DARPA Developing 'Combat Zones That See'

Most Everyone? by ZTechNet · 2003-07-02 00:01 · 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.

The Real Question by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-02 00:07 · 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.

Re:The Real Question by cranos · 2003-07-02 00:15 · 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".
Re:The Real Question by Zemran · 2003-07-02 00:23 · 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.
Re:The Real Question by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-02 00:26 · 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.
Re:The Real Question by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-02 00:29 · 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.
Re:The Real Question by I+Want+GNU! · 2003-07-02 00:32 · 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.
Re:The Real Question by glesga_kiss · 2003-07-02 00:41 · 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?
Re:The Real Question by Matrix272 · 2003-07-02 00:47 · 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
Re:The Real Question by zilly · 2003-07-02 02:10 · 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
Re:The Real Question by Matrix272 · 2003-07-02 02:17 · 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

That sounds a bit strange to me by Advocadus+Diaboli · 2003-07-02 00:10 · 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.

dangerous trends... by I+Want+GNU! · 2003-07-02 00:11 · 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.

Re:dangerous trends... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-02 00:38 · 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.
Re:dangerous trends... by I+Want+GNU! · 2003-07-02 00:44 · 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.
Re:dangerous trends... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2003-07-02 00:57 · 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
Re:dangerous trends... by I+Want+GNU! · 2003-07-02 01:02 · 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.
Re:dangerous trends... by ratamacue · 2003-07-02 07:31 · 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.

Re:Great by m00by · 2003-07-02 00:22 · 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

Re:Wireless tracking by SunPin · 2003-07-02 00:24 · 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.

Re:The Real Question Civil Liberties? by grolaw · 2003-07-02 00:27 · 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.

Re:sounds like... by I+Want+GNU! · 2003-07-02 00:29 · 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.

You think you can't be tracked at the moment ? by dapprman · 2003-07-02 00:30 · 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.

Re:You think you can't be tracked at the moment ? by neema · 2003-07-02 01:53 · 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.

Technology marches on regardless by p944 · 2003-07-02 00:36 · 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.

Total Information Overload by anubi · 2003-07-02 00:43 · 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]

Pattern Recognition by Neuronerd · 2003-07-02 00:50 · 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.

Re:1984 by cookiepus · 2003-07-02 00:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

--
Ecce Europa - Web Design for Business

I wonder... by gone.fishing · 2003-07-02 01:03 · 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.

nice opinions, but what are you going to DO by tazochai · 2003-07-02 01:16 · 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.

(slightly less because I think they aren't... by dpilot · 2003-07-02 01:20 · 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.

Okay, let me imagine that. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-02 01:29 · 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.

The Real Question... by TygerFish · 2003-07-02 01:50 · 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..."

Re:Wireless tracking by Mysticalfruit · 2003-07-02 02:02 · 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.

Lame Scaremongering by reallocate · 2003-07-02 02:08 · 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"

Re:Great by darqchild · 2003-07-02 07:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

--
What? Me? Worry?

You've missed the point. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-02 08:25 · 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.

Slashdot Mirror

DARPA Developing 'Combat Zones That See'

37 of 333 comments (clear)