Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by hubie on Monday June 20, @01:39AM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the I-spy-with-my-little-camera dept.

Marseille's battle against the surveillance state

Across the world, video cameras have become an accepted feature of urban life. Many cities in China now have dense networks of them. London and New Delhi aren't far behind.

Now France is playing catch-up. Since 2015, the year of the Bataclan terrorist attacks, the number of cameras in Paris has increased fourfold. The police have used such cameras to enforce pandemic lockdown measures and monitor protests like those of the Gilets Jaunes. And a new nationwide security law, adopted last year, allows for video surveillance by police drones during events like protests and marches.

[...] Concerns have been raised throughout the country. But the surveillance rollout has met special resistance in Marseille, France's second-biggest city. The boisterous, rebellious Mediterranean town sits on some of the fault lines that run through modern France. Known for hip bars, artist studios, and startup hubs, it is also notorious for drugs, poverty, and criminal activity. It has one of the most ethnically diverse populations in Europe but is stranded in Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, a region that leans far right. The city pushes back. Its attitude could be summed up by graffiti you might pass as you drive in on the A7 motorway: "La vie est (re)belle."

Big brother is watching you. The cameras are there for your protection. To prevent crime. But apparently they are only used in about 1-2% of investigations according to reviews. So what is the other 98-99% for? Security theater? Politicians being hard on crime, or having a hard on for crime. Panopticon for the masses that are not involved in crime? It's very hard to measure the effect of prevention in that regard.

But I guess people are starting to get a tad tired of being watched all the time like we are there for the entertainment of some big brother peeping Tom.


Original Submission

Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Reply to Article Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by lentilla on Monday June 20, @01:58AM (1 child)

    by lentilla (1770) on Monday June 20, @01:58AM (#1254500)

    Ah, all this depressing reality!

    If you crave a bit of levity involving a panopticon, go and find a copy of the film Hot Fuzz [wikipedia.org]. It's British and (mostly) a comedy. Watch out for the Neighbourhood Watch Alliance as they bug the entire town in a effort to win the Village of the Year award.

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Captival on Monday June 20, @02:20AM (1 child)

    by Captival (6866) on Monday June 20, @02:20AM (#1254503)

    People: "Wah! Cameras are everywhere! Police have massive power! Corporations control things! Yeargh!"

    Same people 18 months ago: "What? You don't want to spend a year locked inside your home because of a mildly inconveniencing cold? Argh! We need bigger government to shut down anyone even questioning authority!"

    • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @05:20PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @05:20PM (#1254673)

      Libruls love Big Brother. They LOVE authority. You SO understand.

  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday June 20, @03:18AM (5 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday June 20, @03:18AM (#1254508)

    Everything about right leaning Marseille: the movie Stillwater - worth the time.

    --
    Україна не входить до складу Росії.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @04:25AM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @04:25AM (#1254514)

      Nothing about cameras or panopticon

      Indeed. TFA

      Not long after the 2020 elections, the new mayor of Marseille called for an audit of video surveillance in the city. The council is still sitting on the study, which was delivered in October, but preliminary findings were published in the local newspaper The Provence. There are 42 dedicated agents; at any given time, fewer than five are on duty, and each is responsible for 35 screens. The system is not cheap; the newspaper highlighted the cost of installing each camera (over €20,000 per device), renting the optical fiber (€6.5 million a year), and maintaining the cameras, including cleaning and replacing bulbs (€2.8 million a year). Many of the images are not of good enough quality to use. And 272 cameras—over 15% of the total—are rarely consulted.

      So, a massive waste of money with little or no result in any kind of practical surveillance.

      ----

      Everything about right leaning Marseille

      Not right leaning any more

      Marseille’s government does seem to have cooled on the idea of video surveillance. The Big Data of Public Tranquillity Project, whose test period ran from 2018 to 2020, had been the pet scheme of the previous, right-wing mayor. The coalition of socialists, ecologists, and activists that rose to power in the 2020 city elections promised to pause video surveillance. This has been more difficult than initially anticipated, says Hugon, because of the difficulty of terminating contracts early.

