You guys keep bringing up these kinds of scenarios. Cops already have lots of ways to harass people. They could track you using your license plates. They could demand to see ID and either arrest you if you refuse or follow up and harass you later once they learn your names. Heck, they could just follow you. Do they do this now? I agree that it’s possible (and probably happen on rare occasions) but it’s hardly likely. Plus it’s fairly easy to avoid by having a separate team that accesses the data.
Make up your mind. Either you want this tool to be able to be used for crimefightin’ (in which case, the allowed resolutions would at least let one see *some *stuff), or you want the cops to only be able to see a block as one big blurry unusable blob.
I’d be okay with the latter, but…
And ?
Yes. Because their abuse could not possibly fall under “stuff we might need sometime”. But do note that they were only able to do what they did because databases were kept around that should have been erased, per guidelines.
Except they weren’t.
That’s all that’s been made public (and even then, in heavily redacted form), because, again, this could not possibly fall under any national security, public safety or just plain handy umbrella. What about the stuff that might could ? Again, databases that should have been purged weren’t. If you think that was just an oversight, I got a lovely bridge to sell you.
We know now, for example, that the NSA had been extensively wiretapping Martin Luther King and his organization (along with other prominent Vietnam War protesters, including US Senators), with no warrants or any kind of judicial oversight.
Do you really think the organization has been wholly reformed since then ? And don’t you wonder what we’ll know thirty years from now about what they’re doing today ?
Oy. You wanted me to explain how it could be ineffective for cops to illicitly use sharper images.
My original point was that the abuse revealed by Snowden had zero impact on American lives. I asked for a cite that said otherwise and you cited something else.
And we start slipping back into CT.
Here’s a better explanation of Minaret and it’s not as bad as you’re implying. There are definitely times when security agencies overstep their bounds (to me COINTELPRO is the most egregious) which is why I’m totally on board with checks. But even when they do abuse the system the damage is light and are eventually shut down.
If you’re going to shut down every agency or technique that might be abused then you have to get rid of everything. Cops with guns is abused. DAs with authority to prosecute is abused. Court sentencing is abused. Arrests are abused. Potential for abuse is not enough; it has to be weighed against its utility.
I may be auditioning my title writing talents for the new york daily news.
https://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/dn-lhota-original.jpg
I have a ways to go before I’m as over the top though. But ONE DAY DAILY NEWS !!!
Asked and answered. I’ll add that, when I’m not breaking any laws, what I’m doing is none of anyone else’s business. Sometimes people do things that are perfectly legal that other people might not approve of. Or maybe they just don’t want others to see.
I understand IT systems very well, but thanks for your concern.
Right, and they’ll totally work. Because the history of IT is fantastic demonstration of how we can build systems that can’t be hacked or misused.
Just like we can easily check and see what the NSA is collecting and what they’re doing with the information, right?
It just hit me that you’re viewing this entire subject as existing in an imaginary world, where everything is perfectly planned and works, and everybody does what they’re supposed to. In that hypothetical world, I agree with you. It’s in the area of how things work in this here real world where we disagree.
As an aside, I deal with contents of ERP and WMS systems on a daily basis. What you’re describing is not very much like what happens in real ones, but it is very much like what is described in their marketing materials.
-VM
I don’t really know what to say to your suggestion that abuse of authority by police and government is like a rare sighting of a wild panda. Other than assume that you must be a member of a demographic group that is rarely targeted. But the rest kind of relies on that point.
In my view, abuse of power is way more common than you are suggesting, and there have been a lot of posts in this thread offering evidence that abuse of policing powers is not the rare bird you seem to think it is (and nitpicking the details does not qualify as refuting overall point).
As to the general argument that you seem to be making, the fact that police have powers that can be (and are) abused now is not a good argument for giving them more powers that are easier to abuse in more ways.
-VM
Actually, I did not, because I know that. I wanted you to explain how cops using data garnered by using Skyeye film above and beyond any putative resolution guideline would be prevented from doing so. Bearing in mind that “we saw it clear on our video, what we legally aren’t exactly allowed to have” can trivially be altered into “Fuzzy Dunlop told us”.
And ? Are Snowden’s revelations sitting somewhere in a quantum of incriminating or damnable singularity ? Are there two NSAs, one that only is guilty of what Snowden revealed and one that’s been doing everything else ?
Light. Right. Well, how about the creation of the Bloods and Crips, then ? Because *that *can be laid on the FBI’s doorstep. You could fairly argue that it’s not what the FBI *set out *to do, but their actions that led to it were morally (if not legally) bankrupt to begin with, and the results speak for themselves.
I think you might agree that it hasn’t exactly led to light damage on society.
Um, yes ? Which is why many, many countries don’t issue their regular beat cops any.
I agree. I think the potential for abuse ; and for silent invisible abuse to boot far, FAR outweighs the utility. Which should give you pause to consider the potential for abuse, considering the amount of utility.
After googling, I can only find references to six. How many is “many, many”?
