Slashdot Mirror


Demo of EU's Planned "INDECT" Hints At Massive Data Mining, Little Privacy

Ronald Dumsfeld writes "Wikinews puts together some of the details around the EU's five-year-plan called Project INDECT, and brings attention to a leaked 'sales-pitch' video: 'An unreleased promotional video for INDECT located on YouTube is shown to the right. The simplified example of the system in operation shows a file of documents with a visible INDECT-titled cover stolen from an office and exchanged in a car park. How the police are alerted to the document theft is unclear in the video; as a "threat," it would be the INDECT system's job to predict it. Throughout the video use of CCTV equipment, facial recognition, number plate reading, and aerial surveillance give friend-or-foe information with an overlaid map to authorities. The police proactively use this information to coordinate locating, pursing, and capturing the document recipient. The file of documents is retrieved, and the recipient roughly detained.'"

122 comments

  1. They like it rough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The police proactively use this information to coordinate locating, pursing, and capturing the document recipient. The file of documents is retrieved, and the recipient roughly detained.

    Nice to hear they plan to roughly detain the perp after they purse him.

    1. Re:They like it rough. by sopssa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A report accidentally published on the Internet provides insight into a secretive European Union surveillance project designed to monitor its citizens, as reported by Wikileaks earlier this month. Project INDECT aims to mine data from television, internet traffic, cellphone conversations, p2p file sharing and a range of other sources for crime prevention and threat prediction.

      If this doesn't sound like breaking privacy, I dont know what does. And I bet it's UK that is trying to bring this into all EU countries.

    2. Re:They like it rough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't cell phones fair game, as they're broadcast over open airwaves, while stuff transmitted over a landline has that "reasonable expectation of privacy" that no one's listening?

      Everything else is pretty creepy, though...

    3. Re:They like it rough. by sopssa · · Score: 1

      Aren't cell phones fair game, as they're broadcast over open airwaves, while stuff transmitted over a landline has that "reasonable expectation of privacy" that no one's listening?

      Please explain why you think so. It's still listening over to people's private conversation, just the transmit is done via air instead of landline.

    4. Re:They like it rough. by icebraining · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Especially since GSM is supposed to be encrypted, even if there are already methods to break it.

    5. Re:They like it rough. by Obfuscant · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      It's still listening over to people's private conversation, just the transmit is done via air instead of landline.

      Cyclic logic. Calling it a "private conversation" implies some belief of privacy, even when none should exist.

      What about a "private conversation" held using bullhorns at a baseball game? It's private, so all those people listening must be breaking the law, huh?

      Much better is to define "private" not based on stupid people's ignorance but on physics. A "conversation" carried via public airwaves shouldn't be considered private. That's where the cellular carries brainwashed everyone. A "conversation" carried over someone else's wires has some reasonable expectation of privacy, but it's still someone else's wires. If those wires go into another country where the rules are different, don't expect your side to stay private under US rules while the foreign part is open under foreign rules.

      Privacy should only be assumed if you control the wires, or if you encrypt the message YOURSELF. To simply say "this is private, you can't listen" is silly.

    6. Re:They like it rough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least in the States, it's fair game. If any schmuck walking by with a basic antenna can pick it up (ie, not using "extraordinary surveillance measures," you don't have an expectation of privacy on your cell phone. People have been caught for years based on conversations LEOs have picked up from the signals sent by cordless phones and cell phones.

      I don't understand why... But it basically amounts to "using the public airwaves = talking out in the street where anyone can hear you." I'm trying to find the law now, but it had to do with how basic radio scanners can listen in on cell phone conversations just by turning them on - no active surveillance required, because a cell phone conversation is broadcast like a radio station?

      [same anonymous poster as above]

      Again, trying to find the science and the law, but someone else is welcome to beat me to it...

    7. Re:They like it rough. by sopssa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Privacy should only be assumed if you control the wires, or if you encrypt the message YOURSELF. To simply say "this is private, you can't listen" is silly.

      Maybe so, but there's no way one can build and maintain all of that themself. They would also have to be on their own internets thats only on their own lines. It's just not possible to do that.

      Thats *why we have privacy laws in place*. Like any other law, yeah they could be broken by someone. But there will be consequences for the people breaking them. When goverments will remove those laws and actually start breaking them by themself you will have problems. That is what we're trying to prevent here.

    8. Re:They like it rough. by Obfuscant · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Maybe so, but there's no way one can build and maintain all of that themself.

      That implies that you think there is some natural right to "private conversations using other people's stuff". I'm sorry, but if you use my telephone in my house, it's my wires and you have as much privacy as I decide to give you. The fact you can't build the infrastructure yourself has no relevance to that.

      They would also have to be on their own internets thats only on their own lines. It's just not possible to do that.

      So? That's why I included the statement about ENCRYPTING your messages yourself. You want privacy when you use MY telephone? You bring your own scrambler.

      Thats *why we have privacy laws in place*.

      Yes, we have "privacy laws" that violate the laws of physics in place because of ignorant people having ignorant expectations about what is private. They think "because I want it to be" is sufficient. It isn't. If your cell phone conversation can be picked up by my television set, your "privacy laws" don't mean much (and yes, the old analog cell phones could be picked up on tv sets.)

      But there will be consequences for the people breaking them.

