Life Recorder

Bruce Schneier writes "In 2006, writing about future threats on privacy, I described a life recorder: A 'life recorder' you can wear on your lapel that constantly records is still a few generations off: 200 gigabytes/year for audio and 700 gigabytes/year for video. It'll be sold as a security device, so that no one can attack you without being recorded."

Comments

Rogue-like

[hansamurai]

It'll be sold as a security device, so that no one can attack you without being recorded.

Except when getting stabbed in the back.

Re:Rogue-like

[InsprdInsnty]

or wearing a disguise of any sort

Re:Rogue-like

[WrongSizeGlass]

I'll just steal your "Life Recorder" after I beat you up. Thanks for understanding.

Re:Rogue-like

[tehniobium]

Exactly what I thought, but TFA suggests/hints at the possibility of the data not being stored locally.

So not only do you get to have your life recorded, but your life is stored in the cloud! Fantastic isn't it??

Re:Rogue-like

[jeffmeden]

If this is the case then why is storage relevant? It's the bandwidth necessary to get the data out; doing it reliably is necessary too. An attacker could theoretically just jam the frequencies that the recorder/transmitter uses, and then attack you, steal or destroy the device, and no one would be the wiser. As a security measure, this needs to be better thought out.

On top of that, what does Bruce Schneier need with protections from attack? I hear that behind his beard lives an inordinately large prime number of fists.

Re:Rogue-like

[WrongSizeGlass]

If this is the case then why is storage relevant?

Because we need a reasonable technical excuse for these impositions not being deployed upon our beings. Either way I'm not worried because I have AT&T, so my 3G coverage will make my life look like a bad version of the Nixon Whitehouse Tapes.

Re:Rogue-like

[oldspewey]

An attacker could theoretically just jam the frequencies that the recorder/transmitter uses, and then attack you

Which attacker? You mean the scab-ridden meth addict who's waiting over by that mailbox while I finish my ATM withdrawl? Or the drunken neanderthal at the bar who thinks I'm staring at his girlfriend and decides he needs to prove some kind of point?

... or did you mean the computer nerd who's going to come up out of his basement and attack me as a way of testing that his latest jamming device actually works?

Re:Rogue-like

[Pharmboy]

Is it just me, or do you live in a really, really bad neighborhood? Most people in my town just die of heart attacks, cancer, or car wrecks, with the occassional random act of violence. Not that this device is a good idea (unless you are the one selling them) but most people tend to die in ways that are less worthy of a James Bond movie plot.

As for being a witness for "every crime that ever happens near you", how many felonious crimes do you personally witness in the average day? I'm not talking copyright infringement, but about muggings, rapes, murder, burglary, robbery, etc. If your answer is > .009, you need to move. Soon.

Re:Rogue-like

[geekboy642]

You and Bruce both are thinking in a very depressingly straight-forward manner. This isn't for watching 9 hours of typing or to protect you against a theoretical pipe-wielding villain who doesn't know about disguises. You would use these to shore up a fallible memory, or for evidence in a lawsuit, or to save more images of your spouse before s/he passed away. The security implications are amusing, but trite. Ultimately, complete life recording is like the NSA's scheme with the Internet: Record enough garbage, and you'll be nearly certain to catch the important bits.

Re:Rogue-like

[Attila Dimedici]

It's illegal in Illinois to record anyone without their permission, and nothing recorded without someone's permission can be used in court here.

I call it the "liar's law". But this tech won't help any Illinois crime victims.

There is a good reason for such laws. I used to work for a guy who regularly recorded people (n violation of the law) and then egged them to say things that he thought he could use to fire them (he had two business partners, which limited his ability to fire people on a whim). He would delete where he had said inflammatory and demeaning things first. After the HR person told him that he couldn't use those recordings because they were illegal, he engineered a confrontation with her and fired her (she is now suing for wrongful termination).

