Slashdot Mirror


Coming Soon: Ubiquitous Long-Term Surveillance From Big Brother

alphadogg writes "As the price of digital storage drops and the technology to tap electronic communication improves, authoritarian governments will soon be able to perform retroactive surveillance on anyone within their borders, according to a Brookings Institute report. These regimes will store every phone call, instant message, email, social media interaction, text message, movements of people and vehicles and public surveillance video and mine it at their leisure, according to 'Recording Everything: Digital Storage as an Enabler of Authoritarian Government,' written by John Villaseno, a senior fellow at Brookings and a professor of electrical engineering at UCLA."

53 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. Accountability by bonch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The ubiquity of the technology may contribute to the ease of surveillance, but authoritarian governments were already doing bad things. Ubiquity of technology empowers protest movements just as much as it empowers government, creating a public accountability that wasn't there previously and enabling a transfer of information beyond government restrictions. I believe the tradeoff is worth it because ubiquitous technology in the hands of citizens can be more powerful than in the hands of government.

    1. Re:Accountability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ubiquity of technology empowers protest movements just as much as it empowers government...

      There's an asymmetry in this power relationship since the governments can accumulating data on itself. Think of this relationship as a system admin and a regular user.

    2. Re:Accountability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, only so much. For example, police brutality at Occupy protests was documented by multiple angles every time, because most everybody has a camera phone. How can an authoritarian PD wiggle out of that?

    3. Re:Accountability by epyT-R · · Score: 2, Insightful

      tell that to gun owners who've had their firearm ownership rights neutered so that government officials have an advantage..

    4. Re:Accountability by bonch · · Score: 2

      The asymmetry is balanced in numbers. The regular users outnumber the system admins, and the citizens outnumber the government. We already saw social technologies contribute to the so-called Arab Spring demonstrations this year.

    5. Re:Accountability by mr1911 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I believe the tradeoff is worth it because ubiquitous technology in the hands of citizens can be more powerful than in the hands of government.

      Your statement is great in theory. By using ubiquitous they way you did, you seem to assume the government and citizens will be on an equal playing field. That is almost assuredly not the case, and the deck will be stacked in the government's favor.

      The ubiquity of the technology may contribute to the ease of surveillance, but authoritarian governments were already doing bad things.

      Your statement is undeniable. The problem here is that the more power and ability the government has, the more it is likely to be used against you. Or more simply, governments you may not consider authoritarian today are likely to be authoritarian tomorrow.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    6. Re:Accountability by planimal · · Score: 2, Informative

      blame that on your state. i can walk into any gun store and walk out with as many rifles as i can afford, and as many pistols as i can afford six days later.

    7. Re:Accountability by rickb928 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why do you assume they need to wiggle out of it? If no one cares, or no one pursues any remedy, there's nothing to wiggle out of at all.

      And New Yorkers may well vote for a Mayor that would continue the policy. OWS didn't endear themselves to the rest of the 99% in NYC, so they may well find out they have little or no support.

      Then we're reduced to the argument that like it or not, protesters deserve at least minimal protection of their civil rights, which they do. And this becomes an old argument in big cities; The rights of the inconvenient v. the rights of the masses. We're going to have to lobby for the rights of the inconvenient, because sooner or later, we are all inconvenient to someone. Yep, even you.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    8. Re:Accountability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, only so much. For example, police brutality at Occupy protests was documented by multiple angles every time, because most everybody has a camera phone. How can an authoritarian PD wiggle out of that?

      A few tips:

      Flood the MSM with gossip from the latest reality show.
      Put up blogs saying the footage was false
      Astroturf blogs with misinformation and lies.
      Start censoring the internet by removing links showing footage

      A month or two later, nobody will remember it and those who do will find it hard to get links to prove it.

