It's Getting Harder To Reside Anonymously In a Modern City (citiesofthefuture.eu)

dkatana writes: In a panel on 'Privacy in the Smart City' during this month's Smart City World Congress, Dr. Carmela Troncoso, a researcher from Spain, argued that data anonymization itself is almost impossible without using advanced cryptography. Our every transaction leaves a digital marker that can be mined by anyone with the right tools or enough determination.

Most modern cities today are full of sensors and connected devices. Some are considering giving away free WiFi in exchange of personal data. LinkNYC, which was present at the congress as exhibitor, is one such example of this. The panelists insisted that it is the duty of world leaders to safeguard their citizens' privacy, just as corporations are answerable to leaks and hacks.

Comments

IMHO that's good

[argStyopa]

Personally, I think the anonymity of people in massive cities is the source of many of the problems of city life.

A lot of urbanites poo-pooh the closed-minded clannishness of small town life, but part of the VALUE of this life (I live in a MN town of 1500) is that people know each other. They know each others' families, they know their histories.

If you're an asshole, people know it and will remember it. So you make SURE you don't act like an asshole. Cities? You'll likely never see that person again, so who gives a shit?

Re:IMHO that's good

[dablow]

Anonymity is what enabled the modern world.

It was because the anonymity cities provided people where able to question religious dogma, dared to question the authority of king and queens etc.....

Yes, having anonymity also leads to people being douche bags to each other, that is the price to pay for a technological civilization.

BTW last I checked, small towns also had a lot of the same issues as big cities. Murder, drug use, spousal abuse, etc happen there too. And although I have not looked into the numbers, probably in the same proportions as major cities. So like if there is 3 murders per 100,000 in a mjor urban area, that means if you divide up the population into 66 towns of 1500 people, only 3 of them will experience a murder. Which leads to the perception that it "never happens".

Re:IMHO that's good

[TWX]

It was because the anonymity cities provided people where able to question religious dogma, dared to question the authority of king and queens etc...

Are you sure that was anonymity and not simply groups meeting in secret?

Re:IMHO that's good

[RabidReindeer]

Ah. You mean like this country neighbor? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:IMHO that's good

[JackieBrown]

Small towns are full of bigots, pedophiles, racists and thieves and everyone is too afraid

Ahh. Just like large cities, then? Except in a small town, you can learn who to avoid.

Re:IMHO that's good

[ColdBoot]

well said. It is the peer pressure that helps keep rural society in check. Without that, there is no enforcement mechanism to ensure social norms are complied with which explains in part why urban societies are so much looser.

Re:IMHO that's good

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

There is a side effect to this. Large cities are actually easier on the environment to people scattered all over the place. Whether you think the big city is good or not from an asshole standpoint, it's good from a resource standpoint, so we need to solve the asshole standpoint or we all drown in rising sea levels.

Re:IMHO that's good

[dablow]

Of course there was groups meeting in secret.

However how do do you have secret meetings if everybody knows who you are, where you are, what you are talking about and with whom at all times?

Secrecy is dependent on privacy.

Re:IMHO that's good

[Actually, I do RTFA]

So you think instead of having two different options (small town/city) we should instead only have one option?

Re:IMHO that's good

[oic0]

It just lets you find out who they really are without pretense. Just like online, if youre a jerk when you think youre anonymous, you actually are a jerk.

Re:IMHO that's good

[Kjella]

Personally, I think the anonymity of people in massive cities is the source of many of the problems of city life.

Yes, but the lack of anonymity in rural communities is the source of many of the problems of living there too. I've heard many say they moved to the big city to get away from the peanut gallery.

Re:IMHO that's good

[Anonymous Coward]

> Anonymity is what enabled the modern world.

FALSE.

Mutually assured destruction, plus safety in numbers enabled the modern world.

Anonymity is only an enabler of assholes. The larger question, which you are gleefully ignoring (because your diseased society has taught you to hate the truth above all else) is WHY do you think you need to be anonymous in order for social progress to take place? If progress can only happen with anonymity, then you have got waaaaaaaaaayyyyyy bigger problems than just religious dogma, etc.