Re:Rogue-like

[Posting=!Working]

If these actually caught on, you'd be able to buy the $20 life camera jammer from the trunk of a car along with the $100 Hi-Point 9mm. Just because they need to be developed by geeks doesn't mean that, once developed, they can't then be made cheaply, even by morons. And there are plenty of geek criminals, too, it's not that hard to build a jamming device.\

Drunks and people on meth are notoriously bad at thinking of long term consequences. If a drunk is going to hit you, warning him that he might get arrested is not going to stop him. If a meth addict needs your money for meth, taking his picture isn't going to deter him at all.

Re:Rogue-like

[Thanshin]

most people tend to die in ways that are less worthy of a James Bond movie plot.

Most people don't need permanent recording of their lives to avoid being attacked.

So either you don't need the device, or you do and it's useless.

As for being a witness for "every crime that ever happens near you", how many felonious crimes do you personally witness in the average day?

How many muggings happen near enough that the criminal may think I had recorded his face?
How many people may think I had recorded their face somewhere they shouldn't be?

If I stay in the center plaza of my current city, Madrid, with an omnidirectional camera I assure you I'd record several dozens of pickpockets.

If I crossed that same plaza, alone, with the recording device hanging from my neck I don't think I'd still be carrying it by the time I reached the other side.

Re:Rogue-like

[DavidTC]

Yeah, but locking them up will reduce the number of violent stupid people on the streets.

Almost no security system beyond physical barricades works by protecting you. They work by raising the cost and consequences of committing crime in general.

And this article is 100% right. At some point, people will start transmitting audio and video of everything they do, hopefully to a server under their control.

At that point, when the number of people hit a high enough percentage that that criminals actually start running across them, crime will fundamentally change.

Sadly, it will probably change in a pretty crappy way at first, as criminal start going after poor people, who don't have such devices yet. (Criminals tend not to rob poor people much now, because, duh, they don't have any money.) In much the same way that all installing cameras does is that criminals avoid their line of sight.

But, eventually, it will work where security cameras failed, because a) it goes where the people are, and b) it unlike random security cameras, actual victims (Or surviving family members.) of crimes have an incentive to actually review the footage.

And that's not even getting into other aspects of this, like providing alibis. Yes, video footage can be tampered with, but that's when you look at your footage of yourself on the other side of town, find a guy who passed you, and get the police to track down him and his footage with your clearly in it. (And while video footage can be faked, it's a lot harder if it doesn't have endpoints. If it shows you wandering around your house for two hours, including past a mirror, and then the police coming in to arrest you...that requires a technical skill level that would be hard to pull off for the NSA, much less some random guy, and it would be somewhat absurd for you to do it to be able to be out robbing someone's house.)

And eventually, we're going to get smart enough computers to actually parse the scene, and realize there is a crime in progress, and alert the police, or, for even more fun, all surrounding people. (Who can now respond in relative safety because they're wearing such cameras also.) Imagine a flash mob, armed with streaming cameras, and probably a gun or two, showing up at a mugging.

At some point, crimes are going to be limited to 'crimes of passion', where an argument gets out of hand or whatever, and incredibly well plotted crimes like something out of a murder mystery movie, where people are undetectably poisoned, or an action TV show, where hired assassins snipe people. The vast majority of crimes, at least violent ones, in the middle are going away.

I'm not sure what will happen to things like cons and pickpocketing. The criminal can be photographed much easier, but I'm not sure if that will help. And I expect a rise in blackmailing.

Re:Rogue-like

[salemnic]

Why would anyone want to work for such a jerk?

Re:Rogue-like

[swillden]

Those tactics wouldn't work if the other person had their own recorder. In fact, they'd backfire.

Re:Rogue-like

[b4dc0d3r]

Change your thinking from "how many do you see per day" to "how many happen near you that you might have unknowningly recorded".

If you are in the area, and police are aware of your recording capabilities, they're going to ask you where you were. It might not be a court order, and you can probably refuse to answer, but if they are following every possible lead you're on the radar.

How would police know about you? Simple, you're going to look odd and they are going to ask questions at least once. Especially in a traffic scenario. They hate being recorded, so you're just as much a threat as as resource depending on where you live. Bottom line, you're likely to be noticed and once noticed likely to be used if at all possible.

Look at any typical city, find the local newspaper's website, and look at the number of crimes committed. "Police respond to..." means a potential crime - there's at least one a week. Where were you mister-record-everything guy, when the liquor store got knocked over, or the bank, or were you out walking when this home invasion occurred?

