Slashdot Mirror


DARPA Developing 'Combat Zones That See'

t0rnt0pieces writes "DARPA is developing an urban surveillance system that would use computers and thousands of cameras to track, record and analyze the movement of every vehicle in a city. Officials claim that the project is designed to help the U.S. military protect troops and fight in cities overseas, but police, scientists and privacy experts say the technology could easily be adapted to spy on Americans. Combined with other technologies, such as software that scans databases of everyday transactions and personal records worldwide, the government would have a reasonably good idea of where everyone is most of the time. Read the news story and the contracting document."

333 comments

  1. Most Everyone? by ZTechNet · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How would including this in the cities, and even towns include most everyone. I'm prety sure that a large majority of the populations of the US and other countries don't actually live in the cities. So, it would give them an idea of what most businesspeople are doing from 7-7. Although I still do not like the idea and sounds like it may infringe seriously on some civil liberties.

    1. Re:Most Everyone? by somberlain · · Score: 1

      Who says they aren't already doing so?

    2. Re:Most Everyone? by bazzert · · Score: 1

      Officials claim that the project is designed to help the U.S. military protect troops If they stayed the hell home they wouldnt have to be protected. Why do they have to be protected ? Because they are pissing the locals off ...

    3. Re:Most Everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We aren't. And put out that cigarette!

    4. Re:Most Everyone? by adius · · Score: 1

      Here in Orlando Florida we have cameras in many street corners. It just a matter of time before it is used for surveillance..unless it is already being done.

  2. spy r us by nbarr · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Of course, one more USA measure to control the rest of the world. The relation between USA and the rest of the world, is the same as the relation between Microsoft and the other software companies

    --
    Call on God, but row away from the rocks.
    1. Re:spy r us by I+Want+GNU! · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Of course, one more USA measure to control the rest of the world.
      I understand your concerns, but please keep in mind though, that it's not Americans doing this. It's the Bush cabal. I'm American and I strongly believe in traditional American values and our Constitution. Bush doesn't believe in American values. He believes that everyone is a potential terrorist and he uses fiery rhetoric in order to scare people into supporting him. All these Orwellian programs are patently un-American.

      In his speech "The Great American Restoration", Howard Dean spoke of how he wanted to restore America's values to the government, and I'm sure his thoughts would be of interest to you:

      "But there is a fundamental difference between the defense of our nation and the doctrine of preemptive war espoused by this administration. The President's group of narrow-minded ideological advisors are undermining our nation's greatness in the world. They have embraced a form of unilateralism that is even more dangerous than isolationism.

      "This administration has shown disdain for allies, treaties, and international organizations alike.

      "In doing so they would throw aside our nation's role as the inspirational leader of the world the beacon of hope and justice in the interests of humankind. And instead, they would present our face to the world as a dominant power prepared to push aside any nation with which we do not agree.

      "Our foreign and military policies must be about America leading the world, not America against the world."
    2. Re:spy r us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the relationship between the US and the rest of the world isn't like the relationship between MS and other sw companies, because (believe it or not) some people actually like MS!!

    3. Re:spy r us by nbarr · · Score: 1

      OK, I'll concede on that.

      --
      Call on God, but row away from the rocks.
    4. Re:spy r us by cb4b · · Score: 0

      Actually some peopl like the US also. I am one of them. A Dutch citizen who lives in the US by CHOICE.

    5. Re:spy r us by missing000 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I can't agree more.

      I just wanted to point out that the Bush administration is in fact attempting to cover up it's own appalling mistakes that caused September 11th with FUD like this because they are scared the public will take back the Whitehorse.

      In May of 2001, the administration gave $43 million to the Taliban. It's not a liberal myth, its a fact reported by respected papers like the New York Times and the Boston Globe.

      We have to stop Bush now, before the police state gets full control of our lives.

    6. Re:spy r us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right. Suck it up, losers.

    7. Re:spy r us by resignator · · Score: 1

      oh please...

      "Bush was elected by the populace and his support couldn't be stronger right now."

      This has got to be the funniest thing I have read all week...wait no the saddest. Are people really this stupid? If so I will just kill myself right now

      --
      "At first, we thought it was just another snake cult."
  3. Why not give everything an IP address by jkrise · · Score: 3, Funny

    Didn't DARPA invent the internet? So, let's start on IPv6 and give every object an IP address and a WiFi connectivity, and call it Secure Social Security or something like that. Problem solved!

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    1. Re:Why not give everything an IP address by BigBadDude · · Score: 3, Funny


      Cop: give me your SSN!
      dude: 10.1.1.23

    2. Re:Why not give everything an IP address by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corrections...

      Cop: give me your SSSN! (Secure Social Security no.)
      dude: 10.1.1.23.123.32 (IPv6 needs 6 bytes!)

    3. Re:Why not give everything an IP address by BigBadDude · · Score: 2, Interesting

      dear anonymous (?) coward:

      a IPv6 address looks like this:

      1080:0:0:0:8:800:200C:417A a unicast address
      FF01:0:0:0:0:0:0:43 a multicast address
      0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1 the loopback address
      0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0 the unspecified addresses

      (check out RFC 1884 for moe examples)

    4. Re:Why not give everything an IP address by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I click the parent link.. I don't see any mention of "rape" there..

    5. Re:Why not give everything an IP address by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to login to be able to read sigs...

    6. Re:Why not give everything an IP address by missing000 · · Score: 1

      Cop: give me your SSN!
      dude: can you articulate your probable cause?

  4. Great by Choco-man · · Score: 2, Funny

    Perhaps they'll be able to help me track those damn lost socks that keep allegedly disappearing in my dryer. Satellite tracking, cameras, computer databases - never again will I be forced to wear mismatched socks!

    1. Re:Great by Anime_Fan · · Score: 1

      Or mismatched dates. Always knowing where they are, so you don't pick two [girls that likes you but] who likes to fight with each other.

    2. Re:Great by m00by · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I just get all the same kind of socks. takes out that pesky having to "match" them thing. they all look the same, so they ALL match!!! =D

    3. Re:Great by cranos · · Score: 1, Funny

      And the likely hood of the majority of /. readers EVER and I mean EVER coming across this situation is probably slightly less that Linus and Bill having a love child together.

    4. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, that's my IP! I call prior art! The DMCA! Damnit! If you do the same for your pants and shirts, you're in deep legal trouble my friend!

    5. Re:Great by darqchild · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Meh... i just stopped matching my socks... who cares if they're different colours?

      --
      What? Me? Worry?
  5. Tracking vehicle movements by pytheron · · Score: 4, Informative
    We already have that in London

    A network of cameras track our movements and trigger enevlopes demanding money on our doorsteps if we dare cross the red lines !

    --
    "I am not bound to please thee with my answers" [William Shakespeare]
    1. Re:Tracking vehicle movements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, thats right. Except that it doesn't photograph every number plate; only the ones who havn't paid. Nor do they track you inside or outside of the small amount of area that is covered by the charge zone.

      Now, once you're out of your car, then you'll be watched by hundreds of thousands of cameras, who can track you as you move around.

    2. Re:Tracking vehicle movements by turkmenistani · · Score: 1

      Sounds to me like their trying to make up for spending so much on the system itself!

    3. Re:Tracking vehicle movements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, London has it.

      now all DARPA needed to do would be to take what London has, change it a bit (well, change it a lot since what London has is actually completely different in every imaginable way, but that's a detail) and saved themselves all that bother!

  6. iridescence cars, here I come by RevDobbs · · Score: 1

    Time to talk to those crazy Renaissance Nanotechnologists get my car & bikes painted.

  7. sounds like... by somberlain · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Truman Show?

    1. Re:sounds like... by I+Want+GNU! · · Score: 2, Insightful
      sounds like... The Truman Show?
      Yeah, except it's not one person, it's the entire country. And Truman eventually went free. Sounds closer to 1984 to me.
    2. Re:sounds like... by cookiepus · · Score: 1

      Watching the entire population of the US go about their daily lives is about 99999*10^99999999 times more boring than the truman show.

    3. Re:sounds like... by Dr+Tall · · Score: 1

      Orwell was off by 20 years, but it looks like its starting.

  8. Wireless tracking by the+clean · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is a step up from the idea the local police force has of tagging first their cars then pushing to haev every car tagged with wireless devices that identify the vehicels throughout the city on a wireless network. The idea being they can interface with GPS and mapping software to help them identify problems with traffic and criminal acts. They are pushing it in terms of National Securty, and claim that it will not be used as an invasion of privacy as if nothing illegal is happening, then they won't be looking.

    1. Re:Wireless tracking by vaderhelmet · · Score: 0

      For them, they'd ideally be able to have the car transmit it's speed at any given time, or automatically alert when it's speeding. (Assuming say, the mapping software was crossed with something that would know how fast the speed limit is, where the car is) That way, they can still sit in the police station eating donuts, and catch all the speeders and more. Hell, they could even just sit there and have an automated process send you a ticket in the mail! Lousy wireless cops!

    2. Re:Wireless tracking by SunPin · · Score: 4, Insightful
      ...will not be used as an invasion of privacy as if nothing illegal is happening, then they won't be looking.

      Nice troll.

      How does this help law enforcement? There's a huge difference between enforcing the law and turning everyone into paranoid fscks. Just because I'm not doing anything illegal doesn't mean I'll be happy with some prick monitoring it.

      --
      Laws are for people with no friends.
    3. Re:Wireless tracking by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      and claim that it will not be used as an invasion of privacy as if nothing illegal is happening, then they won't be looking.

      If they are not looking, how do they know nothing illegal is happening?

      This is just like a mall security camera system. They can and do watch you from the parking lot entrance, along every corridor, and into every store.

      Based on profile, they watch the 20 something with baggy pants as he nervously checks out the CD's. Up to now, he has done nothing wrong. But he shows some of the standard signs. So the guard watches him. From one store to another. Eventually, the kid goes home, having done nothing wrong. But he has been scrutinized closely the entire time. And may be watched again, next time he chooses to go to the mall.

      This is a city size version of that. Well...I call BS.
      Unless and until a person actually does something illegal, then and only then should they be tracked down/arrested/whatever. Until then, it is nunya dam bidness where and when I travel.

    4. Re:Wireless tracking by Anti+Frozt · · Score: 1
      • "...and claim that it will not be used as an invasion of privacy as if nothing illegal is happening, then they won't be looking."

      Just exactly how will they know nothing illegal is happening if they won't be looking?

      --
      In C++, friends can touch each others private parts.
    5. Re:Wireless tracking by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      However in your example, the kid isn't thrown out of the mail for being suspicious.

      The question you've got to ask is, "Why do the security guards at the mall watch the kid with the baggy pants in the first place?"

      Are they just biased against baggy pants or have they had problems from a disproportionate number of baggy pants' individuals?

      Now, if the security guards confronted the kid, demanded that he empty his pockets without having any corroberating evidence other than the fact that he's wearing baggy pants, that would be wrong.

      The bigger question that's get asked is, how much liberty are you willing to give up for some security?

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    6. Re:Wireless tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The bigger question that's get asked is, how much liberty are you willing to give up for some security?"

      None.

      Because in the end the result isn't security. Too bad there's no one I can vote for that understands this.

    7. Re:Wireless tracking by Hulleye · · Score: 1

      "how much liberty are you willing to give up for some security?"

      None whatsoever.

      Doesn't it bother anyone at all that the reasons behind "security problems" are never addressed by the "administration". instead more and more draconian measures are introduced to counter the rise of perceived threats to national security.

      liberty, freedom, or whatever else you wish to call it, is not a privelege for the elites that need to be protected at all costs. it is a fundamental human right and as such should be seized at every turn of life. there is no reason to sacrifice liberty for the sake of security. security must be addressed by assessing the very serious issues that are often at the heart of extremist agitation. Robert Fisk once called the attacks on the twin towers "the awesome cruelty of a doomed people". and yes it was that and more. it was the cry of a desperate people that have been marginalised, oppressed and manipulated for too long.

      i apologise for the ranting in this post, but it sickens me when well educated, knowledgable people pose a question that is simply a cop out. security and liberty are mutually exclusive. security does not beget liberty. it creates a prison and nothing more!!

    8. Re:Wireless tracking by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Good Lord...that would mean the end of my bank account (for speeding fines). I never look at the speedometer until the radar detector goes off..

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  9. The Real Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    This kind of article will always bring the knee-jerk concern for our 'civil liberties', but can anyone actually name one?

    What liberty would an action like this deprive us from? Unless you're doing something illegal, as the old saying goes, you have very little to worry about.

    Similarly, it would be vastly impractical to monitor everyone in real time, and to search through the records of EVERY citizen, so really you'd have to be under suspicion of something in the first place to instigate the sort of expense and man-hours the use of this information would require.

    -- Posted as AC because my karma is shit, wtg mods.

    1. Re:The Real Question by cranos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ah yes, the good old "Only the guilty need fear" argument, shame its a fiction.

      Around the world we have countless examples of restrictions made in the name of national security actually being used against the country's own citizens. East Germany, Russia, China, most of the old communist countries and so on.

      The actions of the Stasi and the KGB were all justified by the excuse of "National Security".

    2. Re:The Real Question by Blitzshlag · · Score: 0, Troll
      What liberty would an action like this deprive us from?



      How about the right to freedom from an oppressive government?

    3. Re:The Real Question by Zemran · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unless you're doing something illegal,

      If you are doing something illegal you would change your plates. It is only ordinary people that cross the line that these systems penalise. They penalise enough to earn a lot of money though...

      You talk like a saint but are you really trying to say that you never exceed the speed limit? even if you didn't mean to? Well now you WILL get a ticket.

      But the wide boy in his racer will wear false plates or register at a false address and leave you to pay the bills...

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    4. Re:The Real Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is a good argument, until you piss off the wrong person. What if that person decides to say, have you watched 24/7 until you screw up. You get 50 speeding tickets in the mail because the system said you were doing 2 mph over the limit, 50 different times in one day. Or 10 moving violation, because they have photo evidence that you parked 1 extra inch from the curb than you should have. Corruption of a system like this could become rampant.

      I know this sounds really conspiracy like and the likelyhood of it happening is small, but are the real benefits that great.

    5. Re:The Real Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'd hope never to piss off someone who has access to that system. Or a stalker with access, that would be fun.

    6. Re:The Real Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He asks for a specific example, and all you can offer is rhetoric. Not that I'm surprised or anything...

    7. Re:The Real Question by pseudochaotic · · Score: 1
      Similarly, it would be vastly impractical to monitor everyone in real time,


      In 1984, i believe what they did was randomly watch people, so you would have to assume you were being watched at any given moment.

      --
      And the l33t shall inherit the 34r7h.
    8. Re:The Real Question by I+Want+GNU! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To quote a great American patriot, Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

      The United States was formed in order to create a government for the people, not against them. Our people are honorable citizens, not potential terrorist suspects. This trend toward an Orwellian society goes against all American values.

    9. Re:The Real Question by glesga_kiss · · Score: 4, Insightful
      we have countless examples of restrictions made in the name of national security actually being used against the country's own citizens. East Germany, Russia, China, most of the old communist countries and so on.

      AND UK/USA. It is illegal under both our laws for the security services to spy on civilians. So we spy on yours, you spy on ours, data exchanged, all nice and legal.

      And what's with this "how long until it is used on American soil?" attitude? Are you the only people on the world who are allowed to have privacy or something? Do you see a breach of someones civil liberties in some random country as "OK", provided Americans aren't affected? What's with that attitude?

    10. Re:The Real Question by Matrix272 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I knew as soon as I read your comment that you'd get lots of responses, and you have, but none that I've read so far have given you the correct answer, IMHO.

      I'm sure that in 1937, all the German people thought their government was the greatest thing on the planet. I'm sure that even the Jews didn't really think they had anything to worry about, after all, they weren't breaking any laws. Within a few year, though, Hitler made sure that laws were created that the Jews, just by being Jewish, were breaking. According to Hitler, that made them a threat to his country, and they had to separated. Since some of the resisted, they had to disposed of. It's a harsh truth, but as far as Hitler was concerned, everything he was doing was perfectly acceptable. The Jews, before the late 30's, didn't think anything was wrong... obviously they were mistaken.

      Just because you're not breaking any laws now doesn't mean you won't next week, next month, or next year. We have a government that has the power to create laws. The only thing the general population can do is protest, but in the end, the only way the politicians will regret what they do is if they're not re-elected, which in the worst case (Senators) can be 6 years later (I'll also mention that in the original Constitution, Senators weren't supposed to be elected, but rather chosen by the State Legislature). Even if a new law was drafted and passed that would require (insert your ethnic group here) to register in the middle of the desert in Nevada, realistically, there's nothing you could do about it for the next few years, until the sponsors of the bill were up for re-election.

      The Bill of Rights was based on certain God-given (not Government-given) rights, such as the freedom of speech, press, religion, etc. One of the rights that isn't specifically mentioned is the Freedom of a certain amount of Privacy. Where I go on vacation is my choice, and I feel it's a matter of privacy. If I decide to go to Mount Rushmore alone, and not tell anybody about it, I don't want anybody else to know. That's my choice, and it's a freedom I expect from living in a country where the national anthem says "Land of the Free". Free to do what? To have the government track my movements, wherever I go? Is that what the Founding Fathers thought when they left England? "Gee, General Washington, I think we should create a government that can monitor and oppress its people whenever it wants with almost no possibility of retribution." I somehow doubt it.

      The fact that we're discussing what freedoms and liberties are violated by the government tracking our movements tells me that people have forgotten why this country was founded in the first place. This country was founded so people could make lives for themselves doing whatever they chose, as long as they didn't deprive someone else of their freedoms. The government was created for the sole purpose of protecting people from deprivation of property and violence. The government was the friend of the people 200 years ago, but now is an entity to be looked upon with fear and apprehension. The "values" of "diversity" and "equal" rights are responsible. People that work for a living now have up to 40% of their earnings taken away and given to people that don't work for a living. Credit is given to people based on the color of their skins. "Equal rights" is a joke now, only funny to those that get things handed to them. To everyone else, it's a threat of violence or incarceration.

      The people of this country need to seriously look at what their country has become, then we need to fix it.

      --
      "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
    11. Re:The Real Question by hype7 · · Score: 1
      Ah yes, the good old "Only the guilty need fear" argument, shame its a fiction.

      Around the world we have countless examples of restrictions made in the name of national security actually being used against the country's own citizens. East Germany, Russia, China, most of the old communist countries and so on.

      The actions of the Stasi and the KGB were all justified by the excuse of "National Security".


      I was waiting for the privacy bridgade to show up.

      If it's used to impinge on people's privacy, then deal with it as and when it shows up. But don't bash on the tech simply because it has nasty uses.

      Computers can have nasty uses - they can be used to track people in a variety of ways.

      Likewise, imagine how helpful this technology could be for the troops in the US right now, trying to deal with what is in effect urban guerilla warfare.

      -- james
    12. Re:The Real Question by Matrix272 · · Score: 1

      I have a question for you that pertains to this discussiong in an indirect way. Does Howard Dean support gun control? For instance, if I, as a law-abiding citizen who's never been convicted of anything more than a single speeding ticket more than 5 years ago, wanted to purchase a 9mm semi-automatic pistol, would Howard Dean let me, without filling out a dozen forms and waiting 6 weeks (or whatever it is now)? Would he support extending those restrictions, or would he support eliminating them?

      The reason I ask is that owning weapons is a Liberty guaranteed by the law of the land, the Constitution... so if Howard Dean doesn't want people like me to be able to defend ourslves, then I find it highly ironic that you'd post a quote from Benjamin Franklin about conserving our Liberties when your favorite Presidential candidate opposes one of the most important ones.

