from the can-you-buy-SN-masks-from-the-swag? dept.
If you're going to San Diego Comic-Con, you'll want to pull on your Batman mask or slather on the Sith paint if you're passing any of the marked locations on this new map. You could very well be under surveillance as part of the San Diego Police Department's "Operation Secure San Diego."
Operation Secure San Diego--ostensibly intended so first responders could get a view of a crime as it's happening--encourages private businesses to allow the cops to access their surveillance video cameras. It also gives officers sitting in their squad cars the power to tap directly into live feeds. The first to share its streams was Hotel Indigo, a hotel popular with the Comic-Con set in San Diego's Gaslamp district.
Whether you're a resident or tourist, Operation Secure San Diego should make you a little nervous.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by doublerot13 on Thursday July 24 2014, @03:52PM
You are carrying a cellphone that is registered to you and constantly reporting your location within feet.
What is a mask supposed to do for your privacy?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Tramii on Thursday July 24 2014, @04:04PM
The difference is that with my phone I have options. I can turn my phone off. I can leave my phone at home or at least back in my hotel room. I can configure my phone so it doesn't report it's exact location. I can own a feature phone that doesn't support detecting my current location. (Of course, if you have an active cell phone they can always determine what cell tower you are using.)
The cameras are always on, always recording and always transmitting. I have no option other than not going outside if I wish any privacy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @04:49PM
> I can turn my phone off.
Not really. It's always tracking even when "turned off". Maybe if you have a dumb phone and remove the battery, but smart phones are always emitting a beacon and can be turned on remotely.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @05:33PM
Put it in airplane mode and cover it with tin foil.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @02:40AM
[Citation Needed]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @12:50PM
By "dumb phone" you mean any phone but an iPhone??? Everyone I know who has a smartphone that is NOT an iPhone can easily remove their battery.
(Score: 2) by everdred on Friday July 25 2014, @11:30PM
Where do you live? Here in 2014, an increasingly large number of non-iPhones (and freaking laptops, for that matter), come with the battery sealed inside.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @04:08PM
Burner phone with removable battery. Or leave it at home.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @04:18PM
Prove it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Dunbal on Thursday July 24 2014, @05:01PM
You are maybe.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Thursday July 24 2014, @04:16PM
I wonder what sort of laser would be required to damage a typical surveillance camera sensor. No specific reason, I'm just curious.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday July 24 2014, @05:54PM
If it's good enough to burn the image sensor. It's also very very good at burning the image sensor inside peoples head. And they will be very upset. And you have failed to accomplish any net positive. So any such attempt must take precision really seriously and counter any reflection of laser emissions.
You will most likely need more than 5 mW which puts you in the danger zone right away. Just wire a real surveillance camera to your laptop etc. And point a laser from a 10 meter distance. Then send burst of emission packets with increasing power and length until you notice permanent damage to the camera (and not anyones eyes).
A simpler method is to scan the environment for camera lenses and then use servos to lock on to them or just plainly flood the place with infrared emissions.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday July 24 2014, @06:38PM
A baseball bat also works.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday July 25 2014, @12:19AM
To hit a camera 5 meters above your head? or police officers? seems like a bad idea. Besides a baseball bat will have more weight and be more bulky than smart electronic gadgets.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday July 25 2014, @03:50PM
Our forefathers worked out a solution for this, too. Ladders. :-)
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday July 25 2014, @05:04PM
So you are going to carry around a ladder and a baseball bat? Now that sounds like really convenient..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @05:20PM
Squirt gun with dirty water would probably be even more effective since it would go unnoticed for much longer.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Thursday July 24 2014, @08:36PM
I like the IR flooding idea.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Theophrastus on Thursday July 24 2014, @04:16PM
..i'm all in favor of masks becoming a common style (something Venetian carnival mask-ish) and just think of the useful electronics it would potentially place nearer one's facial holes.
(Score: 1) by sudo rm -rf on Friday July 25 2014, @09:20AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @12:52PM
Many places in the USA also outlaw masks.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by SecurityGuy on Thursday July 24 2014, @04:21PM
I used to think much like this. Surveillance bad! Stop it.
Then I became a property owner myself and found myself wanting to record the goings on in and around my property, especially when there were lots of break ins nearby. I might well find myself in possession of a recording that shows your license plate driving down my street.
