Slashdot Mirror
Sensor Networks For Surveillance And Security
gpmap writes "Small Times has an article on the coming age of all-pervasive sensor networks that will feed information of all sorts to monitoring networks. Technology advances have generated intense interest in sensor networks: 'the magic words are surveillance and security.' The Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) hosted the second Information Processing in Sensor Networks workshop this week amid anticipation of significant funding grants from the National Science Foundation. Most believe miniaturization, whether through conventional methods, MEMS or nanotech, will drive the spread of sensor networks. But plenty of issues need working through, on the hardware, software and social fronts."
Just read "Diamond Age" by Neal Stephenson, it features a nice version of nanotech-sensornetworks. It's a good book, too.
Use of pervasive sensor networks by governmental and corporate organizations is inevitable (it's appearing in increments everyday in the US). The crucial difference between Big Brother and Transparency is who has access to the raw imagery / sensor data and the processed information. See David Brin's site for more information.
The real advantage of sensor networks will come if they provide information that helps companies make better products, or if the increased amount of data gathered actually provides useful information on how things work so that we can advance our knowledge.
The security issue is a ruse. Security is what is selling today...so it is what you put in ad copy and press releases. It is like the B2B craze...remember when B2B appeared in the investor relation pages for all the dot bombs? Today, you need to have the word security in your ad copy.
Of course, the fact that we are twisting more and more fundamental research into security concerns is itself a cause for concern. It means the applications will not be benign.
I suspect that, when all is said and done, the devices themselves will tend to add more reasons to feel insecure than they will do to add reasons to feel secure. The programs will be used as much for spying as for defense. The result is that the primary use of such networks will be to detect and counter the other sensor networks trying to spy on your sensor networks.
It will be a white-spy black-spy sort a game.
Especially the rationalization that its ok to trade privacy for so-called security.
If you think it is OK for airlines personel (or security personel) to search passengers and luggage for weapons and explosives, then you have already accepted that it is sometimes worthwhile to trade privacy for security.
Here are a couple of ideas you might want to think about for a while.
(1) Sometimes we have no reason to want or expect privacy, like when we hold a conversation with someone in a crowded elevator. Other times we do want and expect privacy. Before going off about intrusions on privacy, it would probably be a good idea to think about those times and places where privacy really matters. If we can trade the kind of privacy that does not matter for greater security then why not do so?
(2) Privacy is not liberty. Sometimes it is a useful means to preserving liberty. The government can't stop you from doing something if they do not know you are doing it. But it is not the same thing as liberty. So while I would accept the claim that any trade of liberty for security is a sham, I would not accept the claim that any trade of privacy for security is a mistake.
(3) Sometimes it is more a matter of trading privacy for liberty rather than trading privacy for security. There are, for example two ways to eliminate the threat of hijacked aircraft, and thus achieve security. You can limit privacy by searching passengers, or you can limit liberty by making comercial aviation illegal. Under the current system we gave up some privacy so that we could achieve a measure of security while also keeping our liberty (to travel etc). In cases like that I will take more liberty over more privacy every time.
I'm as paranoid as the next slashdotter, but not for the same reasons. I'm only worried about my privacy when there is an imbalance, as there seems to be now. I'll submit to complete surveillance when the whole world does likewise-- and that means you too, Mr. President. Privacy is only an issue when the "other side" still has theirs. If we could all keep tabs on the government, why should we care if they keep tabs on us? Until TIA is really "total," and I can watch them as easily as they watch me, I'll continue to argue for privacy rights.
We could tell if prisoners are out of their homes, if people using cars are speeding, or if infected people have fevers and are contagious.
\begin{sarcasm}
And we could detect independent thinkers, non-conformists and other people that used to be protected by freedom and turn them into more prisoners.
And what great tools these networks would make to identify unbelivers, terrorists and people that do not cheer at political speeches! Finaly no filthy abnormals can stay hidden! Glory to the world for finally only the pure shall enjoy freedom!
\end{sarcasm}
Come on, there is no need for better surveilance. There is need for advancing civilization so that there are fewer prisoners, people are responsibel and do not speed and infected people stay in isolation of their own free will. If people cannot be trusted to act responsible, the society they live in has already failed and started to decompose. Surveilance cannot do anything about it, except maybe slow the process down a little.
On a related note, a bigger part of the US population are now prisoners that that of any other country, including China. A very bad sign.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted and ignored otherwise.