Security camera network and people tracking - the implications?

<p>Where does all this go? I'm thinking about the following pieces to a disturbing puzzle:</p>

<p>Security cameras are EVERYWHERE, and the computational horsepower exists to track people from camera to camera using object and facial recognition software. License plates are also OCR'ed, and thus vehicles can be tracked. These capabilities are mostly used by law enforcement and commercially in retail settings, but this is current technology.</p>

<p>Smart phones and their owners are tracked by GPS. This capability is used in retail settings and by Google.</p>

<p>New web cams are being set up everyday. I suspect there is also an army of zombie smart phones that transmit geotagged images on command, perhaps towards the construction of an augmented surveillance network. (Many smart phone apps request permission to use your camera, even when there's no reason a camera is required for operation of the app!)</p>

<p>Eventually this could all get centralized, if it's not already. I'm thinking of Google having enough geo-tagged web cam feed as to start tracking people, whether or not they carry a smart phone and/or have GPS disabled. So for instance when I drive my car out of my neighborhood, even with my cell phone's GPS disabled, a geo-tagged camera picks up my car(license plate) or face and associates it with ME. And then I'm tracked by Google as I go about my daily rounds.</p>

<p>But this must all have the potential to be monetized before Google would care to do it.</p>

<p>So we have these cool glasses we can wear. Google knows our location via GPS and uses our glasses to look around. And because everyone is tracked in this giant information network, we see labels superimposed over the people walking around us. Oooooh! And sitting at the next table is someone we'd like to know more about. Hmmmm... Click "here" to find out more about this person -- for a fee.</p>

<p>Maybe with the Google Platinum plan, we can pull down quite a lot of information on this person -- facebook, address, phone number, email address, college, religion, marital status, family members, income, home value, hobbies, arrest records, etc. (Try looking up someone on spokeo.com. It's spooky how much of our info is out there!) </p>

<p>Maybe if we're crooks, we'd be interested to know she has a huge rock of an engagement ring that her now-fiancé gave her a few days ago, pictured on Facebook. Or perhaps she carries an expensive camera. Wow, there could be spiders to database people's wealth and flag stealable items they might be carrying with them. Maybe all the people's tags could be color coded accordingly. Interested in meeting Mr. Right -- or stealing his Rolex? Look for the flashing red label in your Glass.</p>

<p>The only thing that might protect us from these nefarious activities might be that the activities of these criminals would similarly be recorded and databased. However, there are always ways to circumvent these annoying things. And none of this protects us from the creep at the next table who is looking at photos of us in the nude, taken from a quadcopter hovering over our skylight and posted to the internet.</p>

<p>Now any sane person would be rather uncomfortable with all these information vulnerabilities. So for those who value their privacy, there could be Google's TrakBlok Gold service that would maintain all of this information as private.... for a fee, of course. But of course that's just Google. We might have to pay other companies as well.</p>

<p>Free market capitalism, run amuck! Google might own us all someday!</p>

 

<p>Scarey thoughs Sarah</p>

<p>Sarah, I think you are way too intrenched. I've never sign up for FB or have a smart phone....I figured it would be smarter than me :>).</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p>Welcome to our world in the UK</p>

<p>No, never...that would never happen here, we live in the great "free" American exceptionalism, no? NSA, uh, I mean Google wouldn't do that ever:)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Welcome in 2014.<br /> Government agencies are tracking our wherebouts in the name of national security. The scary thing is that they can easily get information that they are not allowed to collect from foreign agencies and the latter can do the same. In the end they know all about us. No problem untill the information is misinterpreted or misused. It's not so much a question whether this will happen but more when it will happen.<br /> Google c.s. do the same for commercial reasons AKA profit. (Hey, it's my information, may I get my share of the profit?).<br /> Perhaps we should do whatever we can to give them as little info as possible: encrypt our messages, use programs like ghostery etc. In addititon our governments should implement legislation to control the collection and use of data. Of course this legislation has to be controlled, and not by secret judges, commitees, etc.</p>

<p>The reason for the technology is because we are asking for it. Google wouldn't be making the glasses if they didn't think they'd sell (although I am not sure they are really selling). Security cameras are being put up because that is what the public wants. GPS on phones was put there because the public wanted that.</p>

It wouldn't be worthwhile for me to steal your Rolex because then someone else would steal ot from me.

