If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   New persistent aerial surveillance system is the eye in the sky, looking at you, can read your mind. Also is the maker of rules, dealing with fools, can steal you blind   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 55
    More: Scary, Ross McNutt, postdoctoral fellow, video surveillance, surveillance, Sen. John McCain  
•       •       •

3783 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Feb 2014 at 7:35 AM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



55 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-06 07:37:04 AM
Nice, subby - An APP earworm.

/Careful though, you're gonna get your fingers burned
 
2014-02-06 07:38:15 AM
I don't need to see anymore to know that...
 
2014-02-06 07:40:43 AM
Took me a few seconds to get the song in my head.. well played.
 
2014-02-06 07:41:38 AM
I also hear that it's made of metal, and that it's circuits gleam.  Also, it's perpetual and it keeps the country clean.
 
2014-02-06 07:42:32 AM

booger42: Nice, subby - An APP earworm.

/Careful though, you're gonna get your fingers burned


It's just the games people play. Let's just hope subby can turn over a friendly card.
 
2014-02-06 07:47:10 AM
Is it some form of space cowboy?

Srsly, I don't get this one.
 
2014-02-06 07:48:13 AM
As far as my eyes can see.....
 
2014-02-06 07:50:05 AM

wildcardjack: Is it some form of space cowboy?

Srsly, I don't get this one.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-41tg_CS7s
 
2014-02-06 07:51:01 AM
Hey cool!!

It's Big Brother!

or is it the Eagle  (Eagle vs Bear)

Skynet?

don't mind me, I'm just being paranoid.......
 
2014-02-06 07:51:23 AM
static1.businessinsider.com
 
2014-02-06 07:54:21 AM

MemeSlave: [static1.businessinsider.com image 400x300]



Why don't you just name it Operation Wang Chung, ass?
 
2014-02-06 07:54:44 AM
img.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-06 07:58:10 AM
This is way better:

Up here in space
I'm looking down on you.
My lasers trace
Everything you do.
You think you've private lives
Think nothing of the kind.
There is no true escape
I'm watching all the time.
I'm made of metal
My circuits gleam.
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean.
I'm elected electric spy
I'm protected electric eye.
Always in focus
You can't feel my stare.
I zoom into you
You don't know I'm there.
I take a pride in probing all your secret moves
My tearless retina takes pictures that can prove.
I'm made of metal
My circuits gleam.
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean.
I'm elected electric spy
I'm protected electric eye.
Electric eye, in the sky
Feel my stare, always there
There's nothing you can do about it.
Develop and expose
I feed upon your every thought
And so my power grows.
I'm made of metal
My circuits gleam.
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean.
I'm elected electric spy
I'm protected electric eye.
I'm elected electric spy
I'm elected. Protected. Detective. Electric eye.
 
2014-02-06 07:59:39 AM
Ah, the games people play.
 
2014-02-06 08:03:00 AM
It's interesting that essentially, all they are doing is tracking the movement of a pixel or two.  That's how big a human is on these images, so it's not like they are able to pick you out of a line-up based upon the image.

But then, they don't have to:  All they have to do is track that pixel (or the car it enters) until it ends up somewhere where there is a security camera, which are damned near ubiquitous these days, and pull the images off of that.

In essence, they can follow you anywhere.  Doesn't matter what you wear or if you put on a disguise, because this system isn't going to be able to distinguish you that way anyway.

And going into a large store or other public place in order to "throw off" the cameras probably isn't going to help you much.  Because they'll get the video from the Wal*Mart or whatever you entered and see when you entered and watch you enter the store, and they'll see when you exited and they'll be able to go back to their aerial footage to see where that pixel went after it left the store.

Even going into a store bathroom and changing your appearance wouldn't help:  The security cameras would pick up Joe Flannel-Grunge going into the bathroom but never coming out, and Mike McBusiness-suit coming out, having never gone in.  Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

The *ONLY* way I can see to foil something like that is to go into a place or area where there are a number of people entering and exiting and no security cameras, which seems like a pretty tall order these days.
 
2014-02-06 08:04:59 AM

SpinStopper: wildcardjack: Is it some form of space cowboy?