      --
      "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
    13. Re:The Real Question by I+Want+GNU! · · Score: 2, Informative
      The reason I ask is that owning weapons is a Liberty guaranteed by the law of the land, the Constitution... so if Howard Dean doesn't want people like me to be able to defend ourslves, then I find it highly ironic that you'd post a quote from Benjamin Franklin about conserving our Liberties when your favorite Presidential candidate opposes one of the most important ones.
      I like how you incorrectly assume the position of my favorite candidate and then dislike him based on it. Basically be believes in "sensible" gun laws. He wants to enforce laws we already have (such as the assault weapons ban) rather than create new ones. He thinks gun laws should be at a state level. The NRA gave him an A rating. Liberals might not like all of this about him but Vermont has the lowest homicide rate in the country, and it's tough to argue with facts like that.
    14. Re:The Real Question by kolbeinn · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm sure that in 1937, all the German people thought their government was the greatest thing on the planet. I'm sure that even the Jews didn't really think they had anything to worry about, after all, they weren't breaking any laws.

      This really is a common misconception. The Nazi party started cleaning up political dissidents and granting the police extensive powers quite soon after they got to power, Dachau was established in 1933 and the Gestapo soon after, it all went downhill from there. Incidentally Hitler was chosen the person of the year by Time magazine in 1938.

      --
      End of line
    15. Re:The Real Question by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

      "Unless you're doing something illegal, as the old saying goes, you have very little to worry about."

      Who gets to define illegal?

    16. Re:The Real Question by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1

      Lets also not forget that what allowed the Nazi party to gain power was the fact that the German economy was pretty much in the crapper and there was a HUGE resentment toward non-German people in the country who were taking jobs away from Germans.

      Does any of this sound frighteningly familiar to anyone else?

    17. Re:The Real Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Too bad /. doesn't have audio capability so that you could have put a WAV file of The Battle Hymn of the Republic to play in the background.

      So you really believe that we are heading towards a holocaust? Or is that just an amateur debate ploy where you throw in the implicit or explicit comparison to Hitler?

      That is a very idealistic view you have of the founding of the country. I'm sure when asked about Benedict Arnold that Washington didn't say, "Hey! It's a free country. What he does on his own time is his own business." The Constitution was ordained and established for, among other things, to provide for the common defense and secure the blessings of liberty. The current administration apparently feels they are doing this, though you may disagree with their tactics.

      Who pays 40% in taxes? You aren't referring to the 38% tax bracket are you? If so you need to go back an understand that the 38% tax bracket is not paying 38% of your income in taxes (because that would be the flat tax system some people like to push).

      The government was created for the sole purpose of protecting people from deprivation of property and violence.
      The new republic was established for self-government (for over a hundred years before 1776 people were moving/relocating to the colonies for these freedoms), but I would argue with you that people set up a new government because they were being deprived of violence.
    18. Re:The Real Question by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

      "But the wide boy in his racer will wear false plates or register at a false address and leave you to pay the bills..."

      Want a laugh? Walk past the citizen-monitoring cameras on the way into london holding a placard containing the number-place (license-plate) of your favourite friend;

    19. Re:The Real Question by Matrix272 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I don't necessarily like him or dislike him. I will admit that I'm generally opposed to any Democratic presidential candidate, although if you can convince me that he isn't going to turn this Republic into a Socialist country, then I'll be glad to hear him out.

      I assumed his stance on gun control simply because he is a Democrat, and it seems like the Democrats want to take power away from individuals, and give that power to the government, which I adamently oppose. They're also incredibly afraid of the Constitution, and want to overwrite it using the Supreme Court, which is why they oppose any conservative nominee to any court, specific Estrada. In that case, they're arguing that he won't answer their questions, but they haven't asked any... so they're trying to alter the Constitution by making it necessary to have 60 votes to allow his nomination. I have several other reasons I don't like Democrats, but I really don't want to get into all of them right now. But, if you can tell me why he's better than Bush, I'll listen.

      --
      "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
    20. Re:The Real Question by zilly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This kind of article will always bring the knee-jerk concern for our 'civil liberties', but can anyone actually name one?

      Sure. How about civil disobedience? That's widely considered one of the most important civil liberties we enjoy. I imagine it would have been a lot harder for civil-rights activists to peacefully assemble if a system like DARPA's had been in place in the '50s and '60s, constantly monitoring the "ringleaders" as they went about their business. Or imagine you lived during Prohibition, going out every night and in so doing quietly giving the finger to the 18th Amendment. When you leave your favorite speakeasy, would you rather take your chances with a cop happening upon you on the sidewalk, or a system of cameras recording your drunken stumblings to be used as evidence against you at a later date? I know what I'd rather put up with.

      Unless you're doing something illegal, as the old saying goes, you have very little to worry about.

      How about sharing a joint with your buddies on a week-long camping trip in the middle of a national forest? Not your thing? Not urban enough? Then how about enjoying a glass of wine one fine summer night in the park (open container of alcohol, a ticketable offense)? Still not your thing? OK, have you ever jaywalked in your life?

      The concern is that the system described in the article would make it a lot harder to get away with these things. Yes, these acts are illegal, but I think most people value the wiggle room the law affords in such cases. Look up "reasonable expectation of privacy" on Google, and consider the ways it would be constricted if DARPA's urban surveillance system were turned on Americans.

      And at the risk of sounding like one of those "knee-jerk" civil libertarians, I have to say that your argument could be used to excuse invasions of privacy I doubt even you would tolerate. For instance, if you're not performing any illegal acts in the bedroom with your S.O., why wouldn't you let the FBI install a camera in the ceiling fan to make sure? (Until last week, you are aware, certain expressions of sodomy, including oral sex, were against the law in certain states.)

      I think my point got kind of lost somewhere in there, but hopefully you'll understand what I'm getting at.

      yours

    21. Re:The Real Question by Matrix272 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you really believe that we are heading towards a holocaust? Or is that just an amateur debate ploy where you throw in the implicit or explicit comparison to Hitler?

      I believe that if this country doesn't shape up soon, in a hundred years, people may look at the United States with as much disdain as people look at Germany with now. Whether that implies a holocaust between now and then is anyone's guess, but I'd assume that our liberties will slowly be stripped away, until eventually we have a dictatorship... and this country will fall into a secondary nation, just like Germany.

      That is a very idealistic view you have of the founding of the country. I'm sure when asked about Benedict Arnold that Washington didn't say, "Hey! It's a free country. What he does on his own time is his own business."
      Benedict Arnold deprived other citizens of this country of their lives, and did so in an act of Treason. That is, and was, punishable by death. I don't think I quite understand the point of your argument...

      The Constitution was ordained and established for, among other things, to provide for the common defense and secure the blessings of liberty.

      Exactly. My point precisely.

      The current administration apparently feels they are doing this, though you may disagree with their tactics.

      For the most part, I agree with their tactics. I don't agree with most of the PATRIOT Act, but in the Administration's defense, they needed a law drafted in a very short period of time. I think now would be a good time to revisit it and rewrite most of it.

      The new republic was established for self-government (for over a hundred years before 1776 people were moving/relocating to the colonies for these freedoms), but I would argue with you that people set up a new government because they were being deprived of violence.

      Perhaps my wording was confusing, but I meant the government is to protect its citizens from violence, and from deprivation of property.

      --
      "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
    22. Re:The Real Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I'm sure that in 1937, all the German people thought their government was the greatest thing on the planet. I'm sure that even the Jews didn't really think they had anything to worry about,

      The Nuremberg laws were introduced in 1934, but the Jews were worried *long* before that.

    23. Re:The Real Question by jafac · · Score: 1

      " Ah yes, the good old "Only the guilty need fear" argument, shame its a fiction.

      Around the world we have countless examples of restrictions made in the name of national security actually being used against the country's own citizens. East Germany, Russia, China, most of the old communist countries and so on."


      Don't forget the good old Ghost of McCarthy. We've been doing this stuff in America for a long time as well.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    24. Re:The Real Question by Larsing · · Score: 1

      But the wide boy in his racer will wear false plates or register at a false address and leave you to pay the bills...

      Except that he's a "rich bastard" who probably pays more for a coffee than the CC, so he can't be bothered. Also, he most likely has personalised plates saying something along the lines of "My other car is a RR"...

      --
      Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
    25. Re:The Real Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you see a breach of someones civil liberties in some random country as "OK", provided Americans aren't affected? What's with that attitude?

      First, cameras have nothing to do with civil liberties. It's a privacy issue.

      Another thing we believe in is democracy. If the local people want cameras we'll sell them cameras. If they want security we'll give them security. Maybe privacy is hurt by the cameras in the UK, but weren't they voted on? Who are we to say they can't have the technology?

      Another thing we care about is our interests (duh). For example, security in Iraq. We need stability to create a government, but they're still taking shots at our police forces. I'd say it's not only in the interests of the US troops but anyone interested in law and order to have this technology around.

    26. Re:The Real Question by Larsing · · Score: 1

      The Nazi party started cleaning up political dissidents ... quite soon after they got to power

      Actually, they started doing that even before they got to power. That's part of how they got to power: having the SA (no, not the SysAdmin, the Sturm Abteilung) beat the lefties into silence...

      --
      Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
    27. Re:The Real Question by Zemran · · Score: 1

      How about one day everyone pastes a sign over there #plate saying 'N0MORETAX'

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    28. Re:The Real Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, cameras were NOT voted for in the UK.We are now spied on in most town centres, and many of those systems are linked to facial recognition systems and the data retained. In itself that isn't a problem. The point is that Governments - ALL governments - are always looking for ways to control their subjects and tracking movements is a very good tool towards that end.

    29. Re:The Real Question by electric_penguin · · Score: 1

      Swapping plates...

      That would work only if you were outside the area of surveillance. If you swapped it out in between to cameras it should be obvious to the system that a switch was made. Finding you among cars with plates that hadn't been switched wouldn't be too difficult.

    30. Re:The Real Question by enjo13 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We don't see it as OK, but for the most part Americans also see it as 'their problem'. As do I.

      It is the responsibility of the GOVERNED to deal with these issues. If the people of another country (or the government of another country) want to do this type of thing, that's fine by me. Who am I to tell another how to govern themselves?

      In short, I don't consider a breach of someone elses civil liberties as 'OK'.. but at the same time, I have no reason to be concerned with that either. My job, as a governed member of society, is to be vigilante in ensuring that MY civil liberties are not breached. I can only offer empathy and support to those in other places.

      Before the anti-american bashers in the crowd go nuts, I recognize that the United States does have this habit of getting involved in other peoples civil liberties. That's not something I support (along with a large percentage of the actual citizens here)..

      --
      Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
    31. Re:The Real Question by BiteMeFanboy · · Score: 1

      Well, mainly we don't care because we actually like it when other countries encroach on the civil liberties of their citizens... it give a pretext for invasion should we desire it.

    32. Re:The Real Question by GFish4 · · Score: 1
      The United States was formed in order to create a government for the people, not against them. Our people are honorable citizens, not potential terrorist suspects. This trend toward an Orwellian society goes against all American values.


      Not really. The US separated from England mostly for economic reasons hidden under the guise of "liberty!", "representation!", etc. If you look at the make up of most of the founding fathers, most of them were wealthy coastal elites: merchants and lawyers. The rich run this country, always have and always will.

      The Constitution effectively shifted power away from the States, which were more or less beholden to the people, to the Federal government, where the only direct say the people had was in the House of Representatives. The Senate and the entire executive and judicial branches were not elected by the people.

      If you'd like to know more about the conflict between "East" and "West" in revolutionary America, I'd recommend reading about the North Carolina Regulator Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion, which had a large hand in creating a shift in attitudes that would pave the way to the Constitution. The founders were not egalitarian gods as they are often thought to be, they were just as human as we are. The original ideals of the revolution fell flat on their face before the war was even over.

      I better stop now lest this turn into a 20 page paper. The way revolutionary history is taught in high school genearlly contains a lot of misleading oversimplifications, but I think it's worth the time investment required to gain a better understanding of it.
    33. Re:The Real Question by Jett · · Score: 1

      Its kind of funny how so many people assume that Democrat=Anti-Guns, the wonders of GOP propaganda!

      Dean in particular is well known for his "A" rating from the NRA. I think he is also a relatively eloquent speaker on gun rights, much more so than any Republican I've ever seen talk about the subject. I'm sure he's been in a lot of debates with his fellow Democrats, so he knows the kind of rhetoric that is effective at not alienating your audience.

    34. Re:The Real Question by lommer · · Score: 1

      "Even if a new law was drafted and passed that would require (insert your ethnic group here) to register in the middle of the desert in Nevada, realistically, there's nothing you could do about it for the next few years, until the sponsors of the bill were up for re-election."

      No, being American, there is definitely one thing you CAN do about it: open revolt. This is what that ever-troublesome clause of you contitution ("the right to bear arms") has given you - the option of forceful rebellion against a repressive government. In this instance, I'm sure that enough Americans would agree with you that such a law was bad, and that enough would even join you in armed revolt if you so chose. While the safeguard of an armed populous is a crude tool, it is still very effective.

    35. Re:The Real Question by I+Want+GNU! · · Score: 1

      I agree, and perhaps I oversimplified things a bit--but still, liberty and equality are two of the most widely held American values and ideals, and most people believe strongly in them.

    36. Re:The Real Question by prepp · · Score: 1

      just wait until they start going "you fucking piece of eurotrash, you are just jealous of us americans" me? oh i'm going away nz/asia atleast there they are upfront about it i.e "fuck the law, the law goes BUBBA on you"

      but seriously this sheit is starting to creep me out...

      --
      "There is hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags do NOT wave in a Vacuum " --Arthur C Clarke
    37. Re:The Real Question by I+Want+GNU! · · Score: 1

      Well, if you're a conservative it might be tough to convince you, but it's admirable though that you're willing to hear and consider different points of view. While Dean has been branding himself as a liberal, in truth his record is very moderate. Three main reasons I support him are economics, national security, and foreign policy.

      On economics, Bush has given huge tax cuts to the rich and not cut spending at all. This has turned our biggest surplus in history to our biggest deficit. In fact, while on the surface he cuts taxes, his economic stewardship in fact is causing states to rise taxes, effectively increasing taxes for the lower and middle classes. Dean is a fiscal conservative. He believes strongly in a balanced budget and often fought off Democrats in the Vermont legislature who wanted to increase spending, because he believes fiscal discipline is important. He wants a national health care plan but it costs much less than the Iraqi occupation will cost and much less than the tax cuts, and also less than Dick Gephardt's plan.

      On national security, I believe that contrary to popular perception, Bush is very weak. Bush has stifled the 9/11 commission that was investigating our intelligence failures. The non-partisan Council of Foreign Relations believes that the terrorist threat is greater and ever and that there isn't enough spending on security. I believe that Bush has simply exploited 9/11 in order to further his own agenda rather than making us safer. Also, I believe that Bush has made the Justice Department too powerful and given law enforcement way too much power. I am somewhat of a social libertarian and I believe that if government has too much power it will tend to abuse it. Dean's plan I think would do a lot more to improve our national security.

      The last thing is foreign policy. Bush's policy of pre-emption is very dangerous and is alienating the entire world and creating bad precedents. Bush manipulated intelligence reports in order to make the case for the Iraqi war and now his facts are crumbling and the CIA is very upset. This has become a scandal in Britain, where the media is more open. Dean opposed the Iraqi war not because he thought Saddam was a good person but because he thought we risked alienating the rest of the world and because he thought Iraq didn't pose a threat to us. Dean would make America a leader in the world and maintain our military supremacy but he would work with the world community, not against it. For example, if we gave Iraq a bit more time we might have been able to create a multinational coalition that would greatly reduce the nation building costs. We will be there for ten years at tens of billions of dollars per year and it's using up half our military, threatening our security and costing lives, all for an exaggerated threat.

      Dean often comments that Bush has forgotten ordinary people, and I believe that Bush is more concerned with his special interests than helping the American people. Dean is a man of the people, willing to speak what he thinks, even when it goes against his party line. He's honest and has a proven track record from his time in Vermont. I think he'd make a great President.

    38. Re:The Real Question by crmsndude · · Score: 1

      >>> AND UK/USA. It is illegal under both our laws for the security services to spy on civilians. So we spy on yours, you spy on ours, data exchanged, all nice and legal.

      Actually, UKUSA and similar agreements have explicitly prohibited such exchanges of information between the U.S. and the British Commonwealth in a manner that would circumvent privacy rights through espionage. Please try again.

    39. Re:The Real Question by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Dunno about Dean and foreign policy...he had a VERY difficult time answering questions that got him 'off script' on the 'This Week' show on ABC (Sunday)..a week or two ago.

      He just didn't make a good impression on be of being able to think on his feet and express his ideas and knowledge if it wasn't a scripted speech he was making.

      As far as taxes...well, I don't want to pay more...I think that surpluses mean the govt. is taking TOO MUCH of my money. I don't believe in using taxes as a wealth redistribution system. When they bitch that the poor don't get much a tax cut...guess what...if they don't pay taxes...they don't deserve a cut?!? I would like to see the Dem.s go ahead with their idea to also cut payroll taxes in addition to the Bush tax cut.

      One thing I desperately want BOTH sides to define...what do they consider rich? I think some of them think if you make over $30-$40K...you're rich?????????

      I think about the only way you're going to get govt. spending down is to cut off the flow of cash into it...like with the tax cuts...then that forces them to cut spending.

      I'm all for listening to all candidates...but, my last few impressions of Dean weren't that good..but will continue to listen...I love the political years where so much is going on...the speeches..ideas..etc. Just hope someone out there comes up with some good stuff...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    40. Re:The Real Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be so paranoid!

      The Gestapo, the Stasi, etc. existed and operated without vehicle tracking technology. To assume that the ability to track vehicles leads to the end to rights is absurd. Vehicles can already be tracked - a set of plainclothes cops can follow your car anywhere and you'd have no idea - the trouble starts when they pull you over for no reason and ...

      In some ways this tracking prevents arbitrary exertion of power - a cop can't do a Rodney King to you for no reason - the tape exists and you'll (hopefully) have access to it.

      What we really need, instead of tech paranoia, are laws governing the use of these systems, just as we already have for wiretaps, search warrants, etc.

    41. Re:The Real Question by NSParadox · · Score: 1

      This is the post everyone should read... why did you post it as an anonymous coward?

      --
      Unless mankind redesigns itself .... robots will take over our world. (Stephen Hawking)
    42. Re:The Real Question by Fallen_Knight · · Score: 1

      Same thing with banning guns:
      criminals: get guns even if they aren't sold.
      regular people: Can no longer get guns to protect themselves from the criminals who now have guns.

      Its just another form on control over how pople live (matrix!)

    43. Re:The Real Question by Matrix272 · · Score: 1

      This is what that ever-troublesome clause of you contitution ("the right to bear arms") has given you - the option of forceful rebellion against a repressive government.

      And that's EXACTLY why the Democrats and Socialists don't want the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land. They'd rather appoint people they can persuade into the Supreme Court, and rule that the 2nd Amendment was "Unconstitutional".

      --
      "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
    44. Re:The Real Question by Matrix272 · · Score: 1

      The Gestapo, the Stasi, etc. existed and operated without vehicle tracking technology. To assume that the ability to track vehicles leads to the end to rights is absurd. Vehicles can already be tracked - a set of plainclothes cops can follow your car anywhere and you'd have no idea - the trouble starts when they pull you over for no reason and ...

      You're so obviously correct. Who would have ever thought that an oppressive government would use whatever technology it could to "persuade" its citizens that they're really just protecting them? It seems so absurd now that I think about it. I really must have been smoking something to have thought that the government might been ... dishonest about the possibility of this, or any other, technology in a way that the general public might question. I'm glad there are people like you out there to show me the err of my ways.

      What we really need, instead of tech paranoia, are laws governing the use of these systems, just as we already have for wiretaps, search warrants, etc.

      I've got a question for you. Who is the only person or group that exists primarily within the borders of this country that can break any law it wants to, at any time it chooses? It's the government. They can lie about it later ("No, I did not have sexual relations with that woman.") and they'll most likely get off the hook. The government is the only person or group that can use deadly force, if necessary, to accomplish its goals. NEVER underestimate their willingness to do so... it could result in your death.

