Same deal in the UK with the national ANPR system (Automatic Number Plate Recognition).
Ostensibly to reduce the amount of uninsured/untaxed drivers on the roads.
Don't want to sit around in databases? Well, here's a nice list of just a few of the things you can't have:
Bank account; Car/motorcycle; Mobile telephone; Internet-connected computer; Credit/debit card; Visible face (oh, we might be safe there, for a few years)
Unless of course you're a criminal, in which case you can handily avoid a lot of this!
I used to think we could escape surveillance using technology. Fool's errand. We'd need an entire culture change. It's gone.
If blanket video coverage of public areas is fine, why not blanket audio coverage? Add in facial and audio recognition. Now consider you're running about with a microphone webcam combo in your pocket, the power and battery life of which will only increase.
I hate it with every ounce of my being, but I can't see a way out here. I can't see the 'line', any more.
There is no way to reverse this. Trying to cage this with paperwork will just lead to more of the same creative interpretations à la NSA. So the rulers don't feel the rules apply to them, big surprise. With that in mind, the futility of fighting the tide, what is the next step? As the ideal solution of reversal is unavailable, we need to go with harm reduction - but what is the harm that we would reduce? Most would say the harm is the loss of privacy, but I disagree. I believe the harm is further consolidation of power by those with the means to abuse it. So I would advocate for a democratization of all these spy programs. If the DEA can spy on us, we should be able to spy on the DEA. Any funding request for government programs should include a documented method of direct public access (not FOIA, operator level).
It is no mystery why the Constitution included the provision allowing citizens to arm themselves with the same class of weapons that the government possessed. The memory of tyrannical governance was fresh. Information is no different, if the government posses this information - so should the citizens.
Well, there is a way actually. But first you need to restore the power of the vote so that legislators are accountable to the people and the people alone.
This means dismantling the five main pillars that are used to nullify, misdirect, or otherwise diminish the power of the vote - both a a signaling mechanism that members of the electorate can use to unify themselves, and as a reliably severe punitive tool that the electorate can use to avenge themselves when their "representatives" betray their interests. Listed in no particular order, they are
1. Gerrymandering (aka partisan redistricting)
2. Closed primaries
3. Private campaign finance
4. The "revolving door" that allows private industry to offer well-paid sinecures to public "servants" who have systematically betrayed the public's trust.
5. Myriad restrictions on ballot access.
It's important to recognize that while each of these pillars diminishes the power of the vote, the really insidious effect comes from their interaction. But those knock-on effects can all be stopped by addressing the fundamental - and fundamental anti-democratic - structures at their roots.
Eliminating any one of these abominations tilts the balance back in favor of the good guys. All of them together can be lethal to the ambitions of people who's own ambitions are anathema to a self-governing republic.
Even though I'm not a US American (where this problem seems to be the gravest in the Western world, partly because of scale, partly because the US' system was the prototypal modern Republic where many lessons haven't been learned yet at time of the foundation), I've been thinking exactly that for quite a while - your list pretty much describes what need to be solved. But I have to ask - how would one go about doing this in the US? How do you change a system with such a momentum? Through the monopoly on violent force and largely complacent mass media the establishment's grip on the system seems to be air tight. And if you just wait until the shit hits the fan (I predict this will happen with enough doubling of damages caused by natural disasters that will almost certainly be coming in the next decades), it could turn both ways - the current system could be replaced with a way more horrible totalitarian regime as well as it could be fixed towards giving the power back to the people - the former is even way more probable when you look at history. The only case I know where drastic change has gone over relatively well is South Africa - everywhere else you look there was a huge struggle, usually war.
Well that would certainly be a preferable situation to where we presently find ourselves, but I don't know that the root cause is addressed in that. The root cause being the fact that one entity (government, class, group, whatever) is exempt from the rules. That exemption, no matter how apparently small, ruins everything. It is like drinking water from a reservoir where across the way you see a dude with his pants down taking a dump into the water. Oh, and the exemption can't be fixed - because it defines a state: the monopoly on violence. It is a logical flaw. I'm not that thrilled with everybody in the voting population having some small amount of ownership of my life either, especially when 42% of them believe in ghosts.
I've always enjoyed the work of John Young. [0] The eyeball series isn't nearly as interesting as most of the mirrored leaks, but it serves to frustrate such attempts at airbrushing the homes and workplaces of the anointed.
This kind of defeatism is not helpful. Through history people were able to eventually overthrow much more brutal oppressors. The kind coercion used in western societies might appear to be more effective, but there is no reason to think that direct political action could not work. When it happens, like in the case of the occupy movement, you can see by the media reaction, how uncomfortable it is for the powerful.
Your suggestion of a democratization of spy programs is actually one of the premises of "The Circle", the book is meant to paint a dystopian future.
> Through history people were able to eventually overthrow much more brutal oppressors.
They were more brutal because they substituted brutality in lieu of these sorts of technological innovations. They couldn't spy on everyone, so they had to crucify the few opponents they could definitively catch (or some sacrificial lambs, when they couldn't.)
Not to mention, it's much easier to overthrow a brutal dictator. Your government is killing your friends, drafting your family into the military, and sending your coworkers to work camps? Hell yeah, we won't stand for that! But if your government is just quietly watching, while your family is sitting at home, with food in their fridge - will you pick up a weapon to fight against that regime? Will your friends, family, neighbors?
Well the good thing about not living in a dictatorship is that you have freedom of expression and freedom of association. So there really isn't any need to resort to violence, at least in principle.
You are right to point out that the majority of people are just comfortable enough, struggling to pay for debts they incurred in one way or another and generally have no incentive to fight totalitarian overreach of the state.
Unfortunately the institutions for the indoctrination of the young are set up in a way by now, that they are very good at producing hyper-focused well-working replaceable cogs for industry, together with their Ayn Rand reading, libertarian overlords in one nice package. They do all that, while setting you up for a life of indebted servitude, if you don't happen to choose a profession that requires you to be highly compliant with the current system to be successful.
So I guess if there is one thing to fix it would be education, a properly educated general public would hopefully be less apathetic and compliant than it is today. Technology has the potential to make education much more widely available and independent of having to assemble in one place and be subjected to abuse and brainwashing of authority figures.
Ok, go ahead and square that with the operation of the government today. I'm pretty confident you will find it impossible to construct a convincing argument.
That was a stupid choice of words... What I meant to say was neo-liberal, I guess. Since the whole comment is mostly hyperbole anyways, I will let it stand as is.
Well thanks for not doubling down. FYI, "Ayn Rand" and "neo-liberal" doesn't really belong in the same breath either - I'm guessing you've never actually read anything she has written. This might be a moment where you consider the body of knowledge that your opinions rest on, and the phrase "garbage in, garbage out".
Name one thing accomplished by the occupy movement. If anything, they were a distraction from the worst culprits of the unholy corporate-government alliance.
Well, they made a nice few-second appearance in Google's Zeitgeist 2011 video, and also spawned some fun memes (#OccupyJupiter comes to my mind). That must be worth something. </sarcasm>
I personally question the goal of fighting it. More and more I begin to believe that it's "privacy vs. progress of mankind - choose one". Privacy for privacy's sake is not something I think is important - the problem is always with the ways lack of it could be abused. I can't see how we can save privacy without getting rid of computers - after all, even if you reduce number of sensors, the remaining void can be filled back by throwing more computing power at data you can get.
It isn't defeatism when you recognize your present course of action as being ineffective, and look for alternatives. I'd also like to know what, in your opinion, the occupy movement accomplished (aside from demonstrating how ineffective slacktivism is).
I was thinking recently that the best thing that could happen to Internet privacy would be for someone to build a Palantir clone with an open API, such that anyone could dox anyone else for $0.10 a pop. Being able to dox yourself (like Googling yourself, but PRISM-er) in real time would basically give you an OPSEC REPL, perfect for figuring out how to reduce your exposure.
It's easy to reverse some of this. If they're recording license plates and they or someone else will do it regardless, then stop having license plates. The justification for having them doesn't really apply to self-driving cars anyway.
Your argument seems to be that you can't effectively prohibit something that technology makes practical. That clearly isn't the case -- the constitution has been preventing police from searching your home without a warrant since 1789, even though they absolutely do have the operational capability to do that.
More to the point, even if they're not prohibited from spying, as long as we're not prohibited from defending against that spying we haven't lost. Encryption works. Tor works. In many cases the lack of prohibition on spying would be irrelevant if not for the existing prohibitions and impediments to strong anonymity, as with regulations on digital money transfers.
What's interesting is that your conclusion is still mostly right. Government secrecy is the cancer of democracy. But governments being transparent to their people in no way requires people to be transparent to their governments.
> The justification for having them doesn't really apply to self-driving cars anyway.
You seriously believe that? You think the government makes common sense decisions? So ok, no more plates. How long until we hear about them logging the serial numbers broadcast by our tire pressure sensors? Or what about the unique magnetic signature of our vehicles detectable by all the loops already embedded in the road? If the government has the technical ability to do something that will expand power and responsibility, it will do it. It has been demonstrated time and time again.
> ... as long as we're not prohibited from defending against that spying we haven't lost.
Yeah we'll see. Tampering with NIST, clipper chips, export controls. This is not sustainable, people will eventually tire. Also, the argument sounds very similar to what was said about TSA security theater: "No, we aren't impeding your freedom of movement - you can take the bus!" Guess what, the TSA is at the bus station now. "No, we aren't violating your fourth amendment rights - if you want to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures than you can use encryption!" Guess what happens next. It is a bullshit argument - I shouldn't have to run myself ragged.