Srsly, I don't get this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-41tg_CS7s


Ah, a bit of the lame ass 80s music my Predator drone building father didn't let in the house.

I was raised on classic rock and heavy metal.
 
2014-02-06 08:05:56 AM
And what makes this worse is that while this guy is talking about a system on a fixed-wing manned aircraft, the capability already exists for use in long-duration unmanned aerial drones:

http://phys.org/news/2013-01-pbs-gigapixel-drone-imaging.html
 
2014-02-06 08:08:07 AM

dittybopper: I also hear that it's made of metal, and that it's circuits gleam.  Also, it's perpetual and it keeps the country clean.


This. Jesus subby at least use the correct earworm...
 
2014-02-06 08:08:57 AM
"As Americans have grown increasingly comfortable with traditional surveillance cameras"

Uh, author, do some research, Americans generally aren't comfortable with surveillance cameras.  There is some level of complacency but as a nation we aren't comfortable.

/Personal Freedoms stripped in the lie of "protecting us from the bad terrorists"
 
2014-02-06 08:10:03 AM
Another reason why Snowden was a douche.  Who cares about phone records?  These guys are watching you, right now.
 
2014-02-06 08:10:36 AM
I wish the president was a republican so I could be mad about this
 
2014-02-06 08:16:13 AM
I'm going to see APP on the 18th so I'm getting a kick...etc
 
2014-02-06 08:17:32 AM

toetag: "As Americans have grown increasingly comfortable with traditional surveillance cameras"

Uh, author, do some research, Americans generally aren't comfortable with surveillance cameras.  There is some level of complacency but as a nation we aren't comfortable.

/Personal Freedoms stripped in the lie of "protecting us from the bad terrorists"


FTA:  Police and private businesses have invested heavily in video surveillance since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Although academics debate whether these cameras create significantly lower crime rates, an overwhelming majority of Americans support them. A poll  in November found that only 14 percent of those surveyed wanted fewer cameras in public spaces.

Seems like most Americans are OK with it.  I'm not, but most seem to be.
 
2014-02-06 08:27:07 AM

wildcardjack: SpinStopper: wildcardjack: Is it some form of space cowboy?

Srsly, I don't get this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-41tg_CS7s

Ah, a bit of the lame ass 80s music my Predator drone building father didn't let in the house.

I was raised on classic rock and heavy metal.


Classic rock but no APP.  No Floyd either I would guess.  But Steve Miller is all good.  Strange and sad.
 
2014-02-06 08:30:10 AM

devildog123: toetag: "As Americans have grown increasingly comfortable with traditional surveillance cameras"

Uh, author, do some research, Americans generally aren't comfortable with surveillance cameras.  There is some level of complacency but as a nation we aren't comfortable.

/Personal Freedoms stripped in the lie of "protecting us from the bad terrorists"

FTA:  Police and private businesses have invested heavily in video surveillance since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Although academics debate whether these cameras create significantly lower crime rates, an overwhelming majority of Americans support them. A poll  in November found that only 14 percent of those surveyed wanted fewer cameras in public spaces.

Seems like most Americans are OK with it.  I'm not, but most seem to be.


I guess it depends on the degree.  Does it really bother you if a private business sets up cameras?  Certainly cameras have helped catch criminals robbing stores.

If those are okay, why not some gov't. owned cameras?  Dash-cameras in police cars, fixed cameras monitoring entrances/exits to public buildings.  Cameras to monitor traffic flow

I think most people don't mind that level of surveillance.

So at what point would most people find it onerous?  ANPR at every intersection?  Facial recognition along with that?   Does data retention factor into it?
 
2014-02-06 08:42:50 AM

dittybopper: And going into a large store or other public place in order to "throw off" the cameras probably isn't going to help you much. Because they'll get the video from the Wal*Mart or whatever you entered and see when you entered and watch you enter the store, and they'll see when you exited and they'll be able to go back to their aerial footage to see where that pixel went after it left the store.


That works really well, so long as the time stamps are identical and match the aerial camera.

I'm lucky if the timestamps between cameras are identical in a store surveillance environment.
 