      --
      "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
    45. Re:The Real Question by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Vermont has the lowest homicide rate in the country, and it's tough to argue with facts like that.

      It's very easy to argue. Homicide rate is positively correlated to dense populations, high temperatures, and recent immigrants.

      Those factors are lacking in Vermont, but prevalent in NY & CA, and even TX & MA.

      Alternatively, I could argue the fact isn't even true. In 2001, both Vermont and New Hampshire suffered exactly two murders. But New Hampshire has a larger population. Depending on which year you look at, Maine and North Dakota may also beat Vermont. Obviously, all of those states are places of low population and immigration, so the effects of their gun laws is a poor predictor for the rest of the nation.

    46. Re:The Real Question by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Incidentally Hitler was chosen the person of the year by Time magazine in 1938.

      The "Person of the Year" was supposed to be chosen on basis of importance or newsmaking. Selecting Adolf Hitler for the cover was an acknowledgement of his power, not an endorsement of it. It was an excellent choice, considering how much Hitler's policies dominated international events for the next eight years.

      Of course, in 2001 Time broke their editorial policy in the name of patriotism, and selected a local politician who merely responded to events, instead of the international master-mind who initiated them.

  10. That sounds a bit strange to me by Advocadus+Diaboli · · Score: 5, Insightful
    DARPA is developing an urban surveillance system that would use computers and thousands of cameras to track, record and analyze the movement of every vehicle in a city. Officials claim that the project is designed to help the U.S. military protect troops and fight in cities overseas

    So I guess the officials can also tell us why the hell overseas cities should provide the camera installation for US troops to fight there more easily?
    To install the cameras you usually need to control the city and to control a city in a military operations requires some fighting before. Looks like a perfect Catch22 to me.

    1. Re:That sounds a bit strange to me by nbarr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Imagine teh present situation in Iraq. The war is "over", but right now, USA would like to have a system like that in order to control it better. I believe it is more for occupation purposes. And of course, pos-war control.

      --
      Call on God, but row away from the rocks.
    2. Re:That sounds a bit strange to me by xyzzy · · Score: 1

      Dude: think *Iraq*. The cameras could be placed after hostilities, to prevent the kind of sniping that's going on now.

      Or, alternatively, they could be dropped in by air ahead of time.

    3. Re:That sounds a bit strange to me by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      Good, they can control and direct the troops that will have to guard all these cameras and sensors from kids with rocks and spraypaint. What happened to the liberation of Iraq and installation of a democratic government?

      Sounds like the usual "overtech" solution by control-weenies.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    4. Re:That sounds a bit strange to me by while(true) · · Score: 1

      Unmanned spydrones like the Predator perhaps?

    5. Re:That sounds a bit strange to me by bourne · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So I guess the officials can also tell us why the hell overseas cities should provide the camera installation for US troops to fight there more easily?

      Obviously they won't, which is why the article states 'In the second phase, at least 100 cameras would be installed in 12 hours to support "military operations in an urban terrain."'

      To install the cameras you usually need to control the city and to control a city in a military operations requires some fighting before. Looks like a perfect Catch22 to me.

      Um, no.

      "Securing the perimeter" is the step that usually comes after reaching the objective. This is a perimeter security step. Nothing in the article indicates that this is seen as a way of entering the city, more as a way of controlling it once it is held.

      Personally, I predict that the next step will be the moral equivalent of dog pod grids, where aerial surveillance vehicles (smaller than the predator, essentially disposable as necessary) will carry the cameras in with the troops and provide extended perimeter security, thus shrinking that 12-hour setup window. Imagine how much harder it would be today to sneak up on Bagram Air Base and drop a few mortars rounds in if there were a few predator drones constantly circling randomly around and detecting movement.

    6. Re:That sounds a bit strange to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, alternatively, they could be dropped in by air ahead of time.

      Oh yeah, I can see it now. Thousands of cameras on tripods being parachuted into a city..

      Soldier 1: Hey, what are those?!

      Soldier 2: I dunno, but lets just leave them alone, I'm sure they're totally unrelated to this invasion we're about to defend the city against!

    7. Re:That sounds a bit strange to me by framed · · Score: 1

      If you read the RFP there are two types of deployment: Force Protection (FP) and Military Operation Urban Terrain (MOUT). In FP configuration you own the territory and don't need to ask permission. MOUT is more difficult, but also from the RFP:

      ...Offerors should identify their choices and rational for sensors and deployment options for use by mobile forces to screen a flank or surveil a critical route. Examples include traditional surveillance cameras, small, portable, and possibly mobile self-contained surveillance devices; video sensors mounted on organic aerial vehicles, and 'video ropes'...

      So it sounds like the intent is to be able to do this in denied areas using their own sensors, possibly at distance.

    8. Re:That sounds a bit strange to me by hunnr · · Score: 1

      Not quite - most of the development in that area has to do with small standalone "motes" that can be spread, for example, from a plane and use wireless ad-hoc networks to communicate and form a sensor grid.

    9. Re:That sounds a bit strange to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno about you, but if some foreign power were dropping cameras atop MY telephone poles, I would start using slingshots and pistols on it as soon as the armed instalation team left.

      Vandalism pretty much ensures this is ineffective on foreign soil.

      The scary bit is this kind of tool is MUCH MUCH more effective as a DOMESTIC "crowd control" tool. Before you label me as some kind of "civil liberties nut" -- don't... those guys frighten me and use big words alot -- let me remind you that this is a NECESSARY tool to fight terrorism.

      Sound ironic?

      Well, so don't most people sound when they say "everyone deserves a fair trial"... but then the BS hypocracy shows when they support holding people in "detention" for years without a trial: you don't need a fair trial if you are accused of terrorism, right?

    10. Re:That sounds a bit strange to me by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1

      Better yet, how long until there are camera-equiped artillery rounds or rockets that simply broadcast their data real-time through an airborne controller station to troops in the field. It would be one hell of an asset to ground troops. And could even eliminate the need for artillery spotters.

    11. Re:That sounds a bit strange to me by bourne · · Score: 1

      On a related note, see this article. When Iraqi forces in Basra were mortaring within the city, "...British troops were using a system of radar tracking to pinpoint and then attack the mortar positions."

      This is exactly the thing that has been needed; consider for example that the U.S. forces stationed in Somalia (...back when) were casually mortared by by the locals. Being able to accurately spot and strike back is exactly the sort of technological advantage needed in urban warfare.

    12. Re:That sounds a bit strange to me by orim · · Score: 1

      This whole "track the car and you track its owner" policy only works in the US anyway! We are probably the only country that relies on our cars so much.
      Other nations use their public transportation.

      So the only people you'll be able to track in Iraq would be the cab drivers.

      --
      "If you could only see what I've seen with your eyes..." - Roy Batty
    13. Re:That sounds a bit strange to me by K-Man · · Score: 1

      For the new Fox reality show, why else?

      --
      ---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
  11. dangerous trends... by I+Want+GNU! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The trends in the government toward an Orwellian society sinerely worry me. Ashcroft and Bush have exploited 9/11 in order to pass many new laws that curb the openness of American society. They do all this under the guise of "national security" -- and yet we are not any more secure -- the non-partisan Council of Foreign Relations recently put out a report, saying that "Nearly two years after 9/11, the United States is drastically underfunding local emergency responders and remains dangerously unprepared to handle a catastrophic attack on American soil, particularly one involving chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-impact conventional weapons. If the nation does not take immediate steps to better identify and address the urgent needs of emergency responders, the next terrorist incident could be even more devastating than 9/11."

    Our state of government is corrupt. Politicians are being bribed left and right in order to allow the big-media to consolidate even more, in order to pass DMCA type legislation, and in order to pass acts such as the PATRIOT Act, which should have been named the Big Brother Act. They are even creating Orwellian agencies such as the Total Information Awareness program (renamed to the Terrorism Information Awareness system, in hopes that this would help them fool the public on its purposes).

    This is a farce. We need a new leader who will restore American values to this country. I personally think Howard Dean is our best chance at restoring this country to what it was (a good example of what he stands for is in his speech titled "The Great American Restoration", but in all honestly, almost anyone would be preferable to the anti-American Bush cabal.

    1. Re:dangerous trends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally I like Orwell cause he's funny. Students For Orwell: Because 2003 is 19 years too late.

    2. Re:dangerous trends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ashcroft and Bush have exploited 9/11 in order to pass many new laws that curb the openness of American society.

      Excuse me Mr. FUD, Ashcroft and Bush have never passed one stinkin' law. Congress has passed every last one of them. Take your infomercial elsewhere.

    3. Re:dangerous trends... by I+Want+GNU! · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Excuse me Mr. FUD, Ashcroft and Bush have never passed one stinkin' law. Congress has passed every last one of them.
      Yes, and each one of these laws has been supported by them and signed by Bush in order to make law. And the Justice Department, headed by Ashcroft, drafted the sequel to the Patriot bill. So while you could overinterpret my previous words, the general effect of what I stated is true.
    4. Re:dangerous trends... by jwachter · · Score: 1
      Our state of government is corrupt.

      Here, ladies and gentlemen, is the number one post-9/11 karma whoring technique. Take a post about some new technology designed to make us safe and then figure out a way to make the technology sound sinister and threatening to our rights. I live and work in NYC and, frankly, I'm about a million times more afraid of terrorists, drug dealers and the like than I am of our own government.

      If you feel otherwise - i.e. are more afraid of Bush than the Islamist radical or coke runner next door - then you're either a lunatic or - perhaps - are a criminal yourself.

    5. Re:dangerous trends... by Fesh · · Score: 1

      Or we don't choose to live in the middle of the bullseye for every American-hating whacko in the world. Although it may be the armpit of the country, terrorism ain't high on my list of concerns in Mississippi.

      Take responsibility for your own choices, man.

      --
      --Fesh
      Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
    6. Re:dangerous trends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many times are you going to post this crap?

    7. Re:dangerous trends... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I live and work in NYC and, frankly, I'm about a million times more afraid of terrorists, drug dealers and the like than I am of our own government.

      Fear is irrational isn't it ?

      You should be a million times more afraid of getting your throat cut in NY, or being run over by a car, or getting a pollution-related lung cancer than dying as a result of terrorist actions.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    8. Re:dangerous trends... by I+Want+GNU! · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If you feel otherwise - i.e. are more afraid of Bush than the Islamist radical or coke runner next door - then you're either a lunatic or - perhaps - are a criminal yourself.
      Your logic is absurd. You're using the same argument as a person who says "agree with me or you're an anti-American terrorist." I am concerned about the state of our government because I believe it is anti-American. It tries to use fear tactics to scare people into supporting it. It is beholden to a group of corporate interests and it is controlled by a tight group of neoconservatives who want to control the whole Middle East (a group with Rumfeld, Wolfowitz, and several others wrote a letter to Clinton in 1998, three years before the terrorist attacks, urging him to invade Iraq).

      And frankly, I'd rather have a president who didn't stonewall reporters and stifle investigation into intelligence failures that lead to 9/11. I believe that Bush is worsening our national security and making terrorist attacks much more likely.
    9. Re:dangerous trends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many times are you going to use the words "Orwellian society" is your reply. Unless you are Howard Dean himself, you are simply regugitating his opinion as if it were your own. Either you don't have the facilities to form your own opinion or you are brainwashed. I seem to be in a bad mood this morning ... oh well.

    10. Re:dangerous trends... by I+Want+GNU! · · Score: 1
      How many times are you going to use the words "Orwellian society" is your reply. Unless you are Howard Dean himself, you are simply regugitating his opinion as if it were your own. Either you don't have the facilities to form your own opinion or you are brainwashed. I seem to be in a bad mood this morning ... oh well.
      That's my line, not his. My opinions are my own. I simply happen to agree with the man on most issues (not all, but most).
    11. Re:dangerous trends... by jafac · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You've been made to feel afraid by the very people who are supposed to be protecting you.

      Free your mind.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    12. Re:dangerous trends... by jafac · · Score: 1

      Forget it.
      Howard Dean is also one of THEM.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    13. Re:dangerous trends... by jwachter · · Score: 1
      It is beholden to a group of corporate interests and it is controlled by a tight group of neoconservatives who want to control the whole Middle East...
      Conspiracy theories are fun, aren't they? They're also easy to debunk. If by this so-called "group of corporate interests" you mean large multinational corporations, then you're referring to a group of organizations that is beholden to - guess who - the American public, which owns the vast majority of their shares. If you knew anything about corporate finance, you'd have realized this. I have no clue what you mean by a "tight group of neoconservatives". Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, after all, are not known for their economic views, which is what the title "neoconservative" typically refers to. How in the world did the parent get modded up to insightful?
    14. Re:dangerous trends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, what you've said is a lie. The President and Secty. Ashcroft can not create legislation. It has to come from Congress. Simply saying that they drafted it or supported it or signed it does not mean they created it. You may say I am arguing semantics but it is a fundamental fact, to say otherwise is to simply make crap up to fit your agenda.

    15. Re:dangerous trends... by Carbonite · · Score: 1

      Yes, and each one of these laws has been supported by them and signed by Bush in order to make law.

      And Bush also signed the DMCA. Stupid Republican Presidents! What's that...Clinton signed the DMCA? Ummm...well...stupid Republican Congress! Yeah, that's the ticket.

      --
      ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
    16. Re:dangerous trends... by Jett · · Score: 1

      "Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, after all, are not known for their economic views, which is what the title "neoconservative" typically refers to."

      Perhaps you are thinking of the term "neoliberal"? Neoconservatism has a very distinct foreign policy vision, and the US playing a greater role in the Middle East is in fact a major component of it. The gist of neoconservative thought on economics is: "capitalism is good, but sometimes it needs a little regulation". Thats about all they have to say on economic theory, their interesting parts are social policy (e.g. welfare) and foreign policy.

      If you want to go read the neoconservative foreign policy masterplan, check out the book "Present Dangers", edited by Robert Kagan and William Kristol - two leading neoconservatives. It has a series of essays in it, including one my Richard Perle about how to take down Iraq (it was written in 1998 or 1999. Wolfowitz also has an essay in there on diplomacy (ironic huh?).

    17. Re:dangerous trends... by ratamacue · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is the natural tendency of government to expand. Positions of power tend to attract those who wish to control others, not those who just want to live their lives in peace and mind their own business. This is a rule of thumb, not set in stone, but I would estimate that 98% of government representatives (Democrat and Republican alike) favor big government. That's no surprise if you ask me. Everyone wants a piece of the pie, and consequently, the pie grows bigger every year.

    18. Re:dangerous trends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >And Bush also signed the DMCA. Stupid Republican Presidents! What's that...Clinton signed the DMCA? Ummm...well...stupid Republican Congress! Yeah, that's the ticket.

      EXACTLY! Don't forget NAFTA and "Welfare Reform" either.

      Clinton was the best thing the Republican's could have hoped for... he signed bills for ALL of their conservative hot-button issues. OK, *almost*... he didn't seek to overturn abortion, he didn't seek to protect discrimination based on sexual preference. For the most part, Clinton shared a lot in common with conservatives and took a very pro-corporate stance.

      Clinton EVEN balanced the budget... remember the 1980's when this issue was important to conservatives. Of course, that was before the banks convinced rightwingers that deficits are "good" (for who?).

      On the whole Clinton was more conservative than most Democrats... further to the right than many "moderate" Republicans. Hell, he

      Yet because of his personal life, he'll always be demonized as "liberal".

    19. Re:dangerous trends... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      ...not sure about NAFTA...but I'm all for the Welfare Reform passed...just wish it had been a little more broad!

      I see nothing wrong with trying to force people who can work off the govt. 'teet"....I'm not working to support crack heads having children out of wedlock to be able to spend the day watching tv....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  12. Easy to counter by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 2, Funny

    The project's centerpiece is groundbreaking computer software that is capable of automatically identifying vehicles by size, color, shape and license tag, or drivers and passengers by face.

    Did you recognize that guy with round sunglasses who just went by on his bicycle ? well, that software didn't either ...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Easy to counter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, but the RFID scanners did.. he just bought a coffee at starbucks, and according to the RFID in the tires on his bike.. he's on time for work today for a change...

    2. Re:Easy to counter by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Yes - but the software did recognize that while a bicycle is usually used to get around in your own local neighborhood this particular bike hasn't been seen around here since the system was installed a few weeks ago. It also noticed that the guy riding it has on a backpack which could be big enough to hold explosives, and he is travelling in the direction of a US base but is still a few blocks away.

      Never underestimate what you can learn by looking at only superficial details ALL THE TIME, EVERYWHERE, and REMEMBERING IT ALL. I have no doubt that a system like this would start turning things up.

      And while the guy can put on sunglasses, the fact is that he is still being tracked everywhere he walks, and there are only so many different pairs of sunglasses that a guy can own. Set up the software to look situations where a group of people meet at each other's houses regularly and you'll probably turn up just about every terrorist cell in a city. And every knitting club as well, but crashing one or two of those in an occupied city is generally considered acceptable as long as you finding more guns than knitting needles in a day...

  13. America... by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 1

    Home of Freedom.

    So it's really as they say in France...
    "it is hopeless to be a prophet in your own country" ("Nul n'est prophete en son pays")

    --
    It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
    1. Re:America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "it is hopeless to be a prophet in your own country" ("Nul n'est prophete en son pays")

      I take it you don't read french very well ...

      The translation is "nobody is a prophet in his own country".

    2. Re:America... by tcopeland · · Score: 1
      > So it's really as they say in France...

      And in the Bible, too.

  14. The Burmese Traffic Problem by Effugas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's what I refer to this as.

    The following story is second hand; I make no claims as to its absolute veracity. Now, that being said:

    Several years ago, it became feasible to use many, many cameras to monitor the movement of cars via their license plates. Long before the Brits deployed one of these systems to control traffic in the core of London, Burma (aka Myanmar, one of the more oppressive regimes out there) dropped a decent amount of cash to acquire a traffic management system for their own country.

    Except Burma doesn't actually have traffic to manage. At least not vehicular...show up to a protest, though, and all that automatic, large scale image capture, compare...capture...becomes really interesting.

    Welcome to the Burmese Traffic Problem.

    --Dan
    www.doxpara.com

  15. Not safe in the physical world, nor in the Abstrac by leoaugust · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This surveillance s**t is worse than my conscience, which let me tell you, can some times be pretty unfair and brutal .... But there are ways I know of dealing with it ...
    • At least I can do the right thing by my conscience and not mind it being everywhere I want to go.
    • But when the State gets the powers of tracking me, similar to my conscience, and when the right and wrong are blurred, and the illegal and immoral are at conflict, and the wrong people have gotten hold of the State machinary ...

    I think I am basically screwed. It is already starting to feel like that.

    I think this is going to be the real debate of the 21 st century.

    • If I can't be safe in the physical world (because of technology that can identify me by my walk, or by the temperature of my breath measured by satellites miles in the sky, etc.),
    • and
    • I can't be safe in the abstract world (because of all these Carnivores and Patriot Acts),

    where am I going to go on those occasions when I really want to crawl out of my own skin. And there are other times when I want to go where there is nobody else but me.

    That is my innate desire, so the temptation will always be there ...

    --
    To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies ...
  16. Indians go to the US, and vice versa... by jkrise · · Score: 1

    There was quite a debate on the London traffic thing - turned out most of the s/w codeing and data analysis is done in India... I suspect a huge project like this could mean lots of Indians doing the coding. Paranoid locals might consider shifting to Asia as well??

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
  17. No kidding? by floydigus · · Score: 0, Troll

    experts say the technology could easily be adapted to spy on Americans

    Because of their amazingly huge butts, no doubt.

    --

    All things in moderation; including moderation

    1. Re:No kidding? by DirkDaring · · Score: 1, Funny
      experts say the technology could easily be adapted to spy on Americans

      Because of their amazingly huge butts, no doubt.

      The technology employs amazingly huge butts?

      Freaky.

    2. Re:No kidding? by floydigus · · Score: 1

      Sheez. Did you know that this comment has been modded troll like 3 times?
      Big butts AND no sense of humour!

