EU Surveillance Studies Disclosed By Pirate Party

Spliffster writes "The German Pirate Party has disclosed some secret documents on how the EU is planning to monitor citizens. The so called INDECT Documents describe how a seamless surveillance could (or should) be implemented across Europe. The use of CCTV cameras, the Internet (social networks), and even the use of UAVs are mentioned as data sources. Two of the nine documents can be downloaded from the German Pirate Party's website (PDFs in English)."

Comments

This is why we vote Pirate

[Local ID10T]

No thank you to the surveillance state... we have all seen Metropolis, and as cool as it was, we don't want to live there.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[Compaqt]

US: GPS scanners on cars
India: Blackberry keys/40-bit encryption
UAE: Etelisat certificate/man-in-the-middle
Germany: INDECT
UK: CCTV/Echelon

People everywhere are under attack by the armed gangs otherwise known as government. Then we have the gang union (UN)'s telecoms guy saying companies need to work with governments.

People need to stop fighting each other and unite against their own governments.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[Gordonjcp]

I don't see how you can equate CCTV in the UK with the mess that the US has got itself into. Firstly, the oft-quoted 4 million cameras is a figure made up by one of the far-right tabloid newpapers based on the number of cameras in about a quarter mile of the main street of a fairly rough part of London. If that figure was even remotely accurate, you'd pass a CCTV camera every 50 metres or so on every road in the UK right down to farm tracks.

Here's the kicker. Every major city in the US has got just as much CCTV surveillance as London! Yes, you're "spied on" just as much in New York as you are in London, and you've got armed police ready and willing to shoot you, too. It must be awful living in the US, with that constant threat over you all the time.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[Ziekheid]

How is INDECT Germany only? Also Echelon is a project from both the UK and the US. Your examples are a bit random dear sir.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[Requiem18th]

Yes, it is, you can't even gather people without begging for permission to the government. It only seems like it is not an issue when you are a passive consumer working for the system. Try to even speak your mind against the government outside of a free speech cage in a way that doesn't make you look like a raving lunatic and you'll get the police sent after you.

http://youtu.be/akwjAjcQnqM

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[Gordonjcp]

The royal family don't really have anything to do with government. They're more of a tourist attraction. I prefer the zoo, myself.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[Custard Horse]

At least we have diversity in government. When are you English cads going to have a black royal. Our first black members of congress were seated in the 1800's, when are you getting a black Duke?

That's a little simplistic. The royal family is a 'family' and no control can be exerted over them - they marry whomever they marry. Are you suggesting that the British public somehow force a non-white person into the family?

Moreover, there is no shortage of cultural diversity in the royal family. The queen is basically German her husband is Greek. Or do you only measure cultural diversity by the colour of somebody's skin? Shame on you.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[Dumnezeu]

Yes, he should have included ALL the surveillance methods ever used and ever to be used. Just a few scary samples isn't enough (at least for you...)

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[JambisJubilee]

and you've got armed police ready and willing to shoot you, too. It must be awful living in the US, with that constant threat over you all the time.

Sadly, this is true and one of the main reasons I'm afraid to move back to the US. The police are horribly corrupt. Cops can beat you, shoot you, steal your things, whatever. There is absolutely no recourse either, and the worst that can happen to a cop is for him/her to get paid leave.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[LingNoi]

Yes, it is, you can't even gather people without begging for permission to the government.

You'd prefer uncontrolled mass riots? Let me give you a clear example of what happens from one I recently experienced first hand in Thailand.

People gather, everything is good, they're annoying but not causing any trouble. Splinter groups start getting violent and causing trouble. They attack the police and military there to move them out with grenade launchers and ak47s. It turns into a full blown riot with people getting killed and destroying property. Next you know, the whole city center is on fire.

So cry me a river about your right to form mass uncontrolled protests without police planning and assistance.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[VShael]

Two things : 1) The UK is hardly alone in being under the umbrella of Echelon.
2) Echelon now has about the same level of secrecy as Area 51. i.e. it's virtually entirely public knowledge at this point, and has been superseded by systems you have never heard of.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[jandersen]

People everywhere are under attack by the armed gangs otherwise known as government.

Argh! Get a life already. You sound like one of those Tea Party Tossers who can see nothing good about society - in the "good old days" you guys seem to be longing for, you would have been called misfits or weirdos.

Try using your brains for once, assuming you've got some: Being seen by others is part of life, unless you are a recluse on a desert island. "Surveillance" as you call it gives you many benefits: if you crash with your car, chances are that you'll be helped by those nice folks known as paramedics; if you get mugged somewhere or your business is broken into, having a few CCTV cameras around can help put the bastards away, and so on.

It is not the monitoring that should worry you, it is the secresy. When information is kept away from public scrutiny, that is when criminals start infecting things. IMO monitoring is OK, but make the information freely available to the public; seeing how crap like Big Brother, Twitter and Facebook attract crowds, such a scheme might prove hugely popular.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[rtb61]

Arse about face much. Those riots are the result of a police state and by no stretch of the imagination do peaceful protest create the police state. When the state seeks to monitor all individuals all of the time it does so with the express intent of controlling those individuals all of the time. Express an undesirable opinion and get fired, company won't fire company loses lucrative contracts. Once fired never again gain a one of the few remaining middle class jobs and if that isn't enough all your relatives also lose their opportunities.

