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!

Next Up: the Jamming Wars

Soulskill posted 1 year,19 days | from the drummers-everywhere-confused-by-pleased dept.

Privacy 209

chicksdaddy writes "ITWorld has an interesting opinion piece on the next privacy battleground, which they say will be over citizens' rights to use jamming technology to (forcibly) opt-out of ubiquitous surveillance, as sensors pop up in more and more public spaces and private homes alike. 'Given the rapid pace of technological change, we don't know exactly what the future holds for us. But one thing is certain: personal privacy is going to turn from a "right" to a "fight" in the next decade, as individuals take up arms against government and private sector snooping on their personal lives.' The article mentions some skirmishes that have already occurred: employees using GPS jamming hardware to prevent employers from tracking their every movement, and the crush of new business for encrypted voice, video and texting services like SilentCircle (up 400% in the last two months). 'Absent the protection of the law, citizens should be expected to do what they do elsewhere: take matters into their own hands: latching onto tools and technology to give them the privacy that they aren't afforded by the legal system. However, there may not be an easy technology fix for ubiquitous, unregulated surveillance. Writing in Wired this week, Jathan Sadowski warns that the tendency for individuals to focus on securing their own data and communications and using technology to do may be misleading. 'The problem is that focusing on one or both of these approaches distracts from the much-needed political reform and societal pushback necessary to dig up a surveillance state at its root,' Sadowski writes."

cancel ×

209 comments

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

When Paintball Guns are Outlawed... (1)

dgatwood (11270) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568315)

Only outlaws will have paintball guns.

Re:When Paintball Guns are Outlawed... (5, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568359)

Worse - you don't bring a paintball gun to a tactical nuclear weapons fight. Sure, us little guys can buy gizmos and change habits but if you have the power of any major government after your ass, you're toast. Even sophisticated people like Laura Poitras [nytimes.com] are hassled to the point of having to leave the country.

Unless you've got some major new technology that can defeat the status quo, the only answer is to fight them at the ballot box.

Goodluckwiththat.

Re:When Paintball Guns are Outlawed... (1, Informative)

cyber-vandal (148830) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568403)

Exactly. The right to bear arms didn't do Edward Snowden or Bradley Manning a fat lot of good either.

Re:When Paintball Guns are Outlawed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44568443)

An analogy involving weapons does not make weapons the topic. Your excuse to attack the Second Amendment is even flimsier than the Nirvana Fallacy that you used to do so.

Re:When Paintball Guns are Outlawed... (5, Funny)

Doug Otto (2821601) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568453)

What we really need is the right to arm bears.

Re:When Paintball Guns are Outlawed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#44569933)

What we really need is to clone Obamaha's electronic signature as neither party seem to know where she stands at anytime

Re:When Paintball Guns are Outlawed... (1)

operagost (62405) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568467)

They worked for the government.

Dancing with the devil.

Re:When Paintball Guns are Outlawed... (1)

msauve (701917) | 1 year,19 days | (#44569517)

I pay taxes, and assume you do, too. We all work for the government.

Re:When Paintball Guns are Outlawed... (5, Interesting)

Em Adespoton (792954) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568477)

Exactly. The right to bear arms didn't do Edward Snowden or Bradley Manning a fat lot of good either.

Manning gave up that right when he enlisted. He traded it for the responsibility to bear arms.

But this brings up an interesting point: encryption tech is still (although not as much as it used to be) treated as munitions by the US government. As such, does the right to properly encrypted data fall under the right to bear arms? Or is the US interpreting the constitution these days to say you can bear as many arms as you want, but munitions are off-limits?

Re:When Paintball Guns are Outlawed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44569047)

Unless you've got some major new technology that can defeat the status quo, the only answer is to fight them at the ballot box.

Ballot box? What's that? You mean that unauditable machine that tells us who will be the next boss?

If anyone really cared about American politics, they'd be organizing peaceful campaigns to destroy all the voting machines. It'd be worth going to jail for as long as you could smash at least ten percent of them nationwide.

Let's be honest with ourselves; even if they aren't crooked and rigged already, the fact that they are not auditable ensures that they will be permanently rigged eventually.

The differences between exit polls and ballots skyrocket in any distric that introduces voting machines. Does that seem right to you? Does it?

Easy solution (2, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568351)

Modern cameras are easy to detect and destroy without leaving any physical evidence. All you need is something capable of sending out a pulse of near-infrared light and then looking for the highest return signal. Visible light will work too, but since we're being sneaky and all. All digital reflect light in the same direction as it is received; an optical quality not found naturally.

Just shoot a high power laser on a very short duration wherever this quality is found, and you'll burn out the CCD of any nearby digital camera. Be warned however; while this won't happen to humans, animals like cats have eyes which produce similar effect. Make sure you aren't using such a device indiscriminately. As well, the headlights of newer cars also exhibit this quality... so you should manually aim such a device towards a likely camera and then let the optics get a precise fix on the CCD.

No need to jam... fire once, move on. You can even do it from miles away, where you're not even a single pixel in the frame. All that'll be recorded is a bright flash of multicolored or white light, followed by camera death.

