Wikileaks reveals a government public spy network using cctv cameras #TrapWire

Zascar

I never normally post in here but I expected a thread on this already but did not see anything so I thought I'd share. I saw the article on BusinessInsider.com which is a very reputable site. Article is: http://www.businessinsider.com/trapwire-everything-you-need-to-know-2012-8?utm_source=twbutton&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=defense-contributor

Supposedly Wikileaks is being blasted by a DDoS attack which is why more news agencies are not picking it up but it was trending on Twitter earlier too.


So is this going to be a huge topic or is it bs?

Oracle

Zascar wrote: »

.... So is this going to be a huge topic or is it bs?

Its an interesting story, although I'd say this is assumed to be already happening, by most CT'ers.

Coincidentally the movie, The Bourne Ultimatum was on television recently, showing the use of similar technology. In the movie the CIA, in a mission control room, were able to instantly connect to and control, public CCTV cameras around London, for surveillance. Similar surveillance technology, this time using instant connection and control of space satellite cameras and CCTV, was shown in an earlier movie, Enemy of the State.

seannash

I understand how people would be "outraged' at this but I couldn't care less.
Now this is of course gonna get the typical CT response of "wake up" or "go back to watching tv" but what effect will this have on my everyday day to day life,probably no effect whatsoever.

This will just give sceptical people licence to act intellectually superior to people who dont see what the fuss is about.

Whether or not I fully grasp the personal effect it may have on some people I just feel that if you allow these sorts of things to ruin your experience of life you have noone to blame but yourself(I think I do but to be honest I'm not bothered so please dont highlight this last sentence and use it as a stick to beat me with all the while calling me ignorant)

RoboClam

seannash wrote: »

I understand how people would be "outraged' at this but I couldn't care less.
Now this is of course gonna get the typical CT response of "wake up" or "go back to watching tv" but what effect will this have on my everyday day to day life,probably no effect whatsoever.

I guess what peoples issue is, is that it could be looked at as one step closer towards a nanny state. People accept the small changes which occur infrequently over a long time frame, but the cumulation of the changes could be something which you would not agree with if it happened tomorrow. Slippery slope and all that.

While I may not necessarily agree with this thought process, I can certainly see why people would be worried about something like this.

seannash

RoboClam wrote: »

I guess what peoples issue is, is that it could be looked at as one step closer towards a nanny state. People accept the small changes which occur infrequently over a long time frame, but the cumulation of the changes could be something which you would not agree with if it happened tomorrow. Slippery slope and all that.

While I may not necessarily agree with this thought process, I can certainly see why people would be worried about something like this.

Oh absolutely I can see why but I think any technological advancement is always deemed as a step towards computers or someone or something other than ourselves controling our enviroment.

I realise this is more about privacy but I cant imagine people being in a very cheery disposition all the time if they concern themselves with this sort of things.I imagine they see corruption in absolutely every aspect of life.

Brown Bomber

seannash wrote: »

I understand how people would be "outraged' at this but I couldn't care less.
Now this is of course gonna get the typical CT response of "wake up" or "go back to watching tv" but what effect will this have on my everyday day to day life,probably no effect whatsoever.

This will just give sceptical people licence to act intellectually superior to people who dont see what the fuss is about.

Whether or not I fully grasp the personal effect it may have on some people I just feel that if you allow these sorts of things to ruin your experience of life you have noone to blame but yourself(I think I do but to be honest I'm not bothered so please dont highlight this last sentence and use it as a stick to beat me with all the while calling me ignorant)

Very goodthinkful of you but I bet you say "down with Big Brother" in your sleep.

RoboClam

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Very goodthinkful of you but I bet you say "down with Big Brother" in your sleep.

Hey, No newspeak allowed on this forum! :pac:

Jeboa Safari

seannash wrote: »

I understand how people would be "outraged' at this but I couldn't care less.
Now this is of course gonna get the typical CT response of "wake up" or "go back to watching tv" but what effect will this have on my everyday day to day life,probably no effect whatsoever.