<p>You have to let it go. There is nothing to be done at this point so there is absolutely no reason to give it a second thought. Saturday I received my yearly letter from a credit card company spelling out how they will "share" my personal information unless I took the pro-active step of calling them and telling not to. Pages of stuff I don't even look at anymore because I just don't care anymore. You will be a lot happier when you just accept this new world we live in.</p>

<p>"Where does all this go?"<br>

Wrap your body with aluminium foil... this will protect you from people who are trying to read your thoughts.</p>

<p>Sarah - sounds like you are onto a great plot for a movie or TV series. Quickly write it before it becomes ho-hum reality.</p>

<p>This thread is a good example of how we can restart the "Off Topic" forum. Just keep it slightly camera related: Who owns more Leicas-Republicans or Democrats?</p>

<p>Google does not bother me. They're just trying to make money. Remember though that starting in 2010 all of what google has began to be reported to the federal government. These are the guys with guns. These are the guys that can throw you in jail. These are the guys that are a law unto themselves. And, the present political administration has demonstrated their desire to go after their private citizen political opposition. Now THAT is scary! Not as much separating us from China any more.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>They are indeed able to follow & build dossiers on many people, perhaps now on a majority of law-abiding people. I do believe that with a minimum of training, smart non- law-abiding people are able to defeat many of these tracking methods. Stealing license plates, wearing a hat or a hoodie & looking down (!) in public, not using cell phones, etc.</p>

<p>AS someone who has deliberately unplugged from all social networks, refuses 'permissions' to share as a matter of routine, has never signed up for a 'loyalty' card or even used a credit/debit card for routine purchases, etc., the argument that business can track us all legally anyway so why worry rings a little hollow in my ears. No, business cannot track us legally if we do not sign all those permissions and tick all those little boxes and play their games. And no, the gov't cannot track us legally either, which is why they play around with contractors and reciprocal agreements with friendly gov'ts to skirt the laws. </p>

<p>How does this relate to photography? Well, I've heard persistent rumors that all new cameras are fitted with GPS chips and geotag photos (possibly outside of the metadata we are able to edit?), and there are also rumors of building in software to prevent cameras from taking photos in certain locations. I heard that scanner/printer combos were already configured to prevent people from photocopying currency (don't know if this is true, because I've never personally tried), however I believe the technology permitted this to be done years ago, so the others are not so far-fetched. One can argue that there are legitimate gov't reasons to require all of these technological implementations on security grounds; however there is no legitimate reason to do all of this in secret. The needs of the citizens to know what their gov't is up to override, IMHO, whatever 'security' gains the gov't expects to have by keeping it all secret.</p>

<p>I think 'cloud computing' was supposed to be what was going to tie all of this in to something gov't/industry (increasingly the same thing) would be able to do what Sarah posited. I think the current backlash against it is only a minor setback, future technologies will have cloud computing built in and we will have no choice but to use it, or remain technological Luddites.</p>

<p>Speaking of which, I'm pretty sure none of these technological bugs/features are built into my 1888 view camera. Nor is my film or developer technically enabled to prevent me from doing whatever I want with them (or trying, at least). They will never reach 100% of the population, except by force.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Where does all this go?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Power!<br>

Reminds me of the days of J. Edgar Hoover only a bit more sophisticated.<br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover</a></p>

<p>Aluminium Foil garments will serve a more productive end result than they did back in J. Edgars days!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I am reminded what the poet said about one of his fictional characters, "oh, he knew what reality was, he was just looking for something better."<br>

Thomas Jefferson said that "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." Have you paid your dues today?<br>

I don't own a smart phone or a cell phone. I hide under my enlarger in the darkroom a lot.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Speaking of which, I'm pretty sure none of these technological bugs/features are built into my 1888 view camera. Nor is my film or developer technically enabled to prevent me from doing whatever I want with them (or trying, at least). They will never reach 100% of the population, except by force.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good points! However, let's say the person next to you takes a selfie, and you're in the background with your view camera. That means your geotagged image is but an upload away from the cloud. An app that this person has given permission to access the camera might upload the photo to a data network. Or perhaps the person posts the photo to facebook or some other social media, and the image is digested for useful info from there. Either way, you and your view camera are tracked through no fault of your own. And thus you could become part of the 100% that is tracked.</p>

<p>It's hard not to be completely unplugged in this sort of scenario. If you drive, you have a driver's license, and on it is your digital photo and address. Thus there is a starting point for tracking you. If someone looking like your DL photo, driving a car registered to you, is seen driving from your neighborhood, it is almost certainly tagged as being you, and thus the tracking begins.</p>

<p>To escape this, you'd have to have no ID, avoid being tagged in anyone's photo (i.e. know nobody), use no credit cards, never get arrested, etc. You'd essentially have to be homeless. And even then you'd be tagged in the great network as "homeless person #45,265." I'm sure the police would help to improve that part of the database.</p>

<p>OR... to escape "some" of this, you could pay Google to preserve your privacy.</p>

<p>My point in all of this isn't that Big Brother is watching. Thanks to Eric Snowden, we now recognize and accept that Big Brother is watching. (I was considered by many a tin-foil-hat person before Snowden came along and vindicated me.) My point, now, is that most of us will eventually be sending monthly payments to Google and their brethren in this new surveillance economy.</p>

