Persistent Surveillance Systems

El Guapo! · 24-06-2015 10:55PM #1

I was listening to a podcast today and on it they were discussing a relatively new technology that was developed during the Iraq war. Recently its been developed for use by police departments etc.

Basically the jist of it is this.....
A small plane (or number of planes) circle over the city for hours at a time. They are high up so you can't see or hear them. While up in the sky, they take photographs every second using a number of strategically placed cameras. The photographs are then fed back to a control centre where they are spliced together, creating a kind of stop-motion video of the entire city. It takes in every single motorway, street, and alleyway in the city.

It was originally used in Iraq when an IED exploded. They'd find out the location of the explosion and then work back in time through the footage until they could observe the people planting the roadside explosive. Then they'd go forward in time and follow the car away from the site which led to the capture of the terrorists.

It was tested in a city in Mexico where they watched a female police officer being shot dead by a car full of Cartel members. They watched through the footage (basically in real-time) and followed the car which met up with a number of other vehicles. They then followed them which led to the Cartel headquarters, ultimately bringing down the entire Cartel and saving countless lives in the process. Without the technology, this murder would have went unsolved and the Cartel would be continuing their reign of terror and destruction.There were also a number of other examples of how it has been used to catch criminals.

The technology was presented to a number of Police departments in the USA and was trialled in a couple of cities. Despite the enthusiasm of the police departments after the successful trials, it hasn't been adopted by any of them yet due to the public not feeling comfortable "being watched" 24/7.
Now, the images are pretty grainy at best and you can make out vehicles etc, but you cannot make out faces or anything like that as it doesn't zoom in close enough. The company running the technology have committed to not using cameras that zoom any further than they do already, so as not to be intrusive on day to day life.
It has been presented to just about every major city including LA, NY, London etc and so far, they're all a maybe. The impression I got from hearing the report was that they're only a maybe for fear of what the public reaction may be.

Some of the presenters of the podcast were 100% behind it, and others were against it. Some said that we couldn't shy away from this type of technology when it's lowering crime rates, increasing arrest rates, and saving lives. The others thought it was a bit too Orwellian and Big Brother-ish.

How would you feel if it was implemented where you live?

Personally, I think it's a fantastic piece of technology and wouldn't bat an eyelid if it was introduced here. It's there for the good of society and isn't there to find out what Jimmy Murphy from Cavan does with his Sunday evenings.

EDIT: Here's the podcast link:

http://www.radiolab.org/story/eye-sky/

Tony Beetroot · 24-06-2015 10:59PM

Any summary there op.

kneemos · 24-06-2015 11:05PM

Not much different from the hundreds of cameras already watching us.Or everybody's business available on facebook.

Can see how the civil liberties groups would get annoyed though.

Tombi! · 24-06-2015 11:08PM

Does it get close enough to identify clothes? In terms of what they're wearing. Because I could see the advantage in it but at the same time the no face thing does make it seem like the company is trying to not be too intrusive.

The King of Moo · 24-06-2015 11:11PM

Tony Beetroot wrote: »

Any summary there op.

Skyplus reality: yes or no?

One eyed Jack · 24-06-2015 11:11PM

Google Street View covers pretty much the entire ground view of a number of cities anyway, so the technology they're talking about isn't any more intrusive in people's lives than most of the time they spend being captured by CCTV anyway whether it's surveillance on the street, in retail outlets, or in offices. I think I read somewhere before that London has the highest ratio of CCTV's per head of population in the world (can't remember the exact figures).

I'd be one of those people who values their privacy, but all this surveillance takes place in public, so it's in the public interest to have them in place I would say. The technology already exists to pinpoint people using their mobile phone at any time by triangulation between cells, so this would be a visual aid and could be essential evidence when a crime is committed. I think that in itself is a justifiable trade-off for the "I don't like being under surveillance" types. The fact is that they're carrying around surveillance equipment in their pockets already, and are under surveillance for most of the day when they're out in public already.

This tool is simply correlating all that data in one place, making the job of the authorities charged with protection of the public, that much easier. Not such a bad thing IMO.

El Guapo! · 24-06-2015 11:16PM

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Does it get close enough to identify clothes? In terms of what they're wearing. Because I could see the advantage in it but at the same time the no face thing does make it seem like the company is trying to not be too intrusive.

http://www.pss-1.com/#!law-enforcement-support/cltw

That's the link to the page on their site which talks about law enforcement applications.
From the images supplied there, it doesn't look all that intrusive to me.
Bear in mind, they do have other systems available which can see a lot clearer and a lot closer, but that's not the system they use.

