GE, Intel, and AT&T Are Putting Cameras and Sensors All Over San Diego (fortune.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GE, Intel, and AT&T Are Putting Cameras and Sensors All Over San Diego (fortune.com)

Posted by msmash on Wednesday February 22, 2017 @05:20AM from the more-connected-things dept.

An anonymous reader shares a Fortune report: General Electric will put cameras, microphones, and sensors on 3,200 street lights in San Diego this year, marking the first large-scale use of "smart city" tools GE says can help monitor traffic and pinpoint crime, but raising potential privacy concerns. Based on technology from GE's Current division, Intel and AT&T, the system will use sensing nodes on light poles to locate gunshots, estimate crowd sizes, check vehicle speeds and other tasks, GE and the city said on Wednesday. The city will provide the data to entrepreneurs and students to develop applications. Companies expect a growing market for such systems as cities seek better data to plan and run their operations. San Diego is a test of "Internet of things" technology that GE Current provides for commercial buildings and industrial sites.

125 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Not entirely sure by arth1 · 2017-02-22 05:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

and other tasks
That's the worry.
1. Re:Not entirely sure by geekmux · 2017-02-22 05:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  and other tasks
  That's the worry.
  It's the worry for the very small fraction of intelligent people who already know how will be abused.
  For the other 99% of society who doesn't give a shit about privacy anymore, they don't care about the abuse, including the cost of implementing or maintaining this for little or no real value.
  This isn't about traffic or crime. This is about Control.
2. Re:Not entirely sure by Dutch+Gun · 2017-02-22 05:39 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Also, have they solved the rampant security issues with IoT shit yet? If not, WTF? Thanks for adding to the botnet problem, San Diego. Can't wait to hear about how your entire IoT net has been hacked, and is now under the control of some unknown third party.
  
  --
  Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
3. Re:Not entirely sure by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-02-22 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  Also, have they solved the rampant security issues with IoT shit yet? If not, WTF? Thanks for adding to the botnet problem, San Diego. Can't wait to hear about how your entire IoT net has been hacked, and is now under the control of some unknown third party.
  Ain't that the truth? IT's going to be really interesting when San Diego gets owned. Because it will get owned.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
4. Re:Not entirely sure by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 05:56 · Score: 0
  
  >This isn't about traffic or crime. This is about Control.
  This.This is what the people that don't see a problem need to understand. Very well put. It's hard to say without coming across all conspiracy nut, though.
5. Re:Not entirely sure by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 06:01 · Score: 0
  
  Most likely it will get compromised, and the cost for dealing with the compromise is more expensive than just letting the blackhats have their ways with the cameras and mics.
  Remember, in IoT, security has no ROI, so it isn't if a network gets pwned, it is when.
6. Re:Not entirely sure by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 06:03 · Score: 0
  
  They will undoubtedly also be placed on the same network as, or on a network with access to, administrative computers to make for easier ransomware propagation...
7. Re:Not entirely sure by NotInHere · 2017-02-22 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  To be honest, if I'm looking at all the people who use the Chrome browser, who use Windows 10, who use smartphones, and who all have opted into this control and surveillance, I think that putting cameras in places with rampant crime and abuse is a good way to stop it. However, if you only put cameras to the places of the city where crime is most present, it will just simply move. Therefore its a good idea to place cameras into every part of the city. If this is only done in cities where crime is very present, then its a good move!
  Also, these cameras can't be turned off by police officials as easily as body cameras can, so I think its more likely to see better proof for police brutality and to pick out the bad apples.
  Obviously, you need to watch out that these data don't get into wrong hands and maybe get used for extortion.
8. Re:Not entirely sure by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 06:10 · Score: 0
  
  No need to worry, this will be soon be followed by the installation of convenient toilet paper dispensers all over the city. Though you really should learn to use the three seashells, the toilet paper won't be very cheap.
9. Re:Not entirely sure by SomePoorSchmuck · 2017-02-22 06:37 · Score: 2
  
  To be honest, if I'm looking at all the people who use the Chrome browser, who use Windows 10, who use smartphones, and who all have opted into this control and surveillance, I think that putting cameras in places with rampant crime and abuse is a good way to stop it. However, if you only put cameras to the places of the city where crime is most present, it will just simply move. Therefore its a good idea to place cameras into every part of the city. If this is only done in cities where crime is very present, then its a good move!
  Also, these cameras can't be turned off by police officials as easily as body cameras can, so I think its more likely to see better proof for police brutality and to pick out the bad apples.
  Obviously, you need to watch out that these data don't get into wrong hands and maybe get used for extortion.
  Your naivete is saddening. You seem to feel that somehow THIS system of control, unlike all other systems of control, will magically not be abused just because there is a way to "watch out that [it doesn't] get into the wrong hands" and "If this [new system of control] is only done in [narrowly defined situations with no mission creep] then its [sic] a good move!"
  Why are you willfully choosing to believe something which has never been reality before, is going to be reality THIS time?
  1) This level of pervasive panopticon data WILL get into the wrong hands. It WILL be abused. Absolute 100% certainty.
  2) This new system of control will NOT be kept to very narrowly defined scope. There WILL be mission creep. In 30 years it WILL be a pervasive all-seeing eye where every second of your life is tracked and collated by a government/corporate crony hegemony. Absolute 100% certainty.
  Seriously. Look at history and wake up. Childhood is at an end. Cages are reassuring and freedom is scary, but come out here and be an adult in the ugly reality-land.
  
