AI Models May Enable a New Era of Mass Spying, Says Bruce Schneier (arstechnica.com) 37
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: In an editorial for Slate published Monday, renowned security researcher Bruce Schneier warned that AI models may enable a new era of mass spying, allowing companies and governments to automate the process of analyzing and summarizing large volumes of conversation data, fundamentally lowering barriers to spying activities that currently require human labor. In the piece, Schneier notes that the existing landscape of electronic surveillance has already transformed the modern era, becoming the business model of the Internet, where our digital footprints are constantly tracked and analyzed for commercial reasons.
Spying, by contrast, can take that kind of economically inspired monitoring to a completely new level: "Spying and surveillance are different but related things," Schneier writes. "If I hired a private detective to spy on you, that detective could hide a bug in your home or car, tap your phone, and listen to what you said. At the end, I would get a report of all the conversations you had and the contents of those conversations. If I hired that same private detective to put you under surveillance, I would get a different report: where you went, whom you talked to, what you purchased, what you did." Schneier says that current spying methods, like phone tapping or physical surveillance, are labor-intensive, but the advent of AI significantly reduces this constraint. Generative AI systems are increasingly adept at summarizing lengthy conversations and sifting through massive datasets to organize and extract relevant information. This capability, he argues, will not only make spying more accessible but also more comprehensive. "This spying is not limited to conversations on our phones or computers," Schneier writes. "Just as cameras everywhere fueled mass surveillance, microphones everywhere will fuel mass spying. Siri and Alexa and 'Hey, Google' are already always listening; the conversations just aren't being saved yet." [...]
In his editorial, Schneier raises concerns about the chilling effect that mass spying could have on society, cautioning that the knowledge of being under constant surveillance may lead individuals to alter their behavior, engage in self-censorship, and conform to perceived norms, ultimately stifling free expression and personal privacy. So what can people do about it? Anyone seeking protection from this type of mass spying will likely need to look toward government regulation to keep it in check since commercial pressures often trump technological safety and ethics. [...] Schneier isn't optimistic on that front, however, closing with the line, "We could prohibit mass spying. We could pass strong data-privacy rules. But we haven't done anything to limit mass surveillance. Why would spying be any different?" It's a thought-provoking piece, and you can read the entire thing on Slate.
Spying, by contrast, can take that kind of economically inspired monitoring to a completely new level: "Spying and surveillance are different but related things," Schneier writes. "If I hired a private detective to spy on you, that detective could hide a bug in your home or car, tap your phone, and listen to what you said. At the end, I would get a report of all the conversations you had and the contents of those conversations. If I hired that same private detective to put you under surveillance, I would get a different report: where you went, whom you talked to, what you purchased, what you did." Schneier says that current spying methods, like phone tapping or physical surveillance, are labor-intensive, but the advent of AI significantly reduces this constraint. Generative AI systems are increasingly adept at summarizing lengthy conversations and sifting through massive datasets to organize and extract relevant information. This capability, he argues, will not only make spying more accessible but also more comprehensive. "This spying is not limited to conversations on our phones or computers," Schneier writes. "Just as cameras everywhere fueled mass surveillance, microphones everywhere will fuel mass spying. Siri and Alexa and 'Hey, Google' are already always listening; the conversations just aren't being saved yet." [...]
In his editorial, Schneier raises concerns about the chilling effect that mass spying could have on society, cautioning that the knowledge of being under constant surveillance may lead individuals to alter their behavior, engage in self-censorship, and conform to perceived norms, ultimately stifling free expression and personal privacy. So what can people do about it? Anyone seeking protection from this type of mass spying will likely need to look toward government regulation to keep it in check since commercial pressures often trump technological safety and ethics. [...] Schneier isn't optimistic on that front, however, closing with the line, "We could prohibit mass spying. We could pass strong data-privacy rules. But we haven't done anything to limit mass surveillance. Why would spying be any different?" It's a thought-provoking piece, and you can read the entire thing on Slate.
"May"? (Score:5, Insightful)
As in "have already been enabling it for years"? Yeah, sure.
Re: (Score:3)
As in "have already been enabling it for years"? Yeah, sure.
And here I was wondering why my smart underwear needed a camera and microphone with a cellular link.
Re: (Score:2)
Now the world will watch how FSB agents pour that wrong dose of novitchok into your thong realtime.
Re: (Score:2)
> And here I was wondering why my smart underwear needed a camera and microphone with a cellular link.
