There's a local homicide case in which Google's pinging of devices for location services is offered as evidence supporting the prosecution's assertion about the suspect's location during the time frame of the incident. Of course you could leave your phone somewhere else or borrow someone else's. I can see how easy it may be to frame someone using the technology we have available.
1
May want to consider the thoughts in Transparent Society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society
Maybe watching the watchers is the only reasonable solution.
As a U.S. citizen, I want the United States to be the safest place it can be. Therefore, the Police Department should have the right to keep all of their tracking technology confidential. In the Boston Marathon bombing, Martin Richard, an 8-year-old; Krystle Campbell, a 29-year-old; and Lingzi Lu, a Boston University grad student from China, died in the blasts. At least 264 people were injured. The hunt for the killers lasted a whole four days. Four days of terror for those living in and around Boston. Four days of desperately trying to find out who and where these killers are. Four days of lockdowns, shootouts, and death. Without the cameras in the city and other tracking technology used, the Tsarnaev brothers could still be on the loose today, organizing a second attack.
It’s understandable that citizens want their personal lives to be kept secret from Police Departments and the government, but these tracking systems are used for our protection and safety. When lawbreakers know exactly what to watch out for, they have a much easier time escaping the Police. It’s hard to pass an assignment without any directions, but when you’re given all the answers, it’s hard to fail.
This is a sad "argument." Taken to it's logical (and, unfortunately, easy to imagine) extreme, this is the road to an overreaching and authoritarian society - more like North Korea or China than the United States.
The article raises more questions than it answers. It seems as though once surveillance/tracking technology is available it gets put to use, with or without the knowledge or permission of the voting public. Do police departments need a warrant to use StingRay? Who issues these warrants and under what circumstances? Are Americans able to access information about whether or not their local police are using surveillance technology? Where is the CCOPS initiative at the moment? Are there any Congressional sponsors?
The best way to ensure oversight is to create several layers of civilian managed, surveillance technology oversight boards. They need to be independently operated at the city, state and federal levels. You can’t give the bad guys the keys to the kingdom, but you can appoint people that you know and trust to watch the watchers.
2
Police watching us? In my neighborhood, with a significant amount of violent crime, we can't seem to get any police to watch us at all.
1
You can tell when your municipality is using a Sting Ray type device by looking at an app that shows the flight path. So when you see a Cessna or helicopter is making tight circles over your city, you can often trace the tail number to see if it either belongs to the police, or one of the phony companies that the planes are often registered to. There's a list of a few of them online.
As the former manager of a police aviation unit, I assert that your statement is not accurate. While police helicopters and airplanes often make use of high end cameras and video recording software, the ability to use an aircraft-mounted cellphone tracking or recording unit is outside the technical and budgetary realm for most agencies. The aircraft you mention might be conducting surveillance- or it might be looking for a missing person or Alzheimer's patient. In my tenure at the Aviation Section we did plenty of both.
There is a legitimate conversation that needs to take place regarding how much surveillance a community is willing to tolerate in the name of public safety. The first component of that dialogue is accurate information.
The data is archival and searchable. Democracy is an experiment. Extrapolating these conditions to their logical conclusion points to total loss of privacy and the impowerment of the people or entities that control the data. Developing technologies are obliterating any possibility to maintain a balance of power, but my real question is, why are we so paranoid about other people that we are willing to give a few the power to destroy us all?
2
I'm reading a lot of "If you have nothing to hide, you're fine" arguments in these comments, which is incredibly disheartening. Unless you are willing to hand over your financial information, biometrics, and personal history to every random person you run into on the street, you're not living by that statement. And as many, many recent database leaks have shown, once this data is collected, our government and corporations do an abysmal job of protecting them from external cybersecurity threats. The only way to mitigate that fact, aside from actually investing in cybersecurity measures, is to have regulations on how and what data can be collected en mass, without consent.
And anyone who isn't concerned about having their face photographed at a protest has clearly never had to deal with the consequences that follow a media doxxing. It's easy to criticize personal safety measures when you've never worried about the risk.
6
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. The Romans had it right 2000 years ago: who guards the guards.
3
No one to blame but ourselves. At sometime all of us have no doubt blindly clicked on some end user agreement that obligated each of us to have to accept all these new conditions for life.
1
Couldn’t disagree more. There are all sorts of detailed agreement contracts that if you don’t click agree, you don’t have a phone, a car, a job, and so much more.
If we had a Congress who fought for our rights and interests, (you know, the reason we elected and are paying them), we could have better protection.
Instead only the interests of the banks, corporations and the mega-wealthy are tprotected. Our law is a rigged system, rigged against the majority.
We need to reboot Congress, set terms limits for the Supreme Court now that it has gone insanely partisan, and get rid of the distinctly flawed and unfair Electoral College ! All our votes should count!
4
The town I grew up in has eleven cameras mounted around town. This is a affluent coastal community of only 5,000 people. Do you know how many your town has?
1
None.
Cameras in the larger cities ? Thousands. Thank God for that. In Oz recently there have been many criminals caught due to them. The only difference with drones, is that they are mobile.
Regimes of domestic surveillance are always defended by a self sealing logic. A: "Id rather not be surveilled if i'm not a threat" B: "You wont be if you're not a threat and have nothing to hide" A: "We wont know who is considered a threat by the police unless there's oversight and transparency" B: "If there's oversight and transparency the Bad Guys will know all of our secrets, you don't want that right?" A: "Err, no.... It's just come to light that these capabilities can and have been abuse..." B: "Just don't be a Bad Guy (person of color, activist, community organizer, academic)" -- and so on.
Anybody who does academic research on surveillance can tell you these 'national security' obsessives are paper thin patriots. Chicago PD's new 'heat-list' preemptively designates primarily black, low-income residents as criminals before they have committed a crime. This kind of domestic targeting is based off of a technophile reliance on network analysis (which requires its own surveillance to produce) and predictive algorithms. Is there anything less American than surveillance which can incriminate citizens before they've even committed a crime? Not to mention how many of the people, places and problems which ostensibly require surveillance are at their root, issues of social welfare and economics, not national security.
