[sudo-discuss] Dystopia Watch: Surveillance drones coming to a cafe near you.

Tue Mar 5 12:40:13 PST 2013

These are definitely cool ideas. I'd love to see some experiments with
some basic analysis tools :)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – >8
/V\ /-\ + +  |–| ø \/\/ ∂ £ £
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Matthew D. Howell
misterinterrupt, tHe M4d swiTcH, the RuinMechanic
cell: (617) 755-1481
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––


On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:23 PM, rachel lyra hospodar
<rachelyra at gmail.com> wrote:
> (Private response from dan included below)
>
> I am not suggesting here that the goal is to neutralize the voice, but to
> obfuscate its meaning, to nearby microphones. If there are many sounds
> fitting the pattern of the user's voice, then perhaps the technology mr.
> Howell mentions would have a harder time 'hearing' the conversation's actual
> content in a useful way?  Our brains are excellent at pattern recognition &
> targeted focus, and I guess I am positing here that the gap between their
> ability to do this, and the software's, is big enough to use.
>
> I'm less concerned about establishing completely secure encrypted
> special-use channels (eg redphone), but more am idly thinking about ways to
> increase security for day-to-day interactions (redCafe???) ...like doing
> harm reduction.
>
> My experience with activism in our modern surveillance state is that, while
> a small group can be trained to be truly information secure, this is only
> really possible for specific highly covert projects, and it generates
> behavior anomalous enough to be its own red flag. Generally speaking you
> have to interact with people in their terms, in public or 'normal' ways, to
> reach them.  The conversations I expect people will be crucified for are not
> the truly secret ones.
>
> Running a device like this in cafes would be a hilarious way to do outreach
> about Big Brother.  Many people have no idea of the extent of what is
> already possible.
>
> R.
>
> On Mar 5, 2013 11:47 AM, "Daniel Finlay" <namelessdan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> To truly neutralize a sound the inverted copy of the sound needs to be
>> perfectly lined up with the original sound in relation to the target
>> microphone.  (It's impractical for general use.  Besides, if it worked the
>> way you're imagining, we wouldn't be able to hear each other)
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 5, 2013, at 11:34 AM, rachel lyra hospodar <rachelyra at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> What if everyone carried a device that captured what they were saying and
>>> replayed it, layered along with other recordings of their own voice?
>>>
>>> Or we could hold all of our meetings without devices, in the fields and
>>> mountains, with birdsong our walls and the sky as our roof.
>>>
>>> On Mar 5, 2013 11:22 AM, "Matthew D. Howell" <matthewdhowell at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> @Rachel The state of the technology for recognizing and separating
>>>> patterns in audio is advanced enough to overcome that sort of thing.
>>>> Every person's voice has a distinct signature that can be recognized.
>>>> I would venture a guess that some kind of encrypted digital signal
>>>> transmission would be the best way to keep any sonic communication
>>>> private in the most extreme of situations. (most interested party with
>>>> the best technology at their disposal)
>>>> – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – >8
>>>> /V\ /-\ + +  |–| ø \/\/ ∂ £ £
>>>> –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
>>>> Matthew D. Howell
>>>> misterinterrupt, tHe M4d swiTcH, the RuinMechanic
>>>> cell: (617) 755-1481
>>>> –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:16 AM, rachel lyra hospodar
>>>> <rachelyra at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > Wouldn't it need to be non-commercially available music, so they
>>>> > couldn't
>>>> > just find the audio data of the track, invert its wave, and cancel it
>>>> > out of
>>>> > the recording?
>>>> >
>>>> > CACOPHONY FOR THE REVOLUTION!
>>>> >
>>>> > mediumreality.com
>>>> >
>>>> > On Mar 5, 2013 10:23 AM, "Steve Berl" <steveberl at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> You could carry a boombox around playing loud music where ever you
>>>> >> go.
>>>> >> Perhaps this would be the end of earbuds. :-)
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Anthony Di Franco
>>>> >> <di.franco at gmail.com>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> People have rendered surveillance cameras useless with very bright
>>>> >>> IR
>>>> >>> LEDs in their fields of view.
>>>> >>> Could something similar be done for sound recording devices?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On Mar 5, 2013 6:17 AM, "Anon195714" <anon195714 at sbcglobal.net>
>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Yo's-
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Something I forgot to add re. DARPA's desire for universal
>>>> >>>> recording of
>>>> >>>> face-to-face conversations.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> What's the ideal device for doing all that recording?
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> How'bout something you wear?  How'bout something that "everyone"
>>>> >>>> wears?,
>>>> >>>> or even a significant fraction of "everyone"?
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Like maybe Google Glasses.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Always on, camera and mic always "connected" to "the cloud."
>>>> >>>> Orwell's
>>>> >>>> telescreen gone mobile.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Everyone who wears them will become, in effect, _unpaid
>>>> >>>> surveillance
>>>> >>>> drones_ watching their family and friends, not from up in the sky,
>>>> >>>> but
>>>> >>>> from up close where every word can be heard.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Some will say "oh, there's no stopping technology." People said
>>>> >>>> that
>>>> >>>> about the atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb.  But public outcry led
>>>> >>>> first to treaties and then to progressive degrees of nuclear
>>>> >>>> disarmament.  We haven't used that technology since it was first
>>>> >>>> used in