      --

      All things in moderation; including moderation

  18. Re:The Real Question Civil Liberties? by grolaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A few radical folks decided that King George III had to go. That was treason and some of them were hanged (Nathan Hale).

    At the time that the radicals decided that British rule had to go, all those radicals had to do was step out behind the barn and look around to see if they were being overheard by the King's forces. That would be impossible under this proposal.

    There is a well established legal right to engage in this kind of discourse - but this proposal eliminates (chills) the right of the people to peacably assemble (even if they want to plot the overthrow of the current government - perhaps by ballot / constitutional convention / impeachment / or just running Ralph Nader again). US. Const. 1st Amend.

  19. But I thought the U.S. was bad! by goldspider · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Every time an emerging system/technology that could potentially endanger privacy rights here in the U.S., someone steps up and mentions that such a system/technology is already in use in Great Britain.

    However, for some reason, the U.S. is still considered by many here to be the Micorsoft-of-the-World. Why is that?

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    1. Re:But I thought the U.S. was bad! by loadquo · · Score: 1, Funny

      We only do it to ourselves.

    2. Re:But I thought the U.S. was bad! by Metasquares · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The U.S. has the most power of any country, as does Microsoft, and uses that power to bully around other countries. It forces its citizens to agree to be bound by U.S. laws, then changes them without its citizens' consent (Although every country in the world save a pure democracy does this, since the citizens themselves aren't doing the voting). It doesn't trust its citizens very much and wants to know everything that they're doing all of the time (Though they're partially justified in this because it will help them protect the country). I can easily see the similarity between the U.S. and Microsoft.

    3. Re:But I thought the U.S. was bad! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because UK doesn't push it's stuff onto rest of the world. USA does (for latest example see the passport fiasco that required biometric data in passports).

    4. Re:But I thought the U.S. was bad! by mikerich · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Every time an emerging system/technology that could potentially endanger privacy rights here in the U.S., someone steps up and mentions that such a system/technology is already in use in Great Britain. However, for some reason, the U.S. is still considered by many here to be the Micorsoft-of-the-World. Why is that?

      Easy. Your raving lunatics have better publicity people than our ones.

      After all if Ashcroft can lose an election to a dead man and still end up running America (Rumsfeld does the rest of the World), what chance do the likes of David Blunkett stand? I never thought I'd live long enough to think of Michael 'something of the night' Howard as preferable to the alternative, but somehow New Labour manages to be completely superficial and at the same time violently creepy and deeply oppressive.

      New Labour has all the moral certainty of the Bush White House with none of the convictions (in all senses); it's as if central government has been given a make-over by branding experts trained by Kim Jong Il.

      At the moment the big argument here boils down to 'would the Prime Minister lie?' Bearing in mind he's a: a politician, and b: has a pretty good track record of telling untruths, that's a dumb question. But anyone who questions it, (say the BBC), is being given the entire Hate Week treatment.

      They've taken the worst bits of Thatcherism (and there were plenty of those) and the unpleasant bits of Labour and welded them into something so unholy that Victor von Frankenstein would be asking Igor to hold off on the brain while he thinks it through. Even the name - New Labour smacks of superficiality - give them time and it will be NuLab (now with 55% Conservatism!), or just The Party.

      The more I see of Blunkett and his power-mongering control-freakery, the more I'm convinced that he sees '1984' as an inspirational work. Perhaps Blair 'n Blunkett are going to commemorate Orwell's centenary by making sure his greatest work becomes reality?

      Best wishes,
      Mike, Airstrip One, Oceania.

    5. Re:But I thought the U.S. was bad! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >but somehow New Labour manages to be completely superficial and at the same time violently
      >creepy and deeply oppressive.

      Political parties are just the front end. They deal with laws such as how fast you can drive, what drugs you can take etc. Real money/power has more to do with real estate, who's bombing who, and why. You will never be allowed to influence events such as the war in Iraq. That's why it makes no difference if theres 200,000 or 2,000,000 people in London demonstrating. Its done; decided - next.

    6. Re:But I thought the U.S. was bad! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few reasons, one of which being that the main people that the camera's in the UK protect us from were primarily funded by organisations in your country (noraid) that are protected by your government I believe under freedom of speech laws.

      Little things like this just give people the wrong impression.

    7. Re:But I thought the U.S. was bad! by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 1
      Some of Blunket's "ideas" seem so totally ignorant and repulsive that I'm convinced someone is breaking into his house whilst he's reading his braille Mein Campf on the crapper and crayoning extra stuff on the bottom.

      Blunkett - "Honestly Tony I don't know how that got into the Crime and Punishment Act 2003. I would never use the word "Nigger" in official documents"

  20. Aussie police too by eastendboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Australian police forces are developing similar technology. Soon those cameras will be able to do much more than just detect speeding and red-light running. If you're in a vehicle that's "of interest" to them (not just currently breaking the law in some way) expect a visit soon....

  21. 1984 was for wimps by ACK!! · · Score: 1

    If we all just huddle together under the all seeing eye of the Asscroft spy machine then nothing can ever happen to us.

    We trade our privacy and freedom for safety and as the quote goes we deserve neither in the end.

    I am not buying it.

    Just my 2 cents and all that?

    What do you guys think is the balance between privacy and safety in these odd times?

    --
    ACK /ak/ interj. 2. [from the comic strip "Bloom County"] An exclamation of surprised disgust, esp. i
    1. Re:1984 was for wimps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what makes "these odd times" more odd than any other period in history?

      just askin'.

    2. Re:1984 was for wimps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what our gov says (not exactly in those words), so they can improve their chances of getting away with this shit. As if this is all some "new" threat or something.

      Personally, I don't think freedom should be sacrificed for safety, ever. What's the leading cause of death, anyways? Perhaps it's simply being born.

      So if you don't want to die, DON'T LIVE.

  22. Two words: by Larsing · · Score: 1

    Patriot Act

    --
    Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
  23. You think you can't be tracked at the moment ? by dapprman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do you use credit cards, debit cards, cash point card ?

    Use a mobile phone, use it lots ?

    Any one of the above can be used to track you.

    Use store cards, reward cards (don't know if you get these in the US, but most the big supermarkets in the UK have these), combined together with you credit/debit card records a reasonable profile of you could be put together.

    Technology is cool, with live by tech, we die for tech, but the same technology also traps us in an observable, trackable society.

    1. Re:You think you can't be tracked at the moment ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heh. Yeah, glad to see someone point that out. It's amazining how many people object to the idea of their movements being tracked, but don't realize that their mobile phone is a radio that constantly broadcasts its approximate location.

    2. Re:You think you can't be tracked at the moment ? by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1

      But there is a fairly huge difference between things that _can_ be used to track you and a system designed _specifically_ to do just that.

    3. Re:You think you can't be tracked at the moment ? by neema · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If I had a phone, I can turn it off. I can pay in cash, if I don't want to use my credit card. They're not extreme detours in my plan.

      But what about your car being tracked? What should I do now? Walk?

      The more disturbing fact here is that credit cards, debit cards, mobile phones and so on aren't meant for surveillance, even though their nature can allow for it if you're not careful. Meanwhile, the urban surveillance system, as if you couldn't tell, is blatantly meant for surveillance. What's left to argue is "what kind of surveillance?" And even the answer you get out of that can change within a few years time.

    4. Re:You think you can't be tracked at the moment ? by dpilot · · Score: 1

      But store cards _are_ meant specifically for tracking your activity. In our town, at the same time as they deployed store cards they also added coupon printers. IMHO, the two are linked. They know what you've been buying, how strong your brand loyalties are, and print custom coupons for you. I have little doubt those coupons are designed to influence your purchasing, as much as it can be, to improve the profitability of the store.

      Of course we refused to get one of them, just another thing to store and fumble with, besides the tracking aspect. The store claims a discount for using it, but when it comes time to cash out, when we don't have one, the cashier either uses her own, or borrows one from the previous customer. Not a bad idea really, because it also dilutes the 'facts' being collected.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    5. Re:You think you can't be tracked at the moment ? by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1

      True, but any "tracking" it does is specific to product purchases. It cant tell someone which aisle you are in.

      Frankly I hate those discount cards. They say they want to offer us savings? Lower the prices!

      And does anyone else think you should get a discount if you use the self-checkout lane?

    6. Re:You think you can't be tracked at the moment ? by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 1
      At Safeway (at least in CA) they allow you to use a phone number if you 'don't have your card with you.' I just rotate a collection of phone numbers I have memorized, some are from people I know, who don't mind me using it. Some are from other customers I overhead in line.

      The point is that I know what the system does and I can get around it very easily. I can even, god forbid, refuse to use a card or number altogether and bypass it.

      Whats my opt option if the gov blankets my city or town in networked survellience cameras? Short of moving to Death Valley not bloody much.

      Then we're all 0wn3d.

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

    7. Re:You think you can't be tracked at the moment ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I made up a # and give it out to everyone to use: 3608671234

      Try it out :)

    8. Re:You think you can't be tracked at the moment ? by SiliconEntity · · Score: 1

      That's right, and it's only going to get worse. The legal criterion is whether you have an "expecation of privacy". Well, walking around in public, you really don't. You've always accepted that people could see where you are and where you are going when you move around in public.

      The problem is that with the continuing advancement of sensor and camera technology, eventually virtually every square inch of public space is going to be watched. Then it is just a matter of software to track people as they move from place to place.

      In my opinion we should accept this, and make sure it's public. That is, let the cameras all be webcams on the internet, not Big Brother cams feeding into the police station. Then everyone will have access to the same information, and we won't be putting more power into the hands of the government.

      All else being equal, "open" surveillance is likely to happen. The only thing that would stop it would be if they passed a law making it illegal to put a webcam in front of your house aimed at the street, in a misguided attempt to protect privacy. All such laws would accomplish is to hide the problem by letting the government watch people in secrecy.

  24. Howard Dean for President by dpilot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As a transplanted (25 years) Vermonter, I'll have to give Howard Dean a mixed review.

    On the positive side, the guy tends to be a fiscal conservative, and can be BLUNT. I can't say if its an exact quote, but I seem to remember him using words like "irresponsible" and "idiotic" to describe members of the legislature, and those were members of his own party. It's about time we had someone in the Oval Office capable of being both direct and subtle.

    On the negative side, there were some oddities about how Act 60 got through for school funding, and we're still fighting those battles. Vermont still has a lot of tension between business and environment, growth and quality-of-life.

    As for Civil Unions, I guess I have to take the "so conservative I look liberal" stance and say, "My bedroom is none of your business, and your bedroom is none of mine!"

    Dean is a bit of an autocrat, and has some difficulty working with a legislature. I count that as somewhat positive, because I don't like my government to do too much. As a hard line middle-of-the-roader, I tend to prefer Democrats in office because there IS more contention, and less gets done. With sufficient concentration of power, Republicans are too efficient and too much gets done. Much as they decry 'activist government', that's what we've got now.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    1. Re:Howard Dean for President by I+Want+GNU! · · Score: 1
      With sufficient concentration of power, Republicans are too efficient and too much gets done. Much as they decry 'activist government', that's what we've got now.
      I find this concentration of power alarming as well. And the state legislatures (both Democratic and Republican) engage in too much gerrymandering when drawing up district lines, causing many analysts to believe that Republicans will hold the House of Representatives for the next ten years, short of a voter revolution such as the one in 1994. Many people believe that Bush's political advisor Karl Rove (who one author went so far as to call him "Bush's Brain") is trying to engineer a generation of complete Republican control of government. And I'd be nearly as alarmed if this happened with Democrats (slightly less because I think they aren't as disciplined as the Republicans; they had all of government from 1992-94 but had a lot of infighting so they didn't do as much as they might have otherwise).
  25. easy.... by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 4, Funny

    "U.S. is still considered by many here to be the Micorsoft-of-the-World"

    Britain plays the SCO Role...

    --
    It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
    1. Re:easy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> "U.S. is still considered by many here to be the Micorsoft-of-the-World"

      >Britain plays the SCO Role...

      Oh, the irony... "Microsoft's Bitch". Hehe

    2. Re:easy.... by FauxPasIII · · Score: 1

      > Oh, the irony... "Microsoft's Bitch". Hehe

      Sorry, Alanis. That ain't irony.

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
  26. Disturbing text by Faeltir · · Score: 1

    What I find more disturbing than the possibility to use this system to spy on americans, is the implied opinion that it's OK to use such a system for killing people in other countries but not to spy on US citizens.

    1. Re:Disturbing text by gearheadsmp · · Score: 1

      And this would fit the Bush administration's agenda, with their abstinence from the war crimes tribunal and all.

    2. Re:Disturbing text by bourne · · Score: 1

      What I find more disturbing than the possibility to use this system to spy on americans, is the implied opinion that it's OK to use such a system for killing people in other countries but not to spy on US citizens.

      When you consider that the historical alternatives include massive civilian casualties, it makes a bit more sense. Consider the battle for Stalingrad, which lasted more than 30 days and historians estimate that more than 1.5 million people died.

      Wars happen. People die. If less people die because of technology, isn't that a good thing? Would you have preferred that, instead of using precision weapons in Baghdad, it had been bombed like Dresden, Tokyo, or Hiroshima?

    3. Re:Disturbing text by cookiepus · · Score: 1

      Umm... You find it disturbing that citizens of a country (most /.ers are American, aren't they?) find the idea of their country having greater inteligence overseas appealing while fearing the use of such technology domestically.

      Sounds "reasonable" to me.

  27. Humanoids by GillBates0 · · Score: 1
    Its other projects include developing software that would record and analyze everything a person says, sees, hears, reads or touches.

    Other DARPA funded projects include developing perfect humanoids that can talk, see, hear, read, touch, drive and attack when necessary.

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
  28. The opposite... by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 1

    I don't speak English very well.

    --
    It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
  29. Technology marches on regardless by p944 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I keep seeing more and more of these kinds of "big brother is coming, and he's got this new technology helping him too" kind of articles.

    Is it not time to stop slagging off new technology for the bad things that could be done with it and rather, try to put forwards some realistic approaches to how a modern civ. is going to deal with new technology in the future
    - i.e. make some laws/guidelines that are slightly more future-proof than the ones we currently have.

    I would much rather see someone talking about solutions that deal with the possible creation of some extremely serious technology.

  30. 1984 by CompWerks · · Score: 0

    Has arrived.

    --
    If you can read this sig - the bitch fell off.
    1. Re:1984 by cookiepus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      20 years behind schedule and grossly over budget. This should make the list of "how NOT to manage a project"

  31. Man... by twifkak · · Score: 1

    The world is getting doubleplus gooder every day!

    --
    I know you were joking, but I want my Karma, so I'm going to reiterate your post in a serious tone.
    1. Re:Man... by default+luser · · Score: 1

      No, no no. The entire purpose of Newspeak is to render unnecessary extension of the language ( such as "gooder" ) obsolete.

      You have good.

      "better" ( or your mangled version, "gooder" )would be "plus good"

      "best" would be "double-plus good"

      "double-plus gooder" does not make any sense.

      LEARN YOUR NEWSPEAK COMRADE, Big Brother is watching. The consequences of neglecting your duties could be double-plus bad.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

    2. Re:Man... by northstarlarry · · Score: 1

      Psst. . .it's double-plus ungood.

  32. [OT] Re:America... by BigBadDude · · Score: 0


    you speak french??

    GUARDS!!!

  33. Total Information Overload by anubi · · Score: 5, Insightful
    So we snoop on everybody... Geez, who has the time to sort through all this stuff?

    Already, I am way too swamped with information I can't process it all, and many businesses I have to deal with ( insurance companies and anything to do with retirement investments ) know this and send me reams and reams of meaningless data.

    Ever tried to read those phone-book prospectus they send? Or tried to understand whats really covered in that insurance policy? Or know what you should do with those proxies?

    So somehow the government is going to collect and store all this data on all of us. How many of us will be needed to snoop on the rest of us? How many of us will be actually earning our keep, rather than coercing (taxing) it away from someone else? Will our economy, already crumbling from the effects of our inefficiency, absorb yet more non-productive loading? We are already running a helluva national debt. I know we think Joe Taxpayer is going to somehow foot the bill for this whole thing, but I get the idea we are kinda in for a surprise similar to the one some astronauts got when they tried to push some overstressed things beyond their limit. Once the infrastructure collapses, we may have to start off at a very low level again. What scares me is that it seems to me that technology has outpaced our means of maintaining it without a sophisticated infrastructure in place to do so. Given the resources of a machine shop, could you produce anything you needed to keep cars running?

    I have large areas of my life in collapse already from not "making time" to pay due diligence to numerous busyworks. ( I put "making time" in quotes, because I really can't make time, I only can divert it from something else. ) - I simply can't see where we as a public can afford all this busywork trying to keep tabs on everybody else.

    --
    "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

    1. Re:Total Information Overload by mirko · · Score: 1

      Geez, who has the time to sort through all this stuff?
      Data-corelating programs...
      From time to time, I guess they trigger some "statistically dangerous situation" alarm...
      if they can detect that 2 peoples who bought a gun are approaching a populated area, this may light some red lamp somewhere...
      But, hey, I am not a black-helicopter worshiper, I don't care what they know or not because in a capitalist society, the fact is they'll also change and even monitoring's monitored from time to time.

      --
      Trolling using another account since 2005.
    2. Re:Total Information Overload by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > So somehow the government is going to collect and store all this data on all of us. How many of us will be needed to snoop on the rest of us? How many of us will be actually earning our keep, rather than coercing (taxing) it away from someone else? Will our economy, already crumbling from the effects of our inefficiency, absorb yet more non-productive loading?

      Well, yeah. That's what brought down East Germany, for instance. Relatively few STASI members, overloaded with paper from a huge number of STASI informants. The system was "bottom-heavy", if you will.

      The goal here is to cut costs by not requiring the large number of informants. Humans are better at some intelligence-gathering tasks, but only when highly-trained. (Untrained humans, when it comes to those tasks, are probably worse than nobody at all, as the East German experiment bore out. :)

      So - get rid of the informants, replace them with machines. Massive cost savings. Funnel some of those savings into more analysts, and some into making sure the tools they use to deal with the mountain of data are the best there is - maximizing each analyst's productivity. Machines do the drudgework, brains do the puzzle-solving, and dot-connecting.

      I think that part of the plan's working.

      Problem is, your star analyst discovers an Evil Plot to Attach Frickin' Laser Beams to Sharks, he still can't do anything about it, due to the bureaucracy. He can jump up and down all day waving a red flag, and none of the higher-ups will see him behind the stacks of memos he has to write and the line of asses he has to kiss to get anyone to pay attention.

      I'm not yet convinced we've cut out enough of the bureaucracy to get more security with the new system.

      (Sure, we've been mostly attack-free since 9/11 - but is that because we've got better intel and are kicking bad-guy ass behind the scenes, or is it the same reason my Green Unicorn-Rat Protection System has kept me safe from strangely-colored one-horned rats the size of horses since childhood? Most of us don't have a Need to Know, so we won't find out until I read a history book in 2025 and see who won. :)

      As to your original question - taxes - whether it works or not is irrelevant if the question is whether or not we're gonna bog down our economy by having to jack up taxes to pay for the new security state.

      Therefore, I contend is that unlike the old-style "police states", we're sufficiently able to leverage technology to create a new-style security state that's cheap, efficient, and (I haven't completely forgotten you ACLU-types) vastly less intrusive.

      And on the cost front, it's not "free [as in beer]" (unless you do something impossibly kooky-radical like end prohibition, de-fund the DEA by 50% and reallocate their intel and manpower for HomeSec, and do the same at the state-prison level too, in which case you get a net budgetary surplus, plus tax revenue from the drugs, just like alcohol and tobacco! :)

      But since that's not gonna happen, it's gonna cost some money. But considering the economic impact of not being able to monitor the population for enemy activity (read: 9/11 or worse) - even if the "natural" probability such an event occurring is only 5% over 10 years - the money being spent towards cutting that 5% to 2.5% is still a pretty good return on investment.

