Beta
×

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!

EU Surveillance Studies Disclosed By Pirate Party

timothy posted about 4 years ago | from the vee-simply-vish-ztu-observe-you dept.

Government 343

Spliffster writes "The German Pirate Party has disclosed some secret documents on how the EU is planning to monitor citizens. The so called INDECT Documents describe how a seamless surveillance could (or should) be implemented across Europe. The use of CCTV cameras, the Internet (social networks), and even the use of UAVs are mentioned as data sources. Two of the nine documents can be downloaded from the German Pirate Party's website (PDFs in English)."

cancel ×

343 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

SECOND (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33530982)

SECOND

NIGGER (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33530996)

NIGGER

Re:NIGGER (-1, Troll)

oliverthered (187439) | about 4 years ago | (#33531696)

I'm waiting for someone in California to translate his name into English and use his first initial. Then he could run for president.

This is why we vote Pirate (4, Insightful)

Local ID10T (790134) | about 4 years ago | (#33530988)

No thank you to the surveillance state... we have all seen Metropolis, and as cool as it was, we don't want to live there.

We? (0, Flamebait)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 4 years ago | (#33531096)

So, of which country are you queen? Or are you merely insane that you refer to yourself in the third person?

If not, stop talking for EVERYONE else. I might or might not agree with you, but have NOT given you permission to speak for me.

Odd that someone protests against a controlling society, yet then assumes control of the opinion of all humanity with a single statement.

Re:We? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33531106)

Calm down homey, you are reading way too much into this. You got some rage, find a way to work it out instead of overreacting here.

Re:We? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33531210)

u mad? :3

Re:We? (5, Insightful)

norpan (50740) | about 4 years ago | (#33531440)

Please don't monopolize the use of the word "we" to mean "EVERYONE". "We" could mean "me and my friend". It referers to a group of two or more people of which I am a member.

Re:We? (4, Insightful)

nashv (1479253) | about 4 years ago | (#33531622)

We is first-person plural, Einstein. Flaming Fail - no pun intended, but the alliteration was.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate (5, Insightful)

Compaqt (1758360) | about 4 years ago | (#33531182)

US: GPS scanners on cars
India: Blackberry keys/40-bit encryption
UAE: Etelisat certificate/man-in-the-middle
Germany: INDECT
UK: CCTV/Echelon

People everywhere are under attack by the armed gangs otherwise known as government. Then we have the gang union (UN)'s telecoms guy saying companies need to work with governments.

People need to stop fighting each other and unite against their own governments.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate (4, Interesting)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about 4 years ago | (#33531216)

I don't see how you can equate CCTV in the UK with the mess that the US has got itself into. Firstly, the oft-quoted 4 million cameras is a figure made up by one of the far-right tabloid newpapers based on the number of cameras in about a quarter mile of the main street of a fairly rough part of London. If that figure was even remotely accurate, you'd pass a CCTV camera every 50 metres or so on every road in the UK right down to farm tracks.

Here's the kicker. Every major city in the US has got just as much CCTV surveillance as London! Yes, you're "spied on" just as much in New York as you are in London, and you've got armed police ready and willing to shoot you, too. It must be awful living in the US, with that constant threat over you all the time.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate (5, Insightful)

Requiem18th (742389) | about 4 years ago | (#33531348)

Yes, it is, you can't even gather people without begging for permission to the government. It only seems like it is not an issue when you are a passive consumer working for the system. Try to even speak your mind against the government outside of a free speech cage in a way that doesn't make you look like a raving lunatic and you'll get the police sent after you.

http://youtu.be/akwjAjcQnqM [youtu.be]

Re:This is why we vote Pirate (5, Insightful)

LingNoi (1066278) | about 4 years ago | (#33531520)

Yes, it is, you can't even gather people without begging for permission to the government.

You'd prefer uncontrolled mass riots? Let me give you a clear example of what happens from one I recently experienced first hand in Thailand.

People gather [youtube.com] , everything is good, they're annoying but not causing any trouble. Splinter groups start getting violent [youtube.com] and causing trouble. They attack the police and military there to move them out with grenade launchers and ak47s. It turns into a full blown riot [youtube.com] with people getting killed and destroying property. Next you know, the whole city center is on fire [youtube.com] .