It doesn't matter how many you personally witness, it matters that they happen and you're potentially nearby. Your drive to work might go right by the liquor store, maybe even while it was robbed. You didn't see anything, but the camera caught the vehicles in the parking lot.

The "even worse" scenario is walking by a crime, not knowing about it, and being seen recording everything. Now the criminal has to get rid of a witness. I believe that's what Thanshin meant. You don't even have to see it, just be near enough that you seem like you might have recorded it. And once a criminal introduces himself to you by saying "Did you just record me killing that old lady for her purse?" you're in trouble. It only has to happen once in your lifetime to be a major bummer.

The original point was "every attack on you personally will be recorded," which has nothing to do with the number of crimes people witness per day. Every attack will be recorded, but it will be useless for the list of crimes posted above you, negating a lot of the benefit. Recorded but useless is not a prime selling point.

Re:Rogue-like

[KDR_11k]

Eaten by a grue (would be too dark to record)...

Hmm...

[ShadowDragoonFTW]

I don't like the privacy concerns if something like that was ever stolen or linked into...

Hunny!

[TheKidWho]

"Hunny, I demand you have your life recorder on you at ALL times!"

Please don't try to make this practical.

Re:Hunny!

[maxume]

I'm pretty sure you are well past "She's not worth it" if you are having that discussion.

Can't use it in MD

[ColdBoot]

MD is a 2 party consent state - can't use it here!

Re:Can't use it in MD

[cenobyte40k]

Sure you can. In MD they use security camera's all the time. In fact I have seen hidden security cameras in MD. The only time consent for taking your picture or recording is necessary is when one or more parties have assumed privacy. IE in there own home, on the phone, etc. Once you are in public is doesn't matter. Consent BTW doesn't have to be in writing either. If the camera is obvious that's good enough.

Re:Can't use it in MD

[TheNinjaroach]

Sure you can.

No, not as far as audio is concerned. You cannot tape conversations in MD - even in public - if you do not have consent of both parties. Police in Baltimore use and abuse this law on a regular basis when they are filmed in public. Fark or Slashdot had a story on this many months ago.

It already exists

[kaldari]

A little pricey, but you can already buy such a thing: http://wearcam.org/domewear/

Copyrights?

[Thiez]

Good luck getting into a cinema wearing one of those.

The Final Cut

[omnichad]

And they can make a great highlight video of your life to show at your funeral. Whether you were a good man or a bad man is all in the hands of the editor.

Re:The Final Cut

[phulshof]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364343/
That one you mean?

Law Enforcement Implications

[Anonymous Coward]

Cops do not like being recorded by civilians.

Expect to be harrassed, criminally charged with trumped-up charges, maybe even have illegal drugs or weapons planted on you, and in extreme cases possibly even get beaten up or even killed (depending on your location) as a result of recording any interaction with police.

Re:Law Enforcement Implications

[Spatial]

No, that's what happens when you don't record them.

Re:Law Enforcement Implications

[linzeal]

That's why these should be immediately installed in every cop badge in the country.

Re:Law Enforcement Implications

[allcaps]

Without their knowledge.

Re:Law Enforcement Implications

[lite99]

Rather, we only need the knowledge - every cop gets a badge that is said to contain a camera. Much cheaper than actually recording, and touches the root of the problem. We don't want cops that beat us and get convicted with cam footage; we want cops that don't beat us to begin with.

Bicycling

[ciaohound]

How about a bicycle-ride recorder, for the next time someone throws trash at you or yells obscenities.

Re:Bicycling

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a bicycle-ride recorder, so law enforcement can ticket bike riders for not obeying traffic laws like they are supposed to?

Re:Bicycling

[maxume]

Bicycles are traffic.

There are restrictions, such as freeways, but this is true for most roads.

Re:Bicycling

[HungryHobo]

You forgot the most likely scenario:

The drivers are malicious arseholes.

You know the ones.
The ignorant dickheads who think that cyclists have no right to be on heavily used roads.

