Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Demo of EU's Planned "INDECT" Hints At Massive Data Mining, Little Privacy

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the greater-good-strikes-back dept.

Privacy 122

Ronald Dumsfeld writes "Wikinews puts together some of the details around the EU's five-year-plan called Project INDECT, and brings attention to a leaked 'sales-pitch' video: 'An unreleased promotional video for INDECT located on YouTube is shown to the right. The simplified example of the system in operation shows a file of documents with a visible INDECT-titled cover stolen from an office and exchanged in a car park. How the police are alerted to the document theft is unclear in the video; as a "threat," it would be the INDECT system's job to predict it. Throughout the video use of CCTV equipment, facial recognition, number plate reading, and aerial surveillance give friend-or-foe information with an overlaid map to authorities. The police proactively use this information to coordinate locating, pursing, and capturing the document recipient. The file of documents is retrieved, and the recipient roughly detained.'"

cancel ×

122 comments

They like it rough. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29798809)

The police proactively use this information to coordinate locating, pursing, and capturing the document recipient. The file of documents is retrieved, and the recipient roughly detained.

Nice to hear they plan to roughly detain the perp after they purse him.

Stwike him, Centuwion, vewy woughly (2, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#29798901)

[slap]

BRIAN: Aaah!

CENTURION: Oh, and, uh, throw him to the floor, sir?

PILATE: What?

CENTURION: Thwow him to the floor again, sir?

PILATE: Oh, yes. Thwow him to the floor, please.

 

Re:Stwike him, Centuwion, vewy woughly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29799781)

"Use on unnecessary force is approved."

Dispatcher, "Blues Brothers"

Re:They like it rough. (2, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#29798995)

A report accidentally published on the Internet provides insight into a secretive European Union surveillance project designed to monitor its citizens, as reported by Wikileaks earlier this month. Project INDECT aims to mine data from television, internet traffic, cellphone conversations, p2p file sharing and a range of other sources for crime prevention and threat prediction.

If this doesn't sound like breaking privacy, I dont know what does. And I bet it's UK that is trying to bring this into all EU countries.

Re:They like it rough. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29799059)

Aren't cell phones fair game, as they're broadcast over open airwaves, while stuff transmitted over a landline has that "reasonable expectation of privacy" that no one's listening?

Everything else is pretty creepy, though...

Re:They like it rough. (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799133)

Aren't cell phones fair game, as they're broadcast over open airwaves, while stuff transmitted over a landline has that "reasonable expectation of privacy" that no one's listening?

Please explain why you think so. It's still listening over to people's private conversation, just the transmit is done via air instead of landline.

Re:They like it rough. (2, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799305)

Especially since GSM is supposed to be encrypted [wikipedia.org] , even if there are already methods to break it.

Re:They like it rough. (0, Flamebait)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799323)

It's still listening over to people's private conversation, just the transmit is done via air instead of landline.

Cyclic logic. Calling it a "private conversation" implies some belief of privacy, even when none should exist.

What about a "private conversation" held using bullhorns at a baseball game? It's private, so all those people listening must be breaking the law, huh?

Much better is to define "private" not based on stupid people's ignorance but on physics. A "conversation" carried via public airwaves shouldn't be considered private. That's where the cellular carries brainwashed everyone. A "conversation" carried over someone else's wires has some reasonable expectation of privacy, but it's still someone else's wires. If those wires go into another country where the rules are different, don't expect your side to stay private under US rules while the foreign part is open under foreign rules.

Privacy should only be assumed if you control the wires, or if you encrypt the message YOURSELF. To simply say "this is private, you can't listen" is silly.

Re:They like it rough. (4, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799417)

Privacy should only be assumed if you control the wires, or if you encrypt the message YOURSELF. To simply say "this is private, you can't listen" is silly.

Maybe so, but there's no way one can build and maintain all of that themself. They would also have to be on their own internets thats only on their own lines. It's just not possible to do that.

Thats *why we have privacy laws in place*. Like any other law, yeah they could be broken by someone. But there will be consequences for the people breaking them. When goverments will remove those laws and actually start breaking them by themself you will have problems. That is what we're trying to prevent here.

Re:They like it rough. (2, Insightful)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799883)

Maybe so, but there's no way one can build and maintain all of that themself.

That implies that you think there is some natural right to "private conversations using other people's stuff". I'm sorry, but if you use my telephone in my house, it's my wires and you have as much privacy as I decide to give you. The fact you can't build the infrastructure yourself has no relevance to that.

They would also have to be on their own internets thats only on their own lines. It's just not possible to do that.

So? That's why I included the statement about ENCRYPTING your messages yourself. You want privacy when you use MY telephone? You bring your own scrambler.

