I don't have any real information nor the inclination to do the research, but odds are that huge surveillance camera rollouts (as in city-wide) are IP not analog cameras. Since running cables is so expensive, they probably use either wireless (GSM) to the monitoring center or at least wireless to a collection point with fiber or ISP connection back to the monitoring center. Sooner or later, someone will steal one of the cameras, RE it, and find some sort of common password, backdoor, or other vulnerability. Most IP cameras use H.263 for the video - not all H.263 stacks are secure against fuzzing. Since most smart phones have GPS, wifi, and bluetooth, an app could be written that takes advantage of the vulnerability to point the camera away (if it's PTZ) or simply turn it off temporarily (no monitoring center can look at all cameras all the time). Sure, evidence of the turn-off would be evident in the Network Video Recorder (NVR) but there would be no evidence of why. Replacement of video is not as easy as it seems - simple lack of video is just as good for privacy.
The point is that as more and more of our information is managed by computers, more and more opportunity exists to change that information to suit our purposes. Paper records require physical access - virtual records require virtual access which can be much easier. Here's another example - a while back some ID thieves discovered that all they had to do to get access to a credit rating agency like TransUnion, Experian, or Equifax is be a business and pay some money. They used that access to steal identify information and were caught when their volume rose to the wholesale level. If, instead, they used their privileged access to those company's networks, they might have escalated their access and changed the information in those networks. Maybe they could have made as much money offering a credit rating relief service as they did through ID theft. Ray Parks Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084 NIPR: rcpa...@sandia.gov<mailto:rcpa...@sandia.gov> SIPR: rcpar...@sandia.doe.sgov.gov<mailto:rcpar...@sandia.doe.sgov.gov> (send NIPR reminder) JWICS: dopa...@doe.ic.gov<mailto:dopa...@doe.ic.gov> (send NIPR reminder) On Jan 17, 2013, at 6:09 PM, <lrudo...@meganet.net<mailto:lrudo...@meganet.net>> wrote: Why stop at "jam the camera"? *Spoof* the camera (feed it false but plausible data, perhaps inculpating someone else, or perhaps just showing an uppity empty Naugahyde `:chair): a real- time, animated analogue of the photoshopped stills we now have learned to expect everywhere. Ah. The equivalent of the bank Robbers mask. Jam the camera. N From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Parks, Raymond Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 3:26 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data Nick, My point is that there are things we do not want to be public that are not illegal nor shameful. An example of such a thing is a behavior or statement that seems to contradict one's relationship with another human. It's perfectly reasonable, but that other human can and frequently does feel emotional pain if they find out about it. Another example was brought up in the thread of how humans manipulate their social environment to prevent social pressure or improve their social situation. BTW, I find it interesting if not ironic that the very systems that allow for ubiquitous surveillance are the same systems that allow for indiscriminate self-exposure - computers. Here's a prediction - someday there will be an app that will turn off surveillance cameras as one passes by them. That may be a black-market app - but it will exist. It's harder but not impossible to do the same for UAVs/RPAs/regular aircraft. The hardest type of surveillance to turn off is satellite - but it's also the easiest to predict. Ray Parks Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084 NIPR: rcpa...@sandia.gov<mailto:rcpa...@sandia.gov> SIPR: rcpar...@sandia.doe.sgov.gov<mailto:rcpar...@sandia.doe.sgov.gov> (send NIPR reminder) JWICS: dopa...@doe.ic.gov<mailto:dopa...@doe.ic.gov> (send NIPR reminder) On Jan 17, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: Sorry. I wasn't asking whether we lie or not. Or even whether it eases some social situations. I was asking for a theory of why lying greases social situations. Why is the NET effect of small lies positive? I can think of some reasons. Like chimpanzees, we live in a fision-fusion situation. The size of the lie that one can "honestly" tell probably depends in many cases on the frequency with which one sees the person one is lying to. And then there is the distinction between speech as stroking and speech as conveying of information. I get that wrong, a lot. I am having a hard time thinking how this is related to my original question about whether there should be a law against using public data to track individual behavior. I know that I opened up the subthread about shame and guilt, so I stipulate that it is my fault that we are talking about it. And I actually think it is related. I just can't state the relation. I am thinking we might be moving toward a belief that truth is like arousal . life goes best when one has a moderate level of it. There was a wonderful study done some years ago about he relation between truth and the best marriages. Married folk were asked to play The Dating Game together .. i.e., guess what spouses answers to personal questions would be, preferences, what have you. Three categories of respondents were identified: spouse pairs that had an unrealistical enhanced view of one another, spouse pairs that had an unrealistically jaundiced view of one another, and spouse pairs that had a realistic view of one another. As you might expect, the first group maintained the most enduring marriages. But this just brings me back to the need for a theory of why a society is better is there is just a bit less truth in it. A pragmatic notion, but not, I fear, a Pragmatic one. Nick ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