  --
  
  Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
10. Re:Not entirely sure by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-02-22 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  They will undoubtedly also be placed on the same network as, or on a network with access to, administrative computers to make for easier ransomware propagation...
  Some times it seems we are incapable of learning.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
11. Re:Not entirely sure by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 06:51 · Score: 0
  
  Just one more reason among thousands to NOT move to San Diego! That cabin in the deep woods with no internet is looking better and better all of the time!
12. Re:Not entirely sure by lgw · 2017-02-22 06:59 · Score: 2
  
  However, if you only put cameras to the places of the city where crime is most present, it will just simply move. Therefore its a good idea to place cameras into every part of the city.
  Studies of crime in places where cameras are as close to "everywhere" as is practical, such as prisons, Navy ships, and London, show that criminals know where the blinds spots are. A heatmap of crime looks exactly like you'd expect: you can tell where the cameras are from it.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
13. Re:Not entirely sure by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  As long as that cabin is within Amazon Prime delivery range, amirite?
14. Re:Not entirely sure by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 07:13 · Score: 0
  
  But how will you post to Slashdot in the deep woods with no internet? or is avoiding Slashdot part of the plan?
15. Re:Not entirely sure by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 07:20 · Score: 0
  
  The real concern here is the divide that will begin to set in between those using the cameras, and those being used by the cameras. This will ultimately lead to regular body-cavity searches at traffic stops.
16. Re:Not entirely sure by NotInHere · 2017-02-22 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Thats an argument along the lines of "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns". Of course, the crime that's left is in the blind spots, but it doesn't mean that it wasn't successful.
  That being said, I don't suggest that the entire US should be carpet surveilled with cameras like the british islands are. Just apply it to some few select crime hot spots.
17. Re:Not entirely sure by WaffleMonster · 2017-02-22 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  For the other 99% of society who doesn't give a shit about privacy anymore, they don't care about the abuse, including the cost of implementing or maintaining this for little or no real value.
  I used to believe this right up until Snowden and associated public polling proved me wrong.
  It doesn't matter how smart people are, what they believe or how much they assert they care. It only matters what they actually do.
18. Re:Not entirely sure by lgw · 2017-02-22 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  In London, overall crimes rates were not reduced in the study I read. If the goal is "move the crime to where the people we don't like live", then, sure, you might accomplish that - like much of modern policing. Otherwise, you're just moving the crime hotspots around.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
19. Re:Not entirely sure by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 09:00 · Score: 0
  
  how long after bio compatible micro computers with gps are developed will be mandatory to implant it in every new born for their own security well being and convenience?
  the advantages will be shown so obvious that nobody will want to look to its draw backs
20. Re:Not entirely sure by arth1 · 2017-02-22 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  This will ultimately lead to regular body-cavity searches at traffic stops.
  That's okay. I have rather irregular body cavities.
21. Re:Not entirely sure by arth1 · 2017-02-22 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  RFC1149 takes care of that. RFC2549 in case streaming is needed.
22. Re:Not entirely sure by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 09:13 · Score: 0
  
  Obviously, you need to watch out that these data don't get into wrong hands and maybe get used for extortion.
  Yeah, and that is exactly what will happen.
  On the bright side, yay more local repairman jobs?
23. Re:Not entirely sure by budgenator · 2017-02-22 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  In London, overall crimes rates were not reduced in the study I read. If the goal is "move the crime to where the people we don't like live", then, sure, you might accomplish that - like much of modern policing. Otherwise, you're just moving the crime hotspots around.
  So you’re trying to say we should only put cameras in Red States?
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
24. Re:Not entirely sure by budgenator · 2017-02-22 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  I'm waiting for my refrigerator to tell the traffic light to turn red so I don't drive past the grocery store when I'm out of milk.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
25. Re:Not entirely sure by harvey+the+nerd · 2017-02-22 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  suicide will become one of the last refuges.... if they don't suicide you first...
26. Re: Not entirely sure by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 11:01 · Score: 0
  
  No, gay neighborhoods.
27. Re:Not entirely sure by rtb61 · 2017-02-22 11:35 · Score: 2
  
  " I think that putting cameras in places with rampant crime", WOW, they are going to put cameras in corporate boardrooms whose claimed value is beyond a billion dollars, that's fantastic because of course that is where crime is by far the most rampant and not the petty crime of the streets. No the crimes are corruption of democracy, treason, wars for profit, bad medicines, tainted food, completely corrupted fourth estate, mass fraud of every description, I mean really horrendous crimes that cost of the lives of misery and cause the suffering of billions.
  Cops are getting body cams when are the far more corrupt politicians going to get body cams, their decisions often resulting in far more suffering and how they came about that decision being of extreme importance to the voting public.
  Here is betting there will be no public cameras watching where by far the bulk of crimes are actually being committed.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
28. Re: Not entirely sure by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 11:48 · Score: 0
  
  There is no "99% of society who doesn't care(paraphrased)."
  There is just a lot of people who don't know yet that they are being spied on, or at least they don't know the extent of it.
  These corporations spying on entire cities and playing law is the definition of fascism.
29. Re:Not entirely sure by LunaticTippy · 2017-02-22 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with you in principle but I honestly think we are on the verge of something entirely new.
  
  It will be the end of anonymity, the end of privacy, the end of certain kinds of freedom.
  
  If we can guide our new society we can make it something that I would enjoy. We need to be careful to establish wide liberties on private things such as sexuality, freedom of thought, pursuit of altered states of consciousness. In some of these regards I see promising developments already.
  
  If we can establish wide liberties the surveillance reality won't be all bad. Crimes against other people or their property will effectively vanish since ubiquitous drones, cameras, facial recognition, etc. ensure being caught.
  
  Imagine a world like this, where freedom was valued but violence was simply not tolerated. It is not entirely appalling.
  