Thats *why we have privacy laws in place*.

Yes, we have "privacy laws" that violate the laws of physics in place because of ignorant people having ignorant expectations about what is private. They think "because I want it to be" is sufficient. It isn't. If your cell phone conversation can be picked up by my television set, your "privacy laws" don't mean much (and yes, the old analog cell phones could be picked up on tv sets.)

But there will be consequences for the people breaking them.

Really? You mean like the case of the people who recorded and released the cell phone conversations between Gingrich and Boehner (IIRC)? Made national news, but no "consequences" to the law-breakers.

And even in the rare case where there are consequences, that doesn't change the fact that your privacy did not exist in reality, only in your mind. Making it a crime to listen to you talking on your phone doesn't make your conversation private, it just makes it a crime to listen. You are a victim of the Cellular telephone industry, who managed to cripple an entire radio industry because they didn't want to digitize and encrypt their analog cell phone systems, even though it was patently obvious that digital and encryption was going to happen anyway. Welcome to 2009, where it is still illegal to sell radios with certain frequencies, even though everything on those frequencies is gone or unlistenable, and where a new design of cell-phone is using frequencies outside the prohibited bands.

Re:They like it rough. (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800489)

While I'll admit that it's stupid to expect radio signals to be "private", there is something inherently wrong with a system where I pay someone to follow me around all day, just to spy on me. Or, in this case, I pay taxes so that the government can mount cameras, and intercept all electronic signals from devices I own, just to spy on me. Tell me again, why do I pay taxes?

Orwelle's story was right, he just got the year wrong.

Re:They like it rough. (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801647)

Yes "something inherently wrong with a system where I pay someone to follow me around all day, just to spy on me"
Charlie Skelton working for the Guardian found that out when he went to the Bilderberg summit in Greece.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/series/charlie-skeltons-bilderberg-files [guardian.co.uk]

Re:They like it rough. (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800633)

ignorant people having ignorant expectations about what is private.

No we have ignorant people or perhaps I should say people who are not cultured, enough to obey those laws. And people like you who assume that simply because it can be done it should be done. While I agree it will be done that doesn't mean that we can't restore civilization and culture by not doing what you claim is physically impossible.

Re:They like it rough. (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801757)

No we have ignorant people or perhaps I should say people who are not cultured, enough to obey those laws.

There are two kind of laws being discussed here. Physical laws, which say that messages sent by radio waves are inherently NOT PRIVATE, and manmade laws which try to contradict physical laws. No amount of culture will let you violate physical laws. No amount of culture will make stupid manmade laws smart.

And people like you who assume that simply because it can be done it should be done.

And people like you who jump to outrageous conclusions based on inability to understand a simple point. I didn't say it SHOULD be done. Not once. I said that it is STUPID to define "private conversation" in terms of what an ignorant person expects. I said that messages that are not truly private can and will be intercepted and no true privacy exists when using other people's stuff.

While I agree it will be done ...

If you think I said it SHOULD be done, what are you agreeing with?

that doesn't mean that we can't restore civilization and culture by not doing what you claim is physically impossible.

I'm sorry, but you've got one too many negatives in that statement for it to make any sense. I'm not sure what you think I claimed was physically impossible. I know I didn't claim that something SHOULD be done. Are you actually reading this thread?

Re:They like it rough. (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 4 years ago | (#29802517)

Yeah sorry that last sentence was pretty hashed.

Re:They like it rough. (1)

SleepingWaterBear (1152169) | more than 4 years ago | (#29802041)

Yes, we have "privacy laws" that violate the laws of physics in place because of ignorant people having ignorant expectations about what is private. They think "because I want it to be" is sufficient. It isn't. If your cell phone conversation can be picked up by my television set, your "privacy laws" don't mean much (and yes, the old analog cell phones could be picked up on tv sets.)

I think that you're overstating the issue a little here. Listening in on a cell phone conversation generally requires intent and effort. If I have a conversation in a room, the fact that you can overhear me by standing outside with your ear to the door doesn't mean I can't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It is neither unreasonable nor ignorant to assume that your conversation is only heard by yourself, the other party, and the cell phone carrier.

It is also reasonable to assume that as far as your cell phone carrier is concerned you have whatever privacy is guaranteed you by your contract and any applicable statutes. I don't know the details on this front, but I'm willing to bet that your cell phone carrier isn't allowed to listen in on your conversations or share them with 3rd parties except in very unusual circumstances.

Re:They like it rough. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29799995)

In principle I agree.

But I also want cellphones to support end-to-end encryption with authentication based on asymmetric keys, so call privacy could be at least mathematically ensured. No point making silly laws when a technical solution exists.

