a priority to justify the additional cost.

The worst result from this kind of research would be that our politicos jump at a sound bite solution and make it illegal to own or design a device that could intefere with implanted medical devices. Preventing the good guys from testing their own devices, while making it easier for the bad guys by allowing manufacturers to get away with poor security.

The best result from this kind of research would be that we make peer reviewed security and open source code part of the requirements for certification of implanted devices. But that won't happen unless we keep pushing to make it happen.

Marshall
Amplifiers Welcome Products Heritage

Support > Contact Us
[X] Contact Us

For all enquiries please complete the form below.

Name: Zak McFlimby
Email: zakmcflimby@hotmail.com
Please submit your feedback:
woooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOEEEEEEEEE
EEEEEEEEEEEEE eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeEEEE
EEEEOOOOOOOOO oooooooooooooeeeeeeeeeee
eeEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!

[Send Message]

Original image: http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2009/07/13/feedback.html

If that's the case, I'm sure every park visitor at Disneyworld now has their fingerprints automatically added to an FBI database

They don't need to. Why should they. The FBI just accesses the database when they have a "reasonable suspicion" ("he looked ugly and had a kid with him"). Why go to the cost of keeping your own database when someone else could do that for you and won't have to go cleaning it up of innocent people.

If that's the case, I'm sure every park visitor at Disneyworld now has their fingerprints automatically added to an FBI database

They don't have a fundamentalist attitude of "all DRM is evil". As long as it doesn't actually inconveniance them they're fine with it.

Meaning that if it does not inconvenience them now they have no opposition to it and will hand over their money now. This is short-sighted. How many DRM-encumbered products (be they games, music, or even OSes) have worked fine for a long time until some server somewhere goes down?

All DRM-ed products are booby-trapped, plain and simple. Sure the trap might not go off, and won't go off anytime soon, but the trap is still there. It might go off by accident (think Windows wanting you to re-activate it over and over). It is a feature of the software which can break, yet is totally unnecessary and unwanted by the buyer (me). Is it really "fundamentalist" for me to not want that, ever, or is it just good sense?

http://boingboing.net/2011/02/25/madison-police-chief.html

Oh and fuck you.

Case in point Ayn Rand who took both Social Security and Medicare in her later years.

According to this article, coffee falls into the "acquired tastes" category. Almost nobody likes it at first, but eventually your brain starts to associate the taste with receiving a drug (caffeine) and starts to interpret the taste of coffee as pleasurable. I think very few people would "like" (black) coffee if they only ever tasted decaffeinated coffee. Just as nobody would smoke if there was no drug involved. Also, even most coffee drinkers I know don't actually like coffee. Being in Canada, I know plenty of people who like their double-doubles (or triple-triples, or even quad...) , but I know very few people who like their coffee black. I've met almost nobody who likes Tim Hortons who also drinks their coffee black. Most people don't like coffee, but enjoy milky, sugary drinks which happen to contain some coffee, as long as they don't taste too much like coffee.

Ignoring the whole DRM is bad/repurchasing argument that will be covered to death in these comments, why would anyone trust Walmart with this? Didn't they learn when Walmart shut down their audio DRM servers?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...

American Businessman (via translated phone call): "I think we can safely say our company would like to use your factory to produce our useless stuff people think they need."
Chinese Businessman (via translated phone call): "An excellent idea! I suggest we sign the papers over dinner at Translate Server Error. They have the best HuMan chicken in town. And the owner prides himself on his bilingual staff."

So, two problems.

One, our text translation software isn't foolproof, but people expect it to be. What happens when the software confuses "galleta" (Spanish for "cookie") with "callate" (Spanish for "shut up"). They do sound similar if you say them out loud, but no one notices because you'd almost never use both in the same conversation. I foresee someone attempting a friendly gesture by offering to share her mother's recipe for "shut up."

