Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Google Glass and privacy
Posted by Parks, Raymond on Mar 19, 2013; 5:05pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Google-Glass-and-privacy-tp7582143p7582152.html
One possible problem is that ubiquitous surveillance done poorly (and it usually is) can be used to commit crimes -
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/15/cctv_hack_casino_poker/
Another big issue is that most uninformed viewers believe that video shows what they would sense if present at the scene. This matters in two ways - some guy with a camera produces video that only shows a limited scene for a limited time and viewers assume the images are true and accurate. There's a reason that cinematographers, directors, and cameramen exist - they know how to produce effects in the human mind based on the images they choose to show. Some guy with a camera will have a relatively random outcome that can have effects out of synch with reality beyond the viewfinder. Modifying video surveillance has been a staple of Hollywood since at least Mission: Impossible the original TV series. However, the ubiquity of surveillance equipment, the use of TCP/IP network protocols, and availability of tools for modifying video or controlling cameras make Hollywood possible - for relatively low-level (non Impossible Missions Force) adversaries.
Ray Parks
Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager
V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084
NIPR: [hidden email]
SIPR: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder)
JWICS: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder)
On Mar 19, 2013, at 10:37 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> On 3/19/13 8:07 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
>> It it wasn't Google, it would be some other entity. A lot of the futuristic science fiction I used to enjoy featured miniaturization, sensors, and surveillance. Tiny self-powered bots, powerful optics, EM, quantum, and nuclear resonance imaging. Machine intelligence. Privacy is an illusion.
> I think it is a lot more subtle than that. There is the question of just what "privacy" is?
>
> I agree that there is some kind of new-Orwellian Manifest Destiny at work, in the sense that if it *wasn't* Google it would be someone else. 2 years ago I was shown a pair of sunglasses that had mini digital video recorder built in very discretely. $200 or something from sharper image. Admittedly, you had to plug it into a micro-usb to download the data (and recharge) with no WiFi or Bluetooth... but the point is the basic technology to invade your visual (and audio) privace is not new. Most anyone with a smartphone could already be recording the audio environment and the video environment within a modestly wide field of view. Maybe we can start a new game at FRIAM or WedTech to see who can record the conversations most surruptitiously *without* Google Goggles. The technology is already here.
>
> Similarly I think too many of us are at least numb if not comfortable to there being cameras at every street intersection in many municipalities. They aren't even there (usually) to enforce, but rather to help run traffic lights based on flow and help determine congestion levels for various purposes. Ostensibly a GoodThing. But in principal if not in practice they are also busy providing the frontend to track all kinds of things. We all see these cameras and even see them being (mis) used in movies, but for the most part we don't worry. Similarly CCTV in businesses, ATMs on the street, etc.
>
> And in the home? I know that the way computers with built in cameras and microphones are designed is supposed to protect my privacy... but it doesn't take much to bypass most of that. Maybe the camera won't even power up without lighting the notification LED next to it... but a snip of wire (ok, so you have to open the case, non trivial) or even a dot of black fingernail polish over the LED and viola! When I was a PI, it was understood (and of course never exploited) that many of the phone systems of the era could be exploited from outside the home. The mic in the handset(s) were live all the time and could be tapped at the junction box outside the home by a clever wiseguy. Laser-window mics weren't available yet but parabolic reflector mics and uber-long camera lenses were.
>
> A few years ago, having your photo taken in the background of someones family vacation pics just mean your image showed up in their photo album on the coffee table... small and grainy and there for any one of their (merely) dozens of visitors to see. Now, with digital cameras everywhere and Facebook and Flikr and automatic face recognition, it might not be hard to find dozens or even thousands of examples of your face on the net... accidental portraiture exposing details of where you where when and with who.
>
> Most of us could say "If you don't have anything to hide, then you don't have anything to worry about!". I don't think that is what privacy is about.
>
> So what *is* privacy? I'm not sure exactly but I think it is more than this. I think hunter-gatherer bands of 100 or so had very little *practical* privacy from eachother. I think even early cities had very little privacy. I think what we think of as privacy *is* an illusion... but I think there is something yet more subtle and important that constitutes real privacy. I'll keep thinking on it, but I'm curious to know if anyone here has any other perspectives on just what privacy means?
>
> Surely it means more than living your life outside of the range of cameras and microphones.