Re:Easy solution (1, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568405)

Be warned however; while this won't happen to humans, animals like cats have eyes which produce similar effect.

Yeah, people never get red-eye in photos.

Re:Easy solution (5, Informative)

girlintraining (1395911) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568665)

Yeah, people never get red-eye in photos.

Sigh. Red eye [wikipedia.org] is caused by the ABSORPTION of light, not the REFLECTION of light. A retroflector [wikipedia.org] is what is in a CCD, and in a cat's eye. example of red eye [wikipedia.org] example of cat eye [wikipedia.org] . Note the difference.

Today's classroom science explanation brought to you by Jah-Wren Ryei, the idiot moderator who +1'd someone talking out of their ass, and wikipedia. Stay tuned for more exciting science later in this thread, where we'll go in detail to explore the behind the scenes [gatech.edu] technology that makes camera 'jamming' a reality, and why for some strange reason only people who have read books on optics can understand... it doesn't detect and blind human eyes.

Re:Easy solution (1)

ravenscar (1662985) | 1 year,19 days | (#44569077)

Completely correct, but retroreflectors are all over the road. I have retroreflective tape on my motorcycle. I have retroreflectors on my running shoes. Most modern road paint is designed to be retroreflective; same thing with street signs. I think something designed to detect and destroy retroreflective objects would be very busy in any environment near a roadway.

I like your idea and all, it just seems like there would need to be some thought put into an algorithm to weed out retroreflective items that aren't cameras. Even there, I'd be worried about shining a laser into a car with with some sort of onboard camera for legitimate telematics purposes (commercial vehicles, police cars, etc.).

It seems easiest to me to put on a balaclava, grab a laser, and shine it directly at the camera in question (assuming it can be located). Of course, I suppose it wouldn't take long for the police to put out an APB for a person wearing a balaclava and visiting road intersections.

I'm not advocating this activity - just thinking through the problem for the fun of it.

Re:Easy solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44568505)

Solution to the cat issues: cats and humans move, cameras either don't or move in patterns. Repeat a few times, and if something pops up consistently take a shot at it, otherwise get a human to look at the image first. Killing cameras isn't urgent unless you're a Shadowrunner who escaped from fiction, so set your thing out for half an hour and make sure you're hitting the right things.

Or just build it into a backpack and blaze away as you walk down the street, I guess.

Re:Easy solution (4, Informative)

dougmc (70836) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568511)

Modern cameras are easy to detect and destroy without leaving any physical evidence. All you need is something capable of sending out a pulse of near-infrared light and then looking for the highest return signal. Visible light will work too, but since we're being sneaky and all. All digital reflect light in the same direction as it is received; an optical quality not found naturally.

Um, are you trying to say that digital cameras are retroreflectors [wikipedia.org] ? If so, they are not.

Now, it's possible that the sensor is -- though I've seen no evidence of this -- but don't forget that the sensor is generally behind some lenses and possibly a shutter.

I do recall a system being deployed in movie theaters designed to prevent filming of the movie with IR signals, but this doesn't require that a digital camera be retroreflective -- instead it just relies on the fact that digital cameras are sensitive to IR and our eyes are not. Using such a device it would be pretty easy to make pictures taken not come out (as long as the IR source was very close to what you're trying to protect) but it won't damage your camera unless it's so incredibly powerful that it's uncomfortable for humans to be near.

an optical quality not found naturally.

Um, yes it is. You mentioned cat's eyes already, but there are other things that exhibit this property naturally as well.

Just shoot a high power laser on a very short duration wherever this quality is found, and you'll burn out the CCD of any nearby digital camera. Be warned however; while this won't happen to humans, animals like cats have eyes which produce similar effect.

Yes, cats have retroreflective eyes.

But any laser strong enough to damage a camera CCD (especially through a closed shutter, or a camera not even pointed at the laser) will also damage human eyes. And cat eyes, though the retroreflective property isn't why.

I don't know where you're getting your information, but you seem to have misunderstood much of it.

Re:Easy solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44568791)

Yes, cats have retroreflective eyes.

Meh. Collateral damages. Cats are assholes anyway...

Re:Easy solution (3, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568643)

Lasers strong enough to damage a CCD are not legal to own in many places. Weaker lasers blind cameras, but this can easily be overcome with a colour filter applied digitally to the recording. In short lasers are not very good against cameras.

Re:Easy solution (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44568661)

Just shoot a high power laser on a very short duration wherever this quality is found ... while this won't happen to humans ... You can even do it from miles away, where you're not even a single pixel in the frame.

Did you just tell the world to shoot high powered lasers into people's eyes, and that for sure it would have no ill effects? Fuck you.

Re:Easy solution (4, Insightful)

Rhacman (1528815) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568887)

No, he's describing how to build devices to intentionally destroy public and private property as well as the vision of certain animals. He asserts that one can trust that they are nearly impervious to prosecution due to a presumed lack of necessary evidence to obtain a conviction. He assures us that due to the technique he is proposing that these likely hobbyist quality devices will not inadvertently blind any human beings because his detector will not trigger in such cases.