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday June 20, @02:43PM (2 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday June 20, @02:43PM (#1254613)

        >Not right leaning any more

        Regardless of who won the last election, there's a significant portion of the population who openly hate / disrespect / socially and economically discriminate against other significant portions of the population because they are somehow different. Not too different in Marseille, France than Stillwater, Texas.

        --
        Україна не входить до складу Росії.
        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday June 20, @02:45PM (1 child)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday June 20, @02:45PM (#1254614)

          Technical adjustment, the movie referred to Stillwater Oklahoma - but when you find yourself in places named Stillwater in Texas they will likely be much the same.

          --
          Україна не входить до складу Росії.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @05:24PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @05:24PM (#1254676)

            Artistic, communal, nature-loving hippies selling harmony bracelets?

      • (Score: 2) by ewk on Tuesday June 21, @07:17AM

        by ewk (5923) on Tuesday June 21, @07:17AM (#1254838)

        "This has been more difficult than initially anticipated,..."

        Why? Stopping to use it is quite different from stopping to pay for it.
        Even a Frenchman should understand that :-)

        --
        I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by janrinok on Monday June 20, @04:56AM (13 children)

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @04:56AM (#1254517) Journal

    We often say that it is not the tool that is responsible for a specific outcome.. but the person wielding or using the tool. I, along with most of our community, object to being watched and monitored in private but, personally, I have no issue with cameras in public places.

    If I install a surveillance system in my home or business I do not expect that the moment I switch it on that burglars are going to enter my property and start committing a crime. In fact, most of us expect such devices to act as some form of deterrent and convince criminals that another home or business is probably an easier target. We are perfectly happy if our alarm systems are never actually needed for the purpose for which they were initially installed i.e. the deterrence factor does what we had hoped it would. I suggest that the same is applicable to systems that are installed in public places. It is not the system itself but how it is used and, ultimately, the effect that it has on crime.

    But apparently they are only used in about 1-2% of investigations according to reviews.

    You own quote suggests that the video feed is being observed 24/7 but that whatever it is showing is not required as evidential material i.e. the police force using it are not tracking everybody continuously but are using standard police investigative powers to identify and prosecute offenders. The public in Uvalde are asking for the police video evidence to be released so that they can see for themselves what happened - apparently when video evidence suits our own needs then we can be in favour of it, but object to it if we are identified for exceeding the speed limit or a stolen vehicle is recovered and the person driving it is detained as a result of video evidence.

    If crimes are being detected and criminals brought to justice then surely that is a 'good thing'. Don't we expect a secure and safe environment for ourselves and our children something? Isn't that what we all want? I would much prefer that than to think that I have to be armed just to provide the protection that most countries expect as normal.

    Let me make my position clear - I am NOT in favour of any abuse of such systems. If you think that in your country technology is being abused then sort out those carrying out the abuse. Put safeguards in place to prevent such things happening. If you cannot trust those you elect to do what you feel is right and necessary then I suggest that you are voting for the wrong people. But like any technology it can be misused - including the fact that a huge majority of people carry a device in their pocket and do not seem to care who or what they photograph with it, and then publish those images on to the internet. Why is your 'surveillance' acceptable but other forms are not? Do you always seek permission of those in the background of your photos and videos to take the images before you do so?

    How would the murderers of those people killed attending the Ariana Grande [wikipedia.org] concert in Manchester have been identified and detained without the video evidence that was available to police being viewed? How would the terrorists involved with several attacks in Paris and London have been caught and brought to justice without the video evidence? How would justice for the murder of George Floyd have been achieved without the video evidence of numerous cameras carried by the public playing its part?

    It seems that we are quick to use imagery when it meets our own purposes but not when it might be used against us. It is a problem caused by people and not the technology itself.