Re:IMHO that's good

[Falos]

Oh. You think commoners have access to Big Data. Imaginary property will actually resemble property when it's undistributed.

But this isn't about Frank down the street. Precedent and protocol should be determined by more than your minisemiquasimicrocosm. If you can't see the big picture - a perspective that's better delivered by separating The Message and the identity that happened to write it - then defer to those who will think beyond themselves.

Re:IMHO that's good

[TWX]

Clandestine meetings take place in public areas all of the time. Additionally there are still private clubs (as there were back then) where only members could enter. Barring everyone else included the authorities.

Re:IMHO that's good

[Anonymous Coward]

"Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as publick Liberty, without Freedom of Speech; which is the Right of every Man, as far as by it, he does not hurt or controul the Right of another: And this is the only Check it ought to suffer, and the only Bounds it ought to know."

- Some Asshole

Re:IMHO that's good

[cayenne8]

Additionally there are still private clubs (as there were back then) where only members could enter. Barring everyone else included the authorities.

I dunno....if you have one of those clubs and try to exclude anyone, you get hit with a racist or sexist tag and get sued.....and there goes you exclusivity.

Re:IMHO that's good

[phantomfive]

If you're an asshole, people know it and will remember it. So you make SURE you don't act like an asshole. Cities? You'll likely never see that person again, so who gives a shit?

I have had similar thoughts. If you live in the city and lose all your friends, no big deal, just go find other ones pretty quick. No reason to value them.

Re:IMHO that's good

[Noble713]

If you're an asshole, people know it and will remember it. So you make SURE you don't act like an asshole.

Things that nosy small town people consider assholish:
1. Inter-racial relationships. "Ohhh, didn't you know your daughter is dating a gaijin? And a black man at that? You must be so ashamed."
2. Material wealth. "Mr. X is driving a Lexus now. He must think he's better than us. What did he do to get that money anyway, living and working out here? Probably something illegal."
3. Niche music/TV/fashion tastes. "Did you hear that noise Mr. X was playing? He called it 'death metal'. That's the path to the Devil. Keep your kids away from him."

I've lived in small towns and large, both in the US and in Japan. The problem with small towns is they are almost always subject to groupthink of the lowest common denominator. If you are a vanilla human being, sitting close to the 50% percentile of every possible normal distribution, it probably sounds like heaven....But if you are a statistical outlier, a minority in any way (ethnicity/religion/hobbies/sexual preference/whatever), you are at the mercy of the idiots around you. At least in cities you have access to a large enough variety of people that you can form social connections with like-minded individuals. And since they are exposed to different people, the population in general is more willing to mind their own business "Hey, if that's your thing, do what works for you."

Re:IMHO that's good

[dablow]

It is not clandestine if the people meeting in a public location are known to all, if people can hear what they discuss, with whom, what they are planning.....

They reason why they can meet clandestinely in a public space is due to anonymity. Nobody knows who they are and don't care...

However if for example, il all outspoken critics of the catholic church are grouping up in a public park, the catholic church knows something is up and could move to suppress said movement.

Re:IMHO that's good

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know whether Jackie is a bigot, but you sure are. You have prejudged all small towns as full of "bigots, pedophiles, racists, and thieves" with "southern values", the latter of which is a double-whammy of bigotry.

I don't even understand where you got pedophiles and thieves from. Thieves are much more likely to be found in cities even on a per capita basis. I've never heard of pedophiles having any difference in distribution between the two, but you can be sure that if somebody is a known-pedophile, nobody lets their kids play near that person, *even if* they close ranks against them actually being prosecuted (seriously though, pedophiles are generally not considered cool in any scale of settlement).

Being in a small town where everybody discriminates against you uniformly would be bad. On the flip side, a small town where discrimination against you is not tolerated is good. The networks of people circumventing each other goes both ways.

I can at least understand where you get bigots and racists -- with fewer people, comes less exposure to different races, ideologies, sexualities, etc., and it's well known that exposure to these things tends to make you more tolerant of them. I'll throw you a bone and also argue that in a small enough town, you might not be able to reach a critical mass of people who share your particular ideology / special interest / cultural background / whatever to be able to relate with your shared experience. The flip side of that is in a large enough city, you can actually find a large group of people who share your particular niche ideology / special interest / whatever to such a great degree that you don't have to expose yourself to anybody that differs from you, but you could never reach such a critical mass in a smaller settlement. You find some of the most oddball groups in cities, and oftentimes that's harmless but it can be just as bad.