  --
  Man, you really need that seminar!
30. Re:Not entirely sure by LunaticTippy · 2017-02-22 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  What happens when there are no blind spots? Cameras keep getting cheaper and better. Eventually we'll be able to spray camera paint on walls and pave the roads with camera asphault. I think we are headed for a whole new world. We will need to be careful it doesn't turn out fascist. I'm certain that violent and property crime will pretty much end.
  
  --
  Man, you really need that seminar!
31. Re:Not entirely sure by Altrag · 2017-02-22 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  Imagine a world like this, where freedom was valued but violence was simply not tolerated. It is not entirely appalling.
  Not entirely appalling, but unfortunately its pretty unrealistic, mostly because nobody will be willing to give wide liberties on many subjects, especially sexuality. Even if the all discriminatory laws are wiped and we somehow come to consensus on the exactly lines for things like what constitutes rape and whatnot so that everyone knows exactly the rules to follow by law.. unfortunately that does nothing for the social issues and those can be just as freedom-inhibiting as legal issues.
  We already see that with for example employment: Your employer may not be legally allowed to fire you when he finds out you're gay, but suddenly every tiny mishap that would be overlooked for a "normal" person becomes potential grounds to fire you and the onus is on you to spend the time and money (at least up front) trying to convince the court that you were actually fired for your sexuality rather than because you forgot to submit your TPS report on Tuesday.
32. Re:Not entirely sure by Altrag · 2017-02-22 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but sometimes all a person has to do to help improve things is be supportive of the people with the time, energy and ability to do something more direct and show them that their fight is worthwhile.
  Sometimes just asserting that you care is enough, and its certainly better than stewing quietly and keeping your mouth shut.
33. Re:Not entirely sure by dryeo · 2017-02-22 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  Why do think that violent and property crime will end? Most crime here is done by drunk people who don't think about consequences, then there's the other ones who are incapable of thinking of consequences due to mental damage or desperation and of course the well connected criminals who get the laws changed in their favour and/or have good lawyers.
  You can keep locking up people, but the American experiment shows that doesn't keep crime down, At that locking people up and then denying them basic rights for the rest of their life probably makes crime worst. It does help with the current movement to fascism though and perhaps once the ovens are fired up, we can just get rid of the undesirables.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
34. Re:Not entirely sure by Hylandr · 2017-02-22 15:11 · Score: 1
  
  tl;dr
  Botnets forecast to grow by at least 3200 new infected units for hire next year.
  
  --
  ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
35. Re:Not entirely sure by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 16:33 · Score: 0
  
  It's London 2.0 supported by Marijuana Tax.
36. Re:Not entirely sure by NotInHere · 2017-02-22 18:26 · Score: 1
  
  There is some difference between "lock someone up for 2 years and let them meet the real gangsters to teach them how to be criminal" and "lock someone up and teach them how to become legal". There is much work to do to improve the current situation on this front. Its not made easier that the legal system punishes black people to an extraordinary extent. Also, there are other forms of punishment than just putting someone into a prison. Like fines for example.
37. Re:Not entirely sure by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 19:53 · Score: 0
  
  You don't need to go to jail to learn to start a bank.
38. Re:Not entirely sure by MrL0G1C · 2017-02-22 20:05 · Score: 1
  
  It's a double edged sword, there could be many interesting and beneficial uses that have yet to be thought of.. and there could be the over-arching surveillance that comes from having overly paranoid state leaders.
  
  --
  Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
39. Re:Not entirely sure by geekmux · 2017-02-22 20:12 · Score: 1
  
  For the other 99% of society who doesn't give a shit about privacy anymore, they don't care about the abuse, including the cost of implementing or maintaining this for little or no real value.
  I used to believe this right up until Snowden and associated public polling proved me wrong.
  Snowden didn't change a fucking thing. He only validated my statement.
  
  It doesn't matter how smart people are, what they believe or how much they assert they care. It only matters what they actually do.
  Exactly, which is why even Snowden didn't actually change a fucking thing when it comes to consumer behavior and privacy. Unjustified Control mechanisms will continue to be put in place, Rights will continue to deteriorate, and no one will fight it, because no one cares.
40. Re:Not entirely sure by geekmux · 2017-02-22 20:25 · Score: 1
  
  how long after bio compatible micro computers with gps are developed will be mandatory to implant it in every new born for their own security well being and convenience? the advantages will be shown so obvious that nobody will want to look to its draw backs
  It's funny you think we have to wait for implants when today the vast majority of Americans carry around a GPS-enabled tracking device pretty much at all times.
  Ironically, they call it a smart device, and the age at which a child is handed this gateway to social media addiction and hardcore porn is shrinking by the minute. You know, because "safety"...
41. Re: Not entirely sure by geekmux · 2017-02-22 21:12 · Score: 1
  
  There is no "99% of society who doesn't care(paraphrased)." There is just a lot of people who don't know yet that they are being spied on, or at least they don't know the extent of it. These corporations spying on entire cities and playing law is the definition of fascism.
  A lot of people...don't know?
  Smartphones and human-tracking fitness devices. Social media narcissists. Consumers gladly giving up privacy for "free" apps. IoT security dismissed as optional. Always-on listening devices in homes for "convenience". Incessant hacking and identity theft due to addiction to shitty passwords.
  All of this activity continues today, half a fucking century after 1984 was penned.
  All fascism needs, is mass ignorance. Wake me when the status quo changes.
42. Re:Not entirely sure by WaffleMonster · 2017-02-23 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly, which is why even Snowden didn't actually change a fucking thing when it comes to consumer behavior and privacy. Unjustified Control mechanisms will continue to be put in place, Rights will continue to deteriorate, and no one will fight it, because no one cares.
  Caring is not the same as doing. One does not necessarily flow from the other.
43. Re:Not entirely sure by LunaticTippy · 2017-02-23 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  A lot of the crime I see is bicycle theft and graffiti. Once drones are 2 cents each and fully autonomous anyone who tags a wall will be followed by drones until a policeman hands them a paint brush and forces them at gunpoint to paint over their tag. After a while only people with serious mental problems will tag, and they will be forced to clean it up immediately. Way cheaper for everyone overall.
  