> Your argument seems to be that you can't effectively prohibit something that technology makes practical.
No, my point is that you can't prevent something technically practical while the government operates in secret, enjoying a monopoly on information. That is why warrantless home searches aren't extremely common, because it would be impossible to do in secret - old papers have very little to do with it.
> You seriously believe that? You think the government makes common sense decisions?
Decisions like that are made in the open. You can tell if your self-driving car has a license plate on it and keep lobbying to remove it until they do.
> How long until we hear about them logging the serial numbers broadcast by our tire pressure sensors? Or what about the unique magnetic signature of our vehicles detectable by all the loops already embedded in the road?
So it's a cat and mouse game. So what? If they want to log RFID tags they have to spend a billion dollars putting readers everywhere, at which point people rip the tags out and the readers are useless. Find some other way (and some other billion dollars) to fingerprint individual cars and people will realize that it's profitable to sign up their self-driving car to transport Uber passengers and suddenly tracking the cars is meaningless. And so it goes.
> Tampering with NIST, clipper chips, export controls. This is not sustainable, people will eventually tire.
All of those things failed. Nobody gets tired of winning.
> Also, the argument sounds very similar to what was said about TSA security theater
The analogous thing to not having TSA security theater is not having mass surveillance. You're arguing the opposite -- mass surveillance for everyone. You can't make the slippery slope argument when you want to start at the bottom.
> No, my point is that you can't prevent something technically practical while the government operates in secret, enjoying a monopoly on information.
Which I'm not disagreeing with. Government secrets should be aggressively minimized. But once again, governments being transparent to their people in no way requires people to be transparent to their governments. And there is apparently some dispute about what is technically practical.
> That is why warrantless home searches aren't extremely common, because it would be impossible to do in secret - old papers have very little to do with it.
Which is all we need to do here. Make it so that spying on you requires them to physically enter the space you're in so that it's only practical to do it according to the rules with probable cause rather than in bulk in secret.
Yes, and rarely. I've spent 5 minutes trying to think of such an example and failed, maybe you have something in mind?
> If they want to log RFID tags they have to spend a billion dollars putting readers everywhere, at which point people rip the tags out and the readers are useless.
Lol, you throw out a cost like it would be some sort of problem for them to spend money that isn't theirs. You know how you keep people from ripping the tags out? You require manufactures to install them in every vehicle manufactured after September 1st 2007. If people actually start tampering with this legally mandated safety device, lean on the states to add it to the vehicle inspection requirements... for safety. But few will tamper with the tracking, er, safety device - because it adds convenience to their lives and they can't even be bothered to install PGP.
> All of those things failed. Nobody gets tired of winning.
Only the clipper chip failed. Also, I'm tired - as are many of my friends and coworkers. Up until two years ago about 80% of my time was spent as a security researcher, I burned out. I'd like a systemic fix, because I'm tired of the game.
> ... not having mass surveillance. You're arguing the opposite ...
I argue the opposite as a method of harm reduction, I thought I made it clear in my top post that an end to state spying would be ideal. Where you and I part ways, I think, is that I believe that it is impossible to prevent and verify. You seem to actually believe the whole "consent of the governed" thing.
> ... only practical to do it according to the rules with probable cause rather than in bulk in secret.
Until they start monitoring power consumption, in the interest of finding grow houses. [0] Or monitoring sewers in the interest of catching bomb makers. [1] Please don't suggest that we add this to the cat and mouse game, where I now need to invite strangers over for pee parties and hook my dryer up to a noise generator that randomly turns it on in order to stay ahead in the privacy game.
> "The justification for having them doesn't really apply to self-driving cars anyway."
Because self-driving cars will be in constant contact with some central digital infrastructure that will be tracking everything ("for quality control purposes") and the authorities can far more easily and effectively tap into that data than place license plate readers along the roadside. Tying the "session" together between purchasing information (that's already centralized and freely accessible), car route, and user history, is a piece of cake.
Much like the Constitution you mentioned, I feel we need some sort of document that explains the intentions behind surveillance and the limitations by which it can be legally used. We have no problem upholding the bill of rights, so why would it be hard to create a set of guidelines for future regulation of surveillance? Making it open is not a complete solution (though it's still a good idea), because we're still not setting any limitations as to how this information can be legally used. We need to do more to protect the rights of the citizens involved.
People like Edward Snowden have said surveillance can be used for good purposes. For example, fast forward and imagine auto insurance companies using this traffic monitoring data: Instead of structuring their prices based around age/gender/racial/class discrimination, they can use actual statistics to determine a little more about how safe someone is driving. Or instead of civil engineers having to waste time, money and other resources doing traffic studies...what if they could see the effects of their work in real-time? I think this technology could be used for very good purposes if there was just some transparency and rules surrounding it.
The purpose of an insurance is to share the risk of individuals with a great number of people.
To pinpoint the risk to a single person is against this purpose.
They can get away with this because you have to have a insurance by law. Therefore this practice should be forbidden by law.
No, the solution would be to get insurance against high insurance costs. This already happens with medical insurance. If you're already sick your insurance costs more. But if you get insurance in advance, before you know you'll be sick, it's cheaper. The same could happen with driving. Get insurance before you've driven, before you know you'll be risky.
The only way within the system is I guess the Supreme Court. They have already laid a framework establishing that tracking requires a warrant, even if it's just making the police's job more efficient and it's data they can get from a tail.
If the license plate tracking gets to that point within metropolitan areas (presumably where cameras are most dense) or they start doing it from blimps or whatever, at least there is precedence for striking it.
It's not going to stop the collection but it should at least prevent the data being used against you in court. Of course, parallel construction. Sigh...
Give us a kindly king! We've got systemic issues that need to be fixed. What would you say if I suggested a form of government where you're well-being and happiness is contingent on the wisdom and industry of every other person? Yeah, not a great plan - but here we are.
Some things the public should not be able to spy on. Using the example of the DEA, we can't have cartels knowing the identities of the DEA's informers, or when and where they're planning to make a bust. We can't have our citizens' tax records getting out of the IRS. And public relations would break down if we can't keep our allies secrets, either. Our military's plans shouldn't be made known to the enemy, of course. Many secrets are kept for good reason—letting it all out indiscriminately just doesn't make sense.
> we can't have cartels knowing the identities of the DEA's informers
You should learn about how CIs are blackmailed, used, and discarded, and, often enough die. If informants were outed and the use of CIs ended, it would be a benefit to everyone.
Wikileaks? Cables? We lost all our allies, right?
Don't fear radical transparency. It will be to your benefit.
Radical transparency would be good, so long as it's not exposed to everyone in the world. We often forget the multitude of wickedness in the world, and while the US government smells, there are actors on the outside that wouldn't hesitate to manipulate/destroy us the moment we free up information.
Undoubtedly, the power between the people and the government is unbalanced, but unrestricted transparency is not a one stop solution to the problem.
That's a heck of an assertion. Just because there are bad people we can't know what our government does?
Let's stipulate all the bad wickedness you would like me to think there is. How much of that has the actual means to threaten the US in any economically or militarily significant way?
With radical transparency may find that we're harming ourselves more by overspending on security theater, and that, for all their wickedness, most of those wicked people can't afford a bus ticket to the next town, much less to actually do anything with their wickedness.
> That's a heck of an assertion. Just because there are bad people we can't know what our government does?
Yes. Your intentions aren't malicious. There are many millions of people whose intentions are malicious. It takes very few of them to do you, your family, your neighbors serious harm.
It shocks me how many people on this site seem to not understand that sometimes.
How is it logical that a few kids in SF building some world-changing piece of software is expected, but a few kids in _____ building a piece of software and whaling a few executives in the DOD, DOJ, DOE and damaging critical national infrastructure is beyond possibility.
How how does is it not clear that exposure of an infrastructure of information gathering would eradicate our ability to do anything but read newspapers about what's going on in the rest of the world?
Yes we need better or different protection against domestic spying. As always technology is ahead of the government, and the professional politicians are simply not technology savvy enough to understand the implications of what they let happen.
We need a continuation of the values and knowledge development that our current tech-centric generations hold. When young people start not caring about how their tech works, is when we'll end up with more of the same convenience over propriety issues we're currently dealing with.
> There are many millions of people whose intentions are malicious. It takes very few of them to do you, your family, your neighbors serious harm.
Come off it, and stop watching "24" reruns. The risk you face, I face, everyone faces, is practically nil. We all know the numbers. You have no need to pay more attention to terrorism than you pay to lightning, or slipping in the bathtub.
Moreover, this is true in places that don't have an HSA, an NSA, a CIA, or an FBI. There is no difference in outcome regarding terrorism in Latvia where they all they can afford is to deploy an anti-terrorism potato, or in Alabama, where you have camo'ed citizens armed-up and waiting for ISIS to invade.
> As always technology is ahead of the government, and the professional politicians are simply not technology savvy enough to understand the implications of what they let happen.
I think you underestimate them; i would say they are full well aware of exactly the implications, and that it seems to them like their wet dreams are coming true.
> When young people start not caring about how their tech works, is when we'll end up with more of the same convenience over propriety issues we're currently dealing with.
I'm sorry, but i think this ship has already sailed. Or do you believe that currently a majority of "young people" do in fact "care about how their tech works"?
I'm going to have to go with no. I'm not going to kneel before some spectre of Actors on the Outside (ooooOOOOooohhh).
