GE, Intel, and AT&T Are Putting Cameras and Sensors All Over San Diego (fortune.com) 125
An anonymous reader shares a Fortune report: General Electric will put cameras, microphones, and sensors on 3,200 street lights in San Diego this year, marking the first large-scale use of "smart city" tools GE says can help monitor traffic and pinpoint crime, but raising potential privacy concerns. Based on technology from GE's Current division, Intel and AT&T, the system will use sensing nodes on light poles to locate gunshots, estimate crowd sizes, check vehicle speeds and other tasks, GE and the city said on Wednesday. The city will provide the data to entrepreneurs and students to develop applications. Companies expect a growing market for such systems as cities seek better data to plan and run their operations. San Diego is a test of "Internet of things" technology that GE Current provides for commercial buildings and industrial sites.
Not entirely sure (Score:5, Interesting)
and other tasks
That's the worry.
Re:Not entirely sure (Score:5, Insightful)
and other tasks
That's the worry.
It's the worry for the very small fraction of intelligent people who already know how will be abused.
For the other 99% of society who doesn't give a shit about privacy anymore, they don't care about the abuse, including the cost of implementing or maintaining this for little or no real value.
This isn't about traffic or crime. This is about Control.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to say without coming across all conspiracy nut, though.
Because people have been trained to think that anything less than total and absolute trust of those in power and any thinking outside the box is stuffs of tin-foil-hat-wearers -- and even when concrete evidence is presented a large majority either does not care or thinks there is nothing wrong (see Snowden revelations). We're all fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, if I'm looking at all the people who use the Chrome browser, who use Windows 10, who use smartphones, and who all have opted into this control and surveillance, I think that putting cameras in places with rampant crime and abuse is a good way to stop it. However, if you only put cameras to the places of the city where crime is most present, it will just simply move. Therefore its a good idea to place cameras into every part of the city. If this is only done in cities where crime is very presen
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, if I'm looking at all the people who use the Chrome browser, who use Windows 10, who use smartphones, and who all have opted into this control and surveillance, I think that putting cameras in places with rampant crime and abuse is a good way to stop it. However, if you only put cameras to the places of the city where crime is most present, it will just simply move. Therefore its a good idea to place cameras into every part of the city. If this is only done in cities where crime is very present, then its a good move!
Also, these cameras can't be turned off by police officials as easily as body cameras can, so I think its more likely to see better proof for police brutality and to pick out the bad apples.
Obviously, you need to watch out that these data don't get into wrong hands and maybe get used for extortion.
Your naivete is saddening. You seem to feel that somehow THIS system of control, unlike all other systems of control, will magically not be abused just because there is a way to "watch out that [it doesn't] get into the wrong hands" and "If this [new system of control] is only done in [narrowly defined situations with no mission creep] then its [sic] a good move!"
Why are you willfully choosing to believe something which has never been reality before, is going to be reality THIS time?
1) This level of pervasi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It will be the end of anonymity, the end of privacy, the end of certain kinds of freedom.
If we can guide our new society we can make it something that I would enjoy. We need to be careful to establish wide liberties on private things such as sexuality, freedom of thought, pursuit of altered states of consciousness. In some of these regards I see promising developments already.
If we can establish wide libertie
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine a world like this, where freedom was valued but violence was simply not tolerated. It is not entirely appalling.
Not entirely appalling, but unfortunately its pretty unrealistic, mostly because nobody will be willing to give wide liberties on many subjects, especially sexuality. Even if the all discriminatory laws are wiped and we somehow come to consensus on the exactly lines for things like what constitutes rape and whatnot so that everyone knows exactly the rules to follow by law.. unfortunately that does nothing for the social issues and those can be just as freedom-inhibiting as legal issues.
We already see that
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly I'm surprised how quickly gay marriage became widely accepted. I'm also surprised how fast weed has gone mainstream. I'm normally a pessimist but these things give me hope.
Re: (Score:2)
tl;dr
Botnets forecast to grow by at least 3200 new infected units for hire next year.
Re: (Score:3)
However, if you only put cameras to the places of the city where crime is most present, it will just simply move. Therefore its a good idea to place cameras into every part of the city.