    --
    We are always looking for new staff in different areas - please volunteer if you have some spare time and wish to help
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by dalek on Monday June 20, @06:08AM (9 children)

      by dalek (15489) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @06:08AM (#1254531) Journal

      Not so fast.

      The story says that camera footage is only used in 1-2% of investigations. It doesn't say that only 1-2% of cameras in operation get used in an investigation. That's comparing apples and oranges. How do we know that the police don't cast too wide of a net when seeking information?

      While most surveillance cameras almost certainly aren't monitored 24/7, many do detect motion and alert their operator when it occurs. One need not sit in front of a monitor nonstop to track who the camera records. Amazon runs a neighborhood watch app called Neighbors for their Ring and Blink cameras. This allows users to share footage with others who are nearby to alert them of crimes, safety issues, and any other activity they deem suspicious or noteworthy. This increases the potential that innocent people will be reported to their neighbors and potentially to the police because someone thought they were suspicious. This isn't about privately operated cameras, but my point is that cameras can easily implicate innocent people.

      If police are investigating a crime, they could request footage from cameras in the area to try to determine who was present around the time of the crime. This could lead to the police investigating and potentially arresting innocent people on the basis of cameras showing they were in the area, whether they're guilty or not. This is similar to the concerns about stingray tracking the location of phones within an area. Even without facial recognition, your picture may be shown to others so the police can identify you. This may lead other people to suspect that you may be guilty of a crime, and may lead to the police thinking you're guilty when you're not. But, as you say, it's up to the people operating the cameras.

      The unique problem here is that the government operates the cameras. Investigations aren't conducted by people who are elected through the political process. They're conducted by career officials who recognize that cameras are a useful tool to solve some crimes. The people you're electing aren't the people running the cameras, so your comment about electing more trustworthy officials doesn't work. The situations you're describing involve the police requesting access to camera footage when they're aware a crime has been committed. It's a very different scenario when the police control the cameras and monitor people regardless of whether a crime has been committed. There's a fundamental difference between the police seeking evidence when a crime is brought to their attention versus deploying cameras that can be monitored to detect when they think a crime has been committed.

      There's a similar situation in the US with red light cameras being used to detect traffic violations. One article makes a compelling case that red light cameras undermine the rule of law [thehill.com]. Just as there's scant evidence that red light cameras actually improve traffic safety, you've failed to demonstrate that the police operating cameras is either necessary or sufficient to solve serious crimes. Even if they did, what would the cost be? How many innocent people would have their rights violated because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

      --
      EXTERMINATE
      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @06:31AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @06:31AM (#1254533)

        Not so fast.

        The story says that camera footage is only used in 1-2% of investigations. It doesn't say that only 1-2% of cameras in operation get used in an investigation.

        Did it crossed your mind that this can also mean the French criminals (by the virtue of being chic) don't do their crimes in the view of public cameras?
        Maybe the cameras work as intended, albeit at a quite high a cost for it?

        Extra info:
        Marseille has higher crime index than Paris [numbeo.com]

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by janrinok on Monday June 20, @07:14AM (6 children)

        by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @07:14AM (#1254537) Journal

        If police are investigating a crime, they could request footage from cameras in the area to try to determine who was present around the time of the crime. This could lead to the police investigating and potentially arresting innocent people on the basis of cameras showing they were in the area, whether they're guilty or not

        Being questioned, being arrested and being found guilty are 3 very different things. I have been questioned - an arrest was not necessary and was never even considered - regarding a dog attack on a person near my home. It wasn't my dog. I was a witness to the attack. But I was identified by video as well as stepping forward with information - the video was used to confirm that I was a genuine witness because I knew the person being attacked and could have been biased in my claims. I was asked quite politely to visit the local police station and to make a voluntary statement. Without additional evidence the police cannot even bring a case to court - at least here where I live. Just being in the area is not sufficient. If they can do that where you live then that and the legal system that allows it is the problem, not the fact that a camera exists. Once again you are letting technology take the blame for human abuses - something which I specifically wrote about in my original comment.