We live in perhaps the finest times of this specie's history, and it's foolish to limit and harm ourselves out of an unspecified anxiety that somebody, somewhere could do something to harm us. We cannot live in fear.
Security through obscurity? No doubt a great deal would need to change, but we've tried the method of giving a select group of individuals an immense amount of power and hoping for the best. It hasn't worked out that well. So I'd recommend that you consider the present situation, because the prospect of you knowing my tax information, by comparison, doesn't seem so bad.
Interesting—I haven't seen that term used that way before. If I encrpyt my customers' private data using a well-publicized encryption method, is it still security through obscurity, simply because they are secrets?
No. That would be like saying a locked door is security through obscurity, because the cuts of the key unlock the door - not the physical key. The concept requires a great deal of torturing to get there :)
Anyway, the whole idea that the state needs to operate in secret to perform its duties is ridiculous and only serves bad actors. Who would seriously wish for a secret police force anyway? Maybe we should be focusing on preventing and deescalating, through systemic and scalable solutions, instead of masked weekend warriors kicking down doors and shooting people. Also, if you want a laugh - here is a funny story about what happens when you allow the DEA to operate in secret: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/540/a...
> a locked door is security through obscurity, because the cuts of the key unlock the door - not the physical key.
I don't know, that's not such a bad analogy. To put it another way, a key is just a really funny way to write down a bunch of numbers, and a key-lock is just a really esoteric number-pad.
People have actually broken into houses by cutting working keys from pictures they took of victims unlocking their doors—so it's not even obscurity aiding the security per se (or rather, it used to be, but then we greatly standardized the way key-locks work.) Instead, it's just concealment, like the concealed face of a credit card in your wallet.
If you keep the key on the same machine as the data, it might be the specific kind of "security through obscurity" that is more commonly referred to as "DRM."
> What is secret about a moat, electrified fence or a stated policy of mutual assured destruction?
Normal people don't have a moat.
A major reason that e.g. home invasions are risky (and thus are deterred) is that the criminal doesn't know when the mark or the neighbors will be away from home, what security may be in place or whether there is anything worth stealing. If you put that information on the internet for anyone then every time you come home from work all your electronics will be missing.
Replacing that "security through obscurity" with actual physical security is not something most people can afford.
What is more likely: I was suggesting that people secure their homes with a moat; or I was demonstrating that, contrary to the post I was responding to, not all security relies upon obscurity?
And what good is physical security if you don't have it? If it doesn't exist in practice then pointing out that it exists in theory is just being pedantic.
lol, ok buddy - being described as pedantic by a person who just helpfully volunteered the revelation that normal people don't have moats is just too weird.
You are wrong. As citizens we can grant and revoke government powers at will. Cutting off or significantly curtailing their revenue would have a similar effect.
EDIT: There would need to be a concomitant cultural change as well. As it stands folks are not aware of or engaged with what their government is doing.
Even if we replaced every government official today, it could quickly devolve back to its current state.
>You are wrong. As citizens we can grant and revoke government powers at will.
Theoretically. First you would need someone with these beliefs to run for office. You would need them to win office, in a position where they have the power to change the laws. Then you would need them to resist the temptation to listen to lobbyists trying to change their mind. Then you would need a vote to pass. Then you would need the government agencies to agree (just because the law says something, doesn't mean everyone agrees). Generally this would take going to a high court who forces the government to comply. Hopefully that court is public and not a private rubber stamp committee.
Theoretically, we can revoke government positions. But we need politicians to do it on our behalf, and we don't really have politicians who are willing to do that.
What's needed is a team of 51 people winning Senate seats and a team of 218 people winning House seats. Getting that team in place will require a sustained, 4-6 year effort since a 3rd of representatives are elected each year.
Pulling off such a takeover is possible, though it would be a lot of work. Voter turnout for Senate and House has been between 36% and 53%.[0],[1] Traditionally campaign finance has been considered a barrier to electing good representatives; however, the hold campaign advertising has over our election process may be weakening. People under 35 spend less time consuming traditional media where campaign ads run and more time on YouTube and social media. A campaign focused on voters under 35 might be enough to create significant change. In California, for example, there are almost enough people between the ages of 18-35 to make a win possible if those people voted as a team.[2]
You're not wrong. The problem, though, is that I'm still right. Yes, theoretically we can change things. The way this happens is through our elected officials, not via us directly. If our elected officials are unwilling to change, there's not much we can do to force it. Literally the only way the Constitution allows for us to change things is if we vote someone into office who will change it, and then it still hinges on them actually changing things, which historically hasn't happened.
You can repeat the Constitution until you're blue in the face, but just because something sounds easy on paper doesn't mean it's easy or even plausible in reality.
Texas tried to make TSA gate-groping unambiguously illegal, and the federal government credibly threatened to end all flights to and from Texas, causing Texas to back down.
There was an lapd officer(s) that were murdered within the last few days and the murderer used the waze app that shows the reported locations of speed traps and the government is already asking google to prohibit that information in some form. Knee jerk reactions to current events are never going to end well for openness of data.
Not quite true. There were recent stories that the LAPD commissioner was calling for Waze to remove police tracking from their app. [1] There was a callout of two NYPD officers being killed in December by a shooter that used Waze before the attacks, but did not use it to track their locations leading up to and during shootings.
> It is no mystery why the Constitution included the provision allowing citizens to arm themselves with the same class of weapons that the government possessed.
It's worth noting that no longer do citizens have the ability to arm themselves with "the same class of weapons" as the government. Unless you're willing to sell APCs and cruise missiles to private parties, there's no way a rebellion can outgun country's military.
Thought experiment: if gov programs were forced to be transparent, would they be any less brazen?
Not at this rate. I think officials see the Snowden-fallout and say, "hey, that wasn't so bad. the public barely cares. Yo Comey, hit the press & equate encryption to child abuse; we can win this narrative." Lack of transparency is certainly an issue, but i'd say the bigger one how to make sense of this information to the public.
Yeah, and in principle the NSA can't dragnet domestic signals, but here we are. Relying on the honor system has led us to something right out of Gulliver's Travels, with government bureaucrats advancing through a game of leaping and creeping...
That said, I feel like the right to bare arms was included specifically for overthrowing oppressive governments (and in case the British came back?).
At what point does a government become sufficiently oppressive as to be overthrown by the people? Without defining that, I feel like government can just keep employing the "but terrorists" excuse and the overton window to keep stripping us of more and more of our privacy and rights.
Great change rarely comes with-out great violence. It is sad, but appears to be true. Considering Americans and other FVEY countries are for all purposes living very well compared to their cousins makes me doubt this will ever happen.
Sometimes I get upset when I encounter a gum on the street, but I stop short of calling for more gum control. And, I don't have any idea where any person gets the idea that they have the right to tell another person whether or not to shave their arms.
As for the second thing you said, sounds like you probably just need a little more soma.
I sometimes feel the Hacker News crowd are a bit out of touch with the rest of the population.
Here in the UK most people I know feel safer with surveillance, it's used primarily to keep law and order.
We don't live in some authoritarian state where it's used for nefarious means, it's used to keep the public safe.
And seriously, why would you care if you're sitting on a database? What difference does it make to anything?
And I want to know when this mythical time was when we all had total privacy? I don't understand what bothers people so much about a person in a CCTV monitoring station looking at them sitting on a bus, or a spook reading the emails I send to my parents. Honestly, no-one cares.
The key point is interpretation and use of the data.
I don't particularly mind CCTV coverage of cities, if we still live in 1970 and technology limits it to essentially manual viewing of feeds to follow criminal suspects. In that world, ordinary citizens walking around a city centre are items of data that are discarded forever as soon as the tape reels run out. Even if they're kept, the volumes of data involved are so huge that they're effectively lost in time anyway.
The world we live in today is not that world. We are not far from being able to use facial recognition to track the whereabouts of every single citizen and save it forever, indexed along with the video recording of them at the time. We already have the capability to do that using cellphones. We can save the entire life history of individuals using these records and collate them into a viewable form near-instantly.
As I alluded to in my earlier post, the way we're going it's not a huge leap to imagine voice recognition allowing for phone calls to follow suit. Why is voice recognition important? Because it turns weeks and weeks of trawling through transcripts into a search query with instant results.
It's a completely different ball game. It's permanent, searchable, indexable super-fast memory. 'Forgetting' becomes obsolete.
In the old world of tape CCTV cameras, my neighbours knew more about me than the Government. Now, it's almost certainly the other way around, and if not, only because they've decided not to type 'stegosaurus' into the Big Database of Everything.
Except when it's not. No one disagrees the advantages afforded to us with access to data. However with great power comes great responsibility and our leaders, including the institutional powers behind them, invariably show a lack of the latter.
"Honestly, no-one cares."
That is patently untrue. People who understand the disadvantages and pitfalls of unfettered access to data care very much and fight for our rights even if we are too busy to make it a priority in our lives. The EFF have made it their job to care for example.
> "Except when it's not. No one disagrees the advantages afforded to us with access to data. However with great power comes great responsibility and our leaders, including the institutional powers behind them, invariably show a lack of the latter."
It would be political suicide for a UK politician to use the data the police and security forces have for political gain (assuming they got caught of course). It just doesn't happen.
> "That is patently untrue. People who understand the disadvantages and pitfalls of unfettered access to data care very much and fight for our rights even if we are too busy to make it a priority in our lives. The EFF have made it their job to care for example."
It's nice there are people out there making sure things don't get too out of hand. I just question their underlying beliefs about our need for privacy.