Your chance of being killed by a terrorist is 1 in twenty million. Worry about homelessness instead
4
There is no real way to watch the watchers; we can complain, hope the ACLU and others get somewhere, but the reality is that 24/7/365, audio, video, email, text, and social media surveillance is all-encompassing now, and if anything it will grow and extend to include knowing the exact position of each and every human at any point in time, anywhere and everywhere on the planet, including everything they say and do.
Nearly every police station is now equipped with these Stingray devices, and every police vehicle with license plate readers, dash cameras which record and store, and link to facial recognition systems; ezpass is now used to record the position at any time of every vehicle equipped with one; RFID technology which exists in tags on foodstuffs, clothing, credit and debit cards, etc., is all able to be accessed at any time, and all vehicles on the road, other than vehicles before 2000?, monitor just about everything the car does, where its been, etc., and of course the fact that every driver carries a smartphone with them further ensures big brother is always informed.
Less widely known is the existence of DRT (Dirt Boxes, an evolved version of the Stingray device, which is used by the Marshall Service, FBI, essentially all police agencies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirtbox_%28cell_phone%29
Privacy is dead, and buried.
3
Lexington, KY is going through the process of denying and suing and denying FoIA requests to stop the release of documents about 29 surveillance cameras owned and operated by the Lexington Police Department.
While I generally support the police, I think they are wrong in this case. SCOTUS Justice Louis Brandeis, a Kentuckian by birth, said "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman."
Transparency in govt is being phased out quietly, especially by the Department of Homeland Security for questionable reasons. We need to demand transparency, especially when govt actions done in our names conflict with this lofty goal of privacy.
3
And it's not as if mistakes don't happen. A few years ago a full SWAT raid with no knock was done, you guessed it, at the wrong house. The family was terrified, major damage done in inclement weather to the entrance door, and children got to watch a takedown of their parents.
Oops. So sorry. Wrong address. Sounds like a movie plot, but this hasn't been the only time it has happened, witness the takedown of a pro tennis player who was minding his own business and mistaken by a cop who thought he looked like a drug dealer.
Too many times plots for movies and TV shows show the infallibility of the tools screening pictures or fingerprints on line, or DNA being matched to a decades old crime, solving a cold case.
Ideally these techniques would be perfect, and crime would go down. But we can't even get statistics on how successful these new and expensive techniques are, undeer the old song that if the police tell too much, then the bad guys will know, so just trust us, OK?
No, not OK. Prove the expense is worth it, with annual reports with firm numbers. And an independently audited review that after a certain number of days any photo or other digital evidence of an innocent person's whereabouts or likeness is irrecoverably scrubbed from the system.
If we continue to say each little step is ok, soon there will be such an accumulated erosion of privacy that we'll truly just as well be chipped at birth and let everyone know where we are.
6
Bullies don’t like to be audited.
"But Mayor Bill de Blasio said the bill “provides a road map for the bad guys,” potentially aiding criminals or even terrorists by making them privy to information about law enforcement tactics."
Whenever law enforcement types or politicians refer to "bad guys" - in any context - I stop listening.
I stopped trusting long ago.
3
The “bad guys will know” logic has more holes in it than a pound of sliced Swiss cheese.
The real translation is “then the citizens will know and we don’t want to accountable. We want to surveil citizens but not our police or security apparatus.
Face it, police or security are often operating like we in Afghani caves instead of the United States of America.
Why are our brave soldiers defending freedom in other countries when our freedoms are being destroyed here at home?
I don't think that we can stop anyone from "surveilling" public areas or data transmission over public networks, but a private company usually owns the network. Privacy is protected by the Fourth Amendment regarding searches of "persons, houses, papers, and effects", which require a warrant describing the search particulars except for certain exemptions that may not apply to data/voice but could to a drone video showing a crime. This is applied to our person and our private property/possessions/papers/effects.
The argument is sometimes over data/voice and internet search activities over networks not owned by the individual. Warrants have to be obtained for the search/review aspect of data/voice and internet activities, but the collection and storage of that information has been allowed.
People are concerned about abuse of that collection and storage, such as searches conducted under warrants for other people that may discover things about someone else. Police might argue the Plain View exemption to allow them to then further search your information without a prior warrant, but since the information is not in public but on a company's private network, that may be questionable.
Photography in public is not illegal despite harassment that sometimes occurs. Similarly, drone videos in public probably must also be legal.
I don't think that we can prevent the total collection and storage of our digital lives, but we should insist on rigorous warrants for search/review/sharing.
2
Rigorous warrants?
When our own president disregards the Constitution ?
Good luck with that. A
The most likely response to a good guy with a drone will be a bad guy with a drone.
1
I'm glad to see that the right and left agree on this issue of surveillance. In this day of very little agreement on much of anything, let's hope the Cato Institute and the ACLU can work together to get more measures passed which mandate disclosures of these many new and expanding modes of surveillance.
9
That was an excellent reply.
Walzer: “Liberalism is a world of walls, and each one creates a new liberty. This is the way the art of separation works.”
George Orwell would be proud.
2
There is also the over stepping the legal use of their computers that has all access to people's personal information. They regularly use it to scope out attractive females, exes, those exes new partners, find dirt on enemies or neighbors, pre-screening individuals for their personal information, on and on.
To them, having this information available at their fingertips is a perk and very often it's abused.
They don't ever discuss this publicly though it is a very well known practice within departments.
Who is policing the police? No one. This is THE #1 problem that we have.
5
Who are the next targets? The "mentally ill" the problem is that the so called "mentally ill" person could have been framed by a psychopathic neighbor and then falsely profiled by police who believed the wrong people. It seems that of all professions the police would believe what is SAID against you with absolutely no proof or reason behind the accusation .
Mr Feeney: Did you express this same concern about watching the NSA under Obama, when he allowed eight more years under his watchful eyes of watching your email, texts, and phone messages?
1
"watching your email, texts, and phone messages?"....Of course none of this is true. What they had was access to the same records already being kept by the phone company or service provider. And while you are hiding under your bed, remember that the Government has always had records of your finances (tax returns), and medical records (Medicaid and Medicare).
