Surveillance and Ubiquity

imported post

Flintlock wrote:

Evidently, I am not the one who has trouble comprehending asyou have misinterpreted my entire post. Your arrogance astounds me.Never did I say that I expect you to make changes. All I expect you to do as a LEO is follow your sworn oath the protect the constitution. I do attempt to "make those changes myself" by voting, writing, donating,getting invloved, etc..

You seem to have a problem with people challenging the current laws and the current systemas it stands. I was suggesting that the legislatures promote criminal activity by inundating us with petty laws that require enforcement. I am suggesting that fewer restrictions and fewer laws develop a deepersense of liberty amongst the populace and thechallenges and even the bickering that we do would not be required as often because we as citizens are not as concerned with unconstitutional behavior by the government.

I commented to you because you appeared to take a stance that it wasok totrack citizensif they are "wanted". Well that leaves a whole lot more questions than provides answers in my opinion and I was calling you out on it. If I have misinterpreted your post, it was not intended.

Click to expand...

You may have.. I do not agree with tracking anyone in their normal daily lives. Most of your rant had nothing to do with me and was more for the government to hear about.

I am all for the tracking of those that are wanted by the law. And we do this every day. The US Marshals are even more into it and this is how they catch bad guys on the run.

Now, if you are against the tracking of criminals on the runlike the Marine that is alleged to have killed the pregnant Marine and burned her in his back yardand fled to Mexico... I would enjoy hearing why.

imported post

Flintlock wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

There is so much technology we know nothing about that does exist.

Best policy is stay out of trouble and there "should" be no reason to track you.

With computers and micro technology today... You cannot hide.

Click to expand...

That is my whole point... Define trouble? Felons? terrosists? Or what about gun owners or other "people of interest?"

What of the people that are not in trouble but are being monitored? Who is tracking the trackers? Who is keeping them in check?

We shouldn't have to hide. I am not a criminal and I doubt you are as well. But how do you know you are not being monitored and if you are, would it be ok with you just because you may not have anything to hide? Well, it's not ok with me..

Click to expand...

You have the wrong idea... and you may want to think about your response again.

I said "Trouble" and your list contains people that had been in trouble or are not even in trouble.

Trouble would include a known terrorist operating in the US and a person wanted for committing a crime.

I love it.. "Who is tracking the trackers" This is the throw down phraseof the century.

Let me ask.... who is watching the watchers of the watchers? Where does it end?

Maybe we need a circle system where the watcher of the watchers are actually watched by those being watched in the first place. Then they can all watch each other.

If I am doing surveillance on a suspect.. do I need someone to be watching me too to make sure I am watching the suspect and not the girl next door?

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Flintlock wrote:

Evidently, I am not the one who has trouble comprehending asyou have misinterpreted my entire post. Your arrogance astounds me.Never did I say that I expect you to make changes. All I expect you to do as a LEO is follow your sworn oath the protect the constitution. I do attempt to "make those changes myself" by voting, writing, donating,getting invloved, etc..

You seem to have a problem with people challenging the current laws and the current systemas it stands. I was suggesting that the legislatures promote criminal activity by inundating us with petty laws that require enforcement. I am suggesting that fewer restrictions and fewer laws develop a deepersense of liberty amongst the populace and thechallenges and even the bickering that we do would not be required as often because we as citizens are not as concerned with unconstitutional behavior by the government.

I commented to you because you appeared to take a stance that it wasok totrack citizensif they are "wanted". Well that leaves a whole lot more questions than provides answers in my opinion and I was calling you out on it. If I have misinterpreted your post, it was not intended.

Click to expand...

You may have.. I do not agree with tracking anyone in their normal daily lives. Most of your rant had nothing to do with me and was more for the government to hear about.

I am all for the tracking of those that are wanted by the law. And we do this every day. The US Marshals are even more into it and this is how they catch bad guys on the run.

Now, if you are against the tracking of criminals on the runlike the Marine that is alleged to have killed the pregnant Marine and burned her in his back yardand fled to Mexico... I would enjoy hearing why.

Click to expand...

No, I am not against tracking criminals at all. Of course not. However,I do think that tracking peopleshould be clearly defined. I am suggesting that we don't know who is being monitored and why. It may not just be criminals. I am glad to read that you don't think we should be tracked in our daily lives.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

You have the wrong idea... and you may want to think about your response again.