Re:Bicycling

[Hatta]

Obey the traffic laws and I won't yell obscenities at you. That includes riding on the road in the correct direction, passing me on the left unless I'm turning left, and coming to a complete stop at stop signs. I can't tell you how many people I've nearly hit because they thought a line of cars at a stop sign meant they could just speed past everyone on the right and blow through the intersection.

Re:Bicycling

[Surt]

Right, those two issues are balanced. One threatens the life of the bicycle rider. The other ... threatens the life of the bicycle rider.

Re:Bicycling

[HungryHobo]

please stop thinking that you can force others to do what you want.

Stop trying to get people to do what you want and instead do what I want!!!

Re:Bicycling

[Hatta]

No sir. I hate cars. I drive a beat up 15 year old honda accord with everything stock. I'd love to share the road. It's just that about half the time when I see a cyclist he ends up breaking the law in some way that endangers his safety and my driving record. As a result, when I see a cyclist the first thing that goes through my head is "uh oh, what's this guy going to try to pull".

One thing that I see all the time is passing on the right. I may pull behind a cyclist and be stuck going 10 mph for a few minutes until I can pass. That's ok, I pull around into the left lane and give him plenty of space. After I get around him we get to a stop light. Instead of stopping behind me, the cyclist pulls all the way up to the intersection, illegally passing me on the right. If I'm lucky, I'm just stuck behind him again. If I'm unlucky, I nearly hit him as I turn right and he blows right through the intersection.

If there were a bike lane, I'd be fine with that. I am very much in favor of installing bike lanes around my city, and they are working on it. But until then, remember you have to obey all the laws cars do.

Re:Bicycling

[maxume]

Especially the ones that you notice, right?

Re:Bicycling

[Hatta]

See, this is the kind of stuff that gives cyclists a bad name. I suggest you follow the laws, and I get threatened. You're not going to garner much sympathy from anyone that way.

My suggestion that you follow the laws is as much for your safety as my convenience. I *really* don't want to hit someone because he decided his momentum was worth more than his safety.

Stealth as the only option

[Zero_DgZ]

I sort of use something like this today, in the gritty old present day.

In my car I've got one of my old PDA's mounted instead of a GPS device. It's rather firmly permanently mounted to the dash until you take all the bezels off and unscrew it from the back, so I consider its risk for theft fairly low. Also, it's not mounted in the usual look-at-me GPS area but down by the driver's side kick plate.

Anyway, I have it there because I use Pocket Excel (don't laugh) to keep track of all my invoices and orders for the day. I also have a mapping program installed, and obviously it uses GPS. I've successfully used it to defuse two frivolous traffic tickets by less-than-scrupulous police officers: Once by making it a policy to keep all of my GPS logs, and once by happening to have a hotkey for the note taker "record" function bound, so I could easily and silently (also legally, in this state!) record everything the lying police officer said.

I've also seen on DealExtreme and other places some always-on, rolling-record capable video cameras for mounting wherever, and I've been tempted to pick one up and mount it in my car, police car style. Mailing a CD-R every month to the local precinct with video of their police officers flagrantly breaking traffic laws would be optional, but probably a lot of fun the first couple of times.

Remember: Big Brother is only bad for you if you are not personally Big Brother!

Doesn't have to be that big

[cenobyte40k]

It doesn't need to have that much space. Anything over a day is more than enough for now, sure as storage and power gets smaller and cheaper having days,weeks,months or years will happen, but I think we will start to see them before they get all the way to a year at a time. Oh and when are we going to make the cops wear them? Can we start doing that now? As we know cops are involved with more violence per capita than any other group of citizens annually, year after year. (With the exception of maybe solders)

I want it - For My Car

[StCredZero]

I want such a device, but not for my person. I'd want it on my car with 360-degree coverage, but no audio. I'd like to have a record of all of my interactions with traffic police. If there's no audio, then it doesn't fall afoul of recorder laws. It would also be dandy for catching people who dent your car in parking lots. Also, I've been in the occasional traffic accident and I know that people lie in that situation.