Studies of crime in places where cameras are as close to "everywhere" as is practical, such as prisons, Navy ships, and London, show that criminals know where the blinds spots are. A heatmap of crime looks exactly like you'd expect: you can tell where the cameras are from it.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats an argument along the lines of "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns". Of course, the crime that's left is in the blind spots, but it doesn't mean that it wasn't successful.
That being said, I don't suggest that the entire US should be carpet surveilled with cameras like the british islands are. Just apply it to some few select crime hot spots.
Re: (Score:2)
In London, overall crimes rates were not reduced in the study I read. If the goal is "move the crime to where the people we don't like live", then, sure, you might accomplish that - like much of modern policing. Otherwise, you're just moving the crime hotspots around.
Re: (Score:2)
In London, overall crimes rates were not reduced in the study I read. If the goal is "move the crime to where the people we don't like live", then, sure, you might accomplish that - like much of modern policing. Otherwise, you're just moving the crime hotspots around.
So you’re trying to say we should only put cameras in Red States?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do think that violent and property crime will end? Most crime here is done by drunk people who don't think about consequences, then there's the other ones who are incapable of thinking of consequences due to mental damage or desperation and of course the well connected criminals who get the laws changed in their favour and/or have good lawyers.
You can keep locking up people, but the American experiment shows that doesn't keep crime down, At that locking people up and then denying them basic rights for t
Re: (Score:2)
There is some difference between "lock someone up for 2 years and let them meet the real gangsters to teach them how to be criminal" and "lock someone up and teach them how to become legal". There is much work to do to improve the current situation on this front. Its not made easier that the legal system punishes black people to an extraordinary extent. Also, there are other forms of punishment than just putting someone into a prison. Like fines for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Same thing for bicycle theft. Followed until forced to give it back, and apologize to the person they stole i
Re: (Score:3)
" I think that putting cameras in places with rampant crime", WOW, they are going to put cameras in corporate boardrooms whose claimed value is beyond a billion dollars, that's fantastic because of course that is where crime is by far the most rampant and not the petty crime of the streets. No the crimes are corruption of democracy, treason, wars for profit, bad medicines, tainted food, completely corrupted fourth estate, mass fraud of every description, I mean really horrendous crimes that cost of the live
Re: (Score:2)
RFC1149 takes care of that. RFC2549 in case streaming is needed.
Re: (Score:2)
For the other 99% of society who doesn't give a shit about privacy anymore, they don't care about the abuse, including the cost of implementing or maintaining this for little or no real value.
I used to believe this right up until Snowden and associated public polling proved me wrong.
It doesn't matter how smart people are, what they believe or how much they assert they care. It only matters what they actually do.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but sometimes all a person has to do to help improve things is be supportive of the people with the time, energy and ability to do something more direct and show them that their fight is worthwhile.
Sometimes just asserting that you care is enough, and its certainly better than stewing quietly and keeping your mouth shut.
Re: (Score:2)
For the other 99% of society who doesn't give a shit about privacy anymore, they don't care about the abuse, including the cost of implementing or maintaining this for little or no real value.
I used to believe this right up until Snowden and associated public polling proved me wrong.
Snowden didn't change a fucking thing. He only validated my statement.
It doesn't matter how smart people are, what they believe or how much they assert they care. It only matters what they actually do.
Exactly, which is why even Snowden didn't actually change a fucking thing when it comes to consumer behavior and privacy. Unjustified Control mechanisms will continue to be put in place, Rights will continue to deteriorate, and no one will fight it, because no one cares.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, which is why even Snowden didn't actually change a fucking thing when it comes to consumer behavior and privacy. Unjustified Control mechanisms will continue to be put in place, Rights will continue to deteriorate, and no one will fight it, because no one cares.
Caring is not the same as doing. One does not necessarily flow from the other.
Re: Control is a many-way street (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't control yourself, you will be controlled. That is the way it has always been. You know it exists. Are you going to use it to control yourself, or are you going to let others use it to control you?
Feel free to elaborate on this poetic advice as your Rights dissolve faster than a Millennials Starbucks account.
