A thoughtful reply, but there are one or two errors in it, one of which I can correct with both experience and certainty, and the other which I'm not sure of.
First, both "1." and "2." are rarely factors beyond abusing technicalities. From the reports, videos and actual instances I've dealt with, the police are not "interfered" with and the camera-person if lawfully instructed has complied. But if that camera-person is on their own property or elsewhere (not a street) -- as has been the majority of cases -- then a command from an officer to leave the area is unlawful, or at the very least an abuse of power. "Interference" is a very big term and must be used responsibly. Even the less-intelligent officers are creative enough to stretch this word far beyond reasonable context -- and frequently they do. I will admit that I've seen such examples as you've mentioned; however, they are rare. I would even say that such cases are more rare than the illegal confiscation and destruction of the camera and/or its contents. An officer is payed to police both public and private areas. With this duty comes risk. They simply cannot evacuate the area of every minor crime scene and they shouldn't be able to! In many of the cases I've observed, it was the equivalent of redirecting interstate traffic so that a single traffic-citation could be issued without "interference".
Now for that second thing I wasn't quite sure about, but find sort of interesting; are many houses not also in public places -- with some literally on, or at least (with their rooftops) overhanging? And is the street "public" or private? We seem to have to pay rent to use them. Perhaps it is a simple matter of what immediate surface happens to be below the individual at the time and location of the question, i.e., either the public owns the spectrum of space aka the asphalt or concrete road (to a vaguely defined depth and height) -- or the state owns it likewise. But that's probably silly because on a road, a car is a "legal 'extension' of" the self and is not just beneath, but all around. *I am beginning to suspect all legal planning comes with obligatory aneurysms, or at least a prerequisite of nihilism and bucket of amphetamines*
Aside from that, and as you mentioned, the data is a critical aspect of the surveillance. What makes you sure that the data is not being applied to other things beyond their stated mission? It requires a mere reference to "terrorism" or "extremism" these days for government to avoid an FOIA or conceal their affairs. Maybe we should all read the fine print on the implementation of this technology; sometimes it can be very fine, and I doubt a few FOIA and FOIL requests would hurt.
Could it not be reasonably argued that while there is no reasonable expectation of privacy while driving and despite state-ownership of the plate, it would otherwise require at least the efforts of a very persistent stalker to acquire half the data collected by this technology?
To compound the line of logic above, it is also exceedingly questionable that such powerful, perpetual surveillance should be pointed at the public while the public are still -- despite Federal rulings -- being intimidated, arrested, detained, and prosecuted for filming police in public places.
I know it is vaguely related, but what are your thoughts that the Castle doctrine can apply to automobiles, which are apparently public places?
First, I admit my naivety on this subject and truly did not think it was so widely available on the consumer level. I was aware of its widespread use in the UK, and even in my own town by authorities. It seemed to me at first, that a home camera and desktop-computer would have a difficult time sorting through thousands or even hundreds of plate-images per day and indexing them accordingly. I stand corrected and mildly embarrassed. Please pardon the ignorance. However, the fact that it's existed for decades should not be exaggerated. The same could have been said about the SR-71, which had existed for quite some time before it was known about by even the technically inclined.
As for the cutesy "Google" comment, why not just bypass/. and use the all "new" google instead, aye? Or try suggesting it during your next discussion where any questions are asked. And just in case the only two things you have knowledge of are OCR and google; "results" imply very little. For example: "Platypus cup reading software" produces 12,900,000 results. But I guess I have no choice but to absorb your insults; I did make a ridiculous reply to what I now realize was your perfectly reasonable comment. And yes, it is a funny name for a government proxy.
Thanks for the wiki link, but can you direct me to any particular software that would read license tags passing by my home? Preferably something that would work on Linux. And how long are you implying that cameras have had the capability of reading license plates (in motion and many numbers of them) for? Surely not since "1914", or 1941, or even 1984. I am still convinced that this is on an effective level, a recent and expensive technology. Again, all corrections welcome.