  Same thing for bicycle theft. Followed until forced to give it back, and apologize to the person they stole it from. Nobody steals bikes anymore.
  
  Of course we'll need to figure out a way to deal with mental defectives etc. but actual crime, committed to achieve some kind of result won't be possible anymore.
  
  --
  Man, you really need that seminar!
44. Re:Not entirely sure by LunaticTippy · 2017-02-23 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  I'm a lot more optimistic than you are. There are people alive now who remember when gays were killed without repercussion, blacks were given separate accommodations, women couldn't vote, etc. We are making rapid change towards equal rights. We aren't there yet but we have really come a long way in a relatively short time.
  
  Frankly I'm surprised how quickly gay marriage became widely accepted. I'm also surprised how fast weed has gone mainstream. I'm normally a pessimist but these things give me hope.
  
  --
  Man, you really need that seminar!
45. Re:Not entirely sure by x_t0ken_407 · 2017-02-24 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  It's hard to say without coming across all conspiracy nut, though.
  Because people have been trained to think that anything less than total and absolute trust of those in power and any thinking outside the box is stuffs of tin-foil-hat-wearers -- and even when concrete evidence is presented a large majority either does not care or thinks there is nothing wrong (see Snowden revelations). We're all fucked.
its in public by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 05:26 · Score: 0

u don't have any expectation of privacy
1. Re:its in public by Shane_Optima · 2017-02-22 05:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  it's in public. u don't have any expectation of privacy
  Historically true, but if we're headed for a world where everything we do and everything we say in public (at least outside and within the city limits) is on file for all time on a server somewhere that's been pre-analyzed and indexed using using facial recognition and voice recognition... we might want to consider revising that rule of thumb a bit.
2. Re:its in public by geekmux · 2017-02-22 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  u don't have any expectation of privacy
  I can't believe you hold an expectation that people give a shit about privacy anymore, regardless of location.
3. Re:its in public by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  I think I'll follow you everywhere you go (as long as you're in "public"), live-streaming your actions from my phone, since you have no expectation of privacy. I will also follow your vehicle, noting when you turn into the wrong lane, don't signal the proper distance in advance of your action, roll stop signs, exceed the speed limit by 1 MPH, etc. You don't mind, right? I think I'll call you Truman.
4. Re:its in public by Archangel+Michael · 2017-02-22 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  There is an expectation that you are not being monitored by the police state, up until this point. Technology is invasive the moment it becomes pervasive. I have no ability to OPT out of state surveillance, and the state has no expectation that they can monitor me without a court order. I would consider this a violation of 4th Amendment "Unreasonable" search ....
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
5. Re:its in public by DirkDaring · 2017-02-22 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Go for it, don't be surprised when you get arrested for stalking.
6. Re:its in public by epyT-R · 2017-02-22 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps, but maybe we should.
7. Re:its in public by kilfarsnar · 2017-02-22 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Go for it, don't be surprised when you get arrested for stalking.
  I think that was the AC's point.
  
  --
  "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
8. Re:its in public by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 06:07 · Score: 0
  
  What about the day that these cameras can view infrared or the microphones can discriminate sound from behind walls and from hundreds of meters away?
  Now that camera and microphone (and who knows what other "sensors") in the light post at the end of your driveway becomes a lot more sinister...
9. Re:its in public by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  If a private party does it and hands results to the government, is the 4A even relevant? I know one town where I lived sell a city park to a private firm, just so they can kick out people they don't like, and anything recorded in the park was done by the private company's equipment, which is separate from the public incorporated town.
10. Re:its in public by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 06:12 · Score: 0
  
  <whisper>That's the joke.</whisper>
11. Re:its in public by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 06:22 · Score: 0
  
  When I can wear a mask in public and cover the license plate of my car, then I'll stop being against these sorts of cameras.
12. Re:its in public by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  > There is an expectation that you are not being monitored by the police state, up until this point.
  No. The expectation up until this point is that you have no right to privacy when you're out in public.
  That wasn't so much of a problem in the past, but as technology gets more powerful it also gets more intrusive. Cops were claiming that they didn't need a warrant to put a GPS tracker on your car, because they could get the same information by tailing you. Anyone who says there's no slippery slope is sorely mistaken.
13. Re:its in public by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 07:10 · Score: 0
  