      This can't be blamed on the advent of technology or perceived as something new as the art of propaganda has always been here. Just to quote Joseph Goebells, Hitlers chief propagandist:

      “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

    9. Re:Accountability by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Funny

      blame that on your state. i can walk into any gun store and walk out with as many rifles as i can afford, and as many pistols as i can afford six days later.

      You're doing it wrong. Walk into any gun store with a rifle, walk out with as many pistols as you can carry the same day*

      (*note for the humour-impared - it's a joke, already!)

    10. Re:Accountability by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Authoritarian governments that pass SOPA and NDAA? The Military Commissions Act and PATRIOT?

      I am in the mind of Walt Kelly's Pogo: "We have met the enemy, and they are us."

      See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

      Excerpt from pages 166-73 of "They Thought They Were Free" First published in 1955
      By Milton Mayer

      But Then It Was Too Late

      "What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn't make people close to their government to be told that this is a people's government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.

      "What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

      "This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    11. Re:Accountability by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 5, Informative

      Possible, merely theoretical solutions that have no basis in what would happen:
      * Confiscate Cameras: http://www.infowars.com/cops-confiscate-cameras-at-ohio-congressmans-town-hall/
      * Delete data: http://www.pixiq.com/article/chicago-police-delete-journalism-professors-video-footage
      * Destroy phone/camera: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/06/miami_police_destroy_cell_phon.php
      * Use of a live streaming/storage to avoid confiscation/destruction? There's tech for that:
      ** http://inventorspot.com/articles/spy_technology_how_disable_a_cell_phone_15035
      ** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_jammer
      * Wiretapping laws: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/03/05/1954216/Leave-a-Message-Go-To-Jail?from=twitter
      * Camera blocking devices:
      ** http://www.gizmag.com/norte-photoblocker-club-beer-cooler/20820/
      ** Unable to find it, but I'm sure I remember Kipkay having a video showing how to make glasses that would blind any camera sensitive to infrared.

      Some of this, such as the wiretapping cellphone case, has been overturned. I believe. This is just off the top of my head. I'm sure there is more for real cynics with time to list.

      --
      by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
    12. Re:Accountability by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So what? MP5s are only effective in certain situations, like close-quarters battle. They're no match at all for some rednecks with long-range hunting rifles. We've seen in war after war after war that snipers are extremely effective against regular foot soldiers. For some reason, a lot of people seem to think that full-auto == invincible, even though the range on something like an MP5 is rather pathetic.

    13. Re:Accountability by AngryDeuce · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ubiquity of technology empowers protest movements just as much as it empowers government, creating a public accountability that wasn't there previously and enabling a transfer of information beyond government restrictions.

      Which is why they're putting the legal mechanisms in place to shut down this technology at a moment's notice. The "internet kill switch" is just one facet of this, but there are other developments (National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012, for instance) that are related to shutting down protests and silencing dissension right here in the U.S.. There are reports that our armed forces are being trained to handle domestic civil unrest situations currently, as well.

      Plus with the work that government contractors have been caught doing in the way of astroturfing, I seriously wonder if the technology will remain clean enough to function. I wouldn't put it past the government to put people to work obstructing the flow of information. There's been plenty of comments I've seen on Occupy articles (particularly on CNN) that are almost too antagonistic, reposted over and over every time it gets bumped off the first page, coupled with scores of other similar comments by people using handles like "John126421" and "BearsFan583".

      Google will censor search results if the government tells them to, just like any other company with a presence here in the U.S., the ISPs will cut service, the phone companies will turn off the towers. It hasn't gotten to that point yet but it will if unrest gets to the point of Arab Spring here. There is so much back scratching going on between these telecoms and the government that there's no way that the people can be sure that they will maintain the ability to communicate on their infrastructure. Short of putting our own networks in (which won't happen without massive collaboration, not to mention a lot of money) I'm thinking that we're not going to have these avenues when we really need them, so we'd better come up with some lo-tech alternatives.

    14. Re:Accountability by Smallpond · · Score: 2

      Well, only so much. For example, police brutality at Occupy protests was documented by multiple angles every time, because most everybody has a camera phone. How can an authoritarian PD wiggle out of that?