So cry me a river about your right to form mass uncontrolled protests without police planning and assistance.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate (5, Insightful)

rtb61 (674572) | about 4 years ago | (#33531602)

Arse about face much. Those riots are the result of a police state and by no stretch of the imagination do peaceful protest create the police state. When the state seeks to monitor all individuals all of the time it does so with the express intent of controlling those individuals all of the time. Express an undesirable opinion and get fired, company won't fire company loses lucrative contracts. Once fired never again gain a one of the few remaining middle class jobs and if that isn't enough all your relatives also lose their opportunities.

Now add random arrests based upon circumstantial digital evidence where the penalty is the imprisonment awaiting trial and the cost of the trial followed by a whoops and a rinse and repeat for another charge (each time it is repeated under public opinion the more likely you are guilty rather than innocent, now ain't that a kicker).

A surveillance society from the top down. First the politicians, then the police and then the rich and greedy. If they can tolerate their life under surveillance 24/7 visible by general public and not end up in prison within a couple of years, than we can start talking about the rest of society. First and foremost police officers should be made to wear head mounted cameras whilst on duty and with a strict enforcement policy that they are never to commence arrest operations until the camera has been activated, with greater power comes greater responsibility and greater accountability. If the police refuse why the fuck should we accept it.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate (1)

oliverthered (187439) | about 4 years ago | (#33531710)

welcome comrade.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33531418)

At least we have diversity in government. When are you English cads going to have a black royal. Our first black members of congress were seated in the 1800's, when are you getting a black Duke?

Re:This is why we vote Pirate (4, Informative)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about 4 years ago | (#33531458)

The royal family don't really have anything to do with government. They're more of a tourist attraction. I prefer the zoo, myself.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate (3, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 4 years ago | (#33531664)

The royal family don't really have anything to do with government. They're more of a tourist attraction. I prefer the zoo, myself.

I don't know about the UK but here in Australia the constitution is a thin booklet which basically says The Queen is in charge of Australia and may or may not decide to take advice from a Parliament which may or may not exist.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate (5, Insightful)

Custard Horse (1527495) | about 4 years ago | (#33531468)

At least we have diversity in government. When are you English cads going to have a black royal. Our first black members of congress were seated in the 1800's, when are you getting a black Duke?

That's a little simplistic. The royal family is a 'family' and no control can be exerted over them - they marry whomever they marry. Are you suggesting that the British public somehow force a non-white person into the family?

Moreover, there is no shortage of cultural diversity in the royal family. The queen is basically German her husband is Greek. Or do you only measure cultural diversity by the colour of somebody's skin? Shame on you.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33531462)

>>I don't see how you can equate CCTV in the UK with the mess that the US has got itself into.

In two cities I've worked in, red light / speeding cameras were blocked and/or removed by people who, well, hate traffic cameras. How's that working out for you guys in One Nation Under The Watchful Eyes?

Re:This is why we vote Pirate (1)

oliverthered (187439) | about 4 years ago | (#33531716)

happens over here too.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate (2, Interesting)

JambisJubilee (784493) | about 4 years ago | (#33531498)

and you've got armed police ready and willing to shoot you, too. It must be awful living in the US, with that constant threat over you all the time.

Sadly, this is true and one of the main reasons I'm afraid to move back to the US. The police are horribly corrupt. Cops can beat you, shoot you, steal your things, whatever. There is absolutely no recourse either, and the worst that can happen to a cop is for him/her to get paid leave.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate (1)

oliverthered (187439) | about 4 years ago | (#33531702)

walk into a shop or pub. I'd say 4 million is a little on the low side.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate (2, Insightful)

Ziekheid (1427027) | about 4 years ago | (#33531340)

How is INDECT Germany only? Also Echelon is a project from both the UK and the US. Your examples are a bit random dear sir.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33531466)

Echelon is Australia, Canada and New Zealand as well

Re:This is why we vote Pirate (2, Insightful)

Dumnezeu (1673634) | about 4 years ago | (#33531488)

Yes, he should have included ALL the surveillance methods ever used and ever to be used. Just a few scary samples isn't enough (at least for you...)