Re:They like it rough. (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800561)

To simply say "this is private, you can't listen" is silly.

It's also what we like to call "civilized". An expectation of privacy comes from having civilized ourselves enough to NOT listen even though we obviously can. Any one listening to what should be a private call is obviously not civilized. Unless probable cause is present to require a court order to listen. I don't understand why we all seem to have become less civilized lately.

Re:They like it rough. (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801867)

It's also what we like to call "civilized".

There's this "civilized" stuff again. How does "civilized" change anything about the inherent private nature of a public medium? It does not. Period. End of sentence.

An expectation of privacy comes from having civilized ourselves enough to NOT listen even though we obviously can.

No, an expectation of privacy comes from ignorance. "Civilized" has nothing to do with it. Your "civilization" is just legislated ignorance of physical fact. "Your cell phone conversations are private because we, the cellphone industry, have made it illegal for people to buy radios that can tune into your calls." That's not "privacy", that stupidity. Your cell phone calls are no more private because Joe Sixpack can't buy a scanner. They are inherently NON private because you are using a NON private medium.

Any one listening to what should be a private call is obviously not civilized.

Anyone using MY airwaves demanding that I not listen to what they are doing is obviously not civilized and is arrogant and ignorant to boot.

I don't understand why we all seem to have become less civilized lately.

Because stupid people demand stupid laws trying to subvert nature and natural processes, and the rest of us are getting damn tired of it. Your definition of "civilization" requires ignorance, and ignorance is not a civilized trait.

Re:They like it rough. (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 4 years ago | (#29802487)

You sir are not cultured. End of argument.

Re:They like it rough. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29799367)

At least in the States, it's fair game. If any schmuck walking by with a basic antenna can pick it up (ie, not using "extraordinary surveillance measures," you don't have an expectation of privacy on your cell phone. People have been caught for years based on conversations LEOs have picked up from the signals sent by cordless phones and cell phones.

I don't understand why... But it basically amounts to "using the public airwaves = talking out in the street where anyone can hear you." I'm trying to find the law now, but it had to do with how basic radio scanners can listen in on cell phone conversations just by turning them on - no active surveillance required, because a cell phone conversation is broadcast like a radio station?

[same anonymous poster as above]

Again, trying to find the science and the law, but someone else is welcome to beat me to it...

Re:They like it rough. (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800671)

[same anonymous poster as above]
did anyone hear something? I saw something go by but it was not identifiable. Not important I guess.

Re:They like it rough. (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801491)

cell phones fair game? Depends if your talking about the towers and tracking or just enjoying an iphone.
Thinks back to Adamo Bove and Costas Tsalikidis.
Adamo Bove was the head of security at Telecom Italia and exposed the CIA (Abu Omar rendition in Italy traced after the fact with mobiles), SISMI ( ~ the Italian CIA) and his own bosses. He was found under a freeway overpass.
Costas Tsalikidis was a 38-year-old software engineer for Vodaphone in Greece.
He uncovered a highly sophisticated bug embedded in the mobile network.
Spyware eavesdropped on the Greek prime Minister and other top officials’ cell phone calls; it even monitored the car phone of Greece’s secret service chief.
His mother found him hanging outside of his apartment bathroom.

Another interesting aspect is the NYPD and its love for the battery life of your phone.
http://tinyurl.com/y9lh6wq [tinyurl.com] (nydailynews.com slashdot did not like the long url)
They will ask you to take out the battery, thus giving them a warrant free view of your International Mobile Equipment Identity number.
So yes cell phones are fair game :)

Confession: I smell my farts (0, Troll)

alfs boner (963844) | more than 4 years ago | (#29798833)

It's true- I'll waft them up to my face, or fart on something then smell that. I've noticed a difference between smelling farts off my fingers and farting into a towel and smelling that. I prefer the towel. Sometimes, right before I take a shower, I'll wipe my ass with a towel or my underwear to smell my butt-perfume. I frequently pull the covers over my own head when I fart between the sheets. Oh, and I love the smell and frequency of my hangover farts. I love leaving my room for a few minutes and coming back to smell my still-lingering farts hanging in the air. To me its kind of like climing out of the swimming pool, getting in the hot tub for a few minutes, then going back into the pool. If I want to fart without making a lot of noise I'll reach into my pants and hold my buttcheeks apart with my fingers so the gas can leave my asshole unobstructed. it actually makes a very audible "pssssssssssssss" sound. Like if someone was in earshot but they couldn't see me, they would probably be wondering if i was farting with my fingers in my ass. Sometimes if I'm in public I'll find "discreet" ways to indulge my fart-sniffing penchance. For example I'll try to pass gas as quietly as possible, then discreetly fan my thighs open and closed so the gas is wafted up to my face.