Also the "no-one cares" goes both ways. I seriously doubt the state cares about my conversations with friends, most people just aren't that interesting. Perhaps Hacker News suffers from collective delusions of grandeur ;)
It didn't stop the Murdoch press from bribing cops for data from their information systems. If police have it without intense scrutiny then anyone can get it, the press, corporations who you disagree with, your violent ex-husband. not to mention some yob at the council or any government agency with enforcement powers.
It doesn't make a difference until someone trawls the databases and can reconstruct much of your life. Also even if it doesn't matter to you don't you want journalists and lawyers free from communication (and who they contact) surveilance?
I'm actually fine with a CCTV operator in a monitoring station viewing the feeds. I'm also OK with the recordings being kept a short time in case they are needed to investigate something not spotted at the time. What I'm not comfortable with is them being kept more than a month or so. CCTV footage kept long term may be linked with Face recognition for detailed and personal tracking.
Likewise with the ANPR, I would be OK with it kept and accessible for a month or so (although I think a judge should approve searches both on a particular event (time and location) and for searches on a particular number plate.
We may not yet live in a authoritarian state but can you rule out one occuring in the next 50 years? What if legal and reasonable things today are outlawed, gay rights roled back and they search the ANPR for people who may have frequented gay bars or the archived communications data for anyone who used Grindr.
In my view the collected knowledge is more dangerous than the terrorists to a free society and oversight and limits on retention are required.
You are right though that the majority of the public do not feel this way yet. That doesn't mean we shouldn't oppose the surveilance where not fully justified and try to educate them.
I would also note precisely what you said "people I know feel safer with surveilance" and while I think you may be right I'm really not sure how much safer they actually are.
I guess it really comes down to who can 'reconstruct' my life. If it's the police or security services I believe that's absolutely fine, whoever you are (journalists, lawyers etc. included)
The UK government don't misuse surveillance for political reasons, if they did there would be uproar. We're not slipping into an authoritarian state, that would be completely at odds with British culture and where we're really heading.
I'm just tired of seeing a trend of people who post here all spouting the same anti-surveilance, privacy is everything, ideals. Without adding any caveats for the benefits and protection we gain from people watching over us. It feels like there is total disregard here for what we would lose by giving it up.
I'm okay with giving up a little privacy for the greater good.
> I guess it really comes down to who can 'reconstruct' my life. If it's the police or security services I believe that's absolutely fine, whoever you are (journalists, lawyers etc. included)
Well I'm don't. At times there may be suspicions and warrants to go after lawyers and journalists but at other times that may endanger whistleblowers and it should be overseen by judges issuing warrants.
> The UK government don't misuse surveillance for political reasons, if they did there would be uproar. We're not slipping into an authoritarian state, that would be completely at odds with British culture and where we're really heading.
Prove it. And how would we ever find out that the government were misuing surveilance? A whistleblower could immediately be identified by correlating movements with the relevant journalist or internet traffic. Secondly trusting today's government and security services isn't enough you need to trust all future ones too.
> I'm just tired of seeing a trend of people who post here all spouting the same anti-surveilance, privacy is everything, ideals. Without adding any caveats for the benefits and protection we gain from people watching over us. It feels like there is total disregard here for what we would lose by giving it up.
I never called for the security services to be disbanded, CCTV to be removed or ANPR to be stopped. I said limit retention. Is it possible that some crimes will not be solved that could have been with unlimited retention - Yes. Is it also possible that legitimate speech, whistle blowing and reporting could be deterred by the current surveillance - Yes. These things have to be balanced.
> I'm okay with giving up a little privacy for the greater good.
So am I. With the emphasis on "little" and "greater good". Your approach seems to be "all" privacy with little information on the "greater good" that will come from it or acknowledgments of the harms done. I believe of association, thought, speech and movement are also goods that are damaged by omniscient government (if people avoid doing legitimate things because of the surveilance).
Oops yes, forgot to preface that the police should need a warrant first - I'm not so sure with the security services, probably they should but from a secret, faster process - with more lenient requirements than the police.
-
Overall though I agree with basically everything you say. I'm just tilted a little more towards longer retention and more information than you I guess.
I concede it is possible that I jumped in here and made blanket statements that aren't 100% realistic. The general sentiment does reflect my opinion though.
Thankfully this is why we have democracy, so a more tempered approach most people agree with can be used :)
-
By the way your comments come across as more balanced and reasoned than I lot I read expressing basically the same viewpoint.
It is sure great that the UK never has and never will have a child molestation scandal involving individuals in power, some of whom may try to silence, cover up, or postpone the issue by abusing their power.
There are plenty of people who hold positions of government power that have done far worse than abuse surveillance for their own ends.
I'm from the UK and I absolutely, utterly disagree with what you are saying, most of which is baseless.
There have been abuses, there are corrupt intentions at work and there most certainly are people who do not think this level of surveillance is a good thing.
I am less worried about the government agencies as a whole having my data, I am more worried about so random person who works there taking a dislike to an individual, and making their life hell with the access they have.
> I used to think we could escape surveillance using technology. Fool's errand. We'd need an entire culture change. It's gone.
I seem to remember one of the Pirate Bay founders said something along those lines. Not even because it's "already lost" but because we need to start treating the cause and not the symptom. Yeah it's great that we can use encryption to avoid government snooping for now, but how long will that be feasible? The long-term solution would be to stop them from doing it in the first place.
I think making access to records of you, paper, video etc could be made a legal right. If somebody is filming in an area, they are required to provide you access to the footage. If somebody has accounts of yours, same deal.
If someone is logging your access to a something, they are required to provide you with the logs on request.
I think Europe at least would go for it. In Japan telephone cameras are required to make a clicking sound. This is an extension of the concept.
A direct attack on this surveillance technology might be a losing battle. But what about passing laws to mitigate its effect, and possibly in the long run help fight it? Two examples:
1. A law requiring the government to delete this data after a certain amount of time.
2. Legal penalties for abusing this data. Perhaps standards for how the data must be protected.
The problem is even prescribed penalties against authority figures are rarely enforced. There are a few low-level people in jail for torture of prisoners, but not one administrator. Bush and Cheney should have been hauled before The Hague, much as they would have demanded of any leader of any other country that had unilaterally broken the Geneva Convention, but Obama wanted to "look forward," not backward.
There is/was almost zero prosecution of individuals involved in the global financial collapse of 2008. Occupy Wall Street protestors, on the other hand, were beaten, arrested, maced, and so on.
Rules against authority figures in this country are for show at best. Didn't used to be that way, but here we are.
Further, the IRS is a great example how they are being "punished".
The only thing you can take from them is funding. So did Congress -- took away money from IRS and brought their operational budget to those levels from 2008.
And now - pick one that is correct:
A) The director of IRS cut off $80MM bonuses promised to all those hard working ants that scrutinized non-profit applicants and further lost backup tapes that have been miraculously found years later; OR,
B) The director of IRS cut off funds for customer support telephone line, forcing people to wait minimum 30 minutes on the line before a real person answers, admitting on the record that majority of taxpayers won't be able to reach out for help in this tax period.
Any solutions to this clear abuse of power and disrespect to fellow citizens??
Real whistleblower protection would help. Changing the perception so that the public viewed them as heroes when they expose political malfeasance and cosy back room deals.
"Unless of course you're a criminal, in which case you can handily avoid a lot of this!"
Actually it's even more serious. If you try to avoid it it's a criminal act and your labeled as a criminal. To be very honest I'd rather move to a remote place getting away of this evolution.
To be very honest I'd rather move to a remote place getting away of this evolution.
Honest question: What's stopping you?
A huge number of people say they'd readily give up life in a nation that infringes their privacy for a different life away from prying eyes, but very, very few people actually bother to do it. There are plenty of nations where surveillance is still at the 'none' level, beyond a few paper records for things like passports and car registration. And generally they're quite cheap to live in and have nice weather. So why are you still living in the apparently awful conditions where you are now?
Could it be that privacy is actually much less important to you than ready access to, say, a good internet connection?
I agree with you that the fight for privacy seems insurmountable, and the sacrifices (that you mentioned) far too great. But I think the solution lies not in sacrificing the conveniences, but in creating enough isolation between each service to reduce/remove any correlating.
So the mailman remembers everyone you've ever sent or received mail with. The DOJ remembers every time your car pulls in front of a police vehicle with a LPR. The NSA is tracking what people you call, when, how long, and where you are when you call them.
For the life of me I do not understand why both major parties aren't having conniption fits right now. Are these the same parties that, on a bipartisan basis, told Nixon to get lost? Shut down some of the intelligence community's overreach in the 70s? Impeached a U.S. President for lying under oath?
Both parties over the previous 50 years have taken strong stands -- both separately and together -- in regards to strong oversight of privacy and freedom. Would Reagan have put up with this? Carter? Ike? JFK? It's inconceivable. During those times, yes, there was plenty of illegal mucking around -- but wholesale bulldozing of citizen's privacy? It's something from a dystopian sci-fi novel of just 15 years ago.
Surely this has to come up there somewhere near as important as all those other political scandals. Surely it would be a popular measure. But instead, what I'm seeing is somebody trying to introduce a bill to nibble around the edges, then others adding amendments so that the bill to reduce NSA spying actually increases it. It's like they're being incentivized to go in exactly the wrong direction.
It just doesn't make sense to me. There is some missing piece to this puzzle. When I see guys like Hayden, with his cocky attitude; there's something he knows that I don't know, and it's not that AQ is some kind of clear and present danger. It's something else. (Sorry to sound so mysterious. I'm truly at a loss.)