Re:Easy solution (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568681)

Sorry girlintraining, I typically like your posts, but this one is woefully misinformed. Perhaps this time it should be girlintrainginbra?

Re:Easy solution (1)

no-body (127863) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568691)

Modern cameras are easy to detect and destroy without leaving any physical evidence....

Problem is that the camera caught you before the shot and that gets you nailed.

Better to bug the hell out of people doing this stuff - identify and shame the crap out of them publicly. I mean, how many people are identified putting up surveillance on a large scale, the suppliers, amounts of contracts the individuals approving etc. Since the established news media is failing, other means are needed.

Re:Easy solution (5, Informative)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | 1 year,19 days | (#44569657)

Just shoot a high power laser on a very short duration wherever this quality is found, and you'll burn out the CCD of any nearby digital camera

As someone who has directly shined a 300mw laser directly into a security camera for about 30 seconds from less than 10 feet away, I am going to call bullshit because it didn't damage the camera at all. It did bind it while the laser was on it, but that was it.

300mw isn't the highest power laser there is by a long shot, but it is already way above the 5mw limit considered safe, but even lasers have beam spread such that shining a multi-watt laser from "miles away" is going to massively reduce the energy density.

Nope (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44568353)

Jamming is broadcasting noise and would pretty trivially fall into the category of "vandalism" since it not only hides you but also hides anyone near you who may want to be tracked. It also is a poor choice for "laying low" since they can track the movements of the jammer trivially (it's the really noisy thing that's blocking out every other signal).

The reality is that privacy is and has always been an illusion created by inefficient management of information. And most of the societal issues erosion of the illusion causes are better fixed by addressing the underlying cause of the problem not by the willful ignorance that is "privacy laws".

I'm Having Trouble with the Radar Sir (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44568385)

Raspberry. There's only one man who would dare give me the raspberry: Lone Star!

Re:I'm Having Trouble with the Radar Sir (1)

Russ1642 (1087959) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568547)

I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes.

LIcense Plate Scanners (3, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568389)

This one is only good for those cameras that use a flash:

http://www.nophoto.com/ [nophoto.com]

I'm thinking it might be possible to build a "clear" overlay with a bunch of infra-red LEDs built in in a pattern that is invisible to the naked eye but fuzzes the numbers for any camera that sees in the infra-red (most of them). Put that over your plate and run it all the time, even when the car is parked anywhere except in your garage.

Re:LIcense Plate Scanners (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44568461)

Just get a license plate consisting of a mix of 1, I, L, D, O, 0. The characters are too similar to each other for a camera to pick up unless they are 3 ft away.

Re:LIcense Plate Scanners (2)

bmo (77928) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568523)

>Just get a license plate consisting of a mix of 1, I, L, D, O, 0

How well can I sneak a vanity license plate request through the receptionist at the Registry that says "D1LD0?"

What if I say it's a town in Canada?

--
BMO

Re:LIcense Plate Scanners (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44569109)

What if I say it's a town in Canada?

Actually, it is.

Re:LIcense Plate Scanners (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44569165)

Here you go... [wikipedia.org]

Re:LIcense Plate Scanners (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44568759)

xkcd #1105 [xkcd.com]

Re:LIcense Plate Scanners (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568517)

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/mythbusters-database/way-to-beat-police-speed-cameras.htm [discovery.com]

...the MythBusters determined that the only way to fight speed cameras was with speed itself — and lots of it. Speed camera sensors can generally detect cars traveling up to 200 miles per hour.

So, in theory, you can crank up a hot rod capable of speeds greater than 200 mph and beat the camera. Well, until you're nabbed for reckless driving and excessive speeding, that is.

Re:LIcense Plate Scanners (0)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568671)

http://science.slashdot.org/story/07/04/23/2218246/busting-the-mythbusters-yawn-experiment [slashdot.org]

You really shouldn't use pseudo-science performed by special effects artists as a reference.

Re:LIcense Plate Scanners (5, Informative)

Em Adespoton (792954) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568959)

http://science.slashdot.org/story/07/04/23/2218246/busting-the-mythbusters-yawn-experiment [slashdot.org]

You really shouldn't use pseudo-science performed by special effects artists as a reference.

Why not? Unlike the badly done yawn experiment, the license plate experiment was done by testing license plate cameras with a wide range of products, including the one the parent mentioned. The camera had no problem capturing the plate (much to my surprise, for that's the one product I thought would work).

Any time the result can be proven in such a manner, where the products are tested plus the claims on why the products are supposed to work are debunked, I'd trust the results. Whenever they start "testing" with too many variables, the bad science is pretty obvious, and using it as a reference is just silly.

If Mythbusters was known to fake results, that'd be one thing... as it is, they just often have faulty tests (and then get plenty of feedback on what they did wrong). That's the scientific method at work -- you just have to supply your own critical thinking.

Re:LIcense Plate Scanners (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | 1 year,19 days | (#44569029)

Alright, fair enough; I concede the point (how often does that happen on the internets?).

Re:LIcense Plate Scanners (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | 1 year,19 days | (#44569235)

the license plate experiment was done by testing license plate cameras with a wide range of products, including the one the parent mentioned.

