Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Privacy The Internet Your Rights Online

EU Surveillance Studies Disclosed By Pirate Party 343

Posted by timothy
from the vee-simply-vish-ztu-observe-you dept.
Spliffster writes "The German Pirate Party has disclosed some secret documents on how the EU is planning to monitor citizens. The so called INDECT Documents describe how a seamless surveillance could (or should) be implemented across Europe. The use of CCTV cameras, the Internet (social networks), and even the use of UAVs are mentioned as data sources. Two of the nine documents can be downloaded from the German Pirate Party's website (PDFs in English)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Surveillance Studies Disclosed By Pirate Party

Comments Filter:
  • by Local ID10T (790134) <ID10T.L.USER@gmail.com> on Friday September 10, 2010 @12:47AM (#33530988) Homepage

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

    • by Compaqt (1758360) on Friday September 10, 2010 @01:29AM (#33531182) Homepage

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

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

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

      • by Gordonjcp (186804) on Friday September 10, 2010 @01:41AM (#33531216) Homepage

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

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

        • by Requiem18th (742389) on Friday September 10, 2010 @02:15AM (#33531348)

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

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

          • by LingNoi (1066278) on Friday September 10, 2010 @02:59AM (#33531520)

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

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

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

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

            • by rtb61 (674572) on Friday September 10, 2010 @03:19AM (#33531602) Homepage

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

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

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

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by AnarChaos (1844534)
                i totally agree with you on this, i don't think CCTV or however you want to call it will solve anything, on the contrary... it gives governments and police a very powerful tool to dominate the masses ("we have proof you know!") while at the same time it leaves "them" (authorities, cops,...) in a position where they can cover up their own actions. This reminds me of David Brin's masterpiece "Earth", in which the "right to privacy" was swapped around into a "right to knowledge". If police/politicians demand
            • by cheekyjohnson (1873388) on Friday September 10, 2010 @04:19AM (#33531852)

              "You'd prefer uncontrolled mass riots?"

              I'd rather be allowed to protest in an "uncontrolled" group than allow the government to decide what is appropriate for me to protest and abuse its powers in any and every way it can. The constitution mentions *no* exceptions to protests. What good is it if they're just going to ignore the parts that they don't like? Law of the land? Yeah, right. It's sad when violent riots occur, but it's worth it to at least be able to protest in the first place.

              • by Bucc5062 (856482) <bucc5062NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday September 10, 2010 @06:27AM (#33532340)

                I think the point you missed was the splinter groups that use a uncontrolled "peaceful" protest to spark conflict. I am all for assembly to protest. In a saner world I even agree to keeping the authority out of it especially if I am protesting against that said authority, peacefully.

                Today it seems that peaceful turns violent because of an agenda on the fringe to provoke attack. Peaceful assembly still has to be lawful aseembly or the point is lost. The King marches, sits down, those worked because when the violence came, it was so out of proportion to the protest it solidified support. Want to make a statement, get 10,000 people to go to Washington and protest with a sit in at the capitol. Make the police drag them away and as one leaves, one enters. There is a point when those in charge will listen much more so then if violence was used. Violent riots are worthless and tend to do more harm than good.

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by piraat (1772234)
                  And sometimes it's not even splinter groups, but the police itself! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAfzUOx53Rg [youtube.com]
                • by mcgrew (92797) * on Friday September 10, 2010 @08:01AM (#33532806) Homepage Journal

                  In 1970 there was a massive, peaceful protest against the Vietnam war at Kent State University. The government reacted by killing protesters. [wikipedia.org]

                  I was a senior in high school when it happened, about a month before graduation. It was a relly big deal at the time, all over the news.

                  • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                    by Bucc5062 (856482)

                    Hold on, the Government did not set out to kill people at Kent. I was a teenager myself at the time, it was a horrific act, but based on stupidity, not government orders ("Kill all the hippies" does not seem plausible.)

                    The basic point I make is that violence is generally met with violence. When untrained kids come armed with weapons to a protest then the potential for bullets flying get raised. When tensions are high it is bound to result in a more ugly release of that tension. Almost every effective pr

                    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                      by mcgrew (92797) *

                      True, the government didn't say "kill the hippies", but they did in fact send National Guardsmen armed with automatic rifles to a peaceful protest where none of the protesters were armed. There was no need to say "kill the hippies", it was inevitable. Theose guardsmen were, in fact, part of Ohio's government.