The "problem" is that it is increasingly easy to assemble these databases and to update them in real time. If a government agency isn't doing it, a corporation could be (and some are, for certain pieces of data), and soon (if not now) an individual or loose collection of individuals could achieve nearly the same results.
We might need to embrace it, make everything transparent and collaborative, and figure out how to make use of the information to create a state that is better than what currently exists.
Thank you. Just to clarify, even though I'm a libertarian, this isn't a "Big Gummit" problem. If DOJ wasn't doing this, Yellow Cab would. Or Uber. Or the guys who build traffic lights. The data is simply too valuable to ignore.
This is a tech problem. We created this, all while saying something like "Yeah, but all that ethical and philosophy stuff isn't really anything I need to worry about. What I need are eyeballs"
The government takes the blame in many cases because they hold all the trump cards -- they can take the data from anybody that's collecting it. They can also send you to jail, which commercial providers cannot directly do (yet). But the problem is with the tech. We have met the enemy and he is us.
I think it's a phenomenon worth examining. There isn't a simple answer. Part of it must be changes in American culture. What those changes are is debatable.
Can we please stop acting like the USA is somehow a "good guy" anymore? We have to realize that the authoritarian demons have the battering ram at the door and I really don't want to find out what happens when the USA turns into an authoritarian militaristic regime. We're way more than half way there already and people support it. Our very own government is a threat to us all, or at least those who will find themselves on the wrong site of the inner circle.
Do you read the news? Because here are some things that other states are up to that we aren't (at least, not in this decade):
- Systematic execution for the crime of belonging to a particular ethnic group or religion
- Open and openly arbitrary disappearing, detention, and torture of intellectuals for the crime of writing articles critical of state-sponsored religious and political doctrine
- Use of force against people who commit such crimes as selecting their own sexual partners, disobeying their parents, being seen in public with members of the opposite sex, texting members of the opposite sex, being homosexual, etc. Or, more commonly in the "developed" world, failure to investigate or pursue family-based vigilante "justice" against same.
- Failure to acknowledge women as people and rape as a crime
- Committing violence against, or being complicit in violence against, children who dared to go to school
- Corruption to a degree that renders the public health infrastructure so dysfunctional that tens of thousands of people die needlessly
- Outright censorship of any reporting that paints the state in a negative light
---
"Knowing things about citizens" is dangerous because it enables the state to be far more effective in pursuing policies like the above. We ought to limit the government's knowledge of the lives of its citizens because that makes it much harder to effectively implement policies like these.
HOWEVER, HN sounds downright ridiculous when it declares that being listed in a database is comparable to being summarily executed for criticizing state religion.
Can somebody good with their logical fallacies let me know if this falls under "Fallacy of relative privation"?
This definition [1] even uses this very argument as an example:
"The counter to the relative privation argument when applied, for example, to compare America with other more tyrannous countries is to note that the proper comparison to make should not be between America and other tyrannies but between America and the ideal of freedom."
I find it a scary way to look at the world and to me it always comes off as less an honest argument and more like somebody who understands fallacy using it to persuade the reader for their own benefit.
Like the sort of thing they'll tell you as they are locking up your cage. "Hey, you're lucky it's dry unlike the cages the bad guys use!" the voice under the helmet said.
> Can we please stop acting like the USA is somehow a "good guy" anymore?
I am arguing the specific assertion that surveillance makes America morally equivalent to or less than the countries we oppose. That does not seem to be true. Apologies if that's not what parent meant.
Of course this doesn't make America "good" or even okay, but it is entirely possible to have severe problems while still being a "good guy" relative to the likes of Iran.
Its not just surveillance. Its also the mass murder of millions of people in the middle east as a result of American-led aggression. Just because its done with death robots from the sky doesn't make it morally justifiable.
I see, I often make that mistake actually of ignoring the context of a response relative to the parent, perhaps a fallacy itself!
I just get spooked by those comparisons. I think I agree with you in the end that ultimately we the relative good guys and it's important to keep that in mind. In Fact it's our role as the relative good guys that makes it so damn important to make sure we exercise our rights to free speech and political freedom to make sure we stay the good guys.
1. The War in Iraq killed over a million people. We have death robots that kill people from the sky.
2. Snowden, Manning, Barrett Brown, Jeremy Hammond
3. Don't know about this one. I think it's worth mentioning Racism, Islamophobia and Islam or race related violence here.
4. #opDeathEaters
5. I don't know about this one either, but school seems mostly like a tool to incur debt. So not necessarily a plus.
6. You watched the Healthcare debate, right?
7. Surveilled reading is more dangerous than censoring books, full stop. But if you're looking for censorship, there's plenty to go around. Try finding a copy of the Sony leaks these days. Look at what is happening to social media.
I won't address each individual issue, but this comes across as a bit unsubstantiated. Here are the first two, the rest slowly turn a little crazier down the list.
The Iraq war has not killed over a million people by almost any estimate. Actual body counts are around 100,000 and most estimates place it around 500,000 for all lives lost. This is not explicit in deaths caused by American troops.
Snowden, Manning and all are not always looked at in the same light as some see it. Not all state secrets are inherently bad.
>>HOWEVER, HN sounds downright ridiculous when it declares that being listed in a database is comparable to being summarily executed for criticizing state religion.
Here's the thing: countries can transition into totalitarianism quickly.
1930 Germany was very, very different than 1940 Germany. Hitler's rise to power happened in the blink of an eye, before most people understood what was happening.
This is why "oh, being listed in a database is nowhere as bad as being summarily executed" should be consolation. Such mindsets breed complacency, whereas what we need is constant vigilance and an extreme intolerance for policies that grant the government more power without any oversight.
On the last point (edit), absolutely when you consider that the 'drug war' and cannabis prohibition are basically a for-profit collusion between many corporate entities and government which result in significant harm to the populace.
Open and openly arbitrary disappearing, detention, and torture of intellectuals for the crime of writing articles critical of state-sponsored religious and political doctrine
Al-Awlaki? He was not accused of killing anyone himself, but got drone striked for writing terrorist propaganda. So did his son (for having Al-Awlaki as a father, no less). That seems like a pretty close fit.
Corruption to a degree that renders the public health infrastructure so dysfunctional that tens of thousands of people die needlessly
That's a funny example. Most people in western non-US countries would say the US meets this definition handily.
All that said, your point stands. There are worse governments than the US government. But lots better too.
You don't get to perpetrate your crimes because others are doing worse things. All crimes are reprehensible some more than others but no perpetrator of any crime gets off (or should get off) by pointing to others that do worse things.
> Use of force against people who commit such crimes as selecting their own sexual partners, being seen in public with members of the opposite sex, texting members of the opposite sex, being homosexual, etc.
This happens but you tolerate it because it's consistent with your arbitrary local culture. Consider pedophilia (having "wrong" sexual feelings) which comes with chemical castration and an attempt to "cure" it along with imprisonment of course. You don't even have to abuse anyone to suffer some of these consequences. Sound familiar? Have you ever met any self-confessed pedophile who hadn't been arrested for a related crime? Until they're outed, they're forced to keep their feelings secret from everyone because it's a kind of western thought crime. This leads us to imagine that all pedophiles rape children. They don't any more than 60 years ago all homosexuals raped children.
I think it's also naive to think of the government as the "bad guy" as well. Classifying the government as bad or good is basically trying to assign a singular attribute to the aggregate actions of thousands of people in politics and government agencies. The truth is neither black or white, and extremely complicated.
It depends on whether you're classifying based on intentions or on results. When you're using the word "bad guy", it implied the intentions to be bad/evil. However, it's easy to see that a complex system can't (normally) be assigned an intention. But even if every actors within the system is acting in good faith, the emergent behaviour can still have bad result.
In the case of government, it's definitely not complicated to classify the aggregate behaviour as unqualified bad (in term of result), regardless of the intention of the individuals working within the systems.
Not just that, but they are conducting online propaganda by fake commenting, fake news and manipulation of ranking and news feeds. And not just USA - they do it on an even larger scale in China. (here's a wiki source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party)
Search keyword: "wumao" which means paid internet commentator or "public opinion molder".
remember, it takes a magnitude more effort to refute bullshit than to create it. it is just tiring to see asinine comments like the OPs.
as if the US or any country ever was a beacon of light and justice. slavery? genocide against the natives? two unnecessary nuclear bomb attacks? anything that ever happened in latin america, in the last 100 years? guantanamo? iraq 2?
same for any other empire, they're all built on blood, racism and delusion. the brits, japan, china, the romans, the soviets. it does not matter. it is all the same bullshit.
I always found it much more interesting to consider that smart stop light sensors could read the RFID tags that are required for tires [1]. You can change your plates but how often do you change your tires?
Doesn't that average consumer change their tires more frequently than their license plate over the lifespan of their car?
I ask as your question seemed a bit strange to me.
I am not sure if you are alluding to the fact that individuals trying to evade the law wouldn't know to change their tires, or if car licensing & insurance is much different than I imagined in the US (and individuals get a new license plate each year or something crazy).
Edit: also thanks for the link! I really had no idea RFID was hidden in tires! Makes me wonder what else they are hidden in...
> Doesn't that average consumer change their tires more
> frequently than their license plate over the lifespan
> of their car?