I said "Trouble" and your list contains people that had been in trouble or are not even in trouble.

Trouble would include a known terrorist operating in the US and a person wanted for committing a crime.

I love it.. "Who is tracking the trackers" This is the throw down phraseof the century.

Let me ask.... who is watching the watchers of the watchers? Where does it end?

Maybe we need a circle system where the watcher of the watchers are actually watched by those being watched in the first place. Then they can all watch each other.

If I am doing surveillance on a suspect.. do I need someone to be watching me too to make sure I am watching the suspect and not the girl next door?

Click to expand...

I see the point you are making but I think you may see what I meant.. I am suggesting that there is little to no oversight for tracking our own people or those abroad for that matter. We don't know what they are doing, whom they are trying to track,and even what the capabilities areand the reasons for any of the tracking. I don't live in a bubble or wear tin foil but I am a concerned citizen and want to make sure that we are not being improperly recorded and documented.

imported post

Flintlock wrote:

No, I am not against tracking criminals at all. Of course not. However,I do think that tracking peopleshould be clearly defined. I am suggesting that we don't know who is being monitored and why. It may not just be criminals. I am glad to read that you don't think we should be tracked in our daily lives.

Click to expand...

HA!! If we knew we who were being tracked or monitored.. it would defeat the purpose.

I sure do not like the idea either could be done but if you live here.. it could happen.

So they can listen in on my calls and even follow me around after they have triangulated in on my position. I will not be doing anything that is going to keep them interested in me. :lol:

This is why I posted as I did... doing nothing wrong.... they will find someone else more interesting.

Who is watching those that may be watching me? Oversight is always good but not always an option. When I find my phone conversations on the web and video of me on Youtube I might start getting concerned.

I do not think they have time for this. They are looking for bad guys.

imported post

My God, no one light a cigarette in here! All of the straw men may catch on fire!


In my humble opinion, government and police surveillance of citizens is a tired subject, and continued discussion of it here will kill what could be an otherwise interesting thread. The more intriguing point that I see in this is the surveillance of citizens by other citizens, and the desire of citizens to be surveilled... In case I''m wrong, carry on.

imported post

Well, it didn't take long for this thread to start getting side-tracked into another LEO229 argument with whoever.

Which is really dumb, because as bohdi wrote, this article is not about how the cops are coming to track us all, it only starts out that way. It really doesn't have much to do with cops per se.

The real subject here is how the technology is changing the world around us and how we aren't prepared to deal with the results. Kind of like talking to someone about television just as electrical power was first being installed. He'd have no clue how the world around him would change in a few years. Except that going from electricity to TV-watching zombies took a few decades; these changes in surveilance technology are literally only months or years away.

nitrovic says he and some cops like dash-cameras because they help tell the real story. Many OC'rs and others in the freedom activist world also like video and audio tech because it helps keep the police honest, and by extension, more professional. This sounds like an everybody-wins scenario to me. Real criminals can be prosecuted, and abuse by government is reduced.

But it's not all lollipops, as the article states. Constant surveillance is a threat to privacy, which is a threat to liberty. Without privacy or anonymity, many people feel too intimidated to speak their minds and fall back on blending in with the crowd, trying to act "normal". In addition, the tech can be abused and altered, perhaps to the point where it won't be accepted as evidence.

This doesn't mean we should all throw away our cell phones and other gadgets and go back to the 1970s; indeed that is quite impossible. What it does mean is that we need to think and be on our toes, to try not to get caught flatfooted by all this stuff.

Consider this scenario: if you like to OC, or do anything else out of the ordinary, you're going to have a harder time keeping a low profile. One thing the article doesn't mention is data-mining, which is at once both a useful tool, and a technology that enables Orwell-style tracking and profiling.

imported post

ODA 226 wrote:

I've worked in the Counter-Intell community for years. You can still be "monitored" and "located" even if the phone is turned off. The only way to ensure that you can't is to remove ALL power sources.

Click to expand...

Bull. I built monitoring and tracking systems for Sprint. If your cellphone is off, the transciever is unpowered.