>
> - Steve
>
> ============================================================
> 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
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Google-Glass-and-privacy-tp7582143p7582152.html
One possible problem is that ubiquitous surveillance done poorly (and it usually is) can be used to commit crimes -
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/15/cctv_hack_casino_poker/
Another big issue is that most uninformed viewers believe that video shows what they would sense if present at the scene. This matters in two ways - some guy with a camera produces video that only shows a limited scene for a limited time and viewers assume the images are true and accurate. There's a reason that cinematographers, directors, and cameramen exist - they know how to produce effects in the human mind based on the images they choose to show. Some guy with a camera will have a relatively random outcome that can have effects out of synch with reality beyond the viewfinder. Modifying video surveillance has been a staple of Hollywood since at least Mission: Impossible the original TV series. However, the ubiquity of surveillance equipment, the use of TCP/IP network protocols, and availability of tools for modifying video or controlling cameras make Hollywood possible - for relatively low-level (non Impossible Missions Force) adversaries.
Ray Parks
Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager
V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084
NIPR: [hidden email]
SIPR: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder)
JWICS: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder)
On Mar 19, 2013, at 10:37 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> On 3/19/13 8:07 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
>> It it wasn't Google, it would be some other entity. A lot of the futuristic science fiction I used to enjoy featured miniaturization, sensors, and surveillance. Tiny self-powered bots, powerful optics, EM, quantum, and nuclear resonance imaging. Machine intelligence. Privacy is an illusion.
> I think it is a lot more subtle than that. There is the question of just what "privacy" is?
>
> I agree that there is some kind of new-Orwellian Manifest Destiny at work, in the sense that if it *wasn't* Google it would be someone else. 2 years ago I was shown a pair of sunglasses that had mini digital video recorder built in very discretely. $200 or something from sharper image. Admittedly, you had to plug it into a micro-usb to download the data (and recharge) with no WiFi or Bluetooth... but the point is the basic technology to invade your visual (and audio) privace is not new. Most anyone with a smartphone could already be recording the audio environment and the video environment within a modestly wide field of view. Maybe we can start a new game at FRIAM or WedTech to see who can record the conversations most surruptitiously *without* Google Goggles. The technology is already here.
>
> Similarly I think too many of us are at least numb if not comfortable to there being cameras at every street intersection in many municipalities. They aren't even there (usually) to enforce, but rather to help run traffic lights based on flow and help determine congestion levels for various purposes. Ostensibly a GoodThing. But in principal if not in practice they are also busy providing the frontend to track all kinds of things. We all see these cameras and even see them being (mis) used in movies, but for the most part we don't worry. Similarly CCTV in businesses, ATMs on the street, etc.
>
> And in the home? I know that the way computers with built in cameras and microphones are designed is supposed to protect my privacy... but it doesn't take much to bypass most of that. Maybe the camera won't even power up without lighting the notification LED next to it... but a snip of wire (ok, so you have to open the case, non trivial) or even a dot of black fingernail polish over the LED and viola! When I was a PI, it was understood (and of course never exploited) that many of the phone systems of the era could be exploited from outside the home. The mic in the handset(s) were live all the time and could be tapped at the junction box outside the home by a clever wiseguy. Laser-window mics weren't available yet but parabolic reflector mics and uber-long camera lenses were.
>
> A few years ago, having your photo taken in the background of someones family vacation pics just mean your image showed up in their photo album on the coffee table... small and grainy and there for any one of their (merely) dozens of visitors to see. Now, with digital cameras everywhere and Facebook and Flikr and automatic face recognition, it might not be hard to find dozens or even thousands of examples of your face on the net... accidental portraiture exposing details of where you where when and with who.
>
> Most of us could say "If you don't have anything to hide, then you don't have anything to worry about!". I don't think that is what privacy is about.
>
> So what *is* privacy? I'm not sure exactly but I think it is more than this. I think hunter-gatherer bands of 100 or so had very little *practical* privacy from eachother. I think even early cities had very little privacy. I think what we think of as privacy *is* an illusion... but I think there is something yet more subtle and important that constitutes real privacy. I'll keep thinking on it, but I'm curious to know if anyone here has any other perspectives on just what privacy means?
>
> Surely it means more than living your life outside of the range of cameras and microphones.
>
> - Steve
>
> ============================================================
> 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
smime.p7s (4K) | Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |