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!

To Counter Widespread Surveillance, Stealth Clothing

timothy posted about a year ago | from the just-a-billion-dollars-apiece dept.

Privacy 104

In Paul Theroux's dystopian novel O-Zone, wearing masks in public is simply a fact of life, because of the network of cameras that covers the inhabited parts of earth. Earthquake Retrofit writes with a story at the New York Times describing a life-imitating-art reaction to the perception (and reality) that cameras are watching more of your life than you might prefer: clothing that obscures your electronic presence. "[Adam Harvey] exhibited a number of his stealth-wear designs and prototypes in an art show this year in London. His work includes a series of hoodies and cloaks that use reflective, metallic fabric — like the kind used in protective gear for firefighters — that he has repurposed to reduce a person’s thermal footprint. In theory, this limits one’s visibility to aerial surveillance vehicles employing heat-imaging cameras to track people on the ground. He also developed a purse with extra-bright LEDs that can be activated when someone is taking unwanted pictures; the effect is to reduce an intrusive photograph to a washed-out blur. In addition, he created a guide for hairstyling and makeup application that might keep a camera from recognizing the person beneath the elaborate get-up. The technique is called CV Dazzle — a riff on 'computer vision' and 'dazzle,' a type of camouflage used during World War II to make it hard to detect the size and shape of warships."

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

The Emperor's New Clothes? (4, Funny)

auric_dude (610172) | about a year ago | (#44147255)

Can't quite see it myself.

Re:The Emperor's New Clothes? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44147275)

Maybe we can get rid of the fucking cameras and make the niggers wear this bullshit so we dont have to see their ugly big flat noses and nappy hair and welfare applications.

Re:The Emperor's New Clothes? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44147339)

Can't quite see it myself.

Me neither. All I see is a login screen.

Re:The Emperor's New Clothes? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44147529)

Just wear a dress like I do at weekends

This is a good thing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44148645)

I think that this is going to be a wonderful addition to our new wardrobe. I call on all fashion designers to get with current tin foil hat makers, and come up with ways to make this popular.

Disclaimer: I myself, am a conceptual tinfoil hat maker. I have everything to gain by this...

Emporer's New Clothes (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44147309)

... and then you'll walk around with a cell phone? You've "chipped" yourself.

No masks in FL (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44147317)

In Florida and other states it is illegal to wear masks or otherwise conceal your identity while in public. This may have been a reaction to the KKK during the civil rights period.

Re:No masks in FL (5, Informative)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#44147351)

Yes Canada is wanting to ban masks too, just for riots~ “unlawful assembly” - you face 10 years.
http://rt.com/news/canadians-ten-years-protesting-masks-965/ [rt.com]

Canada bans masks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44150379)

The law does allow exceptions for those who are able to prove they have a “lawful excuse” for concealing their face, such as for religious or medical purposes.
 
How about "it's fucking cold!"?
 
Who gets to define "unlawful assembly"?

Re:Canada bans masks (1)

smash (1351) | about a year ago | (#44151113)

Who gets to define "unlawful assembly"?

The people you are protesting about, silly!

Re:No masks in FL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44152069)

are they gonna start with the masks the cops wear?

Re:No masks in FL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44152221)

... the masks the cops wear ...

On the good side, the peaceful protestors will be able to unmask the undercover cops. Extra points for uploading their photo to tumblr.com

Re:No masks in FL (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44147453)

Not if you are an Islamic woman wearing the niqab [wikipedia.org]

Re:No masks in FL (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44148387)

Um, in your link the case involved getting a driver's license photo. And the courts upheld that one could be required to remove the niqab for the privilege of driving. So what point are you trying to make? Something about Muslims getting special treatment I'm sure. Unfortunately, the moderators seem equally biased.

Re:No masks in FL (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#44147625)

What's your point? I didn't see any masks in TFA.

Re:No masks in FL (2)

TheBilgeRat (1629569) | about a year ago | (#44155139)

They did have a pop up picture showing a hairstyle and makeup application designed to defeat facial recognition software. I would rather be ID'ed than wear the hairstyle, but the makeup pattern was kinda cool.

Re:No masks in FL (2)

edxwelch (600979) | about a year ago | (#44147827)

so what do the kids do at halloween?