      Really? You mean like the case of the people who recorded and released the cell phone conversations between Gingrich and Boehner (IIRC)? Made national news, but no "consequences" to the law-breakers.

      And even in the rare case where there are consequences, that doesn't change the fact that your privacy did not exist in reality, only in your mind. Making it a crime to listen to you talking on your phone doesn't make your conversation private, it just makes it a crime to listen. You are a victim of the Cellular telephone industry, who managed to cripple an entire radio industry because they didn't want to digitize and encrypt their analog cell phone systems, even though it was patently obvious that digital and encryption was going to happen anyway. Welcome to 2009, where it is still illegal to sell radios with certain frequencies, even though everything on those frequencies is gone or unlistenable, and where a new design of cell-phone is using frequencies outside the prohibited bands.

    9. Re:They like it rough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In principle I agree.

      But I also want cellphones to support end-to-end encryption with authentication based on asymmetric keys, so call privacy could be at least mathematically ensured. No point making silly laws when a technical solution exists.

    10. Re:They like it rough. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      While I'll admit that it's stupid to expect radio signals to be "private", there is something inherently wrong with a system where I pay someone to follow me around all day, just to spy on me. Or, in this case, I pay taxes so that the government can mount cameras, and intercept all electronic signals from devices I own, just to spy on me. Tell me again, why do I pay taxes?

      Orwelle's story was right, he just got the year wrong.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    11. Re:They like it rough. by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      To simply say "this is private, you can't listen" is silly.

      It's also what we like to call "civilized". An expectation of privacy comes from having civilized ourselves enough to NOT listen even though we obviously can. Any one listening to what should be a private call is obviously not civilized. Unless probable cause is present to require a court order to listen. I don't understand why we all seem to have become less civilized lately.

    12. Re:They like it rough. by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      ignorant people having ignorant expectations about what is private.

      No we have ignorant people or perhaps I should say people who are not cultured, enough to obey those laws. And people like you who assume that simply because it can be done it should be done. While I agree it will be done that doesn't mean that we can't restore civilization and culture by not doing what you claim is physically impossible.

    13. Re:They like it rough. by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      [same anonymous poster as above]
      did anyone hear something? I saw something go by but it was not identifiable. Not important I guess.

    14. Re:They like it rough. by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      cell phones fair game? Depends if your talking about the towers and tracking or just enjoying an iphone.
      Thinks back to Adamo Bove and Costas Tsalikidis.
      Adamo Bove was the head of security at Telecom Italia and exposed the CIA (Abu Omar rendition in Italy traced after the fact with mobiles), SISMI ( ~ the Italian CIA) and his own bosses. He was found under a freeway overpass.
      Costas Tsalikidis was a 38-year-old software engineer for Vodaphone in Greece.
      He uncovered a highly sophisticated bug embedded in the mobile network.
      Spyware eavesdropped on the Greek prime Minister and other top officials’ cell phone calls; it even monitored the car phone of Greece’s secret service chief.
      His mother found him hanging outside of his apartment bathroom.

      Another interesting aspect is the NYPD and its love for the battery life of your phone.
      http://tinyurl.com/y9lh6wq (nydailynews.com slashdot did not like the long url)
      They will ask you to take out the battery, thus giving them a warrant free view of your International Mobile Equipment Identity number.
      So yes cell phones are fair game :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    15. Re:They like it rough. by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Yes "something inherently wrong with a system where I pay someone to follow me around all day, just to spy on me"
      Charlie Skelton working for the Guardian found that out when he went to the Bilderberg summit in Greece.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/series/charlie-skeltons-bilderberg-files

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    16. Re:They like it rough. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      No we have ignorant people or perhaps I should say people who are not cultured, enough to obey those laws.

      There are two kind of laws being discussed here. Physical laws, which say that messages sent by radio waves are inherently NOT PRIVATE, and manmade laws which try to contradict physical laws. No amount of culture will let you violate physical laws. No amount of culture will make stupid manmade laws smart.

      And people like you who assume that simply because it can be done it should be done.

      And people like you who jump to outrageous conclusions based on inability to understand a simple point. I didn't say it SHOULD be done. Not once. I said that it is STUPID to define "private conversation" in terms of what an ignorant person expects. I said that messages that are not truly private can and will be intercepted and no true privacy exists when using other people's stuff.

      While I agree it will be done ...

      If you think I said it SHOULD be done, what are you agreeing with?

      that doesn't mean that we can't restore civilization and culture by not doing what you claim is physically impossible.

      I'm sorry, but you've got one too many negatives in that statement for it to make any sense. I'm not sure what you think I claimed was physically impossible. I know I didn't claim that something SHOULD be done. Are you actually reading this thread?

    17. Re:They like it rough. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      It's also what we like to call "civilized".

      There's this "civilized" stuff again. How does "civilized" change anything about the inherent private nature of a public medium? It does not. Period. End of sentence.

      An expectation of privacy comes from having civilized ourselves enough to NOT listen even though we obviously can.

      No, an expectation of privacy comes from ignorance. "Civilized" has nothing to do with it. Your "civilization" is just legislated ignorance of physical fact. "Your cell phone conversations are private because we, the cellphone industry, have made it illegal for people to buy radios that can tune into your calls." That's not "privacy", that stupidity. Your cell phone calls are no more private because Joe Sixpack can't buy a scanner. They are inherently NON private because you are using a NON private medium.