Wow. I didn't know Mormons had advanced to those levels.
Re: (Score:2)
As in "have already been enabling it for years"? Yeah, sure.
Let me guess . . . the current AIs only recognize white people? There's always some catch.
It hasn't taken AI (Score:4, Interesting)
Once upon a time it was expensive to snoop on people's communications because a human had to interpret them. Voice recognition has made it cheap for a long time. It's safest to assume for example that at least all long distance calls are recorded and keyword scanned.
There have been cameras that can detect certain objects and activities for years now, there are open source packages to do this kind of detection so anyone can do it. This bird has flown.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It could definitely be done now. It costs like a hundred bucks in parts (if bought in any kind of quantity, even in dozens let alone hundreds) to build a drone that can carry a grenade and fly waypoints. Probably half that if you buy real quantity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It hasn't taken AI (Score:2)
To be able to operate in arbitrary environments is futuristic, you would definitely need some advanced recon to gather the information you need for fine navigation. On the other hand a cruise missile using decades old tech can fly through a window. What's missing is development time, not any of the necessary bits of the hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
To be able to operate in arbitrary environments is futuristic, you would definitely need some advanced recon to gather the information you need for fine navigation.
That’s not necessary if you are able to Simultaneously Localize And Map [wikipedia.org] your environment. There are videos of drones doing this [youtube.com] though it’s still primitive. The reason is you could make a thousand, maybe ten thousand micro drones for the cost of one missile and not even damage the infrastructure. If they had low quiescent power requirements and decent energy reserves they could sit idly for extended periods of time and act as intelligent mines. With the right recognition software, go after t
Re: (Score:2)
> It could definitely be done now.
It can be done now. It's just that Ukraine with all the US money wants to prolong the war. Got it. /s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It hasn't taken AI (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only long distance, surely? I'd say 'all.'
There's a good chance of that, but we know that the long distance links are tapped. (NEVER FORGET QWEST [wikipedia.org].)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ages ago, when call centers were actually hosted in the US, they started out monitoring at most 1-2 people at random, because the equipment it took to record and store calls was expensive. Then, all ACD lines started being recorded, all of them, with the tapes being held for a week or two. Now, with how easy it is to record stuff, it is just recorded and transcribed immediately and kept forever.
Recording and storage of recordings and transcriptions is so cheap, one should assume it is being done.
Good or bad? (Score:1)
allowing companies and governments to automate the process of analyzing and summarizing large volumes of conversation data
Of course, those summaries will be full of errors. I don't know whether that will make things better or worse.
Re: (Score:1)
Probably depends a lot on perspective. For example, when the SWAT team shows up at the wrong house with a no-knock warrant; if you were in that house and now wrongfully got shot in the head, you'd probably see it as worse, but if you were in the right house and this allowed you to flee to safety, you'd undoubtedly see that as better.
A simple copyright change would help (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, it is the holder of the camera or microphone that is the default copyright holder.
And if the microphone is being "held" by AI, can it hold the copyright? Based on some court decisions in related areas, no it can't. So yeah. It's still my property until I pass it on to another human.
The Stazi would have loved AI (Score:5, Insightful)
What we have today would have been the Stazi's [historyhit.com] wet dream. What they did [wikipedia.org] is nothing to what we are all be subject to today. The Stazi was roundly criticised at the time, but I fear that the lessons are being forgotten [amnesty.org].
not saved yet? (Score:4, Insightful)
> Siri and Alexa and 'Hey, Google' are already always listening; the conversations just aren't being saved yet.
Don't bet on that, Bruce.
civil libertarians. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uncivil ones, as well
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This is why China is #1... (Score:2)
"Look at China, and North Korea. They have extensive spy/surveillance networks, but they have the best quality of life in the world"
Hahahhahahahhahaha
Re: (Score:2)
> I already have to do this online or you get banned from groups, your account suspended, comments deleted, etc. All you have to do is dare to question their sacred cows.
And your entire posting history is erased. I'm talking about you REDDI~1, the front page of the Internet
You monster! (Score:2)
You murdered that poor metaphor. That's why your argument makes no sense.
That, and your understanding of the issue at hand.
No purchase is necessary when the secret police, your employer, your colleague, your spouse, family member or SomeRandomGuyTM simply puts a microphone or camera somewhere near you and records you 24/7 - with AI used to filter, analyze and summarize all that data into six lines or less.
I propose we call such AI Richelieu. [wikipedia.org]
Here's a flip side. What's stopping anyone doing that same thing -