      Many states have moved toward making it illegal to take pictures of police beating up citizens because it violates the citizen's privacy.

    15. Re:Accountability by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your statement is great in theory. By using ubiquitous they way you did, you seem to assume the government and citizens will be on an equal playing field. That is almost assuredly not the case, and the deck will be stacked in the government's favor.

      Exactly this. In the UK PC Simon Harwood was caught on camera murdering an innocent man who was walking away from him for no apparent reason, and it still took journalists and years of legal wrangling to even start a manslaughter case against him. For some strange reason the CCTV in the area wasn't working that day, but fortunately a couple of people caught it on camera phones.

      Similarly when the police accidentally murdered an innocent man on the London Underground in the wake of the 7/7 bombings for some reason all the surveillance technology wasn't working and in the end no-one was actually punished for it.

      The police always try to cover up wrongdoing by their colleges and the Crown Prosecution Service tries to avoid bringing cases against them. Their hand has to be forced by overwhelming evidence and media attention, and even then sometimes they just lose vital files and the crime goes unpunished.

      We can't allow the government to have wide ranging surveillance. It is abused far too often, because that is human nature, and the abuses are rarely punished and powers rarely taken back. It really is a slippery slope, with each incremental power grab requiring monumental effort to claw back.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re:Accountability by hedwards · · Score: 2

      That's not as strange as it might sound. I used to work security at an undisclosed location and the cameras would often times not be working properly. Either they'd be frozen or they couldn't move or they just out right didn't work at all.

      CCTV is only as effective as the monitoring and maintenance provides for.

    17. Re:Accountability by mr1911 · · Score: 2

      But what is the alternative? Stop developing communications or information technology?

      How about limiting government and punishing those responsible?

      Abuse of power is far too often not punished. If a government agency is caught abusing its power, it should be completely shut down (e.g. DOJ - search for fast and furious, as it relates to gunwalking) and for a government employee caught doing so, especially when trying to cover it up, it should be a capital offense (search for Eric Holder as it relates to the previous example).

      Granted my plan has absolutely no chance of being implemented (you can't expect someone to press for a law that may eventually send them to prison), but I can still hope.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    18. Re:Accountability by timeOday · · Score: 2

      "... truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

      I would really like to know why anybody (who is not playing a villain in a movie) would say such a thing? Is there any reliable source? Some dude on the Internet says no, for what it's worth.

    19. Re:Accountability by alexo · · Score: 2

      Well, only so much. For example, police brutality at Occupy protests was documented by multiple angles every time, because most everybody has a camera phone. How can an authoritarian PD wiggle out of that?

      They don't need to wiggle out of it, they can just ignore it, like the NYPD did.

    20. Re:Accountability by Tokolosh · · Score: 2
      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    21. Re:Accountability by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      You're doing it wrong. Walk into any gun store with a rifle, walk out with as many pistols as you can carry the same day

      And get a pound of lead free, as a bonus?

    22. Re:Accountability by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 2

      nazi germany began by picking fights with backward countries (austria, poland, czechslovakia) and when nobody did anything (they weren't inconvenient yet, or were to overspent from ww1) they moved on to highly industrialized nations, having expanded its power greatly by feeding on the backward countries. we don't have to but it will happen. history repeats itself.

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    23. Re:Accountability by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      But how many people do you know who have something like the 30mm chain gun in an Apache helicopter, or the 20mm Vulcan minigun in the nose of an A-10 Warthog?

      The A-10 uses a GAU-8 Avenger 30mm autocannon (the A/A 49E-6 Gun System), not a 20mm Vulcan.

      How about the family members that are posted at the local National Guard base with it's armory and squadron of A-10s?