Yes, of course. And the RFID tag is really not helpful outside of inventory as far as I can tell. When they started this project I expected something like the microwave tags they glue inside a DVD case to detect shoplifting that you could remove from the tire innards before you mounted it. But nope, its embedded in the tire material.
You don't normally get new plates often, but you can if you want (report them lost or stolen and pay ~$20), and it is also rather easier to steal someone else's plates than their tires.
Tyres have RFID tags in them??! What an unusual thing to put RFID tags in. I wonder what other common items could have tags in them that people are generally unaware of.
I'm quite in to cars and I had NO IDEA this was a thing.
Yup, embedded right into the rubber. There are a couple of reasons for this, one is to provide serial numbers which allows you to 'age' the tire. Older tires are less reliable than fresh tires and there are laws in states like California that disallow selling "old" tires as new. You can read the tag and see when the tire was made. The sensors are not used to indicate inflation as far as I know that is a completely separate system. When they were first proposed, some folks showed they could be read from side of the road although that was unreliable. Reading them from the roadbed itself however was quite reliable as you ended up, worst case, with the tag being one wheel diameter away from the reader, and they were spec'd to be readable like that as folks doing inventory on a stack of tires did not want to rotate the tires in the stack. The last set of tires I 'read' (to show this off to a disbelieving friend) had a 18 digit serial number and a 6 digit date code. I'm sure there is some IEEE standard now for what your tire should report.
In the us all tires have a number stamped in the rubber that indicates the year and week of manufacture. This has been there for a very long time. I'm sure the idea was efficient inventory management more than anything (easier to read without unstacking tires.). Pressure (TPMS) is a very different active device. They're battery powered and the batteries need to be replaced after some time.
Owners of commercial vehicle fleet trying to manage the timely replacement of tires would welcome the ability to scan their vehicles and know the serial numbers of the tires. That would let them track age and make sure they're all replaced in a timely manner. Or switched to winter tires where it makes sense to do so (like Quebec, where it's the law to have winter tires after Nov 15.)
I was also unaware of this. That said, RFID chips are used for inventory systems. The inclusion in a tire is most likely innocuous and doesn't seem that unusual to me.
I just assumed it was a misunderstanding of TPMS. Apparently some tires have RFID directly embedded as well for tracking purposes, but from what I can find it doesn't sound like it's all that common yet.
And they are quite expensive to replace, often more then the cost of the tire themselves. Also most insurance carriers don't reimburse for them, hence it is a separate coverage item.
I dunno if I'm gonna change my tires but I imagine if I didn't want to be tracked it would be not too difficult to smash/electrocute/burn the tags into nonfunctionality.
It's happening in Australia too. I spoke to a CEO of a company here a few years ago which provides software and services to the government and RTA/RMS. There are cameras setup under overpasses which automatically take photos of each individual car and it's passengers.
In this particular incident their company was tasked with processing all of those photos to identify/track a guy who had murdered his wife and was on the run. Sure enough the system had snapped a pic of him driving, with his dead wife in the passenger seat.
A good use of the tech in that scenario, but I'm sure it's being used for mass surveillance as well.
A few years ago NSW Police had several cars fitted with Automatic number plate recognition and after a year of use they already had read more license plates than people living in that state.
I don't necessarily mind police using this for their benefit, but not long ago we didn't have all this technology and information so easily available. So there must be oversights and appropriate usage, or we are just giving them unfettered access. Warrants should have to be obtained to get this sort of information, I think.
No idea sorry. I was just chatting with this CEO at a networking event back sometime in 2011-2012. I'd been playing with the face.com api for facial recognition and he was interested in using it to automatically blur faces in these photos of car passengers. Being told that those cameras under overpasses were taking and storing photos of every car that passes by really stuck with me.
I first encountered these checkpoints in New Mexico and Texas this summer. They're really kind of interesting. It looks like a truck weigh station, except the interstate lanes are closed and everyone is forced to exit. They stop everyone at the checkpoint. They have some kind of terminal under a hood, but the officer (C&BP) looked at the terminal, asked me what country I'm from (USA) and sent me on my way (I'm white, and so were all of my passengers). The license reader cameras were obvious and about 4 car lengths from the terminal/stop sign. There's a separate line for trucks and busses. I was stunned the first time I saw one driving from Albuquerque to Las Cruces south on I-25/US-85. It was only on the northbound side, about 40 miles north of Las Cruces. It was obvious what it was. I encountered others on US-70 and I-10 in TX. Same drill at every one. I was never stopped by the officer for more than 15 seconds.
What you encountered was probably a C&BP interior checkpoint[0].
Whenever DHS apologists use the "air travel is a privilege, not a right" line, this is what I point them to. Between random C&BP highway checkpoints and TSA patrols on Amtrak, harassment-free travel of any form seems to be a privilege nowadays.
Basically anything you couldn't do in 1700s is a priveledge. Driving -- privelage, flying -- priveledge, getting on Amtrak -- they have TSA there too now.
"Arms" are hunting shotguns, pistols. Can't own fully automatic ones, or rocket launchers or fighter planes.
Drones will be illegal soon as well probably.
Basically you can get on your horse and start traveling through the country roads and woods, besides that you need to have "papers".
In your case I'm preaching to the choir, but this might help:
There is only one fundamental right, and it is to not have force initiated against you. (Why? Simply because that is in the self-interest of each rational adult human.)
Ergo, the government cannot properly stop you from air travel, moving about freely in the country, etc.
Thanks for that list. A family member was recently stopped at one of these; I'm amazed there are so many. (I was also stopped once on a Greyhound bus, I think by CBP; they asked each person "are you a citizen?" — on a bus ride that was entirely within the US, of course. This was a few years back.)
> "air travel is a privilege, not a right"
Travel is a right. It's a constitutionally granted right.
I find the whole argument that interfering with the travel of every single person on a single _particular_ mode of travel is somehow constitutional a bit vacuous. What about that mode of travel is so special? (AFAICT, "safety"). That the government is also interfering with road travel is ridiculous.
Travel, within the United States, is a constitutional right, one that has been upheld by the Supreme Court (see [1] and [2]): "Since the Constitution guarantees the right of interstate movement…"; the decision in [2] cites even earlier [3] Supreme Court cases that asserted this right.
This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our
constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens
be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by
statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this
movement. That [394 U.S. 618, 630] proposition was early stated by Chief
Justice Taney in the Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 492 (1849):
"For all the great purposes for which the Federal government was formed, we are
one people, with one common country. We are all citizens of the United States;
and, as members of the same community, must have the right to pass and repass
through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own States."
We have no occasion to ascribe the source of this right to travel interstate to
a particular constitutional provision. 8 It suffices that, as MR. JUSTICE
STEWART said for the Court in United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757 -758
(1966):
"The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . occupies a
position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that
has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.
". . . [T]he right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution. The reason,
it has been suggested, is [394 U.S. 618, 631] that a right so elementary was
conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger
Union the Constitution created. In any event, freedom to travel throughout the
United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the
Constitution."
The USA is automatically photographing millions of cars and putting the data in a giant database used by all law-enforcement.
It reads like the premise of a dystopian science fiction novel.
I can't help but guess that the reaction is going to be a big shoulder shrug, because, to but it bluntly, things aren't that bad for most people. If you are white, have a good job, follow the law, and make sure to richly kiss ass if and when you come in contact with the police, life in the USA is rich, full; it's like heaven.
If I have heaven, am I going to risk it just because of some law enforcement techniques which are only questionable in the abstract?
You may be on to something there. I wonder, however, how people are going to reconcile what the government is doing now with all of those previous works of fiction? It's going to have to add up to something -- a narrative must be formed. Were those just the halcyon days of yore? And now we've somehow "grown up" to face the realities of a scary world?
Even more troubling, people are people, and when this is seriously abused -- and my money says it'll happen within the next 20 years -- how are people going to explain it all away?
I am left with the troubling thought that we are creating for ourselves a dystopian society never dreamed of even by sci-fi writers. Rome had nothing on this, nor does North Korea. The attention a known dissident would receive in former East Germany is a cakewalk compared to the kind of surveillance we're giving each citizen who's guilty of nothing. The only thing we're waiting for is the logical and natural corruption of large systems of people to take place.
Um, I really don't think it's at East German Stasi-levels. Known dissidents were gaslighted, had objects in their homes moved around, and had informants reporting on them in their apartment buildings/family/workplace.
It's bad, it's dystopian, but it doesn't seem to be THAT bad yet.
The operative word is 'yet'. You're right. Things aren't that bad now, compared to the Stasi.
But the problem lies in the tools and information available. All it takes is for one of the parties in power to decide they want to use it for their own unscrupulous purposes. And suddenly, they have more information than the Stasi could have dreamed of.
There's no guarantee there will ever be anyone in power who wants to abuse this. But it's a dangerous situation we've put ourselves in.
If we're starting a betting pool, my bet would be on the system limping along as it is for the forseeable future. Average citizens won't even really notice the growing surveillance. Criminals will, but no one will care about them. Certain protest groups, like whatever form the future Occupy takes, will see the system used to their detriment, but ordinary people will still not care. Always safe to bet on apathy, and relatively safe to bet on the politicians / powers-that-be realizing they can already have most of what they want without creating a repressive hellhole--which would cause more economic and social problems than it would be worth.
While there are good examples in the past (FeeTinesAMady already mentioned Martin Luther King), remember the JTRIG documents about breaking up groups with social wedge issues and other and other divide-and-conquer tactics. If you can drive people apart by attacking potential leader[1] or separating key groups of people before those groups gain any momentum, you can probably skip the expensive and risky "Stasi-style-tactics" completely.