No they did not. I don't even need to watch the episode to know they didn't test the nophoto camera jammer - because it didn't exist 6 years ago when they ran the show. It is the result of an indiegogo crowd-funding campaign and only started shipping this year.

Re:LIcense Plate Scanners (3, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568993)

You really shouldn't use pseudo-science performed by special effects artists as a reference.

You realize that it isn't pseudoscience, right? It's true science. The article you linked didn't even dispute that. It disputed the analysis of the results and thus its conclusions, but otherwise it was a sound experiment.

Pseudoscience relies on something that is impossible to replicate - like say, creationism (intelligent design - though there was evolution from creationism to intelligent design - they found a transition fossil in the documentation). Or ESP.

Just because it's on TV doesn't automatically make it "bad" - they follow the scientific method (hypothesis, experimentation, analysis, conclusions) and people are free to reproduce the experiments. The only caveat is "don't try this at home" because replication can require special knowledge. But they lay bare the steps they took and their data.

And yes, science does come up (often) with errors in procedure, errors in analysis, and errors in conclusion. Even in regular scientific studies.

Is it sensationalized? Of course. It's a TV show, one that's fighting for eyeballs and ad money like everything else. But to dismiss it does a real disservice to everyone to whom thinks "science is hard and boring".

If you think speed cameras are easy to defeat, then repeat their experiment. You can choose to use their equipment or someone else's (remember part of the conclusion is to determine why your results differ, and it could be equipment used - has happened many times before).

In general, those sprays are worthless, though. And plastic holographic covers are easy to tell because they usually easily obscure your license place at ground level (i.e., if it works for the camera, the cops will easily notice it too and fine you for obscuring your plate).

Also, in general, jammers and such are easily detected - if you're trying to prevent your face from being imaged, then you'll either wear IR glasses or funny facepaint, in which case people remember you as the "guy with the funny glasses or funny makeup". Try to look more normal and boring, and people forget you the moment you pass them.

Same goes for jammers and such - a jammer is a transmitter and those are trivially easy to spot.

Part of evading surveillance is trying to not stand out. Making your emails encrypted, wearing odd clothes or accessories, funny makeup, transmitters all call attention to yourself and bring MORE surveillance on you. Being absolutely boring and looking like everyone else and not sticking out? Well now, you've just made it a lot harder because you look, act, and behave like everyone else and is completely forgettable.

Re:LIcense Plate Scanners (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44568813)

The mythbusters wouldn't broadcast a solution that worked for fear of getting sued. And in any case, their inept engineering skills generally make their tests invalid. Mythbusters is to scientific experimentation as Top Gear is to motoring - pure entertainment, nothing more. The pathetic attempt at a chaff launcher in that speed camera episode was particularly cringe-worthy.

Re:LIcense Plate Scanners (1)

Kaenneth (82978) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568543)

I cannot imagine how people think deliberately obscuring your license plate could ever possibly be legal

Re:LIcense Plate Scanners (4, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568593)

I cannot imagine how people think deliberately obscuring your license plate could ever possibly be legal.

Because it isn't obscured - to humans. The law doesn't say it needs to be readable by machines.

Re:LIcense Plate Scanners (1)

johanw (1001493) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568793)

That still doesn't make it legal (that may depend on your jurisdiction), but it will of course seriously reduce the chance of getting caught.

Re:LIcense Plate Scanners (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | 1 year,18 days | (#44569917)

it IS legal unless it is expressly legislated to be illegal.

Re:LIcense Plate Scanners (1)

Kaenneth (82978) | 1 year,18 days | (#44569675)

I'm sure a judge would just love that line of logic, and not give you the maximum penalty after you basically admit you did it deliberately in an attempt to avoid the law.

And I'm sure an officer wouldn't see that you are trying to evade the law, and so spend extra time searching you vehicle in great detail to find every possible other equipment violation.

And I'm sure your defense attorney wouldn't call you a fool, because you're the type who would represent himself, and get all angry at the system for failing to be cheated by your cleverness.

Your fundamental mistake is not realizing the the legal system is not bound by strict logical rules.

Re:LIcense Plate Scanners (1)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | 1 year,18 days | (#44569783)

I'm sure a judge would just love that line of logic, and not give you the maximum penalty after you basically admit you did it deliberately in an attempt to avoid the law.

That logic can only go so far, at some point it becomes the equivalent of if you don't help the police then you are trying to avoid the law. Where is that line? In the cases of speed and red-light cameras the states have circumvented the people's 6th amendment right to confront their accuser by making them civil violations. Seems to me that cuts both ways, if it isn't a crime then there was no intent to avoid the law.

Re:LIcense Plate Scanners (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | 1 year,18 days | (#44569927)

Hey, it's not my fault if the police chose to use a machine that was inferior to the human eye.

Re:LIcense Plate Scanners (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#44569713)

I don't know how susceptible the cameras are, but I suspect a row or two of IR LEDs above and below the numbers might well be sufficient. At this point you haven't even come close to obscuring the license plate, you've merely put a nice bright light source nearby. Even the approach of having some IR LEDs on top of the plate itself might be judged legal (again, humans can read it).