Now add random arrests based upon circumstantial digital evidence where the penalty is the imprisonment awaiting trial and the cost of the trial followed by a whoops and a rinse and repeat for another charge (each time it is repeated under public opinion the more likely you are guilty rather than innocent, now ain't that a kicker).

A surveillance society from the top down. First the politicians, then the police and then the rich and greedy. If they can tolerate their life under surveillance 24/7 visible by general public and not end up in prison within a couple of years, than we can start talking about the rest of society. First and foremost police officers should be made to wear head mounted cameras whilst on duty and with a strict enforcement policy that they are never to commence arrest operations until the camera has been activated, with greater power comes greater responsibility and greater accountability. If the police refuse why the fuck should we accept it.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[Luckyo]

Honestly, this isn't so much "gang known as government" as "gang known as intelligence community". Vast majority, in fact almost entire government is formed of various social workers, bureaucrats and so on. Even most police rarely have access, or even want such networks to exist, as they understand the consequences.

This is a small minority on top of the government, some intelligence agencies, largely with agreement from corporate heads, as without their support modern western government heads don't even sneeze nowadays.

And sad reality is, that due to the way our election system was perverted over the course of last century, we no longer choose our candidates. Big parties and corporate heads choose them for us. We just get to vote which of the choices is the better one in our opinion. People who actually want to represent people, rather then obey the system do not get high enough to matter. There are multiple failsafes in the political system to make sure of this.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[muckracer]

> My question is simply this.

> Why?

Because "Yes, we can!"

> Does the government think the populace is going to go crazy and need constant monitoring?

Yes.

> A fear of Zombies?

Yes.

> Why is there a need to keep an eye on us all the time?

Because "Yes, we can!"

> If you make enough laws, everyone can be considered a criminal but this seems to be a case of severe paranoia.

Yes.

> And of course the private ventures or bureaucrats and politicians with their fingers in the pot appreciate the growth industry that the public's taxes will pay for.

Yes.

Glad to be of help :-)

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[MichaelSmith]

The royal family don't really have anything to do with government. They're more of a tourist attraction. I prefer the zoo, myself.

I don't know about the UK but here in Australia the constitution is a thin booklet which basically says The Queen is in charge of Australia and may or may not decide to take advice from a Parliament which may or may not exist.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[buchner.johannes]

US: GPS scanners on cars
India: Blackberry keys/40-bit encryption
UAE: Etelisat certificate/man-in-the-middle
Germany: INDECT
UK: CCTV/Echelon

You are comparing apples and oranges. INDECT is not a surveillance operation, it is a study on surveillance algorithms/techniques. Sure it is a bit shady, and they probably have access to some collected data sets, but in the core it is a research project, studying methods of assisting the focus of humans that watch camera walls. For instance, "suspicious behaviour detection" ... of course it will never work perfectly.

The great thing about surveillance is that it doesn't work, for once because personnel to dig through all the data is required. INDECT tries to cover this aspect.

It's not exactly some shady organisation doing secret stuff in their bunker. The document lists ~20 universities that collaborate on that. They are the ones to be asked what they are actually researching on, and whether it is ethical. That happened, and unfortunately INDECT decided to remove the documents from their website ( http://www.indect-project.eu/ ), citing that the researchers don't get to researching because they have to answer questions all day long ...

This story is so old by now ...

However, contrary to US/UK, central Europe, and especially Germany has resistance against surveillance and has a culture of privacy (in the sense of "right to be left alone").

People everywhere are under attack by the armed gangs otherwise known as government. Then we have the gang union (UN)'s telecoms guy saying companies need to work with governments.

People have the government they deserve -- Joseph de Maistre. Especially in democracies.

People need to stop fighting each other and unite against their own governments.

Politicians are not a separate species. They are people like you and me.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[mlush]

There are 397,403 km of paved road in the UK so that makes it about 1 camera / 100 meters

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[cheekyjohnson]

"You'd prefer uncontrolled mass riots?"

I'd rather be allowed to protest in an "uncontrolled" group than allow the government to decide what is appropriate for me to protest and abuse its powers in any and every way it can. The constitution mentions *no* exceptions to protests. What good is it if they're just going to ignore the parts that they don't like? Law of the land? Yeah, right. It's sad when violent riots occur, but it's worth it to at least be able to protest in the first place.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[almitchell]

I am displeased with my need to respond to you, but here goes: Are you high? Really? Afraid to move back to the US? What kind of habits, lifestyle, and hobbies do you have that would put you in the path of police to get arrested and have all these horrible terrible things happen to you? What kind of social group do you move in to put yourself into the path of police to have your rights so horribly terribly violated? Good god, man, move to Russia if you really want to be afraid of sh*t. Or Belarus. Or Somalia. Or Greece. Or Columbia.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

The royal family is a 'family' and no control can be exerted over them - they marry whomever they marry...