Spitzer: Look up CARNIVORE and ECHELON and get back to me.
SingRay?
How about a system that takes pictures of the ENTIRE city.. every second.. with those images sent back to the ground in real time.
it's tech they used in the middle east to track down the guys who plant IEDs.
http://www.radiolab.org/story/eye-sky/
Mexican Police officer in Juarez.. gunned down in a drive by.
they "went back in time" following the shooters from BEFORE the shooting as well as AFTER... shooters drove back to a safe house.. cops took down the whole nest.
carjacking, kidnapping, violent attacks.. much easier to solve now..
Ross’s unique brand of persistent surveillance, from Juarez, Mexico to Dayton, Ohio. Then, once we realize what we can do, we wonder whether we should.
America's surveillance State started with the Patriot Act (Joe Biden being the original brain child of that legislation through his Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995) shortly after 9/11, on October 26, 2001.
A truly horrendous bill, no wonder HRC voted for it.
The bill had such gems as National Security Letters (NSLs) in it, allowing the FBI to search telephone, email, and financial records without a court order and provisions that allow for the indefinite detention of any alien who the Attorney General believes may cause a terrorist act.
It got worse with Obama. Under his administration, they reauthorized the Patriot Act and tried to ram through CISPA, SOPA and a host of other internet control initiatives.
Obama, who once campaigned against government secrecy and the NSA’s mass spying powers, instead entrenched the agency’s incredible surveillance apparatus once in office and then defended it in the face of the Snowden revelations.
And let's nor forget Obama's crowning achievement, the NDAA of 2014 to legislate away any perceived right, liberty, or privilege that conflicts with permanent war and indefinite surveillance.
Democrats were complicit when when Bush did it, then it was kind of OK because Obama did it, and apparently now it's not OK again because Trump does it.
The Trump Administration is now filled with Obama holdovers and Shadow Government appointees.
They are the ones now pushing for the re-authorization and expansion of the surveillance tools.
Scary stuff.
4
As a retired cop, I see both sides of this argument. I am against LE being required to reveal its methods of investigation. Having the knowledge of how the police can gather intel allows those they gather intel against to thwart the gathering. Every police department I've ever been in contact or associated with has too much crime and not enough resources, so people's fear that LE would divert from actual investigations to simply find out what a law-abiding citizen is up to is probably overstated. In other words, why would I take time out of my day looking for real criminals just to satisfy my prurient curiosity about someone I have nothing to do with?
As a private citizen, I'm okay with facial recognition software in public places. After all, it's public. If you go to a protest, you are giving up your right to privacy. You can't scream that your rights are being violated because your face happens to end up on camera.
1
sure - but shouldn't there be rules what happens to the information of who was at a protest? Is it gathered? By whom? for what purpose?
The real question is not whether the data should be gathered or not (it will be, sooner or later), but how it is handled. That is where there needs to be a strict framework to protect privacy rights.
1
"If you go to a protest, you are giving up your right to privacy."
Oh really? What else would you have us give up--our Liberty? When you took your oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, did those enemies include protesters?
I've been to protests where LE hide behind NO4 gas masks and had black electrician's tape across their name tags and the numbers on their badges.
I've been to protests where the video camera i had focused on LE was knocked out of my hands by a police baton because THEY didn't want THEIR face to "happen to end up on camera".
Why does LE get to have anonymity and protesting citizens don't?
I'd like to remind everybody, especially those who "protect and serve" that the quintessential American protest we all hold as a model was when rebel patriots wore disguises to protect their anonymity, tresspassed onto a British ship and destroyed private property.
I'm sorry but you want guidelines so facial recognition cannot be used by the NYPD via body cameras? Imagine this: An officer is engaging an individual in a conversation regarding a minor matter. Unbeknownst to the officer the individual is wanted for the violent murder of your mother. As per the restrictions you want in place the body camera won't trigger a warning to the officer. After the conversation the murderer of your mother goes on his merry way.
How about the fact that facial recognition doesn't even work reliably (yet)? If the device issues a warning and the officer pulls a gun and ends up shooting the person, even though it was a case of mistaken identity?
When new technologies are used it always takes a while to get to know their limitations.
1
Facial recognition can be fooled, by changes in eyeglasses, facial expressions, etc.
It simply isn’t as high level as we think.
I thought bone structure, width etc, would make it be like fingerprints, but it is not.
FYI - facial recognition on the new iPhone - such a bad idea for numerous reasons.
All hail the All-Seeing Eye!
I know someone who used to work for a federal agency and he said Facebook and other social media sites made their jobs a whole lot easier.
It is hard to believe that people voluntarily compose their own personal profiles, then post them online for all to see. Privacy suicidal Lemmings all.
Be particularly careful of casually submitting to dating sites and those DNA/ancestor ones as well. Too much information. Way too much.
2
While this is disturbing, it will soon be unnecessary as a Brave New World is ahead of us shaped by genetic technologies such as CRISPR to create compliance among us.
If the police were spying on us (and they probably are) I very much doubt they'd be forthcoming about it. Demanding their frank, open, and comprehensive report will be futile. Either they will decline or they'll provide a whitewash and claim it's complete.
2
I really quite miss the days of yore before technology took the upper hand. Corporations and us, its customers, have woven a wicked web.
It is not the surveillance that troubles me; rather, it is what is done with the data. I'm old enough to remember clearly the horror stories of J. Edgar Hoover's daily misuse to data acquired the old fashioned was to threaten, bribe, and even falsely accuse people he knew had committed no crime because their political views were too liberal for him. That is the risk; surveillance data in the hands of Donald Trump is like handing him a loaded gun with which he will fire at anyone who moves the wrong way. Hacking through our porous security firewalls is a second major risk. On the other hand, Great Britain has solved many crimes, and presumably deterred some, by nearly wall to wall surveillance cameras. On balance, I'm willing to risk misuse in order to give law enforcement an additional tool with which to make me safer.