Costs and technology advancement are taking us to a point where it's simply going to be the case that if you're outside, there may be pictures of you. They'll eventually be linked to facial recognition, and so tag that you are in $LOCATION at $TIME.
Maybe it's time that the question becomes how we limit abuse of that kind of data, rather than wringing our hands that the data exists. I, too, would often rather it not exist, but that horse appears to be long out of the gate at this point.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @04:28PM
> Maybe it's time that the question becomes how we limit abuse of that kind of data,
Maybe it's time that you RTFA which is focused on the fact that they claim to have policies controlling how the data is handled but a FOIA request for the specifics revealed that they have no such policies at all.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Tramii on Thursday July 24 2014, @04:44PM
I don't really care if you want to install a bunch of cameras on your personal property. I pretty much assume every single store I walk into is watching me and recording me. What I don't like is when a bunch of stores allow other people (government/cops/whoever) to access their camera feeds so that now they can watch and track people as they move around the city. If you want to put up cameras to catch thieves or people who are damaging your property, that's fine. But don't share it! No one else needs to see it. I can't think of any good reason why.
Sure the article says it's "ostensibly intended so first responders could get a view of a crime as it's happening", but that's nonsense. The chances of them watching at the exact same time a criminal is doing something is tiny. Also, any smart criminal would simply disable the cameras first before doing anything. Are the cops really going to go charging in every time a camera stops transmitting? No. Your cameras aren't going to STOP anyone from doing anything. They will help catch the crooks after they have already acted, sure.
They say it's to help prevent crime, but it's not. They have other reasons for wanting to have cameras everywhere watching everything. And all of them are bad for us normal, everyday citizens.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 03 2014, @09:51PM
To foil that, business owners put up signs saying effectively "surveillance is recorded off-site."
To foil that, crooks use motorcycles as getaway vehicles and simply keep their helmets on and visors down or do it
'old school' with ski masks in the dead of winter where wearing them is legitimate.
If such robberies spiral out of control, all it means is that businesses put up more bulletproof glass and
pass the added expense on to the customers in the form of higher prices.
If that is done, then the crooks take a hostage inside the store, threatening to kill them if the business
owner behind the glass doesn't surrender the cash.
A coldhearted store owner just shrugs their shoulders and says effectively: "Kill them and hope the cops don't catch you for the murder."
A step up from that would be a store owner locking all the exit doors with a remote switch behind the counter and saying: "Help yourself,
then proceed to call 911/equivalent emergency phone number so the cops can come to take charge of the situation.
At this point the would-be thief is screwed facing SERIOUS charges for at least attempted armed robbery.
If the robber just didn't give a fvck, there will be blood and bodies hitting the floor anyway...just not anyone behind the bulletproof glass unless an INSANE thief/crew of thieves brought in a rifle powerful enough to shoot through bulletproof glass! Doing
that negates the advantage of bullet proof glass and we are effectively back to armed holdup situations where bulletproof glass is not present at all.
The ULTIMATE antidote for all of this is a cashless, resource-based economy where everyone's food/clothing/shelter needs are met at an absolute minimum. Anything over that is gravy. Read more about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Venus_Project [wikipedia.org]
http://www.thevenusproject.com/ [thevenusproject.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacque_Fresco [wikipedia.org]
This would put an end to the 'produce or perish' mentality that kills people, make others miserable, and hobbled mankind as a whole
for thousands of years....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @04:47PM
So your saying that if it is inevitable, then you should just relax and enjoy it?
Clayton Williams, is that you??
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @04:51PM
There's a HUGE difference between you making a recording and keeping it offline on your private property when compared with people acting on behalf of the government performing continual surveillance and potentially sharing it with other government groups. You know, groups that could potentially fuck up your life forever, even if you've not done anything particularly wrong.
(Score: 1) by SecurityGuy on Thursday July 24 2014, @06:36PM
Right, exactly. I'm not in favor of pervasive surveillance, it just seems to be inevitable. I can put up cameras around my property that stream to the interwebz continuously for a couple hundred bucks. Eventually that'll be tens of bucks. Then bucks. I'm not advocating, I'm observing. Then there are things like Facebook suggesting with darn good accuracy that you tag your friends in pictures. Then there's Google's glasses, and body cams on police and emergency personnel.