Not sure if I am understanding you correctly. Are you implying that you're clever enough to configure your home computer to interpret numbers from a.png,.jpg, etc.? If so, you are a bright fellow; the police-force pays high dollar for this technology. Otherwise, the answer to your first question is a hopefully-obvious "NO!". If I'm the fool here, please do explain what program is available to me that will extract numbers from images.
Yes and no. Regarding public availability, the problem I see is the potential to build a sort of historical locational dossier on people, which though no secret, perhaps should not be compiled and and placed by software into a dense, organized file containing otherwise virtually impossible-to-acquire data for convenient perusal of, well, anyone. Until we actually go at least a few decades without a holocaust or war, I vote for privacy. The present invasions of privacy taking place are dubious even for a utopia. We have neuro-marketing in nearly every major retail venue, a very curious NSA, unrestricted law-enforcement surveillance (almost), TSA, civilian psychopaths, and much more.
As for other problems, I could easily go into a rant. But hopefully someone else will take care of that.
For example, they do it here in SRQ. What I'm curious about is how this stuff works on helicopters. As for what was once called "VeriPlate" but is now attempting to slip into obscurity, please see this PDF for an overview.
Respectfully, I refer you to Wikileaks and Cryptome, and boilingfrogspost.com (Sibel Edmonds). I recommend looking at boilingfrogspost before too confidently re-stating such things. I commend your faith, but fear there are some genuine problems. Also, this administration has been quite busy going after whistle-blowers. Please take a second look.
The size of a house would be grossly insufficient. The sort of meteorite appropriate for this rascal would pose a threat to humanity and the planet. We simply need to capture this pest and launch him/it/her into space directly toward -- but in the opposite trajectory of - the meanest thing out there, which is probably a black hole. A steady trail of their kind would be a soothing fact to ponder while gazing upward.
"[citation needed]"
Yes, citing classified subjects is most effective. Just file another FOIA and they'll both get back with you ASAP.
In case you missed the obvious, we've been having a bit of trouble in the US with transparency.
But if it tickles your pickle to know; both have declined to comment on the subject, which I guess for people like yourself, means it's impossible, because you are a very tender and trusting sort of chap. Regarding the citation, I recommending asking Santa for Christmas. Surely you've been good enough!
Google initially obliterated all competition and provided a truly awesome search engine. Personally, I have observed them getting worse since. Yes, some aspects have improved, but I think their direction is now clear enough to suggest that finally, after such failed attempts as Cuil, opportunity for competition is presenting itself again.
I remember before or around 2008, Youtube changed their search results and related-video function. Previously, Youtube was a rather amazing resource for discovering new things inadvertently. Then they fragmented and obstructed this previously excellent system and along with their web-results, went totally fucking stupid and began personalizing results based on IP addresses, which effectively slaughters objectivity in search results.
All signs indicate that it's time to move away from google. But of course, this is difficult -- if not impossible -- after placing such widespread large-scale reliance upon them. And call me troll all you'd like, but we really don't need to be assisting the NSA through google anyway. And yeah, they do have a partnership. And no, they don't delete any information at all. Someone once referred to google as the "Artificial Intelligence Manhattan Project", a thought at the very least worthy of believable fiction.
What I think we should consider, is building a p2p, torrent-based distributed internet. Censorship would have difficulty thriving and the fault tolerance should be pretty good. Challenging though. And I have no idea how the search would work. But with continued dependency on google, I expect the internet to get more exciting and flashy, but ultimately worse.
With cameras at every turn reading faces and ears, and pre-crime detectors strewn about public places, the biggest social outlet there is will soon be fed live and directly into their hands. Courtesy of the DHS, we already have talking, listening, spying, interactive street-lights, as well as harebrained projects like FAST (Future Attribute Screening Technology), and backscatter gangsters strolling around.