Two, live conversations depend upon both parties building on a shared experience. If each one has a different account of the experience, conversations break down very quickly. Ever tried to carry on a conversation with a schizophrenic? And that's just assuming the errors are innocent. What happens when corporations start using this? Your bank requires you to call a number to activate your new card and during the call they have the software "translate" some required disclosure for you, only the translation doesn't really convey what they are supposed to be disclosing. Don't think it won't happen... whoever implements this first on purpose will be running the company one day.

Then again, this whole discussion is purely academic. Gene Roddenberry's estate will just claim prior art and prevent this from ever becoming a reality. Hopefully.

And the profits from the construction and guarding fund bribes to judges to send more children to jail to increase the profits. It's a virtuous circle!

Fiddler just copied this Apple design from 1983.

http://www.stockchase.com/ has a nice message on the front page.
http://boingboing.net/2012/03/08/canadian-copyright-consultatio.html boingboing as well
http://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2011/10/bill-c11-locks-limits-levies-litigation.html

To some extent I disagree that dogs do not learn as humans. Its a reward and/or pain/discipline system and it works well on both. Robots on the other hand, may not feel reward or pain, so something new does need to be developed.

I will agree with his disagreement on the first line. As a retired hobbyist I am hugely directly connected to the current state of robots. They are stagnant, dead, and useless with the exception of the Vacuum cleaner bots. There are some super high end stuff going on, but it is far more akin to smart remote control. Computers are not anywhere near fast enough at present. And as long as we stick to the von neumann model for their design probably will not be for 20-30 more years.

But i have been an advocate of having moral discussion now, before it is too late. Saw a good short clip this am; http://boingboing.net/2012/03/08/disturbing-and-poignant-video.html about a robot that becomes self aware. Do we kill her, or let her be free? If we let her be free, what incentive ($$$) does anyone have to build her? If she is a slave (ie sold for profit) can we justify the treatment of any self aware being that way? And if so, why not retroactive?

Anyhow, back top the subject; we need research in that area. Today for a current project I am looking at http://mnemstudio.org/path-finding-q-learning-tutorial.htm for ideas on what is going on now. I assume it the field will advance.

I seem to recall we saw this a while ago:
http://boingboing.net/2011/12/27/the-coming-war-on-general-purp.html
Odd to hear it so clearly from MS now.

Everyone who whines about the design and interface patents that Apple is enforcing needs to look at this photo of "smart" phones before and after the iphone introduction:
http://boingboing.net/2012/02/24/photo-of-phones-before-and-aft.html

Now yes people may have had the odd feature that kinda sort looked like an iphone or worked a little like an iphone. but Seriously are you going to argue that apple did not set the standard as it were. Don't you think they have a right to profit from taking that risk, developing thier human interfaces over decades and applying those to the iphone to create such a seamless interface. If not then why did everyone copy it?

This is exactly like what legislation in Australia tried to do when they banned nude models with A-cup breasts, saying it was promoting pedophilia[1]. Or how regulations around softcore magazines lead to photoshopping out protruding labia minora[2]. Both of these "conditions" are completely natural, and telling women that you can't show the goods if you have small breasts or a "messy vagina" is unforgivable. It lead Australian women to get unnecessary cosmetic surgery to match up to the government mandated acceptable appearance. While this might seem like the exact same thing that's happening without government involvement, women getting force fed an unattainable image of beauty, at least being skinny isn't illegal; which is what these researchers are proposing. So if don't want to let photoshop decide beauty, and you can't legislate a standard without infringing on the rights of others, maybe what we need is a little common sense. We all agree that many of these perfect images are a result of photoshopping, taking models who are human and elevating them to god-like proportions. Perhaps what we should be banning isn't who, but what. Regulate how photoshop can be used specifically on covers and advertising, make it a fine to make a size 4 a size 0. While it won't make anorexia go away, it will at least bring back some attainable standards of beauty. [1] http://boingboing.net/2010/01/28/australian-censor-bo.html [2] (nsfw, but in an educational way) http://jezebel.com/5535356/the-labiaplasty-you-never-knew-you-wanted-%5Bnsfw%5D

It's a stupid mistake of an automated algorithm. You can blame google for this, but essentially it's a more complex version of the old "sudo nohup rm -Rf /" paste. Apparently google seems to think that the uploaded videos can't be watched by actual people, that'd be too pricey. So if you want to have a free youtube, mistakes like this will be part of the experience. Imho, they're doing pretty fucking well at this.