Currently, the technology is sometimes being used to monitor traffic congestion in major cities, which seems to be a waste of potential to me.

degsie · 24-06-2015 11:22PM

Am I going to have to start wearing pants?

El Guapo! · 24-06-2015 11:24PM

degsie wrote: »

Am I going to have to start wearing pants?

They'll still be optional.

TallGlass · 24-06-2015 11:35PM

Ok but one major flaw I can see. Ireland is mainly clouding and wet. These drones will need to be close to the ground I would imagine.

But I would be in favour. I think a mass surveillance would be great, if used and introduced to people correctly. But will all the reports of crime be followed up on people arrested? Will criminals learn if the justice system is to remain the same with the slap on the wrist approach. Soft sentences etc...

El Guapo! · 24-06-2015 11:45PM

TallGlass wrote: »

Ok but one major flaw I can see. Ireland is mainly clouding and wet. These drones will need to be close to the ground I would imagine.

But I would be in favour. I think a mass surveillance would be great, if used and introduced to people correctly. But will all the reports of crime be followed up on people arrested? Will criminals learn if the justice system is to remain the same with the slap on the wrist approach. Soft sentences etc...

They're manned aircraft and fly just below the clouds apparently.

The applications for the technology are endless and the positives far outweigh the negatives in my opinion.
It can be used to trace abducted children, track down people lost in mountain terrain, locate your stolen car, hunt fugitives.....

kneemos · 24-06-2015 11:52PM

Saw something like it years ago,the first Iraq war I think.
Apparently they were monitoring traffic movements and looking for anything resembling a convoy,bombers called in and wiped out .

Son Of A Vidic · 25-06-2015 01:49AM

I came across this some months ago via a twitter news link. The FBI have been running this program for some years and have been using fake flight charter companies to conduct surveillance flights over US cities. An investigative reporter noticed strange flight radar patterns of US cities and through some old fashioned investigative journalism, uncovered the secretive FBI program.

Currently a single plane can cover 25 square miles, tracking thousands of cars and people within that area. Of course they'll flag cases of crimes being successfully detected. What they don't tell you about is, the invasion of privacy ordinary citizens are unknowingly suffering. Once the US establishes a proper FAA flight regulation charter for drone use in US airspace. It is expected these manned FBI flight will be replaced by drones. These drones will then remain airborne 24/7 for 365 days of the year.

The creation of a mass surveillance state, where your movements, smartphone, Laptops, car movements ect is constantly tracked and monitored through Stingray, Argus and similar surveillance systems. Particularly in a country were privacy and liberty is central to the constitution. Really seems to be a complete contradiction to an individuals right to privacy, in a free and democratic society. So such technology should only be used under strict judicial guidelines and via a federal warrant ect. It would need to be strictly monitored and regulated to prevent overreach and abuse.

In a country obsessed with collecting and storing an individuals meta data, one could be forgiven for believing we are beginning to surpass the infamous Orwellian nightmare. Especially in a day where we learned of yet another illicit US spying program against its very own allies (consecutive French presidents were spied on from 2006 - 2012). One can't help but feel that such surveillance could have a sinister use. If the US government has a paranoid need to spy on its allies. Then US citizens could be forgiven for feeling that they are open to similar abuses.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/146909-darpa-shows-off-1-8-gigapixel-surveillance-drone-can-spot-a-terrorist-from-20000-feet

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_28244456/meet-guy-who-tracked-fbis-flights-over-minneapolis

El Guapo! · 25-06-2015 10:08AM

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

http://osnetdaily.com/2015/06/exposed-fbi-behind-mysterious-surveillance-aircraft-over-us-cities/

Tbh, I've dismissed your entire post as conspiracy theory nonsense since you referenced a site that runs stories such as:

"Is California nia drought part of UN Plan to Migrate Americans From Southwest?"

and

"The UN Is Conquering America Through the Control of All Water"

That's all tinfoil hat bs.

If this technology is saving lives then there's no reason to oppose it. No matter what conspiracy theorists say, it's not being used to spy on regular joes. Why would it?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 25-06-2015 11:19AM

They can look all they like: I've nothing to hide so it wouldn't bother me in the least.

smash · 25-06-2015 11:24AM

Jaxton Great Mouser wrote: »

They can look all they like: I've nothing to hide so it wouldn't bother me in the least.