        I have also seen people being stopped from committing a crime by the prompt arrival of the police after receiving direction from the surveillance camera operator - the potential offence never took place and the individual concerned was let off with a warning. That sort of thing will not feature in any statistics.

        Certainly around here if the police request that they view video taken by privately owned individuals they are usually only too happy to assist. We all want crime under control. But if I try to point my camera into next door's home than I am committing an offence and would expect to be punished for it.

        you've failed to demonstrate that the police operating cameras is either necessary or sufficient to solve serious crimes

        I don't have to prove or demonstrate anything. I am giving my opinion. I have not said that anything that has been written is wrong. I am saying that the effectiveness of the cameras can be interpreted in many different ways. You yourself brought up red light cameras. If there is video evidence of a vehicle going through a red light then that vehicle was committing an offence. There may be extenuating circumstances but that is for the police on the scene or subsequently a court to decide. And without extenuating circumstances then that crime could be prosecuted. You cannot pick and choose which laws you want to obey and which you think are trivial and therefore do not apply to you. However, installing cameras as money-making schemes is definitely wrong - but that isn't the camera's fault either. They did not install themselves and they do not receive the money from fines. It is the people responsible for them that are at fault.

        How many innocent people would have their rights violated because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

        This has nothing to do with cameras. It is an abuse of power by those who are supposed to enforce the law and protect the community. That is the problem that needs sorting out. But cases such as speeding, using false registration plates, abduction, drug dealing, locating the bodies of murder victims, and many other offences are all being countered from time to time by the use of surveillance cameras. If 'proof' is necessary, then I will use these examples.

        --
        We are always looking for new staff in different areas - please volunteer if you have some spare time and wish to help
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @09:46AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @09:46AM (#1254559)

          Being questioned, being arrested and being found guilty are 3 very different things.

          Not everywhere and not forever.
          In the present-day Russia, they are one and the same for the most part, and Russia transitioned into that in a mere decade.
          Remember that fascism rises quickly; Hitler's Germany went the entire way near twice faster, in mere six years (1933-1939).

          Every power "you the people" grant to your government, need be abuse-proofed above all else. Otherwise, your naivety is liable to kill a lot of people one day.

        • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday June 21, @03:00AM

          by Reziac (2489) on Tuesday June 21, @03:00AM (#1254811) Homepage

          Trouble is, if you provide the power, someone will find a way to abuse it. You can sort out one malefactor and another will take their place. It's as if abusable power is an attractive nuisance.

        • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday June 21, @11:55PM (1 child)

          by bzipitidoo (4388) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 21, @11:55PM (#1255134) Journal

          > the legal system that allows it is the problem

          You underestimate the extent of that problem. Ironically, video surveillance has helped expose how large it is, busting bigoted and fascist policing over and over. Operators of red light and speed cameras have been repeatedly caught programming the systems to be abusive, and lying about it, to extract revenue, and safety be damned. The biggest reason to abolish the death penalty is much the same. Justice and law enforcement have often shown more interest in appearances, in looking tough, and society at large more interested in harsh punishment of people deemed undesirable, regardless of their actual guilt or innocence, for purposes of scaring and cowing everyone who is not well connected.

          As to riding dirty, that can be a consequence of abusive and excessive legal requirements that don't serve to enhance public safety however much the proponents of it claim otherwise, but instead just push people into breaking more rules. An example of that was the Texas Driver Responsibility program which placed additional costs on license renewal fees for those Texas drivers who had something bad on their driving record. It was pretty obviously a form of sin tax, to raise more revenue on the backs of those accused of traffic infractions. The program was a failure, and Texas ended it in 2019. What it really did was push a lot more people-- about 600,000-- into riding dirty.

          A number of large cities zealously enforce parking rules, for the revenue they can extract from car owners. For instance, if you were to drive to Washington D.C. for a visit, I recommend you use a park and ride facility in a distant suburb, and take the subway to the center. That way, you entirely avoid their parking enforcement regime. Chicago is another city notorious for unfair parking enforcement.