Re:No masks in FL (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year ago | (#44149341)

Have you seen people from Florida? It's the night they leave off the makeup.

Re:No masks in FL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44147961)

Governments just can't stand freedom or privacy. Don't like public surveillance? Too bad! There is no privacy in public! Want to conceal your face and/or body? Time to ban the wearing of masks while in public! Can't have people wearing certain clothing now, can we?

Re:No masks in FL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44148899)

Technology is not an answer when politicians and legislation are the problem. Burglar alarm is may work preventing burglars but not the SWAT team.

The actual solution is only to work towards eliminating ALL surveillance for ALL reasons. Surveillance to prevent shop lifting didn't take eons to morph into what we have today, did it?

Those who are so dreadful of something bad happening and wishes to have Surveillance to prevent that can leave this planet.

Re:No masks in FL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44149567)

Hardened doors, windows, and even walls to prevent intrusion by wayward cars, burglars, and weather will do wonders to keep the SWAT team out.

Re:No masks in FL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44149287)

Wearing masks is protected conduct under the First Amendment. See for details.

Re:No masks in FL (1)

DriveDog (822962) | about a year ago | (#44155305)

Hmmm... does that apply to burqas?

Heat reflective clothing? (4, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#44147321)

That's really going to go over well in August. Heat reflective clothing could be deadly.

Re:Heat reflective clothing? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44147537)

That would be cool, wear a Fresnel lens and aim it at whatever weapon being used against you.

They only come out at night [youtube.com]

Re:Heat reflective clothing? (1, Funny)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year ago | (#44147617)

It may be possible to create a fabric that doesn't let thermal radiation escape, but lets the air through so convection can cool the wearer. That would actually be worthy of an article.

Re:Heat reflective clothing? (5, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#44147671)

It may be possible to create a fabric that doesn't let thermal radiation escape, but lets the air through so convection can cool the wearer

Cooling is the removal of heat. Your air conditioner blows hotter air out its exhaust than it blows cold inside. Either you'll be seen or will get rapidly hot.

Firefighters' gear keeps the firefighters cooler than they would without it because the heat their bodies generate isn't as hot as the surrounding air. Too long in that gear and they suffer from heat exhaustion.

Re:Heat reflective clothing? (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year ago | (#44148105)

It's not the flow of heat that can be seen, only heat radiation. Which is not the only way to transfer heat. There's a huge difference between directly imaging a 36C hot body or only seeing the surrounding air being a couple degrees warmer. That's much harder to catch.

Cooling is the removal of heat.

Care to back your argument with more than tautologies?

Re:Heat reflective clothing? (1)

Chrontius (654879) | about a year ago | (#44148819)

Does evaporating sweat - water vapor with a predictable salinity with predictable organic contaminants - have a distinctive spectral profile?

If so, throw a second (filtered or specialized - UV and broadband IR can both also defeat camouflage) camera on the surveillance platform and look for mismatches. Where you find an anomaly, you've probably just found someone trying to hide, and any half-decent program can automatically spot, mark, and flag for human review such anomalies.

Re:Heat reflective clothing? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year ago | (#44149409)

Does evaporating sweat - water vapor with a predictable salinity with predictable organic contaminants - have a distinctive spectral profile?

If salt is boiling I think you have more important things to worry about. Like who just nuked you.

Re:Heat reflective clothing? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#44149257)

You may be seen but you won't be identified, which is the point. As long as the heat is vented in a way that obscures identifying details like facial features mass surveillance can't track you.

Re:Heat reflective clothing? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year ago | (#44149399)

Radiation moves in straight lines. Warm air doesn't. The air will be at a lower temperature than the body it's cooling. Finally the air is diffuse and moving in a direction which is unlikely to be directly towards the sensor.

Look at an A10 Warthog. It has turbofan engines, and they're placed where they are for a reason (and it's obviously not aesthetics).

Re:Heat reflective clothing? (3, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44147817)

It may be possible to create a fabric that doesn't let thermal radiation escape, but lets the air through so convection can cool the wearer. That would actually be worthy of an article.

man, that would not only be worth of an article that would be worth of a nobel prize.

