Ehh... it's written by one of their writers, who doesn't seem to have a great grasp of technology in general.
This alone disqualifies him:
> "super-high, gigapixel resolution cameras on planes, which are then used to monitor entire cities"
> "Every moving pedestrian and vehicle can be tracked: the beginning and end everyone’s journeys, and the route taken in between"
> "This gives the authorities the power to press "rewind" on anybody's movements"
Sorry, but he's watched too many bad TV shows and movies. Can you imagine the storage needed to record gigapixel level video that would allow you to do this? The real explanation is in the middle of the story, but it's so benign that it hardly merits any discussion:
> "the flights were apparently carried out by the FBI at the request of local law enforcement, and that they were using infrared cameras of some kind "to monitor movements of people in the vicinity.""
So, you had a large amount of people out at night, spread out in a city, with some acting violently. Not using this type of technology to get a handle on the situation would be negligent. It's not some super secret mass surveillance tech, it's fairly basic cameras that can be used to help police, fire, and medical services respond as necessary. But the ACLU can't fund raise and get clicks off that, so this guy wrapped it in nonsense and now its getting lots of clicks.
I think you'd agree it's quite possible to take high-quality footage and record every frame of it using current technology. What, a few terabytes maybe? Now, single an individual out. Now, data-mine those terabytes of footage. Even without exotic facial recognition or incredible resolutions, you can trace the exact movements of an individual, and of every other person whom they contact.
It's not just a question of resolution. It's a question of software and big data, which is very different. And it's a question the ACLU would be very interested in.
Don't throw out the critical concerns of privacy just because you can nitpick a few holes in the writer's technical understanding. It's bad form, and deliberately misses a valid point. A credible source focused on privacy is concerned enough to write about it. Dismissing it out of hand because the author isn't as much of a nerd as you is not a good argument.
"DARPA’s frightening ARGUS-IS, a record-setting 1.8 gigapixel sensor array which can observe and record an area half the size of Manhattan. The newest in the family of "wide area persistent surveillance" tools, the system can detect and track moving objects as small as six inches from 20,000 feet in the air."
This alone disqualifies him:
> "super-high, gigapixel resolution cameras on planes, which are then used to monitor entire cities"
> "Every moving pedestrian and vehicle can be tracked: the beginning and end everyone’s journeys, and the route taken in between"
> "This gives the authorities the power to press "rewind" on anybody's movements"
Sorry, but he's watched too many bad TV shows and movies. Can you imagine the storage needed to record gigapixel level video that would allow you to do this? The real explanation is in the middle of the story, but it's so benign that it hardly merits any discussion:
> "the flights were apparently carried out by the FBI at the request of local law enforcement, and that they were using infrared cameras of some kind "to monitor movements of people in the vicinity.""
So, you had a large amount of people out at night, spread out in a city, with some acting violently. Not using this type of technology to get a handle on the situation would be negligent. It's not some super secret mass surveillance tech, it's fairly basic cameras that can be used to help police, fire, and medical services respond as necessary. But the ACLU can't fund raise and get clicks off that, so this guy wrapped it in nonsense and now its getting lots of clicks.