I think preventing that future is like pushing the Niagra river back up the falls from the bottom. If you want to try, go ahead. I don't think it's going to work. If it's not, we need to figure out how to live in that future while preventing those groups from fscking up your life forever, even if you've not done anything particularly wrong.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday July 25 2014, @02:54AM
i agree, fighting it is kinda like the DEA trying to stop drug use or the RIAA/MPAA trying to stop piracy - a futile battle. i think the best approach is to work on some kind of "invisibility" tech, like IR floodlights or something that would mask your presence/features and/or easily applied prosthetics (think monster makeup) to obscure/mask your facial features (since masks are illegal in a lot of places already), and also increasing the number of feeds that are outside of government access, because the worst possible outcome is that all the feeds are used by the police state, and civilian records be considered a crime. having our own non-governmental video feeds is an important measure for balance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @04:42AM
> i agree, fighting it is kinda like the DEA trying to stop drug use or the RIAA/MPAA trying to stop piracy - a futile battle.
No, it is fundamentally not the same and equating them is to give up the power we have.
Intoxication and sharing are fundamental components of human nature you can't win a war on human nature and still remain human. But surveillance is a thing of government and corporate nature. The difference is that governments and corps are legal creations. We can limit them because they only exist at our pleasure.
(Score: 2) by gallondr00nk on Thursday July 24 2014, @04:55PM
I agree, but I can understand why people are fixated on the technology itself. The choice is essentially between stopping the data from being available, or having a legislative and regulatory structure to stop it being abused, and being able to trust those institutions to uphold the new laws.
Considering the NSA revelations and the general maliciousness of governments around the world towards their own constituents, it seems a more rational choice to attack the technology directly. We sure as hell can't seem to engage the democratic process.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday July 24 2014, @05:57PM
Have look into wide band electromagnetic emissions with high amplitude for a short time ....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @05:10PM
Reminds me of an old truck driver joke:
Truck driver 1 walks into a truck stop cafe in Colorado, temps are near zero outside: "It sure is cold today."
Truck driver 2: "This ain't nothing, I am from Michigan and it gets below zero often there, but you don't get cold, you get used to it!"
Truck driver 3: "That all? I am from North Dakota, 50 below is nothing there, you don't get cold, you get used to it!"
Truck driver 4: "Hah, I am from Alaska. It can be more then 100 below there, you don't get cold, you get used to it!"
Truck driver 1: "Well, I am from Mississippi, y'all should all pay us a visit there. It rains real often, but you don't get wet, y'all get used to it!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @02:48PM
there's a big difference between
- a million property owners each having data about what's going on on their own property, and
- centralized power having the combined knowledge of all those property owners without any real oversight
the first is not open to abuse
the second is systematized stalking of everybody
The second is the thing the stazi, securitat, kgb and every other secret police organisation in the history of mankind where trying to achieve.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday July 24 2014, @04:37PM
I am from San Diego and refuse to pay hundreds of dollars for a pass into a freak show full of overweight women shoehorned into way-too-small costumes and the awkward gangly Asian men who love them.
However, a friend and I wanted to see what all the fuss was about, so we snuck in. Here's how you do it:
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Thursday July 24 2014, @05:13PM
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday July 24 2014, @05:37PM
As another note: In this case The Article from which this discussion is based is sensational bullshit. If you've ever been in that area you'd know that, considering the density of the cluster of cameras, that won't do jack diddly squat considering the density of the foot-traffic in the area even without comic-con.
The police do keep a visible presence, but not a lot more than they already do in the area. And they're not dicks, either, they'll take pictures with you in costume and shoot the shit with you. It's probably because the Comic-Con crowd are known for being (relatively) well-behaved, especially compared to your bottle-throwing mean drunks pouring out of Petco park's baseball games down the street.
As for comic-con itself, the security and other event staff are underpaid bottom-of-the-barrel lackeys who don't bother to give a shit unless you are super-obvious and leave them no choice. And the worst that can happen is that you'll be escorted out of the convention center, boo-hoo, go have a drink at a bar down the block or hang out at the beach. Relax, enjoy!
If any of you are gonna be there and want to grab a beer, let me know. But I'm not sneaking in again, haha!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @06:04PM
> The problem is that you have to directly deal with security, and if you look shady and
> start staggering and babbling, they'll discover you and eject you from the convention center.