>>>> >>>> WW2.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> We can stop pernicious tech if we choose.  We can refuse, we can
>>>> >>>> withdraw consent, we do not have to press the Buy button.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Technology should liberate and empower people.  "Conveniences with
>>>> >>>> a few
>>>> >>>> strings attached" are not liberation, they're puppet-strings.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> It's all about control: technology that you can control, vs.
>>>> >>>> technology
>>>> >>>> that can control you.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> -G.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> =====
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> On 13-03-05-Tue 1:50 AM, Anon195714 wrote:
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> > Yo's-
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> > This just in:
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> > "DARPA wants to make [voice recognition/transcription] systems so
>>>> >>>> > accurate, you’ll be able to easily record, transcribe and recall
>>>> >>>> > all
>>>> >>>> > the
>>>> >>>> > conversations you ever have. ... Imagine living in a world where
>>>> >>>> > every
>>>> >>>> > errant utterance you make is preserved forever. ... DARPA
>>>> >>>> > [awarded
>>>> >>>> > U.Texas comp sci researcher Matt Lease]... $300,000... over two
>>>> >>>> > years
>>>> >>>> > to
>>>> >>>> > study the new project, called “Blending Crowdsourcing with
>>>> >>>> > Automation
>>>> >>>> > for Fast, Cheap, and Accurate Analysis of Spontaneous Speech.”"
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> > "The idea is that business meetings or even conversations with
>>>> >>>> > your
>>>> >>>> > friends and family could be stored in archives and easily
>>>> >>>> > searched.
>>>> >>>> > The
>>>> >>>> > stored recordings could be held in servers, owned either by
>>>> >>>> > individuals
>>>> >>>> > or their employers. ... The answer, Lease says, is in widespread
>>>> >>>> > use
>>>> >>>> > of
>>>> >>>> > recording technologies like smartphones, cameras and audio
>>>> >>>> > recorders...
>>>> >>>> > [A] memorandum from the Congressional Research Service described
>>>> >>>> > [an
>>>> >>>> > earlier DARPA project of this type known as] EARS, as focusing on
>>>> >>>> > speech
>>>> >>>> > picked up from broadcasts and telephone conversations, “as well
>>>> >>>> > as
>>>> >>>> > extract clues about the identity of speakers” for “the military,
>>>> >>>> > intelligence and law enforcement communities.”"
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> > http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03/darpa-speech/ (Yes, "real
>>>> >>>> > geeks
>>>> >>>> > don't read Wired," but nonetheless its news pages are useful for
>>>> >>>> > keeping
>>>> >>>> > a finger on the pulse of Big Brother and his corporate Brethren.)
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> > In short:
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> > DARPA is researching the means by which every conversation you
>>>> >>>> > have,
>>>> >>>> > in-person, whether at work or with family or friends, gets picked
>>>> >>>> > up
>>>> >>>> > by
>>>> >>>> > the mic in your smartphone or other portable device, and stored
>>>> >>>> > on a
>>>> >>>> > server, where DARPA's algorithms and human editors turn all of it
>>>> >>>> > into
>>>> >>>> > fast-searchable text, that could be used by your employer, the
>>>> >>>> > military,
>>>> >>>> > law enforcement, and intel agencies. Presumably the credit
>>>> >>>> > bureaus,
>>>> >>>> > insurance companies, and financial institutions will want "in" on
>>>> >>>> > the
>>>> >>>> > data as well.
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> > Now connect that with this, about cell-site tracking and call
>>>> >>>> > detail
>>>> >>>> > records:
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> > "The government maintained [that] Americans have no expectation
>>>> >>>> > of
>>>> >>>> > privacy of such cell-site records [call detail records or CDR]
>>>> >>>> > because
>>>> >>>> > they are in the possession of a third party — the mobile phone
>>>> >>>> > companies."
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> > http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/03/gps-drug-dealer-retrial/
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> > The key point is that the gov's current position is that data
>>>> >>>> > stored
>>>> >>>> > on
>>>> >>>> > a third party's servers have "no expectation of privacy." What
>>>> >>>> > begins
>>>> >>>> > with CDR will eventually include voicemail messages stored on the
>>>> >>>> > mobile
>>>> >>>> > phone companies' servers, and then eventually all of your live
>>>> >>>> > in-person
>>>> >>>> > conversations that are stored "in the cloud."
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> > "Anything you say can and will be used against you..." Mark my
>>>> >>>> > words.
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> > Meanwhile people keep using gmail and Google Voice, and
>>>> >>>> > smartphones
>>>> >>>> > from
>>>> >>>> > which they can't remove the batteries. Because nothing is more
>>>> >>>> > important
>>>> >>>> > than "convenience," right?
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> > As a character in a sci-fi piece I wrote in the mid-1980s said,
>>>> >>>> > "Why
>>>> >>>> > put
>>>> >>>> > a person in prison, when you can put prison in the person
>>>> >>>> > instead?"
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> > -G.
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>> > sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>> >>>> > sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>> >>>> > http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>> >>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>> >>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>> >>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>> >>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> --
>>>> >> -steve
>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>> >> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>> >> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>> > sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>> > http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>> >
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>