... unless of course they marry a Catholic or an American divorcee, in which cases they lose their claim to the throne...

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[Rich0]

Well, the reality is that police do everything he mentioned, but it is only some of the police, and it is relatively infrequent. In the US, you're probably only a little more likely to be abused by a police officer than you are to die in an airplane crash. Generally you have to end up interacting with police for that to happen. Being a criminal of course is the easiest way to end up dealing with the police. However, ticking off a neighbor or an ex-spouse, or just being really unlucky can get you there as well.

I don't think I'd consider this as a reason to not move to the US, unless you also use airline safety statistics to decide what country to live in.

However, to outright dismiss his concerns is to take the opposite extreme. We certainly take airline safety seriously, and this is less of a problem than police corruption. Reforms are clearly needed, since nobody should have any reason to fear anything but due processes if they are accused of a crime.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[maxume]

You just spoke your mind against the government.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[El Torico]

Here's the kicker. Every major city in the US has got just as much CCTV surveillance as London! Yes, you're "spied on" just as much in New York as you are in London, and you've got armed police ready and willing to shoot you, too. It must be awful living in the US, with that constant threat over you all the time.

Yes, it's so awful that millions of people immigrate here every year.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[Bucc5062]

I think the point you missed was the splinter groups that use a uncontrolled "peaceful" protest to spark conflict. I am all for assembly to protest. In a saner world I even agree to keeping the authority out of it especially if I am protesting against that said authority, peacefully.

Today it seems that peaceful turns violent because of an agenda on the fringe to provoke attack. Peaceful assembly still has to be lawful aseembly or the point is lost. The King marches, sits down, those worked because when the violence came, it was so out of proportion to the protest it solidified support. Want to make a statement, get 10,000 people to go to Washington and protest with a sit in at the capitol. Make the police drag them away and as one leaves, one enters. There is a point when those in charge will listen much more so then if violence was used. Violent riots are worthless and tend to do more harm than good.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[DrugCheese]

Reforms are clearly needed, since nobody should have any reason to fear anything but due processes if they are accused of a crime.

If we're to put cameras up why not equip each police officer with a wireless cam that transmits the signal through their car live over the internet. As soon as they sign in it has to be on until they sign out. They can be logged and archived and would probably do a lot of good in court. You'd also hear a ton of them whine about it cause they'd have to change their behavior.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[PopeRatzo]

People everywhere are under attack by the armed gangs otherwise known as government.

You think the governments are doing this for themselves? They are under pressure to keep an "orderly" society for the sake of commerce.

People need to stop fighting each other and unite against their own governments.

People need to remember that they're governments are just themselves and unite against the real enemy.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[Speare]

The police who engage in beatings, theft, coercion, punishment tazering, etc., are bad and deserve to lose their jobs, no doubt about it. There are a lot of cops who say that there are very few "bad cops" but every cop who remains silent to protect such thuggery is a bad cop.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[mcvos]

It doesn't matter what you do to get the police to trample all over your rights. The problem is that the police can trample all over those rights in the first place, and can do so with practical impunity. That makes the country essentially a police state. (Whether it's effectively a police state depends on to what extend the police actually makes use of that power.)

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[Shillo]

Seems somebody has to point out to you that jobs below minimal wage are not available to legal workers.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[piraat]

And sometimes it's not even splinter groups, but the police itself! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAfzUOx53Rg

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[delinear]

Not to mention that the law against assembly without permission only punishes law-abiding citizens. If a bunch of people want to gather together to illegally riot, they're not going to be put off by a law telling them they can't do it, since what they're planning is a worse crime anyway, and as we've seen in the past, even when there is permission granted to peacefully protest, this can be hijacked by rioters with an agenda, so the whole reasoning behind the law is flawed. This law is aimed at limiting peaceful protests, not preventing violent ones. There might be some validity to that (for instance, if you know a town centre is going to be gridlocked you might want to arrange traffic police to help, or set up diversions) but really sufficient notice should be the requirement, i.e. we tell the authorities a march is going to happen on this date, and they have the choice to deploy police to help or not but they should not have the right to just outlaw the gathering.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[commodore64_love]

>>>So cry me a river about your right to form mass uncontrolled protests without police planning and assistance.

If that's how you feel, then change the law. Until you make that change, the law is quite clear. PA Constitution: "The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty."

The latter allows the police to deal with people destroying property, but the first part allows the People to speak their minds (and that right is further reinforced by the national Constitution). That is the law and if you disagree with it, then alter it to strike-out the "free speech" part.

In the meantime those Pittsburgh protesters in the video had done nothing wrong, and had every right to stand there and speak their minds, per the Law of this Sovereign State.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[mcgrew]

In 1970 there was a massive, peaceful protest against the Vietnam war at Kent State University. The government reacted by killing protesters.