          To sum up, not only is the law far from perfect, it is way too often a mere tool in the hands of greedy special interests seeking to abuse it for rent seeking purposes. More examples are the tax prep industry's efforts to keep US income tax dreadfully complicated, to drive citizens to buy their products, and Big Media's insane copyright extremism coupled with the likes of Big Pharma and Big Tech jumping on the IP bandwagon. Heck, even agribusiness is on board that one-- Monsanto is very aggressive against farmers, and the Right to Repair has its origin in the practice of farmers repairing their tractors themselves. Have to keep constant watch that the power of anything, technology or the law, is not abused.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @05:10AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @05:10AM (#1255229)

            For instance, if you were to drive to Washington D.C. for a visit, I recommend you use a park and ride facility in a distant suburb, and take the subway to the center. That way, you entirely avoid their parking enforcement regime.

            That may be useful anyway, but I wonder what your major malfunction is in understanding parking in DC. Whenever I went there, I always found copious, free parking around the Mall.

      • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @11:35PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @11:35PM (#1254784)

        Dalek no YOU not so fast in you losing to APK as always https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=49835&page=1&cid=1254772#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] with solid proof he is right hosts files block symbiote C2 servers which is all you really need to do to nullify their communication. Exfiltration isn't possible without orders either. Orders come from C2 servers!

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by stormreaver on Monday June 20, @04:10PM (2 children)

      by stormreaver (5101) on Monday June 20, @04:10PM (#1254652)

      We often say that it is not the tool that is responsible for a specific outcome.. but the person wielding or using the tool.

      There is no one with any significant political power that can be trusted with this tool.

      ...I have no issue with cameras in public places.

      I, on the other hand, have a HUGE issue with Government cameras in public places, and even their access to private security footage. Watch Don't Talk to the Police [youtube.com] (the relevant section start at about 4:40). The law professor talks about how even the Federal Government has lost track of just the number of Federal crimes, and this isn't even mentioning the number of State or Local statutes. Worse yet, these crimes and statutes tend to incorporate by reference countless other administrative rules and regulations that can bite you in terrible ways.

      There are so many laws creating so many crimes that there are great odds that you and I are breaking at least one of them every day just in our day to day lives. And now cameras are proliferating with the sole objective of recording those, most likely completely unintentional, violations that could make our lives miserable (or even effectively end them).

      Government surveillance is anathema to a Free society, and should be considered a public enemy.

  • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday June 20, @05:25AM

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Monday June 20, @05:25AM (#1254523) Journal

    But apparently they are only used in about 1-2% of investigations according to reviews. So what is the other 98-99% for?

    If 1‒2% of investigations are using cameras, that implies that implies that 98‒99% of investigations don't use cameras. It does not imply that 98‒99% of all cameras are not used in investigations.
    Moreover, it makes no sense to investigate camera images unrelated to the crime under investigation. It is expected that only a small percentage of the images taken are actually useful. The point is that you do not know in advance which of the images will be useful.

    The real question is not whether those cameras are useful for fighting crime, but whether their usefulness outweighs the disadvantages of ubiquitous surveillance. My answer is a clear no (and the 1‒2% figure supports it, just not in the way you indicate). But arguing for it with bad statistics doesn't help that case, quite the opposite, it hurts it.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @06:07AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @06:07AM (#1254529)

    Spent a day there once. I remember drinking a short coffee at a cafe, seeing the Roman foundations, a friendly African woman who invited me to go ahead on a ticketing machine. Walking in an arc around until I got to a pretty and quiet neighborhood, whereupon I was beset by some young Arabs who asked me for the time, but started pawing my camera bag. I was able to make an exit, suffering only a verbal “nique ta mere” thrown after me.

  • (Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday June 20, @07:30AM (7 children)

    by Opportunist (5545) on Monday June 20, @07:30AM (#1254541)

    If you really want to be hard on crime, how about going after embezzlement and corruption? I.e. where most of the country's wealth is being endangered.