(yes, you can create something that blocks radiation but still breathes, problem is that "breathing" air still shows up on the IR cam. I suppose it would be possible to have forced air cooling that would spread the heat far enough to not make a blip on the IR camera though)

Re:Heat reflective clothing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44147975)

Supposedly the tail design of the F-117 was to spread the exhaust out so that it was harder to spot on IR.

Re:Heat reflective clothing? (1)

dead_user (1989356) | about a year ago | (#44149871)

And it works. I saw a marine stand within 10 feet of the exhaust while the F117-A was prepping for takeoff at an airshow in Florida a few years back. You could see the heat coming out of the vents, but it was similar to the shimmer coming off a highway. It was nothing like the cone of pure fury coming out of the F-16's. In the air they run quite a bit hotter but still nothing compared to, say, flares. The F-177 was really quiet, too. Very impressive machine.

Re:Heat reflective clothing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44153775)

And it works. I saw a marine stand within 10 feet of the exhaust while the F117-A was prepping for takeoff at an airshow in Florida a few years back.

His engines must have ben idling very slowly, because when I was in the USAF working on the flightline I got behind a B-52 that was starting to taxi. I was a good fifty feet away and it almost blew my tractor over. Ten feet from a jst engine will ruin your hearing; the ground power generators for C5-As had F-16 engines in them, and even with ear protection they were earsplittingly loud.

I don't think you saw what you thought you saw.

Re:Heat reflective clothing? (1)

zipn00b (868192) | about a year ago | (#44158083)

There's quite a bit of difference between the engines of a B-52 and a F-117. Never been close to the latter but yes the B-52 engine is incredibly impressive at close distances - especially all 8 of them at full throttle. Was on the wing of one of those beasts once on a flightline while another was doing touch and go and hit full throttle quite near the stationary one and while I didn't get blown off (not THAT close) there was quite a bit of movement of the plane I was on.
With the baffles that the F-117 engine exhaust goes through I've no doubt that you could be much closer to it although at 10 feet I'd say it's unlikely the aircraft was at full throttle as it would still probably blow him off his feet and possibly burn him.
Had a small I think it was an Italian built trainer fire up the engine while I was close enough my boots started heating up before I realized that aircraft was the one starting up. If the aircraft had been positioned so the exhaust hit somewhere besides my feet it would most likely have been quite uncomfortable rather quickly. I was somewhat closer than 10 feet from it and got hot feet and moved before it had throttled up much.......

Re:Heat reflective clothing? (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year ago | (#44166279)

And it works. I saw a marine stand within 10 feet of the exhaust while the F117-A was prepping for takeoff at an airshow in Florida a few years back. You could see the heat coming out of the vents, but it was similar to the shimmer coming off a highway. It was nothing like the cone of pure fury coming out of the F-16's. In the air they run quite a bit hotter but still nothing compared to, say, flares. The F-177 was really quiet, too. Very impressive machine.

I believe the exhausts (which are classified, and the marine was standing there to enforce no-picture-taking) actually mix in a lot of ambient air which cool it down without impacting the flow (jet engines work by moving air very fast, while propellers move a lot of air very slowly).

This is, of course, to ensure that you can't simply target it with a standard heat-seeking missile or try to do a heat signature search.

And yes, it won't be full throttle - the jet blast will blow him away. But the point is to cool the hot air by simply moving a helluva lot of ambient air so the hot air is mixed in with the cooler ambient to reduce thermal signature.

Re:Heat reflective clothing? (1)

unrtst (777550) | about a year ago | (#44149091)

problem is that "breathing" air still shows up on the IR cam.

I'm not disagreeing completely with your statement, but the mythbusters showed that simply holding up a bed sheet in front of you will hide you completely from a typical IR cam. Engineering normal-ish looking clothing that does the job would be quite a feat, but if we drop the simple convection limitation and add a small bottle of compressed coolant it'd be quite feasible.

Re:Heat reflective clothing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44149139)

That's a motion detector not a camera that can see in IR. Motion detector only look at the changes in overall IR "brightness" over time.

Re:Heat reflective clothing? (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about a year ago | (#44150095)

Of course it does and there's a simple reason for that. What you've done is put up a wall of a different temperature between the subject and the camera. Was the camera sensitive enough to show what happened when the person let go of the sheet? Just holding the bed sheet leaves latent heat spots on the fabric which fade over a minute or two.

