Street Level Surveillance - EFF Exposing Invasive Privacy Practices \ stacker news ~privacy

pull down to refresh

EFF’s Street-Level Surveillance project shines a light on the surveillance technologies that law enforcement agencies routinely deploy in our communities.
These resources are designed for advocacy organizations, journalists, defense attorneys, policymakers, and members of the public who often are not getting the straight story from police representatives or the vendors marketing this equipment.
Whether it’s phone-based location tracking, ubiquitous video recording, biometric data collection, or police access to people’s smart devices, law enforcement agencies follow closely behind their counterparts in the military and intelligence services in acquiring privacy-invasive technologies and getting access to consumer data.
Just as analog surveillance historically has been used as a tool for oppression, we must understand the threat posed by emerging technologies to successfully defend civil liberties and civil rights in the digital age.
The threats to privacy of these surveillance technologies is enormous, as law enforcement agencies at all levels of government use surveillance technologies to compile vast databases filled with our personal information or gain access to devices that can lay bare the intricacies of our daily lives.
The resources contained in this hub bring together years of research, litigation, and advocacy by EFF staff and our allies, and will continue to grow as we obtain more information.

Link to EFF page 🔗 Donate to EFF

Perhaps unpopular opinion: I don't mind surveillance in 'public' areas IF the information/feeds are also public. Public areas are just that—public. If you don't want to be seen in public areas, go to private places. What I strictly oppose is state actors having exclusive control/access to that information and surveillance that extends into private areas.

If private companies/areas, like a cafe or restaurant, engage in surveillance, they should be explicit about the methods they use, and then patrons can decide whether or not to patronize these places. Otherwise, it's akin to fraud. The product you are getting has elements that aren't disclosed.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @justanumber 16 Jan

What about when you go to the stores & supermarket and there are facial recognition cameras everywhere, cameras on the self-checkers, bodycams on the staff, little cameras on the card and payment machines. Cameras in public toilets. Surveillance cameras all the way along the roads, drones following you along the highway, everywhere along the street/footpath, on advertising billboards that profile as you approach and gives you an appropriate ad for sex, age etc.. Facial rec on public transport? cctv on the outside of people's houses, doorbell cams. What about when they want your biometrics (retina, thumb print, or voice) to pay for something and so much more I've forgotten. These are all a reality right now. It's at the point where if someone wants to try to avoid it they will just have to not leave the house at all. It's not just a case of not going into a specific shop, cafe or place, it's ubiquitous.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @davidw OP 16 Jan

What you say makes sense. The problem is private data is being used for public services too. Without express opt-in and without as you say any disclosure. There is almost no private space anymore in cities. Weather via in-house speakers (microphones), door cams, gps location and the like. All data is fed back to law enforcement or whatever reason they label it.

Personally hope we see pocket scrambling technology being normalised. Rather than you having to stand out from the crowd with clothing or being manipulated to opt-in, it would be opt-out by default. Many electronics would be built to handle people going dark and not working for a few seconds/minutes. An actual investigation and real old-fashioned police work would be warranted if they were to be used for ulterior motives.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @chairman_pretense 16 Jan

I agree in principle, but would also expect the real beneficiaries of any public access surveillance data to be private companies. Google, Meta and the rest wouldn't miss a beat to enrich their data. Not to mention general bad actors (e.g. stalkers)

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Krv 16 Jan freebie

What you guys are talking about is not inconsistent with what I said. Private businesses are not public property. To behave consistently, non-fraudulently, they must disclose what they are doing.

However, fundamentally, the problem are not these private businesses, it's the government. In the eyes of those who are in control, everything is theirs and nothing is private. They infect everything and use their system of regulations, threats, legal, etc, to force stores to give them this information, against the consent of the users of said business. What is a business to do? Go against the government and have legal nightmares, or comply and keep running a business. Sadly, most people don't care about principles and will just comply.

I was speaking an ideal. In the current system we are millions of miles from an ideal and government does whatever the hell it wants because the people allow them.

51 sats \ 0 replies \ @Natalia 16 Jan

really well designed, will read more tonight:)

30 sats \ 1 reply \ @davidw OP 16 Jan freebie

GIF from the page attached again. Foolishly forgot to use the SN link...

https://m.stacker.news/12652

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @satoshiplanet 16 Jan

Love it

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @justanumber 16 Jan

WOW this is really good, thanks for sharing David.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @davidw OP 16 Jan

deleted by author

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @Eobard 16 Jan

deleted by author

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @davidw OP 16 Jan

No worries! Love to see these resources, especially as they are more obscure things people might not be aware of.

Hope to see more tips on overcoming such tactics - currently EFF are just calling them out and raising the alarm bell 🚨