      Any one listening to what should be a private call is obviously not civilized.

      Anyone using MY airwaves demanding that I not listen to what they are doing is obviously not civilized and is arrogant and ignorant to boot.

      I don't understand why we all seem to have become less civilized lately.

      Because stupid people demand stupid laws trying to subvert nature and natural processes, and the rest of us are getting damn tired of it. Your definition of "civilization" requires ignorance, and ignorance is not a civilized trait.

    18. Re:They like it rough. by SleepingWaterBear · · Score: 1

      Yes, we have "privacy laws" that violate the laws of physics in place because of ignorant people having ignorant expectations about what is private. They think "because I want it to be" is sufficient. It isn't. If your cell phone conversation can be picked up by my television set, your "privacy laws" don't mean much (and yes, the old analog cell phones could be picked up on tv sets.)

      I think that you're overstating the issue a little here. Listening in on a cell phone conversation generally requires intent and effort. If I have a conversation in a room, the fact that you can overhear me by standing outside with your ear to the door doesn't mean I can't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It is neither unreasonable nor ignorant to assume that your conversation is only heard by yourself, the other party, and the cell phone carrier.

      It is also reasonable to assume that as far as your cell phone carrier is concerned you have whatever privacy is guaranteed you by your contract and any applicable statutes. I don't know the details on this front, but I'm willing to bet that your cell phone carrier isn't allowed to listen in on your conversations or share them with 3rd parties except in very unusual circumstances.

    19. Re:They like it rough. by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      You sir are not cultured. End of argument.

    20. Re:They like it rough. by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      Yeah sorry that last sentence was pretty hashed.

    21. Re:They like it rough. by LordAndrewSama · · Score: 1

      Wish I could mod this insightful.

    22. Re:They like it rough. by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 1

      Yes, we have "privacy laws" that violate the laws of physics in place because of ignorant people having ignorant expectations about what is private. They think "because I want it to be" is sufficient. It isn't. If your cell phone conversation can be picked up by my television set, your "privacy laws" don't mean much (and yes, the old analog cell phones could be picked up on tv sets.)

      I don't understand your objection to using laws (legal ones) to provide a method for enforcing "social niceties" which violate the laws of physics. I mean, that is pretty much the entire point of having laws in the first place; why would you make a law saying it's illegal to do something that's physically impossible to do? Or are you one of those people who think we shouldn't have a reasonable expectation of being able to walk down a street without being bashed to death by someone who felt like seeing if they could?

      The only reason you think it'd be possible to have a private conversation with someone over lines you own or encryption you did yourself is because of your expectation that nobody else would have access to those lines, or the information required to decrypt your message. That expectation is there because of laws which say people aren't allowed to use your property without your permission, or to break into your computer and access your encryption key, or to torture you until you reveal it to them. All laws which violate the laws of physics.

  2. EU's Proposed "INDENT" system even worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their plan of ubiquitous surveillance of all source code would force uniform standards of indentation on all programmers.

    You can keep your Eurotrash socialism, thank you.

  3. Enhance by slifox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Whenever I see facial recognition enhancement, I think of this:

    http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1156

    Turns out... it's theoretically impossible!

    Seriously, this video plays like a bad science ficition movie... they say "let us monitor everything and we'll magically know when crimes are committed," without saying exactly *how* they plan on sorting through the incredible amount of data and coming up with "crime X being committed right now" in a timely manner.

    1. Re:Enhance by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      FYI, MythBusters do use controls and multiple data points, at least nowadays.

      Besides, it's understood that the ultimate goal of any episode of MythBusters is one or more large explosions, regardless of the outcome of the myth.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    2. Re:Enhance by symes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not to mention all those darn kids who'll figure out how the system works. Chat rooms would be full of "if you stand on one leg and wave a small red flag at the camera you'll trigger the bomb squad... rotfl, lmas" and so on. Anyhow - I've done a very tiny bit of work in this area - more simulations than spotting criminal intent - kind of the same thing in reverse. Our simulation, if we wanted to scale it up to a realistic scenario, would have taken 32 years to run on a regular desktop. So I'm guessing that a system like INDECT will likely run on some pretty frugal heuristics to even come close to coping with the mass of data... meaning it'll miss pretty much all but the most stereotyped crime. Now if you start putting any confidence in a system like that then I hope all those misses don't amount to much.

    3. Re:Enhance by minio · · Score: 1

      Actually there are techniques which allows to get relatively high resolution image from low resolution video. Google for "super resolution".

    4. Re:Enhance by QuantumRiff · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just look at the success of the video surveillance system in London for cutting down on crimes.

      Oh, wait.. I meant solving crimes,

      Err, I meant.. Look how many jobs it created..

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    5. Re:Enhance by aurispector · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if the damn thing works or not because eventually it will. The truly frightening thing is the intent behind the initiative. There are people in governments around the world working as hard as they can to bring a computerized "big brother" system to life. Government's power over the individual has increased by orders of magnitude with the advent of things like internet searchable public information. It used to take some leg work to pull paperwork on someone, which acted as a natural brake on the ability of government to investigate people. What used to take weeks as part of a formal investigation can now be accomplished instantly by a government dweeb with the right access. Throw some sophisticated data mining techniques into the mix along with enough cpu horsepower and the result is an unprecedented level of observation and control.