The key here is that convection on one side prevented heat transfer onto the sheet. This doesn't happen with cloths. Well actually it does to some extent. Have you seen someone on a hot summers day grab their shirt and start flapping it in an attempt to get airflow past it? They wouldn't have to if their shirt was a sheet away from the body.

The problem with clothing is it doesn't leave the heat anywhere to go, so the heat dissipates in the clothing which ultimately causes it to show up on IR. Your bed sheet is breathing cold air, but if you wrapped yourself in the sheet it'll be breathing warm air very quickly.

Mythbusters is right but so is the post you are replying too, they are just two different applications of the same theory.

Re:Heat reflective clothing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44148463)

From the people that brought you, "Jump, right before the elevator hits bottom..."

Re:Heat reflective clothing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44147651)

Heat reflective clothing could be deadly.

Just wear it inside out...

Re:Heat reflective clothing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44155297)

I'm confused (not a new thing). Wouldn't reflecting heat AWAY make you cooler? Like those reflective things I put behind my windshield?

Useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44147349)

Seems like this would be totally ineffective. All that heat your body is producing has to go somewhere. Its just going to escape from the gaps in coverage left by the clothing design, or just eventually heat up the metal in the clothing to virtually the same as your body temperature. I don't think someone with an IR camera would have a hard time finding you. It may obscure your heat signature a bit, but it will still be very visible.

Re:Useless (2)

Oligonicella (659917) | about a year ago | (#44147833)

You can see this in the video. The subjects' heads and stomachs start glowing more brightly as the person dons the piece. The really buff guy's heat shifts to his face and arms almost immediately. So you have your program look for a shorter block with a beacon shining above it.

If facial detection programs that clip the hair off first aren't already out there, my guess is they're close at hand so I don't think the greasy twirls will do much for long.

The handbag gadget seemed functional though.

Re:Useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44148961)

The handbag gadget seemed functional though.

For smartphone cameras and crappy 'point and click' styles sure. For a professional camera... no. You can toss a filter on the lens and be perfectly fine, and even if it starts messing with the auto-focus and auto-contrast... you can just set to manual mode.

Practical ideas, but not the best solution (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44147385)

His ideas seem practical - the IR cloaking and paparazzi-blinding ones, at least. But I think CCTV/Face Recognition is a problem that we should find a legislative solution for.

We, as privacy-loving people, should be able to come up with a convincing argument that the cost of deploying such a network is greater than the benefit.

We could then push to prevent the federation of wider networks (one network per police precinct, for example, so that police can still use them to prevent or prosecute crime, but noone could track movement over a whole city or whole country). Or, allow their use for investigation of crime after the fact, but not active monitoring: systems must be designed in a way that only lets them keep recordings for 48 hours and would not include any network connectivity equipment. If a crime occurs, police can go to the relevant camera and pull the tapes; otherwise, the camera dumbly continuously overwrites.

The surveillance implementations of modern computers are a problem that needs to be addressed in as many was as possible. While legal limits are only as good as the will to enforce them, they are an important way to codify the moral problems created by cheap computers.

As it is my pessimistic side thinks that the only way we'll have proper privacy protection is after a widespread systematic official program of surveillance against some group is revealed, and is proven to cause direct harm to that group's other basic rights and physical security. In other words, we'll only work to limit networked spy technology after it is abused, not before.

LEGAL SYSTEM did this in the past (1)

bussdriver (620565) | about a year ago | (#44147709)

Simple rule based policy solutions (if the legal still system functions:)

Abuse of rights severe enough make you immune from conviction. This has been eroding but works quite well.

Proper rules regarding these new powers can curb their abuse. Say they do listen to everything you do; if they are never able to convict you on that evidence (inadmissible, no warrant) then they will still continue to do it but you will be protected to some degree. Obviously, more rules would be needed and no matter what one does you still could draw attention to yourself so then they can fish for something they can legally use against you.