                • by delinear (991444) on Friday September 10, 2010 @08:04AM (#33532826)
                  Maybe I'm failing to see the bigger picture, but how does the question of whether a protest is controlled or uncontrolled have any bearing on whether it is hijacked by a splinter group with an agenda? Here in the UK we can now only have controlled assemblies by law, yet we still have riots, even as recently as last year with the G20 riots (where 350+ people were arrested). Use traffic flow or commerce or politically/religious/ethnic sensitivity or whatever other reason you can think of to justify laws controlling peaceful assembly, but don't use the fear of riots because we are living proof that riots happen regardless. On the other hand, when a million people turn up in the capital to protest an illegal war and the government presses on regardless, you can begin to understand why a frustrated handful of people think violence is the answer - after all, the government is setting the example.
            • by dkleinsc (563838) on Friday September 10, 2010 @08:06AM (#33532848) Homepage

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

              Let me give you a clear example of what happens from what a lot of people experienced in Chicago in 1968:
              People gather [youtube.com], everything is good, and they aren't annoying anybody really. The police decide to unlawfully break up the protest. It turns into a full blown police riot [youtube.com].

              Or if that examples goes too far back, you can look at Los Angeles in 2007 [youtube.com].

              A fair number of police want protests to get violent, some because beating up protesters makes them feel powerful, some because they disagree with the protesters politically, and some because their bosses fall into one of the first two groups. The real kicker is that a lot of the protesters that get beaten up by cops are frequently charged with assaulting a police officer.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by maxume (22995)

            You just spoke your mind against the government.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by El Torico (732160)

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

          Yes, it's so awful that millions of people immigrate here every year.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Ziekheid (1427027)

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

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by VShael (62735)

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

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jandersen (462034)

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

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

        Try using your brains for once, assuming you've got some: Being seen by others is part of life, unless you are a recluse on a desert island. "Surveillance" as you call it gives you many benefits: if you crash with your car, chances are that you'll be helped by those nice folks known as paramedics

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Luckyo (1726890)

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

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

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

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

        You are comparing apples and oranges. INDECT is not a surveillance operation, it is a study on surveillance algorithms/techniques. Sure it is a bit shady, and they probably have access to some collected data sets, but in the core it is a research project, studying methods of assisting the focus of humans that watch camera walls. For instance, "suspicious behaviour detection" ... of course it will never work perfectly.

        The great thing about surveillance is that it doesn't work, for once because personnel to d

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by PopeRatzo (965947) *

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

        You think the governments are doing this for themselves? They are under pressure to keep an "orderly" society for the sake of commerce.

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

        People need to remember that they're governments are just themselves and unite against the real enemy.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by carp3_noct3m (1185697)

        Just have to point out, that Echelon makes the rest of what you talked about look like a .20 megapixel camera comared to a true HDR videocamera.. It is a AUSCANZUKUS program, but the real genius behind it is the NSA. The echelon program was started in about 71 as best as we can tell, but has evolved into a monster that no one person knows all about (including the oversight committee) and has technology that is years ahead of the rest of the world. One recent comparison on the matter that has stuck in my hea

  • For what purpose? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by elucido (870205) * on Friday September 10, 2010 @12:47AM (#33530990)

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

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

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

    • by Kitkoan (1719118) on Friday September 10, 2010 @12:56AM (#33531034)

      Surveillance is fine if theres... a Cold War

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

      • Re:For what purpose? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by lanswitch (705539) on Friday September 10, 2010 @01:07AM (#33531088)

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

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

        • by Kitkoan (1719118) on Friday September 10, 2010 @01:12AM (#33531110)
          Business as usual in a big city would meet my description as a "large event" where people at like "hooligans" and can have riots (beyond Soccer games). And as you mentioned, it could be mis-used for anything they want. That much power is ripe for abuse and since it won't be monitored by the public, who can really say/report what it ends up truly being used for?
        • Re:For what purpose? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Spliffster (755587) on Friday September 10, 2010 @02:24AM (#33531384) Homepage Journal

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

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

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

          -S

          • by PatrickThomson (712694) on Friday September 10, 2010 @03:41AM (#33531700)

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

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510)

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

              Precrime much?

              You've just rationalized any amount of government interference because there is always a chance that something will go wrong.
              And don't even try to backpedal because you just called a man assinine for complaining that under the proposed system "anyone could be a suspect."

            • Re:For what purpose? (Score:4, Interesting)

              by Spliffster (755587) on Friday September 10, 2010 @04:49AM (#33531942) Homepage Journal

              Guarding certain events and proforma data monitoring of anybody is not the same. Did you read the PDF files (well this is slashdot)? I am the original poster, I did before submitting it to slashdot.