<p>The only way out, IMO, is to make roving surveillance illegal, even for commercial purposes, without a warrant. Our concept of "right to privacy" has to extend beyond government encroachment. I think we will see just how evil Google can be when we start to question whether they have a right to exploit our personal data. That's when their slick lobbyists will storm Washington to pay their respects to the finest Congress that money can buy.</p>

<p>Sanford with all due respect the idea that we might as well all accept it is nonsense. We should not tolerate this. Government has been doing its best to keep up with us for hundreds of years worldwide. It's just easier now because we are all plugged in. I've said for some time that the Feds will never allow any communications system to be used in this country that they cannot already crack. A few conversations with people in that business indicate that I am correct. No matter how secure you think your phone is, it can be listened in on. Although these new passive tracking devices and cameras on every street corner haven't shown up much locally they are being widely used in the larger cities in this state. It's the exact same thing that was illegal when hackers and experimenters were doing it. The local PD does have a car used to patrol neighborhoods and record tag numbers even when parked off of the right of way which are recorded for location and checked for warrants, registration and insurance info. They aren't even being very secretive about it, that car stands out like a sore thumb even among other police cars. I don't know about anyone else but I'm taking steps against this. I park with the front of my car facing out. I have decided to create sort of an online alter ego. Put together a nonexistent person and make him (or her, hmmmm) the name on my computer, the identity on web sites that I frequent and most other trackable activities. No I can't legally do that with things like a drivers license but I have already done things like minimize my presence in the number of financial intruments and accounts I use. Pe-paid phone without my name on it which is also quite a bit cheaper. No smart phone. Older classic cars which I prefer anyway. No automated functions such as toll passes, bill pays and so on. It may be useless and even paranoid but I've found it to be an interesting mental excersise that may one day pay off. And to keep this photography related, I've had a strong urge lately to do more work that doesn't involve my computer ie. use more film. I have all the equipment and have lately been rather bored with the digital process and one of my F4's keeps calling from the closet. Damn maybe I AM getting paranoid. :-)</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

<p>I once heard that, during the Cold War, many people living behind the Iron Curtain would keep a pillow over their phone, hoping the Big Ear could not hear.</p>

<p>Andy, that's sad. Anyone familiar with the wiring of a telephone would/should realize the receiver switch electrically disconnects the handset. But still this is the sort of chilling effect surveillance has on a society. One comes to believe that eyes and ears are everywhere, and so one feels he or she had better not express any views of which Big Brother would disapprove. And thus Free Speech has been compromised.</p>

<p>I remember visiting Singapore during one of their elections. I would talk with enthusiasm about the prospect that they might knock down the ruling party (PAP) that nobody really liked, and bring in a large enough wave of opposition candidates to establish a two- or multi-party system. People would shoosh me and whisper, "The walls have ears!" Then they would go to the polls where their voter registration numbers were recorded (to make certain they voted... not to... ahem... determine HOW they voted), and they would vote back in the same PAP politicians they hated.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Good points! However, let's say the person next to you takes a selfie, and you're in the background with your view camera. That means your geotagged image is but an upload away from the cloud. An app that this person has given permission to access the camera might upload the photo to a data network. Or perhaps the person posts the photo to facebook or some other social media, and the image is digested for useful info from there. Either way, you and your view camera are tracked through no fault of your own. And thus you could become part of the 100% that is tracked.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Possibly. Or not, if I were wearing a hoodie and made sure to look sideways and down when that person took their selfie. </p>

<p>Those who have reason to be anonymous can defeat most of the modern technological surveillance state, if they're mindful of what they do. I seem to remember that OBL gave such directives to his operatives as to make sure they lived in areas with trees, because this would defeat satellite recognition. And while OBL was eventually found and killed, the team that killed him were possibly no more than 50% sure that it was him living in that compound. And this after a decade of the most intense manhunt the US gov't could mount (I don't want to get political, this is just a comment on the state of tracking abilities built into our technology, and the possibility of defeating them).</p>

<p>I can't escape the conclusion that the purpose of the surveillance state and the spying built into our technology (including our cameras) is not 'security', but rather 'control'. For 'control', it is not necessary to track every single person; it is enough to merely give the impression of doing so. Hence the semi-secrecy, the fact that we know our cameras have GPSs built into them, but we're not sure what they do.</p>

<p>No wonder the gun owners want to keep their guns. </p>

<p>Well we give up so much. Facebook is asking me all these questions that are none of anyone's business. But I forget that what I share tells a lot about me. As to where I am and where I go, visas and airlines know that. I guess we have serious concerns, and we must address them before we start to look more like North Korea. Orwell wrote it well.</p>

<p>Orwell didn't know half of it.</p>

<p>Orwell was an optimist.</p>