The problem with the birdsong issue was not that the automated system picked it up, it was that the video poster protested the take down, Rumblefish reviewed the claim and still declared themselves to be the holder of the birdsong copyright:

http://boingboing.net/2012/02/27/rumblefish-claims-to-own-copyr.html

You're right that Google isn't the party to really get mad at here, the problem is that there is no penalty for this kind of fraudulent claim by a copyright holder. A fine, at the least, would be appropriate.

Actually, a judge threw it out. But Illinois is appealing. I can't find any further info.

Troll?

Computer development got it's start determining ballistic trajectories, hitting the preferred target.

u.s navy vintage fire control computers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8aH-M3PzM0&lr=1

How a 1950s ballistic computer worked
http://boingboing.net/2010/05/19/how-a-1950s-ballisti.html
very simple demonstration that looks like it would be easier to use a slide rule.

No, not paranoia... It's the fact that printer ink is the most valuable liquid in the world.

http://boingboing.net/2009/12/30/graph-compares-price.html

More valuable than blood and definitely more valuable than crude oil, let alone gasoline.

People ask "what to the printer makers get for their complicity?" More ink and toner sales of course.

There's some speculation that the "TV Detector Vans" were just a van with an aerial on the roof intended to scare people into buying a license.

http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/10/31/bbc-admits-that-tv-d.html

Mind, this was in 2006 when LCD sets were already on the rise.But the BBC are incredibly secretive about the technology their vans use - but if it's a secret, then it is inadmissible in court.

There's also plenty of anecdotal evidence that the vans were actually just set-dressing - something the BBC clearly DO understand. They may have hired some of the people who used to do this kind of thing in WWII (cardboard tanks, etc, to make it look like our armed forces were stronger, or elsewhere).

I don't really think they are necessary now, even if they are bullshit. People now know that a database is a far more effective tool at searching for unlicensed TVs than a van. And watching live streams from the BBC attracts the same license fee requirement (although not viewing streams on demand), so a dedicated TV is no longer required. The downside to this method is the false positives ; I have at least one friend who chose to live his life without a TV for some years, and found that the constant hassle from the TV licensing department was unpleasant, and he's not the only one.

Not necessarily. A lot of this hubbub surrounds Mike D of Beastie Boys fame, who's an AT&T shareholder.

http://boingboing.net/2012/02/15/mike-d-for-net-neutrality.html

Apologies - as a Canadian all those three-letter agencies start to look the same.

And hate to break it to you, but US border guards *will* mess with us on the way out as well - and even give you a beatdown for failing to sufficiently respect their authoritah

This is part of an emerging pattern in which consumers are sold restricted systems with enforced toll collection. Cory Doctorow refers to this as "the coming war on general-purpose computing". His analysis is thought provoking. It is disheartening to consider how may technologies with security benefits can also be used to restrict the rights of customers.

"Protecting intellectual property" seems to encircle almost everything people with money don't like.

Used a photo to criticize shitty photoshop job? DMCA'd.

Posted a video endorsing filesharing site? We'll take it down for copyright infringement (and not even lawfully at that)

And so on, and so on.

"We're only chasing pedophiles, terrorists and counterfeiters", sure.

Free? That's a clear violation of Edison's EULA!:

http://boingboing.net/2009/01/13/thomas-edisons-crapp.html

That has been done before.

http://boingboing.net/2008/04/29/malware-gets-a-eula.html

One baddie even tried to use it as a protection in court (i don't think it was the group linked to above, but I remember reading about it somewhere)

I'm guessing he means BoingBoing.