      Frankly, this stuff scares the crap out of me.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    6. Re:Enhance by stephanruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It doesn't matter if the damn thing works or not because eventually it will.

      Actually, it doesn't matter if the damn thing works or not, because even if it doesn't -- it can still make your life a living hell.

      But I agree with you, eventually it will work, if newspapers have mastered fortune-telling and horoscopes technology, it means it's just a matter of time before the government gets it as well.

    7. Re:Enhance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorting through the data is easy. Just let the program gather information for a while, then cross-reference that with a list of all citizens, remove those under 10 or over 60 and finally sort by amount of data collected per individual. The ones with very little or no information are the suspects - they're obviously trying to hide something! Next they allocate their resources to spy on these people and bust them for something illegal, before triumphantly announcing that the system works.

  4. Ministry of Everything by bmo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Guys....

    The book 1984 was not meant to be a *manual*

    Thanks.

    1. Re:Ministry of Everything by TravisHein · · Score: 1

      Yea, that's the first thing I thought of too, very 1984.

    2. Re:Ministry of Everything by mdm-adph · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, more like a prediction. :(

      --
      It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
    3. Re:Ministry of Everything by Interoperable · · Score: 1, Troll

      No need to be concerned, it's in the interest of public security. Remember, the police are on our side. Not giving them unrestricted access to monitor everyone continuously would only help the bad guys.

      --
      So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
    4. Re:Ministry of Everything by Eudial · · Score: 0

      History has shown that if you realize some horrible scenario is possible, writing a dystopian novel to warn people is not a good idea.

      Orwell for one, but HG Wells also inspired some very unfortunate developments (including the atomic bomb and bomber aircraft).

      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    5. Re:Ministry of Everything by dkleinsc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      See, you don't have it fully down, it's not "bad guys" (because that sounds silly). You have to appeal to fears properly, like this:
      Not giving them unrestricted access to monitor everyone continuously would only help terrorists, child predators, and unwed teenage mothers.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    6. Re:Ministry of Everything by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "History has shown that if you realize some horrible scenario is possible, writing a dystopian novel to warn people is not a good idea.

      Orwell for one, but HG Wells also inspired some very unfortunate developments (including the atomic bomb and bomber aircraft)."

      Ehh, not sure about that. I'm pretty sure the first guy to drop a hand grenade out of a WWI fighter cockpit didn't get "inspired" by HG Wells. More likely from dropping rocks into a pond from a bridge to scare the frogs.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    7. Re:Ministry of Everything by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      How do we know the politicians aren't pedophiles?

    8. Re:Ministry of Everything by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      indeed

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    9. Re:Ministry of Everything by uuddlrlrab · · Score: 1

      They're too busy tapping their feet under the dividers in bathroom stalls.

      --
      Odi profanum vulgus et arceo
    10. Re:Ministry of Everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No need to be concerned, it's in the interest of public security. Remember, the police are on our side. Not giving them unrestricted access to monitor everyone continuously would only help the bad guys.

      you did read 1984 before replying to this didn't you?

    11. Re:Ministry of Everything by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      I think you (and one of the mods) may have a faulty sarcasm detector.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    12. Re:Ministry of Everything by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Ugh... Every time I read this bullshit statement, I die a little inside. Come up with some valid, fact-based, well researched arguments or shut up. You achieve nothing by providing an easily contradicted statement ("1984 was a work of fiction. It's allegory. Nobody is going to create Thought Police or torture you with a rat in a cage. Grow up."). All that happens is the guys you are fighting against get an easy target for their spin.

      Hush now, the adults are talking.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  5. Stwike him, Centuwion, vewy woughly by spun · · Score: 2, Funny

    [slap]

    BRIAN: Aaah!

    CENTURION: Oh, and, uh, throw him to the floor, sir?

    PILATE: What?

    CENTURION: Thwow him to the floor again, sir?

    PILATE: Oh, yes. Thwow him to the floor, please.

     

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Stwike him, Centuwion, vewy woughly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Use on unnecessary force is approved."

      Dispatcher, "Blues Brothers"

  6. Safe Harbour. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "A report accidentally published on the Internet provides insight into a secretive European Union surveillance project designed to monitor its citizens, as reported by Wikileaks earlier this month. Project INDECT aims to mine data from television, internet traffic, cellphone conversations, p2p file sharing and a range of other sources for crime prevention and threat prediction. The €14.68 million project began in January, 2009, and is scheduled to continue for five years under its current mandate."

    Decisions, decisions. Stay in the US or move to Europe. At least they have good social benefits.

    1. Re:Safe Harbour. by sopssa · · Score: 1

      Russia or Japan are starting to look like a nice candidates.

    2. Re:Safe Harbour. by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Well, at least there's Japan...

  7. Has anybody seen Sam Lowry? by abbynormal+brain · · Score: 0

    There you are, your own number on your very own door. And behind that door, your very own office! Welcome to the team, DZ-015.

    --
    L'esperienza de questa dolce vita (The experience of this sweet life) - Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy
    1. Re:Has anybody seen Sam Lowry? by biryokumaru · · Score: 1

      No, it was a personal carrier, sir.