Re:IMHO that's good

[Shadow IT Ninja]

But the smart city isn't addressing this issue at all. You are still anonymous to other ordinary citizens. It's corporations and government agencies you are no longer anonymous to.

Re:IMHO that's good

[moeinvt]

Is that "groupthink" or is it a matter of cultural norms? Isn't a small town just a social connection between "like minded individuals" which is made somewhat more rigid by geography? The types of differences you're talking about definitely attract attention in a small town, but it's unfair to suggest that every difference which attracts attention is viewed as an intolerable negative.

The problem I see with cities is that this "mind your own business" mentality becomes extreme to the point of dehumanization. People outside your little cliques no longer count as humans who deserve respect and basic courtesy. The city dweller might be exposed to plenty of people, but is less likely to interact with or render assistance to a random stranger. In a small town, everyone is more or less in your clique so it's perfectly acceptable to strike up a conversation with someone and entirely normal to help out a stranded motorist for example.

Re:IMHO that's good

[AdamThor]

insightful!

Re:IMHO that's good

[wyHunter]

Funny, I live in a small town in a very red state. I found more bigots, racists, and thieves living in the bluest of blue states, Massachusetts. (I cannot speak for pedophiles as this is not usually something one advertises). I actually suspect few pedophiles live in small towns - they'd be...dealt with.

Re:IMHO that's good

[Sir Holo]

If you're an asshole, people know it and will remember it. So you make SURE you don't act like an asshole. Cities? You'll likely never see that person again, so who gives a shit?

Small-town assholes are the worst of the lot.

And in any case, there are thousands of other small towns where these assholes can move, starting afresh as an assumedly wholesome, small-town type of folk. After all, "Nothing ever happens here"

Re:IMHO that's good

[Darinbob]

But there are the problems with not being anonymous, even in a small town. If you get a rep for being a trouble maker as a kid, the police will always suspect you even when you haven't done anything. Like Dukes of Hazzard. Social life often means going over to the next town where people don't know you and you can have a beer with your date without causing gossip. Especially if that date happens to be the same sex, or is older, younger, married, of the wrong race or religion. And speaking of religion, everyone will know if you decide not to head to church, they won't approve if you decide to switch denominations, become catholic, switch religions, or become atheist. They'll figure out if you're secretly siding with the wrong political party and come up to shout at you while you're shopping. They'll know if you visited planned parenthood, the shooting range, the Sierra Club meeting, a twelve step program. In short, they'll know every time you change or don't change your underwear.

Re:IMHO that's good

[Darinbob]

I grew up in a smallish town, was 10,000, now 20,000. We had plenty of burglaries. The small 500 person hamlets had crime. One of the highest crime rates in California one year was from a very small rural town.

Of course, times change. When I came home from college once my parents chuckled when I automatically locked the car door. Then a decade or so later they had a burglary and got an alarm system.

Re:IMHO that's good

[pnutjam]

Funny, I live in a small town in a very red state. I found more bigots, racists, and thieves living in the bluest of blue states, Massachusetts.

Funny, I live in a small town in a very red state and all the bigots, racists, and thieves are my friends. I'm part of the in crowd and I like it that way. In the city I'd just be another medium fish.
FTFY.

Re:IMHO that's good

[wyHunter]

different strokes for different folks, glad you don't live here.

just use cash and no cell phone

[known_coward_69]

in NYC you can find a basement to rent in a private home for cash and a lot of times a minimal background check. buy a burner cell phone or use only a home phone and pay cash for everything. but gift cards to shop online or walk to the local store. metro card machines take cash. live life like your parents did.

Re:just use cash and no cell phone

[Chrisq]

in NYC you can find a basement to rent in a private home for cash and a lot of times a minimal background check.

Can you really? In the UK the checks that landlords must provide are far form minimal. I'm pretty sure you could find places to rent that didn't do this, but I don't think they'd be in the best parts of town!