This will just give sceptical people licence to act intellectually superior to people who dont see what the fuss is about.

Whether or not I fully grasp the personal effect it may have on some people I just feel that if you allow these sorts of things to ruin your experience of life you have noone to blame but yourself(I think I do but to be honest I'm not bothered so please dont highlight this last sentence and use it as a stick to beat me with all the while calling me ignorant)

Two problems I see with it, if its true.

One, your losing privacy. Two, the information could fall into the wrong hands

hooradiation

seannash wrote: »

I understand how people would be "outraged' at this but I couldn't care less.

Is that mostly because it's a bit shit and doesn't really work?

Torakx

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Two problems I see with it, if its true.

One, your losing privacy. Two, the information could fall into the wrong hands

Yeah like Facebook

Jonny7

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

One, your losing privacy.

You are caught on CCTV up to hundreds of times when you head into the city, how has this affected your life, if ever?

Two, the information could fall into the wrong hands

And so could a decade worth of CCTV footage of yourself going in and out of the city, etc.

There is a world of difference between security surveillance and actual government surveillance (e.g. former East Germany, current North Korea)

seannash

Yeah gotta agree its very hard to expect privacy when your out in public.
Also for all the bad things this sort of surveilance is supposedly gonna bring what about the good work people are doing by monitoring internet activity to keep track and convict paedophiles.
You have to accept that if you want to be totally "unwatched" it will open the floodgates for these sorts of crimes being harder to catch

iamstop

The difference here is that it they are saying all these CCTV* cameras are actually connected to a network that feed these digital images to a central location that crunches the numbers and uses advanced face recognition software that can be used to track you from place to place in the city that has these cameras installed.

What this means is, for example; They type in your name in to a data base and use other data to make sure it is the correct John Smith they are looking for like PPS, address etc and a series of these camera stills pop up showing the last 10 time you were imaged. They could be in shops, public buildings like the GPO etc, bus/train/luas stations, banks, hospitals or where ever and your location could be tracked to within a very small radius. Also, this information is not going anywhere. Storage is so cheap nowadays and only getting cheaper that there is a potential that these images could be stored indefinitely.

And the old tired argument of "If you are doing nothing wrong you shouldn't be worried" is total BS. There are many reasons why someone would like there location to remain private. People going to abortion clinics, rape crisis centers, certain religious or political organisations, second family, Justin Beiber fan meets etc. These things might not be illegal but it's not something you want to advertise.

The old film CCTV cameras were recording us all for years, yes, but not in such a centralized way that can be so easily mapped and used in all types of search algorithms.


*hardly CC anymore right?

Jonny7

iamstop wrote: »

And the old tired argument of "If you are doing nothing wrong you shouldn't be worried" is total BS. There are many reasons why someone would like there location to remain private. People going to abortion clinics, rape crisis centers, certain religious or political organisations, second family, Justin Beiber fan meets etc. These things might not be illegal but it's not something you want to advertise.

What's to worry about, if "they" want to track you personally it's quite simple already (mobile phone tracking, car registration identification, internet tracking, ATM/bank/cc monitoring, etc, etc)

Can you give any examples of someone who has been tracked by the government going to abortion clinics, rape crisis centres, any of the examples you've just given?

iamstop

Jonny7 wrote: »

Can you give any examples of someone who has been tracked by the government going to abortion clinics, rape crisis centres, any of the examples you've just given?

Part of what people are worried about is if this data gets into the wrong hands. Facebook for example.

seannash

iamstop wrote: »

Part of what people are worried about is if this data gets into the wrong hands. Facebook for example.

Can you elaborate please
Lets say facebook gets info that I walk my dog every evening,go to work,do my job.go out at the weekends drink alot,go home,do my shopping,hang out with my gilfriend.
What will they do with it and how will it cause me harm?