I was a senior in high school when it happened, about a month before graduation. It was a relly big deal at the time, all over the news.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[AnarChaos]

i totally agree with you on this, i don't think CCTV or however you want to call it will solve anything, on the contrary... it gives governments and police a very powerful tool to dominate the masses ("we have proof you know!") while at the same time it leaves "them" (authorities, cops,...) in a position where they can cover up their own actions. This reminds me of David Brin's masterpiece "Earth", in which the "right to privacy" was swapped around into a "right to knowledge". If police/politicians demand cameras on every streetcorner to monitor the people, then we as people should "arm" ourselves with cameras as well and make sure we have footage of their actions as well, so we can provide "proof against proof" if need be! it's about time we demand transparancy from our ruling elites! (and yup, that also means ending the secrecy of banks) Freedom is not free, it requires a continuous struggle against those who seek to take it from us by force or deception!

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[delinear]

Maybe I'm failing to see the bigger picture, but how does the question of whether a protest is controlled or uncontrolled have any bearing on whether it is hijacked by a splinter group with an agenda? Here in the UK we can now only have controlled assemblies by law, yet we still have riots, even as recently as last year with the G20 riots (where 350+ people were arrested). Use traffic flow or commerce or politically/religious/ethnic sensitivity or whatever other reason you can think of to justify laws controlling peaceful assembly, but don't use the fear of riots because we are living proof that riots happen regardless. On the other hand, when a million people turn up in the capital to protest an illegal war and the government presses on regardless, you can begin to understand why a frustrated handful of people think violence is the answer - after all, the government is setting the example.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[dkleinsc]

You'd prefer uncontrolled mass riots? Let me give you a clear example of what happens from one I recently experienced first hand in Thailand.

Let me give you a clear example of what happens from what a lot of people experienced in Chicago in 1968:
People gather, everything is good, and they aren't annoying anybody really. The police decide to unlawfully break up the protest. It turns into a full blown police riot.

Or if that examples goes too far back, you can look at Los Angeles in 2007.

A fair number of police want protests to get violent, some because beating up protesters makes them feel powerful, some because they disagree with the protesters politically, and some because their bosses fall into one of the first two groups. The real kicker is that a lot of the protesters that get beaten up by cops are frequently charged with assaulting a police officer.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[mcgrew]

Well, the reality is that police do everything he mentioned, but it is only some of the police, and it is relatively infrequent. In the US, you're probably only a little more likely to be abused by a police officer than you are to die in an airplane crash.

You don't read much news, do you? A friend of mine got in trouble after a nasty divorce, and died in agony in the Sangamon County Jail. There's hardly a month goes by when someone from the Springfield Police Department doesn't kill someone, usually a crazy person. There are more people here dying at the hands of the police or jailors than there are civilian murders, and far more than people dying in crashes.

You can't hardly read the Chicago Tribune without reading about Chicago cops killing or beating the shit out of an innocent person. The police are out of control, at least in Illinois.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[Gordonjcp]

There's a big block of wood and a very sharp axe in the Tower of London. We keep it sharp, because it's good to keep up the old ways.

I don't think you're allowed to have anything like that in the US. As far as I can tell, it's illegal to even talk about such a thing there.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[Bucc5062]

Hold on, the Government did not set out to kill people at Kent. I was a teenager myself at the time, it was a horrific act, but based on stupidity, not government orders ("Kill all the hippies" does not seem plausible.)

The basic point I make is that violence is generally met with violence. When untrained kids come armed with weapons to a protest then the potential for bullets flying get raised. When tensions are high it is bound to result in a more ugly release of that tension. Almost every effective protest was found and acted upon with non-violence. In couterpoint, riots around would meetings tend to turn people away from the message because that sight of burning cars and running people give better news feed then rational/reasoned actions.

I'll confess, I've never been oppressed, subjugated, or limited in my life. I cannot fathom the courage it takes to stand in the front line of a march on Birmingham, the salt mines of India, or the streets of Burma. What I see is those that stood, and stood against the violence, stoof in non-violence, even to the point of pain or death made more difference then any riot. The riots in Chicago didn't change the conditions there, same with Watts, same with Bangkok today. It only showed the world that people in chaos can bring about destruction, not construction.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[carp3_noct3m]

Just have to point out, that Echelon makes the rest of what you talked about look like a .20 megapixel camera comared to a true HDR videocamera.. It is a AUSCANZUKUS program, but the real genius behind it is the NSA. The echelon program was started in about 71 as best as we can tell, but has evolved into a monster that no one person knows all about (including the oversight committee) and has technology that is years ahead of the rest of the world. One recent comparison on the matter that has stuck in my head, is that at the Spy Museam in DC, there is (not sure if it is still there) a dragonfly fitted with a microphone for spying on people without drawing attention. The catch? It was developed over 26 years ago... just imagine where they are today. It should also be noted that while the NSA gets a lot of attention, the CIA's office of Science and Technology is at about the same level, and they share a lot of projects and information.

TLDR : Echelon dwarfs just about everything else, and is already implemented....