Re:LIcense Plate Scanners (4, Insightful)

Entropius (188861) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568573)

It'd be easier if citizens, fed up with them, just spraypainted over their apertures.

There is spray paint covering half of Baltimore. Why not just add a little more?

Re:LIcense Plate Scanners (4, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568603)

This one is only good for those cameras that use a flash:

The ones that take your photo when you break the speed limit? If only there was some other way to avoid getting your photo taken by those...

Re:LIcense Plate Scanners (1)

bobbied (2522392) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568717)

There are many... 1. Don't speed.... 2. Don't go near them when you do.... Etc..

Re:LIcense Plate Scanners (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44568863)

Nice snark, but in the nation that allows any nutjob to buy a bedroom full of automatic weapons and enough ammo to supply a small war, it's absolutely pathetic that you have a 50mph speed limit on major roads. In countries where we have few guns and much higher speed limits, far fewer people die. You have the right to bear arms - where's the right to drive at a reasonable speed?

Re:LIcense Plate Scanners (1)

bobbied (2522392) | 1 year,19 days | (#44569085)

Up in Montana perhaps? Seriously, you cannot be suggesting that speed limits are unnecessary and you use the example of the 2nd amendment to justify your logic?

Wow... How far has the educational system in this country fallen... We used to know what our rights where and why we had them.. Apparently we don't teach that anymore.

Re:LIcense Plate Scanners (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | 1 year,18 days | (#44569945)

I believe his point is they actually train people to drive properly and as such don't need ridiculously lower speed limits to compensate for the morons on the road.

The guns issue is pretty self explanatory, less guns = more people still alive.

Re:LIcense Plate Scanners (1)

timeOday (582209) | 1 year,19 days | (#44569445)

Going the speed limit is dangerous, because you are going slower than everybody around you.

Re:LIcense Plate Scanners (2)

SJ (13711) | 1 year,18 days | (#44569899)

The only problem there is that it won't be long before those cameras start taking photos of everyone, regardless of speed. That data, along with everything else, can then be used to track you.

It's just a side-effect that they can make some extra coin from those people that are speeding.

Re:LIcense Plate Scanners (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44568767)

I was just wondering if there were someone that you could positively say was a leader, if not a king, of the cunts, and then you posted affirming that it was indeed the case.

Re:LIcense Plate Scanners (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | 1 year,19 days | (#44569277)

I was just wondering if there were someone that you could positively say was a leader, if not a king, of the cunts, and then you posted affirming that it was indeed the case.

Thank you, I certainly have had more than my fair share of cunts, but right now I'm mainly a one-cunt guy.

He's foolish. (2)

Oligonicella (659917) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568441)

It's not a zero-sum game. One can do what one can *now* to protect one's self AND work to create the proper safeguards.

Re:He's foolish. (2)

flayzernax (1060680) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568559)

Were a long ways off from needing to jam... But seriously there are much better solutions to being spied on. Jamming is a bad one, and last resort. I would reserve only for a war zone. It's far to disruptive to legitimate communication and does more harm than simply switching modes of communication. (Wireless to wired, mail to in person).

Re:He's foolish. (1)

program666 (2780745) | 1 year,18 days | (#44569683)

that's not what a zero-sum game is

Re:He's foolish. (1)

program666 (2780745) | 1 year,18 days | (#44569731)

forget my other comment, I read yours wrong but it seems I can't delete or edit the other one

As a wise man once said (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44568473)

Ooh, yeah! All right!
We're jammin':
I wanna jam it wid you.
We're jammin', jammin',
And I hope you like jammin', too.

Ain't no rules, ain't no vow, we can do it anyhow:
I'n'I will see you through,
'Cos everyday we pay the price with a little sacrifice,
Jammin' till the jam is through.

We don't need the NSA
To record the things we say
Or the things we dooooo

No matter how we try
we're surounded by Wi-Fi
transmissions tooooooo

Now dey watch us wid their drones
and their trackin our cell phones
I guess we scroooooooed

No bullet can stop us now, we neither beg nor we won't bow;
Info can be bought nor sold.
We all defend the right; Jah - Jah children must unite:
Your life is worth much more than gold.

 

What's wrong with being tracked? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44568481)

If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

Of course, this system could only work if the people doing the tracking were also being tracked and held accountable for their actions.

Re:What's wrong with being tracked? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44568521)

Too obvious. Try again, please.

Re:What's wrong with being tracked? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44568545)

>If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

No.

Re:What's wrong with being tracked? (1)

bobbied (2522392) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568755)

If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

Unless of course it LOOKS like you are doing something wrong, even when you are not, then you DO have something to worry about.

What right to privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44568501)

If people have to resort to (illegal) jamming, what right to privacy does our legal system actually afford?
Congress is so woefully slow to help.

Employers (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568525)

If you don't want to be tracked by an employer who tracks then find and employer who does not track. I have no problem with an employer knowing where I am during working hours. I am on their time. If they track me on my time then there is an issue.