Re:Confession: I smell my farts (2)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799729)

Well, to bring this back on topic, how will you feel when the government sends you to a reeducation camp because you smell your own farts?

EU's Proposed "INDENT" system even worse! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29798855)

Their plan of ubiquitous surveillance of all source code would force uniform standards of indentation on all programmers.

You can keep your Eurotrash socialism, thank you.

Enhance (3, Insightful)

slifox (605302) | more than 4 years ago | (#29798881)

Whenever I see facial recognition enhancement, I think of this:

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1156 [phdcomics.com]

Turns out... it's theoretically impossible!

Seriously, this video plays like a bad science ficition movie... they say "let us monitor everything and we'll magically know when crimes are committed," without saying exactly *how* they plan on sorting through the incredible amount of data and coming up with "crime X being committed right now" in a timely manner.

Re:Enhance (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799467)

FYI, MythBusters do use controls and multiple data points, at least nowadays.

Besides, it's understood that the ultimate goal of any episode of MythBusters is one or more large explosions, regardless of the outcome of the myth.

Re:Enhance (2, Insightful)

symes (835608) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799489)

Not to mention all those darn kids who'll figure out how the system works. Chat rooms would be full of "if you stand on one leg and wave a small red flag at the camera you'll trigger the bomb squad... rotfl, lmas" and so on. Anyhow - I've done a very tiny bit of work in this area - more simulations than spotting criminal intent - kind of the same thing in reverse. Our simulation, if we wanted to scale it up to a realistic scenario, would have taken 32 years to run on a regular desktop. So I'm guessing that a system like INDECT will likely run on some pretty frugal heuristics to even come close to coping with the mass of data... meaning it'll miss pretty much all but the most stereotyped crime. Now if you start putting any confidence in a system like that then I hope all those misses don't amount to much.

Re:Enhance (1)

aurispector (530273) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800645)

It doesn't matter if the damn thing works or not because eventually it will. The truly frightening thing is the intent behind the initiative. There are people in governments around the world working as hard as they can to bring a computerized "big brother" system to life. Government's power over the individual has increased by orders of magnitude with the advent of things like internet searchable public information. It used to take some leg work to pull paperwork on someone, which acted as a natural brake on the ability of government to investigate people. What used to take weeks as part of a formal investigation can now be accomplished instantly by a government dweeb with the right access. Throw some sophisticated data mining techniques into the mix along with enough cpu horsepower and the result is an unprecedented level of observation and control.

Frankly, this stuff scares the crap out of me.

Re:Enhance (3, Insightful)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801155)

It doesn't matter if the damn thing works or not because eventually it will.

Actually, it doesn't matter if the damn thing works or not, because even if it doesn't -- it can still make your life a living hell [antipolygraph.org] .

But I agree with you, eventually it will work, if newspapers have mastered fortune-telling and horoscopes technology, it means it's just a matter of time before the government gets it as well.

Re:Enhance (1)

minio (1640735) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799881)

Actually there are techniques which allows to get relatively high resolution image from low resolution video. Google for "super resolution".

Re:Enhance (2, Funny)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800091)

Just look at the success of the video surveillance system in London for cutting down on crimes.

Oh, wait.. I meant solving crimes,

Err, I meant.. Look how many jobs it created..

Ministry of Everything (5, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#29798883)

Guys....

The book 1984 was not meant to be a *manual*

Thanks.

Re:Ministry of Everything (1)

TravisHein (981987) | more than 4 years ago | (#29798965)

Yea, that's the first thing I thought of too, very 1984.

Re:Ministry of Everything (2, Informative)

mdm-adph (1030332) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799003)

No, more like a prediction. :(

Re:Ministry of Everything (0)

Eudial (590661) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799309)

History has shown that if you realize some horrible scenario is possible, writing a dystopian novel to warn people is not a good idea.

Orwell for one, but HG Wells also inspired some very unfortunate developments (including the atomic bomb and bomber aircraft).

Re:Ministry of Everything (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799917)

"History has shown that if you realize some horrible scenario is possible, writing a dystopian novel to warn people is not a good idea.

Orwell for one, but HG Wells also inspired some very unfortunate developments (including the atomic bomb and bomber aircraft)."

Ehh, not sure about that. I'm pretty sure the first guy to drop a hand grenade out of a WWI fighter cockpit didn't get "inspired" by HG Wells. More likely from dropping rocks into a pond from a bridge to scare the frogs.