Re:This is why we vote Pirate (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | about 4 years ago | (#33531536)

Echelon : Is run by USA UK Canada Australia and New Zealand - But monitors everyone .....

INDECT is EU wide

CCTV is in many countries (and the UK is not the most covered)

Re:This is why we vote Pirate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33531494)

Haven't you ever heard of divide and conquer? As long as we're busy fighting each other the chances are lower that we'll start fighting them :)

Re:This is why we vote Pirate (2, Interesting)

VShael (62735) | about 4 years ago | (#33531526)

Two things : 1) The UK is hardly alone in being under the umbrella of Echelon.
2) Echelon now has about the same level of secrecy as Area 51. i.e. it's virtually entirely public knowledge at this point, and has been superseded by systems you have never heard of.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate (2, Interesting)

jandersen (462034) | about 4 years ago | (#33531538)

People everywhere are under attack by the armed gangs otherwise known as government.

Argh! Get a life already. You sound like one of those Tea Party Tossers who can see nothing good about society - in the "good old days" you guys seem to be longing for, you would have been called misfits or weirdos.

Try using your brains for once, assuming you've got some: Being seen by others is part of life, unless you are a recluse on a desert island. "Surveillance" as you call it gives you many benefits: if you crash with your car, chances are that you'll be helped by those nice folks known as paramedics; if you get mugged somewhere or your business is broken into, having a few CCTV cameras around can help put the bastards away, and so on.

It is not the monitoring that should worry you, it is the secresy. When information is kept away from public scrutiny, that is when criminals start infecting things. IMO monitoring is OK, but make the information freely available to the public; seeing how crap like Big Brother, Twitter and Facebook attract crowds, such a scheme might prove hugely popular.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate (2, Insightful)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 4 years ago | (#33531620)

Honestly, this isn't so much "gang known as government" as "gang known as intelligence community". Vast majority, in fact almost entire government is formed of various social workers, bureaucrats and so on. Even most police rarely have access, or even want such networks to exist, as they understand the consequences.

This is a small minority on top of the government, some intelligence agencies, largely with agreement from corporate heads, as without their support modern western government heads don't even sneeze nowadays.

And sad reality is, that due to the way our election system was perverted over the course of last century, we no longer choose our candidates. Big parties and corporate heads choose them for us. We just get to vote which of the choices is the better one in our opinion. People who actually want to represent people, rather then obey the system do not get high enough to matter. There are multiple failsafes in the political system to make sure of this.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33531636)

grow up little boy

Re:This is why we vote Pirate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33531338)

My question is simply this. Why? Does the government think the populace is going to go crazy and need constant monitoring? A fear of Zombies? Why is there a need to keep an eye on us all the time? If you make enough laws, everyone can be considered a criminal but this seems to be a case of severe paranoia. And of course the private ventures or bureaucrats and politicians with their fingers in the pot appreciate the growth industry that the public's taxes will pay for.

Re:This is why we vote Pirate (2, Informative)

muckracer (1204794) | about 4 years ago | (#33531648)

> My question is simply this.

> Why?

Because "Yes, we can!"

> Does the government think the populace is going to go crazy and need constant monitoring?

Yes.

> A fear of Zombies?

Yes.

> Why is there a need to keep an eye on us all the time?

Because "Yes, we can!"

> If you make enough laws, everyone can be considered a criminal but this seems to be a case of severe paranoia.

Yes.

> And of course the private ventures or bureaucrats and politicians with their fingers in the pot appreciate the growth industry that the public's taxes will pay for.

Yes.

Glad to be of help :-)

For what purpose? (2, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | about 4 years ago | (#33530990)

Surveillance is fine if theres World War 3 or a Cold War, but this level of surveillance to fight crime will make us all into criminals soon enough.

Re:For what purpose? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33531020)

*facepalm* Why would u go ahead and give them ideas? You think they are above starting a cold war, or even a real one to get their agenda through?