    • Re:For what purpose? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Superdarion (1286310) on Friday September 10, 2010 @01:02AM (#33531066)

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

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

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

      • by Kitkoan (1719118)

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

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

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by elucido (870205) *

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

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

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

      • by elucido (870205) * on Friday September 10, 2010 @01:15AM (#33531122)

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

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

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

  • by SwampChicken (1383905) on Friday September 10, 2010 @12:56AM (#33531036)
    ... loitering has been classified as a "dangerous activity" in the EU.
    • by keeboo (724305)

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

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

  • by Jedi Alec (258881) on Friday September 10, 2010 @12:56AM (#33531038)

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

  • Orwell (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Superdarion (1286310) on Friday September 10, 2010 @12:59AM (#33531052)

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

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

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

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

    • Re:Orwell (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kitkoan (1719118) on Friday September 10, 2010 @01:01AM (#33531062)
      People in government do read 1984. They've just confused it from a warning to a guide/how to book.
      • Re:Orwell (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Kuroji (990107) <kuroji@gmail.com> on Friday September 10, 2010 @02:41AM (#33531452)

        They also read Brave New World.

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

        • Brave New World (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Kupfernigk (1190345) on Friday September 10, 2010 @04:25AM (#33531876)
          Huxley thought he was describing a dystopia, and failed. When I read BNW as a nerdy teenager I thought it was a really good idea. In Huxley's world, nerds get to live with other nerds on islands and build their own ideal societies, unbothered by the power mad, conformists and the stupid. Mustapha Mond, the world controller, is practically a Platonic philosopher-king. BNW is only a dystopia if you are conventionally religious, or have inflated ideas of the importance of the human race.
          • Re:Brave New World (Score:4, Insightful)

            by IndustrialComplex (975015) on Friday September 10, 2010 @06:39AM (#33532382)

            is only a dystopia if you are conventionally religious, or have inflated ideas of the importance of the human race.

            Is this another way of saying, "It's only a dystopia if you don't believe the way I do."

          • Re:Brave New World (Score:5, Insightful)

            by dkleinsc (563838) on Friday September 10, 2010 @08:25AM (#33532972) Homepage

            That society, like most societies, is only an improvement if you're on top of the social heap. Similar to how most Ren Faire fans aren't so excited of the prospect of the real life of the average Renaissance person, which was generally a combination of working on a farm, being conscripted into an army, dying of plague (or dysentery or a host of other diseases), and praying to avoid dying of plague. Ditto for Ayn Rand's views - I have yet to meet an Ayn Rand fan who thinks that they're part of the unwashed masses who never accomplish anything important. Similarly, most Trek fans imagine themselves as a bridge officer instead of Second Class Deck Cleaner, and more Star Wars fans imagine themselves as a Jedi of some sort than some no-name moisture farmer.

            It's all good fun, but hardly realistic.

    • by sco08y (615665)

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

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

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

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

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

  • I guess it's inevitable that something like this would pop up sooner or later, but still it just seems absurd. After reading through the document, they are trying to make a kind of an IDS system based on camera feeds... I guess if the camera's are already in place this could make them more useful (if I remember correctly the UK has not found their extensive camera network to be very useful as is?), but still this just feels so wrong.
    • Re:wow (Score:4, Informative)

      by Nursie (632944) on Friday September 10, 2010 @01:31AM (#33531186)

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

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

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

      • Re:wow (Score:5, Insightful)

        by VShael (62735) on Friday September 10, 2010 @03:12AM (#33531572) Journal

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

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

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

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

        • Re:wow (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Richard_at_work (517087) <richardprice AT gmail DOT com> on Friday September 10, 2010 @07:53AM (#33532736)

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

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

          Well, that statement is complete bollocks, I can think of several high profile cases where a police officer has been caught 'brutalising innocent members of the public' on CCTV in cases that made it all the way to court. Here's one that happened within the past week:

          "A police officer has been jailed for six months after he was caught on CCTV throwing a woman into a cell, badly injuring her.

          The footage also shows Sgt Mark Andrews dragging Pamela Somerville, 59, through Melksham police station in Wiltshire."

          http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-11214026

          Another one from last year...

          "A police watchdog is investigating an alleged attack on a man by three officers in Wigan, Greater Manchester.