      If it got to the point that the US government employed the US military to attack US citizens, you can be guaranteed that a not-insignificant portion of those military personnel and military assets will go over to the side of the citizens. There would most definitely be a very nasty fight. Chances would be quite good that the government would end up using nukes domestically.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    24. Re:Accountability by toby · · Score: 2

      The ubiquity of the technology may contribute to the ease of surveillance, but authoritarian governments were already doing bad things

      This kind of evasion was used by the citizens of every other 20th C state which soon after descended into fascism. = "It can't happen here," etc. Of course it would be nice if it "couldn't happen" wherever you live. But please study some history.

      --
      you had me at #!
    25. Re:Accountability by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 2

      Since taxes on the rich can rise about 50% it's not always going to be true that citizens outnumber government employees.

      These technologies, like nuclear weapons, will always be with us. That means that they will eventually be abused.

      I know you think you have free will but I've never started a book with a Jewish author and ended up reading a Nazi or vice versa.

      People need many things to become incensed enough to buck the system. Most importantly they need central points of incandescence to catch fire (In Les Miserables it was the act of a marquis running over a child then paying as a recompense).

      More importantly people are desperate for self determination and pride, following someone else's bright idea is physically painful for some if not most people. Authoritarians can always say they are maintaining order, a simple thing to sell especially if the order is your boss.

      In the U.S. nationalism is the big motivator, the more the rest of the world hates you the more nationalism sets in.

      It will take a huge leap for police and the armed forces to step outside state run media, appreciate the nature of their country and co-ordinate. Especially since legitimacy is a vital ingredient in the three ring binder approach to law enforcement which turns police, the law, and the military into little more than a machine.

  2. Authoritarian? or any Western country as well? by Moskit · · Score: 5, Informative

    Funny that article writer wrote "authoritarian". This applies to almost any country - with USA being the prime example (CarrierIQ^3), or ubiquitous cameras in UK.

    If people think their governments do not spy on them just as in "authoritarian" regimes, they are so wrong...

    1. Re:Authoritarian? or any Western country as well? by bonch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The obvious difference is that public outcry led to severe criticism of Carrier IQ as well as a possible FBI investigation.

    2. Re:Authoritarian? or any Western country as well? by onyxruby · · Score: 2

      Be definition all government is authoritarian. That being said if you think the US is a leading culprit in being a /fascist/ government, than you really need to learn more about most other governments around the world actually operate. I certainly think they go to far on many things (SOPA etc), but to call them a prime example is ignorance at best.

    3. Re:Authoritarian? or any Western country as well? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2

      This FBI investigation reminds me of the ending of Casablanca, where the French police captain says "Round up the usual suspects."

    4. Re:Authoritarian? or any Western country as well? by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 2

      I hate to go all tin-foil hat on you here, but I'm probably about to. I look at TV, and we have basically three genres to choose from, in mainstream media at least. One is comedy, escapism at its finest. Another is reality TV, where you see everything someone else does. The last is the crime drama (Law and Order and CSI franchises, Maybe the Cold Case types, and one-offs like The Mentalist, Criminal Minds, Unforgettable, Castle, Blue Bloods). There is very little else on.

      Look at the progression of the majority of programming - the crime drama has taken over, and always "chasing the bad guys" . Even L&O Criminal Intent, which is supposed to show the bad guys' perspectives, shows them in a terrible light.

      And the progression of technology, so that now CSI has become the butt of jokes with all of its impossible tech, which is no longer so impossible.

      I'm not saying this is the case, but I can't prove otherwise. We are gradually, whether intentional or not, becoming used to the idea that an ever-present layer of surveillance is good for us. As long as it helps bad guys get caught, it's good. You never see it being misused, unless it's part of the plot and the bad guy gets it in the end.

      And then there is "Person of Interest". I was oddly interested in this based on the previews, to see how they treated it. And to my dismay, a single guy can eavesdrop on any conversation and track any person, almost as bad as Morgan Freeman's Batman machine. With limits where it makes the plot more interesting.