Re:LEGAL SYSTEM did this in the past (-1, Redundant)

ZALTA888 (2968617) | about a year ago | (#44147813)

[almutakhasses.com] Personal Branding [dougleschan.com] [nile7.com] [nile7.com] [nile7.com] [nile7.com]

Re:Practical ideas, but not the best solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44148059)

Right, Codify the problem, and lock it up with metadata for the info monopolists. Sure, that'll work. Well, it might buy a few votes, and, more importantly, some significant campaign donations from industry and industry-front PACS.

Re:Practical ideas, but not the best solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44148575)

We, as privacy-loving people, should be able to come up with a convincing argument that the cost of deploying such a network is greater than the benefit.

It's called 'pork' - the cost is the benefit (to the businesses implementing it)

Re:Practical ideas, but not the best solution (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about a year ago | (#44152093)

Someone suggested sewing infra-red LEDs into the brim of a baseball cap to throw off facial recognition / CCTV cameras.

The bright light from your head will make you look like the Second Coming on footage, though. Plus, IR filters :-\

The best defence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44147389)

Scramble suits.

Maybe if they make it look less stupid (0)

rebelwarlock (1319465) | about a year ago | (#44147391)

I assume this is here because they assumed geeks would find it cool to look like a fucking shadow runner, but if you show up wearing that horse shit at a job interview anywhere other than Hot Topic, don't expect a call back.

Re:Maybe if they make it look less stupid (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#44147563)

That's not unique to this goal though. Almost anything I see touted as "fashion" looks fucking ridiculous. Maybe that's a sampling error, as someone who ignores fashion intentionally, I maybe only see the weird shit.

As far as job interviews, that's a weird standard. You wear a suit and tie or whatever it is women wear to job interviews. You hand someone a piece of paper with most of your identifying information on it. Stealth is not the goal there. You'd wear this stuff walking down the street to avoid targeted advertising like in minority report, not into a job interview, obviously.

Target Identified (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44147409)

It is the one person with the bright LEDs or wearing a hoodie on a hot summer day.

Nice try, but law enforcement techniques are always improving too. And that is why they are kept secret to prevent people like this from coming up with countermeasures.

Re:Target Identified (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#44147609)

From my understanding, the LEDs in question are infrared, invisible to the eye. They're meant to foil infrared cameras "night vision." Wearing them in the day would be pointless, and at night, you still wouldn't see the LED light.

The idea is similar to a zebra's stripes: one individual using such measures highlights that individual, which is counterproductive, however MANY individuals using it makes it hard to target a single individual. If everyone on the street is wearing the hip new hoodies, law enforcement would have to, I dunno, get a proper warrant with evidence to keep tabs on a suspect rather than just keeping tabs on everyone at all times.

This isn't really against law enforcement anymore than the bill of rights is opposing law enforcement.

Re:Target Identified (1)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | about a year ago | (#44147689)

From my understanding, the LEDs in question are infrared, invisible to the eye. They're meant to foil infrared cameras "night vision." Wearing them in the day would be pointless, and at night, you still wouldn't see the LED light.

This will still work during the day, mostly -- the majority of cameras out there lack IR filters and show it as purple. Bright enough LEDs would almost certainly be able to wash out a picture.

Re:Target Identified (1)

Chrontius (654879) | about a year ago | (#44148847)

As I recall, the LED purse fires a pulse in response to a camera flash; as a result, the camera can't compensate by dialing down the aperture or exposure and giving you a grainy, but usable, photo. It also doesn't burn through thirty watts continuously, but only in response to an attempt at flash photography. This will do good things to your battery life, otherwise, plan on carrying around a big damn battery [homedepot.com] to run the thing for more than half an hour.

Germany (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44147413)

Hahah, covering up your face has been forbidden here for quite a while. Welcome to 1984!

Re:Germany (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44148981)

Hahah, covering up your face has been forbidden here for quite a while. Welcome to 1984!

What, nobody wears makeup or a wig in Germany?

The best way to mask your identity is to not look like you're masking your identity. If you could get enough consensus among the population so that simply wearing a mask wasn't unusual, then you'd have enough people behind you to do something about the Laws which make it necessary to wear them.