    But no, that would hurt yourself, wouldn't it?

    • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday June 20, @09:18AM (6 children)

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @09:18AM (#1254553) Journal
      Enforcing one law doesn't mean that you cannot enforce any others.
      --
      We are always looking for new staff in different areas - please volunteer if you have some spare time and wish to help
      • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @09:51AM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @09:51AM (#1254561)

        Enforcing one law doesn't mean that you cannot enforce any others.

        BZZT WRONG!
        Money and manpower are limited. The more is squandered on harassing the commoners, the less remains for calling the fatcats to account.

        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday June 20, @10:42AM (3 children)

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @10:42AM (#1254566) Journal

          I don't believe that catching criminals is 'harassing the commoners' - unless you are suggesting that all commoners are criminals. I would strongly argue against that belief if you were suggesting that.

          Preventing crime improves the lives of everybody.

          --
          We are always looking for new staff in different areas - please volunteer if you have some spare time and wish to help
          • (Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday June 20, @03:26PM (1 child)

            by Opportunist (5545) on Monday June 20, @03:26PM (#1254629)

            Depends on what you consider a crime. Looking at the criminal code of a couple countries and the more recent development there, I fail to see the crimes that we waste money on now.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @12:23AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @12:23AM (#1254788)

              Violent crime rate is way up in America since the Democrats took over with their soft on crime policies.
              You can't deny basic statistics.

          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @08:43PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @08:43PM (#1254741)

            I don't believe

            https://kottke.org/13/06/you-commit-three-felonies-a-day [kottke.org]
            Welcome to the real world.

      • (Score: 2) by Opportunist on Tuesday June 21, @11:06AM

        by Opportunist (5545) on Tuesday June 21, @11:06AM (#1254855)

        Well, it kinda does.

        While creating one law doesn't keep you from creating another one (as long as they're not mutually contradicting), enforcing laws is something that takes manpower and resources. Both are limited. Enforcing one law may very well mean that another one cannot be enforced because the resources to do so are tied up already at enforcing the first one. When all of my police force is busy hunting down people who speed and jaywalk, I have nobody left to enforce drug laws in my country, unless they just so happen to find some drugs in that speeding car...

  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @11:24PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @11:24PM (#1254778)

    "It has one of the most ethnically diverse populations in Europe but is stranded in Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, a region that leans far right."

    translation: is overrun with invading NOCs (Niggers of Color) brought in by the treasonous scum running the country at the behest of the rat-faced Jew, but one White (fucking french!) sanctuary hasn't been destroyed completely yet. "Leans far right" means "some people have some small notion of wtf is happening to the rest of the country, but probably not why"

  • (Score: 2) by bart on Tuesday June 21, @03:50PM

    by bart (2844) on Tuesday June 21, @03:50PM (#1254931)

    Your car will be broken into within a few minutes, right next to armed guards with Rottweilers. The Algerian scum that is inhabiting most of this city hates non-Arabs, and will throw rocks (or eggs if you're lucky) at your car when you're just passing through their neighborhood. The policy will only go into these neighborhoods in full riot outfit, in large groups.

    Les Calanques used to be a rockclimbing mecca, but the only safe place to park you van is in nearby Cassis, where the right-wing Front National mayor has probably given the policy carte-blanche to beat Arabs out of the town.

    The reason this area is voting right-wing is because of the invasion by Algerians, that's it.

  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @06:38PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @06:38PM (#1254988)

    Guess what Dalek? YOU LOSE, hosts work vs. Symbiote C2 server(s) per this line from a MUCH better article than the one used here from bradley13 per "configuration in the binary that used the git[.]bancodobrasil[.]dev domain as its C2 server" from https://www.intezer.com/blog/research/new-linux-threat-symbiote/ [intezer.com] (INTEZER's now owned by Microsoft iirc as well).