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
  8. A new standard for proof... by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Funny
    An unreleased promotional video for INDECT located on YouTube...

    In a press release dated 18 October, 2009, the World Court announced that "'a video on YouTube' has replaced 'an entry in Wikipedia' as the best source of factual evidence for any legal proceeding meeting NWO standards. Film at 11."

    1. Re:A new standard for proof... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As it happens, the only thing we know about the NWO is that it's new, not it's political colour. The "social democratic"/joint socialist-run countries in Europe are embracing this as much as the "capitalist" ones.

    2. Re:A new standard for proof... by sopssa · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is that NWO conspiracy theories are starting to look even more and more valid every day...

    3. Re:A new standard for proof... by Seriousity · · Score: 1

      Then the only thing you know about it is a lie. History will show you that the new world is the old world, transformed.

      --
      This post was made in complete sincere seriousity; as such any attempts to derive humour are doomed to instant failure.
    4. Re:A new standard for proof... by nefertitian · · Score: 1

      and I apparently mis-read it this way...

      An unreleased promotional video for IN C EST located on YouTube

    5. Re:A new standard for proof... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An unreleased promotional video for INDECT located on YouTube...

      In a press release dated 18 October, 2009, the World Court announced that "'a video on YouTube' has replaced 'an entry in Wikipedia' as the best source of factual evidence for any legal proceeding meeting NWO standards. Film at 11."

      Eddan Katz of the EFF used the video when challenging the EU on the issue. They did not dispute it's authenticity.

    6. Re:A new standard for proof... by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 1

      So you're saying I should make a Wikipedia entry linking to the youtube video?

    7. Re:A new standard for proof... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because most of them are just based upon what the conspirators are openly pushing for

  9. Warrants or probable cause? by Broken+scope · · Score: 1

    How do warrants and probable cause work in Europe?

    I mean I realize that the video is just a sales pitch. However it bothers me that they never showed someone reporting something missing. The video gave the impression of "He looks suspicious, lets mobilize the cops to pick him up".

    --
    You mad
    1. Re:Warrants or probable cause? by Ozlanthos · · Score: 1

      The real message here is: " All white guys with long hair are evil, and exist solely to sneak into your office and steal your confidential data!"

      -Oz

  10. Hate to sound defeatist, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...should we really even bother trying to prevent this kind of future anymore?

    Wouldn't we be better off solely trying to discuss ways to circumvent it when it does inevitably happen?

    This future will be sold to people on the basis that it "will make them safer." And who doesn't want to be safer?

    Even the anti-government quasi-anarchist "teabagger" movement in the US, for all their talk of independence, readily approves draconian security procedures, if it helps them sleep better at night.

    Who's going to stop this?

    1. Re:Hate to sound defeatist, but... by sopssa · · Score: 1

      No one, and they know that. But they also know that they have to bring it in slowly. Take just little bits of privacy away from time to time and no one will notice we've soon lost it all.

      I hope it takes longer than my lifetime tho.

    2. Re:Hate to sound defeatist, but... by rvw · · Score: 1

      ...should we really even bother trying to prevent this kind of future anymore?

      Wouldn't we be better off solely trying to discuss ways to circumvent it when it does inevitably happen?

      ...

      Who's going to stop this?

      We are! Slashdot is thé community to do this. We have the brainpower, the knowledge, and lots of time. If we can't do this, who can?

    3. Re:Hate to sound defeatist, but... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Why do you think Slashdot is smarter then everyone else?

      I can't find proof in these comments.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:Hate to sound defeatist, but... by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      > Who's going to stop this?
      >> We are! Slashdot is thé community to do this. We have the brainpower, the knowledge, and lots of time. If we can't do this, who can?

      No, Anonymous could stop this. Unfortunately, they only care if "they" disrupt the flow of porn.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    5. Re:Hate to sound defeatist, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we killed the ::que::cat , didn't we?

    6. Re:Hate to sound defeatist, but... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Could Slashdot have Flash mob data liberation section?
      Todays url is ... :)
      A "recent finds" section :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  11. For totalitarian government everywhere by KDN · · Score: 0, Troll

    I'm sure the Peoples Republic of China, North Korea, Cuba, etc, would love this program.

    1. Re:For totalitarian government everywhere by Krneki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I bet there is a chance we will see something like this in the US and not Cuba.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    2. Re:For totalitarian government everywhere by sopssa · · Score: 2, Informative

      And maybe UK too..

      Oh, they are actually developing this.

    3. Re:For totalitarian government everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Why is it that every single time a government, any government, does something ridiculous like this, people always blame the US and say they'll be getting it next Tuesday? I mean, sure, bash the US, but it's not the US that's got 1 camera for every 14 citizens, and it's not the US that's implementing this wacky scheme.

    4. Re:For totalitarian government everywhere by DarkMage0707077 · · Score: 1

      Of course: Cuba doesn't yet have the financial resources to afford it.

    5. Re:For totalitarian government everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the typical lefty response. Far, far easier to bash the U.S. than to admit that their country (which they've been touting as far superior in every way to that dismal pit the backwards, socially unenlightened troglodytes of America toil in) might in fact not be such a great place as it has a government that seeks to monitor their entire existence in order to keep them under its absolute control.