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[mcgrew]

True, the government didn't say "kill the hippies", but they did in fact send National Guardsmen armed with automatic rifles to a peaceful protest where none of the protesters were armed. There was no need to say "kill the hippies", it was inevitable. Theose guardsmen were, in fact, part of Ohio's government.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[delinear]

They hardly cost the country billions, £37M is barely enough to put together a premier football team these days. In return I like the fact that we don't have a president - the power of the monarchy might only be theoretical these days but it's a reminder that parliament is not meant to be an absolute power, and the royals themselves contribute a lot in terms of bringing tourism (around £500m per year) and business investment to the country. I used to be anti-monarchy, and I'll admit I still like to grumble about them from time to time, and they do seem to enjoy making life difficult for themselves with contoversial public actions, but I've come around to thinking they probably are, on balance, good for the country.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[dryeo]

You're thinking of when they executed the King in the mid-1600's (executed in 1649) and replaced him with a Lord-Protector, a King in all but name. True that parliament was in charge in theory but their army kept the opposition party out. I guess you could call it a republic but puritan dictatorship would be more accurate.
In the late 1600's was the glorious revolution where parliament kicked out the current King (James II) and replaced him with a Dutch man and his Wife, the daughter of the King.
This was when Parliament became supreme, the coronation oath was changed to one where the monarch swore to upheld the laws of parliament and they even passed a bill of rights in 1689.
Since then the monarchy has has very little actual power.
This is why it is always funny when Americans talk about George III being a tyrant, it was Parliament that created the laws by then.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate

[Some Bitch]

If you had the courage of your conviction you'd eliminate your regency altogether.

What, so we can replace it with a politically motivated head of state? Fuck that! The queen is our last line of defence against corrupt politicians, should things get bad enough she can refuse royal assent and the shit hits the fan. At that point if she doesn't have the overwhelming backing of the populace the monarchy is over, if she does have the backing then we can expect a general election. That's why it's a better system than an elected president likely to metaphorically wave his dick around for political purposes, it's irrelevant for day to day affairs but when you really, REALLY need it it's there.

For what purpose?

[elucido]

Surveillance is fine if theres World War 3 or a Cold War, but this level of surveillance to fight crime will make us all into criminals soon enough.

Re:For what purpose?

[Anonymous Coward]

*facepalm* Why would u go ahead and give them ideas? You think they are above starting a cold war, or even a real one to get their agenda through?

Re:For what purpose?

[Kitkoan]

Surveillance is fine if theres... a Cold War

Thats a slippery slope to tread. When mentioned under the right words, that could be used with concepts of the global power rise of China, the nuclear ambitions of Iran, ect... hell, enough spin and it could be used with consideration of the Taliban. Just need to frame it right to the correct people and suddenly your in a pseudo-Cold War with whom ever you can demonize enough (that is also unable to stand against you too much).

Re:For what purpose?

[Superdarion]

Would you rather see everyone as a criminal and with that screw the innocent or see everyone as innocent and allow crime to fluorish?

Regardless of what people say, any politician openly stating that they prefer the second option will have his carreer ended by the public.

What I just don't understand is why, if crime rates have been going steadily down for some decades now, do they feel like they need to be more invasive and offensive in their fight against crime. Maybe it's all related to politics (and that "maybe" answers only to scientific precision, though I'm pretty sure that's the reason behind it all).

Re:For what purpose?

[lanswitch]

I've skimmed through the first pdf. It looks like they are trying to build an Event Control system. Designed to control and identify people at large events, like soccer games. Some countries in Europe have a real problem with soccer hooligans. Or just plain riots, like the ones in France last year. It's the cops who want a system to identify the rioters. Seems logical to me, Jim.

But the government could mis-use it for anything they want. And that scares me, as a E.U. citizen.

Re:For what purpose?

[Anonymous Coward]

This happened after Vietnam, and they didn't "fuck you up" then, what makes you think they magically will now?

Re:For what purpose?

[Kitkoan]

Business as usual in a big city would meet my description as a "large event" where people at like "hooligans" and can have riots (beyond Soccer games). And as you mentioned, it could be mis-used for anything they want. That much power is ripe for abuse and since it won't be monitored by the public, who can really say/report what it ends up truly being used for?

Re:For what purpose?

[elucido]

What I just don't understand is why, if crime rates have been going steadily down for some decades now, do they feel like they need to be more invasive and offensive in their fight against crime

Because they see it as why settle for a low crime rate when they can (in bad logical theory) turn it into a no crime rate.

Only the crime rate includes victimless crimes. It's not like you or I decide what is or isn't a crime. It's not like crimes and laws are decided based on reason or logic or game theory, no thats decided based upon the morality of Christian churches and other moralists who think they know whats best for us, and by elites who want to protect their wealth and turf.

Re:For what purpose?

[Spliffster]

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? A system like this makes anyone a suspect (a potential criminal), this is very 1984 like!

My government is not allowed to survey me until a judge order so. The described goals are to survey everyone. The authors of INECT are absolutely aware that they would trump human rights (and they see it more as an annoyance than an problem), this is why INECT is trying to keep this shit secret.