4
This ignores the difference in gun culture in the two countries. The lower crime rates in EUROPE may gave nothing to do with surveillance.
The rules we create NOW will determine if we are a free country or a totalitarian state in 50 years. Many, if not all, current totalitarian states justify their system using something like a "war on terror" - a war which must be won at all costs.
4
Ed, Please. The government has always had records of your finances (tax returns) and healthcare (Medicaid and Medicare). They know what kind of car you drive (automobile registration) and how much your home is worth (property tax assessments). They know if your married and whether you have had your septic tank pumped recently, and absolutely anybody can stand out side your house and follow where you go.
So no limits on corporations, who could poison or bankrupt you, but by all means trust local police in military gear to treat you, the local citizen, fairly ? You have got to be kidding!
The companies that supply technology and chemical sprays and other weapons to police departments are in a feverish drive trying to come up with the next billion dollar idea. There is a ton of money to be made arming America's police forces.
TASERS are pushed with the idea that they give police officers a non-lethal way to control people being arrested. What they do instead is allow officers to escalate violence against citizens, rather than waiting for matters to calm down or trying to deal with problems peacefully.
This article does not mention license plate readers. Police departments across America are deploying computerized camera devices that can read thousands of plates as the patrol cars drive about or are parked beside the road. In some situations, this could be an invaluable tool for making an arrest, but it also involves constantly collecting data about peaceful citizens living and working in the way they choose. In a time of govt. oppression, it could be used to stop public demonstrations and identify those who participate, subjecting them to arrest for peaceful activities.
A constant ability to monitor law abiding citizens is a threat to everyone. There have rightly been many limitations places on this capacity in the past, but technology is outrunning the law and we stand to lose basic freedoms as it expands an ever wider net. We could wind up with a "peaceful" society filled with frightened, intimidated people.
5
Plate reading cameras were just being introduced in 2006 when I retired. The camera and the program compared a license plate to a known database of wanted vehicles, primarily stolen cars or cars connected to felony crimes. To my knowledge, if the plate wasn't on the wanted list it wasn't "collected" because it would require an enormous hard drive to log the plate, date, time, and location for no apparent reason. Now, fast forward ten years. A murder is committed somewhere and the technology captures the plate of the suspect leaving the area of the murder before the cops find out about the crime. If the ability to log unwanted plates now exists, isn't that a worthy tool? LE can scan lists of vehicles known to be in the area at the time of death, narrowing the suspect pool. Isn't that a good thing?
"That’s why, when it comes to surveillance technology, the American people should demand to know whether the police are spying on them."
It's no more "spying" than it ever was: when people act in public, they can be observed as a practical and a legal matter, and the sole change is that it's a drone rather than a stakeout or cop walking a beat. The author fails to show any reason why it's more troubling for a mindless drone to "see" me than an actual person.
Or, if it's not public, then it's not "spying" because it's pursuant to warrant.
I'm seeing a sort of "fox hunt" approach to law enforcement, where the real problem is the perception of the police having it too easy, that the playing field is too level, and that criminals need a more sporting chance. Where the opponents say, We'll allow tailing and cops walking beats and a cop at the airport with a photo of the fugitive, because it's practically impossible for them to actually see more than a few lucky incidents, and because we don't like stuff that works and cheaply.
The police could always do stakeouts and investigate, this has not changed - but, that takes manpower, which guarantees that they'll focus on the worst criminals first - as they should. Nobody wants to help the criminals.
Now what if suddenly everything about everybody can be collected and traced and they do this for every good innocent (or mostly good, as most of us are) citizen, just in case it might be useful later - since it reduces the workload of officers and doesn't cost anything? Suddenly you have databases of citizens which can be abused. Blackmail by rogue officers, abuse by authoritarian regimes, manipulation of public opinion- all these things are easier with this information. And this is why tough regulations need to be put in place regulating how this data is handled.
1
Yes. It would have been nice to have this in place before electing politicians at the highest levels who have no respect for the civil rights of US citizens.
Surveillance is here to stay and the biggest threat to privacy is not government, but the private sector which has a legitimate fear of being sued by victims of terroristic events for not doing enough to prevent crimes, especially mass shootings and bombings. They will spend what they think is needed and it will all be paid for by insurance premiums. We cannot have it both ways. Prevention means less privacy, especially when radical thugs conceal their identities so they can perpetrate violent acts with impunity. The police are becoming militarized because our society is at war. Surveillance, properly done, prevents tragedies. What other choices are there?
Citizen oversight over law makers and law enforcers is needed.
The wealthiest and the closest to law enforcement have the power to carry out the most destruction of our freedoms.
One of the biggest cheerleaders for the surveillance state at the national level is Dianne Feinstein.
A quick look at her reaction when she found out that the CIA was surveilling her and others in Congress is instructive. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/03/12/feinstein-d...
Clearly, those in power are happy having all of us under their watchful eyes. As long as "us" doesn't include themselves.
3
If you try googling info on well known people it is removed or eliminated somehow. The rest of us, not so much. It is ALL out there for $1.99 or whatever those sites like Spokeo and White Pages charge these days for our private data.
1
Here in Charlotte police ride through parking lots with a camera that records all the license plates parked there. It is uploaded to a computer program that can place you there with a time stamp just in case something happens in the area. Hundreds of cameras were installed for the Democrat National Convention a few years ago and they've now been moved around to locations all over the city.
No matter where a crime takes place today there is a private security camera that is recording what is going on outside the building. Police search out these cameras and can subpoena the video if it isn't given willingly.
It won't be much longer before we're like London where there's almost nowhere to hide from the street cameras which feed into a computer with software that can put a name on a face from official records like drivers licenses.
100 or so years ago before Social Security started you could flee to another state and use a fake name to make a new beginning. Now you can't even leave the house without someone knowing where you went and at what time.
6
We're all guilty now. Until proven innocent.
I believe that violates the Constitution.