2014-02-06 08:53:54 AM
Subby -- a beautifully done headline.
< golf clap >
 
2014-02-06 08:53:57 AM
Carry on.
 
2014-02-06 09:02:25 AM

postlibyan: Subby -- a beautifully done headline.
< golf clap >


"...cheat you blind", stealing from an aerial surveillance platform doesn't make sense.
 
2014-02-06 09:26:20 AM

devildog123: Seems like most Americans are OK with it.  I'm not, but most seem to be.


In the abstract sense, whether most Americans are OK with it or not is irrelevant:  The majority can't vote to remove the rights of individuals.  That may or may not apply in this case.

It may well be that you don't have a right to privacy when out in public, but by the same token it may also be true that you have the right to not be under constant government surveillance while you are out in public without a warrant.

Prior to the development of panopticon-like technology, the police couldn't watch everybody all the time.  Now, it's possible, and that has implications that stretch far beyond catching armed robbers.
 
2014-02-06 09:28:56 AM

SDRR: This is way better:


Came for this.
 
2014-02-06 09:29:45 AM

dittybopper: devildog123: Seems like most Americans are OK with it.  I'm not, but most seem to be.

In the abstract sense, whether most Americans are OK with it or not is irrelevant:  The majority can't vote to remove the rights of individuals.  That may or may not apply in this case.

It may well be that you don't have a right to privacy when out in public, but by the same token it may also be true that you have the right to not be under constant government surveillance while you are out in public without a warrant.

Prior to the development of panopticon-like technology, the police couldn't watch everybody all the time.  Now, it's possible, and that has implications that stretch far beyond catching armed robbers.


But what right does a government have to claim that public space is its domain to do with as it pleases?  If the individual is to have no rights to privacy in public space then how can the government claim to have the right to surveil everyone in a public space?  The reason they do it is because no one is stopping them however that does not justify their actions.
 
2014-02-06 09:40:50 AM

DubtodaIll: dittybopper: devildog123: Seems like most Americans are OK with it.  I'm not, but most seem to be.

In the abstract sense, whether most Americans are OK with it or not is irrelevant:  The majority can't vote to remove the rights of individuals.  That may or may not apply in this case.

It may well be that you don't have a right to privacy when out in public, but by the same token it may also be true that you have the right to not be under constant government surveillance while you are out in public without a warrant.

Prior to the development of panopticon-like technology, the police couldn't watch everybody all the time.  Now, it's possible, and that has implications that stretch far beyond catching armed robbers.

But what right does a government have to claim that public space is its domain to do with as it pleases?  If the individual is to have no rights to privacy in public space then how can the government claim to have the right to surveil everyone in a public space?  The reason they do it is because no one is stopping them however that does not justify their actions.


I agree with you, but you should re-read your sentence that I bolded above and think about it:  If the individual has no right to privacy in public spaces then the government could very well argue that it has the power to monitor those public spaces 24/7 specifically because you have no expectation of privacy in them.
 
2014-02-06 09:50:22 AM

dittybopper: DubtodaIll: dittybopper: devildog123: Seems like most Americans are OK with it.  I'm not, but most seem to be.

In the abstract sense, whether most Americans are OK with it or not is irrelevant:  The majority can't vote to remove the rights of individuals.  That may or may not apply in this case.

It may well be that you don't have a right to privacy when out in public, but by the same token it may also be true that you have the right to not be under constant government surveillance while you are out in public without a warrant.

Prior to the development of panopticon-like technology, the police couldn't watch everybody all the time.  Now, it's possible, and that has implications that stretch far beyond catching armed robbers.

But what right does a government have to claim that public space is its domain to do with as it pleases?  If the individual is to have no rights to privacy in public space then how can the government claim to have the right to surveil everyone in a public space?  The reason they do it is because no one is stopping them however that does not justify their actions.

I agree with you, but you should re-read your sentence that I bolded above and think about it:  If the individual has no right to privacy in public spaces then the government could very well argue that it has the power to monitor those public spaces 24/7 specifically because you have no expectation of privacy in them.