To some of the commenters above; this has not much to do with Germany itself but the EU. It was just the German Pirate Party which leaked the documents.

-S

Re:For what purpose?

[chichilalescu]

related to your last question. first of all, you get votes for shouting and pointing fingers, not for reasonable arguments.
second: in the past, the big, easy to get crimes were targeted. as time passes, the crimes that can still be comitted are much "better", and harder to catch, so more and more effort (read as invasive and offensive) is needed. ultimately, the best way to fight crime is to put everyone in solitary confinement :)

Re:For what purpose?

[The Master Control P]

*cough*War on Some Drugs*cough*War on Terror*cough*War against Iraq*cough*

Re:For what purpose?

[PatrickThomson]

What about police guards at G8 protests, certain sporting events? Surely by turning up they are assuming guilt. Never mind that there is a 100% occurrence of violent incidents and they would be derelict in duty by staying home... What about bobbies on the beat in rough neighbourhoods where someone gets stabbed every week? Are they being offensively oppresive? Stop being so asinine.

Re:For what purpose?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

What about police guards at G8 protests, certain sporting events? Surely by turning up they are assuming guilt. Never mind that there is a 100% occurrence of violent incidents and they would be derelict in duty by staying home... What about bobbies on the beat in rough neighbourhoods where someone gets stabbed every week? Are they being offensively oppresive? Stop being so asinine.

Precrime much?

You've just rationalized any amount of government interference because there is always a chance that something will go wrong.
And don't even try to backpedal because you just called a man assinine for complaining that under the proposed system "anyone could be a suspect."

Re:For what purpose?

[TFAFalcon]

Wasn't there a draft at the time of the Vietnam war?

Re:For what purpose?

[Spliffster]

Guarding certain events and proforma data monitoring of anybody is not the same. Did you read the PDF files (well this is slashdot)? I am the original poster, I did before submitting it to slashdot.

It's interesting to see that....

[SwampChicken]

... loitering has been classified as a "dangerous activity" in the EU.

A blueprint for a bright new future...

[Jedi Alec]

I guess we should thank the German pirates for putting it out there so we can have a nice ruckus about it...before we forget about it again in a day or 2.

Re:A blueprint for a bright new future...

[noidentity]

That's why I like Slashdot's story reminder feature, which usually kicks in a day or two later, just as I'm forgetting about the story.

Orwell

[Superdarion]

I wonder if forcing every single human being to read George Orwell's 1984 would prevent this sort of thing from happening.

Perhaps it's just that people don't realize what could go wrong with an Orwellian government in place. Perhaps they just don't see it, they don't think anything can go wrong if the government watches your every step.

Then again, perhaps people just don't care. As long as it's not them (and by "them" i mean the generations that currently live) who suffer it, they just don't give a damn.

I can tell from personal experience that many people don't care about stuff like that even if you tell them the consequences. Perhaps Big Brother is precisely what we, as a civilization, need in order to realize that it's a horrible thing to live like that. After all, experience is a good teacher.

Re:Orwell

[Kitkoan]

People in government do read 1984. They've just confused it from a warning to a guide/how to book.

Re:Orwell

[someoneOtherThanMe]

I wonder if forcing every single human being to read George Orwell's 1984

I think we should force everybody. Of course, to be really sure they read it, they should do it in front of a camera. Moreover, the knowledge from the book has to be refreshed every now and then. Perhaps we should print some "Read your 1984 daily" flyers. Or force everybody to read at least a page every evening in bed. Of course, to be really sure they do it, we install cameras in their bedroom. I wonder what should do to those refusing to read it?

Re:Orwell

[asnelt]

Perhaps Big Brother is precisely what we, as a civilization, need in order to realize that it's a horrible thing to live like that. After all, experience is a good teacher.

The problem is, once we have it in place it is very hard to get rid of it. When the government watches your every step you cannot form a successful resistance. Even today it is prohibited to assemble a great crowd without letting the police force know about it (at least in Germany).

Re:Orwell

[Kuroji]

They also read Brave New World.

What they've found best is a mixture of Huxley and Orwell. Give the people their bread and circuses, and remove those who are unsatisfied by it.

Re:Orwell

[equex]

It would not help. I have made several expeditions to the big blue room, and the inhabitants claim that they are willing to sacrifice their privacy for their freedom. Yes, as long as they feel threatened by terrorists and whatnot, they are more than willing to be routinely strip searched for no other reason than 'just to be safe'. They actually feel proud in the fact that they have nothing to hide from their authorities, and will assist them to feel good.

Wikileaks on INDECT

[AHuxley]

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/EU_social_network_spy_system_brief,_INDECT_Work_Package_4,_2009
Some deep ip, friend of friend of friend hunting software triggered by phrases, word use and IM connections.

Re:Wikileaks on INDECT

[Skal Tura]

And what happens when by average you are only 7 "friendships away" from anyone in the world?

At 3 levels looked upon that probably corresponds to 1/5th of population, or even at 1/10th of whole global population, you are bound to have "terrorist friends", making every human being on this planet guilty of terrorism, and earth a giant jail....