  It's simple, we destroy the server.
14. Re:its in public by budgenator · 2017-02-22 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry, every tire sold in North America has an RFID chip, your license plate is superfluous.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
15. Re:its in public by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2017-02-22 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  There kind of was, in a weird way.
  In the way back 70s and 80s even, if i was being spied upon on a public street, it was pretty certain there was something specific about me. Maybe I was a crook, maybe I was a cheating spouse, or (very unlikely) maybe i just had a stalker. It was expensive to spy on someone. So only certain people could ever be targets.
  Now, everyone can be targeted cheaply. That's a different world. that's a different world than the Founding Fathers could see. Maybe they'd specifically say "you should be able to disappear in public unless there was a warrant".
16. Re:its in public by Altrag · 2017-02-22 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  People give a shit about privacy. They just don't understand it and (more importantly) how and when its being compromised.
  The biggest issue is a disconnect between where privacy is compromised and where its expected to be compromised. If I post a picture of my dog to Facebook and share it with my friends, I expect that only my friends will be able to see it. That's seems like a pretty reasonable assumption.
  However, because its on FB's server, I no longer have control over the picture and that's the tricky part that many people fail to understand because there isn't really a real-world equivalent to hosting a picture on someone else' server -- at least not without invoking some heavily constructed scenarios that would be just as hard for an average person to understand as the actual problem.
  At the end of the day, ignorance is ignorance whether its intentional or not, but in the unintentional case we have at least the possibility of informing people and reducing the amount of ignorance toward the issue. Unfortunately we've been pretty unsuccessful in that context as well since for the most part, all of this privacy invasion has been fairly subtle and unintrusive to the average person so its hard to convince them that there is even a problem that they're ignorant of, never mind correcting that ignorance.
17. Re:its in public by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 19:55 · Score: 0
  
  Where are the readers?
18. Re:its in public by geekmux · 2017-02-22 22:03 · Score: 1
  
  People give a shit about privacy. They just don't understand it and (more importantly) how and when its being compromised.
  The biggest issue is a disconnect between where privacy is compromised and where its expected to be compromised. If I post a picture of my dog to Facebook and share it with my friends, I expect that only my friends will be able to see it. That's seems like a pretty reasonable assumption.
  However, because its on FB's server, I no longer have control over the picture and that's the tricky part that many people fail to understand because there isn't really a real-world equivalent to hosting a picture on someone else' server -- at least not without invoking some heavily constructed scenarios that would be just as hard for an average person to understand as the actual problem.
  At the end of the day, ignorance is ignorance whether its intentional or not, but in the unintentional case we have at least the possibility of informing people and reducing the amount of ignorance toward the issue. Unfortunately we've been pretty unsuccessful in that context as well since for the most part, all of this privacy invasion has been fairly subtle and unintrusive to the average person so its hard to convince them that there is even a problem that they're ignorant of, never mind correcting that ignorance.
  People will gladly give up privacy in exchange for a "free" price tag. The top 10 worst passwords consumers use today have not changed in decades, regardless of the obvious rise in hacking and identity theft, caused by using shitty passwords. The fitness guru who gets offended when a website drops a cookie wears a fitness tracker 24/7. The consumer shocked by the invasive nature of targeted ads owns an always-on listening device in their home, because "convenience". The social media addict who streams and tweets their entire vacation wonders how the criminal knew they weren't home. The user who's laptop hard drive failed three times still doesn't back their data up to the server.
  Ignorance is ignorance, but we seem to be beyond that. We're now in a state of willful ignorance. Also known as not giving a shit, which tends to reinforce my original point.
  As far as informing people, damn near everything comes with a EULA today, and yet no one actually reads them.
  In the end, I'm certain that people will complain about no one warning them about the consequences of not giving a shit. All I can say is 1984 was written over half a century ago.
19. Re:its in public by budgenator · 2017-02-23 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  In the pavement, disguised as expansion joints.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
20. Re:its in public by Archangel+Michael · 2017-02-23 17:40 · Score: 1
  
  technology gets more powerful it also gets more intrusive
  
  Technology is invasive the moment it becomes pervasive.
  You and I said the same thing. As a Libertarian, I would suggest to you a (singular) camera is invasive, but accepted. A thousand cameras owned by the state is in fact a violation of constitutional guarantees against UNREASONABLE searches. Is it really unreasonable to be free from observation in a "Free" society?
  Think about it for a second, the very thing we made fun of in the USSR is happening today, and both liberals and conservatives are arguing for more of the same surveillance state.
  The difference between a single picture from 1970 by my dad on a camera at Disneyland is clearly not the same thing as the government being able to watch me travel from my home to Disneyland on all the cameras lined all the way there and back. Once is inconvenience, a hundred thousand frames is observation. Somewhere along that long line, it stops being expectation of not being filmed and one of expectation of being filmed at any given moment.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
21. Re:its in public by Altrag · 2017-02-23 21:39 · Score: 1
  
  People will gladly give up privacy in exchange for a "free" price tag
  Are you sure about that? Now people will sure give their name and address to some company for a free price tag -- but it comes with the expectation that it will only be used by the company they gave it to.
  That's the disconnect of ignorance. People who haven't had reason to consider the issue in depth don't really expect that their data is being sold to 47 "partners" and stolen by hackers 3 times a year because the site is too lazy or incompetent to secure their system. We expect the data to be used for in-house things like product planning and flyer layout.
  We've been told for centuries that business is the end-all-be-all and we tend to trust them until they break trust rather than requiring them to earn trust in the first place.
  
  We're now in a state of willful ignorance
  I don't know that I'm that pessimistic about people. I tend to believe more that the world is just too damned complex and its just not possible for busy people to know and understand every piece of technical information that comes along. Computer people should probably know better but I don't think we should require any random welder or burger flipper or fisherman to understand such details.
  