    & did I block that in my original posts here https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=49835&page=1&cid=1253504#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] on this BOGUS sockpuppet upmodding yourselves shithole website (which also noted FIREWALLS are invaluable here too, per wildcards (or even IP address use, URL domain/subdomain too in many as well)?

    YES I DID! I was correct...

    & YES, hosts work vs. this threat too stupid!

    FACT: hosts files block symbiote C2 servers which is all you really need to do to nullify their communication.

    FACT: Exfiltration isn't possible without orders either.

    FACT: Orders come from C2 servers!

    So YOU LOSE chump... a BETTER ARTICLE than what I used proves it for me!

    * THANKS FOR LOSING TO ME yet again, as always for you... try me again? THIS COMES UP AS PROOF (as well as another I have on YOU regarding using sources where YOU contradict yourself - want quotes of that too? ASK!)

    HOW ESPECIALLY EMBARASSING FOR YOU with your NO-DOUBT self-upmodded by sockpuppet accounts of YOURSELF too - now that YOU have EGG ON YOUR FACE fucko!

    APK

    P.S.=> Do yourself a FAVOR - don't ever, EVER try me ever again OR I WILL MAKE SURE YOU SHIT ON YOURSELF yet again as always, easlly... apk

  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @08:33PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @08:33PM (#1255042)

    Guess what Dalek? YOU LOSE, hosts work vs. Symbiote C2 server(s) per this line from a MUCH better article than the one used here from bradley13 per "configuration in the binary that used the git[.]bancodobrasil[.]dev domain as its C2 server" from https://www.intezer.com/blog/research/new-linux-threat-symbiote/ [intezer.com] (INTEZER's now owned by Microsoft iirc as well).

    & did I block that in my original posts here https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=49835&page=1&cid=1253504#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] on this BOGUS sockpuppet upmodding yourselves shithole website (which also noted FIREWALLS are invaluable here too, per wildcards (or even IP address use, URL domain/subdomain too in many as well)?

    YES I DID! I was correct...

    & YES, hosts work vs. this threat too stupid!

    FACT: hosts files block symbiote C2 servers which is all you really need to do to nullify their communication.

    FACT: Exfiltration isn't possible without orders either.

    FACT: Orders come from C2 servers!

    So YOU LOSE chump... a BETTER ARTICLE than what I used proves it for me!

    * THANKS FOR LOSING TO ME yet again, as always for you... try me again? THIS COMES UP AS PROOF (as well as another I have on YOU regarding using sources where YOU contradict yourself - want quotes of that too? ASK!)

    HOW ESPECIALLY EMBARASSING FOR YOU with your NO-DOUBT self-upmodded by sockpuppet accounts of YOURSELF too - now that YOU have EGG ON YOUR FACE fucko!

    APK

    P.S.=> Do yourself a FAVOR - don't ever, EVER try me ever again OR I WILL MAKE SURE YOU SHIT ON YOURSELF yet again as always, easlly... apk

  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @11:24PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @11:24PM (#1255119)

    Guess what Dalek? YOU LOSE, hosts work vs. Symbiote C2 server(s) per this line from a MUCH better article than the one used here from bradley13 per "configuration in the binary that used the git[.]bancodobrasil[.]dev domain as its C2 server" from https://www.intezer.com/blog/research/new-linux-threat-symbiote/ [intezer.com] (INTEZER's now owned by Microsoft iirc as well).

    & did I block that in my original posts here https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=49835&page=1&cid=1253504#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] on this BOGUS sockpuppet upmodding yourselves shithole website (which also noted FIREWALLS are invaluable here too, per wildcards (or even IP address use, URL domain/subdomain too in many as well)?

    YES I DID! I was correct...

    & YES, hosts work vs. this threat too stupid!

    FACT: hosts files block symbiote C2 servers which is all you really need to do to nullify their communication.

    FACT: Exfiltration isn't possible without orders either.

    FACT: Orders come from C2 servers!

    So YOU LOSE chump... a BETTER ARTICLE than what I used proves it for me!