      USA is being conditioned, whether it is intentional or a fluke, to accept that recording everything is good for us, through entertainment. I watch these shows and I am horrified, others probably don't pick up on the big brother aspect. Call me a nutter, I'll call this a hypothesis.

    5. Re:Authoritarian? or any Western country as well? by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Funny that article writer wrote "authoritarian". This applies to almost any country - with USA being the prime example

      That's not funny, that's accurate.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:Authoritarian? or any Western country as well? by Hatta · · Score: 2

      Of course it did. Carrier IQ is not part of any government surveillance program, so the government loses nothing by pretending to care about surveillance. This investigation will find that nothing illegal took place, and the carriers will at most pay a token settlement. If it were a government surveillance program, it would just be defunded and reestablished under another name.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:Authoritarian? or any Western country as well? by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

      The obvious difference is that public outcry led to severe criticism of Carrier IQ as well as a possible FBI investigation.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_America_Act_of_2007#Domestic_wiretapping
      Public outcry led to severe criticism of the telecom industry and... Congressionally granted retroactive immunity?
      I wish this public outcry thing had results that were a bit more consistent.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  3. authoritarian by convolvatron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    at this point i dont think we need the qualifier anymore.

    'authoritarian governments will soon be able' -> 'governments will'

    1. Re:authoritarian by scorp1us · · Score: 3, Interesting

      'authoritarian governments will soon be able' -> 'governments do'

      There are no retention laws on license plate scanners, toll booths, really anything. Most retention requirements are written from the stance of minimums, not maximums.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  4. A race between utopia and oblivion by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 5, Interesting

    http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/2846ca1b6bee64e1
    "As I see it, there is a race going on. The race is between two trends. On the one hand, the internet can be used to profile and round up dissenters to the scarcity-based economic status quo (thus legitimate worries about privacy and something like TIA). On the other hand, the internet can be used to change the status quo in various ways (better designs, better science, stronger social networks advocating for things like a basic income, all supported by better structured arguments like with the Genoa II approach) to the point where there is abundance for all and rounding up dissenters to mainstream economics is a non-issue because material abundance is everywhere. So, as Bucky Fuller said, whether is will be Utopia or Oblivion will be a touch-and-go relay race to the very end. While I can't guarantee success at the second option of using the internet for abundance for all, I can guarantee that if we do nothing, the first option of using the internet to round up dissenters (or really, anybody who is different, like was done using IBM computers in WWII Germany) will probably prevail. So, I feel the global public really needs access to these sorts of sensemaking tools in an open source way, and the way to use them is not so much to "fight back" as to "transform and/or transcend the system". As Bucky Fuller said, you never change thing by fighting the old paradigm directly; you change things by inventing a new way that makes the old paradigm obsolete."

    Other related thoughts:
    http://pdfernhout.net/on-dealing-with-social-hurricanes.html

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    1. Re:A race between utopia and oblivion by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
      "IBM and the Holocaust is a book by investigative journalist Edwin Black which details the business dealings of the American-based multinational corporation International Business Machines (IBM) and its German and other European subsidiaries with the government of Adolf Hitler during the 1930s and the years of World War II. In the book, Black outlines the way in which IBM's technology helped facilitate Nazi genocide against the Jewish people through generation and tabulation of punch cards based upon national census data."

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  5. My response by blackbeak · · Score: 3, Funny

    I was gonna comment, but then....

    --
    Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
  6. And prosperity will never be found again by lightknight · · Score: 2

    The burden of all these extra security measures is beginning to exert a force on the economy. It's like watching the birth of a quantum singularity...interest followed by naked terror, as you realize that you can't outrun it (but not for lack of trying). I liken it to a particular episode of Stargate SG-1 (A Matter Of Time): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWpfr_0RmuM

    The people of the US are like that team, running across the desert, knowing they are doomed.

    On a separate note, the fact that the US people are so submissive to their rights being stolen from under them reminds me of Russians facing the Gulag; they don't try to escape, even though they could, they just go along with it because fighting against it does not occur to them.