This essay presents a false dilemma, Surveillance rights are governed by the 4th Amendment. Before the advent of advanced technology, virtually all 4th Amendment cases involved physical searches. Particularly sensitive searches require a warrant approved by a magistrate. The vast majority of these searches are publicly disclosed. But there are instances where disclosure endangers the police or is otherwise unwise. In those instances, secret warrants, known as sneak and peak warrants, are generally approved. So there are mechanisms in place to disclose surveillance or conduct it in secrecy, as the circumstances dictate. It simply is not a one or the other question.
Couple this with the FBI's "Black Phantom Menace," ( https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/opinion/columnists/fbi-blacks-civil-r...®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region ) as well as the Justice Department's renewed use of asset seizure, ( https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/politics/justice-department-civil-... ) and understand that that the Executive branch is bound and determined to exercise autoritariian dictatorship in a country where it the president did not get the majority of the votes.
It's time to impeach both Trump and Pence.
7
This OP-ED is right on point, if the type of surveillance was the the type it's author believes it to be. But in large cities like LA or New York, this "surveillance" already exist -- in the form of police helicopters. And police helicopters are not new. They are used to put eyes-on traffic, traffic accident, in progress robbery, and on and on. This "surveillance" is not new and is accepted and expected in these major metropolises. These cities are simply looking at another solution to what is already being done that may have the opportunity to reduce cost of the service. But thanks for the scare. Happy Halloween!
2
Surveillance is here to stay, hoping to dissuade the bad guys from acting, well, badly. Whosoever thinks that in this day and age our privacy is safe, think again, especially if one wishes to stay engaged in social media. It may be a reminder that our behavior must be consistent with the rules of law, and reason based on the facts. This is not to say that we can wash our hands and stop speaking up for fear of adverse consequences; we must participate and contribute to the well-being of our society, using prudence to say, and do, what's right, however hazardous or inconvenient to us. And the forces of order (police), if properly educated, will recognize that our criticism, hopefully constructive, is the strength of any democracy. And if giving up some privacy is the price, so be it. Freedom demands our sacrifice, and discipline in seeing justice prevail.
2
Yet again proving that, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". Allowing unchecked surveillance doesn't make us safer - the correlation between many police tactics and improvements in law enforcement (decreased false arrests, more positive identification of suspects) is tenuous, at best.
The police are human, and like all humans, are prone to make mistakes, particularly when unsupervised and criticized. Some of these techniques are valuable and useful; others are more likely to lead to prejudicial practices and profiling. We need MORE public input on these programs, not less
Remember what Benjamin Franklin said: "Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither security or liberty".
2
as we blur the line between crime and war and argue about what terrorism is, we are adopting military tactics to fight crime. photographing everything every second in order to solve any crime that comes up is unnerving. It may be necessary by some lights, but at least we should have the discussion.
12
The real problem I have with the government and/or private sector entities collecting my data is not the fear that they will misuse it, but the fact that they collect and collate it renders it useful and accessible to hackers.
17
After moving to the city with the highest crime rates in the state, I've had a complete change of attitude about local policing. I want more officers with greater powers and fully support them not revealing every detail of how they track those who are flouting the law. Would also like to see forces increase their numbers so they can have officers return to walking beats in urban areas, mingling with workers and residents.
4
If a person is law abiding and not up to anything nefarious, why should they worry?
5
Because we all do not like being watched. Because maybe you have habits that you don't want your neighbors or employer or family to know about. Because the people who police are not all honorable. Because there's no guarantee that the state will always be benign - ask anyone who grew up in East Germany. Because the information could be hacked or released by a disgruntled employee. Because the government screws up records. Because we value privacy.
36
It's an invasion of privacy. Think "1984" with stressed people, knowing they are being watched, twitching with nerves as they walk down public streets. The total surveillance approach assumes everyone is guilty. China has begun experimenting with cameras in schools (in the ethnic Muslim area); do you think those children appreciate the constant scrutiny of everything they do? And in London, with its cameras everywhere, surveillance doesn't prevent crimes or terrorist attacks. Perhaps you could learn more about the places already instituting these methods before deciding they don't infringe on your rights. This is a slippery slope (please excuse the trite expression) to a completely authoritarian role for police and the government -- something the U.S. Constitution is meant to protect against.
2
Because even the most benign gesture can be unintentionally misinterpreted.
1
About 10 years ago I worked for a company that made the military version of this, Known as a " Skyball" (How fitting the accompanying cartoonish illustration), it had forward looking infrared (FLIR), Extremely high magnification, and a lot of stability as seen on TV in recent news casts of "slow speed motor vehicle chases, of white bronco suspect vehicles"
"...Erosion of anonymity when citizens go about their business" ( I think that's a approximate quote of the statement.) How could anybody who works or operates in public – e.g. citizen JoBlo - expect ANY anonymity , Unless they're doing something criminal?
Mistakes will be made, and of course there's a chance for abuse of technology by our esteemed law enforcement agencies, but in general I think it's a good thing if used as a tool to get the bad guys put down, I know of only one folk singer whoContinued strumming his guitar before he died… I think his name was Che.
3
We forget our literature warning of such tactics. "1984" comes to mind.
22
1984 (George Orwell)?
10
david bowie ?
Good article. Here's another troubling example. I was out of town recently, but in my home state, when I was pulled over by a policeman who said that the registration or insurance or something similar on my late-model car had expired. I thought perhaps the policeman had been sitting behind me at a traffic light and had seen some indication on my license plate, but no - apparently police car onboard computers have the technology to scan licenses or tags in the vicinity and "ping" the policeman/woman when there is a possibly irregularity nearby.
As it turned out, it was a paperwork error on the part of my insurance company, a well-known firm I'd been with (and on autopay) for decades, but it was a sobering moment - including the escort by the policeman to the local county office to update my paperwork - or risk being arrested, according to him.
And "coincidentally," I received an almost immediate text from an insurance company I'd never heard of, asking if I needed insurance. It was like a scene from the movie The Fifth Element, only it wasn't funny.
81
A friend of mine is works for the LAPD and says that many officers turn the volume on the ping to 1 because it is constantly going off. Sitting at a light or driving on the street the plate reader is always on...sometimes for a stolen car (often a false alarm) but more often expired tags.