Hot-on-hook phones are an entirely different situation.

imported post

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6140191.html
Nextel and Samsung handsets and the Motorola Razr are especially vulnerable to software downloads that activate their microphones, said James Atkinson, a counter-surveillance consultant who has worked closely with government agencies. "They can be remotely accessed and made to transmit room audio all the time," he said. "You can do that without having physical access to the phone."
Because modern handsets are miniature computers, downloaded software could modify the usual interface that always displays when a call is in progress. The spyware could then place a call to the FBI and activate the microphone--all without the owner knowing it happened. (The FBI declined to comment on Friday.)


I have read other things that have said certain cell phones can be activated remotely as long as the battery is in it. Don't know ...

imported post

Many computers have a "WOL" Wake on Lan functionality installed, I don't thinks it's too far fetched to think of a cell phone having some sort of wake on signal...wake on time stamp...wake on whatever ability.
I submit swillden that the ones you worked on didn't, but technology is always evolving.

imported post

Tell ya what, those glasses would be the deal if they recorded video with audio...

Oh lookey here, I'm doing the speed limit as can clearly be seen here, yet the cop is standing here at my window telling me I was going 15 over...

Would that be allowed?

imported post

FzSBLACKMAGICK wrote:

Tell ya what, those glasses would be the deal if they recorded video with audio...

Oh lookey here, I'm doing the speed limit as can clearly be seen here, yet the cop is standing here at my window telling me I was going 15 over...

Would that be allowed?

Click to expand...

But is the car calibrated and accurate?

Tire size will change the speed and in any case... if your speedometer is off.. it is no defence in Virginia.

But it would show you did not truly intend to speed and could go in your favor.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

But is the car calibrated and accurate?

Tire size will change the speed and in any case... if your speedometer is off.. it is no defence in Virginia.

But it would show you did not truly intend to speed and could go in your favor.

Click to expand...

QFT and utter ignorance of the physical impossibility of an arbitrarily accurate measure of speed. The cops' indication is subject to as many and more subtle errors.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA LEO FOAD

imported post

Some people need to lighten up.:lol:

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Well, it didn't take long for this thread to start getting side-tracked into another LEO229 argument with whoever.

Which is really dumb, because as bohdi wrote, this article is not about how the cops are coming to track us all, it only starts out that way. It really doesn't have much to do with cops per se.

The real subject here is how the technology is changing the world around us and how we aren't prepared to deal with the results. Kind of like talking to someone about television just as electrical power was first being installed. He'd have no clue how the world around him would change in a few years. Except that going from electricity to TV-watching zombies took a few decades; these changes in surveilance technology are literally only months or years away.

nitrovic says he and some cops like dash-cameras because they help tell the real story. Many OC'rs and others in the freedom activist world also like video and audio tech because it helps keep the police honest, and by extension, more professional. This sounds like an everybody-wins scenario to me. Real criminals can be prosecuted, and abuse by government is reduced.

But it's not all lollipops, as the article states. Constant surveillance is a threat to privacy, which is a threat to liberty. Without privacy or anonymity, many people feel too intimidated to speak their minds and fall back on blending in with the crowd, trying to act "normal". In addition, the tech can be abused and altered, perhaps to the point where it won't be accepted as evidence.

This doesn't mean we should all throw away our cell phones and other gadgets and go back to the 1970s; indeed that is quite impossible. What it does mean is that we need to think and be on our toes, to try not to get caught flatfooted by all this stuff.

Consider this scenario: if you like to OC, or do anything else out of the ordinary, you're going to have a harder time keeping a low profile. One thing the article doesn't mention is data-mining, which is at once both a useful tool, and a technology that enables Orwell-style tracking and profiling.

Click to expand...

TH, I'm not trying to be a smartass or anything, but how do you think we can respond to this new society of surveillance? I'm pretty much drawing a blank, except for getting a stronge urge to go buy a few hundred acres in Montana... Or is there no solution but to just grin and bear it, and kiss privacy goodbye?

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

Well, it didn't take long for this thread to start getting side-tracked into another LEO229 argument with whoever.

Which is really dumb, because as bohdi wrote, this article is not about how the cops are coming to track us all, it only starts out that way. It really doesn't have much to do with cops per se.

The real subject here is how the technology is changing the world around us and how we aren't prepared to deal with the results. Kind of like talking to someone about television just as electrical power was first being installed. He'd have no clue how the world around him would change in a few years. Except that going from electricity to TV-watching zombies took a few decades; these changes in surveilance technology are literally only months or years away.

nitrovic says he and some cops like dash-cameras because they help tell the real story. Many OC'rs and others in the freedom activist world also like video and audio tech because it helps keep the police honest, and by extension, more professional. This sounds like an everybody-wins scenario to me. Real criminals can be prosecuted, and abuse by government is reduced.