  damn near everything comes with a EULA today, and yet no one actually reads them.
  Yeah, because they're unreadable. Intentionally so. Your average EULA is several dozen pages of deep legalese that even lawyers take days to parse through in full. And we're asked to read several of these per week, if not per day for anyone who spends significant time on the Internet. Then there's EULA updates which are often "announced" on some hard-to-find page on their website (even if the EULA is for an offline program.)
  Its just too much. Just like you can't expect the welder to understand the privacy implications of any particular website or piece of software, you really can't expect a him to understand the legal implications of dozens of absurdly long EULA documents. I have to click off a EULA to order a damned pizza these days!
  I don't know what the answer is. Maybe there isn't an answer. Certainly not an easy one if there is. But I can guarantee you that the answer is not going to be "just expect everybody to be a computer expert and a legal expert and have several hours per week to dedicate to parsing through all of the details AND savvy enough to know when the details are BS and they're actually dealing with someone shady."
  I mean if you want to take that tack, we may as well shutdown repair shops -- everyone should be a master mechanic right? And the hospitals -- who needs one everyone's partner or friend or neighbor is a fully trained doctor? But of course that's not the way the real world works and we really shouldn't expect everyone to have specialized knowledge online either.
22. Re:its in public by geekmux · 2017-02-24 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  People will gladly give up privacy in exchange for a "free" price tag
  Are you sure about that? Now people will sure give their name and address to some company for a free price tag -- but it comes with the expectation that it will only be used by the company they gave it to.
  That's the disconnect of ignorance. People who haven't had reason to consider the issue in depth don't really expect that their data is being sold to 47 "partners" and stolen by hackers 3 times a year because the site is too lazy or incompetent to secure their system. We expect the data to be used for in-house things like product planning and flyer layout.
  We've been told for centuries that business is the end-all-be-all and we tend to trust them until they break trust rather than requiring them to earn trust in the first place.
  When the end result is a constant stream of hacks leaking consumer data, it's still willful ignorance, no matter how you want to paint it. If a company contracted to never sell user information and secured it using the best encryption, but charged $5 for their product, no one would buy it. People bitch about 99 cents these days. Willful ignorance at its finest.
  With regards to hacking and consequence, it's the it'll-never-happen-to-me syndrome. That same ignorance leads to humans ignoring medical signs that lead to cancer being detected in the too-late stage, over and over again.
  Bottom line is if consumers actually gave a shit, they wouldn't be handing over their most sensitive information. Convenience trumps privacy. Every time.
  
  ...And the hospitals -- who needs one everyone's partner or friend or neighbor is a fully trained doctor? But of course that's not the way the real world works and we really shouldn't expect everyone to have specialized knowledge online either.
  Actually, it's ironic that the real world still requires 8 years of highly specialized schooling and a doctorate degree in order to for someone to be legally authorized to do work on a human body, and yet we recommend 30 days worth of training and a certification to work on a computer holding your most sensitive information. Funny how that shit works, isn't it. Again, mass ignorance at its finest.
23. Re:its in public by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-25 15:46 · Score: 0
  
  Okay, so maybe it's time to amend the constitution to make a distinction between searches and surveillance?
Pretty cool by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 05:29 · Score: 0

Thing is, there needs to be sensible privacy legislation in place *before* these systems roll out. Otherwise, the potential for abuse is insane. Kettling on steroids, to name just one. Microphones on every lamp post, whoa...
1. Re:Pretty cool by SomePoorSchmuck · 2017-02-22 06:43 · Score: 2
  
  Thing is, there needs to be sensible privacy legislation in place *before* these systems roll out. Otherwise, the potential for abuse is insane. Kettling on steroids, to name just one. Microphones on every lamp post, whoa...
  More unjustified naivete.
  Let's not pretend we don't know how things work, as if there weren't mountains of human history demonstrating what will happen.
  There is no amount of legislation which will remove the "potential for abuse". Legislation doesn't magically make the data go away. If the data is collected, it has a gravity of its own, and just like a new planet that gravity will over time pull the other parts of legal system out of their current orbit and result in something different. Information is power. You can't create a giant bank account of Information and expect it to never be stolen, embezzled, compromised, distorted, or used for political gain.
  IF the data is there, it WILL be abused. Absolute 100% certainty.
  
  --
  
  Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
Person of Interest by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 05:31 · Score: 0

All we need now is for someone to build a computer system to analyze all the data, and call it The Machine
1. Re:Person of Interest by txsable · 2017-02-22 05:35 · Score: 2
  
  All we need now is for someone to build a computer system to analyze all the data, and call it The Machine
  Probably end up being more like Samaritan...
2. Re:Person of Interest by Joe_Dragon · 2017-02-22 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  By now your name and particulars have been fed into every laptop, desktop, mainframe and supermarket scanner that collectively make up the global information conspiracy, otherwise known as "The Beast."
3. Re:Person of Interest by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 05:46 · Score: 0
  
  This already exists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThinThread.
Simple Solution by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 05:34 · Score: 0

Just tattoo barcodes on everyone's forehead. That's where we're going.
Face masks anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 05:34 · Score: 1

How soon before people wear masks outside, just do go about their business around town?
1. Re:Face masks anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 05:46 · Score: 0
  
  Business like selling drugs? Or extorting protection money?
2. Re:Face masks anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 05:55 · Score: 0
  
  Or going into 7-11 to buy a newspaper and a Big Gulp.
3. Re:Face masks anyone? by kilfarsnar · 2017-02-22 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  Business like selling drugs? Or extorting protection money?
  Business like protesting government action. Or were you implying that the only people who should be worried about this are criminals?
  