2
In today's world of hacking, who knows if it was a "mistake". The change may have been deliberate.
>
Trying to stop/slow the advance of surveillance technology is just another losing battle in a long list of losing battles. Why? Because of Man's ridiculous and pathetic nature.
Who was born in a house full of pain.
Who was trained not to spit in the fan.
Who was told what to do by the man.
Who was broken by trained personnel.
Who was fitted with collar and chain.
Who was given a pat on the back.
Who was breaking away from the pack.
Who was only a stranger at home.
Who was ground down in the end.
Who was found dead on the phone.
Who was dragged down by the stone.
Roger Waters
7
So we should just all go shop at Walmart? Time to act, not take the some.
@Historian
“Immune to the blandishments of religions, countries, families, and everything else that puts both average and above-average citizens in the limelight, pessimists are sideliners in both history and the media. Without belief in gods or ghosts, unmotivated by a comprehensive delusion, they could never plant a bomb, plan a revolution, or shed blood for a cause.”
Ligotti
1
This Thanksgiving, if you are at a gathering of family, friends, associates, look around you. How many of them are terrorists? Potential terrorists?
None? I thought so.
That is what I see also.
The terrorism fraud is to scare US citizens out of their money. And it is working. We are in more danger from a rogue cop at a road side traffic stop than from any terrorist. Compare the statistics of police murder to terrorist murder if you doubt that statement.
Time to deal with the real problems of this country.
46
So sadly true.
Indeed, quis qustoidiet ipsos custodes? Surveillance by drones?! Well, I think that anyone would be entitled to bring such a contraption down over his own property.
As for other remote means of secret surveillance -- the less one uses the cyberspace, the less is a chance of being detected by whoever is snooping out there.
2
Unfortunately people are not allowed to shoot down a drone over their own property; cases like that have already come up. Besides, a drone is better off not flying directly over you - if I wanted to look in your windows, would I have an easier time if I was over your roof, or if I was up in the air over the roadway looking in?
While I have mixed feelings about this entire discussion, it is illegal to shoot down a drone even if it is flying over your property.
The essence of this is the local constabulary should never be part of a national Thought Police. And it mentions the abuses of "the past". Well, nothing having been done the pluperfect is on track to be the new future tense. Orwell rules, of course.
Hard as it may be to believe common criminal activity has long been an excuse to have a watch on political "criminals". The program to watch out for shoplifting, perfect to keep an eye on a target. Possible drug dealing, so pervasive who could blame the local constabulary for using that suspicion as a tool. One can go on and on.
I have reason to believe in the little liberal college town I used to reside in the police had a toy supposedly used to measure stress from lying in a voice that could also be used as a voice mask. Through sampling a target's associate' voice templates could be computer generated with which an investigator could speak to the target, who would believe s/he was actually on the phone talking to his/her mother, friend, business partner...etc. Quite a dangerous thing to put in the hands of social promotion kids... (a introductory ritual for the newbie was to have her make a call without the voice mask on button pushed, so to speak...very amusing...)
The second program tied stores' voice & cctv surveillance in a real time way ( including a tie in to the store's public address, if there was one. Imagine hearing your surname and a voice- "what are you doing here" in Safeway-crazy,eh? only if you say something)
2
the American public is constantly told that there are many safeguards on the use of surveillance technology. true as that may be the real problem are the loose cannons busybodies and snoop's that just can't wait to get a juicy tidbit of something when of course they know they're not supposed to but they do it anyway.
this of course is a terrible embarrassment for the government so there's no way they're going to admit they're powerful technology has been used for the equivalent of gossiping types of nonsense .
4
It's a precarious business, striking a balance and it's one which the common man is on the losing end of. For all technologies contributions it has impaled personal privacy and consolidated government power. Trends indicate that we will likely soon live in a highly regulated cashless society which will even further repress privacy but the masses fear and fear allows federal government to enlarge it's vigilance and power.
Who knows where we will be in a decade or two?
5
The is a dead issue. The fight for privacy and anonymity is over.
Big Brother police and anticompetitive business activity has overwhelmed the American people with stealth and covert methods. Once deployed the equipment gains a life of it's own and grows apace.
The article exhibits an odd naiveté regarding not just the present status of surveillance deployment but the rather long history of its use in military, police, and national spying activity across the globe. Simply google "roving bug" for a brief primer.
These noble national security and anti-crime concerns override the liberty and pursuit of happiness pseudo-rights not specifically guaranteed in our constitution.
This lifted from an Israeli legal treatise on privacy :
"The right to privacy is our right to keep a domain around us, which includes all those things that are part of us, such as our body, home, property, thoughts, feelings, secrets and identity. The right to privacy gives us the ability to choose which parts in this domain can be accessed by others, and to control the extent, manner and timing of the use of those parts we choose to disclose."
Innocent acquiescence and false confidence in the information gathers have us where we are today. Facebook, Twitter, etc. all involve a voluntary exposure of as much about us as the individual wants to share. Most of us so lonely and alienated from real human contact that we surrender more and more details until we have thoroughly profiled ourselves.
16
I know someone who used to work for a federal agency and he said Facebook and other social media sites made their job a whole lot easier.
It is so hard to believe people voluntarily write their own personal profiles then post them online for all to see.
1
As a response to 9/11, our government created the Patriot Act and can quietly investigate any citizen or group suspected of criminal activity, including terrorism. This is the price we pay for safety, although it's in conflict with any right to privacy.
Because few people seem to have much knowledge about wire-tapping, Carnivore, e-mail reading, photographing, etc. enabled by the Patriot Act, here is a link that clarifies government powers. This is an Orwellian era, so like it or leave it... Or change it.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/law/law/usa-patriot-act
21
It's just a matter of time until life is like the novel 1984. We will be watched everywhere 24/7. Think that's just crazy talk? Then think back 30 years ago for example, when the idea of saturating a city with surveillance cameras was unfathomable. Now, you can't walk through most cities business districts without someone watching you on TV, and we say nothing in protest. After all, it's for "our safety". Surveillance is the ultimate mission creep for police, who have gone from protecting us to watching our every move.