    3. Re:Total Information Overload by LemonFire · · Score: 1

      Just wait for the day till an automated computer system sees you as a security risk and a problem that needs to be taken care of and starts harassing you, unfortunately there will be no human around that has either time or interest in fixing your little problem.

    4. Re:Total Information Overload by Irvu · · Score: 1

      According to recent reports the East German Stasi (secret police) had roughly one informant for every six people. Many of those informants whether they knoe it or not were informing on other informants. Ironically the number of informants actually ended up artificially inflating some of the anti-government groups.

      In the end they had no way to sort through it all, they didn't need to. Just the knowledge that anyone and everyoue around you from priests to doctors to lovers and children were spying kept people in check. Fear-driven self-censorship was more effective and more doable than overt identification and elimination of suibversives. Yes the hard-core spies were still there but the average citizen was too scared to breathe.

      In a heavily camerad, tapped, and traced society with a government that resists most if not all public inquiry, I predict that fear alone will be more effective than the analysts ever would. I also suspect that that's what Ashcroft is thinking.

      Ironically, as the Stasi found out, real subvursives will still continue to appear.

    5. Re:Total Information Overload by Irvu · · Score: 1

      Source for some of the info I mentioned:
      here

    6. Re:Total Information Overload by nerdup · · Score: 1

      A big part of the issue here is that a lot, if not all, of the information sifting will be done automatically. Computer systems based on flawed and arbitrary rules will be used to draw correlations between events and render judgements accordingly. Lets say you park your car in the same general area down the street from the grocery store when you pick up your food each week. Unbeknownst to you, the building across the street from where you park is a meeting-place for known members of an anti-government militia. This kind of thing will go into your database to be linked with other information of equal irrelevance to your real life, and a computer somewhere will assign you a "terrorism probability index." Do you want to be jailed fifteen years down the road because of where you park your car now?

    7. Re:Total Information Overload by Zurk · · Score: 1

      most of it is focused on automating all of this data down to its raw states : automated image capture, processed into simple temporal streams as the objects are recognized and the final effect is a simple picture of all activity around a site. its doable too :
      http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~cil/v-source.html
      tha ts the current state of the art. check out tina and other such libraries. including opencv.

    8. Re:Total Information Overload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wait for the day till an automated computer system sees you as a security risk and a problem that needs to be taken care of and starts harassing you, unfortunately there will be no human around that has either time or interest in fixing your little problem.

      Well, if you WEREN'T a security risk, then you wouldn't have anything to worry about, now, would you?

    9. Re:Total Information Overload by anubi · · Score: 1
      Yeah.. I guess those women at Salem didn't have much to worry about if they weren't a witch, did they?

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

  34. Lazy Fucking Enforcers! by New+World+Odor · · Score: 0

    Does anyone remember the legend of Law Enforcement that solved crimes and protected society? I haven't heard anything about them recently, but I keep hearing of our future jailers excited on how to create a panopticon.

    You know, rather than tag our asses everywhere we go, why don't we just tar and feather our "leaders" to ensure they know who writes the cheques.

    There are a LOT less of them, you know! We could tag them, so we ALWAYS know where to find them. They are on our tab, afterall.

  35. Airports by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    If it works, with a bit of modification, airport ground control becomes easier due to seeing aircraft and automobiles.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  36. Pattern Recognition by Neuronerd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ok. Lets face it. Pattern recognition is improving slowly but steadily. We are now able to detect number plates at high speed. We can recognize people by their face or the way they walk. Not perfectly but every year algorithms improve a little bit.

    In addition to that there are many promising algorithms out there that can for example learn what is surprising. So Pattern Recognition (parts of which where called AI some years ago) is getting there.

    This will be exploited. And there is no way we can avoid that. As the technology evolves it starts to be possible to anyone to use it. Including the government. And they will use it to spy on us. Face it.

    I think we will need to embrace this change. Forget privacy. That was the past. Given that the technolgy is there it will be used. The only thing we might be able to do is use the very same technology on those that use the technology on us.

    So start gathering data on your MPs. Start to monitor how the data are used. Thats all we can do.

    --
    Googlefight "Slashdot Troll" against "BSD is dying" 303:229. BSD thus cant die.
    1. Re:Pattern Recognition by anubi · · Score: 1
      "The only thing we might be able to do is use the very same technology on those that use the technology on us."
      Geez, I wish it were that simple.

      Remember when they were playing around with the NAFTA and the H1B programs, and people who had spent much money educating themselves complained that the exportation of jobs would dilute the value of the effort they had invested in their education...

      But the stuff got passed anyway. Jobs were exported to where labor was cheaper. Just because you had invested in yourself was no guarantee you would benefit from it.

      Then a few years later, we figure out how to use technology to bypass traditional routes of music distribution - and those who had spent much money producing those works complained that the replication of the works out of their control diluted the value of the effort they invested in producing it.

      In this case, laws protecting the ones who had made investments were passed.

      What works for the goose does not necessarily work for the gander. Especially if Congress is involved.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

    2. Re:Pattern Recognition by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      "This will be exploited. And there is no way we can avoid that. As the technology evolves it starts to be possible to anyone to use it. Including the government. And they will use it to spy on us. Face it."

      At the very least we should press for laws to regulate what data may be collected, how that data is to be used, and our access to data collected on us personally. Yes, with such technology they can secretly collect more data than they are allowed to, and use it in unsanctioned ways, but at the least they will not be able to use it against you openly (in court, for instance).

      For example, if the stated purpose of highway cameras and licence plate recognition software is "toll collection and monitoring of traffic density", but they subsequently use the collected data to check your speed, verify your car insurance and check that your MOT is up-to-date, then at the least they would not be allowed to use this data to send you tickets for violations.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:Pattern Recognition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok you can be the first in your family to be chip "ID". cause that`s where it`s going.. herded and owned by the state. and we have people like you to thank....

  37. The irony is killing me! by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny
    A post that drags out the old worn "Unless you're doing something illegal, .. you have very little to worry about."

    Posted by an Anonymous Coward. Bwahaha! What are you trying to hide Mr. Anonymous Coward? You must be guilty of something, so we'd better monitor you!

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  38. Just Americans? by Orlando · · Score: 3, Funny

    ..privacy experts say the technology could easily be adapted to spy on Americans.

    So being Enlgish I'd be like completely invisible? Cool.

    --
    -= This is a self-referential sig =-
  39. I wonder... by gone.fishing · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How different this software is from the stuff deartment stores use in their security systems to identify and track shoplifers?

    I have a friend who is developing software for a major chain that ties into the security cameras and looks for certain behaviors that indicate potential shoplifters. Once the software identifies an individual exhibiting this behavior, it locks on to them and tracks them through the store. He says it works quite well.

    One half of me sees this as no problem. When in public, behave like you are in public and you will have no problem. Another part of me says that it is uncomfortable to be spied on for any reason whatsoever and that it is an invasion of privacy. If the object of the software is legitamate, why should it be a problem?

    As a society should we not welcome things that help put criminals behind bars or help our solders stay alive? On the otherside, should we not protect our right to privacy?

    These systems are tools, they are very similar to hammers, saws, and wrenches. They can be used for good or for bad. It is not the tool but their use that concerns me. Thus far, most of the applications really have been for good and I sincerely hope that it continues to be that way.

    To my way of thinking, these kinds of tools can be used to build a better, safer, more efficient society just as easily as they can be used to opress. Imagine a freeway control system that is tied together with this kind of software and in-car systems that provide the driver with up-to-the-second driving directions to provide the best use of the infrastructure. Think of the kind of things that this software could do to help air traffic controllers - it could recognize patterns long before they are obvious to humans. In the same vein, perhaps it could be used to help forecast weather.

    At it's most basic level, this is just pattern recognition software that is tweaked to perform a specific task.

    1. Re:I wonder... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      One half of me sees this as no problem. When in public, behave like you are in public and you will have no problem. Another part of me says that it is uncomfortable to be spied on for any reason whatsoever and that it is an invasion of privacy. If the object of the software is legitamate, why should it be a problem?

      No. Wrong
      Think of it this way. The mall security team hires 100 guys. Every time a "person of interest" enters the mall, they dispatch one of these guys to follow him around. Everywhere you go, everything you do, that guy is right there behind you. He watches you pick your nose, he watches you sneak at grab at your girlfriends butt, he watches you contemplate stealing a grape from the fruit bar. After about 30 seconds of this, you'd turn around and say "WTF dude! Get away from me!" The only reason you don't do that now is because that guy is hidden behind a little glass dome, and you can't see him following you.
      You don't know why you were selected. Mannerisms, dress, other people in your group...but there he is. Making sure you don't get the chance to do anything wrong.

      This is exactly the same thing, but done electronically.

  40. Yaaaay! by GuNgA-DiN · · Score: 1

    Another project to turn America into a police state. Just what we needed.... :-(

  41. A recent discovery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Junk food can actually make you fat! I mean like, who knew!

    Of course, McDonald's denies 'causing children's obesity' and will sue your butt (fat or otherwise) if you criticize their food

  42. nice opinions, but what are you going to DO by tazochai · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I just read some slashdot posts on this topic, the "Oh No, we're nearing an Orwellian society" stuff. I totally agree.

    But what can we DO about it. Yes we can try to be more informed and vote better, and not vote for any of the politicians that voted for the acts/laws that have been taking away our liberties since Sept 11.

    Don't you want to do something NOW? Doesn't stuff like this make you want to put a huge sign in your lawn saying "Watch the government, don't let them watch YOU!" Or go start destroying all these cameras that are there "for our safety"? Obviously destroying property isn't really an option...

    Honestly, most Americans, and I ask around, it really is appalling what people are willing to put up with.. seem to not even care about this stuff, or they think it's for the best! There's got to be a way to pass around the knowledge of how we're getting screwed.

    1. Re:nice opinions, but what are you going to DO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Destruction of property is completely an option.

      "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

      Or, if you prefer, "The tree of liberty must
      be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    2. Re:nice opinions, but what are you going to DO by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

      There's not really anything that CAN be done. We have no control over what our government does; our vote doesn't count (look at how Bush got elected). Our politicians don't listen to us. If they don't get away with something, they rebrand it and try again, or try and tack it into the back of another bill. What can you do? It is what it is, and if you don't adapt to the new situation and find a workaround, you're going to be totally screwed.

      Here's my approach.

      First of all, I'm careful about my apartment. I make sure that I don't have a webcam, or anything similar, and I take the time to look for bugs or cameras when I clean it (remember that couple who bought a house, and were videotaped having sex for *months* by their next door neighbor, who'd installed cameras in their ventilation ducts? There was a big TV news article about it). I've never found anything, but if I did I'd simply destroy it -- or rip it out, strip it for parts, and consider it a freebie. So, this is step 1: establishing a zone in your apartment or home where you KNOW you have privacy.

      Next, assume that whenever you're outside of your apartment, you have NO privacy, and behave accordingly. In other words, work the situation -- use it to your benefit. Always act in a way that will make you look like a hell of a guy to anyone who views the tapes. Put on a public face. Use the coming surveillance to protect yourself; work it, treat it as an opportunity to disseminate your own, pro-you propaganda. It's there, you might as well get something out of it.

      Next, whenever you're online, or talking on a cell phone, or doing anything that might be monitored, assume that you ARE being monitored and behave accordingly. That means, bust out with the pro-you propaganda again! Make yourself look great, you're a hell of a guy! All you have to do is watch your mouth and always, always work the situation.

      Going to travel? Assume everyone will know where you went and what you did. Going to spend some money on your vacation? Use travellers checks so the cops can't confiscate your money under some pretext (this happens a lot in the South). Going to pay for something innocuous? Use Visa. Make a record of it. FLOOD them with boring data. Demonstrate how harmless you are, daily, forever. BE BORING.

      Ok, so, now you're boring, right? You're completely, earthshakingly boring. No cop or government agent would even spend two minutes checking YOU over again, because Jesus, Christ, it's like watching paint dry. Guess what?

      You're safe, because you're invisible. In looking like everyone else, in becoming completely innocuous, you have vanished. There is a lot of safety in cultural camoflage. Remember the Japanese saying, "the nail that sticks up gets pounded down" and DON'T BE THAT NAIL.

      Now, the FUN part.

      We're all slashdotters, right? So it's fair to presume that almost all of us are pretty serious geeks. We're NOT middle-of-the-road types, in fact, we're highly eccentric, weirdo types with strange hobbies. You don't have to give any of that up! You just have to be sensible about it. If you're going to buy, say, a piece of hardware that might raise someone's eyebrows, pay cash, say as little as possible, and play it cool. If you're going to be studying something strange, pay cash for the book and study at home (not in public). Make sure that when you buy the book, or thing, or whatever, you're dressed in the most innocuous way possible: slacks and a button down shirt, maybe a loose tie. Carry a briefcase, look like you're doing it as a lark on your way home from the office. Present a very happy, goofy personality. Be eminently forgettable.

      You have to think of everything unusual you do as an underground thing, and try to keep it there. Avoid even the apperance of eccentricity, of strangeness. BE BLAND.

      And, THAT is how you handle this situation.

      Just be smart about it. :)

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    3. Re:nice opinions, but what are you going to DO by northstarlarry · · Score: 1
      What you have described gives me goosebumps. I have to be acting, or lying, every single time I go out of my house? I am not free to say or do something for fear it will make me "get pounded down"? I hope you were being sarcastic, but I am afraid that you weren't. Your method for dealing with surveillance is self-censorship. "If I don't do anything THEY might not like, THEY'LL leave me alone."

      I'd think that's something that we'd try to avoid.

      My suggestions for how to deal with this are as follows (which may be too pragmatic for some):
      1: Recognize, as you said, that this is inevitable. The cameras are coming, whether we want them or not. As some other people have mentioned, there are already ways to gather lots of information about you. More sophisticated and intentional methods are only a matter of time.
      2: Therefore, instead of whining about it and fighting a losing battle, make sure that everything to do with surveillance is above the table. Pass laws that open the source code of the software. Put the locations of every camera into a public registry. Make the cameras themselves accessable at any time by anyone, over the web. We have to demand that the watchers are watched.

      ( A little editorializing )Those of us in the U.S. are supposed to be self-governed, yet every refers to "us" and "the government" as separate entities. It seems to me like this could be a way to fix that. After all, this system will track _everyone_, from our CEO to the local notary public, and maybe even your dog, too.

      We are slowly losing privacy, no matter what we do. If we do it with our eyes open, and thoughtfully, we could end up better-off than before. If we just moan among ourselves, or flee to Tahiti, the cameras will come, and we won't even know where they are.



      ( The suggestions I give are illustrated pretty well in the book "The Truth Machine" by James L. Halperin ( which is where I got the suggestions from ), and probably other books, too. )

    4. Re:nice opinions, but what are you going to DO by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

      I think you missed a subtlety of my approach. The point is, to recognize and understand the parameters of the system, to understand fully how it is watching you, and then, craft a public persona that will ensure that you are not persecuted. Given that to all outside appearances, you're too boring to pay attention to, you'll have the freedom to live whatever life you want behind closed doors, where it actually *matters*. What I'm suggesting is that you actively USE the system to protect yourself from persecution.

      One factor you're not considering is this: as more and more data is collected about a person, say, "Joe X", the interperetation of that data begins to gather a sort of momentum. If Joe is popping up red flags all over the place, by buying reactionary literature, by involving himself openly with groups the Herd(tm) doesn't approve of, and so on, the interperetation of who Joe is will favor a negative, "Joe is a troublemaker" judgement. Over time, every time something happens that matches Joe's profile, Joe's going to be harassed (or at least, more thoroughly surveilled). And, if Joe ever so much as jaywalks, people are going to throw the book at him and assume he "had it coming". Basically, Joe's life is going to be shit. And, as is inevitable, once businesses start taking peeks at Joe's profile (you KNOW that's going to happen, don't you?) Joe's going to find himself getting stuck with "Joe Jobs" at low wages. And, this has been happening since the late nineties, as companies' HR droids have been doing web and usenet searches on applicants to see what they're saying and whether the HR Droids approve. Poor Joe! If only he had a little common sense.

      You should think about the issue, not from an "I'm outraged" point of view, but from a "There's a workaround, let's find it" POV. How can you ensure your personal liberty and happiness while the surveillance culture is being assembled around you? How can you ensure that your daily activities don't end up branding you with the electronic equivalent of a scarlet letter, without you ever even knowing about it? How can you ensure that you have at least *some* privacy to live as you choose? My approach is an answer to these questions, one which if followed, would be very efficient.

      I'm looking at this from a "I can't change it, I can't stop it, so I'm getting out of its way and preventing myself from getting squashed" point of view. Consider my suggestions in this light.

      It's not about self-censorship. It's about spin management.

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    5. Re:nice opinions, but what are you going to DO by northstarlarry · · Score: 1
      You should think about the issue, not from an "I'm outraged" point of view, but from a "There's a workaround, let's find it" POV.
      That's exactly what I'm doing. I understand that you are doing the same, and I certainly appreciate your arguments, but I think that your method is, well, completely wrong. :)

      you'll have the freedom to live whatever life you want behind closed doors, where it actually *matters*.
      Well, the thing is, I believe that my freedom to buy reactionary literature and involve myself openly with groups that anyone from my mother to the Attorney General to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir disapproves of is very important. It matters as much as my freedom in private, and I think that it matters to a good number of other people, too.

      The point is, to recognize and understand the parameters of the system, to understand fully how it is watching you
      I agree with this completely, and I think we need to get these ideas in writing, i.e., on the books. I disagree when you start taking the approach that says "well, I'm free to think what I want, even if I can't talk about it, and that's good enough."

      How can you ensure that your daily activities don't end up branding you with the electronic equivalent of a scarlet letter, without you ever even knowing about it?
      By making absolutely sure that everyone knows everyone else's daily activities, or can at the touch of a button. No-one can possibly hold anything over your head if everyone can find out about it anyways. Also, you notice how most people don't pick their nose when they know someone is watching them? The same will happen, I believe, to actions like bribery. And on the flip side, anyone can prove their innocence very easily when it is known exactly where that person was last Saturday night at 8:13PM.

      What I'm suggesting is that you actively USE the system to protect yourself from persecution.
      What if the system is DESIGNED to prevent undue persecution, and to actually protect everyone just a little bit better? Have you read "Transparent Society"? I recommend it.

      once businesses start taking peeks at Joe's profile (you KNOW that's going to happen, don't you?)
      Of course it is, but what if you can look at a business's profile, too? And the profile of its HR drones? And know if that business was looking at your file? And know that they knew that you were looking at theirs? And on and on. . .

      How can you ensure that you have at least *some* privacy to live as you choose?
      I don't believe that I need much more privacy than I can get by shutting my bedroom door at night. What I do need is the freedom to speak, write, and read whatever I want, to associate with whomever I choose, and to know what my government is up to. Hiding what I do is not important to me, but being able to do it is.

      If you prefer your approach, nothing will stop you from using it, and the rest of us will be free to be open.



      Eager for your response. . .

    6. Re:nice opinions, but what are you going to DO by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

      Ah, you're missing so many evil little subtleties of the problem.

      First of all, let's say you succeed, and push this "transparent society" idea. Let's say that although a business can check you out, you can check them out as well. So what? What are you going to find out, that they threw out their kitchen cappucino machine to save money in '02? That's still not going to get you a job there, if Joe HR Drone the Baptist Fundamentalist finds out you like to go to strip clubs on Saturday nights. Consider people of a liberal persuasion living in the bible belt; I've tried this and it isn't a picnic today, even without the surveillance society you're talking about. God, If anyone could just look you up, and find out everything about you, what would stop them from just deciding you're "not their kind of people" and cutting you off from whatever they provide? It would be just like being ridden out of town on a rail. With no apartment manager willing to take your application, and no job, you're homeless, buddy. And, once you're homeless, your chances of turning your life around are slim to none. You could be destroyed just like that (snaps fingers for effect).