  --
  "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
4. Re:Face masks anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 06:08 · Score: 0
  
  How soon before people wear masks outside, just do go about their business around town?
  Now you know why trump hates the muzzies and trans people so much.
  Hijabs aren't just about modesty, they are about privacy too, protecting us from surveillance while out in public.
  Also, these anti-facial recognition glasses might help in case you don't want to go full niqab.
5. Re:Face masks anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 06:49 · Score: 0
  
  > Or going into 7-11 to buy a Playboy and a Big Gulp.
  There, FTFY. Or at least FTFM.
6. Re:Face masks anyone? by SomePoorSchmuck · 2017-02-22 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  How soon before people wear masks outside, just do go about their business around town?
  Automated biometrics are advancing every month. Gait, posture, general size/outline, body language... these are all keys which can be used to positively ID you in the same way face recognition is a composite of components like eyes, lips, nose, cheekbones, brow, etc. Covering your mouth or your eyes doesn't render your unrecognizable. A little harder maybe, but not by enough to defeat modern technology. So no, face masks won't make a difference. (Plus the likelihood that measures you might take to conceal yourself might be criminalized. And if not criminalized, then immediately mark you for HEIGHTENED suspicion and surveillance.)
  Furthermore, the entire concept is moot because once the all-seeing eye is complete, a mere face mask won't protect you because the system can backtrack you and use simple equivalents of circuit electronics and fluid flow to find out who all went into a location and who all came out, and it can easily match your identity by subtracting all the people who AREN'T wearing the masks.
  We are heading for the Total Information Awareness state. It is coming. Very quickly. All the technology now exists. The only thing left is implementation. And because freedom is scary, we will cry out to them to save us from it and give us the comfort of a cell.
  
  --
  
  Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
7. Re:Face masks anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 07:23 · Score: 0
  
  7-11's sell porno mags? Not in my state, not for years. But wait, Playboy isn't porno anymore. Hold on, it is again.
  Who buys porn on paper these days anyway?
8. Re: Face masks anyone? by negRo_slim · 2017-02-22 08:28 · Score: 2
  
  They brought back the nudity apparently.
  
  http://news.sky.com/story/hefn...
  
  --
  On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
9. Re:Face masks anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 11:52 · Score: 0
  
  How soon before people wear masks outside, just do go about their business around town?
  
  Business like selling drugs? Or extorting protection money?
  Yes, selling drugs being one example of perfectly valid "business around town".
  It would be a benefit to reduce the practice of extorting protection money but the major player in this space is the IRS and I hardly think that pervasive surveillance is going to stop them.
kill two birds with one stone. by Thud457 · 2017-02-22 05:39 · Score: 1

There's no law saying I can't wander around public spaces wearing a high-power infrared LED that's blinking out Bobby Tables in Morse code.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
1. Re:kill two birds with one stone. by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-02-22 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  There's no law saying I can't wander around public spaces wearing a high-power infrared LED that's blinking out Bobby Tables in Morse code.
  Hehe - I like it! While I'm not sure of the need to defeat these, Its always good to think of countermeasures.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
2. Re:kill two birds with one stone. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2017-02-22 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  I've thought about doing a similar thing to this to defeat ALPRs but it seems that most of these methods don't take it far enough. most of them are trying to get some bleed into the surrounding area of the sensor. A few watts of power draw is nothing which is what most of these attempts do, I'm thinking like 100W power draw for each license plate. I'm looking for this effect but in the IR. So instead of trying to create lens flare I want to massively underexpose the image. In this case I may also get some massive lens flare as well but that isn't what I would have been shooting for. Also using some LEDs like these would be good as they are far enough into the IR that they don't have the red glow that others do.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
3. Re: kill two birds with one stone. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 11:55 · Score: 0
  
  OMG you are thinking too much. Just shoot the camera with a paintball. They can't even get you for vandalism because that paint just rinses off with no effort.
4. Re:kill two birds with one stone. by Altrag · 2017-02-22 13:10 · Score: 1
  
  Until they decide to call that kind of thing vandalism.
Good and evil by bigpat · 2017-02-22 05:40 · Score: 1

Like all new technology it will be used for good and evil. "The city will provide the data to entrepreneurs and students to develop applications." Have to have faith in the majority of people to use the technology for good and to punish those that use it for evil. However, if the information is in the hands of just a few then there won't be effective oversight and it will be used for evil. What they need to do is level the playing field and provide the data as close to real time as is technically possible to anyone that wants it. Not selectively, not piecemeal, not months later... real time.
Add it to the list by Tailhook · 2017-02-22 05:43 · Score: 0

Another permanent-(D) hellhole putting it's subjects under a microscope. Add it to the list.
GE, Intel, and AT&T Are Putting Cameras and Sensors All Over San Diego
San Jose May Put License Plate Scanners On Garbage Trucks
In Baltimore and Elsewhere, Police Use Stingrays For Petty Crimes

--
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
1. Re: Add it to the list by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 06:24 · Score: 0
  
  I doubt many politicians on either side of the aisle are concerned about this type of surveillance.
2. Re:Add it to the list by sconeu · 2017-02-22 06:49 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  San Diego is heavily Republican, you idiot.
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
3. Re:Add it to the list by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 08:33 · Score: 0
  
  Facts and Tailhook are not the best of friends. He has a great relationship with opinions stated as fact
4. Re:Add it to the list by kaatochacha · 2017-02-22 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  Heavily? Compared to the rest of California, perhaps.
5. Re:Add it to the list by Khyber · 2017-02-22 12:19 · Score: 0
  
  California is a fucking blue state, you non-voting twit.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
6. Re:Add it to the list by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 19:57 · Score: 1
  
  Never heard of a voting district?
  CA on average is blue, but San Diego County is red.
7. Re:Add it to the list by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 20:52 · Score: 0
  
  > CA on average is blue, but San Diego County is red.
  Not lately
  IIRC when I used to live in Cali, Orange County was the (R) stronghold.
I wonder which version of ctOS they'll use... by Miguelito · 2017-02-22 05:59 · Score: 1

I look forward to taking advantage of hacking the devices with ease from my phone.