Oh wait a moment.... A) We really can't leave jail.. ehrm, earth B) We are already slaves of either money or religion
Damn it happened already

Slacker

[SmallFurryCreature]

I can forget about it in 2 sec... ooh, Idols is on.

Re:We?

[Anonymous Coward]

Calm down homey, you are reading way too much into this. You got some rage, find a way to work it out instead of overreacting here.

Athors are from Slovakia

[rastos1]

On the second page of the first document are listed the authors - apparently tied to university in town Kosice in Slovakia. On behalf of other citizens of this country, I apologize. May be we should remind them about events that happened over 60 years ago when Slovak National Uprising happened and become the most significant activity of regular citizens against fascistic German army in Europe. This uprising happened despite the pro-German orientated government and would certainly not be possible with that level of surveillance as is proposed there.

Everyone should be seen as innocent.

[elucido]

As far as I'm concerned everyone is innocent until proven guilty. And we have too many crimes, not too many criminals. When you make everything that people like to do or have to do illegal you create excuses for surveillance.

Re:wow

[Nursie]

No, it hasn't proved useful in the UK. they became so ubiquitous that people don't care, the feed quality is bad enough that the recorded video is useless to the police or the courts, there are far too many feeds for anyone to be watching half of them and...

Well, it's that sort of a thing. I guess a lot of these could be 'remedied' by deploying modern CCD based cameras and using some sort of magical computer vision thing. But the main issue here is that it's been found that they jut don't reduce crime.

They may make it easier to catch people afterwards, but they don't actually prevent anything.

They have an "ethics board"

[Animats]

The project has a 10-member "ethics board".

• 2 members are cops.
• 1 member is a retired cop.
• 1 member is a "human rights lawyer" who works for a police department.
• 1 member is a criminologist
• 4 members are involved in developing the technology.
• 1 member is a professor of ethics at Oxford.

Re:Not secret

[ludwigf]

Those documents aren't secret. They were released to the public by the INDECT project itself, ages ago. Right here!

Look again. The "D1.1 Report on the collection and analysis of user requirements" is not public available though the link you posted.

Business bad, gov good?

[kwbauer]

This story, Germany-To-Grant-Privacy-At-the-Workplace [slashdot.org] was about how great it was that Germany is making great strides towards banning a private business from monitoring the activities of its employees. Now, that same government seems to think that no amount of monitoring those same people is too much, as long as the benevolent government does the monitoring instead of the evil corporation.

Nice progress they are making over there. /sarcasm

Can't fool me

[Zoxed]

> (PDFs in English)

Ha ha, PDFs, nice try. You are not going to catch me out :-)

Flamebait

[antientropic]

This is silly. The EU isn't "planning" anything. INDECT is an FP7 research project. So it's a bunch of universities and industrial partners that happened to get funding from the EU because the reviewers thought it was a scientifically interesting proposal. That doesn't mean anything the researchers come up with is EU policy. Besides, the EU doesn't have any authority or power whatsoever to impose a police state on its members.

(They have a FAQ, by the way.)

What??

[captainpanic]

I know FP7 projects. The EU is definitely interested in the outcome. They cost many millions of euros. It's not just an exercise.

Not all the outcomes of FP7 projects (or FP6 or older ones) will be used, but it shows a trend in which way the EU thinks that Europe should go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Framework_Programme#FP7_Specific_Programmes

Part of the FP7 projects are quite fundamental, and therefore it is unlikely that they include "implementation", but the fact that they don't plan to implement this doesn't make me feel any more comfortable.

And the EU has LOADS of power to impose laws on its members. Already, the majority of laws in Europe come from Brussels... http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2009/06/what-percentage-of-laws-come-from-the-eu/
And with the Lisbon "Treaty", the decision making in Brussels was recently streamlined to make it all a little faster.

Re:What??

[Kiuas]

You missed something extremely important there.

Already, the majority of laws in Europe come from Brussels

I'm sorry, but that is just flatout wrong.

The majority of trade laws and laws relating to agriculture/production come from Brussels. But even under the Lisbon treaty the EU has no power whatsoever to impose criminal laws on its member nations. Therefore, even if the EU wanted to force police-state like control over its citizens, it has no means of doing so. EU does try to promote international police co-operation through Europol but Europol is just an organazation transfering and managing information, it has no rights to do arrests or search homes etc - all it can do is try and help local police forces to locate wanted high-profile criminals by relaying information from foreign agencies.

Don't get wrong, I'm as worried as the next /. about these kinds of projects but despite all the scaremongering the EU isn't quite as scary as you seem to think it is.

Re:We?

[norpan]

Please don't monopolize the use of the word "we" to mean "EVERYONE". "We" could mean "me and my friend". It referers to a group of two or more people of which I am a member.

Only those...

[NewtonsLaw]

Only those with something to hide have anything to fear...

That's why politicians are more than happy to have webcams in their houses connected directly to the internet for all the world to watch their activities.

Oh... what's that?

They're not happy to have webcams in their houses?

Hmmm... what does that mean I wonder?

