Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
LA Sheriff's Dept. On New Surveillance Program: We Knew The Public Wouldn't Like It, So We Kept It A Secret
from the because-screw-those-whiners-and-their-'rights' dept
As we've noted several times before, law enforcement and investigative agencies tend to roll out expanded surveillance systems without bothering to run it by the citizens they're planning to surveil. The systems and programs are deployed, FOIA battles are waged and, finally, at some point, the information makes its way to the public. It is only then that most agencies start considering the privacy implications of their surveillance systems, and these are usually addressed by begrudging, minimal protections being belatedly applied.
Now, it's obvious why these agencies don't inform the public of their plans. They may uses terms like "security" and "officer safety" and theorize that making any details public would just allow criminals to find ways to avoid the persistent gaze of multiple surveillance options, but underneath it all, they know the public isn't going to just sit there and allow them to deploy intrusive surveillance programs.
The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is using a new surveillance program utilizing the technology of a private contractor doing business under the not-scary-at-all name of "Persistent Surveillance Systems." This gives the LASD a literal eye in the sky that provides coverage it can't achieve with systems already in place. But it does more than just give the LASD yet another camera. It provides the agency with some impressive tools to manipulate the recordings.
The system, known as wide-area surveillance, is something of a time machine – the entire city is filmed and recorded in real time. Imagine Google Earth with a rewind button and the ability to play back the movement of cars and people as they scurry about the city.
“We literally watched all of Compton during the time that we were flying, so we could zoom in anywhere within the city of Compton and follow cars and see people,” [Ross] McNutt [owner of Persistent Surveillance Systems] said. “Our goal was to basically jump to where reported crimes occurred and see what information we could generate that would help investigators solve the crimes.”
As with nearly everything making its way into law enforcement hands these days, this technology was developed and deployed first in battlefields. Persistent Surveillance Systems' first proving grounds were Afghanistan and Iraq, tracking down bombing suspects. All it takes is a cluster of high-powered cameras and a single civilian plane to watch over Compton with warzone-quality surveillance. According to McNutt, the camera system covers "10,000 times" the area a single police helicopter can. McNutt also believes the system can be expanded to cover an area as large as the entire city of San Francisco.
While the cameras aren't quite powerful enough to allow the LASD to make use of another, increasingly popular technological tool -- facial recognition -- this still gives the LASD an unprecedented coverage area. Camera technology continues to improve, so there's no reason to believe a few of McNutt's planes won't someday (possibly very soon) have the power to assist the LASD with adding new mugshots to its databases.
But, as pointed out earlier, where does the public fit into all of this? Were privacy concerns addressed before moving forward with Persistent Surveillance Systems? I'm not even going to try to set up this astounding response from an LASD officer. Just read it:
“The system was kind of kept confidential from everybody in the public,” (LASD Sgt.) Iketani said. “A lot of people do have a problem with the eye in the sky, the Big Brother, so in order to mitigate any of those kinds of complaints, we basically kept it pretty hush-hush.”
You know, it's one thing to think this. We know from experience that many law enforcement officials (as well as the rank-and-file) absolutely resent being publicly accountable and having to make the occasional token effort to respect civil liberties, so it's not surprising that the LASD knew the easiest way to avoid a negative public was to lock the public out.
It is, however, quite another thing to come out on record and say this. This shows just how little the LASD actually cares about the public's concerns. The agency knew the public wouldn't be happy and an official comes right out and tells the public that his agency and others don't really care. What they don't know won't hurt them... until it's too late to do anything about it.
This was followed up by another statement from an LAPD official, who noted that frogs generally come around to the idea of being boiled to death.
The center’s commanding officer, Capt. John Romero, recognizes the concerns but equates them with public resistance to street lights in America’s earliest days.
“People thought that this is the government trying to see what we’re doing at night, to spy on us,” Romero said. “And so over time, things shifted, and now if you try to take down street lights in Los Angeles or Boston or anywhere else, people will say no.”
There's no honesty or accountability in these statements. There's only an admission that Los Angeles law enforcement feels the public is there to serve them and not the other way around. Hiding your plans from the public doesn't instill confidence that their rights will be respected. Neither does telling them they'll "get used to it." Instead, it creates an even more antagonistic environment, one where the public is viewed as a nuisance at best by people whose power is derived from the same citizens they so obviously have no respect for.
People are stupid and think the police want to watch them walking down a public street to a corner store for a quart of milk.
That article reads more like a paranoid rant than a useful examination of the legality/usefulness of drones in police use (on the bright side, this one doesn't see through walls).