--
- My favorite error message: xscreensaver, running on an old Sparc 5 w/ 8bit color: bsod: Couldn't allocate color Blue
1. Re:I wonder which version of ctOS they'll use... by ColdWetDog · 2017-02-22 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  The phone that is tracking your every word. move, text and photo?
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:I wonder which version of ctOS they'll use... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 08:23 · Score: 0
  
  The phone that is tracking your every word. move, text and photo?
  My phone runs Debian, you insensitive clod.
Cool tech by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 06:00 · Score: 0

I think it's absolutely cool tech with so many cool things it can do to improve the world. Thankfully; the government is filled with only pure and altruistic leaders who would never consider infringing on the rights of the people.
Best of all, consider how amazing this technology would be for identifying and tracking illegal aliens for the purpose of deportation. Imagine an amazing place where no illegal aliens would dare stepping outside where the cameras could see them. It's a good thing San Diego would have no problems sustaining itself without them.
While they are at it, they should extend the emergency SMS/Phone network to television and place screens everywhere to send the mandatory people soothing government approved messages. The cameras can also be used to identify people who don't pause and pay those messages proper attention. This is after all what is best for national security and guaranteeing freedom.
To paraphrase an old quote... by SuperKendall · 2017-02-22 06:04 · Score: 1

Fascism seems to be eternally descending on conservative states, but landing in liberally controlled areas.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Countdown to being rooted: 10, 9 ... by davecb · 2017-02-22 06:05 · Score: 1

Unless they're surprisingly secure in the fist place, and have a trusted path for emergency re-imaging, they're going to be amazingly attractive to anyone wanting to experiment with rooting industrial-IOT hardware.

--
davecb@spamcop.net
1. Re:Countdown to being rooted: 10, 9 ... by davecb · 2017-02-22 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  s/fist/first/ (;-))
  
  --
  davecb@spamcop.net
2. Re:Countdown to being rooted: 10, 9 ... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  Unless they're surprisingly secure in the fist place, and have a trusted path for emergency re-imaging, they're going to be amazingly attractive to anyone wanting to experiment with rooting industrial-IOT hardware.
  the fist place is goatse
Screw it.... by BlytheBowman · 2017-02-22 06:30 · Score: 1

I can't do shit to stop this fast slide into facism, so I might as well open a shop that sells brown shirts and those fake 'looks like Charlie Chaplain mustaches but they sure aint!' dealies. Sieg Heil, and Come Again!
All over? by thinkwaitfast · 2017-02-22 06:41 · Score: 1

Apple and Google beat them to it.
fixed it for you by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 07:11 · Score: 0

"The city will provide the data to entrepreneurs and students to monetize^H^H^H^H^H develop applications."
IoT City by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 07:28 · Score: 0

IoT is already a privacy a security nightmare. Welcome to nightmare city. A city that never sleeps and neither can you. Do people not see that they are literally treated like cattle with this tech or is that area so used to vegans, that they forgot?
San Diego by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 07:55 · Score: 0

Is that the one with all the Mexicans or the one with pee in the streets? Gotta track both I guess.
"potential" privacy concerns?! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 08:00 · Score: 0

This is nothing but one big PRIVACY NIGHTMARE.
Just wait... by JustNiz · 2017-02-22 08:10 · Score: 1

The next thing will be facial recognition.
1. Re:Just wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 11:03 · Score: 0
  
  It might seem rather cheap of me, but I always consider engineers who work on these things as traitors.
National Security problem? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-22 08:14 · Score: 0

How is that going to work with the naval base in San Diego? Are they going to have a tool that allows decently tight tracking of individual persons (SEALs, officers, engineers) and of all logistics going into and out of the base, as well as submarine and ship activity? That sounds like someone with that information could track/predict travel of individual subs (boomers?) and get an estimate of resupply times and port-times.
Given the issues with China in the South China Sea, is making this sort of stuff nearly public domain a good idea?
1. Re:National Security problem? by PPH · 2017-02-22 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  This is a very good point.
  But then the 1996 Telecom Act quietly changed the ownership of metadata from the subscriber to service providers. And many of these service providers have moved all their customer information offshore (try to call customer service without being connected to Rajiv). So that raw data is available (and has been used) to do link analysis, the results of which are for sale. Adversaries can figure out who works with or for whom. And where they are at any given time using this analysis applied to cell phone records as well as land lines..
  Given that the government (and specifically the DoD) hasn't said shit about this and asked for a legislative change, I doubt anyone will dare upsetting GE. Intel and AT&T by threatening this new profit center either.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
2. Re:National Security problem? by budgenator · 2017-02-22 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  Maria's Taqueria y Burdel already knows that shit.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Re: Control is a many-way street by hackwrench · 2017-02-22 11:29 · Score: 1

If you don't control yourself, you will be controlled. That is the way it has always been. You know it exists. Are you going to use it to control yourself, or are you going to let others use it to control you?
Best of both worlds! by Altrag · 2017-02-22 12:20 · Score: 1

All the privacy of government spy programs with all the transparency of private corporations! What could possibly go wrong?
Re: Control is a many-way street by geekmux · 2017-02-22 20:34 · Score: 1

If you don't control yourself, you will be controlled. That is the way it has always been. You know it exists. Are you going to use it to control yourself, or are you going to let others use it to control you?
Feel free to elaborate on this poetic advice as your Rights dissolve faster than a Millennials Starbucks account.
You act as if We are still gifted with choice.
Re:Face masks everyone! by retrosurf · 2017-02-23 08:55 · Score: 1

Fezzik: Why do you wear a mask? Were you burned by acid or something?
The Man in Black: Oh no. It's just they're terribly comfortable. I think everyone will be wearing them in the future.