     

    --
    I am John Hurt.
    1. Re:And prosperity will never be found again by lightknight · · Score: 2

      ^_^. Two sides of the same coin. If you are complacent with the deterioration of your rights, then you are submissive to the usurped authority of those who are taking them away from you.

      Think of it this way -> from the viewpoint of those who seize your rights, what difference is there between you submitting to their laughable authority versus being complacent as they deny you your ancestor's hard fought inheritance? None.

      Them -> "Oh, you aren't submitting to me, but merely being complacent as I take away your liberties? Well, whatever you tell yourself that helps you sleep at night." Functionally, they are identical.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
  7. The one true higher power by PopeAlien · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's all fine and good, as long as authoritarian regimes remember that Santa Claus is watching them .

  8. It is time to build an underground internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think it's time for us to get together to build an underground internet.

  9. Here to stay by U8MyData · · Score: 2

    Unless something really bad happens to destroy the technological revolution that we are all a part of, it's here to stay. There needs to be stronger, iron clad privacy, individual, and economic legislation in place to provide due process in a time where decisions are made in an instant. The Occupy protests, although very visable, have little chance on making a serious impact on what they are protesting. Rather, you have to be in the game to change the game. I had a thought the other day, if they really wanted to make an impact, why didn't they put together a petition, circulate it, send it to D.C., make it a matter of historical public record, and see what happens? As it stands they are remarkably forgetable. To that end, citizens need to, from within the game, *demand* protections from this inevitable reality before it is too late.

    1. Re:Here to stay by mjr167 · · Score: 2

      That would require them to know what they wanted...

  10. Re:What? by geekmux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As the price of digital storage drops

    Someone hasn't checked prices recently, post flood.

    I'm sorry, I couldn't stop laughing over the idea that you think anyone in charge of Government spending is worried about a price tag.

  11. They have this NOW. by Hasai · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's called "Facebook," and twits are lining-up to dump their entire lives into it.

    --

    Regards;

    Hasai

  12. I saw a mudcrab by AdamJS · · Score: 2

    I saw a demo a month ago of a software product in development that only needs the sparsest of details about your friends, and a few time-lapsed satphotos or GPS data about/of your vehicle at specific times to be able to predict *exactly* where you would be on a given night (barring outlier events, like an earthquake - though there were examples of how to factor that in if you think it's a possibility). And the kicker, is that the mass-majority of the data this system needs (for North Americans and western Europeans) is already available for free.

  13. Re:Better have a case of No-Doze. by seandhi · · Score: 2

    Unfortunately, taken out of context, even the most mundane activity can be made to appear criminal. Also, even the most boring people run afoul of some taboo that can be used against them.

  14. How they curtailed bombing in Baghdad by swb · · Score: 3, Informative

    I read someplace that this is kind of how they curtailed the car/roadside bombings in Iraq that were so common there.

    They put up enough drones to cover the city with video; when a bomb went off, they basically rewound time and followed the car that blew up back to where it came from, which often was a bomb factory or other insurgent facility.

  15. Re:Not so bad by forkfail · · Score: 2

    Any cop or HR individual can always find something wrong. Always.

    --
    Check your premises.
  16. Re:Not so bad by RogueLeaderX · · Score: 2

    Try to make it through one day without breaking at least one law, I dare you.

  17. Kill code by Catbeller · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The police could send a "kill camera" signal to every phone and appliance in the zone that has wifi or cell access, so that nothing will take a picture.
    Apple already applied for the patent (has the patent) for killing cameras in a specified area with a kill code.
    Think it through. There is nothing to stop them from developing a kill code, and they probably already have asked for one from manufacturers. It'll be here, sooner rather than later.
    If the tech generation has a failing, it is that it believes that their tech is intrinsically on their side - it's why I have such a hard time getting people to care about computerized vote counting. The machine ain't your friend, not when you don't control it.