They certainly can and have argued that very point with much success in recent history.  And the brilliance of the argument is that they're able to successful argue that they are doing this in order to "protect our freedom" while their activities in doing so are completely contrary to freedom itself.
 
2014-02-06 09:54:17 AM
Except the surveillance isn't limited to public spaces. What the cameras and drones can see on public land they can see on private property also; think your back yard, or the farm you own, or the swimming pool you have fenced off for privacy, or the sun deck you built on the back of your house. Those aerial cameras can see those places too.
 
2014-02-06 10:01:30 AM
What's also interesting is that there currently exists very clear law forbidding private entities to surveil public space.  For example if a business has surveillance cameras on the exterior of their building and the field of view of some of the cameras has public space in it then none of the video evidence gathered on those areas is admissible in court.  Furthermore an individual can file suit against the company if they discover they were surveilled in public space by that business.  However damages in those cases are difficuly to justify and will typically result in the company having to adjust its FoVs.
 
2014-02-06 10:16:09 AM
Meh, that song works better as an average guy dating a good looking woman who finally gets sick of her shiat.
 
2014-02-06 10:30:40 AM
The company may not use this stuff for nefariou reasons, but certain government agencies aren't exactly shy about breaking the law and obtaining surveillance any way they can. Human beings are pretty much going to abuse any sort of power available sooner out later.
 
2014-02-06 11:02:18 AM

DubtodaIll: What's also interesting is that there currently exists very clear law forbidding private entities to surveil public space.  For example if a business has surveillance cameras on the exterior of their building and the field of view of some of the cameras has public space in it then none of the video evidence gathered on those areas is admissible in court.  Furthermore an individual can file suit against the company if they discover they were surveilled in public space by that business.  However damages in those cases are difficuly to justify and will typically result in the company having to adjust its FoVs.


citation needed
 
2014-02-06 11:09:42 AM

DubtodaIll: What's also interesting is that there currently exists very clear law forbidding private entities to surveil public space.  For example if a business has surveillance cameras on the exterior of their building and the field of view of some of the cameras has public space in it then none of the video evidence gathered on those areas is admissible in court.  Furthermore an individual can file suit against the company if they discover they were surveilled in public space by that business.  However damages in those cases are difficuly to justify and will typically result in the company having to adjust its FoVs.


I doubt that.

This is a surveillance picture from a business (an apartment building) that was introduced at the trial of Timothy McVeigh, and it shows the truck he used to blow up the Murrah building:

law2.umkc.edu
 
2014-02-06 11:20:08 AM
A single camera mounted atop the Washington Monument, McNutt boasts, could deter crime all around the Mall. He said regular flights over the most dangerous parts of Washington - combined with publicity about how much police could see - would make a significant dent in the number of burglaries, robberies and murders. His 192-megapixel cameras would spot as many as 50 crimes per six-hour flight, he estimated, providing police with a continuous stream of images covering more than a third of the city.

Though not specifically for crimefighting, they're already deploying JLENS over DC.
 
2014-02-06 12:11:14 PM

wildcardjack: SpinStopper: wildcardjack: Is it some form of space cowboy?

Srsly, I don't get this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-41tg_CS7s

Ah, a bit of the lame ass 80s music my Predator drone building father didn't let in the house.

I was raised on classic rock and heavy metal.


Sir, that is Alan Parson's Project.  They don't get more Classic Rock than that.  (Also, the opening track, which leads right into this song and is generally considered part of it, is used by just about EVERY sports team, especially in basketball, to intro their teams at the start of games)

I guess it's true, you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
 
2014-02-06 12:17:15 PM

DubtodaIll: What's also interesting is that there currently exists very clear law forbidding private entities to surveil public space.  For example if a business has surveillance cameras on the exterior of their building and the field of view of some of the cameras has public space in it then none of the video evidence gathered on those areas is admissible in court.  Furthermore an individual can file suit against the company if they discover they were surveilled in public space by that business.  However damages in those cases are difficuly to justify and will typically result in the company having to adjust its FoVs.


umm, no. it's public space.  Its quite all right for private entities to record a much as they want, and while they might get brought up on invasion of privacy charges, it doesn't invalidate the evidence. its currently illegal for GOVERNMENT to do things like that.
 