Jonny7

iamstop wrote: »

Part of what people are worried about is if this data gets into the wrong hands. Facebook for example.

Why, what happens then? we receive more targeted advertising or something?

iamstop

seannash wrote: »

Can you elaborate please
Lets say facebook gets info that I walk my dog every evening,go to work,do my job.go out at the weekends drink alot,go home,do my shopping,hang out with my gilfriend.
What will they do with it and how will it cause me harm?

If you are happy that that is all you do and don't mind who knows it then you probably have nothing to worry about.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Why, what happens then? we receive more targeted advertising or something?

Target marketing is one aspect but sure FB knows all your mates and will tell some of them "Mr. X likes this, you might also" That's fine if it's just bands, beers, take aways etc but suppose you get a bit too drunk and walk into a strip club and make a fool out of yourself, do you want that to be on your mate's feeds? Mates whos GFs or wives might see and who might know your other half?
I know these are over simplified examples but the basic thing is if the info is out there on a computer there is potential for it to be either abused by the holder or as we are seeing more and more of it could be hacked into and leaked to the wider web.

Jonny7

iamstop wrote: »

Target marketing is one aspect but sure FB knows all your mates and will tell some of them "Mr. X likes this, you might also" That's fine if it's just bands, beers, take aways etc but suppose you get a bit too drunk and walk into a strip club and make a fool out of yourself, do you want that to be on your mate's feeds? Mates whos GFs or wives might see and who might know your other half?
I know these are over simplified examples but the basic thing is if the info is out there on a computer there is potential for it to be either abused by the holder or as we are seeing more and more of it could be hacked into and leaked to the wider web.

That example is.. a bit bizarre to be honest.

There is potential for anything and everything to be hacked and abused, do you use online banking? that can be hacked, use a credit card? that can be hacked.

It's very similar to a typical Fox news scare story, take the potential for something to cause harm and highlight that potential rather than point out that in common sense real world use the actual probability for abuse is either incredibly low or non-existent

seannash

iamstop wrote: »

If you are happy that that is all you do and don't mind who knows it then you probably have nothing to worry about.



Target marketing is one aspect but sure FB knows all your mates and will tell some of them "Mr. X likes this, you might also" That's fine if it's just bands, beers, take aways etc but suppose you get a bit too drunk and walk into a strip club and make a fool out of yourself, do you want that to be on your mate's feeds? Mates whos GFs or wives might see and who might know your other half?
I know these are over simplified examples but the basic thing is if the info is out there on a computer there is potential for it to be either abused by the holder or as we are seeing more and more of it could be hacked into and leaked to the wider web.

Buts sure that can happen already if one of your mates tags you somewhere even if your not there.
theres phone tracking software out there already that will let spouses see where there other half is.
I think the examples are oversimplified because thats the only real harm that can be done using these systems unless your doing something dodgey

Jeboa Safari

Jonny7 wrote: »

You are caught on CCTV up to hundreds of times when you head into the city, how has this affected your life, if ever?



And so could a decade worth of CCTV footage of yourself going in and out of the city, etc.

There is a world of difference between security surveillance and actual government surveillance (e.g. former East Germany, current North Korea)

Isn't that what the ops piece is describing though?

Jonny7

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Isn't that what the ops piece is describing though?

It is security surveillance to track terrorists. It facilitates the spread of information between varying departments (something which was very lax on 11 Sept 01).

It's creators seem to be making a fair few bucks selling the system to various departments.

user2011

If their is nothing big and scary about this... Why was it kept a secret?

It takes a group of hackers too get this out in the public domain via wikileaks who then suffer one of the biggest ddos attacks (something like 50Gbs of traffic) from a group who go by the name of anti-leaks? Amazing coincidence.

shedweller

It's gas how some nay sayers are going on about how immaterial cctv footage of them walking the dog is or whatever. Sure, nobody really cares. But fast forward 20 years and it could be a very different ballgame. Not about walking the dog of course, but in every other aspect of your life. **** that!!

seannash

user2011 wrote: »

If their is nothing big and scary about this... Why was it kept a secret?