Re:Employers (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44568941)

Actually, most companies already track you on "your" time. There are all kinds of sources of information and employers use this information against employee already. Criminal arrests will get you fired--whether charges are true or false; whether you are found guilty or not; etc. Credit abuse will get you fired--whether the credit reports are false or true. Large purchases show up on credit reports, newspapers, trade magazines, etc. United Way & "volunteer" efforts also can be used to keep track of you. Access to law enforcement agencies database is easily achieved. (There are terminal in Sam's that connect to the sheriff's network and many of the security people are commissioned officers.) There is so much information published about everyone, or at lest everyone with the same name as you, that you can be easily tracked on "your" time. There are employers that employee people to keep up with employees do on their "time".

Re:Employers (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | 1 year,19 days | (#44569481)

The discussion is about location tracking of individuals.

Most of your arguments are specious at best. Where are the citations for any of these charges? I have never seen any of my large purchases showing up in trade magazines.

There are terminal in Sam's that connect to the sheriff's network and many of the security people are commissioned officers.

It is called the internet.

Re:Employers (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | 1 year,18 days | (#44569973)

Yeah I have a friend who has a company supplied phone and they are expressly forbidden from turning off the GPS on the device - termination offense. Fully disclosed mind you but I would so be putting that thing down at 5pm and leaving it at the office. My friend enjoys the free cell service in exchange.

or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44568533)

A slightly more moderate idea might be to vote for politicians that support to your beliefs such as right to privacy. For example, vote for the guy that wants to remove speed cameras from the city/county/state you live in and so forth. Or you can just commit vandalism against government property and accept the risks associated with that.

Re:or... (1)

Entropius (188861) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568705)

the guy that wants to remove speed cameras from the city/county/state you live in

There isn't one. This is a real problem in states that don't support citizen initiatives.

GPS jamming near an airport (2)

Misch (158807) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568553)

Interestingly enough, there was a guy who was recently busted for putting a GPS jammer on his truck. It was discovered when he drove near an airport and impacted the testing of GPS-enhanced plane landing equipment.

Source [computerworld.com] .

The person was fined $32,000 and was fired by the company he was working for.

Re:GPS jamming near an airport (2)

bobbied (2522392) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568883)

And rightly so. Running around jamming GPS signals is a *serious* problem for a lot of things these days. Fines from the FCC *should* be quickly metered out for such foolishness. Glad to see that they are.

Trying to hide one's location from your employer when on duty is possibly a bad idea too. One would assume that the employer had a valid interest in knowing where their equipment was and had installed the GPS based equipment for that purpose. The driver's attempts to mask his location was inexcusable and leads to a whole lot of "so where where you exactly?" questions that he likely could not answer truthfully and keep his job. Return all company equipment, fired with cause, no unemployment, don't pass go, don't collect $200, we will mail your last check and don't let he door hit you on the way out.

GPS and trucking companies (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44569295)

Trying to hide one's location from your employer when on duty is possibly a bad idea too. One would assume that the employer had a valid interest in knowing where their equipment was and had installed the GPS based equipment for that purpose. The driver's attempts to mask his location was inexcusable and leads to a whole lot of "so where where you exactly?" questions that he likely could not answer truthfully and keep his job.

GPS is being adopted fast in the transportation industry as a way to gain extra profit. Some trucking companies are starting to charge their employees or contracted drivers for the 'privilege' of driving company equipment outside of a designated route or taking too long getting to the next destination. Those designated routes never take in to account little things like construction, traffic, map updates, and weather. Fees incurred range from fuel expenses all the way up to their mileage rate, fuel, and 'maintenance fees'. It can easily be over $100 an hour simply because the automated route software did not know about a detour or traffic accident in advance.

It could very well be that obfuscating his GPS data was the only thing from being required to, on occasion, pay his employer simply for working that day.

Re:GPS and trucking companies (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | 1 year,18 days | (#44569989)

trucking companies have been using GPS for years. that's nothing new at all.

jamming tech wont be allowed (3, Interesting)

wierd_w (1375923) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568595)

The whole "personal jammer" thing is a non-starter. Jammers are indescriminate, and the usual rhetoric used to make them illegal will apply.

Take for instance, with personal cellphone jammers. They are illegal in the united states, specifically cited by the FCC. The reason, is that they disrupt vital comminications infrastructure, and can therefor prevent expedient deployment of emergency services, an other vital services that rely on the availability of that communication medium.

In the case of the surveylance industry, the argument can be made that cameras make the community safer, by helping law enforcement to identify and rapidly locate dangerous criminals, and that disrupting this system places the community at greater risk.

Those are totally specious arguments in most of the applied settings they would be used in, but that doesn't matter. Think of it as a horrible cousin to the "think of the children!" Rhetoric. Or, maybe the "interstate commerce" doctrine.

Personal jamming tech is a nonstarter for legal defense against ubiquitous tracking and surveylence.

About the only thing left, then, is relentless use of it anyway, as a dedicated civil disobedience movement. Yes, that means pleading guilty to the charge in court when arrested, as per the proper use of civil disobedience as a tactic. You want to swamp the justice system with burdensome numbers of people to incarcerate, with a near 100% recidivism rate.