    6. Re:For totalitarian government everywhere by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      Cuba has had it for years.

    7. Re:For totalitarian government everywhere by physburn · · Score: 1
      Cuba couldn't afford the surveillance technology. Big government have been mining signals data for spying and counter spying since the second world war, and that doesn't bother me much. Its when the legal system/internal security, starts using this massive surveillance that I feel my privacy slipping away. INDECT sound like another massive government computing contract that will overrun its budget and fail its supposed purpose.

      ---

      Privacy vs Surveillance Feed @ Feed Distiller

    8. Re:For totalitarian government everywhere by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Cuba can afford a cop on every corner.
      The USA can afford a real Narus unit on your telco line and to run two political parties.
      Nokia Siemens might give Cuba a good deal :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    9. Re:For totalitarian government everywhere by Ozlanthos · · Score: 1

      We aren't all that far away though. There are cameras everywhere here in Eugene. Traffic cams, security cameras, hell, the front of Walmart has 8 or so of these HUGE cameras pointed at various sections of the parking lot. Kinda makes me feel like I am in prison and the cameras are there to protect Walmart from me.

      -Oz

  12. If you think that's bad??? by Erythros · · Score: 1, Funny

    Slashdotters should fear the upcoming SPERM program.

    Surveillance
    Program
    Encompassing
    Repetitive
    Masturbation

    I dread the day Big Brother puts SPERM on everyone.

  13. Paranoid. by Gudeldar · · Score: 1

    I'm not one who is usually prone to paranoid thinking but if they can do everything they claim then this is pretty scary.

  14. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  15. Data poisoning by girlintraining · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So the solution here is to alter the statistical thresholds by injecting the database with data designed to catch random people's attentions and subject them to additional scrutiny. Maybe create a worm/bot that emulates a web browser and submits queries for words like bomb, president, allah, or whatever they're searching for. Fill their database with crap, and it'll become useless.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Data poisoning by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 1

      The solution here is to make "guilty of something" the default for everyone and we can then do things to prove we are decent citizens. I imagine a points system.

    2. Re:Data poisoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wanna fill the internet with crap? Wouldn't that be like bringing water to the sea ^^

  16. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  17. How did the police find out? by bl968 · · Score: 1

    As any slashdot reader would already know, the document obviously had a RFID chip in it and that alerted security when it passed through exit to the building.

    --
    "GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
    1. Re:How did the police find out? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      I say they simply skip a few steps and have each person marked on their forehead and right arm for easy identification.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  18. Who Steals Paper Documents These Days? by Chickan · · Score: 1

    I worked a Coop with an employer that did government work and every time I'd leave I would have any printed documents I had on me looked over to make sure I wasn't stealing any information, yet my 4gb flash drive in my pocket, that could have held thousands of times more data than the weight of paper I can carry, was never searched. Even if they saw the flash drive on my key chain I was never questioned. And if the information in the video was so top secret it effected the security of the common person, why the hell was it sitting on top of a desk in an unlocked, empty room? Real data theft comes from employees and flash drives if anything, not printed documents and strange visitors with long hair that are allowed to roam free in a company. These security policies and BS technology videos just make CEO's and cops wet their pants, they don't really help solve any crimes or prevent theft of data. They especially don't prevent theft of data that could harm the average citizen.

    1. Re:Who Steals Paper Documents These Days? by The+name+is+Dave.+Ja · · Score: 1

      I worked a Coop with an employer that did

      Was it a ...

      wait for it

      ...

      Chickan Coop

      ??


      Complete at http://www.instantrimshot.com/

      ---

      Yup. Here all week.

    2. Re:Who Steals Paper Documents These Days? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Depends on how they "prevent theft of data".
      You get out with your files?
      You spread them over the net
      Your corp or gov would go over the logs of the names of x people who prepared a doc of interest in your 4gb liberation.
      Templates, style, revisions might show more that antiword or catdoc can hide.
      Its down to one person and an electronic trail of when the doc was accessed.
      match up with id tags, cctv ect and they have an idea.
      Your isp records are pulled
      You might get depressed and be found later...
      Your IP could be seen in the wild and a search warrant issued.
      Your other 4gb flash drive might be packed full of other information for the court ....

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Who Steals Paper Documents These Days? by Chickan · · Score: 1

      Absolutely, so how would this INDECT system help that again? Its not like they would be able to see the USB stick in my pocket and scan the files remotely. There are plenty of legit ways of tracking IP theft, cameras everywhere is not one of them.

    4. Re:Who Steals Paper Documents These Days? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      USB stick at home is of no use.
      Unless you hold onto it for 25-40 years or so and then gift it to history.
      So you would have to chat, email, skype ect about it.
      The most important thing is tracing a leak and insuring it gets zero mainstream traction.
      With INDECT a new set of words, names and terms could be loaded in, any mention on any known communications system would light up.
      Like the NSA could always do via ECHELON, but this is internal and faces the EU not Asia, Africa, Mid East, South America, Russia.
      Most importantly so would anyone in contact and their contacts.
      Sloppy press, human rights campaigners, anti war types, congress critters workers ect would be exposed as interested.
      Blackmail, misdirection, theft, threats, a promotion, cash ect can be positioned to lessen the impact of any real time damage to the gov, corp.
      Its a Berlin wall for your data, you 'might' talk about it online, a flare goes up, spotlight is on you, ... problem solved.
      They get your network of helpers, groupies too.
      Great for a future honey trap.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  19. I hope they send a swat team by thewils · · Score: 1

    When they find the guy who stole my bike.