2014-02-06 12:22:01 PM

dittybopper: DubtodaIll: What's also interesting is that there currently exists very clear law forbidding private entities to surveil public space.  For example if a business has surveillance cameras on the exterior of their building and the field of view of some of the cameras has public space in it then none of the video evidence gathered on those areas is admissible in court.  Furthermore an individual can file suit against the company if they discover they were surveilled in public space by that business.  However damages in those cases are difficuly to justify and will typically result in the company having to adjust its FoVs.

I doubt that.

This is a surveillance picture from a business (an apartment building) that was introduced at the trial of Timothy McVeigh, and it shows the truck he used to blow up the Murrah building:

[law2.umkc.edu image 426x320]


The State is allowed to supeona evidence but the citizen is not allowed to use that evidence for his/her own purposes.
 
2014-02-06 12:26:05 PM

AgonistAlex: DubtodaIll: What's also interesting is that there currently exists very clear law forbidding private entities to surveil public space.  For example if a business has surveillance cameras on the exterior of their building and the field of view of some of the cameras has public space in it then none of the video evidence gathered on those areas is admissible in court.  Furthermore an individual can file suit against the company if they discover they were surveilled in public space by that business.  However damages in those cases are difficuly to justify and will typically result in the company having to adjust its FoVs.

umm, no. it's public space.  Its quite all right for private entities to record a much as they want, and while they might get brought up on invasion of privacy charges, it doesn't invalidate the evidence. its currently illegal for GOVERNMENT to do things like that.


I'm sorry that's just not the case.  The government has been doing this on large scale for several years already. There may be differences between businesses and individuals as far as recording public space but I work in the video surveillance industry and putting FoVs solely within the premises of the businesses property is standard practice to avoid any legal issues that may arise.
 
2014-02-06 02:09:06 PM
I Robot an article some Time back I read about using Helios that can stay up for weeks. Initially they were going to put two camera systems on them for Stereotomy.
 
2014-02-06 02:19:20 PM

devildog123: Police and private businesses have invested heavily in video surveillance since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Although academics debate whether these cameras create significantly lower crime rates, an overwhelming majority of Americans support them. A poll in November found that only 14 percent of those surveyed wanted fewer cameras in public spaces.


That doesn't mean individuals are comfortable with it.  Who was polled?  Police agencies?  Businesses?  "Those" were polled.  Gotcha.

This is akin to an argument we are having in our office. THOSE people that have doors and walls ( 6 in management) LOVE the new cube farm with 4 foot high walls.  It doesn't mean the the 90 code monkeys and technicians that have to sit in the cube farm. Poll across the full spectrum and lets us know the results.
 
2014-02-06 02:21:08 PM

stupiddream: I'm going to see APP on the 18th so I'm getting a kick...etc


Wait, what? They still exist? And *tour?* This changes... well, very little, actually, but I'm excited to hear of it.
 
2014-02-06 03:18:20 PM

toetag: devildog123: Police and private businesses have invested heavily in video surveillance since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Although academics debate whether these cameras create significantly lower crime rates, an overwhelming majority of Americans support them. A poll in November found that only 14 percent of those surveyed wanted fewer cameras in public spaces.

That doesn't mean individuals are comfortable with it.  Who was polled?  Police agencies?  Businesses?  "Those" were polled.  Gotcha.

This is akin to an argument we are having in our office. THOSE people that have doors and walls ( 6 in management) LOVE the new cube farm with 4 foot high walls.  It doesn't mean the the 90 code monkeys and technicians that have to sit in the cube farm. Poll across the full spectrum and lets us know the results.


And if we're talking about an invasion of rights, then it wouldn't matter if 99% wanted it.  The very idea of an individual having enumerated rights that are considered sacrosanct is there to prevent the majority from voting in laws that violate them.
 
2014-02-06 03:19:29 PM

dittybopper: And if we're talking about an invasion of rights, then it wouldn't matter if 99% wanted it.


That should read "violation of rights".  I had "violation of rights" and "invasion of property" both humming through my head at the same time.
 
Displayed 50 of 55 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report