Dont hide, have fun (2)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#44147421)

Draw attention to yourself with the most imaginative draft emails you can for your state, county, regions and wait.
Save them with one of the big brand accounts - the ones that have been in the news.
Suddenly take your cell battery out for hours. Save emails to the press as drafts and connect to at cafes in the CBD.
Local Feature Analysis (LFA) will get your face in a country with the population the size of the USA in a very short time.
If the CCTV cant get your face, you will noted and get to enjoy a nice random stop-and-frisk at an exit or park or street.
Welcome to the new world of gait signature if that fails.
http://rt.com/news/identify-walk-system-britain-668/ [rt.com]

Re:Dont hide, have fun (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#44149269)

Welcome to the new world of gait signature if that fails.

Easily foiled by randomly stabbing yourself in the leg every morning.

Re:Dont hide, have fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44149623)

Small pebbles in your shoes or even bunched up parts of your socks will alter your gait quite a bit.

Every day will be Mardi Gras/Halloween (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44147441)

in places like Sili Valley. It'll be the Glassholes chasing after the Tin Hats, and you'll have some of the self-body monitoring crowd in there too.

Just another example of digital technology making our lives better.

The tinfoil hat (5, Funny)

Joshua Fan (1733100) | about a year ago | (#44147459)

Now made fashionable.

Real public camouflage: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44147491)

Blue jeans, tee shirt, baseball cap, wrap around shades, short beard. You'll look like everyone else.

Re:Real public camouflage: (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44147649)

Blue jeans, tee shirt, baseball cap, wrap around shades, short beard. You'll look like everyone else.

yeah. shades and beard actually foil automatic face recognition.

much better than wearing a tinfoil coat anyways.

Re:Real public camouflage: (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year ago | (#44147663)

then women in your town look funny

I can see the headline already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44147579)

"Artist imprisoned for helping terrorists"

The sad thing is I'm probably not even joking.
People would seriously blame him if a terrorist used this in some plot to attack somewhere.
And he'd likely be imprisoned too. (for using WMDs probably. and human trafficking or some other nonsense)

Stealth mode (1)

hoboroadie (1726896) | about a year ago | (#44147623)

When you are invisible, you have to be extra cautious around traffic.
The hoboroadie knows many things, for he walks by night. Mwahahahaha.

HI (-1, Offtopic)

ZALTA888 (2968617) | about a year ago | (#44147825)

[almutakhasses.com] Personal Branding [dougleschan.com] [nile7.com] [nile7.com] [nile7.com] [nile7.com]

And another BS that will not work (1)

gweihir (88907) | about a year ago | (#44147859)

It will make somebody a bit of money though, because most people are clueless

Reminds me of William Gibson (1)

jonwil (467024) | about a year ago | (#44147861)

In one of his books there is a special t-shirt that makes the wearer invisible to surveillance cameras.

Re:Reminds me of William Gibson (1)

auric_dude (610172) | about a year ago | (#44148135)

William Gibson, Zero History 2010 "The ugliest t-shirt in the world.".

Re:Reminds me of William Gibson (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year ago | (#44149455)

A close second [frontrowcrew.com]

Hole in the O-Zone Layer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44147927)

I'm having one of those quantum leap moments where I distinctly recall having read a topically relevant, in an Arab Spring, Anonymous, sort of way, Theroux travelogue titled, IIRC, "Walking Through Egypt" or somesuch. However, it doesn't seem to be listed on his web site. Curious. Curious, indeed.

"O-Zone" I regard as prophetic, if wildly understated, not "dystopian". Post-apocalyptic, maybe. "Future History" redux.

I don't worry, though. If IGDisneyCocaFarben actually Googles up an actual all-knowing, all-powerful AI God, a real one, not just some sufficiently complex, Turing capable simulacrum, we're at least as likely to end up with Mark Forer as Colossus, Hal9K, or some digital Moloch. Much to the chagrin of Mammon. Or Brother Scudder. For the pious among us, The Almighty has a plan, you see. Do not be decieved by appearances or mere verbiage.