Re:Ministry of Everything (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801473)

indeed

Re:Ministry of Everything (1, Troll)

Interoperable (1651953) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799223)

No need to be concerned, it's in the interest of public security. Remember, the police are on our side. Not giving them unrestricted access to monitor everyone continuously would only help the bad guys.

Re:Ministry of Everything (2, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799527)

See, you don't have it fully down, it's not "bad guys" (because that sounds silly). You have to appeal to fears properly, like this:
Not giving them unrestricted access to monitor everyone continuously would only help terrorists, child predators, and unwed teenage mothers.

Re:Ministry of Everything (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800437)

How do we know the politicians aren't pedophiles?

Safe Harbour. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29798913)

"A report accidentally published on the Internet provides insight into a secretive European Union surveillance project designed to monitor its citizens, as reported by Wikileaks earlier this month. Project INDECT aims to mine data from television, internet traffic, cellphone conversations, p2p file sharing and a range of other sources for crime prevention and threat prediction. The €14.68 million project began in January, 2009, and is scheduled to continue for five years under its current mandate."

Decisions, decisions. Stay in the US or move to Europe. At least they have good social benefits.

Re:Safe Harbour. (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799211)

Russia or Japan are starting to look like a nice candidates.

Re:Safe Harbour. (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800711)

Well, at least there's Japan [bbc.co.uk] ...

Has anybody seen Sam Lowry? (1)

abbynormal brain (1637419) | more than 4 years ago | (#29798953)

There you are, your own number on your very own door. And behind that door, your very own office! Welcome to the team, DZ-015.

Re:Has anybody seen Sam Lowry? (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799193)

No, it was a personal carrier, sir.

A new standard for proof... (3, Funny)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799051)

An unreleased promotional video for INDECT located on YouTube...

In a press release dated 18 October, 2009, the World Court announced that "'a video on YouTube' has replaced 'an entry in Wikipedia' as the best source of factual evidence for any legal proceeding meeting NWO standards. Film at 11."

Re:A new standard for proof... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29799159)

As it happens, the only thing we know about the NWO is that it's new, not it's political colour. The "social democratic"/joint socialist-run countries in Europe are embracing this as much as the "capitalist" ones.

Re:A new standard for proof... (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799265)

The funny thing is that NWO conspiracy theories are starting to look even more and more valid every day...

Re:A new standard for proof... (1)

Seriousity (1441391) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799817)

Then the only thing you know about it is a lie. History will show you that the new world is the old world, transformed.

Re:A new standard for proof... (1)

nefertitian (1236008) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800163)

and I apparently mis-read it this way...

An unreleased promotional video for IN C EST located on YouTube

Re:A new standard for proof... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29800743)

An unreleased promotional video for INDECT located on YouTube...

In a press release dated 18 October, 2009, the World Court announced that "'a video on YouTube' has replaced 'an entry in Wikipedia' as the best source of factual evidence for any legal proceeding meeting NWO standards. Film at 11."

Eddan Katz of the EFF used the video when challenging the EU on the issue. They did not dispute it's authenticity.

Re:A new standard for proof... (1)

Eightbitgnosis (1571875) | more than 4 years ago | (#29802993)

So you're saying I should make a Wikipedia entry linking to the youtube video?

Warrants or probable cause? (1)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799087)

How do warrants and probable cause work in Europe?

I mean I realize that the video is just a sales pitch. However it bothers me that they never showed someone reporting something missing. The video gave the impression of "He looks suspicious, lets mobilize the cops to pick him up".

Hate to sound defeatist, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29799123)

...should we really even bother trying to prevent this kind of future anymore?

Wouldn't we be better off solely trying to discuss ways to circumvent it when it does inevitably happen?

This future will be sold to people on the basis that it "will make them safer." And who doesn't want to be safer?

Even the anti-government quasi-anarchist "teabagger" movement in the US, for all their talk of independence, readily approves draconian security procedures, if it helps them sleep better at night.

Who's going to stop this?

Re:Hate to sound defeatist, but... (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799301)

No one, and they know that. But they also know that they have to bring it in slowly. Take just little bits of privacy away from time to time and no one will notice we've soon lost it all.

I hope it takes longer than my lifetime tho.

Re:Hate to sound defeatist, but... (1)

rvw (755107) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799389)

...should we really even bother trying to prevent this kind of future anymore?

Wouldn't we be better off solely trying to discuss ways to circumvent it when it does inevitably happen?

...

Who's going to stop this?

We are! Slashdot is thé community to do this. We have the brainpower, the knowledge, and lots of time. If we can't do this, who can?

Re:Hate to sound defeatist, but... (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799573)

Why do you think Slashdot is smarter then everyone else?

I can't find proof in these comments.