I never understand this kind of reply. It's nothing to do with having something to hide, it's about basic privacy in your day to day life.

tigger123 · 25-06-2015 11:30AM

I'd support it. It would be useful from a law enforcement point of view, but it's still not intrusive. There's cctv all over Dublins city centre.

There would need to be full transparency in terms of its use though. Clear guidelines and all that in the era of big data.

tigger123 · 25-06-2015 11:32AM

smash wrote: »

I never understand this kind of reply. It's nothing to do with having something to hide, it's about basic privacy in your day to day life.

I don't think it would invade your privacy. And I understand that point of view. It lowers crime and increases arrest rates like the op said. The trade off for the citizen is minimal.

frozenfrozen · 25-06-2015 11:36AM

it's a weird one. I'd like if crime and all that was lowered but at the same time I'm not ok with the idea that I will be watched 24/7, even though I'm not doing anything wrong

Autonomous Cowherd · 25-06-2015 11:38AM

The thing is just as these invasive technologies are developed so too are contra-technologies, and I don't mean shooting drones out of the sky (although people will do that too until the drones get too small.) But because the possible applications of this type of tech include industrial and economic espionage (follow the money) pretty shortly there will be scramblers and other ways of throwing a spanner in the works. Good!

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 25-06-2015 11:39AM

smash wrote: »

I never understand this kind of reply. It's nothing to do with having something to hide, it's about basic privacy in your day to day life.

I still have no problem with surveillance cameras of any kind. You may not understand and so be it.

25-06-2015 11:45AM

I feel as it is OK.

They are monitoring visuals out in the open, the same way traffic cameras do.
It is just a much more efficient replacement to a guy with a camera following you around.

At the moment out on the streets people can take your picture. Street photography etc. I don't like it but apart from asking the photographer to delete the photo there is nothing that I can do about it.

We currently have garda helicopters patrolling this is just a step up in efficiency.

I would prefer if this was run directly by the government/garda. I would not like it to be sub contracted out to a private company.
Or at the very least the data.

El Guapo! · 25-06-2015 12:26PM

I can understand the initial worry of the public but when you actually look into it and think about it a bit, it's really not intrusive at all.

Nobody is being watched 24/7. It's not like there's someone tracking the movements of Joe Bloggs all day every day.
It's only when something happens, such as a murder or car-jacking for example, then they can use the technology to track the culprits.

matrim · 25-06-2015 12:31PM

Is it only going to film public land? If not then it is invading your privacy.

For example, I highly doubt they have a special filter when it doesn't record someones back yard where they would have an expectation of privacy

El Guapo! · 25-06-2015 01:31PM

matrim wrote: »

Is it only going to film public land? If not then it is invading your privacy.

For example, I highly doubt they have a special filter when it doesn't record someones back yard where they would have an expectation of privacy

Again, your back garden will be no more than a blurry dot on the screen. There's nobody zooming in on you hanging out your washing or sunbathing naked!

matrim · 25-06-2015 01:32PM

El Guapo! wrote: »

Again, your back garden will be no more than a blurry dot on the screen. There's nobody zooming in on you hanging out your washing or sunbathing naked!

So camera technology never improves?

eamonnq · 25-06-2015 01:34PM

El Guapo! wrote: »

Bear in mind, they do have other systems available which can see a lot clearer and a lot closer, but that's not the system they use.

matrim wrote: »

So camera technology never improves?

It does yeah.

El Guapo! · 25-06-2015 01:37PM

matrim wrote: »

So camera technology never improves?

It doesn't need to improve to do that. They already have the capabilities to do that. But as I said in an earlier post, they've commited to using a certain quality camera and to not go above that.

25-06-2015 01:40PM

I think it sounds like a great idea with loads of potentially great uses if there was an organisation we could trust to use it, but how long before it's being abused?

El Guapo! · 25-06-2015 01:44PM

riffmongous wrote: »

I think it sounds like a great idea with loads of potentially great uses if there was an organisation we could trust to use it, but how long before it's being abused?

I think that's the fear a lot of people have. But if there were strict rules and regulations put in place before it was implemented, then I think it's a winner.

Here's the link to the podcast if anyone wants to give it a listen:

http://www.radiolab.org/story/eye-sky/

eamonnq · 25-06-2015 01:46PM

Grand job, would they be able to trace the dog-walkers who don't pick up what their dogs leave behind them ?

Persistent Surveillance Systems

Comments