          In video obtained by the Sunday Mirror the man - said to be Lance Corporal Mark Aspinall - is shown being pinned to the ground and repeatedly punched. "

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7757229.stm

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

  • I gazed at the fancy jargon of "End-User driven enterprise" and resolved this must mean "Really, Make Up Your Minds And Tell Us What You Want Before Letting Us Write This Inconclusive Report, You Bunch Of Sorry Twats!" but without being too specific about it, thus tying oneself down.
  • by AHuxley (892839) on Friday September 10, 2010 @01:09AM (#33531098) Homepage Journal
    http://wikileaks.org/wiki/EU_social_network_spy_system_brief,_INDECT_Work_Package_4,_2009 [wikileaks.org]
    Some deep ip, friend of friend of friend hunting software triggered by phrases, word use and IM connections.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Skal Tura (595728)

      And what happens when by average you are only 7 "friendships away" from anyone in the world?

      At 3 levels looked upon that probably corresponds to 1/5th of population, or even at 1/10th of whole global population, you are bound to have "terrorist friends", making every human being on this planet guilty of terrorism, and earth a giant jail....

      Oh wait a moment.... A) We really can't leave jail.. ehrm, earth B) We are already slaves of either money or religion
      Damn it happened already

  • by rastos1 (601318) on Friday September 10, 2010 @01:12AM (#33531108) Homepage
    On the second page of the first document are listed the authors - apparently tied to university in town Kosice in Slovakia. On behalf of other citizens of this country, I apologize. May be we should remind them about events that happened over 60 years ago when Slovak National Uprising [wikipedia.org] happened and become the most significant activity of regular citizens against fascistic German army in Europe. This uprising happened despite the pro-German orientated government and would certainly not be possible with that level of surveillance as is proposed there.
    • by jack2000 (1178961)
      I guess some one should visit the authors and remind them of the freedoms they enjoy today.
  • by Animats (122034) on Friday September 10, 2010 @01:43AM (#33531220) Homepage

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

    • 2 members are cops.
    • 1 member is a retired cop.
    • 1 member is a "human rights lawyer" who works for a police department.
    • 1 member is a criminologist
    • 4 members are involved in developing the technology.
    • 1 member is a professor of ethics at Oxford.
  • This story, Germany-To-Grant-Privacy-At-the-Workplace [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org] was about how great it was that Germany is making great strides towards banning a private business from monitoring the activities of its employees. Now, that same government seems to think that no amount of monitoring those same people is too much, as long as the benevolent government does the monitoring instead of the evil corporation.

    Nice progress they are making over there. /sarcasm

  • If you still wonder what Indect is all about, take a look at their own information video [youtube.com]...
  • by Zoxed (676559) on Friday September 10, 2010 @02:07AM (#33531322) Homepage

    > (PDFs in English)

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

  • In Pirate Germany, exposed Plan of Surveillance by EU!

  • Flamebait (Score:5, Informative)

    by antientropic (447787) on Friday September 10, 2010 @02:12AM (#33531336)

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

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

    • by jack2000 (1178961)
      The EU doesn't have to impose anythings, the countries here are happy enough to do everything by themselves...
    • What?? (Score:5, Informative)

      by captainpanic (1173915) on Friday September 10, 2010 @02:30AM (#33531404)

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

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

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

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

      • Re:What?? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Kiuas (1084567) on Friday September 10, 2010 @03:37AM (#33531676)

        You missed something extremely important there.

        Already, the majority of laws in Europe come from Brussels

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

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

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

        • That's not true (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Look at the Swift issue, USA demanded access to our banking data. EU Commission defined it as a data protection issue and granted USA and EU rights to that data.

          So now that data is Europol activity under the EU Commission.

          You use the word 'coordinating' to get around the facts here, the EU is expanding into criminal law, and there's no legal basis for it, but it doesn't stop them.

  • Only those... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by NewtonsLaw (409638) on Friday September 10, 2010 @03:07AM (#33531552)

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

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

    Oh... what's that?

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

    Hmmm... what does that mean I wonder?

  • by DNS-and-BIND (461968) on Friday September 10, 2010 @07:28AM (#33532570) Homepage
    I live in China. This week, a friend of a friend left a large sum of money in a taxi. My friend's staff went down to the police station and came back with a record of surveillance video, all the stops the taxi made, a route the taxi took in Google Maps style format, the taxi driver's home address, ID card scan, and mobile phone number. This is coming to a nation near you, if it's not already there. It's funny, one of the ways you can tell if street construction is almost finished is when they install the surveillance cameras on poles.

The reason that every major university maintains a department of mathematics is that it's cheaper than institutionalizing all those people.

Working...