      But, I'm sure you'll say, people are much more mature than that and they won't do any of this. Bullshit. Consider the "coffee klatch" phenomenon in the suburbs, where a bunch of housewives get together to gossip daily over coffee. How easy is it for someone to pass a rumor about another member of the community, who now finds him/herself completely shunned by everyone else in the development? They start getting dirty looks from people, but don't know why. No one talks to them, and they don't know why. Maybe they move away or maybe they tough it out; but either way, it isn't fair. And, that's just a bunch of women flapping their gums about things that may or may not even be true! Consider the ramifications of your transparent society again -- everything you do, placed under the scrutiny of the same exact sort of people. Are you still comfortable with this? And, if so, why? Perhaps you think you won't be on the receiving end.

      Moving right along, you speak as though you think the only danger of someone finding out your private activities in their blackmailing you with the information. If everyone already knows it, you claim, this isn't a problem anymore. Sure, but NOW, you have a whole NEW problem: anyone who doesn't approve of your secret activity now has an excuse to shun you. If they didn't know about it, maybe they might have even considered you a friend; but now, you're "that freak" as far as they're concerned. You kinda missed this point, I think. You haven't thought through all the ramifications of this concept. You really have to dig a lot deeper.

      Here's another point: even now, without a surveillance society, you're not free to say whatever you want. Say the wrong thing to the wrong person, and you'll find yourself shunned (perhaps via the coffee klatch). But you have the option of doing your strange things secretly, without letting anyone know. What people don't know, doesn't hurt them. And, by the way, it's none of their business -- did you forget that part? If, for example, I like to go down to the waterfront and fuck loose women every friday or saturday night, I sure as hell don't want my BOSS knowing about it. It's none of his business. I don't want my apartment manager knowing about it either. In fact, the ONLY people I want to know about it is the loose women themselves, and maybe the bartender who hooks me up. Get the point? Now, in YOUR fantasy society, everyone will know I fuck loose women and they'll have the opportunity to judge me, despite the fact that they have no moral right whatsoever to do so. And, I could find myself being shunned at work, on the street -- I could have total strangers coming up to me to tell me off. THIS is the result of your idea. So, instead of being able to do what I want behind closed doors, now I'm being actively censored -- not by the government, but by society.

      I find this much more hosti

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    7. Re:nice opinions, but what are you going to DO by northstarlarry · · Score: 1
      All the scenarios that you describe are completely possible; I will even say that they probably _will_ happen. I'd also like to say that I hope that eventually people will stop feeling the need to do that sort of thing. But that's not an argument; it's just a foolish dream -- I don't really think it'll happen. I think that human nature is to want to belong to a group and exclude and disapprove of persons outside the group. So, yes, all this stuff will happen.

      However, as you say, it happens already. The fact that it will increase in magnitude is something we'll have to adjust to.

      ( Oh, also I'd like to say that I don't care two bits whether I can see into your real life. If you want to fuck loose women, men, dogs, or even just have a drink of whiskey down by the docks, more power to you. What I'm worried about is who's looking at _my_ life. In all honesty, I also find the idea of living a double life fascinating -- you know, being a secret agent and all that. I just don't think it's any way to run a society. And, like I said at the end of my post, if you want to do your double-life thing in the context that I describe, nothing would prevent you; the only difference is that _everyone_ would see what a super-amazing nice person you are, not just the Rent-a-cops manning the cameras for the Party )

      I'd like to go to the basic argument here. We start with the assumption ( which I believe you and I share, and if we don't, then this discussion doesn't have much future ) that the cameras are coming. In ten, maybe twenty years, SOMEONE will be able to watch everything that I do in public, make notes/recordings of my actions, and use that information for whatever that person or group likes. There will be surveillance. This is unavoidable. The only choice that we have deals with who has access to the information; who controls the cameras.

      The first choice that I see is that a single power group, i.e., our government, controls the cameras, and all access to the information provided by them. Those of us being watched don't know who's watching, why, what the information is being used for, and so on. One day there's a knock on your door, and you're arrested for violating fornication laws down on the waterfront last saturday. We have lost both our privacy and an enormous amount of freedom and control over our own lives.

      The second choice is that anyone, anywhere ( within the country, o/c ) has access to the information. It's totally open and free. Anytime I want, I can look at whoever is looking at me. Of course, anyone else can find out what I did last Thursday. This is true, and potentially unpleasant, I admit, but it's true now, it just requires more work. ( It's also entirely a side effect. ) The difference between this option and the other is that we know who's watching us and why. We lose our privacy, but retain control and freedom.

      We even gain some useful information; we can find out that our Senator, while claiming to be a strict fundamentalist, and getting that fornication law pushed through Congress, likes to go down to the docks on Saturday night and screw till sunrise.

      The big difference is this: societal predjudice and government predjudice are in completely different categories: one is inevitable, and mitigatable, and the other is unallowable and very hard to stop once it gets going.

      Groups of people have been snubbing other groups of people and denying them jobs since about the time that humans learned how to brew coffee and put the baby down for a nap. Maybe that'll change; probably not. Predjudices are a part of what human society does. But if someone denies you a job or throws you out of your apartment, it's not the end. You've got friends, right? You can crash on their couch for a few days, maybe get a bank loan, pack up, and move to Seattle. That's it; it sucks, and your life's gonna be messed up for a couple of months, but Alabama was too hot anyways.
      The point is, you have options and the freedom to act on them. Society can suck, but it has alwa

  43. One more reason to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not drive.

  44. Re:dangerous trends... START DOING SOMETHING! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the one hand, it's interesting to see that esp. people interested in information technology seem to be more sensible to privacy related acts and laws than others.

    On the other hand, it seems to be obvious that there is a LOT of work to be done to inform and to educate others about the current govermental plans and decisions regarding privacy. Very often, those people have limited access to resources offering this kind of information. Very often, those people don't know what kind of weird ideas can be realized - and most of the time, they cannot even imagine what influences it could have on their (actually our all) life.

    So please spread the word and try to educate them, demonstrating them that it is worth careing about pricacy instead of letting them say "I haven't anything to hide, so why should I care?".

    (Someone from Germany - who is not worried about the US only but also a lot of other countries incl. the one he lives in.)

  45. (slightly less because I think they aren't... by dpilot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Which was precisely my point of preferring Democrats in office. Not that I necessarily prefer the Democrat agenda to the Republican agenda - I just prefer that NO agenda get too much sway. The Democrats at least tend to debate, and for a long time now, the Republicans in Congress pretty much Dance the Party Line. IMHO if Congress isn't engaging in debate, then the decision has already been made in some back-room out of public sight.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  46. Yet another reason for moving to rural America... by SwedishChef · · Score: 1

    No traffic problems (if I see ten cars in a 20 mile segment of my commute it's a busy day), cheap housing (3br,2ba homes for well under US$100k), good schools with committed teachers, generally only 2 hours to a major metro area by car... the list now includes relative immunity from surveillance because population density is too low to justify the expense.

    Combine this with deployment of fiber across many rural counties along with the ability to telecommute for many jobs techies do and you have an ideal living environment.

    Downsides? Not a lot of parties to go to, conservative politics prevail, and if they decide they want to watch you (in particular) they don't have to weed through the crowds to find you.

    --
    No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
  47. Okay, let me imagine that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Likewise, imagine how helpful this technology could be for the troops in the US right now, trying to deal with what is in effect urban guerilla warfare.

    Hmmm, how about "not at all helpful". Here, I'll explain it to you.

    None of the troops in the US are dealing with "urban guerilla warfare". The closest approximation is when the National Guard gets called out during a riot. And this would be useless in a riot.

    Unless you meant what is happening in Iraq. I'll explain that to you also.

    #1. The cameras would be the FIRST targets of the pro-Saddam guys.

    #2. The cameras would be the FIRST targets of the street criminals.

    #3. The cameras would be the FIRST targets of the smugglers.

    And so on.

    The ONLY use this technology has is to track the citizens.

    And then it boils down to whether you believe that the majority of citizens are honest or criminal.

  48. Just because you can doesn't mean you should by glsunder · · Score: 1

    I could run over someone crossing the street in front of me. I might suspect that he might try to steal my car. That doesn't mean I should run him over. Same goes with the government. Just because they can do something (even if it might prevent a crime), doesn't mean that they should.

  49. Reference. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Germany, they have cameras mounted at some of the intersections to photograph the plates of people who run red lights.

    Someone runs a red light, the camera shoots them and gets a clear picture of the plate and someone wearing a Miss Piggy mask.

    The guy who owns the cars says it wasn't him. He says that he loans his car to his friends and he isn't sure which person was driving it then.

    So, do they fine the owner for something that they cannot prove he did?

    Automated systems have too many flaws and they piss off the regular citizens.

    1. Re:Reference. by darqchild · · Score: 1

      we have those in canada..
      and actually i'm in favour of them.

      they do help promote responsible driving,
      and i don't worry about loaning my car to people who run red lights.. because i don't loan my car to people who run red lights.

      --
      What? Me? Worry?
  50. Its 11:PM do you know where your kids are? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on it will never work, just ask any parent with teen age kids. As for the guy looking for his socks, donja know that socks are a larva form of coat hangers, check the closet.......

  51. The cameras would be the first targets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Particularly if the US troops become dependant upon them.

    1. Re:The cameras would be the first targets. by bourne · · Score: 1

      Good. Better they shoot at sensors then at troops. And when a sensor goes offline, that provides information about where the opponent is.

      Refer back where I said that the sensors will end up being 'essentially disposable.' They'll be numerous, and when one goes offline, the other 5 in the surrounding area will be well placed to identify the forces, track them, and lead to their detention or elimination.

  52. no conspiracy, move along by *weasel · · Score: 1

    come on folks, what security and military tools -dont- have plausible uses to violate the rights of US citizens?

    all intelligence gathering tools, and military technologies could be used against americans, this can't be a surprise. there are satellites that can track movement across the globe from the comfort of space - can these infringe on our rights? sure. are they being used to? i'm not so sure.

    yes, yes, i know that it sounds like a bad attitude toward an erosion of our rights - but c'mon folks: the new world politics, cut defense and intelligence spending and the lack of 'cloak and dagger' type intelligence is what got us into this mess.

    not to mention that urban combat, asymmetric warfare, protracted conflict after the end of 'conventional military operations', and rogue nation states are the most serious threats in this new political world climate. (see: postwar afghanistan, postwar iraq, palestine/israel).

    asking the US not to continue to develop technology to protect its interests against these threats (as is the right of all nations) - is like asking it to have unilaterally stopped producing nukes during the cold war arms race. sure, maybe nothing will come of an inability to react effectively to the threat - but the risk of inaction is too great.

    if you don't keep up with your enemies tactics and methods, you will invite increased pressure and cement their resolve.

    historians have noted that the US won the cold war primarily by outspending the soviet union. and why back off a tried and true tactic?

    --
    // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
  53. What are you talking about? by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1

    This system (or any other "panopticon" they're excited about) would be fucking awesome for solving crimes. You can see exactly where that truck went after leaving the house of the victim, etc. No more disappearing into the night.

    What I'm concerned about is abuses of the system, either passing ridiculous laws and using this to selectively enforce them, or using the data to embarass political enemies.

    --
    I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    1. Re:What are you talking about? by electric_penguin · · Score: 1

      Unless you pull a Fast and the Furious 2.
      Driving hundreds of cars out of a garage you had just entered.

  54. DARPA Paranoia by jlaprise · · Score: 1

    Periodically, we hear fearful reports about the nefarious schemings of DARPA and the government. Having actually read through the publically available DARPA budget, it is purcuing research that could be construed as far more threatening to civil liberties than those so far published. Take for instance TIA. This is not a stand alone program. It would form the underlying foundation/statistical database for an complex system that could identify terrorists(through an optical recognition interface) in a crowd of people through tell-tale characteristics. How useful would that be in Iraq right now?

  55. Learn some statistics. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are more likely to be killed by a member of your own family than by a terrorist.

    You are more likely to be killed in an automobile accident than by a drug dealer.

    Yet you have no fear of going on a road trip with your family. (cue incidental music)

    This is about Freedom. Bush wants to take your Freedom away.

    Now, when a drug dealer shoots someone, he doesn't shoot everyone.

    When Bush takes away a Freedom, he takes it away from all of you.

    Keep worrying about the bad boogie men (terrorist crack dealers) that the government wants you to worry about.

    Never pay any attention to statistics or math.

    "Math is hard!" - Barbie

    Fear what your government wants you to fear.

    That's a good citizens.

    We're from the government. We're here to help.

  56. The Real Question... by TygerFish · · Score: 2, Insightful

    AC wrote:
    This kind of article will always bring the knee-jerk concern for our 'civil liberties', but can anyone actually name one?

    What liberty would an action like this deprive us from? Unless you're doing something illegal, as the old saying goes, you have very little to worry about.


    The civil liberties question is almost always a question either potential until someone whose rights someone else cares about gets burned. Then, usually years, after the fact, some act is done to redress the injustice in question and some court decision makes the question of free speech clearer.

    When it comes to Civil Liberties, cameras everywhere (soon to be backed up by face-recognition software) does not follow the principle of the government's 'treading lightly.' In fact, it is very much the opposite. It is telling to note that ability to foster the belief that one is under constant observation is a weapon employed by tyrannies.

    The now extinct communist regime of East Germany turned one fifth of its citizens into informers as a means of assuring control and destroying the conditions necessary for dissent: it didn't work because everyone knew they were spied on constantly, but because they were made to believe that it was a real possibility. The fact that one might be under observation worked to try and create a culture of sheep.

    Now, in democratic nations, technology is working to give the state (pick one) similar tools and whether or not the state chooses to use them and against whom are irrelevant questions. The 'real,' real question is whether or not, given a choice, you would choose to create or participate in a culture that feels its possession of those tools is a good thing.

    In countries that consider themselves democracies, the atmosphere of perpetual observation is a poisonous one that puts the citizen in a position similar to that of a soldier having to cross a minefield; it slows things down by creating the belief that any step you take may be the wrong one, and as a concept, nothing better illustrates the 'chilling effect,' one hears about so often in regard to free speech issues.

    The big philosphical question of cameras everywhere is whether or not you would like to live in a society where the state's ignorance of your actions is lessened. The furthest extension of the idea postulates a civilization of ultimate discipline: it would be a world with definite benefits--one where there would be less rape, robbery, murder embezzlement, etc.--but it would also be one where there would be less privacy; not less privacy in the sense that the police simply didn't know, for example, that you stepped behind a tree and urinated when you couldn't find a restroom, but less privacy because you had to depend on the good will of the police and/or whatever other organs of the state that concern themselves with what you do to regard your step behind the tree as a triviality and take no action.

    In the end, the effects of technological observation involve a value theory and you cannot 'prove,' that the less-observation model is better than the more-observation one. However, you can argue very powerfully that the idea is wrong with a thought exercise.

    If you think there's nothing wrong with being under constant observation, tell me who you are and where you live and during my next vacation, I will follow you at a distance of three to five feet from the moment you leave your house to the moment you go back to it.

    While this is going on, I will do everything I can to record everything you say and do. By your way of looking at things, you should welcome me; no one will be able to accuse you of a crime since I will personally know where you are and what you are doing at all times during my time with you. Should you be accused of a crime, the fact that I had you under observation is sure to exonerate you since I am incapable of giving the state information which they can misinterpret. You'll love it.

    Of co

    --
    To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
    "Yeah. It smells, too..."
    1. Re:The Real Question... by northstarlarry · · Score: 1
      You're welcome to follow me around, on condition that I can do the same to you, and that I know where you are and when you are following me.

      That is the idea. . .everyone watches everyone. Not just that the state knows all about my actions, but that I know about the actions of the state. The argument is: the cameras are coming -- who's going to control them? the citizens, or the Government®?

    2. Re:The Real Question... by TygerFish · · Score: 1

      You're welcome to follow me around, on condition that I can do the same to you, and that I know where you are and when you are following me.

      That is the idea. . .everyone watches everyone. Not just that the state knows all about my actions, but that I know about the actions of the state. The argument is: the cameras are coming -- who's going to control them? the citizens, or the Government®?


      I have to say I found your response amazing.

      Before seeing it, I thought, in my shameful arrogance that I wrote convincingly. Before your response, I thought I could get the point across to anyone and make them see it no matter what went 'a dancing and a vibrating' through their heads. I see now that that was all illusion. I understand now that the words I wrote were just words and that all they made anyone else hear was static and the distant sound of breaking glass...

      You're right. So long as the private citizen controls the cameras and computers of the future that the government installs, mans and maintains, everyone's civil rights will be guaranteed and everything will be hunky-dory.

      Have a good one.

      --
      To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
      "Yeah. It smells, too..."
  57. poor excuse to build system to spy on Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So would we go to every country we think we will go to war with and say, "can we install hundreds of cameras in your city in case we ever have to kick your ass?"

    Also you would think it would be fairly easy to disable them unless they're very small or hidden very well. Any one with a gun could shoot it up and get away before someone has time to respond.

  58. duh by fudgefactor7 · · Score: 1

    ..."but police, scientists and privacy experts say the technology could easily be adapted to spy on Americans."

    Everything can be used to spy (or gain information on) Americans. We're just that open of a society. That's a no-brainer. But the question is: how do we balance our privacy versus the government's role of protector?

  59. Plantation Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IMO, the most eye-opening quote in the news story is this:

    >> and creating a computerized diary that would record and analyze everything a person says, sees, hears, reads or touches.

    Plantation Earth is coming.

  60. I gotta big butt and I can not lie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You other countries wonder why.
    When I start snackin'
    I'm Big Mac (tm) packin'

  61. Dumb down our military? by woodsma · · Score: 1

    It just has to be asked, what would the other Americans (USA) propose we do? Not advace our military technology because the potential exists for it to be used against us?

    If you think about it, this has been the case all along...everything the military has can be used against you and me, right now, no matter if you like it or not. It is the nature of the (necessary) beast.

  62. Thanks by BigGerman · · Score: 1

    We need to keep America's great promise.

  63. Brownshirt Creep by Sumbody · · Score: 1

    We (or our parents) gave up our anonymous travel long ago to avoid being hijacked to Cuba. Electronic commerce gave up more. The advent of RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) tags is starting to close the seine. Now, how does some crappy software algorithm distinguish between a fleeing mugger and a jogger? Is this Armageddon? Revelations? Anti-Christ stuff? Who cares. Its just scarey to us in the benign majority. Call me a natural paranoid.

    1. Re:Brownshirt Creep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who cares? do you really know what your saying? think hard... no job, no money, no food, unless you take the mark! if you refuse to be "chipped" it`s greybar hotel and death.

  64. Exploiting This by neema · · Score: 1

    I left a post a while ago mentioning that it would take nothing more than a few years for this system to be used for illegitimate purposes.

    But now that I think about it, it's role in a larger mechanism seems to be more fitting and immediate.

    A while back the development (they hope to complete it by 2007) of the TIA, or Total Information Awareness program was announced by the DARPA. This coupled with something like CAPS II (a program used to collect information about Americans from their flying habits) would spell bad news for citizens and their privacy. All in all, I don't think we need to imagine a system where this kind of technology would be exploited against the average American citizen. Clearly, the government is providing an image for us.

    (And, just an aside: how scary and Orweillian is the Information Awareness Office logo?)

    1. Re:Exploiting This by neema · · Score: 1

      Oh, my apologies. I meant to include a link. Here.

  65. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Privacy experts say pen and paper technology could easily be adapted to spy on Americans.

  66. Creepy, but, the technology sounds pretty cool!!! by oilisgood · · Score: 1

    I was at Thanksgiving dinner back in 2000 and I was sitting at a table with a Retired Major General from the Air Force. He was talking about testing one of the features from this system. Apparently they were standing in a hotel room in Pentagon City, VA and using a handheld device they were having vehicles drive up a ramp at the FedEx Field in Maryland (not visible by line of site) and they could identify what type of vehicle drove up the ramp.