    --
    Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
  20. Redundant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    "The police proactively use this information to coordinate locating, pursing, and capturing the document recipient".

    It seems to me that once the recipient has been pursed, capturing them is kind of redundant. Don't you already have them in a relatively small bag?

  21. Sounds like a senseless collission of... by uuddlrlrab · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ...security-technophilia, paranoia, directionless data aggregation, and nanny-state politics. Look, I'm all for security, and I hate terrorists, but you can't just throw millions of cameras at the problem, accrue massive amounts of civilian info without having a reason why, a vague and vaporous set of goals, and, to top it off, let a computer define what is or is not a "threat" instead of giving it solid guidelines and clear directives on what to search for. Yeah, that won't cause any problems. I'm honestly glad Orwell didn't have to live to see his dystopic literary nightmare-world start to take shape, only with the procedural policies on the level of the Underpants Gnomes.

    • 1. Install tons of cameras to monitor EVERYONE
    • 2. Aggregate colossal amounts of data from email & internet traffic, mobile phone services, etc, in violation of our citizens' rights
    • 3. Let a computer do the deciding on what poses an actual danger
    • 4. Fail to set any guidelines on what your agency is supposed to be doing, not to mention no limitations being set for said org to prevent abuse of power
    • 5. ???
    • 6. Profit!
    --
    Odi profanum vulgus et arceo
    1. Re:Sounds like a senseless collission of... by Ozlanthos · · Score: 1

      Great, now the EU is letting the Underpants Gnomes determine their public-surveillance policy!

      -Oz

    2. Re:Sounds like a senseless collission of... by Datamonstar · · Score: 1

      Greetings, Citizen! THE COMPUTER has determined that you may or may not have read a manual that you may or may not have been granted Clarence to read. Please report to the nearest re-education facility at a time most inconvenient to you for mental re-assessment and conditioning. Remember to fill out enrollment form 245A sections 3, 4, and 7-9 (security clearance Orange and above, only) prior to arriving. Send it off for filing immediately or otherwise, your appearance at the facility may be interpreted as a hostile act. And don't forget, Alpha Complex is a happy place, so be happy! Happiness is mandatory!

      --
      The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
  22. Re:Confession: I smell my farts by hoggoth · · Score: 2

    Well, to bring this back on topic, how will you feel when the government sends you to a reeducation camp because you smell your own farts?

    --
    - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  23. Hate to sound safe, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "This future will be sold to people on the basis that it "will make them safer." And who doesn't want to be safer?"

    Safer from what? An out of control financial sector? Corporate malfeasance? Bullying at school? Why isn't anyone trying to protect me from the real dangers?

    1. Re:Hate to sound safe, but... by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Because humans are horribly bad at assessing actual risk. That's why people are afraid of flying, but more people are killed per passenger mile when driving. A plane crash is much more dramatic, and hence, takes hold of people's fears and makes them go WAY out of their way to avoid it, even at the expense of actual safety. Same with the markets, terrorism, and thinking of the children with all our various "war on X" movements.

    2. Re:Hate to sound safe, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      agreed, I can't count how many laws are passed each month in various countries to "protect the children" when meanwhile a simpler, less invasive, less expensive method is available. I'm getting the feeling that laws like this are being made under the guise of humanitarian things like "the children" or "your safety" or "your health" etc when meanwhile they are specifically made as a deterrant to having a controvercial opinion or as a method to keep people afraid to mention their distrust of corporate and governmental leaders. /tinfoil hat

  24. I think INDICT is the word they are looking for by cats-paw · · Score: 2, Funny

    I feel so warm and fuzzy that all of these governments are so concerned about my safety..

    --
    Absolute statements are never true
  25. I think this is a great idea! by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1
    This nice young politician, Harold Saxon, explained to me why it was so important. Said if any terrorists did something horrible, like a UN scientific adviser or a member of a secret government organization went rogue, we could track them and get them before they did something bad.

    Nice fellow, that Saxon. I'd vote for him. It's not like he'd use all that power for anything evil, would he?

  26. Its the EU after all by Gothmolly · · Score: 0, Troll

    Its a group of socialist countries. What individual rights do you think you have there ?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Its the EU after all by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Its a group of socialist countries. What individual rights do you think you have there ?

      I think you're allowed to eat there. Not sure tho.

  27. So funny... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

    For some reason their acronym reads and sounds in my head like "Indecent".

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    1. Re:So funny... by kvezach · · Score: 1

      That's because it is (to all who value privacy).

  28. Back to the old school by petes_PoV · · Score: 1
    So this is supposed to prevent crime by scanning the internet and mobile phones and other electronic stuff.

    Well, I guess in that case the baddies will have to resort to the old fashioned way of doing badness without all these high-tech toys. Just like they successfully managed to do for hundreds of years. Luckily the EU is only planning on spending 15 million euros on this - over 5 years. So it won't matter very much when they discover the money's been wasted as the criminals go back to holding face-to-face meetings, writing letters and leaving handwritten notes for each other.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:Back to the old school by the_womble · · Score: 1

      At that point writing letters will probably be declared a suspicious activity that indicates you are a terrorists, or all letters will have to identify the sender and recipient, and be scanned by the post office before posting.