Of course, have it encrypt its content using RSA and randomly generated session keys, so that only I would be able to decrypt the recordings. (Even if an attacker hacks the hardware! You'd have to be able to read the RAM while the session keys were resident. You could even get around this with some judicious White Box encryption. )

Unless they mug you for your life recorder

[petes_PoV]

so that no one can attack you without being recorded.

recording a crime is one thing, still having the recording afterwards is another. Having a sufficiently high quality record of the assailant's voice or image is yet another. This thing might, just be usful as a "black box" in a car, but to have it strapped to your person? Nah!

I'm mounting mine on my glasses

[alispguru]

Stereo mikes on the temples, heads-up display on the lenses, wirelessly connected to the wallet-sized CPU/Internet-connection box. I want it clearly stated that the US 5th Amendment covers this, though.

Lapels?

[rwade]

A "life recorder" you can wear on your lapel

Who wears jackets with lapels all day anymore? This is not an irrelevant question -- I'm not sure where I'd put this thing if I were wearing just a t-shirt.

Islands in the Net

[mattr]

In Bruce Sterling's Islands in the Net, the protagonist wears video sunglasses (1988). Streaming to the net live is seen as a shield. Even now, clearly it would be safer to stream it than carry the video on you.

No bets about quality of the recording. However a cue might be taken from the "smart bandaid" wireless health sensors that are being developed now, with enough power to reach a wristwatch or pocket device. What market opportunity (and perhaps technological advance) needs to be presented to camera manufacturers in order to get them to package small wireless audio/video sensors for the mass market?

OMG!!!

[owlnation]

It's like twitter with moving pictures.

Here's some footage of me taking a dump...

And it will only make it so much easier for every cheap whore celebutard to release a sex tape, or some other low-life publicity stunt.

Do NOT want.

I don't even know where to begin.

[dotfile]

How many things are wrong with this kooky idea? Completely ineffective if you're attacked from behind, if your assailant wears a mask, if the attack happens at night, etc. Of course the very FIRST thing that's going to get stolen is your "life recorder", so now your mugger knows your ATM PIN code, all your passwords, your address, your home, your family, your friends, EVERYTHING. Your "life recorder" will of course provide evidence against you in any trial. Your employer will use it to prove you've been slacking off or sneaking off to your car for a company policy prohibited smoke. Use your imagination, there's almost NO upside to this.

If you live in constant fear of being attacked, you either need counseling or you REALLY need to move somewhere else. This country is full of small towns, medium sized cities, and even larger cities where you will be quite safe.

Re:In illinois

[the_Bionic_lemming]

I'm not worried about needing it.

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

But many other states have similar injunctions, and allow for civil action against the recording individual. And, there is a caveat that all audio portion of the recording can or does fall under the wiretapping laws of the state.

BS on 200GB/year for audio

[Rockoon]

The assumption the author is making is that there is always something to record. I'm pretty sure that the 1/3rd of the year that a person sleeps will contain highly compressible audio, not to mention the fact that he seems to think that a 64kbps bitrate is a requirement.

Regular telephone quality audio (from the "you can hear a pin drop" era) was considered to be about 8,000 samples per/second, which is in fact 64kbps for an 8-bit sample depth. This is uncompressed recording here. TFA can't beat uncompressed telephone quality audio? Really?

A shame..

[greyworld]

When I read the article, I thought - thats a great device, something to record my life, like a diary.
Then I realised it was conceived as anti violent crime device. Thats so depressing, Its not magic diary, its a bulletproof vest for daily life!
Why are Americans so afraid of violence?
How many good ideas get subverted in the name of personal protection?
I found that really sad.. Andrew

too much obstacles in law

[azgard]

Unfortunately, it is probably very unlawful to do it. I like the idea, I wouldn't mind it at all, if only I had access to the recording and could switch it off.

Various people mentioned laws against it, and also need for explicit consent (as opposed to implicit disagreement with someone doing that, which would be an alternative in society where such device is commonplace). I see another problem - at work, I work as a programmer, and it would be illegal for me to videotape my work and take it away.

Motto "Life-recorder. Better than a pre-nup."

[GuyFawkes]

Seriously, lots of guys / cops / teachers falsely accused of various shit could rent these at a thousand bucks a month, and still end up way ahead on money alone, plus they'd keep their jobs and reputations.