No you haven’t, but hey I guess you just don’t want to admit what you don’t want others to see or you are just unable to articulate your reasons past it makes you feel uncomfortable. I personally don’t care what others see me do if it is legal for me to do so, nor do I care who is watching as I expect people to watch when I’m not inside my home.
What you’ve said essentially negates the usefulness of any IT system ever built. Systems can be hacked, but I’m more concerned that someone can steal my credit card number than watch me walk into a Walmart. Yet I still have a credit card as the usefulness of it outweighs my concerns that someone might hack it.
Was the system built for use by law enforcement across the country allowing for 100’s of thousands of potential users to access it? Or was it designed to be hidden from oversight?
Do you have a cite that lists how often crime-fighting techniques are abused? How often do cops track down protesters using their licence plates? How often do cops bust into houses without warrants? How often is someone someone arrested for nothing more than littering? What about cases where cops threaten to (illegally) throw a wife in jail? I’m sure it happens but my belief is that it is trivial. I don’t believe it is enough to prevent us from using something like Skyeye.
At risk of muddying my point: the SDMB debated self-driving cars recently. Somebody argued that it was a bad idea because kids could take down stop signs* to create havoc (the idea being self-driving cars wouldn’t know to stop). My contention was that kids could create havoc now by removing stop signs but they don’t. The probability that kids would decide to remove stop signs is too low (but not impossible) to block the utility of self-driving cars. To me the parallel with Skyeye is similar.
(* - I’ve simplified the argument a bit.)
… maybe six ? 
I think this conversation would go a lot easier if you would accept that I’m not focusing on myself here. My concern is that people will be abused by this system, and you keep mischaracterizing my position as concern only for myself. I think you do this because it makes it easier to present me as petty lawbreaker and ignore the larger intent of what I’m saying. This is not about you personally or me personally.
I think, fundamentally, you see a breach of a credit card system as harmful to you, but you don’t see a breach (or intentional misuse) of SkyEye as harmful to you. I and several posters have provided numerous ways it could be harmful to people in general, and you’re answer seems to be, “Well, that’s not my problem.”
Fine, but I don’t see any point in going back through all of it.
And by the way, I did not suggest that because IT systems are vulnerable they are worthless. I merely responded to your apparent suggestion that they are perfect, and when they are set up “correctly”, nothing can go wrong. The idea that I have declared IT systems useless is a pretty obvious straw man.
Which do you think SkyEye will be? How confident are you in this oversight? You’re just bouncing back to the beginning of the conversation. Clearly, you are very confident in the effectiveness of this oversight. Equally as clearly, several of us are not.
-VM
So, abuse of policing powers in general isn’t good enough for you? It has to be these particular types of abuses? Why? What you’re demanding is particularly misleading, because examples like cops tracking down protesters with license plates are cases where tracking people would CURRENTLY be difficult but with SkyEye would be easy, and that’s why some of us are nervous about it.
I think you’re trying to send me off on a wild goose chase for data that will be difficult to find in support of a case I haven’t tried to make. The case that I HAVE made is that policing powers in general are abused regularly, and this kind of power would invite more.
If you want some proof that abuse exists, there’s plenty to be had. Here are a few links to get you started:
Washington Post - Asset Forfeiture Abuse
DOJ - Ferguson Report (at NY Times)
The key point here is NOT the examples we’ve given about how SkyEye might be abused; the key point is that policing powers ARE regularly abused. In most cases, these powers were granted with the intent of reducing crime, and the abuse has been an unintended consequence. I think the core of our disagreement is that I believe that the potential for negative unintended consequences from SkyEye is high, and you think it is low, or that those consequences would be minimal–either that or you don’t care because you don’t think they will affect you personally.
Didn’t read that one. If I had, I would not be on the side of people worrying over the stop signs. Which is to say, I don’t see these two situations as particularly comparable. In particular, the difference between people with no authority trying to muck up the system and people with authority deliberately misusing it are fundamentally different–one is almost always more cause for concern than the other.
If we’re talking self-driving cars, I’d be less concerned about kids moving stop signs and more concerned about whether the systems can be hacked (the auto industry, in general, doesn’t seem to be very savvy about IT security).
-VM
I’ll add this little gem to the pile.
This one is nice, too.
-VM
Hear hear. In fact, if I were arguing solely on my own personal basis, I’d be very much in favor of total surveillance. It would benefit me far more than it would harm me.
But I believe that there are societal harms that are different from personal harms, and massive public identification is one of those. We don’t make people wear ID badges. In fact, the Supreme Court has assured us we don’t even have to carry ID cards. The right to privacy extends to public places.
(I’m unhappy with the taking of DNA samples from everyone who is arrested and charged with a crime. Many of those will never be found guilty; many won’t even be indicted or prosecuted. Their DNA ID samples should be returned to them or destroyed.)