Re:For what purpose? (3, Insightful)

The Master Control P (655590) | about 4 years ago | (#33531454)

*cough*War on Some Drugs*cough*War on Terror*cough*War against Iraq*cough*

Re:For what purpose? (4, Insightful)

Kitkoan (1719118) | about 4 years ago | (#33531034)

Surveillance is fine if theres... a Cold War

Thats a slippery slope to tread. When mentioned under the right words, that could be used with concepts of the global power rise of China, the nuclear ambitions of Iran, ect... hell, enough spin and it could be used with consideration of the Taliban. Just need to frame it right to the correct people and suddenly your in a pseudo-Cold War with whom ever you can demonize enough (that is also unable to stand against you too much).

Re:For what purpose? (5, Interesting)

lanswitch (705539) | about 4 years ago | (#33531088)

I've skimmed through the first pdf. It looks like they are trying to build an Event Control system. Designed to control and identify people at large events, like soccer games. Some countries in Europe have a real problem with soccer hooligans. Or just plain riots, like the ones in France last year. It's the cops who want a system to identify the rioters. Seems logical to me, Jim.

But the government could mis-use it for anything they want. And that scares me, as a E.U. citizen.

Re:For what purpose? (3, Insightful)

Kitkoan (1719118) | about 4 years ago | (#33531110)

Business as usual in a big city would meet my description as a "large event" where people at like "hooligans" and can have riots (beyond Soccer games). And as you mentioned, it could be mis-used for anything they want. That much power is ripe for abuse and since it won't be monitored by the public, who can really say/report what it ends up truly being used for?

Re:For what purpose? (1)

Freultwah (739055) | about 4 years ago | (#33531706)

Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,

You spelt "atention" rong.

Re:For what purpose? (4, Interesting)

Spliffster (755587) | about 4 years ago | (#33531384)

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? A system like this makes anyone a suspect (a potential criminal), this is very 1984 like!

My government is not allowed to survey me until a judge order so. The described goals are to survey everyone. The authors of INECT are absolutely aware that they would trump human rights (and they see it more as an annoyance than an problem), this is why INECT is trying to keep this shit secret.

To some of the commenters above; this has not much to do with Germany itself but the EU. It was just the German Pirate Party which leaked the documents.

-S

Re:For what purpose? (3, Insightful)

PatrickThomson (712694) | about 4 years ago | (#33531700)

What about police guards at G8 protests, certain sporting events? Surely by turning up they are assuming guilt. Never mind that there is a 100% occurrence of violent incidents and they would be derelict in duty by staying home... What about bobbies on the beat in rough neighbourhoods where someone gets stabbed every week? Are they being offensively oppresive? Stop being so asinine.

Re:For what purpose? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33531524)

>>Some countries in Europe have a real problem with soccer hooligans.

Some countries also have problems with islamic radicals, but you don't see European countries making it illegal to speak out against islam, do you? Oh, wait. Never mind.

By applying the same logic, we should always let Manchester United win, right?

Re:For what purpose? (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | about 4 years ago | (#33531544)

Surveillance is fine if theres... a Cold War

or the possibility of a Cold War, or terrorist threat, or civil unrest, or anti-government protests, or crime, or dissenters, or another party ....

Re:For what purpose? (3, Interesting)

Superdarion (1286310) | about 4 years ago | (#33531066)

Would you rather see everyone as a criminal and with that screw the innocent or see everyone as innocent and allow crime to fluorish?

Regardless of what people say, any politician openly stating that they prefer the second option will have his carreer ended by the public.

What I just don't understand is why, if crime rates have been going steadily down for some decades now, do they feel like they need to be more invasive and offensive in their fight against crime. Maybe it's all related to politics (and that "maybe" answers only to scientific precision, though I'm pretty sure that's the reason behind it all).

Re:For what purpose? (1)

Kitkoan (1719118) | about 4 years ago | (#33531080)

What I just don't understand is why, if crime rates have been going steadily down for some decades now, do they feel like they need to be more invasive and offensive in their fight against crime

Because they see it as why settle for a low crime rate when they can (in bad logical theory) turn it into a no crime rate.

Re:For what purpose? (2, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | about 4 years ago | (#33531134)

What I just don't understand is why, if crime rates have been going steadily down for some decades now, do they feel like they need to be more invasive and offensive in their fight against crime

Because they see it as why settle for a low crime rate when they can (in bad logical theory) turn it into a no crime rate.

