One possible problem is that ubiquitous surveillance done poorly (and it usually is) can be used to commit crimes -
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/15/cctv_hack_casino_poker/ Another big issue is that most uninformed viewers believe that video shows what they would sense if present at the scene. This matters in two ways - some guy with a camera produces video that only shows a limited scene for a limited time and viewers assume the images are true and accurate. There's a reason that cinematographers, directors, and cameramen exist - they know how to produce effects in the human mind based on the images they choose to show. Some guy with a camera will have a relatively random outcome that can have effects out of synch with reality beyond the viewfinder. Modifying video surveillance has been a staple of Hollywood since at least Mission: Impossible the original TV series. However, the ubiquity of surveillance equipment, the use of TCP/IP network protocols, and availability of tools for modifying video or controlling cameras make Hollywood possible - for relatively low-level (non Impossible Missions Force) adversaries. Ray Parks Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084 NIPR: [email protected] SIPR: [email protected] (send NIPR reminder) JWICS: [email protected] (send NIPR reminder) On Mar 19, 2013, at 10:37 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > On 3/19/13 8:07 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote: >> It it wasn't Google, it would be some other entity. A lot of the futuristic >> science fiction I used to enjoy featured miniaturization, sensors, and >> surveillance. Tiny self-powered bots, powerful optics, EM, quantum, and >> nuclear resonance imaging. Machine intelligence. Privacy is an illusion. > I think it is a lot more subtle than that. There is the question of just > what "privacy" is? > > I agree that there is some kind of new-Orwellian Manifest Destiny at work, in > the sense that if it *wasn't* Google it would be someone else. 2 years ago I > was shown a pair of sunglasses that had mini digital video recorder built in > very discretely. $200 or something from sharper image. Admittedly, you had > to plug it into a micro-usb to download the data (and recharge) with no WiFi > or Bluetooth... but the point is the basic technology to invade your visual > (and audio) privace is not new. Most anyone with a smartphone could already > be recording the audio environment and the video environment within a > modestly wide field of view. Maybe we can start a new game at FRIAM or > WedTech to see who can record the conversations most surruptitiously > *without* Google Goggles. The technology is already here. > > Similarly I think too many of us are at least numb if not comfortable to > there being cameras at every street intersection in many municipalities. > They aren't even there (usually) to enforce, but rather to help run traffic > lights based on flow and help determine congestion levels for various > purposes. Ostensibly a GoodThing. But in principal if not in practice they > are also busy providing the frontend to track all kinds of things. We all > see these cameras and even see them being (mis) used in movies, but for the > most part we don't worry. Similarly CCTV in businesses, ATMs on the street, > etc. > > And in the home? I know that the way computers with built in cameras and > microphones are designed is supposed to protect my privacy... but it doesn't > take much to bypass most of that. Maybe the camera won't even power up > without lighting the notification LED next to it... but a snip of wire (ok, > so you have to open the case, non trivial) or even a dot of black fingernail > polish over the LED and viola! When I was a PI, it was understood (and of > course never exploited) that many of the phone systems of the era could be > exploited from outside the home. The mic in the handset(s) were live all the > time and could be tapped at the junction box outside the home by a clever > wiseguy. Laser-window mics weren't available yet but parabolic reflector > mics and uber-long camera lenses were. > > A few years ago, having your photo taken in the background of someones family > vacation pics just mean your image showed up in their photo album on the > coffee table... small and grainy and there for any one of their (merely) > dozens of visitors to see. Now, with digital cameras everywhere and Facebook > and Flikr and automatic face recognition, it might not be hard to find dozens > or even thousands of examples of your face on the net... accidental > portraiture exposing details of where you where when and with who. > > Most of us could say "If you don't have anything to hide, then you don't have > anything to worry about!". I don't think that is what privacy is about. > > So what *is* privacy? I'm not sure exactly but I think it is more than this. > I think hunter-gatherer bands of 100 or so had very little *practical* > privacy from eachother. I think even early cities had very little privacy. > I think what we think of as privacy *is* an illusion... but I think there is > something yet more subtle and important that constitutes real privacy. I'll > keep thinking on it, but I'm curious to know if anyone here has any other > perspectives on just what privacy means? > > Surely it means more than living your life outside of the range of cameras > and microphones. > > - Steve > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