In the meantime, if you don't care for every crook and busybody with the cash to pay, from the ruling elites, to PACS, to the IRS, down to the neighborhood loan shark or used car dealer, having God-like access to every detail about you, your life, your associations, etc., you should keep every option available open to yourself. However goofy or impractical, as the case seems to be here. Might as well carry a sign. "Don't look! Nothing to hide here!"

unintended consequence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44148071)

Follow the bright reflective spot in the crowd

Muslims are ahead of the game... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44148301)

How about an nice fashionable burqa? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa)

Re:Muslims are ahead of the game... (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about a year ago | (#44148349)

yeah and they get automatic exemption to any current or proposed facecovering bans else the fucking religion card gets played.

Re:Muslims are ahead of the game... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44150343)

The reason is hydrocarbon supply. Prove the fsck otherwise.

Commercializing Paranoia (1)

Tempest451 (791438) | about a year ago | (#44148421)

I see the tin foil hats will be all the craze this fall.

No-one saw it coming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44148545)

http://bookre.org/reader?file=252744
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_Attraction

Interesting that no-one mentioned anything too practial, either.
In other news, East-Asian gangsters usually wore hats when committing crimes so that "the gods wouldn't see them doing evil deeds". We are, therefore, reaching a mythological level of fantastic reality. And, overtaking it. On overdrive.

They have ... (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#44148557)

... a countermeasure for your countermeasure. Just try going out in public in your Trayvon Martin brand hoodie.

Dazzle on Warships (4, Informative)

nukenerd (172703) | about a year ago | (#44148735)

FTFA :- "'dazzle,' a type of camouflage used during World War II to make it hard to detect the size and shape of warships."

It was first used in WW1; pink, black, white, and lime green in jagged stripes and patches, together with rigged canvas jagged shapes between the funnels and masts to try to confuse enemy optical rangefinders. Another trick was to paint the profile of a smaller ship on the side of a larger one.

Re:Dazzle on Warships (1)

jm007 (746228) | about a year ago | (#44149137)

saw that too... you beat me to it :-)

I don't always counter-surveillance... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44148923)

but when I do, I obtain products whose release venue was an art show!

...

On a serious note... dear NSA (1)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | about a year ago | (#44149055)

Dear NSA,

This is what you get when you think you know so much more and so much more deeply than Joe and Jane Average and feel like it's your privilege to unilaterally impose on them your secret interpretation of law ....and then they find out.

If you had asked , if you had been forthright and made your case honestly in the court of public opinion, supposing that people were convinced by your reasoning, these kinds of problems wouldn't be burying on you now.

In the event they weren't so convinced, then maybe that's telling you something, like, perhaps you're wrong in a direction and a magnitude that is a function of your unique job stresses.

If you had a little faith in the post -enlightenment, fuck that , the post Magna Carta view that the majority of people people have a right to due process and their understanding of complicated issues deserves to be addressed then the use of encrypted email and encrypted surfing wouldn't be skyrocketing right now, creating logistical and computing headaches even for you.

I have heard Snowden causally called "narcissistic" by commentators on TV who apparently barely grasp what that concept refers to. In fact, if there's a narcissist in the house, I humbly suggest to the individuals within your organization who have gilded themselves in this secrecy and who have sought for and found ways to deceive the American public "for their own good" that those individuals look in the mirror.

Because assuming you are inherently more competent, in fact uniquely and solely competent, to decide how these issues before us ought to be handled (the merely pro-forma, rubber-stamping flotilla of conservative cronies in the FISA court notwithstanding ) is pretty symptomatic of narcissistic personality disorder.

And deciding unilaterally that other people whose lives you effect have no right to know how you might effect them, whose highly personal information you gather and analyze and flag and then , with the blessing of same FISA court peer into are beneath a frank, thorough and truthful discussion of the wheres and hows and whys of same, well, deciding those things unilaterally and being dismissive of input from other sources is pretty symptomatic of narcissistic personality disorder.

And when asked about any of this, stonewalling and lying and attacking the truth tellers amongst us who point out what you're doing- when it comes right down to it, doing outside of the view of democratic process you're sworn to defend - is pretty symptomatic of narcissistic personality disorder.

I used to defend you, but even I am deciding you've erred; you've gone off the tracks at the very least, by attempting to unilaterally force down people's throats that which is necessary, without first making a case for it and worse, believing they could never understand.

You've failed utterly to engage the people whose consent you ultimately need, if not according to your secret interpretation of law, then in fact, in reality.

