Big Brother is Watching You

[Vrede too]

Life is less stressful if you just expect to be on camera whenever you're in public, and that everything you say or post could possibly be public. Not that different from being a kid in a neighbourhood or smallish town back in the day where somebody would see whatever you did and tell your mum.

Indeed.

Ethically, there's no difference between a policeman standing on a corner looking at people, and a face recognition system telling police who was at a given location.

I think that you mean that legally or constitutionally "there's no difference". I would argue that ethically and practically the nosy neighbor or corner cop does not in any way simulate an automated surveillance system that sees everybody doing everything, everywhere, all of the time, and that can be accessed remotely. Y'all are trying to compare 1950s Americana to 1984.

[Limier than most]

Life is less stressful if you just expect to be on camera whenever you're in public, and that everything you say or post could possibly be public. Not that different from being a kid in a neighbourhood or smallish town back in the day where somebody would see whatever you did and tell your mum.

Indeed.

Ethically, there's no difference between a policeman standing on a corner looking at people, and a face recognition system telling police who was at a given location.

I think that you mean that legally or constitutionally "there's no difference". I would argue that ethically and practically the nosy neighbor or corner cop does not in any way simulate an automated surveillance system that sees everybody doing everything, everywhere, all of the time, and that can be accessed remotely. Y'all are trying to compare 1950s Americana to 1984.

Ooh, l dunno.

Never been to 1950s America but I'm very familiar with 1984.

The big difference between surveillance technology as discussed in this thread and a policeman is the commercial element.

The lack of control over the surveillance through legitimate means is the problem, as in 1984.

[Vrede too]

Ooh, l dunno.

Never been to 1950s America but I'm very familiar with 1984.

The big difference between surveillance technology as discussed in this thread and a policeman is the commercial element.

The lack of control over the surveillance through legitimate means is the problem, as in 1984.

We'll have to disagree. "the commercial element" is certainly important and disturbing, but I think "The big difference" is the omniscience, whoever is controlling it.

[O Really]

When a new technology comes along, everybody gets to use it - some (hopefully most) for good; some for evil. So if you like your nanny-cam and security cams, you have to expect cops, et.al. will also have access to the same tech. You like your GPS and like to track your dog/kid whatever? Somebody might be able to track you. It's all a reward/consequence of change and, ummmm "progress." Sometimes one might think the Amish have the right idea to control and limit the connections to the outside world they accept.

[O Really]

Life is less stressful if you just expect to be on camera whenever you're in public, and that everything you say or post could possibly be public. Not that different from being a kid in a neighbourhood or smallish town back in the day where somebody would see whatever you did and tell your mum.

Indeed.

Ethically, there's no difference between a policeman standing on a corner looking at people, and a face recognition system telling police who was at a given location.

I think that you mean that legally or constitutionally "there's no difference". I would argue that ethically and practically the nosy neighbor or corner cop does not in any way simulate an automated surveillance system that sees everybody doing everything, everywhere, all of the time, and that can be accessed remotely. Y'all are trying to compare 1950s Americana to 1984.

Used to be the cop might ask if anybody saw anything, taking "eye witness" information, some of the most unreliable evidence around, as an identification. Some curmudgeon in the neighbourhood with a broken window would arbitrarily accuse "that worthless kid down the street." I'd rather be, or not be, on camera.

[O Really]

Hey Limier - are you really from the UK? Or maybe you're just more lime than lemon?
My mum was English, and much of her family is still there, mostly around York.

[neoplacebo]

Ooh, l dunno.

Never been to 1950s America but I'm very familiar with 1984.

The big difference between surveillance technology as discussed in this thread and a policeman is the commercial element.

The lack of control over the surveillance through legitimate means is the problem, as in 1984.

We'll have to disagree. "the commercial element" is certainly important and disturbing, but I think "The big difference" is the omniscience, whoever is controlling it.

One of the last projects I was involved with at my last job was the CCTV camera system at Harrah's Cherokee Casino. That place has a little over 1300 cameras, the vast majority of them on the gaming floors, and every single one of them is hard wired to a main observation center. They are all very unobtrusive; you can see a lot of them if you look at the ceilings, but the security people there can see ALL the customers and ALL the employees ALL the time. Well, except inside the restrooms.

[Vrede too]

One of the last projects I was involved with at my last job was the CCTV camera system at Harrah's Cherokee Casino. That place has a little over 1300 cameras, the vast majority of them on the gaming floors, and every single one of them is hard wired to a main observation center. They are all very unobtrusive; you can see a lot of them if you look at the ceilings, but the security people there can see ALL the customers and ALL the employees ALL the time. Well, except inside the restrooms.

That's bad enough, made worse if you add in AI controlled automatic features like facial recognition and tracking, and then link it all to a central network monitoring 13M or 13B cameras.

[neoplacebo]

One of the last projects I was involved with at my last job was the CCTV camera system at Harrah's Cherokee Casino. That place has a little over 1300 cameras, the vast majority of them on the gaming floors, and every single one of them is hard wired to a main observation center. They are all very unobtrusive; you can see a lot of them if you look at the ceilings, but the security people there can see ALL the customers and ALL the employees ALL the time. Well, except inside the restrooms.

That's bad enough, made worse if you add in AI controlled automatic features like facial recognition and tracking, and then link it all to a central network monitoring 13M or 13B cameras.

As far as I know, they don't have AI or any sort of esoteric recognition devices; hell, they don't need that. They can see all the bodies of the customers who may be cheating in which case they focus mostly on the hands and arms.....same with the card dealers, watch the hands. If they see anything blatant or even suspicious, they can have their "security" type guys right at the scene of the crime real quick. All the cameras and associated equipment is made by Pelco. There may also be biometric readers for palm print or retina scan at the entrance to the room where they count the money; not sure. They likely did not rely on one sole contractor for the entire security system just as extra insurance. They be serious about they money.