You act as if We are still gifted with choice.
Re: (Score:2)
how long after bio compatible micro computers with gps are developed will be mandatory to implant it in every new born for their own security well being and convenience? the advantages will be shown so obvious that nobody will want to look to its draw backs
It's funny you think we have to wait for implants when today the vast majority of Americans carry around a GPS-enabled tracking device pretty much at all times.
Ironically, they call it a smart device, and the age at which a child is handed this gateway to social media addiction and hardcore porn is shrinking by the minute. You know, because "safety"...
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "99% of society who doesn't care(paraphrased)." There is just a lot of people who don't know yet that they are being spied on, or at least they don't know the extent of it. These corporations spying on entire cities and playing law is the definition of fascism.
A lot of people...don't know?
Smartphones and human-tracking fitness devices. Social media narcissists. Consumers gladly giving up privacy for "free" apps. IoT security dismissed as optional. Always-on listening devices in homes for "convenience". Incessant hacking and identity theft due to addiction to shitty passwords.
All of this activity continues today, half a fucking century after 1984 was penned.
All fascism needs, is mass ignorance. Wake me when the status quo changes.
Re:Not entirely sure (Score:4, Funny)
Also, have they solved the rampant security issues with IoT shit yet? If not, WTF? Thanks for adding to the botnet problem, San Diego. Can't wait to hear about how your entire IoT net has been hacked, and is now under the control of some unknown third party.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, have they solved the rampant security issues with IoT shit yet? If not, WTF? Thanks for adding to the botnet problem, San Diego. Can't wait to hear about how your entire IoT net has been hacked, and is now under the control of some unknown third party.
Ain't that the truth? IT's going to be really interesting when San Diego gets owned. Because it will get owned.
Re: (Score:2)
They will undoubtedly also be placed on the same network as, or on a network with access to, administrative computers to make for easier ransomware propagation...
Some times it seems we are incapable of learning.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm waiting for my refrigerator to tell the traffic light to turn red so I don't drive past the grocery store when I'm out of milk.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a double edged sword, there could be many interesting and beneficial uses that have yet to be thought of.. and there could be the over-arching surveillance that comes from having overly paranoid state leaders.
Re: (Score:2)
This will ultimately lead to regular body-cavity searches at traffic stops.
That's okay. I have rather irregular body cavities.
Re:its in public (Score:5, Insightful)
it's in public. u don't have any expectation of privacy
Historically true, but if we're headed for a world where everything we do and everything we say in public (at least outside and within the city limits) is on file for all time on a server somewhere that's been pre-analyzed and indexed using using facial recognition and voice recognition... we might want to consider revising that rule of thumb a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
There is an expectation that you are not being monitored by the police state, up until this point. Technology is invasive the moment it becomes pervasive. I have no ability to OPT out of state surveillance, and the state has no expectation that they can monitor me without a court order. I would consider this a violation of 4th Amendment "Unreasonable" search ....
Re: (Score:2)
technology gets more powerful it also gets more intrusive
Technology is invasive the moment it becomes pervasive.
You and I said the same thing. As a Libertarian, I would suggest to you a (singular) camera is invasive, but accepted. A thousand cameras owned by the state is in fact a violation of constitutional guarantees against UNREASONABLE searches. Is it really unreasonable to be free from observation in a "Free" society?
Think about it for a second, the very thing we made fun of in the USSR is happening today, and both liberals and conservatives are arguing for more of the same surveillance state.
The difference betw
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, every tire sold in North America has an RFID chip, your license plate is superfluous.
Re: (Score:2)
In the pavement, disguised as expansion joints.
Re: (Score:2)
u don't have any expectation of privacy
I can't believe you hold an expectation that people give a shit about privacy anymore, regardless of location.
Re: (Score:2)
People give a shit about privacy. They just don't understand it and (more importantly) how and when its being compromised.
The biggest issue is a disconnect between where privacy is compromised and where its expected to be compromised. If I post a picture of my dog to Facebook and share it with my friends, I expect that only my friends will be able to see it. That's seems like a pretty reasonable assumption.