Re:Only those...

[Totenglocke]

Government buildings are public spaces - yet we're not allowed to place cameras through them to monitor what politicians and government employees are doing.

Re:wow

[VShael]

"They may make it easier to catch people afterwards, but they don't actually prevent anything."

Just to emphasise, they may make it easier to catch *people*.
They do nothing to catch corporations obviously, though corporate crime is almost certainly a bigger threat to national security and well-being than any Joe Schmoe on the street.

In addition, by some strange coincidence, any time the police in the UK have been accused of misdeeds, (such as brutalising innocent members of the public) the relevant CCTV cameras have always been found to have been wiped/malfunctioning/looking in the wrong direction.

If street criminals have even 10% of the luck of these accused police officers, then the CCTV system is basically useless and pointless.
We'd be better off relying on members of the public and ubiquitous phone cams. At least *they* have caught the occasional police brutality incident. That makes them superior to the CCTV system in my opinion, and cheaper too.

Re:We?

[nashv]

We is first-person plural, Einstein. Flaming Fail - no pun intended, but the alliteration was.

Brave New World

[Kupfernigk]

Huxley thought he was describing a dystopia, and failed. When I read BNW as a nerdy teenager I thought it was a really good idea. In Huxley's world, nerds get to live with other nerds on islands and build their own ideal societies, unbothered by the power mad, conformists and the stupid. Mustapha Mond, the world controller, is practically a Platonic philosopher-king. BNW is only a dystopia if you are conventionally religious, or have inflated ideas of the importance of the human race.

Re:Brave New World

[IndustrialComplex]

is only a dystopia if you are conventionally religious, or have inflated ideas of the importance of the human race.

Is this another way of saying, "It's only a dystopia if you don't believe the way I do."

Re:Brave New World

[Anonymous Coward]

BNW is only a dystopia if you are conventionally religious, or have inflated ideas of the importance of the human race.

Er ... or if you're anything other than an Alpha or Beta. Making some fairly big assumptions about our place in that fictional world order, aren't we? By the same logic slavery is also a terrific civic.

By the way, I take issue with your assumption that "Huxley thought he was describing a dystopia". There are no grounds for that belief. I suspect Huxley was more interested in the complexities of the moral dilemmas involved in the situation than you give him credit for.

Re:Brave New World

[dkleinsc]

That society, like most societies, is only an improvement if you're on top of the social heap. Similar to how most Ren Faire fans aren't so excited of the prospect of the real life of the average Renaissance person, which was generally a combination of working on a farm, being conscripted into an army, dying of plague (or dysentery or a host of other diseases), and praying to avoid dying of plague. Ditto for Ayn Rand's views - I have yet to meet an Ayn Rand fan who thinks that they're part of the unwashed masses who never accomplish anything important. Similarly, most Trek fans imagine themselves as a bridge officer instead of Second Class Deck Cleaner, and more Star Wars fans imagine themselves as a Jedi of some sort than some no-name moisture farmer.

It's all good fun, but hardly realistic.

That's not true

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the Swift issue, USA demanded access to our banking data. EU Commission defined it as a data protection issue and granted USA and EU rights to that data.

So now that data is Europol activity under the EU Commission.

You use the word 'coordinating' to get around the facts here, the EU is expanding into criminal law, and there's no legal basis for it, but it doesn't stop them.

It's coming, I've seen it

[DNS-and-BIND]

I live in China. This week, a friend of a friend left a large sum of money in a taxi. My friend's staff went down to the police station and came back with a record of surveillance video, all the stops the taxi made, a route the taxi took in Google Maps style format, the taxi driver's home address, ID card scan, and mobile phone number. This is coming to a nation near you, if it's not already there. It's funny, one of the ways you can tell if street construction is almost finished is when they install the surveillance cameras on poles.

Re:wow

[Richard_at_work]

In addition, by some strange coincidence, any time the police in the UK have been accused of misdeeds, (such as brutalising innocent members of the public) the relevant CCTV cameras have always been found to have been wiped/malfunctioning/looking in the wrong direction.

If street criminals have even 10% of the luck of these accused police officers, then the CCTV system is basically useless and pointless. We'd be better off relying on members of the public and ubiquitous phone cams. At least *they* have caught the occasional police brutality incident. That makes them superior to the CCTV system in my opinion, and cheaper too.

Well, that statement is complete bollocks, I can think of several high profile cases where a police officer has been caught 'brutalising innocent members of the public' on CCTV in cases that made it all the way to court. Here's one that happened within the past week:

"A police officer has been jailed for six months after he was caught on CCTV throwing a woman into a cell, badly injuring her.

The footage also shows Sgt Mark Andrews dragging Pamela Somerville, 59, through Melksham police station in Wiltshire."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-11214026

Another one from last year...

"A police watchdog is investigating an alleged attack on a man by three officers in Wigan, Greater Manchester.

In video obtained by the Sunday Mirror the man - said to be Lance Corporal Mark Aspinall - is shown being pinned to the ground and repeatedly punched. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7757229.stm

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion