[sudo-discuss] Dystopia Watch: Surveillance drones coming to a cafe near you.
Anon195714
anon195714 at sbcglobal.net
Tue Mar 5 14:41:12 PST 2013
Heh, we're on the same track here, funny though it may seem. I have a
couple of other things up my sleeve...
First, I was just thinking (as you were sending your comment): envision
a hoodie with a hood that's big enough to cover two peoples' heads at
conversational distance. It would block cameras from reading their
faces & lips, and it would attenuate their conversation enough that
nearby casual mics couldn't pick it up. So in effect whoever's wearing
this can provide a "tent" for themselves and one other person to have a
private conversation while sitting in a public place. This wouldn't
block highly targeted mics, only casual ones nearby, but it's a start.
(Keep in mind that the New Surveillance Paradigm is not to spend
inordinate labor targeting anyone, but to use mass methods and
statistical probabilities to harvest everyone most of the time.)
Second, a device:
A small metal box with a hinged lid and built-in audio masking and RF
jamming of user-selectable bands inside the box. It might also have a
mic inside and a speaker outside. Put your mobile device in the box and
flip a couple of switches on the outside to select the mode of operation:
= Audio masked so the mobile device's microphones are saturated with
noise, but if you get an incoming call you'll hear it ring via the
external speaker on the box. This would be successful because the box
itself would also attenuate your voice outside of it: by analogy think
of sitting in a room with music playing and the door closed, while
someone has a conversation in the hallway. The closed door muffles
their conversation and all you hear is the music on your radio.
= GPS band jammed so the device can't stalk your whereabouts.
= Cellphone band jammed so the device can't talk to towers at all.
Thus if you can't take the battery out of the mobile device (Apple), you
can jam the hell out of it when you want privacy.
This could be turned into a "product" sold by SudoRoom or any of our
friendly electronics geeks. I'd bet there'd be pretty decent demand for
it.
Arguably it would not violate FCC regs about cellphone jamming if the
jamming signals were not detectable to any significant degree outside
the box. (And .gov would tip its hand if it argued that you're not even
allowed to jam cellphones within a few cubic inches of space inside a
metal box.)
-G.
=====
On 13-03-05-Tue 2:14 PM, hol at gaskill.com wrote:
> meetings in underwater bubble domes! only heads sticking above the artificial waterline - now that's security! "fishsong our walls"...
>
>
> Mar 5, 2013 01:51:46 PM, anon195714 at sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Re. Rachel, "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."
>
> YES. Good reminder and well-said. There are times and places where
> it's liberating to not have any devices along. For example when
> going for a swim.
>
> -G.
>
> =====
>
>
> On 13-03-05-Tue 11:34 AM, rachel lyra
> hospodar 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
>>
More information about the sudo-discuss
mailing list