Only the crime rate includes victimless crimes. It's not like you or I decide what is or isn't a crime. It's not like crimes and laws are decided based on reason or logic or game theory, no thats decided based upon the morality of Christian churches and other moralists who think they know whats best for us, and by elites who want to protect their wealth and turf.

Everyone should be seen as innocent. (4, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | about 4 years ago | (#33531122)

As far as I'm concerned everyone is innocent until proven guilty. And we have too many crimes, not too many criminals. When you make everything that people like to do or have to do illegal you create excuses for surveillance.

Re:For what purpose? (3, Insightful)

chichilalescu (1647065) | about 4 years ago | (#33531434)

related to your last question. first of all, you get votes for shouting and pointing fingers, not for reasonable arguments.
second: in the past, the big, easy to get crimes were targeted. as time passes, the crimes that can still be comitted are much "better", and harder to catch, so more and more effort (read as invasive and offensive) is needed. ultimately, the best way to fight crime is to put everyone in solitary confinement :)

Re:For what purpose? (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | about 4 years ago | (#33531072)

Surveillance is fine if theres World War 3 or a Cold War

These unprecendented levels of surveillance are never acceptable. Yeah, we win a war on terror by being afraid of everything? We won the Cold War by declaring the War on Drugs(tm) while engaging in the Iran-Contra affair?

All words which come from the American mainstream media or its congress should be cause for mass-lynchings on Capitol Hill.

Listen up, congressmen. There are going to be a lot of pissed-off vets coming back from those wars. And they, along with the rest of the American populace, will fuck you up.

Re:For what purpose? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33531104)

This happened after Vietnam, and they didn't "fuck you up" then, what makes you think they magically will now?

Re:For what purpose? (1)

z0idberg (888892) | about 4 years ago | (#33531470)

Or during a "War on Terror" perhaps?

YES... come... do it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33531032)

Devalue life until newborns kill themselves.

It's interesting to see that.... (3, Interesting)

SwampChicken (1383905) | about 4 years ago | (#33531036)

... loitering has been classified as a "dangerous activity" in the EU.

Re:It's interesting to see that.... (1)

keeboo (724305) | about 4 years ago | (#33531132)

... loitering has been classified as a "dangerous activity" in the EU.

Now I'm curious... What does that mean exactly?
Is there some EU law against loitering now?

Re:It's interesting to see that.... (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | about 4 years ago | (#33531626)

Aren't there laws against loitering in the States as well?

A blueprint for a bright new future... (5, Insightful)

Jedi Alec (258881) | about 4 years ago | (#33531038)

I guess we should thank the German pirates for putting it out there so we can have a nice ruckus about it...before we forget about it again in a day or 2.

Slacker (2, Funny)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 4 years ago | (#33531102)

I can forget about it in 2 sec... ooh, Idols is on.

Re:Slacker (1, Offtopic)

FeepingCreature (1132265) | about 4 years ago | (#33531150)

Every time I come across a post of yours, I feel a vague, nick-based kinship. :-)

Not secret (0, Redundant)

Meneth (872868) | about 4 years ago | (#33531048)

Those documents aren't secret. They were released to the public by the INDECT project itself, ages ago. Right here! [indect-project.eu]

Re:Not secret (5, Informative)

ludwigf (1208730) | about 4 years ago | (#33531236)

Those documents aren't secret. They were released to the public by the INDECT project itself, ages ago. Right here! [indect-project.eu]

Look again. The "D1.1 Report on the collection and analysis of user requirements" is not public available though the link you posted.

Re:Not secret (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33531430)

Looks like you're one of the stupid people that make up INDECT's target "market", if you can't even look up a document on a list. D1.1 has never been publicly available until now.

Orwell (4, Interesting)

Superdarion (1286310) | about 4 years ago | (#33531052)

I wonder if forcing every single human being to read George Orwell's 1984 would prevent this sort of thing from happening.

Perhaps it's just that people don't realize what could go wrong with an Orwellian government in place. Perhaps they just don't see it, they don't think anything can go wrong if the government watches your every step.

Then again, perhaps people just don't care. As long as it's not them (and by "them" i mean the generations that currently live) who suffer it, they just don't give a damn.