However, because its on FB's server, I no longer have control over the picture and that's the trick
Re: (Score:2)
People give a shit about privacy. They just don't understand it and (more importantly) how and when its being compromised.
The biggest issue is a disconnect between where privacy is compromised and where its expected to be compromised. If I post a picture of my dog to Facebook and share it with my friends, I expect that only my friends will be able to see it. That's seems like a pretty reasonable assumption.
However, because its on FB's server, I no longer have control over the picture and that's the tricky part that many people fail to understand because there isn't really a real-world equivalent to hosting a picture on someone else' server -- at least not without invoking some heavily constructed scenarios that would be just as hard for an average person to understand as the actual problem.
At the end of the day, ignorance is ignorance whether its intentional or not, but in the unintentional case we have at least the possibility of informing people and reducing the amount of ignorance toward the issue. Unfortunately we've been pretty unsuccessful in that context as well since for the most part, all of this privacy invasion has been fairly subtle and unintrusive to the average person so its hard to convince them that there is even a problem that they're ignorant of, never mind correcting that ignorance.
People will gladly give up privacy in exchange for a "free" price tag. The top 10 worst passwords consumers use today have not changed in decades, regardless of the obvious rise in hacking and identity theft, caused by using shitty passwords. The fitness guru who gets offended when a website drops a cookie wears a fitness tracker 24/7. The consumer shocked by the invasive nature of targeted ads owns an always-on listening device in their home, because "convenience". The social media addict who streams a
Re: (Score:2)
People will gladly give up privacy in exchange for a "free" price tag
Are you sure about that? Now people will sure give their name and address to some company for a free price tag -- but it comes with the expectation that it will only be used by the company they gave it to.
That's the disconnect of ignorance. People who haven't had reason to consider the issue in depth don't really expect that their data is being sold to 47 "partners" and stolen by hackers 3 times a year because the site is too lazy or incompetent to secure their system. We expect the data to be used for i
Re: (Score:2)
People will gladly give up privacy in exchange for a "free" price tag
Are you sure about that? Now people will sure give their name and address to some company for a free price tag -- but it comes with the expectation that it will only be used by the company they gave it to.
That's the disconnect of ignorance. People who haven't had reason to consider the issue in depth don't really expect that their data is being sold to 47 "partners" and stolen by hackers 3 times a year because the site is too lazy or incompetent to secure their system. We expect the data to be used for in-house things like product planning and flyer layout.
We've been told for centuries that business is the end-all-be-all and we tend to trust them until they break trust rather than requiring them to earn trust in the first place.
When the end result is a constant stream of hacks leaking consumer data, it's still willful ignorance, no matter how you want to paint it. If a company contracted to never sell user information and secured it using the best encryption, but charged $5 for their product, no one would buy it. People bitch about 99 cents these days. Willful ignorance at its finest.
With regards to hacking and consequence, it's the it'll-never-happen-to-me syndrome. That same ignorance leads to humans ignoring medical signs t
Re: (Score:1)
I think I'll follow you everywhere you go (as long as you're in "public"), live-streaming your actions from my phone, since you have no expectation of privacy. I will also follow your vehicle, noting when you turn into the wrong lane, don't signal the proper distance in advance of your action, roll stop signs, exceed the speed limit by 1 MPH, etc. You don't mind, right? I think I'll call you Truman.
Re: (Score:2)
Go for it, don't be surprised when you get arrested for stalking.
Re: (Score:2)
Go for it, don't be surprised when you get arrested for stalking.
I think that was the AC's point.
kill two birds with one stone. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no law saying I can't wander around public spaces wearing a high-power infrared LED that's blinking out Bobby Tables in Morse code.
Hehe - I like it! While I'm not sure of the need to defeat these, Its always good to think of countermeasures.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Until they decide to call that kind of thing vandalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but maybe we should.
Re: (Score:2)
There kind of was, in a weird way.
In the way back 70s and 80s even, if i was being spied upon on a public street, it was pretty certain there was something specific about me. Maybe I was a crook, maybe I was a cheating spouse, or (very unlikely) maybe i just had a stalker. It was expensive to spy on someone. So only certain people could ever be targets.
