World, Writing, Wealth discussion

Human Rights Watch have reverse engineered an App used by Chinese authorities to monitor the predominantly muslim people in the province of Xinjiang.

REF: https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/05/01...

Do we have systems like this in the west?

If not, how long before we do?

Are such systems inevitable, or are there civilizational alternatives?

Phones, computers, anything that has a mike and/or camera can probably be used as a spyware. Just a "belief" at this stage on my part -:) The Chinese app collects info on the color of somebody's car or his/her height? Wouldn't be surprised if as much, if not more info, were collected by governmental authorities and commercial enterprises in the West for security and marketing purposes through apps, social networks, e-commerce, etc.
In the beginning of the century - many business meetings in Eastern Europe started from taking out batteries from the cell phones. It might be for a reason that the next generation of cellphones made extracting a battery kinda difficult -:)

I think government agencies are already monitoring us and imo I think it started after 9/11. Before 9/11 it was more relaxed here in the U.S., but after 9/11 there were some drastic changes made for U.S. citizens.

Here in the U.S. they are able to zoom in on your location by your cell phone and by land line phones. If a person calls emergency services from their cell phone and then they pass out, emergency services are still able to locate tham by tracing their cell phone location.

Hi Marie,

The Patriot act enabled the rise of the surveillance state in the US. The 4th amendment is there to protect privacy and unwarranted intrusion by operatives of the state into your life. The two are IMHO in conflict, but not tested in the supreme court as the P-Act has bipartisan political support.

There's an aspect of the Chinese app in that it basically assumes people are guilty until proven innocent.

To my mind, this is an issue for our modern civilization. I think the presumption of innocence is a hugely important value to have.

If people are presumed innocent, then surveillance should only occur after a warrant has been issued by a judge for something very specific.

The broad catch-alls that occur in the modern state erode the 'presumption of innocence.'

Graeme wrote: "Hi Marie,

The Patriot act enabled the rise of the surveillance state in the US. The 4th amendment is there to protect privacy and unwarranted intrusion by operatives of the state into your life. T..."

Hi Graeme,

There is no privacy here in the U.S., except in your own home. It is not what it use to be and as far as the Patriot Act, it is abused by our government here.

There are cameras everywhere here in the U.S. and I mean literally.

I am going to do a list of what places have security cameras and be prepared to be amazed.

1) All government buildings including even post offices.
2) All banks (no more security guards - they rely totally on cameras and there are usually seven to ten cameras per bank)
3) All schools now have cameras (as there has been shootings and killings at our schools)
4) All restaurants including fast food places as there have been robberies and some places people have been killed
5) Traffic lights in major cities have cameras to catch red light runners and any other laws broken by drivers.
6) Shopping malls, grocery stores, and any kind of shopping centers have cameras.
7) Hospitals and some doctors offices (but only in the lobby where you wait)
8) Movie theatres, sports stadiums, airports, bus stations, train stations, etc.

I could go on and on! We are overrun by as you put it by "mass surveillance" here in the U.S. That saying "little brother is watching you" is so true here. Even some U.S. citizens have cameras in their homes and outside of their homes as we live in a country that is not safe.

Law enforcement here just cannot keep up with every robbery so citizens have to do what they can to protect themselves and installing cameras helps them to be protected.

As far as people are guilty until proven innocent, even with surveillance cameras that doesn't always work here in the U.S. either. There is just so much that goes on here in my country that there are people that have left this country and moved somewhere else.

Canada would be a nice place to go! My mom always wanted to go to Prince Edward Island. :) That sounds wonderful to me. :)

The UK is heavily infested with cameras too - probably more so than the US. There have been at least a couple of TV programs where some volunteers try to elude experts with access to the nation's network for a month, and it is interesting to see their strategies. They then have to go to a secret rendezvous and leave the UK, and if they pull off this stunt, they get a fat cheque. Usually, about two have managed. Whatever else you can say about it, once you weed out the ones that have no show, it is fascinating watching, especially the last episode with the escape. The other fascinating thing is the choice of where to hide. Remote Scotland may seem ideal, but that makes the last bit somewhat more difficult as the escape is usually from SE England. (The contestants have no idea where the escape site will be.)

Ian wrote: "The UK is heavily infested with cameras too - probably more so than the US. There have been at least a couple of TV programs where some volunteers try to elude experts with access to the nation's n..."


Hi Ian,

I suppose there is nowhere to hide from government agencies and I didn't realize that the UK was in the same boat as the U.S.. Here in the U.S., it would be nice to go back to the time before 9/11 as since that time everything you do is monitored.

In your opinion, are there any countries that do not have the massive surveillance? Is there any place that is free of cameras?

Hi Marie,

I think cameras are becoming fairly universal. In fairness, they do help stop minor crime. I live in New Zealand, and here cameras are nowhere as pervasive as in the UK, but you do find them in places where crime is likely. I personally don't care. If someone wants to know I was at a shopping centre this morning, and if that turns them on, I feel sorry for them :-)

People are bugging their own homes by using Alexa, which has recently been proved to be eavesdropping on personal conversations. This makes sense, since the device is always listening for a command. People seem willing to give up privacy for convenience. Stupid move.

Snowden's releases demonstrated what the NSA was up to. The warrant argument only applies if the data collected is wanted in court to press charges. FBI and Police maybe. CIA, DIA, NSA, MI5, MI6, GCHQ to name but a few are not interested in that. They are spies. In spying information is power for whatever purpose it is wanted for.

There have been many articles about what a colossal waste of time this is. For an interesting view watch 'The Looming Tower' about CIA refusing to share info with FBI in lead up to 9/11. This was despite all the earlier attacks.