LordofHats wrote: People are stupid and think the police want to watch them walking down a public street to a corner store for a quart of milk.
That article reads more like a paranoid rant than a useful examination of the legality/usefulness of drones in police use (on the bright side, this one doesn't see through walls).
It's not that...
It's the fact that the po-po is doing something that's potentially creepy and scary.. watching you 24/7 per day.. AND to "mitigate those kinds of complaints" is to keep it secret from the public.... <---that right there is troubling...
Would we want the police to have a full disclosure policy with these sorts of things???
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/18 20:09:20
It's the fact that the po-po is doing something that's potentially creepy and scary..
Feelings are irrelevant
watching you 24/7 per day..
Except they say in the article you link how they use the system. Is there reason to believe they're following specific people? Or even watching anything in specific? The way the article describes the system, it takes a picture so broad that nothing can be discerned from it and they only zoom in at the report of a crime.
AND to "mitigate those kinds of complaints" is to keep it secret from the public....
They probably get tired of people being crazy paranoid about everything they do, which leads to them acting crazy paranoid about people knowing what they do which just creates a vicious cycle.
Would we want the police to have a full disclosure policy with these sorts of things???
Yeah, and now it is. Such things might be public from day one if people didn't lose IQ points everytime the words "police" and "surveillance" appeared in the same sentence. I don't see anything in the article that describes anything to be worried about other than ranting about things that aren't apparently happening.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/04/18 20:14:30
It's the fact that the po-po is doing something that's potentially creepy and scary..
Feelings are irrelevant
Except in cases of bullying, hate crimes, harassment, and terrorism.
watching you 24/7 per day..
Except they say in the article you link how they use the system. Is there reason to believe they're following specific people? Or even watching anything in specific? The way the article describes the system, it takes a picture so broad that nothing can be discerned from it and they only zoom in at the report of a crime.
And the whole thing will be audited by third parties to prevent abuses, naturally.
AND to "mitigate those kinds of complaints" is to keep it secret from the public....
They probably get tired of people being crazy paranoid about everything they do, which leads to them acting crazy paranoid about people knowing what they do which just creates a vicious cycle.
Hypothetically: If the vast majority of people are crazy paranoids and don't want these things in a democracy, should they be implemented anyway?
Would we want the police to have a full disclosure policy with these sorts of things???
Yeah, and now it is. Such things might be public from day one if people didn't lose IQ points everytime the words "police" and "surveillance" appeared in the same sentence. I don't see anything in the article that describes anything to be worried about other than ranting about things that aren't apparently happening.
The article does a poor job of articulating real concerns, yes, but it's not like the intelligent arguments against surveillance states haven't been done to death.
Except in cases of bullying, hate crimes, harassment, and terrorism.
All four of those cause real damage to people. Saying something is 'creepy' isn't an argument.
Hypothetically: If the vast majority of people are crazy paranoids and don't want these things in a democracy, should they be implemented anyway?
I'm sure the vast majority of people have no opinion.
The article does a poor job of articulating real concerns, yes, but it's not like the intelligent arguments against surveillance states haven't been done to death.
This isn't even close to a surveillance state. They aren't watching everyone, they're watching an overhead view where they couldn't tell the difference between a truck and an SUV. They're not using the technology arbitrarily as was done in one state, or using thermal cameras that see through walls like in another.
The most discriminating thing I see in the article is that they specifically mention Compton. Was that just the example used, or are they always watching Compton? Only Compton? Those would be problems.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/18 20:54:22
Except in cases of bullying, hate crimes, harassment, and terrorism.
All four of those cause real damage to people. Saying something is 'creepy' isn't an argument.
"I have anxiety issues. Being potentially constantly watched impacts my ability to live as close to a healthy and normal life as I can."
Hypothetically: If the vast majority of people are crazy paranoids and don't want these things in a democracy, should they be implemented anyway?
I'm sure the vast majority of people have no opinion.
Lot of hush on the part of the sheriff's office for something the vast majority of people have no opinion on.
The article does a poor job of articulating real concerns, yes, but it's not like the intelligent arguments against surveillance states haven't been done to death.
This isn't even close to a surveillance state. They aren't watching everyone, they're watching an overhead view where they couldn't tell the difference between a truck and an SUV. They're not using the technology arbitrarily as was done in one state, or using thermal cameras that see through walls like in another.
The most discriminating thing I see in the article is that they specifically mention Compton. Was that just the example used, or are they always watching Compton? Only Compton? Those would be problems.