It has to cost them far more money than their corporate puppeteers make from the mandatory protection and employment of the surveylence. It has to do this consistently, and without fail.

Otherwise, there will always be the profit motive, and the corruption that money has on government, and the surveylence state will persist.

Re:jamming tech wont be allowed (1, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568655)

FWIW, I really, really want to take your post seriously, but it's nigh impossible to do so when you consistently mis-spell the word, "surveillance"

Re:jamming tech wont be allowed (2)

wierd_w (1375923) | 1 year,18 days | (#44569839)

I realize that there is a disproportionate number of person on slashdot that give exceptional levels of percieved value to the "correct" employment of language, structure, and punctuation; however, the purpose of language is to convey information and ideas. The purpose of spelling, grammatical, and syntax rules is to fascilitate that objective. Obcessive fixation over the use or lack of use of minutia relating to those aspects of communication, to the point where it causes a deficit in effective communication, is self defeating and irrational.

If you difficulty in comprehending what I had written, such as if I had used ambiguous kanguage that could potentially have many and possibly conflictory meanings, you would have a legitimate complaint. However, the spelling of a word that you clearly were able to interpret correctly, desite the misspelling, is not sufficient grounds to make such a complaint. You did not have any difficulty in comprehending what was written. You may wish for me to use more widely established spellings in the future, and you may well ask that I do so, but fixation on the misspelling to the point where you refuse to engage in the communication process over the incongruity, such as your statement directly indicates, is simply incompatible with the objective goal of communication. Communication exists to transmit ideas. Rules and syntax exist to facilitiate that exchange. Nothing more. They do not exist as a metric by which to judge the merit of the information exchanged, and any attempt to do so is a misuse of that feature.

No. It does not matter how convienient a metric it may be percieved to be. If you are going to be riggorous about the mechanics of linguistic exchange, then don't be hipocritical about it by bastardizing the rules yourself.

Re:jamming tech wont be allowed (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | 1 year,18 days | (#44569883)

(And this stupid IME on this phone copes with changes in process focus by simply discarding keypresses-- for whole words at a time. Please ignore the clear obviousness of missing words in the above. They do not reflect on my ability to construct proper sentences. Samsung simply decided that making sure the alert bar getting focus to tell me that the local file scanner completed successfully was substantially more important than proper fidelity from the IME.)

Re:jamming tech wont be allowed (2)

bobbied (2522392) | 1 year,19 days | (#44569045)

Jamming RF communications is simply illegal and needs to be. The FCC takes a pretty dim view of the average citizen just deciding to disrupt licensed radio services for *any* reason they choose and this is how it SHOULD be. The FCC has authority over anything that puts off RF energy, either on purpose or incidentally and can (and will) require you to turn off equipment that is interfering with RF communications. If you don't obey, or they figure you are jamming on purpose, they can fine you, confiscate your equipment or otherwise get you off the air.

Sitting in a movie theater jamming cell phone service to keep folks from getting calls during your movie may sound like a good idea, but the problem is you just cannot know how far your jamming signal is going. As others have pointed out, jamming signals are pretty much the equivalent of putting a flashing light on the thing you are trying to protect, and makes it easy to find with very little problem. All you need is an antenna, A way to attenuate the signal and a receiver and you can find a hidden transmitter in fairly short order. Add a directional antenna and it gets even faster.

Don't be stupid... Leave the jamming equipment at home with your IR Camera killers and flashing device that changes red lights to green.

Re:jamming tech wont be allowed (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44569073)

That's great if you're just occupying wall street and getting stoned, but for those of us with a respectable job we've got a bit more to lose once we have a criminal record.

Re:jamming tech wont be allowed (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44569159)

About the only thing left, then, is relentless use of it anyway, as a dedicated civil disobedience movement. Yes, that means pleading guilty to the charge in court when arrested, as per the proper use of civil disobedience as a tactic. You want to swamp the justice system with burdensome numbers of people to incarcerate, with a near 100% recidivism rate.

Oh, I'm fairly sure you fuckers will just be killed while "resisting arrest". Keeps dangerous people off the streets and saves the justice system time and money.

amazon bonus (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44568631)

amazon bonus
http://amazonbonus.doomby.com/

Our fault (4, Insightful)

wbr1 (2538558) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568667)

We have been blithely feeding bits of our privacy to corporations for years. Neilsen, survey companies, members discount store cards, google, facebook, mobile phone providers. The list goes on and on. The data is there and we GIVE it away for things we ostensibly want.

Is it any surprise now that the government wants the same and more? Google is an advertising company. They have show how much can be made in this way, and the data that can be gathered. They give us the tools that we need in order to be able to better serve their customers. Government is supposed to protect the people, and as is often the case, has taken it to far. The individual NSA analyst may think he is doing a greater good sifting through your 'metadata' and believe it whole-heartedly. However he is really just feeding the military-data complex, which is simply an offshoot of the military-industrial complex. It is tied up with money galore, corporate greed and self interest, and kickbacks and graft, um I mean campaign donations, to grease up the politicians who feed it to us if they don't buy it for free

This thing has inertia, it is armed, and comes with more power than even a large group of 'regular' joes can easily fight. Especially since most of the country is apathetic and/or splintered of bullshit issues like gay marriage. This has been a long time coming, and people have fought, but they get swept up and under by the machine. People like Manning, Snowden, Assange, they are doing the things that Patrick Henry and Ben Franklin would likely be proud of. They have stood up against a government that enables people to steal away little by little the wealth that this country and its people generate. They have stood up to say, no, this is not what america is supposed to be. And whether you agree with their methods or motivations, have you stood up? Have I? Or have we both sat down to watch the Cowboys game again?