I can tell from personal experience that many people don't care about stuff like that even if you tell them the consequences. Perhaps Big Brother is precisely what we, as a civilization, need in order to realize that it's a horrible thing to live like that. After all, experience is a good teacher.

Re:Orwell (4, Insightful)

Kitkoan (1719118) | about 4 years ago | (#33531062)

People in government do read 1984. They've just confused it from a warning to a guide/how to book.

To surveil man (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33531214)

People in government do read 1984. They've just confused it from a warning to a guide/how to book.

IT'S A COOKBOOK!!!

...er, no wait.

Re:To surveil man (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | about 4 years ago | (#33531334)

Best twilight zone episode ever.

Re:Orwell (3, Interesting)

Kuroji (990107) | about 4 years ago | (#33531452)

They also read Brave New World.

What they've found best is a mixture of Huxley and Orwell. Give the people their bread and circuses, and remove those who are unsatisfied by it.

Re:Orwell (1)

sco08y (615665) | about 4 years ago | (#33531312)

I wonder if forcing every single human being to read George Orwell's 1984 would prevent this sort of thing from happening.

First, you'd have to set up a network of government book reading camps...

Re:Orwell (3, Funny)

someoneOtherThanMe (1387847) | about 4 years ago | (#33531362)

I wonder if forcing every single human being to read George Orwell's 1984

I think we should force everybody. Of course, to be really sure they read it, they should do it in front of a camera. Moreover, the knowledge from the book has to be refreshed every now and then. Perhaps we should print some "Read your 1984 daily" flyers. Or force everybody to read at least a page every evening in bed. Of course, to be really sure they do it, we install cameras in their bedroom. I wonder what should do to those refusing to read it?

Re:Orwell (2, Interesting)

asnelt (1837090) | about 4 years ago | (#33531394)

Perhaps Big Brother is precisely what we, as a civilization, need in order to realize that it's a horrible thing to live like that. After all, experience is a good teacher.

The problem is, once we have it in place it is very hard to get rid of it. When the government watches your every step you cannot form a successful resistance. Even today it is prohibited to assemble a great crowd without letting the police force know about it (at least in Germany).

Re:Orwell (1)

emt377 (610337) | about 4 years ago | (#33531490)

I wonder if forcing every single human being to read George Orwell's 1984 would prevent this sort of thing from happening.

Security bureaucrats aren't the type of people who read books, other than maybe Stephen King and the latest spy/military novels. And if they were to read 1984 they wouldn't get it, anyway. Politicians do read, but they're impermeable read-only-minds and don't give a sh*t, so will continue to lie, deceive, throw both you and me under the bus, and make up pretexts and stories to get whatever it is they have their mind locked onto. A politician would read 1984 only for the purpose of figuring out how to tweak appearances to avoid similarity.

Re:Orwell (1)

SolitaryMan (538416) | about 4 years ago | (#33531604)

Perhaps Big Brother is precisely what we, as a civilization, need in order to realize that it's a horrible thing to live like that. After all, experience is a good teacher.

I have a couple of bad news for you, named Hitler and Stalin. Probable many more can get into this list.

If experience really did teach us something, this shit would not be happening right now at all.

wow (1)

dropadrop (1057046) | about 4 years ago | (#33531054)

I guess it's inevitable that something like this would pop up sooner or later, but still it just seems absurd. After reading through the document, they are trying to make a kind of an IDS system based on camera feeds... I guess if the camera's are already in place this could make them more useful (if I remember correctly the UK has not found their extensive camera network to be very useful as is?), but still this just feels so wrong.

Re:wow (3, Informative)

Nursie (632944) | about 4 years ago | (#33531186)

No, it hasn't proved useful in the UK. they became so ubiquitous that people don't care, the feed quality is bad enough that the recorded video is useless to the police or the courts, there are far too many feeds for anyone to be watching half of them and...

Well, it's that sort of a thing. I guess a lot of these could be 'remedied' by deploying modern CCD based cameras and using some sort of magical computer vision thing. But the main issue here is that it's been found that they jut don't reduce crime.

They may make it easier to catch people afterwards, but they don't actually prevent anything.