There's a similarity between the attack against Dr. King and the method described in the JTRIG documents: "COINTELPRO". Instead of being stopped by the Church Committee, the program probably got a renaming and reorg[2] to move away from the "failed branding". Regardless of the name, the tactics are being used (it's just modern marketing tricks).
It is easy to see the enemy that is loud and disruptive, and a lot harder to notice who is responsible for these newer, more subtle attacks that - especially when the attacker understands P.R. and branding
[1] and identifying relationship graphs ix exactly what you get from simple logs of telephone metadata. Throw a few JOIN clauses into your query, and you can do the COTRAVELER trick of extending those relationship graphs into many other areas.
[2] similar to how "Total Information Awareness" got renamed and moved around
Serious question, do you think it's that bad for wikileaks employees or volunteers? Jacob Appelbaum claims it is and has moved to Germany where such things are living memory along with their overthrow. I'm inclined to believe him. I haven't seen evidence of his track record for telling lies is worse than government spokespeople and apologists on the general topic.
Good point. My initial comment was thinking of the pervasive, doing-it-to-everybody style the Stasi achieved, which I guess isn't far off from the mass digital surveillance + individual targeting that is probably happening now.
>how people are going to reconcile what the government is doing now with all of those previous works of fiction?
I don't think we should over-estimate how widely read those works of fiction actually are, so there may not be a reconciliation. This, reality, is literally the first time some people have thought about the implications of mass surveillance with modern technology. SF geeks are, once again, ahead of the curve. :)
Movies like Minority Report are good primers for the concept of a panopticon. But I must have read 10's of stories involving panopticons in Analog and F&SF on all sides of the issue, in all variants. I remember a particularly good one involving how to get away with murder in a panopticon society. Iain Banks' The Culture with it's benevolent, quite desirable panopticons (the Minds).
Oddly, I don't remember any stories that remind me of what's going on now, which is a battle between those who want to protect security at any cost, and those who simply don't trust the government, any government, with the kind of power necessary to even come close to the level of protection they seem to be aiming for, which is total.
> If you are white, have a good job, follow the law, and make sure to richly kiss ass if and when you come in contact with the police, life in the USA is rich, full; it's like heaven.
Sure, until any of the above changes. Or you piss off the wrong person with connections. Some of which you may have little control over.
And to be honest - to not be raked over the coals simply to exercise my right to freedom of movement is not exactly "heaven" to me, it's the basics of a free society based on laws.
Don't mistake my description for advocacy - heaven should not be for so few, nor should it be so judgmental and so brittle.
As for your comments about movement - try to keep some perspective! While the TSA is an icon of everything wrong with our security climate (security theater, irrational assessment of risk, irrational assignment of resources, and a banal humiliation meted out to those who can't afford to skip the lines) it is, at least theoretically, under our control. The next President could dismantle the whole thing (although I'm not sure what statutory restrictions there are - certainly the President and Congress could change things if they wanted).
No one wants to be the one to dismantle the TSA, because when the next attack happens (not if, when) they'll get the blame.
> If you are white, have a good job, follow the law, and make sure to richly kiss ass if and when you come in contact with the police, life in the USA is rich, full; it's like heaven.
How exactly does this sound like heaven? Sounds incredibly restrictive and authoritarian to me. Always make sure you're not saying or doing the wrong thing. What happened to 'land of the free; home of the brave'?
This is the sort of apparatus that, once installed, lies dormant until one day it is called into action and springs shut, clamping down on freedom.
Just because they're building the gallows slowly and using such wonderful rope doesn't make the eventual hanging any less troublesome.
EDIT:
You know, 70 years ago today the Red Army found out what could be done with good record keeping and decent surveillance, and at what scale.
Imagine, just imagine, if you could type your favorite demographic into a terminal, get a list of everyone fitting that and some other criteria, and then a list of addresses and doors to knock on.
Mankind and government has never done well with such power.
This would seem to be a great database for the police to watch for juicy civil forfeiture targets to stumble through their jurisdiction, to seize a car or its possible contents.
How would they know that you have good stuff inside the car? Other databases.
I've been mulling ideas to defeat ANPR without breaking state laws. The simplest may be to use a tilted/warped surrounding frame that interferes with the skew correction of the captured plate. Another thought is to project bright infrared patterns to disrupt unfiltered B&W cameras.
One could potentially try to exploit the high framerate of such cameras.
(For example, imagine 10 LEDs arranged so that each LED illuminates 1/10th of the license plate, where 1 LED is on at a time. If the frequency is high enough, to human eyes it'll appear as though the entire plate is illuminated equally, but any photo will have one spot (or two spots) illuminated much more than the others.)
UK perspective again, though may be useful for a possible glimpse into the future:
In London, cash is no longer accepted on the bus. Same deal for subways. The smart card (Oyster) is purchasable without ID but not disposable without showing ID and a deposit is charged. Paper travelcards are available at much higher cost per journey.
Smaller towns have cash bus tickets :)
Taxi may be viable but it's a matter of chaffing; are you hailing, or calling a private hire company/using Uber? The former is far more expensive here and also not really viable in many cities.
The train is also drastically more expensive unless you buy advance tickets online (on the day tickets can be obscene, hundreds of pounds for a 200 mile journey).
Bicycle is viable, for now.
Basically, most methods are trackable, there just might be levels of indirection. Buying a ticket online or using a bank card is just an algorithm away from entering the 'log where you are' zone.
As far as I know, in every state there are laws preventing you from either covering your license plate with something, or from using any sort of active defense mechanism. I have seen people experiment with reflective letters all around their license plate that are then detected by ANPR, resulting in it unable to determine what the real plate numbers are. This would seem to be legal. I suspect you could even make them reflective to IR while being invisible to the naked eye so your car wouldn't look like crap.
In the UK, some police cars have the technology integrated so that officers can pursue uninsured drivers.
I suspect if your plate failed to read you may well end up being pulled over - not sure on the punishment.
The obvious solution of using another car's plate is defeated by noticing that a car appears to be driving on opposite ends of the country simultaneously :D
Probably could use the same technologies used to defeat lidar speed enforcement. Active jamming with high powered IR emitting LEDs or covering the plate with an IR absorbing lacquer or film.
Theory: This is actual news, people are shocked. So we haven't got apologists because they'll just look ridiculous. The follow up stories will be full of apologists once that shock wears off. It's just sad to watch the utterly relentless trashing of the constitution and the rule of law. Get out and vote! (for either another Clinton v another Bush?)
Back in the early 2000's, plane spotters identified CIA planes used for extraordinary rendition by recoding registration numbers and locations.
Maybe David Brin was right after all[2]. Automatic license plate scanning is trivial now. It would be pretty easy for anyone to build a node of a system like this.
The weird thing about license plate scanning is that basically anyone could do it, and there's no obvious way to stop it. Any group of ordinary citizens (including private businesses) could create a distributed network of license plate scanners by installing devices in their cars and around their houses/buildings.
It would be an interesting act of protest to track the movements of powerful people, so as to compel them to take privacy more seriously.
I had thought that ALPR data would be quite a very tool for detectives, but a related article [1] is quite disparaging about their use in Vermont. Apparently in 2013, for a ~$1m investment, 106 queries were made resulting in just 3 cases of useful information.
I think combining each states' databases as described in the WSJ will actually improve this number and is actually a prudent decision.
We've been hacked! According to an article in the Washington Post, we've been misled since 1961. We really do not need all those cars - its just a love affair with the "american dream".
"This “love affair” was coined, in fact, during a 1961 episode of a weekly hour-long television program called the DuPont Show of the Week (sponsored, incidentally, by DuPont, which owned a 23 percent stake in General Motors at the time). The program, titled “Merrily We Roll Along,” was promoted by DuPont as “the story of America’s love affair with the automobile.”
The show aired at a time when cars were facing steep criticism, as plans for the new interstate system threatened to destroy or disrupt neighborhoods in many U.S. cities.
Get rid of license plates. They can also be used by private parties to track car movements. They aren't safe anymore in this time and age. Once someone builds a proof of concept of a real time car tracker using crowd sourced license plate trackers, we'll realize that.
That really only buys you a couple of years, if any. If they can do face recognition, they can do car recognition. Just determine the make/model/year/color/trim, and then look for some individually identifiable marks, scratches, color imperfections, tire type, etc.
It doesn't stop there. How about high-def video feeds of the entire planet via satellite? With heat tracking/infrared? Combine that with smart tracking software and NSA-level eavesdropping and there would be no escape.
Personally, I think we'll have the technological capability to do this within a couple decades.
They don't have to be uniquely identifiable to everyone. A better system would be an rfid tag that recorded each access, thus allowing the owner to know when they were tracked.
Just last night I watched an older episode of Jay Leno's Garage and they brought in a few of California Highway Patrol (CHP) cars to show off. The officer explains that new cars are equipped with a license plate scanner find wanted people.
This doesn't surprise me, use to live in Bellingham WA. There are "DOT" cameras that go from south Bellingham all the way to the Canadian border on both sides of i5. I forget how often there are, perhaps 2-5 miles? I understand that some are used for DoT cams, but I always theorized that if the lenses are good enough they could zoom in and potentially read plates. The camera's look like regular light poles, you have to be paying attention to actually see them.
I've lived my entire life thinking that anything I do or say anywhere could be picked up by phones or cameras or gps. I can't express enough how liberating it is to accept that and move on. The idea that you should be doing anything ever that you couldn't explain to anyone watching is a fantasy to me; something so far from reality you might as well be wearing a tin foil hat.