4
At a time when the president is doing his all to politicize the Justice Department and compel state and local governments to pursue federal law enforcement objectives, insisting on privacy protections and due processes procedures for law enforcement surveillance technology deployments is very important.
5
Protest without being recognized? Very brave - a crowd of people in ski masks will be very persuasive. I am sure your fellow protesters won't tag you on Facebook or give you up if they get arrested and questioned. Public spaces are public, and data collection is already everywhere.
An adult with grown children went on a vulgar rant to a reporter and was elected president. They beat someone who was not careful with their email despite being at the highest level of government. If those things were not show-stoppers, odds are no one cares what you are doing. If someone does care, they probably look suspicious or worse for caring.
2
It amazes me how we are increasingly on the road to what we once most feared -- the old Soviet Union. The amazing part isn't that it's happening, but that U.S. citizens so totally accept this -- that we are being (or can be at any time) spied upon by our government. The ability to do this comes with the technology, but that does not mean that it has to be this way. With IMSI-catchers and camera and drone surveillance, this is no longer the land of the free and the brave. As wiki notes "MSI-catchers are often deployed by court order without a search warrant," it's essentially just a procedural record. Amazing -- we are destroying our democracy day by day.
16
People in positions of authority who are American citizens are magically different that people in other countries where authority has been abused. If we didn't know this to be true from our own history of complete absence of normal human power behavior we would have never trusted our government's forced digitization of medical records, reporting of our bank transactions, empowerment of law enforcement officers to determine our guilt and seize our property, and the federal governments power to regulate virtually all behavior as impacting "interstate commerce".
America is an exceptional nation with exceptional government employees.
Am I being surveilled because I'm thought to have done something wrong or, am I being surveilled until I do something wrong or, am I being surveilled because someone I know may have done something wrong or, someone I don't even know? All presuppose, presume my guilt not my innocence. Technologies that make it possible to cast a wide net do not make it right to cast a wide net.
Indeed, if we can be assured that no boyfriend of any detective's ex-wife is being surveilled, then when would know surveillance is being properly policed.
4
I don't assume that I have any anonymity...or privacy...Our increasingly conservative world wants to control not just every action, but if they could, they would control your thoughts to make you the perfect worker bee, long hours, no life, no desire for thought or beauty. Drone bees for the billionaire queens.
3
When it comes to news photography the courts have found a person does not have the reasonable right to expect privacy in a public setting.
2
Would the founders of the United States of America have succeeded if they had to evade technology surveillance? I would like to think so, but I have doubts. Technology can and must be retraced to the first principles.
2
Unfortunately, law enforcement has not always been honest with the truth. J. Edgar Hoover's FBI surveilled individuals without authority. Unlawful deaths have occurred at the hands of police and without body cams (or concerned citizens filming nearby), the truth would never have emerged.
So, yes, there is absolute need for proper civilian surveillance of these activities despite what the bad guys may find out. After all, law enforcement was never meant to be an easy task but the rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution trump the concerns of police commanders.
4
Citizens will never be told the whole truth, including the fact they are the intended "prey" when it comes to summonses and fines. We, the law-abiding, tax-paying public are the PRIME targets of every police surveillance device - be it traffic cameras, surreptitiously placed police closed circuit feeds - oh? you weren't told about these? - or fixed, mounted speed cameras hidden in these low-profile light bars specifically designed so that it is difficult to see a police car coming up behind you, parked in the doughnut shop lot or cooping by a roadside sign. The only recourse is to play by your own rules. Defy, deflect, obfuscate, avoid and warn others. DO NOT assist the police on the roads. Do they help you with a breakdown? No they do not. But they will arrest you if, while broken down, they find some minor offense. They detest us. Always have a live feed going during any interaction. Answer no questions - instead, insist on asking them questions. Am I being detained? Am I free to go? Repeat, again and again while filming. Say nothing else. Always record their make, model and plate number. Send it to us; we keep a database and it is available. The cops are not your friends.
6
1) we are all being tracked, if not by the police, by Google and Facebook
2) I have ordered my Groucho Glasses, which I intend to wear at all times that i am out of the house.
3) Time to re-read 1984?
4
Here is a challenge to opponents of these technologies. Please describe for me a concrete, specific infringement of your freedom caused by the deployment of these technologies - something that you now are able to do but with their presence be unable to do.
They may give you the heebie-jeebies, and you may feel "not quite right" with giving the government your trust, but that is not the same as actual restriction of rights and liberty.
I am now able to walk about in public without the government conducting an unwarranted surveillance upon me. If a government operated drone follows me I would not be able to do that. It is an "actual restriction on rights and liberty", one as obvious as the nose on a reasonable face.
Make your challenges more difficult.
1
Justin, what worries me is that while no one is restricting my liberty today, the data gives the authorities the ability to restrict my liberty tomorrow, after, say, another terrorist attack. The majority of the citizenry will be fine with it, because of the "I'm not doing anything wrong, so I have nothing to worry about" mentality. But when the freedom to move about without it being registered somewhere disappears, our liberty is gone.
It boils down to a spineless Congress, that fails to put appropriate sunset provisions in place, fails to ensure that oversight is not taken behind closed doors where it is easy to abuse, and fails to provide substantial penalties for those who abuse their authority. They just roll over for the action agencies, falsely claiming that the public demands such action.
Robust controls do not exist.
There is a natural tendency toward authoritarian behavior in law enforcement, national security, and the military, which is understandable, but also has to be managed much better than it currently is.
The notion that any behavior is acceptable in the name of national security, or law enforcement - and don't worry, just trust us - is naive.
As Reagan put it, rather acidly: Trust, But Verify.
4
If the police want really great surveillance, hire folks from the neighborhoods being policed and have them walk a beat and get to know folks. Now that's an effective surveillance policy.
1
People will (or at least should) respond in simple ways to combat constant surveillance. Start out wearing multiple masks, peeling and discarding them at random times and places. Stop using personal cell phones and instead use multiple disposable phones that will be exchanged with random people. Send out robots wearing fingerprints and retinal patterns.