    I just wish I had some idea of how that works. Of course I didn't feel it was my place to start questioning the guy right there...

  67. Lame Scaremongering by reallocate · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, I don't understand the guy's concerns. This DARPA effort is just the application of current technology to a traditional warzone necessity. Any nation with the same technical capabilities would, and will, do the same.

    Slashdot runs this kind of stuff under a "rights" rubric just as a piece of scaremongering to drum up traffic. It is nothing less than bush league tabload sensationalism (which, come to think of it, is what Slashdot has sunk to these days.) Sadly, it seems to get a lot of credence in the "Ashamed to be Born in the West" crowd.

    The U.S. can't and shouldn't lead if that means kowtowing to the racist and extremist views that are endemic and most of the world. If the rest of the world finally gets the gumption to eliminate its own racist and manipulative dictators and potentates, then they can democratize themselves and join the 21st century. Until then, they pose a threat to democracies everywhere, including the U.S. Why would any state seek to lead nations whose very existence threaten it?

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    1. Re:Lame Scaremongering by I+Want+GNU! · · Score: 1
      Well, I don't understand the guy's concerns. This DARPA effort is just the application of current technology to a traditional warzone necessity...If the rest of the world finally gets the gumption to eliminate its own racist and manipulative dictators and potentates, then they can democratize themselves and join the 21st century.
      If you look at the last 100 years, the US government has had prominant roles in overthrowing a large number of governments, many of them democratic. It has often replaced democracies with dictatorships simply because the dictatorships were more favorable to us. In the long term, this type of policy is extremely self-defeating and has created an enormous amount of anti-US sentiment in the world.
    2. Re:Lame Scaremongering by reallocate · · Score: 1

      If you look at the last 100 years, any number of contries have had prominent roles in overthrowing other countries. Here are a few of them:

      Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Russia, Japan, China, Iraq, Brazil, ...

      The world, and far too many Americans, forget this and apply a double standard to the U.S.: The world lives by its own set of rules but expects the U.S. to live by another.

      Or, to use an older adage: He who is without sin, cast the first stone.

      U.S. foreign policy should operate in the perceived best interests of the American people, not as the obligatory benefactor to a world full of people who run scared from democracy into the hands of racism and extremeism (only its called nationalism and self-determinism in fashionable circles.)

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  68. Good... by confused+one · · Score: 1
    Now they'll be able to tell me where I am when I get lost!!!

  69. Limiting Government Use of Information by fuzzybunny · · Score: 1


    The geek-factor aside, as this seems like a pretty cool technical idea, I recently read a very well-put article in a Swiss paper about the rights of government.

    The basic idea was that in a democracy, everything not specifically prohibited is permitted, both for citizens and "the government". This means that unless the boss, i.e. the voting public, specifically trusts and allows the government to do something, such as use information in a certain way, they are FORBIDDEN FROM DOING IT.

    How to enforce this is probably academic, and I can hear the cynics already ramping up their arguments (which I probably agree with) but until this idea becomes a bit more pervasive, I wouldn't trust John Ashcroft and his counterparts around the world with this sort of power any further than I could throw DARPA.

    --
    Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
    1. Re:Limiting Government Use of Information by Kagu · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure you are saying what you think. According to your statement "everything not specifically prohibited is permitted..." your next assumption "...the voting public, specifically trusts and allows the government to do something.....they are forbidden from doing it" is completely wrong. If I am to believe your first statement to be factual then unless we specifically prohibit them from doing it they can do whatever they please with the information. These are two conflicting statements.

  70. MOD THIS FUCKER DOWN TO OBLIVION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This asshole is obviously using this story to promote his own agenda (Dean for President). How many fuckin comments does he have to link to deanforamerica.com??

    This astroturfing wouldn't be tolerated if it came from the right, but it gets modded up if it comes from the loony left?

    moderators, how about you do your fucking jobs right for once?

  71. Relax, we won't abuse this technology on citizens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BTW, stop picking your nose.

  72. Frankenstein by jafac · · Score: 2

    Ever since Shelley's Frankenstein, we've all been terrified of the idea that technology could be put to ill use, or turned against us, or even turn on us.

    This is one case that has a huge potential for that.
    Another "Liberty" / "Security tradeoff.

    We have to ask ourselves a crucial question when judging the use of such technology.

    Is it REALLY that necessary to deprive people of their freedom, in order to ensure their freedom?

    There is NO freedom that can be given that isn't some form of collar-and-lead. Freedom must be TAKEN.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  73. even better... by resignator · · Score: 1

    So lets just take this as far as it will go already. Lets tag everyone living, born in, or immigrating to this country with microchips that identify them. Then they would know where you are at all times and exactly who you are. I mean thats the next logical step right? Or even better...when you are born or immigrate here they could just remove part of our brain so you are good sheep. Wouldnt both these ideas I suggested curb crime and terrorism even more than these silly cameras? Costs less in the long run as well...

    --
    "At first, we thought it was just another snake cult."
  74. More Legislation Ahead by runswithd6s · · Score: 1
    There was an interesting concept I read about in a sci-fi book regarding the legislation a high-tech society had put in place to protect its citizens privacy where cameras and surveillance was a rule, not an exception. The idea was simple. Surveillance of individuals while in private residence or private transportation vehicles was not admissable in court. Essentially, the action of the individuals dictated what was private and what was public record. Step into a private dining booth, and everything is "off the record." Etc.

    It is already technologically possible to tap into conversations, even under adverse conditions. It will only become easier in the future. The legislation knows this and will certainly receive pressure from all sides, to maintain the citizen's right to privacy. We'll see how well they do.

    --
    assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */
  75. See, see all part of Al Gore's master plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Al Gore never ever stops working.

    Remember when he proposed a central nationwide trafic control center?

    He's at it again.

  76. it is not spying. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is not spying if it is in public and we know about the cameras.

    At that point, (or really at any point) any activity you undertake in public is a choice.

  77. A bit overblown by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

    Yes, it could easily be used to spy on citizens. Who cares though? They already can spy quite easily on normal people without this system. What this system is ideal for is the tracking of hundreds of individuals in a small area, something not necessary for the kind of "big brother" activity people are wary of. For that, all that's needed are a couple of white vans with FBI agents inside.

    1. Re:A bit overblown by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      They already can spy quite easily on normal people without this system.

      They can't. Not "easily". To spy on someone requires a big investment of personnel... both to hire the actual van-driving FBI agents, and to trust them. (Yes, government spooks are very loyal- to their country. But if they think they're pursuing an illegal or frivolous investigation, whistles will be blown).

      Technological deployments to automate survelliance, however, can increase the scale massively. They can change the condition of being monitored 24/7 from an unusual exception to the normal state of affairs.

      Today, if a member of the government wanted to place a certain hated citizen under survelliance, he'd have to justify it- not just to get the warrant from the Court, but also to convince his fellow spies to allocate the resources. But if spying on a person becomes as cheap and easy as toggling a checkbox next to an SSN in Echelon, they'll be able to track many, many people with little explanation.

  78. Point proven: by Larsing · · Score: 1

    'would the Prime Minister lie?' Bearing in mind he's a: a politician, and b: has a pretty good track record of telling untruths

    You forgot, he's also a lawyer...

    --
    Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
    1. Re:Point proven: by mikerich · · Score: 1
      You forgot, he's also a lawyer...

      Oooh how could I forget? He's married to one as well. No doubt all the little Blairlets will turn into lawyers.

      'Invasion of the Bodysnatchers' now seems so prescient.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

  79. Good for getting dates? by bigpat · · Score: 1

    Imagine you are a technician working on this surveillance system, you'd be able to tell when that girl you've had a crush on has just broken up with her boyfriend and has just gone on a shopping spree to make herself feel better, then you'd know just the right time to call since you would know when the car pulled into the driveway. All from the comfort of your own keyboard... it isn't stalking right? That involves hiding in bushes, right? Of course, you caused this girl to break up in the first place by casually suggesting that she stop by a certain bar with her friends, since you knew her boyfriend was chatting up women there every Thursday.

    Or imagine knowing exactly where your political opponent is at every moment and being able to send over your paid "protestors" at a moments notice. And anonymously alert the media to cover the event. Of course you couldn't come out and say exactly how you knew he was having an affair with a well know socialite since that would be unethical use of a public resource, but that's what anonymous tips to the press are for. Once the Press finds out something "on their own" then they won't care who or how they were tipped off in the first place.

    The point here isn't that people can't and don't have the ability to do this today, since you could hire a private detective or just spy on people yourselves, but rather that "privacy concerns" will likely concentrate this new ease and power of surveillance in the hands of just a few. Likely those in government will have an additional edge over those not, those with connections the same edge.

    Let nobody think that knowledge of other people's business isn't power of a particularly potent kind and will be used for other than stated or intended purposes. It will be used by individuals both important and not important for their own benefit. Maybe it will be good for others, harmless to others or perhaps it will ruin people's lives, but what is certain is that those with access to any knowledge will be superior to those that don't. This system will corrupt and be corrupted, it is a certainty, the only things we can do to mitigate the effects of such corruption are to be completely open about it's use so we can better judge those that use it.

  80. Re:Relax, we won't abuse this technology on citize by reallocate · · Score: 0, Troll

    Typical moronic Slashdot post. Go back to playing with your toys and stop posting until you learn to think.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  81. doing something illegal... by jeti · · Score: 1

    And how exactly should I know whether what I'm doing is illegal?
    I don't even know how many laws exist. Do you?

    And it's extremely naive to say: If I'm basically doing, you know, nothing wrong,
    I can't be doing something illegal. Some laws out there are plain absurd.

    And the point is not that everyone will suddenly go to jail (althogh the US have
    the highest incarceration rate worldwide). The point is that it gets more and more
    easy to get anyone the government dislikes into jail (like politicians of the
    opposition or jornalists etc.).

  82. Re:The Real Question Civil Liberties? by Larsing · · Score: 1

    There is a well established legal right to engage in this kind of discourse

    IANAL and I've never bothered to read the US. Const. 1st Amend. But...
    In most democratic countries, plotting to overthrow the government by any other means than a general election is considered as terrorism and/or treason.
    Also, most democratic countries have explicit constitutional feedom to assemble, for political or other purpouses, but assembling to plot the overthrow the government is still illegal.

    Conclusion: It's still a crime, even if you don't get caught.

    --
    Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
  83. And it applies to the government by wfolta · · Score: 1

    I always find it amusing that people are so paranoid that the government wants to spy on them, as if it had the time and resources to check into their jaywalking.

    Agencies have a limited budget (hard to believe for some) and are staffed by real people (harder to believe for some) and actually have BIG fish to fry (hard to understand for some). They don't give a rip about the small fry.

    I guess it adds a certain meaning to an otherwise meaningless life to suspect that someone out there is interested enough in you to spy on you and maybe even arrest you for that naughty thing. But in reality, the government's not spying on you. They could care less about you.

    1. Re:And it applies to the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They won't need the time to check your jaywalking if the systems are automated to the extent that they can identify you by whatever means and send you the ticket automatically, and that is clearly a wonderful idea to governments and law enforcement agencies. Do you want to live in a world wehre you are forever wondering if you are breaking some law or other and will recieve your fine in the next post?

    2. Re:And it applies to the government by Dysan2k · · Score: 1

      My God, thank you! Someone on /. who actually THINKS for once. I have a couple of incredibly paranoid friends. Constantly having problems with everything, and conspiracies abound to keep them out of the main.

      When it comes down to it, I have to ask. "Who the hell are you to think that you're that damn special?" I mean, I have to admit, if you're doing nothing wrong, why be paranoid? You think people are out to get you, then go piss off some folks so that you'll at least be justified in your reasoning.

      I'd love to see these systems in place. Want an example? Traffic violations that you DIDN'T commit, but were accused anyhow. When it comes down to it, it's your word vs. theirs. Give me video evidence, and suddenly there is proof that you didn't do it! *YAY*

      Keeping track of burglar's cars? Or heaven forbid finding your stolen car? Jeez! Give it to me, I got nothing to hide. Just keep it out of my house cause frankly I don't want people watching me walk around in me boxers.

      --
      -What have you contributed lately?
    3. Re:And it applies to the government by Purple+Library+Guy · · Score: 1

      That's nice and all, but this assumes a few things. It assumes the nature of people. What are real people, especially the kind who go work for security agencies, like? Our experience of police brutality suggests they're often nasty, petty and vindictive, and like hurting anyone who violates the status quo whether they're actually a threat or not. If you've got a bunch of SOBs capable of shafting anyone they don't like with one click of a mouse, it's gonna happen. Not all the time, but a fair amount. Second, you assume these systems will actually work reliably without any false positives. This has never been the case before, why should it start being the case now? Even with what we've got, there have been numerous cases of people being put on lists for -no reason -because they're of arab descent -because they're of descent that some nimrod confused with arab -because their name is common and so they, along with three hundred other people with the same name, get hassled every time they fly because some other guy with the same name got put on a list and the people who put it there didn't supply any other details. OK, so this last one has only happened once to my knowledge. Finally, it assumes that the uses the system will be put to are identical to the uses the system is officially claimed to be for--i.e. nabbing actual terrorists and lawbreakers. Chances are it will be hijacked to target civil rights activists, peace movement activists, antiglobalists, activist labour movements and so forth. Again, that's how things have tended to work in the past, and they're already starting to again now--at least one "antiterror" bureau has been providing police groups with frightening bulletins about how some conference of such people was really terrorists and should be preemptively arrested to stop them talking to each other. And of course there was a recent egregious case in Buffalo of cops stopping, arresting and beating up about a dozen people, apparently for the sin of cycling through the city in a group (the full group was rather larger, not all were arrested. Apparently they do an annual thing where they cycle as a big group to promote bicycle use--we're not talking radical political people here, but apparently for some police even slight shades of culturally different are enough to bring out the batons) Between all these things, there are lots of possible reasons to worry about intensified state surveillance even if you don't happen to be a lawbreaker or a terrorist or even politically active. But certainly if you *do* happen to be politically active, or even socially active in ways you would expect not to be politically relevant, you have reason to worry.

  84. Has anyone noticed? Godwin's law no longer applies by MickLinux · · Score: 1

    I just thought I'd bring this up. People have actually forgotten about Godwin's law, and it really no longer applies in general.

    I think that we need a new corrallary, or an overriding law. I mean, this is about as significant as Mercury's too-slow orbital speed, helping Einstein determine general relativity.

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  85. Humanoids are here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Actually, these are in beta test. I work for a government agency and I will swear the worker in the cubicle next to me is one of those humanoids. That or someone who just worked for the Federal government too long. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference. The fact that he never complains about his job is very suspicious, though.


    Just think of the savings in medical benefits by having a bunch of these work for you!

  86. Burma by dpilot · · Score: 1

    See if you can find "Beyond Rangoon" at the video store. Of course it's only a movie - a work of political fiction. But since watching it, I note when Burma is in the news, and nothing I've heard discredits the tone of the movie. Where reviews may pan it, they do so for 'movie reasons', not for factual/background ones. Large-scale monitoring, with all of the sinister connotations, fits in.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  87. Really Great by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    Perhaps a name change is in order? from "Great Britain" to "Really Great Britain" ....

    --
    -kgj
  88. Two sided coin by gpmap · · Score: 1

    Yes this technology can be used to spy on people, and for many good things including retrieving missing children. Probably every technology has hundreds of "bad" applications and hundred of "good" ones.

  89. And the point? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    So you are already being watched, that doesnt make it right.. or acceptable..

    It only means you lost the battle...

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  90. Before Combat Zones See: +1, Patriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Develop a president
    who can speak and a cabinet that isn't a clone of Dr. Strangelove

    Have an Ashcroft-free day,
    W00t

    1. Re:Before Combat Zones See: +1, Patriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the United States as a country have the right to pursue its own self interest and prevent other countries from damaging it?

      Liberals feel bad when a country is treated 'poorly' by the USA but never ever ever feel bad when any country treats the USA 'poorly'.

  91. Remember 9/11/01? by Halvard · · Score: 1

    In case anyone has forgotten, our (if you are an American) government declared war (without really doing so in the legal sense re: international law or US law) against terrorists (who are not a state under international law although the Palestinians certainly have a nation without constituting a state). War declared not against a specific group really, as by their logic anyone they don't agree with can catch the "T" label. Our government is fighting this war domestically as well as overseas.

    Despite the lack of a declaration of martial law, since 9/11/01 we've seen troops in the street (okay, they they are National Guard which is an end run around the law since, well, the same National Guard troops are called up and fighting in places like Iraq and Afghanistan), troops in airports (National Guard), military combat aircraft patrolling the skies, increased surveillance of ordinary Americans, vastly increased jailings including suspension of habeas corpus. Should I go on?

    Cities like Washington, DC, already have extensive camera networks capable of tracking individuals as as vehicles. My hometown of Vienna, VA, has installed red light cameras. Systems like give unprecedented power over knowledge.

    Given the penchant of organizations like the FBI to exceed their authority, CIA and NSA to do domestic surveillance in defiance of federal law, etc., why wouldn't they use this system domestically? As another poster posed, what foreign city would let them? Only a city like Baghdad, but they don't have the data to cross-reference, given that there is no civil authority and they currently have a cash economy.

    That leads to a single logical conclusion: that the system is being designed for domestic use by the US and possible allied nations like the UK. That's a pretty scary thought, given the moral intolerance of people like Attorney General John Ashcroft who covers works of art with drapes because he gets indignant over a 100+ year old topless statue.

  92. new headlines: by fandelem · · Score: 1

    headline for a day after they apply this domestically:

    "hackers sieze control of city survelliance system" ..come on-- if we're going to out-reach/source this into every city in the united states, you can't possibly think that it every city will have the same great security. this is just begging for explotation.

    --

    --even a broken watch is correct twice a day.
  93. No SPS Here by MattRog · · Score: 1

    I was wondering how long it would take to have something like this implemented, although I was thinking of a purely law enforcement perspective, though. Often we get BOLOs for certain types of vehicles -- why not have a satellite look for them (weather permitting, of course)? The resolution is more than adequate to find a black four-door sedan (and even match a partial plate), and then you could combine it with spatial-awareness software that could determine the relative probability (given the location and time of the initial report) that the car it is looking at is the one we're looking for. It could then relay these to officers on the ground.

    Given what we have to work with (eyes and ears on the street) even if it was very inaccurate I couldn't imagine it would be *worse* than our current hit ratio.

    As far as privacy is concerned, I can't say much more than you'd need to trust local law enforcement not to abuse it, like you do with NCIC/LEADS etc. Most people have a misconception that law enforcement are all horribly corrupt and would stop at nothing to violate your rights. Fortunately I can say that this is definitely not the case for many (all the different agencies and officers I've worked with would lead me to believe that the vast majority are honest). Generally we don't have any SPS (Secret Police Sh.. Stuff) going on. The Federal Gov't, though, may. Trust your local law enforcement. :)

    But as technology advances the opportunity to invade rights becomes far easier (and it is generally much harder to track. An officer sitting in front of someone's house is fairly noticeable by the public; a computer watching the camera images is not). The only thing I can think of is have legislative oversight and keep track of who is being tracked and for what reason.

    --

    Thanks,
    --
    Matt
  94. Bleak Future by barcarolle · · Score: 0

    ...and the sad, dark era of American global tyranny draws ever closer.

  95. In case no one has noticed by krogoth · · Score: 1

    For hundreds of years, armies around the world have had technology that could easily be adapted to permanently remove all right from a civilian; in fact, it has even been used for this in the past. We can't allow this violation of our rights to continue - disarm the armies!

    --

    They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
  96. I like when the government imitates movies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For example, this is just like the Wim Wenders film The End of Violence

  97. These systems are simple to beat if you want to by mr_e_cat · · Score: 1

    Everyone can just cycle and pay cash. Strangely, lowtech methods can often bypass high tech security. People who use technology are easily tracked, but those who don't can't.

    Like the way Tony Soprano uses public telephone boxes to communicate.