Speaking from experience, I see.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday July 24 2014, @06:06PM
Not a fan of weirdos, eh? That's the best reason to go! There are some very attractive women(and men) at those events. But they get mobbed : /
OT: Just noticed that the UL in your list has a margin-bottom: 7px that is causing a visual glitch. Blockquotes also have a margin-bottom of 14px but seems to only cause a glitch if they are the last element in the comment. It's not visible when replying to your comment. Tested with both Firefox and Chrome.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 3, Funny) by scruffybeard on Thursday July 24 2014, @06:48PM
While at lunch during SW Celebration VI a rather attractive woman wearing a slave Leia outfit sat our table. After getting settled she put on a sweatshirt. I remarked that the she must be cold. Her reply was that she wasn't cold at all, but that she wanted to eat in peace. It had taken her 40 minutes to cross the main convention center floor due to all the people asking for photos.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Thursday July 24 2014, @11:29PM
I also live in San Diego. Comic-con used to be fun, I've been to dozens of them. But the last one I went to was 05 or so, it just got too farking crowded. Wanna walk the floor to see what's what? Too many people to easily get to what catches your eye. Wanna see a panel discussion? Stand (or sit) in line for hours.
It's too bad, I used to really enjoy the con.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @04:37PM
Obligatory [youtube.com].
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kaszz on Thursday July 24 2014, @06:10PM
If they can't get your face they will use your gait, body shape, the slip-up where you turn on your mobile phone and associate your mask with your identity, etc. To be incognito you better be very disciplined and think it all through.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @06:42PM
Or you could just try various medications until the paranoia subsides. Never leaving your parent's basement is another option.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday July 24 2014, @06:55PM
I'm one of those paranoid anti-cop anti-fed privacy rah-rah-rah people, but since I live in San Diego and know the area and situation, I'm going to call this article out on sensationalism in being opportunistic about using a very geek-centric event to raise attention about a topic that is very nerd-centric.
However, all the law enforcement despite their presence consider the threat-level of this event to be low, and in fact it brings a shitload of cash to San Diego, so they don't want to be too heavy-handed and fuck things up for the participants. Hell, they have the cro-mangon baseball apes to deal with down the street one way, and drug-addicted bums and gangs to deal with down the street the other way -- if cops are around Comic-Con, they're around there for the eye candy and to manage traffic. You will never see cops inside Comic-Con unless, of course, they're nerds-in-costume.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @07:11PM
> If they can't get your face they will use your...
So wear a mask of someone else's face. The automated systems will think you are that person and miscatalog you. They might even put all those other characteristics into that person's dossier which would help them be less recognizable too.
The solution isn't to hide, because that makes you stand out too, the best tactic we've got is to surreptitiously pollute the shit out of their databases.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @08:32PM
I'll be sure to show up in my dalek costume then.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @06:40PM
>you'll want to pull on your Batman mask or slather on the Sith paint
We're not all deranged Slashderps afraid of being seen in public. Yes, there are too many of those fools here, but many of us didn't go insane with the dumb as a hammer, but think they're smart due to some minor technical skills they gained while women ignored them crowd.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @07:26PM
>> you'll want to pull on your Batman mask or slather on the Sith paint
>
> We're not all deranged Slashderps
Indeed. Some of us have a sense of humor.
You might want to work on that, it really keeps the ladies interested.
(Score: 2) by morgauxo on Thursday July 24 2014, @07:02PM
I'm kind of divided on this. I hate that government surveilance is becoming so widespread but this is private property owners surveiling their own property voluntarily choosing to share the feed with the local government. It isn't a government secretly tapping a wire or placing cameras on public property. Nor is it courts forcing private companies to share their data on people and keeping it quiet with gag orders. If you are surveiled this way it is because you chose to go somewhere where the owner choses to do this.
On the other hand if such things become widespread it will be difficult NOT to chose to go to such places.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @07:23PM
> their own property voluntarily choosing to share the feed with the local government.
It is their private property but it is our government. Our government shouldn't be soliciting or even accepting such feeds in the first place. Of course that leads to bullshit where that stuff just ends up in corporate databases where it is sold anyone with a few bucks.
So the question is more of where do we draw the line. For example, if a property owner put a camera in a bathroom that is open to the public they would go to jail. That principle behind that is we have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a bathroom. We need to extend that principle to recognize that we have a reasonable expectation of not being programmatically identified and databased when in publicly-accessible areas.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @12:48PM
If attendees really gave a damn they'd just move the convention to another city next year and forevermore. Publicly announce why you're doing this and how much money the area is losing, then move. I doubt anyone cares enough to do anything constructive about it, however, other than the gnashing of teeth and internet desk pounding.