    * THANKS FOR LOSING TO ME yet again, as always for you... try me again? THIS COMES UP AS PROOF (as well as another I have on YOU regarding using sources where YOU contradict yourself - want quotes of that too? ASK!)

    HOW ESPECIALLY EMBARASSING FOR YOU with your NO-DOUBT self-upmodded by sockpuppet accounts of YOURSELF too - now that YOU have EGG ON YOUR FACE fucko!

    APK

    P.S.=> Do yourself a FAVOR - don't ever, EVER try me ever again OR I WILL MAKE SURE YOU SHIT ON YOURSELF yet again as always, easlly... apk

  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @11:51PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @11:51PM (#1255131)

    Guess what Dalek? YOU LOSE, hosts work vs. Symbiote C2 server(s) per this line from a MUCH better article than the one used here from bradley13 per "configuration in the binary that used the git[.]bancodobrasil[.]dev domain as its C2 server" from https://www.intezer.com/blog/research/new-linux-threat-symbiote/ [intezer.com] (INTEZER's now owned by Microsoft iirc as well).

    & did I block that in my original posts here https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=49835&page=1&cid=1253504#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] on this BOGUS sockpuppet upmodding yourselves shithole website (which also noted FIREWALLS are invaluable here too, per wildcards (or even IP address use, URL domain/subdomain too in many as well)?

    YES I DID! I was correct...

    & YES, hosts work vs. this threat too stupid!

    FACT: hosts files block symbiote C2 servers which is all you really need to do to nullify their communication.

    FACT: Exfiltration isn't possible without orders either.

    FACT: Orders come from C2 servers!

    So YOU LOSE chump... a BETTER ARTICLE than what I used proves it for me!

    * THANKS FOR LOSING TO ME yet again, as always for you... try me again? THIS COMES UP AS PROOF (as well as another I have on YOU regarding using sources where YOU contradict yourself - want quotes of that too? ASK!)

    HOW ESPECIALLY EMBARASSING FOR YOU with your NO-DOUBT self-upmodded by sockpuppet accounts of YOURSELF too - now that YOU have EGG ON YOUR FACE fucko!

    APK

    P.S.=> Do yourself a FAVOR - don't ever, EVER try me ever again OR I WILL MAKE SURE YOU SHIT ON YOURSELF yet again as always, easlly... apk

  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @03:47AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @03:47AM (#1255212)

    Guess what Dalek? YOU LOSE, hosts work vs. Symbiote C2 server(s) per this line from a MUCH better article than the one used here from bradley13 per "configuration in the binary that used the git[.]bancodobrasil[.]dev domain as its C2 server" from https://www.intezer.com/blog/research/new-linux-threat-symbiote/ [intezer.com] (INTEZER's now owned by Microsoft iirc as well).

    & did I block that in my original posts here https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=49835&page=1&cid=1253504#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] on this BOGUS sockpuppet upmodding yourselves shithole website (which also noted FIREWALLS are invaluable here too, per wildcards (or even IP address use, URL domain/subdomain too in many as well)?

    YES I DID! I was correct...

    & YES, hosts work vs. this threat too stupid!

    FACT: hosts files block symbiote C2 servers which is all you really need to do to nullify their communication.

    FACT: Exfiltration isn't possible without orders either.

    FACT: Orders come from C2 servers!

    So YOU LOSE chump... a BETTER ARTICLE than what I used proves it for me!

    * THANKS FOR LOSING TO ME yet again, as always for you... try me again? THIS COMES UP AS PROOF (as well as another I have on YOU regarding using sources where YOU contradict yourself - want quotes of that too? ASK!)

    HOW ESPECIALLY EMBARASSING FOR YOU with your NO-DOUBT self-upmodded by sockpuppet accounts of YOURSELF too - now that YOU have EGG ON YOUR FACE fucko!

    APK

    P.S.=> Do yourself a FAVOR - don't ever, EVER try me ever again OR I WILL MAKE SURE YOU SHIT ON YOURSELF yet again as always, easlly... apk

(1)