CIA wanted info and infiltration to kill enemies, the FBI wanted to catch and prosecute.

Baltimore has been attacked with leaked NSA tools.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/25/us...

This is what goes wrong when these tools are built and then lost into the world.

Kris wrote: "Philip wrote: "Snowden's releases demonstrated what the NSA was up to. The warrant argument only applies if the data collected is wanted in court to press charges. FBI and Police maybe. CIA, DIA, N..."

Legally they cannot do 'what they want" but the only people who might know what they are doing are hweld in closed session oversight where they get spun minimal details. On the edges of this are the secret tribunals and approvals like in the USA FISA. It's a FIA warrant that led to some of the Russian collusion accusations i.e. security services spying on Russians that were in contact with US citizens.
In the UK, the new surveillance act is already being ruled illegal but the spying continues.

For background on what is done see this old review:

https://www.mic.com/articles/50333/gc...

Legally GCHQ can spy on foreigners (US) and NSA can spy on foreigners (UK) with little oversight. The surveillance of citizens on the other end of the communications being monitored is incidental

If it never appears in a court of law it's legality is never questioned unless caught by the aforementioned oversight systems from politicians. When they are caught or questioned a vague promise not to do it again is made and they carry right on because 'they and only they' can decide what is 'safe and needed' to make (insert country) great again.

And of course nothing to hide nothing to fear...
We are all subjects of the law and all equal under the eyes of the law.

"Knowledge is power." I believe this is true. Do you? People seem to be okay with lack of privacy, but aren't you giving power to those collecting information about you?

The question is what they can do with the bulk of info they get. Yes, they might know what one does every minute, what color his/her underwear is and much more, but unless there is something to incriminate to a person, it shouldn't be that much relevant or operable about it..

Scout wrote: ""Knowledge is power." I believe this is true. Do you? People seem to be okay with lack of privacy, but aren't you giving power to those collecting information about you?"

I agree with you totally on this, Scout. I think this also falls under information that hackers can obtain from people and then that is where identity theft comes into play. It is more common here in the U.S., but I am not sure how common it is in other countries.

Nik wrote: "The question is what they can do with the bulk of info they get. Yes, they might know what one does every minute, what color his/her underwear is and much more, but unless there is something to inc..."

I'm not comfortable with government or other actors knowing the color of my underwear or what I do every minute. It's none of their freaking business, and it's an invasion of my privacy. Just because you're not doing something "operable," does that mean that you'd be okay with cameras being put in your home? Where's the cutoff? If your premise is that if you're doing nothing wrong, then you should accept total surveillance, then I think that's a faulty and dangerous premise.

Scout wrote: "...then you should accept total surveillance, then I think that's a faulty and dangerous premise..."

What can I say, Scout - I wish you were right! However, ever since the introduction of camera & mike bearing gadgets (cell phones, computers) into our households, I kinda assume that my privacy is long gone and we are far behind the point of no return.. And again: Wish you were right and I'm just paranoid

I couldn't care less who knows the colour of my underwear; if that turns them on, I just feel sorry for them. However, I would be less happy if it were easily found out what sort of meetings and so on I go to and when, because in principle that offers assistance to burglars. On the other hand, if they can't burgle without being identified, then the surveillance has done a good job.

I guess we all fear that one day they might want to abuse the amassed information

I am jumping back into the fray here! lol

@Nik - Come to the U.S. and see how quick you can become paranoid! lol :-)

@Ian - Good thing you live where you live as maybe people are not watching you go into meetings, but if you lived here in the U.S. with cameras being all over the place including office buildings, streets, highways, etc. there would be no privacy of where you go and what you do.

Like I had put in my previous post above, cameras are everywhere in the U.S. including our own neighbors. Over here you can literally go to a hardware store and buy a camera security system to put up outside your house for protection against burglary.

The flip side to having that camera system installed on your home is that you can see what your neighbors are doing too if they live close to you. Literally see what they are doing outside their homes! Invasion of privacy or protecting your home? How do you balance out what is important?

There is another interesting privacy invasion that I was thinking about and this one might hit a little closer to home for all of us.

What do all you know about "google earth"? The satellite system where you can zoom into a specific place in the world and bring that "place" into focus for viewing purposes, maps, etc.

I have questions for all of you on this subject:

What is to keep someone (hacker, terrorist, etc.) from screwing with the google earth system and making it more than just for viewing? What if they could making it for tracking someone or watching someone "live" while they move around in their own yard? How close are all of us to something like that happening?

Marie, in my experience with Google Earth it is far from real time. As an example, I used to go whitebaiting on the Orawaiti river (just east of Westport, NZ). I had to give it up because I lost access to the position when it got given to someone else (long story here) however I wa snot that disappointed because thanks to some engineering upstream the small river was changing course and my position was silting up, which would make it useless. (I fished on a small island, and it looked as if it would shortly join the mainland.) So, after a couple of years I looked it up to see how bad the situation had become. It turned out that the image there was recognizable. There was the "stand" and the river was exactly like it was about seven years previously, including I could see where I had left the boat tied up. Not exactly timely. (They have changed it now.)

I may be wrong, but I think what Marie was saying was that the technology of Google Earth could be hacked and used for tracking individuals. I've looked at my house on GE from the street view, and there's lots of detail there. Could it be hacked and used for surveillance in real time?

Scout wrote: "I may be wrong, but I think what Marie was saying was that the technology of Google Earth could be hacked and used for tracking individuals. I've looked at my house on GE from the street view, and ..."

Not if my previous post is correct. The same image lasted something like seven years. Of course places like the NSA and the US military (and presumably the Russian equivalents) can carry out surveillance in real time