  29. Re:Who the hell are they trying to catch? by petes_PoV · · Score: 1
    Two possibilities:

    Osama isn't in Pakistan (or Afghanistan) at all - he's disappeared, or died, or retired to Florida to drink pina-coladas all day, or -
    The security forces don't actually WANT to find him, as once they do there's no reason for them to continue in the region: Job done, game over, go home. And then what will they do to keep the contracts flowing to their friends in low places?

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  30. Try the Google method by TheDarkener · · Score: 1

    If this kind of technology were made available to EVERYONE, there'd probably be a lot less resistance to it. It's the fact that these politicians, corporate entities and governments think they are above other people that, at least, tick *me* off the most.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    1. Re:Try the Google method by Aldenissin · · Score: 1

      I am normally against this sort of thing. But I believe to win any argument, you just have to find out how to turn it around on them. Like the Transformers and G.I. Joe said, "Knowing is half the battle!" Once you figure out how to turn it around on them, execution is usually the easy part.

        So, I have decided I am for this. But we must use this technology in government and in big business, lest we have another Enron, etc!

      --
      Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
  31. Re:Who the hell are they trying to catch? by Ronald+Dumsfeld · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Two possibilities:

    Osama isn't in Pakistan (or Afghanistan) at all - he's disappeared, or died, or retired to Florida to drink pina-coladas all day, or - The security forces don't actually WANT to find him, as once they do there's no reason for them to continue in the region: Job done, game over, go home. And then what will they do to keep the contracts flowing to their friends in low places?

    Osama Bin Laden is, truly, the modern-day Emmanuel Goldstein.

    --
    Where's the Kaboom?
    There's supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom.
  32. Re:Who the hell are they trying to catch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh look, the idiots run in packs...

    Absolut187: WTF is this??
    We know that Osama Bin Laden is in Pakistan, yet we don't have him 8 years later.

    Hello? Hello? Anybody home? Huh? Think, McFly. Think!

    Title says EU not US. EU not looking for Bin Laden. EU looking for ungood citizens committing thoughtcrime. EU looking for ungood citizens not love Big Brother.

    petes_PoV: Two possibilities:

    Osama isn't in Pakistan (or Afghanistan) at all - he's disappeared, or died, or retired to Florida to drink pina-coladas all day, or -

    The security forces don't actually WANT to find him ...

    Third possibility: Osama in tribal areas of Pakistan surrounded by people. People who consider Osama their guest. People who support him and keep him safe. People who are clannish and extremely untrusting of outsiders and those not of their tribe.

    Outsiders going in to find Osama not easy. Not like going to downtown Anybigcity, Normalworld; looking up Osama Bin Laden in white pages, driving over to arrest him. No. Not like that. Not like that at all. Instead think Deliverance, but with little, brown murderous, raping hillbillies instead of tall, white, murderous, raping hillbillies. That's where Osama is.

  33. Re:Who the hell are they trying to catch? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
    A third possibility:

    The Rules of Engagement don't actually allow them to go after him.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  34. The more technology, the fewer people needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The more technology, the fewer people needed to help run the place.

    When the few can control the many, you can kiss goodbye to democracy. Welcome these 'advances' at your peril.

    It is happening now. Big business has been eyeing China for a few years now, and business without that pesky democratic nonsense is looking increasingly attractive to many of them.

  35. Re:Who the hell are they trying to catch? by Mike+Rice · · Score: 1

    Oh yeah!

    Osama!

    OBL! Every one knows him around here!

    Man, he's been partying it up here in Fort Myers for years. Usually you first see him around time for Spring Break, rolling into town in a caravan of Hummers and Greyhounds loaded with Turkish smoke and more jiggly girls than you can imagine, straight from Mardis Gras in New Orleens.

    OBL isn't one for drinking Coladas though... he usually starts with a Margarita or two, then its on to Jack Daniels with coke, winding up with straight Jack (with extra Jack, on a really rowdy night).

    He's only about 5 months older than me, but with his beard and all he looked a lot older. So I said 'OBL, you ought to clean it up a bit" Now he's lookin really sharp with his goatee. The chicks just love it, and you'll see often see them giggling as he adjusts his robes, for some reason.

    Most people don't know he's an engineer, but around here he's got people all riled up about how badly designed are the I-75 and US-41 bridges across the Caloosahatchee. He's always going on and on about how those bridges are so fragile they could be taken out with a barge or medium sized aircraft.

    When he's sober you'll often find him in Centennial Park playing chess. Someone told me he was going to join the chess club, but couldn't find a sponsor. That was a few years back. Not long after that the club went under.

    Hmmm.

    So anyway, just like Adolf, Pol Pot, the Bush family, and many other historical figures, he's found a new home here in the land of Sunshine and Perpetual Vacation, where life is just a party from December to May (or is it May / December).

  36. Re:Who the hell are they trying to catch? by the_womble · · Score: 1

    Exactly like Goldstein, right down to having previously been on Big Brother's side, and that fact never being mentioned.

  37. YOU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Always was you, always will be.