I guess f-book and such are still pretty sweet honey pots, but I think such duties will soon be automated enough to allow the average officer to comfortably return to their sticks and pepper-spray without having to endure IT 101.
"not necessarily true" does not make it false.
Would that not still make it a false assertion? When someone wins the lottery, I don't call it a correct guess, or accurate luck.
It seems the only true answer for something of pure guesswork would fairly be 0.
In a recent Schneier article titled Court Orders TSA to Answer EPIC a menacing comment was left by what claimed to be 'Blogger Bob' from the TSA's blog. It may be and likely enough is a dupe, but seemed terribly appropriate for the TSA. I have pasted it below for your reading pleasure:
"I've been asked to respond to this post in order to clarify misunderstandings that some people may have.
The TSA properly exempted itself from the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Sunshine Act. The TSA granted itself the exemption for valid reasons that must remain classified for National Security reasons, so you'll have to trust us on that.
The TSA also had a valid grounds for respectfully refusing to comply with both court orders. The reasons are also classified for National Security reasons, so again you'll have to trust us the refusal was appropriate and necessary. But I can tell you that the decision was based on thorough analysis of the latest robust intelligence pertaining to the current threat environment.
In both cases, TSA Counsel determined that any form of notice and comment rulemaking regarding the deployment of AIT would be detrimental to National Security, based on the classified determinations I referenced above. TSA Counsel prepared a classified memorandum exempting the agency from notice and comment requirements. TSA Counsel believes that the National Security determinations set forth in the classified memorandum give the TSA full authority to disregard any court orders requiring notice and comment rulemaking.
You are, of course, free to sign the petition. But it will have no more effect than the lawsuit or the court order. And do be aware that pursuant to classified TSA procedures, any names on the petition will be forwarded to the Terrorist Screening Center for possible inclusion on appropriate watch lists.
Thank you for allowing me to address your concerns about this matter."
Posted by: Blogger Bob at August 2, 2012 6:39 PM
Perhaps the poll was conducted with a stick. But then again, we are a libidinous culture.
That actually would make for a reasonable curriculum and would be fun. Problem-solving, critical-thinking, with a tasty but menacing carrot dangling about.
I have a terrible memory, at least so far;)
But if I remember correctly, Roadmarks was one I read. I also read a collection of short stories which were excellent, though I cannot remember titles. However, whilst looking for some refreshers I discovered this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_Irae which is a co-authored novel by Zelazny and.....(prepare yourself)..... ......The legendary Philip K Dick. P.K.D. is certainly at the very top of my most regarded authors of any genre.
Surely a centrally-managed internet ID for all would mitigate against such atrocious acts of violence. I know I'd never drop a mine on sub-sea fiber-cables if I had to post comments with my real name -- and I'd not even dare launch a missile if SOPA or ACTA were in effect, nor do I suspect would the Chinese, or even worse; the Canadians. Maybe so. Maybe so. But now that I think of it, I'd never do these things anyway. But just in case someone else would, at least the authorities wouldn't need a pesky warrant to know about it in advance.
This may be just what the great security-bureaucracy of the US finally needs to take over the internet; pestilent waves of freshly hatched script-kiddies defacing the front-pages of their overlords!
Or will it conversely be the knowledge that the masses so vitally need to see clearly through the hysterical rhetoric of the cyber-paranoid?
Considering that Monsanto invented Agent Orange with the help of Dow, I do not accept either. Quite on topic. Someday, an article exposing the real trolls and their network will make for something very "interesting" or "insightful" -- take your pick. Good thing we have user-histories until then, which could possibly - with the right software - be used to accomplish this;)
Slashdot could make a fortune with a $0.25 per-click "Denial" mod option.
Slashdot Mirror
Thus is A.I. They simply reincarnate as 0s or 1s and continue taking over the universe.
A thoughtful reply, but there are one or two errors in it, one of which I can correct with both experience and certainty, and the other which I'm not sure of.