Re:just use cash and no cell phone

[known_coward_69]

NYC is full of illegal and semi-legal rentals where people who own a home rent out their basements to help make the payments. you can get buy with showing your ID and a simple credit/criminal check for legal reasons. the payments can be made in cash. illegal immigrants do it all the time. kids just want to live in hyped up neighborhoods full of snooty bars and restaurants and shop online because they are too lazy to walk to the local store for anything

Re:just use cash and no cell phone

[JackieBrown]

So how do illegal aliens do it then?

Re: just use cash and no cell phone

[interiot]

And use a license plate cover (although covers have been made explicitely illegal in some places).

Re:just use cash and no cell phone

[known_coward_69]

except it stays with the property owner who isn't paying taxes on your rent income. renting in real apartment buildings via management companies means you have to pay by check which leaves a trail. but you can probably find some place to rent without a background check. just don't walk in the area at night.

Re:just use cash and no cell phone

[Richard_at_work]

In the UK, illegal landlords. Putting 5 families into a normal house, well beyond the legal limits, knowing the families cannot raise complaints.

Re: just use cash and no cell phone

[Richard_at_work]

Completely illegal in the UK, as is pretty much any changes to the number plate - you cant even change the spacing between characters.

Re:just use cash and no cell phone

[AHuxley]

Re 'So how do illegal"?
In the distant past it was simple: One person has photo ID that is acceptable at a state and federal level. Rent it out to a person who has the same basic appearance and they can rent a home in your name. Only do that one time and a steady flow of cash is paid for the cover ID owner, paper work is paid for by a group of people living in that home under the cover name.
It works as different state, city, federal databases could often never be shared as the name is not on any gov list to be reconciled.

"Under the radar with the UK's illegal migrants" (24 September 2015)
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-343...
"Instead of buying a set of fake documents, he paid someone to share their legitimate national insurance number with him."

What nations need to do is have a set of ID, photo ID at every level of interaction with work, tax, banks, gov services, when seeking any form of accommodation, free gov medical services, post offices services, private sector work, as university students still doing registered (eligible) course work, as tourists, private medical services, gov assistance at a state or federal level, when buying a car or later registration/reporting over the years.
Traditional charities, gov departments and social workers could easily help a nations own citizens or eligible individuals with the new paperwork if they need help to sort, upgrade, apply or request.

The methods are very easy with todays digital gov databases to find the every expanding vast pool of fake and shared ID's.
The other method is to have a system of camera networks to capture face and licence plates on all vehicles at random heavy traffic areas. Does the face match the paperwork and face on the ID, if not a chat down?
The other option is to have long term legal guests who are working, living, or are undertaking a form of real education in a nation, register with the police at set times and if their circumstances change. No need for a "carry at all times" national ID card, just make every aspect of a functional life interact at a city, state and federal level in real time with any issued photo ID. No need for an expensive passport or drivers licence, just offer a "free" state or federal photo ID card based on an interview and a long list of interconnected, supporting documentation.
Why is this not been done in more advanced nations? Too many business leaders like their union free, interchangeable, tax free, no paper work, disposable workers and are allowed to hire such workers by political leaders over decades.

Anonymity and modern convenience

[TWX]

One can easily live anonymously if one is willing to sacrifice modern convenience. Buy things only with cash. Live somewhere less desirable where the landlord doesn't want to know who the tenants are, or pay a lot more to live somewhere such that the landlord turns a blind-eye to the anonymity, and don't have some characteristic that draws attention. Use mass transit and use the cash-accepting kiosks to buy tickets and don't own a car.

On the other hand, if one wants to consider anonymity and loss of it, people haven't been anonymous since the wide adoption of the telephone or since the advent of electric power and other utilities that are personally paid-for by the subscriber, and those with means that have sought insurance or purchased land have never been anonymous and documenting private ownership of land with the local government has been the principal means that ownership is established for probably thousands of years. Living anonymously may have its benefits, but there are a lot more benefits when one isn't living truly anonymously.

Re:Anonymity and modern convenience

[DarkOx]

Does any of that really work when massive facial recognition systems exist and cameras are everywhere.