Now, everyone can be targeted cheaply. That's a different world. that's a different world than the Founding Fathers could see. Maybe they'd specificall
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, there needs to be sensible privacy legislation in place *before* these systems roll out. Otherwise, the potential for abuse is insane. Kettling on steroids, to name just one. Microphones on every lamp post, whoa...
More unjustified naivete.
Let's not pretend we don't know how things work, as if there weren't mountains of human history demonstrating what will happen.
There is no amount of legislation which will remove the "potential for abuse". Legislation doesn't magically make the data go away. If the data is collected, it has a gravity of its own, and just like a new planet that gravity will over time pull the other parts of legal system out of their current orbit and result in something different. Information is powe
Re: (Score:3)
All we need now is for someone to build a computer system to analyze all the data, and call it The Machine
Probably end up being more like Samaritan...
Re: (Score:2)
By now your name and particulars have been fed into every laptop, desktop, mainframe and supermarket scanner that collectively make up the global information conspiracy, otherwise known as "The Beast."
Face masks anyone? (Score:1)
How soon before people wear masks outside, just do go about their business around town?
Re: Face masks anyone? (Score:3)
http://news.sky.com/story/hefn... [sky.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Business like selling drugs? Or extorting protection money?
Business like protesting government action. Or were you implying that the only people who should be worried about this are criminals?
Re: (Score:1)
How soon before people wear masks outside, just do go about their business around town?
Automated biometrics are advancing every month. Gait, posture, general size/outline, body language... these are all keys which can be used to positively ID you in the same way face recognition is a composite of components like eyes, lips, nose, cheekbones, brow, etc. Covering your mouth or your eyes doesn't render your unrecognizable. A little harder maybe, but not by enough to defeat modern technology. So no, face masks won't make a difference. (Plus the likelihood that measures you might take to conceal y
Re:Face masks everyone! (Score:1)
Fezzik: Why do you wear a mask? Were you burned by acid or something?
The Man in Black: Oh no. It's just they're terribly comfortable. I think everyone will be wearing them in the future.
Good and evil (Score:2)
Like all new technology it will be used for good and evil. "The city will provide the data to entrepreneurs and students to develop applications." Have to have faith in the majority of people to use the technology for good and to punish those that use it for evil. However, if the information is in the hands of just a few then there won't be effective oversight and it will be used for evil. What they need to do is level the playing field and provide the data as close to real time as is technically possib
Add it to the list (Score:1)
Another permanent-(D) hellhole putting it's subjects under a microscope. Add it to the list.
GE, Intel, and AT&T Are Putting Cameras and Sensors All Over San Diego [slashdot.org]
San Jose May Put License Plate Scanners On Garbage Trucks [slashdot.org]
In Baltimore and Elsewhere, Police Use Stingrays For Petty Crimes [slashdot.org]
Re:Add it to the list (Score:4, Informative)
San Diego is heavily Republican, you idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Heavily? Compared to the rest of California, perhaps.
Re: (Score:1)
California is a fucking blue state, you non-voting twit.
Re: (Score:1)
Never heard of a voting district?
CA on average is blue, but San Diego County is red.
I wonder which version of ctOS they'll use... (Score:2)
I look forward to taking advantage of hacking the devices with ease from my phone.
Re: (Score:2)
The phone that is tracking your every word. move, text and photo?
To paraphrase an old quote... (Score:2)
Fascism seems to be eternally descending on conservative states, but landing in liberally controlled areas.
Countdown to being rooted: 10, 9 ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Screw it.... (Score:2)
All over? (Score:2)
Just wait... (Score:2)
The next thing will be facial recognition.
Best of both worlds! (Score:2)
All the privacy of government spy programs with all the transparency of private corporations! What could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
This is a very good point.
But then the 1996 Telecom Act [wikipedia.org] quietly changed the ownership of metadata from the subscriber to service providers. And many of these service providers have moved all their customer information offshore (try to call customer service without being connected to Rajiv). So that raw data is available (and has been used) to do link analysis, the results of which are for sale. Adversaries can figure out who works with or for whom. And where they are at any given time using this analysis a
Re: (Score:2)
Maria's Taqueria y Burdel already knows that shit.