First, both "1." and "2." are rarely factors beyond abusing technicalities. From the reports, videos and actual instances I've dealt with, the police are not "interfered" with and the camera-person if lawfully instructed has complied. But if that camera-person is on their own property or elsewhere (not a street) -- as has been the majority of cases -- then a command from an officer to leave the area is unlawful, or at the very least an abuse of power. "Interference" is a very big term and must be used responsibly. Even the less-intelligent officers are creative enough to stretch this word far beyond reasonable context -- and frequently they do. I will admit that I've seen such examples as you've mentioned; however, they are rare. I would even say that such cases are more rare than the illegal confiscation and destruction of the camera and/or its contents. An officer is payed to police both public and private areas. With this duty comes risk. They simply cannot evacuate the area of every minor crime scene and they shouldn't be able to! In many of the cases I've observed, it was the equivalent of redirecting interstate traffic so that a single traffic-citation could be issued without "interference".
Now for that second thing I wasn't quite sure about, but find sort of interesting; are many houses not also in public places -- with some literally on, or at least (with their rooftops) overhanging? And is the street "public" or private? We seem to have to pay rent to use them. Perhaps it is a simple matter of what immediate surface happens to be below the individual at the time and location of the question, i.e., either the public owns the spectrum of space aka the asphalt or concrete road (to a vaguely defined depth and height) -- or the state owns it likewise. But that's probably silly because on a road, a car is a "legal 'extension' of" the self and is not just beneath, but all around. *I am beginning to suspect all legal planning comes with obligatory aneurysms, or at least a prerequisite of nihilism and bucket of amphetamines*
Aside from that, and as you mentioned, the data is a critical aspect of the surveillance. What makes you sure that the data is not being applied to other things beyond their stated mission? It requires a mere reference to "terrorism" or "extremism" these days for government to avoid an FOIA or conceal their affairs. Maybe we should all read the fine print on the implementation of this technology; sometimes it can be very fine, and I doubt a few FOIA and FOIL requests would hurt.
Could it not be reasonably argued that while there is no reasonable expectation of privacy while driving and despite state-ownership of the plate, it would otherwise require at least the efforts of a very persistent stalker to acquire half the data collected by this technology?
To compound the line of logic above, it is also exceedingly questionable that such powerful, perpetual surveillance should be pointed at the public while the public are still -- despite Federal rulings -- being intimidated, arrested, detained, and prosecuted for filming police in public places.
I know it is vaguely related, but what are your thoughts that the Castle doctrine can apply to automobiles, which are apparently public places?
First, I admit my naivety on this subject and truly did not think it was so widely available on the consumer level. I was aware of its widespread use in the UK, and even in my own town by authorities. It seemed to me at first, that a home camera and desktop-computer would have a difficult time sorting through thousands or even hundreds of plate-images per day and indexing them accordingly. I stand corrected and mildly embarrassed. Please pardon the ignorance. However, the fact that it's existed for decades should not be exaggerated. The same could have been said about the SR-71, which had existed for quite some time before it was known about by even the technically inclined.
/. and use the all "new" google instead, aye? Or try suggesting it during your next discussion where any questions are asked. And just in case the only two things you have knowledge of are OCR and google; "results" imply very little. For example: "Platypus cup reading software" produces 12,900,000 results. But I guess I have no choice but to absorb your insults; I did make a ridiculous reply to what I now realize was your perfectly reasonable comment. And yes, it is a funny name for a government proxy.
As for the cutesy "Google" comment, why not just bypass
Thanks for that much. The comments are a bit useless; but their comprehension likely doesn't exceed their acronyms.
Thanks for the wiki link, but can you direct me to any particular software that would read license tags passing by my home? Preferably something that would work on Linux. And how long are you implying that cameras have had the capability of reading license plates (in motion and many numbers of them) for? Surely not since "1914", or 1941, or even 1984. I am still convinced that this is on an effective level, a recent and expensive technology. Again, all corrections welcome.