Re:Hate to sound defeatist, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29800527)

we killed the ::que::cat , didn't we?

Re:Hate to sound defeatist, but... (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801717)

Could Slashdot have Flash mob data liberation section?
Todays url is ... :)
A "recent finds" section :)

Re:Hate to sound defeatist, but... (1)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799595)

> Who's going to stop this?
>> We are! Slashdot is thé community to do this. We have the brainpower, the knowledge, and lots of time. If we can't do this, who can?

No, Anonymous could stop this. Unfortunately, they only care if "they" disrupt the flow of porn.

Hate to sound safe, but... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29799733)

"This future will be sold to people on the basis that it "will make them safer." And who doesn't want to be safer?"

Safer from what? An out of control financial sector? Corporate malfeasance? Bullying at school? Why isn't anyone trying to protect me from the real dangers?

Re:Hate to sound safe, but... (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800763)

Because humans are horribly bad at assessing actual risk. That's why people are afraid of flying, but more people are killed per passenger mile when driving [observer.com] . A plane crash is much more dramatic, and hence, takes hold of people's fears and makes them go WAY out of their way to avoid it, even at the expense of actual safety. Same with the markets, terrorism, and thinking of the children with all our various "war on X" movements.

For totalitarian government everywhere (0, Troll)

KDN (3283) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799151)

I'm sure the Peoples Republic of China, North Korea, Cuba, etc, would love this program.

Re:For totalitarian government everywhere (4, Insightful)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799231)

I bet there is a chance we will see something like this in the US and not Cuba.

Re:For totalitarian government everywhere (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29800307)

Why is it that every single time a government, any government, does something ridiculous like this, people always blame the US and say they'll be getting it next Tuesday? I mean, sure, bash the US, but it's not the US that's got 1 camera for every 14 citizens, and it's not the US that's implementing this wacky scheme.

Re:For totalitarian government everywhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29800705)

It's the typical lefty response. Far, far easier to bash the U.S. than to admit that their country (which they've been touting as far superior in every way to that dismal pit the backwards, socially unenlightened troglodytes of America toil in) might in fact not be such a great place as it has a government that seeks to monitor their entire existence in order to keep them under its absolute control.

Re:For totalitarian government everywhere (1)

Ozlanthos (1172125) | more than 4 years ago | (#29803041)

We aren't all that far away though. There are cameras everywhere here in Eugene. Traffic cams, security cameras, hell, the front of Walmart has 8 or so of these HUGE cameras pointed at various sections of the parking lot. Kinda makes me feel like I am in prison and the cameras are there to protect Walmart from me.

-Oz

Re:For totalitarian government everywhere (1)

DarkMage0707077 (1284674) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800681)

Of course: Cuba doesn't yet have the financial resources to afford it.

Re:For totalitarian government everywhere (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801773)

Cuba can afford a cop on every corner.
The USA can afford a real Narus unit on your telco line and to run two political parties.
Nokia Siemens might give Cuba a good deal :)

Re:For totalitarian government everywhere (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800769)

Cuba has had it for years.

Re:For totalitarian government everywhere (1)

physburn (1095481) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801335)

Cuba couldn't afford the surveillance technology. Big government have been mining signals data for spying and counter spying since the second world war, and that doesn't bother me much. Its when the legal system/internal security, starts using this massive surveillance that I feel my privacy slipping away. INDECT sound like another massive government computing contract that will overrun its budget and fail its supposed purpose.

---

Privacy vs Surveillance [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.co]

Re:For totalitarian government everywhere (2, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799313)

And maybe UK too..

Oh, they are actually developing this.

If you think that's bad??? (2, Funny)

Erythros (140001) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799163)

Slashdotters should fear the upcoming SPERM program.

Surveillance
Program
Encompassing
Repetitive
Masturbation

I dread the day Big Brother puts SPERM on everyone.

Paranoid. (1)

Gudeldar (705128) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799233)

I'm not one who is usually prone to paranoid thinking but if they can do everything they claim then this is pretty scary.

Who the hell are they trying to catch? (4, Insightful)

Absolut187 (816431) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799287)

WTF is this??
We know that Osama Bin Laden is in Pakistan, yet we don't have him 8 years later.

Is this system going to track down terrorist training camps somehow??

I guess the next best thing to actually fighting terrorism (hard, scary) is to stomp on the privacy rights of passive citizens (easy, safe).

Re:Who the hell are they trying to catch? (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800351)

Two possibilities:

Osama isn't in Pakistan (or Afghanistan) at all - he's disappeared, or died, or retired to Florida to drink pina-coladas all day, or -
The security forces don't actually WANT to find him, as once they do there's no reason for them to continue in the region: Job done, game over, go home. And then what will they do to keep the contracts flowing to their friends in low places?