It takes a group of hackers too get this out in the public domain via wikileaks who then suffer one of the biggest ddos attacks (something like 50Gbs of traffic) from a group who go by the name of anti-leaks? Amazing coincidence.

So why keep it a secret that they are linking surveillance to keep track of terrorists and other threats to public safety??
Yeah I have no idea why the would want to keep that secret.

I guess,follow me now,they dont want the people who are plotting terrorists attacks to know there being watched wherever they go.

What a crazy idea huh

seannash

shedweller wrote: »

It's gas how some nay sayers are going on about how immaterial cctv footage of them walking the dog is or whatever. Sure, nobody really cares. But fast forward 20 years and it could be a very different ballgame. Not about walking the dog of course, but in every other aspect of your life. **** that!!

See ths is where your getting caught up in wild specualtion.
we can speculate that robots will replace all the need for human workers,they will begin to become aware and turn on us and hunt us down.

Does that mean I should go smash my smartphone and contact my mates via carrier pigeon?
Your leaping to an outcome that is less likely to happen but putting it forward as the inevitable.

Jonny7

user2011 wrote: »

If their is nothing big and scary about this... Why was it kept a secret?

The same reason Allied Irish Bank doesn't publish their security details.

It takes a group of hackers too get this out in the public domain via wikileaks who then suffer one of the biggest ddos attacks (something like 50Gbs of traffic) from a group who go by the name of anti-leaks? Amazing coincidence.

The DDOS obviously dramatised the whole thing and made it bigger. Hmm who could possibly want that

Jeboa Safari

Jonny7 wrote: »

What's to worry about, if "they" want to track you personally it's quite simple already (mobile phone tracking, car registration identification, internet tracking, ATM/bank/cc monitoring, etc, etc)

Can you give any examples of someone who has been tracked by the government going to abortion clinics, rape crisis centres, any of the examples you've just given?

Jonny7 wrote: »

It is security surveillance to track terrorists. It facilitates the spread of information between varying departments (something which was very lax on 11 Sept 01).

It's creators seem to be making a fair few bucks selling the system to various departments.

Seems open to abuse, say five years down the line we're coming into an election and the government wants to find dirt on its opponents. Or maybe more realistically, in terms of it falling into the wrong hands, the media wanting to track celebrities, which as we've seen with the phone hacking scandal in the UK is not beyond the bounds of possibility.

The DDOS obviously dramatised the whole thing and made it bigger. Hmm who could possibly want that

Apparently the DDOS started before wikileaks released the info, so it may be unrelated

user2011

How about shouting it as loud as possible so the terrorist doesn't want too go there because then he'll be tracked everywhere he goes and won't be able too do his business? Proactive instead of reactive

Also

In the single week since TrapWire has been exposed, both Abraxas and its parent company have tried to dismiss their connection with the program, although alleged Stratfor emails suggest that the system, at least at the time of that correspondence, was growing by the day.

^^^ Taken from RT.com

Why are these distancing themselves if they are just going after the bad guys and doing their patriotic duty?

seannash

user2011 wrote: »

How about shouting it as loud as possible so the terrorist doesn't want too go there because then he'll be tracked everywhere he goes and won't be able too do his business? Proactive instead of reactive

Also

In the single week since TrapWire has been exposed, both Abraxas and its parent company have tried to dismiss their connection with the program, although alleged Stratfor emails suggest that the system, at least at the time of that correspondence, was growing by the day.

^^^ Taken from RT.com

Why are these distancing themselves if they are just going after the bad guys and doing their patriotic duty?

I dont know what there thinking is but maybe its Because for every rational person out there who understands this is a necessary step there an irrational person shouting from the rooftops about how there trying to control us.