Not sure if I am understanding you correctly. Are you implying that you're clever enough to configure your home computer to interpret numbers from a .png, .jpg, etc.? If so, you are a bright fellow; the police-force pays high dollar for this technology. Otherwise, the answer to your first question is a hopefully-obvious "NO!". If I'm the fool here, please do explain what program is available to me that will extract numbers from images.
Yes and no. Regarding public availability, the problem I see is the potential to build a sort of historical locational dossier on people, which though no secret, perhaps should not be compiled and and placed by software into a dense, organized file containing otherwise virtually impossible-to-acquire data for convenient perusal of, well, anyone. Until we actually go at least a few decades without a holocaust or war, I vote for privacy. The present invasions of privacy taking place are dubious even for a utopia. We have neuro-marketing in nearly every major retail venue, a very curious NSA, unrestricted law-enforcement surveillance (almost), TSA, civilian psychopaths, and much more.
As for other problems, I could easily go into a rant. But hopefully someone else will take care of that.
For example, they do it here in SRQ. What I'm curious about is how this stuff works on helicopters. As for what was once called "VeriPlate" but is now attempting to slip into obscurity, please see this PDF for an overview.
Respectfully, I refer you to Wikileaks and Cryptome, and boilingfrogspost.com (Sibel Edmonds). I recommend looking at boilingfrogspost before too confidently re-stating such things. I commend your faith, but fear there are some genuine problems. Also, this administration has been quite busy going after whistle-blowers. Please take a second look.
Sincerely
Congrats! A good one too! I may make a trip eastward into the rural zone to catch a glimpse.
The size of a house would be grossly insufficient. The sort of meteorite appropriate for this rascal would pose a threat to humanity and the planet. We simply need to capture this pest and launch him/it/her into space directly toward -- but in the opposite trajectory of - the meanest thing out there, which is probably a black hole. A steady trail of their kind would be a soothing fact to ponder while gazing upward.
please, excuse me whilst I wriggle like a trisected proboscis worm.
"[citation needed]"
Yes, citing classified subjects is most effective. Just file another FOIA and they'll both get back with you ASAP.
In case you missed the obvious, we've been having a bit of trouble in the US with transparency.
But if it tickles your pickle to know; both have declined to comment on the subject, which I guess for people like yourself, means it's impossible, because you are a very tender and trusting sort of chap. Regarding the citation, I recommending asking Santa for Christmas. Surely you've been good enough!
Google initially obliterated all competition and provided a truly awesome search engine. Personally, I have observed them getting worse since. Yes, some aspects have improved, but I think their direction is now clear enough to suggest that finally, after such failed attempts as Cuil, opportunity for competition is presenting itself again.
I remember before or around 2008, Youtube changed their search results and related-video function. Previously, Youtube was a rather amazing resource for discovering new things inadvertently. Then they fragmented and obstructed this previously excellent system and along with their web-results, went totally fucking stupid and began personalizing results based on IP addresses, which effectively slaughters objectivity in search results.
All signs indicate that it's time to move away from google. But of course, this is difficult -- if not impossible -- after placing such widespread large-scale reliance upon them. And call me troll all you'd like, but we really don't need to be assisting the NSA through google anyway. And yeah, they do have a partnership. And no, they don't delete any information at all. Someone once referred to google as the "Artificial Intelligence Manhattan Project", a thought at the very least worthy of believable fiction.
What I think we should consider, is building a p2p, torrent-based distributed internet. Censorship would have difficulty thriving and the fault tolerance should be pretty good. Challenging though. And I have no idea how the search would work. But with continued dependency on google, I expect the internet to get more exciting and flashy, but ultimately worse.
With cameras at every turn reading faces and ears, and pre-crime detectors strewn about public places, the biggest social outlet there is will soon be fed live and directly into their hands. Courtesy of the DHS, we already have talking, listening, spying, interactive street-lights, as well as harebrained projects like FAST (Future Attribute Screening Technology), and backscatter gangsters strolling around.