Re:Who the hell are they trying to catch? (2, Insightful)

Ronald Dumsfeld (723277) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800819)

Two possibilities:

Osama isn't in Pakistan (or Afghanistan) at all - he's disappeared, or died, or retired to Florida to drink pina-coladas all day, or - The security forces don't actually WANT to find him, as once they do there's no reason for them to continue in the region: Job done, game over, go home. And then what will they do to keep the contracts flowing to their friends in low places?

Osama Bin Laden is, truly, the modern-day Emmanuel Goldstein.

Re:Who the hell are they trying to catch? (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801523)

A third possibility:

The Rules of Engagement don't actually allow them to go after him.

Re:Who the hell are they trying to catch? (1)

Mike Rice (626857) | more than 4 years ago | (#29802201)

Oh yeah!

Osama!

OBL! Every one knows him around here!

Man, he's been partying it up here in Fort Myers for years. Usually you first see him around time for Spring Break, rolling into town in a caravan of Hummers and Greyhounds loaded with Turkish smoke and more jiggly girls than you can imagine, straight from Mardis Gras in New Orleens.

OBL isn't one for drinking Coladas though... he usually starts with a Margarita or two, then its on to Jack Daniels with coke, winding up with straight Jack (with extra Jack, on a really rowdy night).

He's only about 5 months older than me, but with his beard and all he looked a lot older. So I said 'OBL, you ought to clean it up a bit" Now he's lookin really sharp with his goatee. The chicks just love it, and you'll see often see them giggling as he adjusts his robes, for some reason.

Most people don't know he's an engineer, but around here he's got people all riled up about how badly designed are the I-75 and US-41 bridges across the Caloosahatchee. He's always going on and on about how those bridges are so fragile they could be taken out with a barge or medium sized aircraft.

When he's sober you'll often find him in Centennial Park playing chess. Someone told me he was going to join the chess club, but couldn't find a sponsor. That was a few years back. Not long after that the club went under.

Hmmm.

So anyway, just like Adolf, Pol Pot, the Bush family, and many other historical figures, he's found a new home here in the land of Sunshine and Perpetual Vacation, where life is just a party from December to May (or is it May / December).

Re:Who the hell are they trying to catch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29801019)

Oh look, the idiots run in packs...

Absolut187: WTF is this??
We know that Osama Bin Laden is in Pakistan, yet we don't have him 8 years later.

Hello? Hello? Anybody home? Huh? Think, McFly. Think!

Title says EU not US. EU not looking for Bin Laden. EU looking for ungood citizens committing thoughtcrime. EU looking for ungood citizens not love Big Brother.

petes_PoV: Two possibilities:

Osama isn't in Pakistan (or Afghanistan) at all - he's disappeared, or died, or retired to Florida to drink pina-coladas all day, or -

The security forces don't actually WANT to find him ...

Third possibility: Osama in tribal areas of Pakistan surrounded by people. People who consider Osama their guest. People who support him and keep him safe. People who are clannish and extremely untrusting of outsiders and those not of their tribe.

Outsiders going in to find Osama not easy. Not like going to downtown Anybigcity, Normalworld; looking up Osama Bin Laden in white pages, driving over to arrest him. No. Not like that. Not like that at all. Instead think Deliverance, but with little, brown murderous, raping hillbillies instead of tall, white, murderous, raping hillbillies. That's where Osama is.

Data poisoning (1, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799315)

So the solution here is to alter the statistical thresholds by injecting the database with data designed to catch random people's attentions and subject them to additional scrutiny. Maybe create a worm/bot that emulates a web browser and submits queries for words like bomb, president, allah, or whatever they're searching for. Fill their database with crap, and it'll become useless.

How did the police find out? (1)

bl968 (190792) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799395)

As any slashdot reader would already know, the document obviously had a RFID chip in it and that alerted security when it passed through exit to the building.

Re:How did the police find out? (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799549)

I say they simply skip a few steps and have each person marked on their forehead and right arm for easy identification.

Who Steals Paper Documents These Days? (1)

Chickan (1070300) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799421)

I worked a Coop with an employer that did government work and every time I'd leave I would have any printed documents I had on me looked over to make sure I wasn't stealing any information, yet my 4gb flash drive in my pocket, that could have held thousands of times more data than the weight of paper I can carry, was never searched. Even if they saw the flash drive on my key chain I was never questioned. And if the information in the video was so top secret it effected the security of the common person, why the hell was it sitting on top of a desk in an unlocked, empty room? Real data theft comes from employees and flash drives if anything, not printed documents and strange visitors with long hair that are allowed to roam free in a company. These security policies and BS technology videos just make CEO's and cops wet their pants, they don't really help solve any crimes or prevent theft of data. They especially don't prevent theft of data that could harm the average citizen.

