From: Eugen Leitl (eugen@leitl.org)
Date: Fri Oct 18 2002 - 23:59:21 MDT
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Jeff Davis wrote:
> In these discussions I find a mostly unstated
> presumption that the recording devices will be setup,
> operated, and owned by the govt. To me that means a
What are you personally, and your geek posse are going to do with with
some 100 million to a billion video feeds?
I can tell you the best you can do. You can record a few days worth of it
to the hard drive, and yield it to anybody who asks for it. Oh, and by
that time video evidence won't be admissible in court since easily
synthesized.
There's going to be no prestige accounting, no biometrics extraction, no
machine vision to gauge suspicious situations, no queryable distributed
databases. Not because they're impossible, but because you and your geek
posse is lacking organization, drive, and talent as compared to an
intelligence shop.
> big brother situation, and any expectation of
> symmetric transparency is nonsense.
There are several million such video feeds in the U.K.. They are not
networked yet, and almost none of them are running machine vision. Yet.
> However, if the cameras and microphones are set up and
> owned by private individuals--around and in their
> homes, cars, businesses, and on their persons, then
> not only do you have a high degree of control of the
> data--the govt gets it only by subpoena or as a
> consequence of an established tradition of
> demonstrated deference to the citizen data-owners--
> but you have the govt data-collectors vastly
> outnumbered.
In most places, both civilized and uncivilized, it is illegal to record
police in action. LEOs (and even shop proprietors) don't like being
recorded, and will do everything in their power to harass you, take away
the evidence, and make it (and/or you) disappear.
The 'evidence' will be not admissible as evidence, and soon enough
fakeable so that you'll need prestige accounting to make it worth
anything.
> I am not convinced that the govt has under all
> circumstances and for all time the upper hand in this.
Right now it does. Show me how this is about to change. Please outline
each single step along the way, and don't forget to mention the checks and
balances necessary to keep it that way.
> If the random handy video camera can in a
> fluke--Rodney King-- force accountability on the cops,
> then what would be the result of an environment
> saturated with privately-owned recording devices?
>
> And if bugging the govt in non-national security
> areas, becomes illegal--it probably already is--then
Is is illegal in most cases.
> what about throwaway fly-on-the-wall devices that have
> no owners and dump their data to a net for all to
> view. Much like file trading of copyrighted works,
You must be really bored. How many video feeds will you watch personally
during an 8 h day? The best you can do is to record it. No machine vision
for you. See lack of talent and drive.
> tracking the origins and multitude of destinations
> becomes overwhelming, and that's even before any
> enforcement action is attempted.
Overwhelming's the word.
> > How? Why should the power holders allow you to?
>
> How will they stop you?
Let's see: you'll lose your equipment, all your computers, will be
prosecuted (I don't know whether it's misdemeanour or a felony), pay fines
(and/or go to jail), wind up with a criminal record. In case the recording
was encrypted you'll be forced to yield the key by marinating you in jail.
> > How will you force it or otherwise get around them,
> especially as they gain keener tools to watch and
> block would be agents of change at every step? I am
> not cynical. I am just the opposite. But
> frankly I am at a loss as to how this can be done
> without something equivalent to a revolution or
> starting a new country.
>
> Some revolutions are effected by force of arms, but
> not all. Technology may--in fact often--brings about
> a "revolution" without warfare.
Kindly skip the rhetoric. Try making recordings of LEOs legal for
starters. It's easy in a democracy, right? All you have to do is convince
your peers, so the law is changed.
> If enough people break this law then it ceases to
> achieve its corruption-protecting purpose, and the
> corruption *may* face the challenge that finally beats
> it.
If enough air molecules aggregate spontaneosly in a corner of your room
you'll suffocate. It is not impossible, you know. Just improbable.
I'll suggest you try filming your next cop in action (use a throwaway
video camera) to make a shining example. When you get slapped for it, make
a case, and try to have a law changed.
Several people have tried it already. Somehow, it hasn't made the national
news. Perhaps the revolution won't be televised, after all.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:39 MST