[GoCubsGo]

How many cameras do we think the average Wally World, Target or Harris Teeter has? Look up next time.

On second thought. Probably don't want to know.

[Limier than most]

Hey Limier - are you really from the UK? Or maybe you're just more lime than lemon?
My mum was English, and much of her family is still there, mostly around York.

I'm based in Chester, but work away in London Monday to Friday.

York is a lovely city.

[O Really]

How many cameras do we think the average Wally World, Target or Harris Teeter has? Look up next time.

On second thought. Probably don't want to know.

Probably a lot. But the question is, do they, along with all those neo installed at the casino, serve a useful and reasonable purpose, or are they harmful to patrons of the establishment? And again, is it worse to be watched by a guy watching a camera than guys standing in the aisles? I think people have a tendency to jump to the worst possible use of a technology and assume that (a) if it can happen, it will happen and (2) the worst possible use outweighs the value of the most common uses.

[Vrede too]

Probably a lot. But the question is, do they, along with all those neo installed at the casino, serve a useful and reasonable purpose, or are they harmful to patrons of the establishment? And again, is it worse to be watched by a guy watching a camera than guys standing in the aisles? I think people have a tendency to jump to the worst possible use of a technology and assume that (a) if it can happen, it will happen and (2) the worst possible use outweighs the value of the most common uses.

How many times do FBI/NSA/CIA abuses need to be exposed before we can safely say "it will happen"?

[O Really]

Probably a lot. But the question is, do they, along with all those neo installed at the casino, serve a useful and reasonable purpose, or are they harmful to patrons of the establishment? And again, is it worse to be watched by a guy watching a camera than guys standing in the aisles? I think people have a tendency to jump to the worst possible use of a technology and assume that (a) if it can happen, it will happen and (2) the worst possible use outweighs the value of the most common uses.

How many times do FBI/NSA/CIA abuses need to be exposed before we can safely say "it will happen"?

I suppose the only totally accurate answer to your rhetorical question is "once." So what about assumption (2)?

Seems to me the problem of abuses by FBI/NSA/CIA etc. is more an issue of agency management more than the tech/tools available. Some might argue that ol' J Edgar did a pretty good job of abuse well before there was electronic surveillance.

[Vrede too]

I suppose the only totally accurate answer to your rhetorical question is "once." So what about assumption (2)?

Seems to me the problem of abuses by FBI/NSA/CIA etc. is more an issue of agency management more than the tech/tools available. Some might argue that ol' J Edgar did a pretty good job of abuse well before there was electronic surveillance.

Agreed, they don't cause evil, they just make it easier, more omniscient and more efficient to perpetrate.

[neoplacebo]

The cameras in stores like Wal Mart and other places are there not just to deter or detect shoplifters; they serve just as important a role, or perhaps even a more important role, in protecting the store from bogus injury claims in case someone says they slipped on a river of vomit in aisle 3 or that they were hit in the head with a shovel by the dwarf who works in hardware. In cases like those, the vomit camera and shovel camera are invaluable to the management.

[O Really]

Yeah, and arent' those cameras also used to create the lovely "Walmart Shopper" photo spreads?

[O Really]

So we've got tickets to see Cirque du Soleil next week. For the first time, I got this message from Ticketmaster:

"This event is mobile entry only.
Your mobile ticket must be displayed on your phone to get into the event. Tickets will not be mailed or available for print."

Not a big deal to me, as I planned on using the mobile ticket anyway, but I've never seen a "mobile-only" requirement before. Probably better monitoring so they can try to sell me something else. I guess they figure that anybody without a phone capable of receiving and displaying the ticket doesn't need or isn't likely to be going to the show anyway. The venue is the SDSU arena - maybe it's their rule.

[Vrede too]

The EARN IT Bill Is the Government’s Plan to Scan Every Message Online

Protect our Speech and Security Online: Reject the Graham-Blumenthal Bill (petition)

[Vrede too]

One whistleblower's journey:

Client Spotlight: A Five-Year Fight for Truth and Justice

In 2015, Jeffrey Missal, an Environmental Protection Specialist in the Department Of Interior’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), blew the whistle on violations of the National Environmental and Policy Act’s (NEPA) environmental impact requirements for offshore oil drilling in Alaska. The agency was approvingArctic drilling before the legal requirements for NEPA were met. Missal observed corruption in the BSEE, and was concerned that chronic lax oversight would raise the risk of a major oil spill off the coast of Alaska. An event that would have serious ramifications for sensitive marine Arctic ecosystems. Although the company eventually withdrew its drilling plan for unrelated reasons, Missal nearly paid with his career. He was stripped of all duties and was the subject of a secret retaliatory investigation. The investigation was concluded without any due process, and Missal was removed from his position.

In 2016, Missal sought help from the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), and they delivered. After a thorough investigation, OSC obtained a stay of Missal’s termination in August 2017. When the agency still would not agree to neutralize the effects of the harassment, the OSC filed a prohibited personnel practice report that concluded DOI had violated the Whistleblower Protection Act. The Special Counsel then filed for a hearing at the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. OSC’s persistence broke a settlement impasse, and after another two years of negotiations, the agency agreed to full corrective action. This week, Missal reached a settlement that provides Missal with full reinstatement, restored back pay and annual leave, a retroactive promotion, a fresh start in a modified chain of command, an award, completion of unissued performance appraisals, two-year priority consideration for new jobs, $180,000 in compensatory damages, and $20,000 in attorney fees. We are honored to have represented Jeffrey in his quest to tell the truth and seek justice.

Many don't fare so well in the long term, nor do their initial gripes, and it's no surprise that patriots like Reality Winner and Edward Snowden choose a more direct path.