Whoever told you that to ask for forgiveness is a lot easier than to ask for permission lied to you .There may be no forgiveness in the hearts of people if "trust" is taken as the relevant form forgiveness in this case. Now THAT is serious and long-lasting damage to national security.

And what is all this costing you? And what is that going to cost you going forward? And what is that going to cost us all going forward?

I share your frustration about people. A lot people are reality-denying idiots, and sworn to it to the bitter end. But no democracy can survive acting as though the majority of the public is such.

And we cease to be a democracy when our officials not just mutter that amongst themselves in contempt disgust and frustration, but start to act on it.

Re:On a serious note... dear NSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44152019)

America died a long time ago. The days of going out into the world with tattered clothing and serving your fellow man and having an equal share of all the wealth this country had to offer are long gone.

It has been carved and divied up. And while modern man has many things the slaves of old did not. We are still a enslaved. And whether we succeed or fail has nothing to do with our will and skill.

We are being punished because the only means of wealth in this land are power and control. Knowledge is power. Know all see all control all.

Remember that next time you app for a minimum wage job or end up in prison or watch a horror story on the news about someone who failed to do so. The reasons are many fold why this land is a nightmare.

captcha:rankness, thanks NSA for pre-filtering my comments

Camoflage... (2)

TimO_Florida (2894381) | about a year ago | (#44149215)

Nothing gets you more attention than deliberately trying to hide yourself....

Technically illegal (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about a year ago | (#44149607)

It is illegal to obscure your identity in a public place, because it is illegal to interfere with the investigation of a crime. Since almost all criminal investigations involve looking for a missing suspect, obscuring your identity prevents law enforcement determining whether you are the suspect, and therefore in doing so you are committing Obstruction of Justice.

At least, that will be the government's reasoning in arresting people as "terrorists" who wear masks in public.

Re:Technically illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44151661)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction [wikipedia.org]

The intarwebs is global, my dear. No legislation can make the same claim.

MAKEUP KITS, Then onto MRI type scanners (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44150427)

You can by makeup kits to disguise or distort certain features, such as check bones, jaw line, eye color. However it appears they will be using eye scans, and more then likely x-ray/MRI scans to get a full in depth look at your muscle and bone structure. Making impossible to hide who you are, by the way if you think plastic surgery will work, you and your information will go into a data base which alerts the government, or the entire world about your changes.

Of course you could try to find a black market plastic surgeon!!!

so... (1)

smash (1351) | about a year ago | (#44151133)

He's turned tin foil into clothing now?

I wonder... (1)

slick7 (1703596) | about a year ago | (#44151821)

Does this clothing have optional RFID tagging or is it mandatory?

Re:I wonder... (1)

kevinT (14723) | about a year ago | (#44152519)

The RFID tag will be applied at Walmart / Target / other store. The SWAT team will be notified automatically by the cash register and the video of your purchase will be uploaded to the "database" to be saved for eternity. They will then begin (if they haven't already) tracking your vehicle by its tag and all the license plate reading cameras located on every traffic light in the city.

You have been warned, now wait to be arrested for "interfering" with the police by your actions!

Re:I wonder... (1)

slick7 (1703596) | about a year ago | (#44159865)

The RFID tag will be applied at Walmart / Target / other store. The SWAT team will be notified automatically by the cash register and the video of your purchase will be uploaded to the "database" to be saved for eternity. They will then begin (if they haven't already) tracking your vehicle by its tag and all the license plate reading cameras located on every traffic light in the city.

You have been warned, now wait to be arrested for "interfering" with the police by your actions!

I'm a meat Popsicle.

Misread (1)

havana9 (101033) | about a year ago | (#44152971)

I've read "To Counter Widespread Surveillance, Steal Clothing". Makes sense: if you enter in a phone booth with eyeglasses, hat and a dress, and you exit with your red underpants over your trousers, nobody will recognize you. If you enter in the phone booth and exit with a cape and a drawing of a stylized bat on the shirt, you'll be sure to totally confuse everybody.

For just $3,000 ... (1)

timothy (36799) | about a year ago | (#44165585)

I will sell anyone who'd like a space blanket and a sombrero. I will sign them in Sharpie for just a small surcharge.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?