And also going back to your point of shouting from the rooftops,i know you know thats not how it works, but If you make it known that your watching someone they will develope a way to get around it.Best that they dont know there being watched

user2011

Probably have too go get a face transplant or something too get around it, the way they were touting this system.

Or maybe trapwire is heading straight too the bin since its known about now so? Big thanks too Anon and Wikileaks

seannash

I gotta say I love the Uturn from mild outrage to making jokes about the issue once your made aware that there is no major conspiracy

ArtSmart

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/10/ndaa-lawsuit-struggle-us-constitution
personally I 'd be more concerned bout this bit mentioned in his article.

seannash

ArtSmart wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/10/ndaa-lawsuit-struggle-us-constitution
personally I 'd be more concerned bout this bit mentioned in his article.

But surely the president has many many wild things he is allowed do.
What about the fact that they would have access to launching a nuclear attack at anyone at anytime.

Alot scarier than having the power to detain people.
whether he will abuse this power is another matter.Just because he has the ability to do something doesn't mean he will

We all have the ability to kill,doesn't mean we will

user2011

Your previous post read it again!

Basically

The terrorist know its their! (its redundent so too speak) Terrorist will find a way around it (i thought of face-off ) or they manage too hide from every camera would be some going

ArtSmart

seannash wrote: »

But surely the president has many many wild things he is allowed do.
What about the fact that they would have access to launching a nuclear attack at anyone at anytime.

Alot scarier than having the power to detain people.
whether he will abuse this power is another matter.Just because he has the ability to do something doesn't mean he will

We all have the ability to kill,doesn't mean we will

the road to a dictatorship is paved with legislative changes. check out a few of them. this is no accident.

a govt subject/ subservient to the law is the foundation of democracy.

history has shown that those given unrestricted power will wield it, at some time.

to offer a 'shure they might not' argument, well, doesn't do it for me.

ps, I'm not saying this is the case here, but one must always be watchin'.

Jonny7

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Seems open to abuse

Virtually everything and anything is potentially open to abuse.

Should a malevolent state want to track its citizens it can do so in any one of hundreds of ways using dozens of systems already in place.

..however we don't live with the Stasi watching over us, nor do we live under Kim Jong Il, so why hypothetise and sensationalise this story to those criteria?

seannash

user2011 wrote: »

Your previous post read it again!

Basically

The terrorist know its their! (its redundent so too speak) Terrorist will find a way around it (i thought of face-off ) or they manage too hide from every camera would be some going

No you said if its totally innocent then why hide it and I explained why.
So lets just say it was only setup to monitor people who are plotting harm these paranoid fcukwits have gone and ballsed up a nice surveillance setup all because they want to have a **** in public.

Dont get me wrong I like some aspects of Wikileaks however sometimes they ruin things that are setup t protect them just to prove there awesome hacking skillz

user2011

This system sounds like it should be used at border ports.

Not in town centres and where ever else they are connected too. Way overboard too be trying too connect from coast to coast too watch terrorists.

I wasn't mildy outraged or doing uturns just speculating how they would get around a system like this.

And very interested where this story could go.

Any thoughts on the snip it from RT.com?

seannash

user2011 wrote: »

This system sounds like it should be used at border ports.

Not in town centres and where ever else they are connected too. Way overboard too be trying too connect from coast to coast too watch terrorists.

I wasn't mildy outraged or doing uturns just speculating how they would get around a system like this.

And very interested where this story could go.

Any thoughts on the snip it from RT.com?

oops,my bad.misread the question

Posted this in response to it

I dont know what there thinking is by trying to distance themselves from it but maybe its Because for every rational person out there who understands this is a necessary step there an irrational person shouting from the rooftops about how there trying to control us.

I wont pretend to know but that doesn't automatically mean there up to something.It could be a way for them to try and claw back some credibility in there company name

user2011

You do something wrong you run from it.. Do something right you still run from it.. Very strange.