But it's not all lollipops, as the article states. Constant surveillance is a threat to privacy, which is a threat to liberty. Without privacy or anonymity, many people feel too intimidated to speak their minds and fall back on blending in with the crowd, trying to act "normal". In addition, the tech can be abused and altered, perhaps to the point where it won't be accepted as evidence.

This doesn't mean we should all throw away our cell phones and other gadgets and go back to the 1970s; indeed that is quite impossible. What it does mean is that we need to think and be on our toes, to try not to get caught flatfooted by all this stuff.

Consider this scenario: if you like to OC, or do anything else out of the ordinary, you're going to have a harder time keeping a low profile. One thing the article doesn't mention is data-mining, which is at once both a useful tool, and a technology that enables Orwell-style tracking and profiling.

Click to expand...

TH, I'm not trying to be a smartass or anything, but how do you think we can respond to this new society of surveillance? I'm pretty much drawing a blank, except for getting a stronge urge to go buy a few hundred acres in Montana... Or is there no solution but to just grin and bear it, and kiss privacy goodbye?

Click to expand...

Tomahawk - bully man! Thanks for bringing it back into perspective.

Imperialism - every electronics system has it's flaws, find the flaws and use them to your advantage. I alluded to that earlier in my post about RF......there's more than one way to skin a cat Not that I'd ever skin a cat but man somedays my wife's (cats) push my limits.......

edited to make sure my comment didn' sound like I'd skin my wife because she pushed me to my limits, lol. see (cat) insert. Thought about how that last sentence sounded prior to cat insert after my orininal post.

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

This doesn't mean we should all throw away our cell phones and other gadgets and go back to the 1970s; indeed that is quite impossible. What it does mean is that we need to think and be on our toes, to try not to get caught flatfooted by all this stuff.

Consider this scenario: if you like to OC, or do anything else out of the ordinary, you're going to have a harder time keeping a low profile. One thing the article doesn't mention is data-mining, which is at once both a useful tool, and a technology that enables Orwell-style tracking and profiling.

Click to expand...

TH, I'm not trying to be a smartass or anything, but how do you think we can respond to this new society of surveillance? I'm pretty much drawing a blank, except for getting a stronge urge to go buy a few hundred acres in Montana... Or is there no solution but to just grin and bear it, and kiss privacy goodbye?

Click to expand...

Like bohdi says, pay attention and find ways to use it to your advantage. An example is how VCDL has successfully used the internet to concentrate attention where it's needed most.

Running away to the mountains may work for a very small few who can afford it, but that just takes you out of the game, so you still lose. I'd like to participate in society and maintain my freedom and privacy, if possible. And besides, if you want your rights protected, you have to protect your fellow countrymen's rights as well.

I don't have specific answers, I'm just saying it's worth keeping an eye on. These changes will affect politics as well as the justice system. Maybe I'm just a geek with to much interest in human history, I guess.

imported post

swillden wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

...we often discuss on this board is the growth of government surveillance.

Click to expand...

This month's Popular Mechanics reports that Verizon and one other carrier have GPS chips in their phones.  There is more to the story, but of course, it has to do with making 911 calls.

Click to expand...

For the last few years, ALL new cellphones in the US have had GPS receiving capability installed.  It's required by law, for 911 purposes.

However, it really doesn't matter.  Even without a GPS receiver in the phone, triangulation from cell towers can usually provide a location with surprising accuracy.  GPS can generally nail your position within 10-20 feet, triangulation within 150-200 feet.  GPS is an order of magnitude more accurate, but the difference rarely matters.

Click to expand...

Yup, even back in the late 80's and early 90's, triangulation was used, and accuracy was usually a few hundred feet, which is enough to narrow it down to a single city block. After working for ATT/Cingular/SBC/Cellular One/whatever they'll be called in the future, I know of comm rooms that are operated by corporate employees, but manned with federal and local law enforcement agents 24/7. Their sole purpose is to follow through with wiretapping warrants, location, etc.


Nowadays, handsets are using what's called assisted GPS or AGPS, where it queries a server, which decreases the cold lockup time for the satellite acquisition, and improves accuracy..