An interesting presentation by cryptome on mis-managing the ultimate social media (my take), society itself (in N.Y.), can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Yn8oy9NHag4#!l -- It's worth a watch or listen.
I guess f-book and such are still pretty sweet honey pots, but I think such duties will soon be automated enough to allow the average officer to comfortably return to their sticks and pepper-spray without having to endure IT 101.
agreed
The Hounds of Helvetica
"not necessarily true" does not make it false.
Would that not still make it a false assertion? When someone wins the lottery, I don't call it a correct guess, or accurate luck.
It seems the only true answer for something of pure guesswork would fairly be 0.
In a recent Schneier article titled Court Orders TSA to Answer EPIC a menacing comment was left by what claimed to be 'Blogger Bob' from the TSA's blog. It may be and likely enough is a dupe, but seemed terribly appropriate for the TSA. I have pasted it below for your reading pleasure:
"I've been asked to respond to this post in order to clarify misunderstandings that some people may have.
The TSA properly exempted itself from the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Sunshine Act. The TSA granted itself the exemption for valid reasons that must remain classified for National Security reasons, so you'll have to trust us on that.
The TSA also had a valid grounds for respectfully refusing to comply with both court orders. The reasons are also classified for National Security reasons, so again you'll have to trust us the refusal was appropriate and necessary. But I can tell you that the decision was based on thorough analysis of the latest robust intelligence pertaining to the current threat environment.
In both cases, TSA Counsel determined that any form of notice and comment rulemaking regarding the deployment of AIT would be detrimental to National Security, based on the classified determinations I referenced above. TSA Counsel prepared a classified memorandum exempting the agency from notice and comment requirements. TSA Counsel believes that the National Security determinations set forth in the classified memorandum give the TSA full authority to disregard any court orders requiring notice and comment rulemaking.
You are, of course, free to sign the petition. But it will have no more effect than the lawsuit or the court order. And do be aware that pursuant to classified TSA procedures, any names on the petition will be forwarded to the Terrorist Screening Center for possible inclusion on appropriate watch lists.
Thank you for allowing me to address your concerns about this matter."
Posted by: Blogger Bob at August 2, 2012 6:39 PM
Perhaps the poll was conducted with a stick. But then again, we are a libidinous culture.
That actually would make for a reasonable curriculum and would be fun. Problem-solving, critical-thinking, with a tasty but menacing carrot dangling about.
I have a terrible memory, at least so far ;)
......The legendary Philip K Dick. P.K.D. is certainly at the very top of my most regarded authors of any genre.
But if I remember correctly, Roadmarks was one I read. I also read a collection of short stories which were excellent, though I cannot remember titles. However, whilst looking for some refreshers I discovered this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_Irae which is a co-authored novel by Zelazny and.....(prepare yourself).....
Surely a centrally-managed internet ID for all would mitigate against such atrocious acts of violence. I know I'd never drop a mine on sub-sea fiber-cables if I had to post comments with my real name -- and I'd not even dare launch a missile if SOPA or ACTA were in effect, nor do I suspect would the Chinese, or even worse; the Canadians. Maybe so. Maybe so. But now that I think of it, I'd never do these things anyway. But just in case someone else would, at least the authorities wouldn't need a pesky warrant to know about it in advance.
What we really need is a Digital Blackwater
This may be just what the great security-bureaucracy of the US finally needs to take over the internet; pestilent waves of freshly hatched script-kiddies defacing the front-pages of their overlords!
Or will it conversely be the knowledge that the masses so vitally need to see clearly through the hysterical rhetoric of the cyber-paranoid?
Considering that Monsanto invented Agent Orange with the help of Dow, I do not accept either. Quite on topic. Someday, an article exposing the real trolls and their network will make for something very "interesting" or "insightful" -- take your pick. Good thing we have user-histories until then, which could possibly - with the right software - be used to accomplish this ;)
Slashdot could make a fortune with a $0.25 per-click "Denial" mod option.