Funnily enough, if the entire world was recorded every second of every day it would literally be impossible to be falsely accused of a crime. This is why many states are passing laws for cops to have cameras on their glasses: it's impossible to lie if there's an uninterrupted live stream of the truth.
> Funnily enough, if the entire world was recorded every second of every day it would literally be impossible to be falsely accused of a crime
That's only true if everybody has equitable access to the recordings! Putting the keys to the castle in the hands of the people running it leads to doom.
Didn't the majority of the country agree this summer that police should wear cameras at all times. And the police protested this development. (Remember police brutality debate?)
I'm against the license plate system, but people on this site often don't seem to appreciate there is democratic support for many of these programs.
In the UK, there is something called the 'ring of steel' around Birmingham. In effect all UK motorways and most main routes have ANPR on them. I would expect as costs decline, eventually most street light systems will be 'upgraded' to have ANPR.
I am surprised that a consumer ANPR solution isn't on the market.
I'd rather have tracking of cars than most things. As a frequent pedestrian, cars scare me. Few common things can cause as much damage to humans and property. Would these efforts be more palatable if the goal was Vision Zero rather than the various low-output anti-terrorism efforts?
It goes deeper than even what this article describes - a ford exec admitted last year that they put GPS in all vehicles (post 2004 i think) but they "don't release the data" not sure how much I trust that statement in today's world...
> The law-enforcement scanners are different from those used to collect tolls.
Much to the chagrin of our rent-seeking overlords, whom see speed traps and red-light cameras as a means of revenue generation rather than safety measure.
Safety measure or not, red light cameras are a joke. Chicago's red light cam program is a failure.
Edit: I have to agree with the other commenter though - red light cams were meant to bring in revenue to the city of Chicago. They bought into the program by outsourcing to a third party company (big shock, most of chicago looks like the poster child for a corporation owned city). They're not making the money they expected on the deal though.
I kind of assumed this technology had always existed. Nearly every crime movie I've ever watched included a scene where they mentioned picking up the criminal's plates on the highway.
WASHINGTON—The Justice Department has been building a national database to track in real time the movement of vehicles around the U.S., a secret domestic intelligence-gathering program that scans and stores hundreds of millions of records about motorists, according to current and former officials and government documents.
The primary goal of the license-plate tracking program, run by the Drug Enforcement Administration, is to seize cars, cash and other assets to combat drug trafficking, according to one government document. But the database’s use has expanded to hunt for vehicles associated with numerous other potential crimes, from kidnappings to killings to rape suspects, say people familiar with the matter.
Officials have publicly said that they track vehicles near the border with Mexico to help fight drug cartels. What hasn’t been previously disclosed is that the DEA has spent years working to expand the database “throughout the United States,’’ according to one email reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
Many state and local law-enforcement agencies are accessing the database for a variety of investigations, according to people familiar with the program, putting a wealth of information in the hands of local officials who can track vehicles in real time on major roadways.
The database raises new questions about privacy and the scope of government surveillance. The existence of the program and its expansion were described in interviews with current and former government officials, and in documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union through a Freedom of Information Act request and reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. It is unclear if any court oversees or approves the intelligence-gathering.
A spokesman for Justice Department, which includes the DEA, said the program complies with federal law. “It is not new that the DEA uses the license-plate reader program to arrest criminals and stop the flow of drugs in areas of high trafficking intensity,’’ the spokesman said.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the government’s use of license-plate readers “raises significant privacy concerns. The fact that this intrusive technology is potentially being used to expand the reach of the government’s asset-forfeiture efforts is of even greater concern.’’
The senator called for “additional accountability’’ and said Americans shouldn’t have to fear ”their locations and movements are constantly being tracked and stored in a massive government database.’’
The DEA program collects data about vehicle movements, including time, direction and location, from high-tech cameras placed strategically on major highways. Many devices also record visual images of drivers and passengers, which are sometimes clear enough for investigators to confirm identities, according to DEA documents and people familiar with the program.
The documents show that the DEA also uses license-plate readers operated by state, local and federal law-enforcement agencies to feed into its own network and create a far-reaching, constantly updating database of electronic eyes scanning traffic on the roads to steer police toward suspects.
The law-enforcement scanners are different from those used to collect tolls.
By 2011, the DEA had about 100 cameras feeding into the database, the documents show. On Interstate 95 in New Jersey, license-plate readers feed data to the DEA—giving law-enforcement personnel around the country the ability to search for a suspect vehicle on one of the country’s busiest highways. One undated internal document shows the program also gathers data from license-plate readers in Florida and Georgia.
“Any database that collects detailed location information about Americans not suspected of crimes raises very serious privacy questions,’’ said Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the ACLU. “It’s unconscionable that technology with such far-reaching potential would be deployed in such secrecy. People might disagree about exactly how we should use such powerful surveillance technologies, but it should be democratically decided, it shouldn’t be done in secret.’’
License-plate readers are already used in the U.S. by companies to collect debts and repossess vehicles, and by local police departments to solve crimes.
In 2010, the DEA said in internal documents that the database aided in the seizure of 98 kilograms of cocaine, 8,336 kilograms of marijuana and the collection of $866,380. It also has been connected to the Amber Alert system, to help authorities find abducted children, according to people familiar with the program.
One email written in 2010 said the primary purpose of the program was asset forfeiture—a controversial practice in which law-enforcement agencies seize cars, cash and other valuables from suspected criminals. The practice is increasingly coming under attack because of instances when law-enforcement officers take such assets without evidence of a crime.
The document said, “…DEA has designed this program to assist with locating, identifying, and seizing bulk currency, guns, and other illicit contraband moving along the southwest border and throughout the United States. With that said, we want to insure we can collect and manage all the data and IT responsibilities that will come with the work to insure the program meets its goals, of which asset forfeiture is primary.’
A number of lawmakers have been planning to offer legislation to rein in what they call abuses of asset-forfeiture laws. The Justice Department recently announced it was ending its role in one type of asset seizure, known as “adoptions,’’ a process by which local officials take property, then have the assets adopted and sold by the federal government. Often, that allows the local agency to keep a higher percentage of the money from the seizure. The policy change doesn’t affect the bulk of asset seizures in the U.S.
The national vehicle database program was launched in 2008 and opened to participating state and local authorities a year later. The initial focus was on tracking cars moving on or near the Southwest border, in order to follow the movements of drugs and drug money, according to officials and documents. Requests to search the database are handled by the El Paso Intelligence Center in Texas, which is known as EPIC in law enforcement circles. EPIC is staffed around the clock to both take in and send out information about “hits’’ on requested license plates.
The effort began in border states like Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas, but the goal has always been expansion, according to current and former federal officials and documents. Officials wouldn’t say how many other states are now feeding data into the system, citing concerns that disclosing such information could help criminals avoid detection.
The federal program hasn’t always been embraced by states. At a 2012 hearing, Utah lawmakers balked when DEA officials sought to have license-plate readers in the state feed into the database—one of the few times the agency has provided even limited facts about the program. That same year, a DEA official made a general reference to the program at a congressional field hearing about the Southwest border, saying it was built to monitor and target vehicles used to transport bulk cash and other contraband.
Under questioning from Utah lawmakers, the agency said the program began with an effort to track drug shipments on the Southwest border, and the government wanted to add monitors on major drug-trafficking routes like Utah’s Interstate 15, in order to hunt a wide array of criminals. That alarmed privacy advocates, who noted at the time that the DEA’s map of major drug routes included most of the national highway system.
The agency has reduced the time it holds the data from two years to 3 months, according to a Justice Department spokesman.
The EPIC database allows any police agency that participates to quickly search records of many states for information about a vehicle. One May 2010 redacted email says: "Anyone can request information from our [license-plate reader] program, federal, state, or local, just need to be a vetted EPIC user.…’’
The data are also shared with U.S. border officials, according to an undated memorandum of understanding between the DEA and Customs and Border Protection officials. That document shows the two agencies specifically said that lawmakers might never specifically fund the work, stating: “this in no way implies that Congress will appropriate funds for such expenditures.’’
The disclosure of the DEA’s license-plate reader database comes on the heels of other revelations in recent months about the Justice Department, as well as the agencies it runs, gathering data about innocent Americans as it searches for criminals.
In November, The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Marshals Service flies planes carrying devices that mimic cellphone towers in order to scan the identifying information of Americans’ phones as it searches for criminal suspects and fugitives. Justice Department officials have said the program is legal.
Earlier this month, the DEA filed court documents indicating that for more than a decade it had gathered the phone records of Americans calling foreign countries, without judicial oversight, to sift through that data looking for drug suspects. That program was canceled in 2013.
Ostensibly to reduce the amount of uninsured/untaxed drivers on the roads.
Don't want to sit around in databases? Well, here's a nice list of just a few of the things you can't have:
Bank account; Car/motorcycle; Mobile telephone; Internet-connected computer; Credit/debit card; Visible face (oh, we might be safe there, for a few years)
Unless of course you're a criminal, in which case you can handily avoid a lot of this!
I used to think we could escape surveillance using technology. Fool's errand. We'd need an entire culture change. It's gone.
If blanket video coverage of public areas is fine, why not blanket audio coverage? Add in facial and audio recognition. Now consider you're running about with a microphone webcam combo in your pocket, the power and battery life of which will only increase.
I hate it with every ounce of my being, but I can't see a way out here. I can't see the 'line', any more.