I wanted to know what it is you are worried others will see you doing and why you could possibly care about it. So, far I’ve heard examples of people at protests being penalized in some manner for attending the protest. Regardless of any other argument on whether being in public you should expect privacy, do not protests by their very nature negate that expectation? Someone will be recording the event and posting it somewhere. Police will have body cams recording the event. You will be recorded.
That is a strawman. I never said it wasn’t a problem if the system was abused. I said the system can be controlled so such abuses are not easily done or the person abusing the system could be caught.
I don’t give up my credit card because of a small possibility of someone hacking it. It is too useful. I shouldn’t give up a system that would help me immensely in solving crimes, because of a small possibility someone might abuse it as well.
Companies use IT systems because they facilitate outcomes they want to achieve. Because running their process manually would be unworkable or even impossible and still allow them to be competitive. The thing about IT systems is that the next system being built can leverage knowledge from every system prior to it. It is not unusual today to monitor who logs into a system or what they did on it. Look at your browser history that follows you across all your devices to bear this out.
Someone asked this earlier. What did the NSA do with the data it collected?
And? What is their purpose for tracking you down? Some deep political agenda or because someone lit a police car on fire or threw a brick through a window? The former would concern me, but probably not for the reasons you think, and the latter is why the system should exist - to catch arsonists and vandals, et al.
No, it would invite less. Why? Because the police would be under surveillance as well.
Why are you so interested in what I do?
How many times must I say that my concern isn’t specifically about something I am going to get caught doing? When you repeatedly suggest that I’m some kind of petty criminal trying to get away with stuff, it’s just insulting. Why don’t you address the argument, instead of making insinuations about me? You know, like for one whole post? Just to see what it’s like.
I can’t get you to understand the difference between “privacy” in the sense of “no one can see what you do” and “privacy” in the sense of “no one knows who you are”. Not sure if there’s anything to be done…I am getting really suspicious that you are just deliberately missing the point, because you keep saying the same thing over and over again.
Sometimes, actors will agree to be in a movie where it SEEMS they are naked when, in fact, someone else’s body has been digitally inserted. Why do you suppose they do such a silly thing?
If you think that’s what you said, I guess I’ll go along with it.
Agreed. We just disagree on the size of the possibility.
I think that the police and government officials are plenty competitive, so there’s no real need for the SkyEye thingy, right?
This is one of those times when I think you’re making my case for me.
What do you mean what did they do with it? They still have it. They still can do pretty much whatever they want with it. I guess since neither you nor I have been burned by it yet, it must be harmless. Any point in asking the question about the body doubles again?
You make it sound like I’m writing a novel…it could be any of those things–that’s my point. It could be that you said something smart to a cop and he decided to teach you a lesson. It could be you went on a date with his ex-girlfriend. It could be you ARE his ex-girlfriend. I’m not talking about one case or one kind of abuse; YOU are trying to limit the discussion to one case or one kind of abuse, so you can casually dismiss it. I’m not going to “pick an example” so you can explain why you don’t give a shit about that particular one. I pick them all.
Of course, why didn’t I think of that? They’ll never get away with anything, because they’re, you know, watching themselves.
-VM
You are taking this far to personally. I’m not saying ‘you’ as in you specifically. I was looking for specific examples of nefarious purposes this tool could be used for that didn’t involve people breaking the law.
Because you have repeatedly answered with nebulous claims of how this will be used against people. Whereas, there are concrete examples of how it could be useful. You don’t see the difference between your ‘fears’ of something bad happening and the reality of how most tools are actually used.
I said I’m in favor of name tags. Not sure how I could be clearer. I don’t really see the difference between the two or understand why anyone should care. “OMG! The world (or the man) knows I walked down Main Street!”
You’d be wrong. If the police can solve X amount of crimes per day now and with the tool they can solve 2X, then that might be worth it. Maybe 2X makes is so onerous for people that they no longer do the things that make them criminals? Maybe if you getting multiple speeding tickets makes you switch to a driver-less car that doesn’t speed? Maybe it makes you get laws changed, like the forfeiture laws you objected to earlier, or helps the person subject to a seizure prove his case? Or maybe help me prove my version of the traffic accident rather than the other guys? All sorts of net positive things vs some nebulous privacy concern over people knowing your name.
What it proves is that if nothing was done with the information then someone in your government is spending billions for no justifiable reason. A system that can actually aid the police in catching criminals with better chance of arresting the correct person would be a net positive.
And I’m saying that you can pick as many ‘examples’ as you want, but Johnny Cop in Redneckville, USA, has to login to the database like anyone else and have his activity tracked. Or he has to get someone else to do so for him and that activity should be tracked. Anything happens to the ex-girlfriend and her history of being tracked should come to light.
Don’t blame me because your government can’t figure out how to provide proper oversight. I personally blame the people who elected them.
Okay, so you’ve completely ignored the various examples that have been posted of how policing powers are abused by police and/or government and written it all off as “nebulous claims” and “fears”.
Therefore, I’ve decided to completely ignore the remainder of your post, writing it all off as another restating of, “If you’d just follow the rules, there’d be nothing to worry about.”
-VM