Unfortunately it will end one of two ways that I see. The continuing downhill slide until finally comes to a bloody crash, or a bloody crash now. And by bloody, I mean bloody. And after? Brave words will be said, changes may be made, some deep some superficial, but sooner or later those near the top will realize...

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

Flooding (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568669)

An app that randomly broadcast packets with new mac addresses constantly would be quite effective at flooding databases with crap and hiding the individual.

Re:Flooding (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44569459)

An app that randomly broadcast packets with new mac addresses constantly would be quite effective at flooding databases with crap and hiding the individual.

An app that randomly broadcast packets with new mac addresses constantly would be quite effective at flooding databases with crap and hiding the individual.

nice , start out with a device not related to any computer you own. The eyes are watching...

Oh my (2)

Temtongkek (975742) | 1 year,19 days | (#44568847)

How has no one quoted Spaceballs yet? Slashdot, you're upsetting me.

WRONG- no jamming wars (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44568913)

People using jamming equipment are already attracting massive fines, and pretty soon engaging in ANY form of electronic signal interference will be a very serious criminal offence. Even the idea of keeping one's cell phone in a Faraday sleeve/case will probably be outlawed under "terms of service" regulations.

The correct solution is for the people to DEMAND amendments to the Constitution so that a Right to Privacy is enforced, especially against potential NSA activities, and the obscene actions of Bill Gate's inBloom (company name is chosen as a pedophile's joke) child monitoring database system currently being rolled out in NY and elsewhere across the USA). A Right to Privacy would clearly deny the State or its agents the right to generally spy on citizens, even when such spying is done 'anonymously' for 'statistical' purposes (the catch-all excuse used by the NSA). The Right to privacy amendment would define legitimate government spying as that which carefully targets court-approved individuals only, for direct law enforcement purpose. Pre-empive, pre-crime, or general surveillance would be utterly outlawed.

Taking this on at the other end (the point at which users use services) is not a societal solution, but the ability of informed individuals to protect themselves better. For instance, no sane person would buy Bill Gate's NSA spy box, the Xbox One. Every intelligent person knows their cell phone is location tracked in realtime, and that the microphones and cameras can be remotely activated at any time.

In an ideal world, the monsters for whom that evil murderous puppet Obama fronts for would see their powers over the ordinary people hamstrung by an updating of the Constitution. However, in OUR world, the opposite is happening. Obama (and his successors) are now fixed-term dictators, and are free to ignore any aspect of the Constitution. As the police state expands, and police state methods become even more commonplace and vicious than now, ordinary people will have no options left, as we witnessed in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany at their peak. Under such circumstances, ordinary people simply comply and survive as best they can.

heisenberg uncertainty and 'the cat' (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44568977)

either participate in the world or not. that is your option people.

Jam? Funny, with ToF sensors and signal maps, I can now find your location (jamming source), back trace your trajectory and find out who you are in about 20min.

Once you enter the system [of life?], you change the measurement, I can ID you. Welcome to the new world order.

(and the cat in the box smiles).

The war is over (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44569055)

...and it hasn't even started yet. I just read an article yesterday about a guy who went to jail for using a GPS jamming device to thwart employer monitoring. Appaently it was affecting nearby aircraft. Raise your hand if you're willing to give up your freedom (ie. go to jail) for your right to privacy. See all those hands? What, you don't? Yeah, that's why they've already won. Unless you are wealthy enough to buy several congressfolks and change the law expect to be bent over by those with the money.

Privacy Schmivacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44569629)

I don't do anything illegal in private, so why should i fear all this surveillance. My life is so boring, I dont care if some anonymous govt agency sees where I am or what Im doing in public.

I have nothing to hide, so I have nothing to fear. Im not a criminal, pedo, gun murderer or turrist... Governments need some way of fighting the turrists, we dint want the turrists to win, so spy away I say. I feel safer already.

Obtain GPS Jammer (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#44569711)

Anyone know where I can buy a cheap GPS jammer? My insurance company wants to install a GPS tracking box in my car, but I'd rather they didnt!

Re:Obtain GPS Jammer (1)

aXis100 (690904) | 1 year,18 days | (#44569983)

Jamming GPS is selfish and foolish - you'll also jame other people's GPS tens or even hundreds of metres away.

GPS is such a weak signal that you'll get better results sticking some tinfoil (or better yet, lead sheet) over the antenna.

Its not a war (1)

nurb432 (527695) | 1 year,18 days | (#44569915)

Its people committing a crime. Its not legal to interfere with communications. FCC takes a dim view on it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>