I fear there is a lack of accountability involved. I fear that it doesn't stop here.
Lot of hush on the part of the sheriff's office for something the vast majority of people have no opinion on.
While people have a blindingly irrational fear of a fictional world written by Orwell, the police have a highly rational fear of people having that irrational fear. It only takes 1 person to file a lawsuit, frivolous or otherwise, to ruin their day. Not saying that justifies hushing, merely expanding on the vicious cycle that is constantly treating all police like they're the Gestapo.
daedalus wrote: I fear there is a lack of accountability involved. I fear that it doesn't stop here.
Maybe it doesn't. Maybe a useful news source would be more helpful in determining what the technology is being used for than a raving rant about technologies that don't existed (as admitted by the ranter).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/18 21:16:45
KingCracker wrote: I'm sorry, but when an agency does something all cloak and dagger like, yeah I start to really wonder why
This is my main issue, really.
I'd have less an issue if it was above board and people had the chance to know about it and perhaps choose to petition it being removed/changed/put under a different oversight.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/18 21:46:41
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
My reasoning for being cautious of more surveillance is that NOBODY knows what the political scene will be in 20 years and what is good now won't be years from now.
"So, do please come along when we're promoting something new and need photos for the facebook page or to send to our regional manager, do please engage in our gaming when we're pushing something specific hard and need to get the little kiddies drifting past to want to come in an see what all the fuss is about. But otherwise, stay the feth out, you smelly, antisocial bastards, because we're scared you are going to say something that goes against our mantra of absolute devotion to the corporate motherland and we actually perceive any of you who've been gaming more than a year to be a hostile entity as you've been exposed to the internet and 'dangerous ideas'. " - MeanGreenStompa
"Then someone mentions Infinity and everyone ignores it because no one really plays it." - nkelsch
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote: My reasoning for being cautious of more surveillance is that NOBODY knows what the political scene will be in 20 years and what is good now won't be years from now.
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote: My reasoning for being cautious of more surveillance is that NOBODY knows what the political scene will be in 20 years and what is good now won't be years from now.
What?
By then we will all monitoring chips anway.
Thanks Lordofhats
"So, do please come along when we're promoting something new and need photos for the facebook page or to send to our regional manager, do please engage in our gaming when we're pushing something specific hard and need to get the little kiddies drifting past to want to come in an see what all the fuss is about. But otherwise, stay the feth out, you smelly, antisocial bastards, because we're scared you are going to say something that goes against our mantra of absolute devotion to the corporate motherland and we actually perceive any of you who've been gaming more than a year to be a hostile entity as you've been exposed to the internet and 'dangerous ideas'. " - MeanGreenStompa
"Then someone mentions Infinity and everyone ignores it because no one really plays it." - nkelsch
Hey, at least I'll have a statue. Sure it'll be for reasons people hate but it'll be there
Till it gets torn down anyway.
And so the world turns
"So, do please come along when we're promoting something new and need photos for the facebook page or to send to our regional manager, do please engage in our gaming when we're pushing something specific hard and need to get the little kiddies drifting past to want to come in an see what all the fuss is about. But otherwise, stay the feth out, you smelly, antisocial bastards, because we're scared you are going to say something that goes against our mantra of absolute devotion to the corporate motherland and we actually perceive any of you who've been gaming more than a year to be a hostile entity as you've been exposed to the internet and 'dangerous ideas'. " - MeanGreenStompa
"Then someone mentions Infinity and everyone ignores it because no one really plays it." - nkelsch
The most discriminating thing I see in the article is that they specifically mention Compton. Was that just the example used, or are they always watching Compton? Only Compton? Those would be problems.
It seems as though that was just a test, if you link to the source article.
OP article wrote:There's only an admission that Los Angeles law enforcement feels the public is there to serve them and not the other way around.
How in the world does anything an LA county sheriff said indicate that the public should serve them?
OP article wrote:This was followed up by another statement from an LAPD official, who noted that frogs generally come around to the idea of being boiled to death.
Ok, if that is the case why wasn't his comment cited?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/18 22:34:01
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
This is fine, now. Soon the system will be efficient and automated enough that every vehicle that breaks any traffic law will automatically mailed a violation ticket. That will suck for every motorist in the city.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
LordofHats wrote: That article reads more like a paranoid rant than a useful examination of the legality/usefulness of drones in police use (on the bright side, this one doesn't see through walls).
Welcome to the wondrous world of the media! If it's not sensationalized it's obviously mundane and who wants mundane information where they can have so much hype!