Re:wow (5, Insightful)

VShael (62735) | about 4 years ago | (#33531572)

"They may make it easier to catch people afterwards, but they don't actually prevent anything."

Just to emphasise, they may make it easier to catch *people*.
They do nothing to catch corporations obviously, though corporate crime is almost certainly a bigger threat to national security and well-being than any Joe Schmoe on the street.

In addition, by some strange coincidence, any time the police in the UK have been accused of misdeeds, (such as brutalising innocent members of the public) the relevant CCTV cameras have always been found to have been wiped/malfunctioning/looking in the wrong direction.

If street criminals have even 10% of the luck of these accused police officers, then the CCTV system is basically useless and pointless.
We'd be better off relying on members of the public and ubiquitous phone cams. At least *they* have caught the occasional police brutality incident. That makes them superior to the CCTV system in my opinion, and cheaper too.

It's really just a cover for SCORPION STARE (1)

SQL Error (16383) | about 4 years ago | (#33531076)

And I'd tell you what SCORPION STARE is a cover for, but then I'd have to kill you. And myself. In triplicate, with the blue copy to HR and the pink copy to accounting and...

other parties' reaction (1)

SanguineTeddy (1896718) | about 4 years ago | (#33531082)

You know what's really depressing? In a day or two (unless they hope the whole thing can just blow over), the other parties will attack this release of secret documents

End-User driven enterprise (1)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | about 4 years ago | (#33531094)

I gazed at the fancy jargon of "End-User driven enterprise" and resolved this must mean "Really, Make Up Your Minds And Tell Us What You Want Before Letting Us Write This Inconclusive Report, You Bunch Of Sorry Twats!" but without being too specific about it, thus tying oneself down.

Athors are from Slovakia (3, Informative)

rastos1 (601318) | about 4 years ago | (#33531108)

On the second page of the first document are listed the authors - apparently tied to university in town Kosice in Slovakia. On behalf of other citizens of this country, I apologize. May be we should remind them about events that happened over 60 years ago when Slovak National Uprising [wikipedia.org] happened and become the most significant activity of regular citizens against fascistic German army in Europe. This uprising happened despite the pro-German orientated government and would certainly not be possible with that level of surveillance as is proposed there.

Re:Athors are from Slovakia (1)

jack2000 (1178961) | about 4 years ago | (#33531368)

I guess some one should visit the authors and remind them of the freedoms they enjoy today.

They have an "ethics board" (5, Informative)

Animats (122034) | about 4 years ago | (#33531220)

The project has a 10-member "ethics board". [indect-project.eu]

  • 2 members are cops.
  • 1 member is a retired cop.
  • 1 member is a "human rights lawyer" who works for a police department.
  • 1 member is a criminologist
  • 4 members are involved in developing the technology.
  • 1 member is a professor of ethics at Oxford.

Re:They have an "ethics board" (1)

captainpanic (1173915) | about 4 years ago | (#33531510)

Sounds like an ethics board on which half its members think that security is more important than privacy, and the other half is so obsessed with technical gadgets that they forget about ethics altogether.

Why isn't there a someone from a court of human rights, or a privacy expert?

Business bad, gov good? (2, Insightful)

kwbauer (1677400) | about 4 years ago | (#33531254)

This story, Germany-To-Grant-Privacy-At-the-Workplace [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org] was about how great it was that Germany is making great strides towards banning a private business from monitoring the activities of its employees. Now, that same government seems to think that no amount of monitoring those same people is too much, as long as the benevolent government does the monitoring instead of the evil corporation.

Nice progress they are making over there. /sarcasm

Leaked internal information video (1)

Per Wigren (5315) | about 4 years ago | (#33531310)

If you still wonder what Indect is all about, take a look at their own information video [youtube.com] ...

Re:Leaked internal information video (1)

symbolic (11752) | about 4 years ago | (#33531388)

The funniest (and saddest) part of this is that someone actually thinks this will work.

Can't fool me (3, Funny)

Zoxed (676559) | about 4 years ago | (#33531322)

> (PDFs in English)

Ha ha, PDFs, nice try. You are not going to catch me out :-)

Meme version of headline would read... (1)

SeaFox (739806) | about 4 years ago | (#33531326)

In Pirate Germany, exposed Plan of Surveillance by EU!