Re:Who Steals Paper Documents These Days? (1)

The name is Dave. Ja (845139) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799923)

I worked a Coop with an employer that did

Was it a ...

wait for it

...

Chickan Coop

??


Complete at http://www.instantrimshot.com/ [instantrimshot.com]

---

Yup. Here all week.

Re:Who Steals Paper Documents These Days? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#29802029)

Depends on how they "prevent theft of data".
You get out with your files?
You spread them over the net
Your corp or gov would go over the logs of the names of x people who prepared a doc of interest in your 4gb liberation.
Templates, style, revisions might show more that antiword or catdoc can hide.
Its down to one person and an electronic trail of when the doc was accessed.
match up with id tags, cctv ect and they have an idea.
Your isp records are pulled
You might get depressed and be found later...
Your IP could be seen in the wild and a search warrant issued.
Your other 4gb flash drive might be packed full of other information for the court ....

Re:Who Steals Paper Documents These Days? (1)

Chickan (1070300) | more than 4 years ago | (#29802205)

Absolutely, so how would this INDECT system help that again? Its not like they would be able to see the USB stick in my pocket and scan the files remotely. There are plenty of legit ways of tracking IP theft, cameras everywhere is not one of them.

I hope they send a swat team (1)

thewils (463314) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799425)

When they find the guy who stole my bike.

Redundant... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29799655)

"The police proactively use this information to coordinate locating, pursing, and capturing the document recipient".

It seems to me that once the recipient has been pursed, capturing them is kind of redundant. Don't you already have them in a relatively small bag?

Sounds like a senseless collission of... (2, Insightful)

uuddlrlrab (1617237) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799705)

...security-technophilia, paranoia, directionless data aggregation, and nanny-state politics. Look, I'm all for security, and I hate terrorists, but you can't just throw millions of cameras at the problem, accrue massive amounts of civilian info without having a reason why, a vague and vaporous set of goals, and, to top it off, let a computer define what is or is not a "threat" instead of giving it solid guidelines and clear directives on what to search for. Yeah, that won't cause any problems. I'm honestly glad Orwell didn't have to live to see his dystopic literary nightmare-world start to take shape, only with the procedural policies on the level of the Underpants Gnomes.

  • 1. Install tons of cameras to monitor EVERYONE
  • 2. Aggregate colossal amounts of data from email & internet traffic, mobile phone services, etc, in violation of our citizens' rights
  • 3. Let a computer do the deciding on what poses an actual danger
  • 4. Fail to set any guidelines on what your agency is supposed to be doing, not to mention no limitations being set for said org to prevent abuse of power
  • 5. ???
  • 6. Profit!

I think INDICT is the word they are looking for (2, Funny)

cats-paw (34890) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799783)

I feel so warm and fuzzy that all of these governments are so concerned about my safety..

I think this is a great idea! (1)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799919)

This nice young politician, Harold Saxon [wikipedia.org] , explained to me why it was so important. Said if any terrorists did something horrible, like a UN scientific adviser or a member of a secret government organization went rogue, we could track them and get them before they did something bad.

Nice fellow, that Saxon. I'd vote for him. It's not like he'd use all that power for anything evil, would he?

Its the EU after all (0, Troll)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799975)

Its a group of socialist countries. What individual rights do you think you have there ?

So funny... (1)

Mysticalfruit (533341) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800077)

For some reason their acronym reads and sounds in my head like "Indecent".

Back to the old school (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800291)

So this is supposed to prevent crime by scanning the internet and mobile phones and other electronic stuff.

Well, I guess in that case the baddies will have to resort to the old fashioned way of doing badness without all these high-tech toys. Just like they successfully managed to do for hundreds of years. Luckily the EU is only planning on spending 15 million euros on this - over 5 years. So it won't matter very much when they discover the money's been wasted as the criminals go back to holding face-to-face meetings, writing letters and leaving handwritten notes for each other.

Try the Google method (1)

TheDarkener (198348) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800659)

If this kind of technology were made available to EVERYONE, there'd probably be a lot less resistance to it. It's the fact that these politicians, corporate entities and governments think they are above other people that, at least, tick *me* off the most.

The more technology, the fewer people needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29801631)

The more technology, the fewer people needed to help run the place.

When the few can control the many, you can kiss goodbye to democracy. Welcome these 'advances' at your peril.

It is happening now. Big business has been eyeing China for a few years now, and business without that pesky democratic nonsense is looking increasingly attractive to many of them.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...