As long as nobody takes an interest it you anonymity is possible. The moment a three letter or other LEO does take an interest they can probably track you and uniquely identify around town easily.

Re:Anonymity and modern convenience

[known_coward_69]

most of the cameras are privately owned to watch over someone's property. the data is deleted within a few days unless it catches a crime and the cops ask for the feed. at least in the USA

Re:Anonymity and modern convenience

[jimtheowl]

You need a good doze of wake the fuck up. There are fixed cameras everywhere; bars, stores, restaurant, street lights, tablets, laptops, possibly your TV... It has also become difficult to go out without someone pointing a cell phone in one's general direction and take a picture, either having coffee or at a restaurant. Even private property owners usually contract out the camera surveillance, most often to their ISPs, and have no control over the feed retention.

Re:Anonymity and modern convenience

[TWX]

You need a good doze of wake the fuck up. There are fixed cameras everywhere; bars, stores, restaurant, street lights, tablets, laptops, possibly your TV... It has also become difficult to go out without someone pointing a cell phone in one's general direction and take a picture, either having coffee or at a restaurant. Even private property owners usually contract out the camera surveillance, most often to their ISPs, and have no control over the feed retention.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Seriously. Citation needed. In my experience they're locally stored and operated, simply because the bandwidth of the cameras is far too high to send it across the WAN or Internet pipe. The cameras I work with connect at 100BaseTX. Given that manufacturers are cheapskates that means they need more than 10BaseT speeds. For the sake of argument, if a camera uses 11 Megabits and there are two cameras that's already exceeded the transmit speeds of most DSL and Cablemodem (ie, cheap) connections and is FAR in excess of anything in the low-end T-carrier WAN tech short of a T3, and even then is using up half of that T3 for just security cameras.

Security footage is locally stored, and when there's a problem it's either locally or remotely accessed. To do otherwise would be a huge waste of both bandwidth and of storage.

Re:Anonymity and modern convenience

[PPH]

Owning cars/houses/bank accounts in your own name is for plebes.

If you are wealthy, these can all be purchased through corporate fronts. Yes, you will have to own a residence (or rent one). Because a person with some level of wealth but no residence stands out in a database. But you don't actually live there.

Many years ago, when I lived in apartments, my building had more mailboxes than actual apartments (and numbers that didn't go with actual units). The manager made a decent amount of money on the side renting them out.

Re:Anonymity and modern convenience

[JoeMerchant]

Mass transit sounds like a quick way to lose any anonymity you thought you had - what metro station isn't completely covered with video surveillance? I think it's even becoming common on metro buses and some taxi cabs. Walking in a city? How many cameras cover the sidewalks? Wearing a mask only gets you recognized more quickly.

Re:Anonymity and modern convenience

[jimtheowl]

Since you decided to pick on that one detail, allow me to put minimal effort into it:

https://www.att.com/shop/digit... http://www.bce.ca/news-and-med...

Perhaps those cameras that you have 'experience' with use 100BaseTX Ethernet as physical medium. That doesn't mean that they are using the full bandwidth (pretty much guaranteed by design), nor that video cannot stream over the Internet (cell phone video streaming and Netflix). I'm not saying that everything is stored all the time, but the client doesn't necessarily control it. Further, this one just one example of how ubiquitous cameras have become. Cross it off the list, it changes nothing.

To keep things in context, this statement: "Does any of that really work when massive facial recognition systems exist and cameras are everywhere."

Was replied to by: "..most of the cameras are privately owned to watch over someone's property.."

[CITATION NEEDED] ? Seriously.

Re:Anonymity and modern convenience

[AHuxley]

Re "Does any of that really work when massive facial recognition systems exist and cameras are everywhere."
That works well until you are seen near a gov building, court, using public transport, bank, get stopped or get shared with the gov via cctv over the years.
Some nations do the CCTV sharing legally, others just set up public private partnerships and connect to federal government departments in a more discreet way. "Facial recognition: Privacy advocates raise concern over 'creepy' system Government says will enhance national security" (9 Sep 2015)
".. will allow law enforcement and security agencies to quickly scan through up to 100 million facial images held in databases around Australia." "The images can come from drivers' licences, passport photos or security cameras in your local shopping centre.."
"..mobile CCTV and tablets and are trialling body cameras to work with facial recognition."
Sooner or later a legal "random" chat down induced by a face not meeting a gov threshold will demand real ID.
Then the sit down interview about proof of been a home owner, rental accommodation, utility bill, phone, car, work, gov, wealth, bank account, education, other forms of ID update questions start.