Flamebait (4, Informative)

antientropic (447787) | about 4 years ago | (#33531336)

This is silly. The EU isn't "planning" anything. INDECT is an FP7 research project. So it's a bunch of universities and industrial partners that happened to get funding from the EU because the reviewers thought it was a scientifically interesting proposal. That doesn't mean anything the researchers come up with is EU policy. Besides, the EU doesn't have any authority or power whatsoever to impose a police state on its members.

(They have a FAQ [indect-project.eu] , by the way.)

Re:Flamebait (1)

jack2000 (1178961) | about 4 years ago | (#33531374)

The EU doesn't have to impose anythings, the countries here are happy enough to do everything by themselves...

Re:Flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33531402)

Besides, the EU doesn't have any authority or power whatsoever to impose a police state on its members.

I was under the impression that it was run by its members.

What?? (4, Informative)

captainpanic (1173915) | about 4 years ago | (#33531404)

I know FP7 projects. The EU is definitely interested in the outcome. They cost many millions of euros. It's not just an exercise.

Not all the outcomes of FP7 projects (or FP6 or older ones) will be used, but it shows a trend in which way the EU thinks that Europe should go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Framework_Programme#FP7_Specific_Programmes [wikipedia.org]

Part of the FP7 projects are quite fundamental, and therefore it is unlikely that they include "implementation", but the fact that they don't plan to implement this doesn't make me feel any more comfortable.

And the EU has LOADS of power to impose laws on its members. Already, the majority of laws in Europe come from Brussels... http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2009/06/what-percentage-of-laws-come-from-the-eu/ [jcm.org.uk]
And with the Lisbon "Treaty", the decision making in Brussels was recently streamlined to make it all a little faster.

Re:What?? (5, Informative)

Kiuas (1084567) | about 4 years ago | (#33531676)

You missed something extremely important there.

Already, the majority of laws in Europe come from Brussels

I'm sorry, but that is just flatout wrong.

The majority of trade laws and laws relating to agriculture/production come from Brussels. But even under the Lisbon treaty the EU has no power whatsoever to impose criminal laws on its member nations. Therefore, even if the EU wanted to force police-state like control over its citizens, it has no means of doing so. EU does try to promote international police co-operation through Europol but Europol is just an organazation transfering and managing information, it has no rights to do arrests or search homes etc - all it can do is try and help local police forces to locate wanted high-profile criminals by relaying information from foreign agencies.

Don't get wrong, I'm as worried as the next /. about these kinds of projects but despite all the scaremongering the EU isn't quite as scary as you seem to think it is.

secret (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33531352)

I suspect that the term "secret" is being misused here.

Bad summary (1)

lordholm (649770) | about 4 years ago | (#33531370)

The document is not an EU policy document. It does not describe how the EU wants to monitor its citizens. It is a research project under the seventh framework programme (i.e. a grant program where scientists can apply for Union grants for larger projects). As with all research, it will not necessarily be used by the EU or the member states.

Hardly Secret (1)

Dr. Hok (702268) | about 4 years ago | (#33531438)

These documents are "Dissemination: Public" and can be downloaded from INDECT's web site. GIYF.

Big conspiracy. Big deal. *Yawn*

it can't be! (1)

yyxx (1812612) | about 4 years ago | (#33531512)

Germany has strong privacy protections! They protect you from being photographed on public streets! Only the German can photograph, catalog, and track you, and as we all know, German governments have never abused that power! Certainly not in the last 100 years!

Only those... (3, Insightful)

NewtonsLaw (409638) | about 4 years ago | (#33531552)

Only those with something to hide have anything to fear...

That's why politicians are more than happy to have webcams in their houses connected directly to the internet for all the world to watch their activities.

Oh... what's that?

They're not happy to have webcams in their houses?

Hmmm... what does that mean I wonder?

I smell troll (1)

trifish (826353) | about 4 years ago | (#33531682)

surveillance could (or should) be implemented across Europe

So how is it? Could or should? That is a world of a difference. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't talk about it. Otherwise, you're just another troll.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?