Privacy, Government, Surveillance, and You.

They're already here, actually: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hornet_Nano

Avon and Somerset Police Chief Nick Gargan in data protection probe

One of the five Muslim-Americans that the NSA spied on speaks out.

William Binney once again criticizes his former employer.

EDIT: CISPA, the bill nobody wanted, is back as CISA.

edited 11th Jul '14 11:40:07 AM by speedyboris

@ speedyboris

First of all, I'm not interested in politics or security. Second, I do care if you know, there were really slow crime rates. I mean, with spy drones, those missing Nigerian girls would have been found by now.

Let me ask you a question, if counting on recon drones to stop crimes like sexual slavery is bad, then how do you propose we stop sexual slavery then?

edited 11th Jul '14 6:58:43 PM by HallowHawk

Providing legal asylum for sex workers instead of prosecuting them for prostitution when they come forward sounds like a wonderful place to start. Worked wonders for Sweden.

Surprisingly many questions of crime and security have reasonable and practical answers that don't involve seriously entertaining the notion of an Orwellian state that turns every private moment of your life into wank material that'll be stored until the end of time on flimsy premises of security.

edited 11th Jul '14 7:20:58 PM by Pykrete

Nice point, but that's not what I'm talking about. When I meant by using drones to stop sexual slavery, I meant having drones patrol around 24/7 looking for where the traffickers are. I mean, if you've seen Human Trafficking (with Mira Sorvino and Donald Sutherland) and the first Taken, human traffickers do things really quietly (with help from corrupt cops). With drones, finding them and kidnapped girls is easy.

Also, had Portugal had drones, they could have found that British girl who was kidnapped while she and her parents were vacationing in Portugal last year a lot quicker.

Alright, can you give us money to build one for these purposes (we only have one for maritime purposes)?

Seriously, it seems presumptuous to think that all countries can afford that kind of technology. Nigeria doesn't have neither the money nor the logistics to build or handle drones. I'm ok with using drones to fight this kind of crime, but one could also take into account that they'll always find a way to avoid the drones, sooner or later, and that said drones (decent drones) are too expensive for some countries.

Also, she disappeared/was kidnapped seven years ago.

edited 11th Jul '14 8:09:24 PM by Quag15

You do have a point. I mean, for people from countries that can afford drones, they shouldn't whine about it. I mean, people whining is what made America lose The Vietnam War.

Seven years ago? I only heard about that last year on the news, BBC IIRC, on the TV while me and my family vacationed in Panglao Island off Bohol.

Madelein McCan: it's been... interesting to watch. -_- (Seriously, the number of fumbles involved in the investigation is almost unbelievable.)

edited 11th Jul '14 9:17:59 PM by Euodiachloris

The way the media goes on about Madeleine you would think that she's the only missing child in Britain. Ever.

I honestly can't tell if you're being facetious or not >_>.

Not unless you've got an entire fleet of them that are able to fly low though the jungle and indestructible while doing so. I'm pretty sure several western nations have actually put their spy planes to use on the Nigerian case and gotten nowhere, jungle canopy is annoying like that.

And drones wouldn't have helped with Madeleine unless the entire country was covered with them. Urban CCTV would be much cheaper, less invasive and provide pretty much just as good results.

edited 12th Jul '14 4:46:17 AM by SilasW

Indeed, one of the RAF's Sentinel R1 was sent out there. Suffered a technical on the way there, though.

Thanks

What do you mean by "facetious?"

Isn't that not as different as bugging people?

edited 12th Jul '14 7:33:59 AM by HallowHawk

People whining is what made America lose The Vietnam War?

...

I'm just lost for words what to make of that.

edited 12th Jul '14 8:48:55 AM by joeyjojo

It was one of several factors. That the Soviets infiltrated/controlled sections of the peace movement helped spread the idea that "'dem liebruls cost us Vietnam". Of course, people wouldn't have listened to the peaceniks had the US not been making a cursed bollocks of the Vietnam War anyway.

edited 12th Jul '14 9:00:03 AM by Achaemenid

It's very different. One (CCTV) is done in public places where I do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, the other (bugging) is done in private places where I most certainly do have the right to privacy.

That's my point. Mc Cann's disappearance, and what's going on in Nigeria proved privacy has cons. With rape cases, a rapist would get away with such crimes due to lack of evidence. With bugging, they're toast.

Not always. Not many CCTV cameras are Magical Security Cameras.

edited 12th Jul '14 2:31:37 PM by Greenmantle

http://standagainstspying.org/

A few articles:

• David Cameron pledges £1.1 billion for defence to fight cyber terrorists
• This mesmerizing map shows cyberattacks across the world in real time
  • The Map

What do people think of this? tldr, a company based in Ohio has developed technology that lets a Cessna loitering at high altitude (~10,000 ft) record hours worth of surface activity in a given area, and they're pitching it as a public safety technology because it can help track movements to and from crime scenes, etc. It has serious limitations — it can only run for a few hours at a time, and only in daylight, for example — but it seems to be a useful technology none the less.

The camera isn't high-enough resolution to identify specific individuals (or even individual vehicles in most cases), so the privacy implications seem pretty minor... but, as the article points out, people tend to find being recorded by an all-seeing eye-in-the-sky creepy regardless.

What, we didn't already have those? I swear I've seen that sort of technology discussed before, and some of it is capable of tracking individuals and vehicles. I have to say that public video surveillance is already lawful and far from uncommon. This doesn't surprise or dismay me all that much.

Surely they could get something other than a Cessna? Those things aren't exactly the bleeding edge of technology.

But if they got a UAV, people might scream "DRONE OMIGAWD BIG BROTHER AAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!oneone"

Neither are the Islanders operated by the British Army's Army Air Corps in a similar role^note  As usual, what they do is not commented on by the British Government; it is suspected that two belonging to the "Northolt Station Flight" are used to intercept mobile phone calls . Then again, UAVs aren't yet approved to fly in British air space.

edited 14th Jul '14 1:14:58 PM by Greenmantle