  98. Civil Disobedience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So why don't the masses just tear the cameras down?

  99. Always something to fear. by Domo-Sun · · Score: 1

    Ah yes, the good old "Only the guilty need fear" argument, shame its a fiction.

    Yes, the presumption is that we have nothing to fear and it's wrong. We always have something to fear. When a cop pulls you over, will he plant drugs in your car? Will you go to jail for a crime you didn't commit? In this case, perhaps this technology would be used against people for the wrong reasons. Perhaps people will be discriminated against, controlled, or even eliminated. In the UK this technology is used to spy on girls and minorities, so basically it's a toy for sensation-seeking voyeurs.

    Not to mention the fear of stupid laws.

  100. sniper case? by andy1307 · · Score: 1

    I remember the DoD using spy planes to track the DC sniper. I remember what we went through when the sniper was killing people almost every other day. If they had this technology then, the people would be screaming for it to be used, privacy be damned.

  101. That's Nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NASA is investigating an urban surveillance system that would use biological sensors and thousands of photons to track, record and analyze the movement of every vehicle in a city. Officials claim that the phenomenon is designed to help everyday navigation and weather processes, but police, scientists and privacy experts say the system, codenamed "The Sun", could easily be adapted to spy on Americans. Combined with other technologies , such as software that scans databases of everyday transactions and personal records worldwide, the government would have a reasonably good idea of where everyone is most of the time. Read the news story and the contracting document.

  102. Just the next step... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...on the path of introducing full and total control for the SS^H^HHomeland Security.

  103. Re:Yet another reason for moving to rural America. by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

    relative immunity from surveillance because population density is too low to justify the expense.

    In the Square States they don't need cameras on streetcorners to spy on citizens. With the low population and lack of dense urban areas, the satellites are able to keep track of you just fine.

    (Really, they'll be switching to Global Hawks in the near future. Just one of those things can circuit over the whole of Illinois in a single day)

  104. First Franklin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's see, I think that's

    Franklin NLNS quote, first post: 10 points
    Orwell: 2 points

    Overall, a cliche in every sentence, but not long enough to set the blood boiling with truly righteous indignation. For instance, a mention of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, or preferably both, would add a nice flourish, and would provide several more paragraphs of oh-so-seldom-mentioned history.

    The reader will also benefit from a down-to-earth example, drawn from everyday life. For instance, the terrible tyranny of radar guns, the DMCA, anti-smoking laws, parking tickets, anti-sodomy laws, gun control, the IRS, drugs, or any of a myriad of regulations which you disagree with; these are all a plot both to inconvenience us, and to steal our precious bodily fluids ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hessential liberties.

  105. First Orwell!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, totally off-topic, but still piling up the points:

    Orwell, first post: 10 pts.
    DMCA: 2 pts.
    PATRIOT Act: 2 pts.
    TIA: 2 pts.

  106. You've missed the point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If you're dropping them on troop concentrations...

    Why are you dropping cameras on troop concentrations when you could be dropping bombs on troop concentrations.

    So, this is about having cameras dropped or setup to monitor an area.

    Unless the area is friendly, people will take out the cameras.

    So, the only time people won't be shooting at the cameras will be when they are deployed to observe friendly populations.

    Here, let me give you a better example. Suppose we deploy these in Palestinian controlled areas. How long do you think it will be before kids are breaking them with rocks?

    5 minutes?
    10 minutes?
    an hour?

    Damn, a broken camera. We'd better bomb that area.

    1. Re:You've missed the point. by bourne · · Score: 1

      If you're dropping them on troop concentrations...

      I never suggested dropping them on troop concentrations. I suggested dropping them as part of an offensive thrust. Anecdotal evidence suggests that during, for example, the thrust into Baghdad there were few if any Iraqi "troop concentrations," just scattered troops, equipment, and weapons caches. I'm sure a lot of the American troops would have liked some sort of visibility 1/2 mile outside the highway they were on through sensors.

      Why are you dropping cameras on troop concentrations when you could be dropping bombs on troop concentrations.

      Your argument is reductio ad absurdum. If you can get the troop concentrations to line up neatly behind a maggot line, then sure, fire away. In the real world, however, the opposition force is rarely going to make it "easy" to drop bombs. Thus the use of overhead imagery, air-to-ground radar, predator drones, forward air controllers, and other useful information sources.

      Or are you one of those "damn the torpedos, full speed ahead" types? (Fact: they weren't torpedos, they were mines. Full speed ahead wasn't necessarily the appropriate course of action. Farragut could have used better sensors...)

      So, this is about having cameras dropped or setup to monitor an area.

      Unless the area is friendly, people will take out the cameras.

      Again, reductio ad absurdum. If a MEF is pushing up the highway as the things are being dropped, people will probably have more important things - like running or fighting - to do.

      (Also - this may be out there, but I'm guessing that DARPA wants these things to have a little more durability than a Sony minicam. Military people tend to expect stuff to get shot at.)

      So, the only time people won't be shooting at the cameras will be when they are deployed to observe friendly populations.

      I don't agree. You seem to reach your opinion by reducing to absolute black and white; the real world, especially in war, is more of a foggy gray.

      Here, let me give you a better example. Suppose we deploy these in Palestinian controlled areas. How long do you think it will be before kids are breaking them with rocks?

      Not long, which is why they won't work in a static police action. Hey, could that be why DARPA is looking at them and not the FBI? Let's take the tin foil off and see!

      Massive RAIS (Redundant Array of Information Sources) is the future of the battlefield, and that's why DARPA is looking at it. If it makes it into service - like the predator did, like the AWACS did, like NVG did - then it will offer a tactical advantage on the battlefield.

  107. Re:Most Everyone? You morons by AdmiralTaco · · Score: 1

    Oh please, everyone that thinks the government wants to spy on everyone all the time is pathetically paranoid. Just because something can be used for something, doesn't mean that it is automatically going to be used to spy on us. Stop looking over your shoulder and move on with your life.

  108. Other Military Technologies Pose Dangers Too by timeOday · · Score: 1
    Rumor has it the military has quite a few other technologies that would also be inappropriate for domestic use, such as:
    • Nuclear Warheads
    • Cruise Missiles
    • Stealth Bombers
    .. and the list goes on. In fact of all military technologies studied, only the Nuclear Submarine showed little potential for deployment within the continental US.

    But seriously, this just shows that the existence of a technology doesn't mean the police have to posess it. It is up to the general public to say, "sorry cops, that's one toy you won't be getting for Christmas."

  109. normally this post would be titled "zerg", but... by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 1

    Hint: if any of you honestly think that this project (whose original purpose was coordinating emergency response services and that I am most definitely not associated with in any way and anyone implying otherwise is lying) wouldn't be used to deprive you of your civil rights, then you need a savage beating w/ a cluestick. For starters, go look up COINTELPRO.

    --
    [o]_O
  110. UK have been using this for years! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The UK has close to a million cameras all over the country.

    Over twenty years ago the UK Military Intelligence perfected voice recognition so that EVERY overseas caller could be identified on subsequent calls (obviously not the first call).

    And as for spying on cars and people, well the UK has number plate recognition perfected about 15 years ago, and recently they dramatically improved the recognition of a person's "gait", i.e. the way they walk. You can walk down the street with a balaclava, it will make no difference to the recognition engine. Besides, facial scans are useless from behind. The British system can identify you from any direction.

    The British have been using this system for years now, all in the name of protecting it's citizens. Note, they can only do something, AFTER you have been maimed or killed, so it's only a deterrent, not a solution!

    All they need to do is enter a persons name into a computer, and they will be tracked and movements logged when in public, whether walking or driving.

    So wouldn't you say Darpa's technology is already outdated!

  111. Rubbish, just drop the camera's in by air by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Vietnam the US "COULD" have used microphones the size of a ballpoint pen, but chose not to at the detriment of it's operations.

    You just drop thousands of cameras with built-in WiFi and GPS, and record and send movement till the cameras are destroyed.

    SIMPLE!

  112. Could be the most important story of the year by serutan · · Score: 1

    If you're not paranoid of the government using a surveillance system like this to completely repress dissent and freedom, I would like to hear the argument against that ever happening. The trite idea that innocent people have nothing to hide doesn't hold up. A government with this level of omniscience would be invulnerable to its own citizens, which would be a bad thing. No government should be invulnerable to revolt because no government is infallible.

  113. Screw those government goons by zogger · · Score: 2, Informative

    this government and it's employees are OUT OF CONTROL.

    DIG THIS. I got RAIDED last night.

    My big crime, I had THE LIGHTS TURNED ON. My girlfriend and I do caretaking/estate management. We got a new gig finally after looking for several months. We decided at this time we couldn't afford to buy our own land around here, so we answered a paper advertisement and got this new job, like 50 miles away. We've been moving for a week now, only partially finished, because our new house which is part of the pay was trashed out, we're having to do major fix up just to move in. So every day, we haul over a small load of our stuff, then spend all day fixing floors, hauling away garabage, cleaning the yard and mowing, paintinig, the whole deal. We've been there a week, last night we stayed over. About midnight the county's "finest" show up en masse, raid us, I got a gun to my face, screamed at, the whole bit. They got a "tip" on 911. A *tip" there was an EVIL LIGHT ON IN THE HOUSE. Didn't matter we are the same peoplle, been there for a week, everyday until late, same vehicle, same trailer, same everything, massive work done.

    It didn't matter to them they could SEE painting, mowing going on, plants hanging on the porch, all the stuff anyone normal does when tey move in. Nope, to them morons it was evidence of ...I have no idea. 45 minutes of them threatening us before they left, I just finally told them that was it, arrest me if they thought I was doing something wrong, or go away. Oh wow, they didn't like being told what to do BY A FUCKING CIVVIE. Nope, a man can't stand in his own living room and do nothing to get accused and terrorised.

    They do it overseas, then them skin heads(4 out of the 5 of them were punk skinheads) come back and they turn them into cops. People just won't believe this shit until it happens to them. I write about it too, because I've seen it before, and here I go again, how DARE I get a new job, move in, answer their questions at after midnight, then get further terrorised for an additional 1/2 hour. Threatened to get shot in the head, threatened to have the police dog turned on me if I didn't "shut up" me shutting up meant I couldn't answer their questions they kept yelling at me? Like what are you supposed to do? One skinhead screams a question at you with a gun to your head, you answer it, the next one tells you to shut up or else?

    We'll, to the slashdot folks I'll say yes, this shit happens, and this DARPA big brother shit is going to be used on you, by similar low IQ MORONS with guns, and anyone here working on it, GOT TO HELL YOU TURNCOAT MERCENARY DEMON.

    SCREW THE NWO POLICE AND OVERSEAS MERCENARIES, YOU GUYS SUCKASS. GO TO FUCKING HELL ANY OF YOU BIG BROTHER GOONS.

  114. and what are... by zogger · · Score: 1

    ......and what are executive orders, presidential directives and findings called? They are "laws" just as much as any of the bogus crap that comes out of the bribed and blackmailed congress in this corrupt junta.

  115. I'm boring -- but what about Martin Luther King? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, I'm just a boring AC, and the big bad feds have no interest in my activities. I'll grant you that.

    What about the opposition political candidate that I might want to vote for?

    What about the next Martin Luther King, Jr.? Look how much surveillance the FBI did on the last one. Imagine how much they'll do on the next one.

    What about the next time the Washington Post or the New York Times wants to publish something like the Pentagon Papers?

    It's not about me. It's about the rare person, one in ten thousand, who actually can challenge the system. Your freedom and my freedom depend on the abilities of these rare people to challenge the party in power.

  116. Re:The Real Question Civil Liberties? by grolaw · · Score: 1

    I listed all of the legal means to change the current government. A constitutional convention, recall and impeachment are all alternatives to a general election for radical change of the government.

    It is legal to "plot" to overthrow the government - the Clinton impeachment - is a fine example of "plotting" to overthrow the government. Legal work product of both sides various counsel is private and should remain so. There was no crime committed in the impeachment *save for the waste of $$*.

    You are exacty correct in your analysis that plotting to overthrow the government, by means that are illegal, is terrorism and treason. The Founding fathers were all terrorists. Should we capitulate to the Brits at this late date?

  117. Re:The Real Question Civil Liberties? by Larsing · · Score: 1

    Should we capitulate to the Brits at this late date?

    I wouldn't mind... ;-)

    --
    Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
  118. webcam surveillance download by surrealcode · · Score: 1

    http://www.geocities.com/rayito/sentry.zip

    This is a webcam surveillance program. Please feel free to try it out. I am looking for partners to help me commercialize it, or host it on their websites.

    raywright111@hotmail.com

  119. http://www.geocities.com/raylito/sentry.zip by surrealcode · · Score: 1

    sorry, that is the correct link.

  120. Re:The Real Question Civil Liberties? by grolaw · · Score: 1

    Let's consider the loss of the 4th of July holiday....

    Guy Fawkes day isn't till November 5... ;-(

  121. Re:Most Everyone? You morons by Jellybob · · Score: 1

    Thankyou! A voice of sanity! (I'm sure there are others, but this is the first I saw)

    Sure, this protection system could be used to spy on people. So can cameras, microphones, computers, hubs, and people in the street. You're not rushing to outlaw them.

    Come on people... do you *really* think your interesting enough for the government to want to know where you are 24/7?

  122. You idiot. by tjstork · · Score: 1


    There is not a single head of an American corporation that is capable of telling the truth about anything. These people that you defend promise you a better day if we get through the "adjustment" of increased competition, yet, they themselves do not compete, they talk about accountability and they are not, and, finally, they keep adjusting manufacturing and now IT jobs overseas. F--- the leaders of American corporations. When will you realize that they do not care about American Citizens, that everything they say is a lie, that the CEOs of the Fortune 500 are a bigger threat to the American people than are the Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Hamas and every dictator on the planet combined. All they care about is their own pocketbook, even when it means the ruin of their supposed nation. The next time an American CEO waves a flag at you, you should shove it up his a--- because he ain't no patriot.

    Fine, you go ahead and defend your business leaders the same way Uncle Tom defended Nice Master. When they get the right to search your hard drive and your house (oh wait they already do), buy their way into starting wars overseas (oh wait they already do), and then send your job to some dude for 50 cents an hour, then, you can pat yourself on the back for being the dope that you are. CEO - American slang for traitor!

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:You idiot. by reallocate · · Score: 1

      Nice rant, but what are your talking about?? The original post was about DARPA. DARPA is a government organization, not a corporation. But, you knew that, eh? Right??

      You've been spending far too much time imbibing at the trough of the know-nothing anti-technology, anti-globalization racists who pass as "progressives" these day (think A.N.S.W.E.R) Reading between the lines of your post, you obviously want to return to the dark ages of pre-industrialized life. Please leave as soon as possible.

      And judging from the actual text of your post, you're incapable of presenting a single shred of evidence to support your assertions.

      Now that you've turned your brain off, enjoy your life as a follower of liars and miscreants.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  123. If Globalization is about technology by tjstork · · Score: 1


    Then... why are we using cheaping human labor to do something when we could instead be developing machines to do the same. Really, sending tasks offshore to be done by hordes of cheap people is a technological copout.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:If Globalization is about technology by reallocate · · Score: 1

      What?? "Cheaping"??? Is that a word?

      The market will find the cheapest labor available. There's nothing wrong with that. No one is forcing anyone to work for anyone else.

      The only way to stop the market is to put up artificial and destructive political barriers. There is much that is wrong with that.

      From where I sit, anti-globalization is simply elite and pampered Western ideologues who idealize what it is like to live in a backward, ill-governed, non-technological society. They seem to be working hard to keep these people "in their place". In other words, anti-globalization is just racism and imperialism repackaged for the country-hating neo-Marxist crowd.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    2. Re:If Globalization is about technology by tjstork · · Score: 1


      Well, you have my agreement that the Marxist crowd leading the anti-globalization charge tend to suck. I don't think socialism is the answer although I should point out that a large corporation, with its top down command and control system, centralized planning and production, is no different in operation than a small socialist country. As corporations merge and get ever larger, and centralize, they get less efficient and more stupid.

      For me, the issues are not about hating private ownership. I have a shareware company myself. For me, the issues are nationalistic. I think it is strategically important that American citizens manufacture their own goods and services, as the long term social benefits of self reliance outweigh the short term gains of cheaper goods. As a people, we have to know how to do things, and we really don't.

      Contrary to popular belief, I believe that there will NEVER be a day when free trade actually benefits the United States. I don't believe our trading partners genuinely believe in free trade as anything other than an economic weapon to use against us. They are never going to have this notion that they might consider American products as an alternative to their own, and, so, even countries that could afford to buy American products will not do so. This is especially true since the American commercial empire is becoming increasingly a military one.

      Finally, as a country of some 300 million people, we cannot afford to elevate a world of 5 billion to our standard of living. If these countries wanted to elevate themselves for real, they should do what Henry Ford did and mass produce their own stuff and pay the workers enough to have a middle class!

      --
      This is my sig.
  124. Is this SkyNet? by xeo_at_thermopylae · · Score: 1

    After the supercomputer in Terminator III.

  125. Unfounded Fears by c0d3fu · · Score: 1

    I'm a student at the University of Missouri-Rolla, and have several friends who are actively involved in writing software for the DARPA project. Their summer project involves navigating a van across several hundred miles of desert terrain in the American southwest, unmanned. It's fascinating technology, and there is a considerable amount of AI programming involved. Where does Skynet come in? Laughably, the government is footing a rather large bill for all the research and this technology will be directly applied to military applications. Imagine the cost savings in building armed vehicles when you no longer need a cockpit and all its associated instrumentation. This means that you could build 100 tanks for every 75 your enemy can produce. These tanks could be controlled remotely, but like the unit AI in Dark Reign or Starcraft (or any other RTS), they also can hold their own with a general set of orders, as well as avoid obstacles, etc - without human intervention. These are the wars of the future, and there is nothing that anyone here can do to stop government from producing such intelligent weapons. This is pseudo-AI; these machines are not coming up with new concepts and not having emotions. As for security concerns, here in our pseudo-democracy that is America, the citizens had better watch out for their own rights. Surveillance has been around for hundreds of years without the aid of machines, the only thing they add into the mix is not sleeping. If anything, unfocused machine-based surveillance will lead to huge amounts of unprocessed data. It's us that choose what we want to focus on.

    --

    [c0d3fu]: jwjb62@umr.edu || james@macrohub.com
  126. Re:The Real Question Civil Liberties? by Larsing · · Score: 1

    Guy Fawlkes' day is not a public(bank) holiday.
    AAMOF, England only has 8 bank holidays: Chrismas day, boxing day, New Years day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, spring bank holiday, early summer bank holiday and late summer bank holiday.
    It also isn't the English "National Day". That's St George's, when the English celebrate a Turkish saint and indulge in a bizzare tradition called "morris dancing"...

    --
    Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
  127. Re:The Real Question Civil Liberties? by grolaw · · Score: 1

    But, there ARE fireworks! That is the only common thread between GFD and 4 July.

    Guy Fawlkes' day is more analogous to December 7, 1941 ("a date that will live in infamy"), the day that the Japanese Empire bombed Pearl Harbor, HI.

    My given name is George and an old headmaster of mine was keen on references to the dissimilarity between St. George's day and any day he had to deal with me.

  128. Re:The Real Question Civil Liberties? by Larsing · · Score: 1

    Guy Fawlkes' day is more analogous to December 7, 1941 ("a date that will live in infamy"), the day that the Japanese Empire bombed Pearl Harbor, HI.


    Except Guy Fawlkes' never did blow up the Houses of Parliament, but there you go...

    --
    Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
  129. Re:The Real Question Civil Liberties? by grolaw · · Score: 1

    GF didn't have the technology. The Royalists in anticipation of the Civil Wars due in 40 years denied his access to the Da Vinci aircraft.

    His co-conspirators did manage to off King James...Catesby (sp?) I believe was the originator of the plot. An early Roman attack on the Protestants (something still going on, but at a low simmer, in Ireland).