When I hear "boing boing" I just think "TITS!", but apparently it's a new aggregator..

http://boingboing.net/2010/12/11/pornoscanners-trivia.html

http://drpauldorio.com/pages/airport-scanner-safety

http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/safety/content/article/113619/1521147

I guess the bit about kiddie porn is a response to the grandparent post, as to my post your argument seems to be stretched.

That's correct, but I also wanted to make the general point that, apart from something like child pornography, there is no such thing as an illegal file. A music track, on the other hand, isn't inherently legal or illegal. That depends on who has it and what they're doing with it.

I suppose it could happen but really down any of those artists using MegaUpload to distribute their stuff were the ones sending DMCA take down requests and if they were I would expect they would note that they were okay with MegaUpload distributing the file on another part of the site.

Generally speaking, it's not artists who send DMCA takedown requests. Ever heard of Righthaven? Or UMG trying to take down the Megaupload song?

Of course, copyright trolls aren't that common; it's usually the middle men, labels and studios, who send DMCA takedowns, sometimes against the wishes of artists. There's also the inter-jurisdictional issue that a work may be under copyright in the USA but not in the country of the user or Megaupload's servers. There is precedent for this sort of thing happening. It's reasonable to assume that Megaupload got its fair share of bogus DMCA requests as well as legitimate ones.

However, I should reiterate my point: By itself, I consider this practice to be arguably reasonable, but the feds are painting this as one part of a pattern of deliberate bending and breaking of the law. It can and should be understood in the context of everything else that Megaupload may have done.

As reported by Cory Doctorow, on BoingBoing.

according to boingboing Google will reply "soon"

Apple phones originally looked like this. Not sure what your point is.

Not only do they not understand, but they don't want to. There is no defense against willful ignorance.

Well, maybe someone needs to re-frame the discussion for them to explain to them that the bill is unconstitutional and would effectively result in censorship and suppression of free speech.

Make it clear that any lawmaker who is voting for something unconstitutional has lost the moral right to govern. Try to put it into the public that these people are abdicating their oath to uphold the Constitution in pursuit of corporate interests (and of course, lining their own pockets).

Of course, none of this will happen because people are too busy watching TV to care ... and America continues to go down the toilet.

If that fails, then maybe some patriots need to weed out some traitors -- having these guys sell out to line their own pockets should lead to being hanged if they're voting for things that undermine the Constitution.

4. There are virtually NO U.S. corporations that would not benefit from the enactment of SOPA, in some way. Virtually none would suffer any damages from enactment of SOPA. Even Internet-based corporations would benefit from having clear rules to follow. Ambiguity is not always profitable.

This is just ridiculous. First of all, what about the existing law is supposed to be so ambiguous? New laws almost always produce more ambiguity because there has to be a period of years before the courts have a chance to write decisions interpreting them where any number of the new provisions remain uncertain. This is especially true of SOPA because parts of it are so obviously subject to a constitutional challenge, which means companies won't know whether they have to follow them until it goes to court -- which is the worst kind of uncertainty; the kind that leads to expensive protracted litigation.

In addition to that, if SOPA will have no negative effects on them, why have they all come out against it? Why are they running full page ads in the New York Times?

I think you'll find that the US Trade Representative's positions are set not based on what US companies want, but rather based on what US companies that do the most lobbying want. The RIAA and MPAA have long been prolific in their employment of lobbyists; tech companies less so until very recently and even there they lack the sort of experience necessary to be as effective as would be expected from their size and economic importance. One can hope that they get it right before it's too late, but I prefer to hope that Americans come to their senses and make it a defense to murder that the victim was an entertainment/fossil fuel/defense/telecommunications industry lobbyist.

It would seem anyone running around painted this way would attract more police attention than just wearing a slouch hat. Perhaps it might be easier to just get (make) an Infrared LED Hat. Or maybe, take control of your government and vote them out until they remove the cameras.