What the hell is a "smart city"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that newspeak for "orwellian shithole that tracks your every move and action to make sure you conform to their ever-increasing amount of completely arbitrary, restrictive laws that regulate things no sane government should ever even think of regulating"?

Got a nice ring to it, I must say.

Re:What the hell is a "smart city"?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

completely arbitrary, restrictive laws

Except, they are not laws. They are TOS of various corporations.

Re:What the hell is a "smart city"?

[gurps_npc]

Simple way to stop 99% of stupid regulation:

Live in an unincorporated area, with no community board, no community center, etc.

Because almost all of the problems come from LOCAL governments doing stupid things.

The federal government has more important stuff to do, it only gets involved in things that need regulation. They might make BAD regulations, but they don't waist time on things that don't need to be regulated.

States do some stupid things, cities/towns do a LOT of stupid things. When you hear about a silly California law, it's almost always something a town/city has done, not the state.

But the absolute worst regulations are those put out by home owners associations or co-ops. Pets, noise, paint color, fees for having overnight guests/street parking, pool rules. SATELITE SURVEILANCE in order to ensure compliance Garage sale rules, dress code rules, home business rules, gardening rules, the list is endless.

HOAs basically demonstrate what communism was like. In fact, that's how communism got so bad, they based their entire government on an HOA.

We used to call people in the woods kooks

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Now they're the vanguard.

Have big cities ever been anonymous?

[areusche]

I remember going to Toronto around 2002 and recalling how many video cameras were all over the place. I bet it wasn't any better in the 90s either.

What type of anonymity are we talking about? Personally in large cities I enjoy the sheer fact that other people do not know me. I can go to a bar and make a total fool of myself and no one will even care or remember. Sure there are a trillion video cameras around and if someone really wanted to they could follow my footsteps through my boring life.

Contrast that to small towns, where I may be "anonymous" but the corner store clerk knows my name and people all around recognize me even though it would be harder for an alphabet soup agency to track me. Try and make a fool of yourself at the local watering hole and you'll end up with a bad rep.

Re:Have big cities ever been anonymous?

[mspohr]

That's why I don't like cities. Too many jerks who think they can do anything stupid and be "anonymous".

Is someone working

[WormholeFiend]

on a scramble suit?

ORLY?

[mark-t]

it is the duty of world leaders to safeguard their citizens' privacy

That's all very well and good, except for the fact they do a fucking awful job of it. People should be responsible for their own privacy. Full stop.

Re:ORLY?

[wonkey_monkey]

Well, how are they supposed to make sure they're safeguarding their own citizens, and not some other country's, unless they know exactly who everyone is?

Re:ORLY?

[mark-t]

Why would they have to, if they weren't supposed to be responsible for it in the first place?

Doesn't make a difference

[HalAtWork]

Who cares if someone's an asshole? They'll be naturally avoided anyway. Does the whole town have to know who's naughty and nice? Then it's about being a secret asshole and keeping up appearances. Assholes are assholes regardless of who is aware of their being an asshole anyway. They'll just make sure they slime their way out of consequences anyway. I know plenty of assholes at work and they're not anonymous. They don't care nobody helps them out, they have ways of preying on the weak and twisting arms to get their way anyway (there are still weak/gullible in small towns too). They don't give the slightest fuck.

Or just keep the government away from it

[mi]

The panelists insisted that it is the duty of world leaders to safeguard their citizens' privacy, just as corporations are answerable to leaks and hacks.

With corporations already answerable, how about we simply keep the government away from the data — and make corporations provide all of the anonymity-threatening services? Then we will not need to establish yet another governmental Department (of Privacy) and live happy fulfilling lives?

Right

[easyTree]

The panelists insisted that it is the duty of world leaders to safeguard their citizens' privacy, just as corporations are answerable to leaks and hacks.

Not at all then...