Or even worse for the spies...don't bother to do anything worth spying on. So much for our economy, but it just won't be worth the bother.
1
Big Brother is watching. Big Brother is so entrenched that I fear for our freedoms and for our democracy itself. I'm just a regular citizen, never been arrested, not plotting anything, but (and I say this with two children in their 20's), I would rather the occasional wacko slip past, the thief, the drug dealer, bank robber, etc., than all of us be under the BIG EYE. It will do more than stifle our democracy. It will end it. I'm pessimistic about this-I think the great experiment in freedom is about at an end.
45
Otto from the Rust Belt: I agree. Orwell had it right, only maybe the book should have been titled "2034"
Most of us give up privacy, when we turn on our smartphones, purchase on the internet, keep people up to date on social media, go into a retail establishment, ride public transit, enter or walk by most office buildings, use E-Z Pass on toll roads, exceed the speed limit in some high traffic residential areas. Witness he videos of the Boston bombing from a commercial surveillance camera.
Because it's theoretically possible, doesn't mean law enforcement has people constantly reviewing surveillance footage or or phone records. Despite technological advances it takes people to review. For instance facial recognition is at best very poor, unless the subject is confronting the camera at close range. Try being facially recognized by Clear at the airports. Picking some out of a crowd of protesters happens only on TV. The only time most agency's can devote the resources to reviewing what's available is after an incident.
The cat's out of the bag, Putting it back in the box? Nobody wants that. Better is to put restrictions on usage after capture. Restrict access and track who's had access and when, punishing improper access in highly secure and encrypted digital evidence management systems, where records are available to prosecutors and the defense.
2
Facial recognition tech is pretty good at the moment, and getting better in leaps and bounds by the week!
The basic argument here, manifestly evident if not actually admitted, is that some right to an "assumed anonymity" properly trumps the ability of law enforcement and counter-intelligence to protect the population from bad guys.
We haven't had that conversation yet, and it's altogether too soon to be granting the conviction as a premise.
1
The Supreme Court said that you lose any expectation of privacy when you leave your home. If you are outside, anyone can see you. "Assumed anonymity" gives a false sense of invisibility. If you are outside, I can see you, so can everyone else, including the police.
1
The article cites some thousands of phone calls being followed, but doesn't state how many people were affected. How many drug dealers are working in NY, and how often do they call people? The same questions can be asked about organized crime figures, stalkers, and others we would expect the police to have legitimate interest in.
As to privacy, yours, and mine, ends when we enter the street, being out in public means just that.
We should all be aware of the overall reduction of street crime, I can't help but think that the rise in the use of cameras have been a significant took in making this happen.
The use of surveillance technologies and its public implicit acceptance is a reflection of our core values.
People seem to be completely ok with being surveilled in their life. 1% cash back on a credit card is enough incentive to give away shopping habits; we endorse neighborhood watches; whistleblower laws can turn anybody into a walking spy; credit companies watch our every payment. The footprints where we are and what we do are left out in public to see and being used for profit, coercion, and often misguided justice.
Selectively asking the police to be open about their surveillance does nothing to revert the deeper problem. Privacy should be a right for all of us and I am ailing to bear the consequences of less effective law enforcement in other areas.
25
People are OK with being survived, as long as they get something out of it. Cheaper groceries, more credit, etc...
If they get nothing, say being in a police drone video of some sporting event, they resent it.
2
In the past, law enforcement new methods justified as aimed at one target has promptly been used against all targets. Busting terrorists has become busting whoever law enforcement targets in any operation.
If it can be abused, it will be, and almost instantly. We need to be honest with ourselves about this.
82
Totally agree. As an example of this there is this from the UK on local councils using regulatory surveillance powers to spy on people walking their dogs and dog fouling among other things.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/25/british-councils-used-inve...
1
Combining body cameras with facial recognition technology seems like a no brainer to me. I struggle to see how being able to quickly identify and arrest those with outstanding warrants is in any way bad.
9
It means every single citizen a cop walks by is being surveilled. I obey the law. Do you?
The local state environmental cop in my area spends more time ticketing motorists for infractions that pursuing hazardous waste dumpers. Because it is easy for him to do, the pickup truck doesn't look like a cop car. I pass him in his hiding spot a few times a day going and coming from work, so I know that too much of his time is spent there. But since all police at almost every level can enforce any infraction (an African American citizen was murdered by a college campus cop in Ohio, for nothing), this makes us a police state. It is human nature to do something wrong occasionally, as simple as throwing a cigarette butt out a window to speeding. But it should not be subject to constant surveillance. And I live in a so-called progressive state. It is not acceptable.
6
@QED: Even the best facial recognition systems today still have inadequate accuracy rates and abysmal track records in the real world, as opposed to controlled laboratory settings.
3
Phrase it how you will, but if you're struggling to see how blanket facial recognistion can and will be a problem, it's entirely on your lack of (capacity for?) reflection and no one else's.
1
Others on the receiving end of law-enforcement surveillance include groups like the Black Panthers, and other left-leaning groups who never carried guns, who have been destroyed with the aid of the surveillance.
49
The Raging Grannies were being surveiled by the FBI during the George W. Bush administration. They had been observed singing anti-war songs and distributing anti-war leaflets, which led the FBI to conclude they were threat to national security. In at least one instance, the FBI sent an operative to infiltrate the group. His picture turned up in a news story with his real name and the grannies realized they had been had. Some remember him taking a couple of cookies at their sing along, but never contributing any treats.
But seriously, a completely transparent and peaceful group of old ladies exercising its First Amendment rights with a call for peace and non-violence was targeted by FBI spies as a danger to society. If it can happen to them it can happen to anyone.
3
They are not surveilling Wall Street financial criminals. In fact Mayor Bloomberg got a special police force of NYPD and private cops to violently suppress the Occupy Wall Street! movement, with Obama's DHS to help coordinate it across major cities in the country. These are our "liberals".
2
As well as the Mafia, IRA extremists, and the KKK. Should they know they are under surveillance as well?