Re. Andrew Milmoe:

"Shotspotters use microphones as a sensor for triangulating the location
of a specifically shaped sound...  ...there are monumentally easier and
less expensive ways to capture and store audio."

Thanks for shedding some rational light on the topic.  I'd be interested
to hear more about what you're doing, and what your thoughts are about
the proliferation of various kinds of sensors in the ambient social
environment.

Re. Shawn:

"...the advantages [of "smart"phones] include things like providing

driving directions, access to email from multiple locations, making
phone calls. The sort of thing that gets you laid. I think asking people
to page me would have a profound negative impact on my sex life."

OK, I'll concede that point.  It's all about _guys getting laid_.
Privacy doesn't hold a candle to testosterone, and Boehners don't only
rule in Congress.  Especially when someone's pursuing casual encounters
so often that they constantly need driving directions to find them, and
check-ins from on the road just in case.

As for me, I get my driving directions from a Panasonic GPS that doesn't
spy on me (Panasonic has never had a scandal of any kind), I read my
email when I'm in places where I can reply to it without distractions,
and my 1935 rotary dial phone has better audio than an iPhone, with the
added bonus that when it's on the hook, the mic is completely cut off so
nobody can listen in.

Seriously though.

Roving wiretaps:  Dude, I know more about SIGINT and lawful intercept
than most people this side of a TS clearance with SCI tabs.

Android and Siri commands:  Are you absolutely certain about that?  Have
you analyzed all the code down to the level of the boot-loader?  Trust
in software can be truly touching sometimes...

RF detector:  Great, thanks for the link; if it works as intended I'll
promote it around.

Re. "50 fewer phones out of a population of 380,000 in Oakland."  I'd
say that's a better outcome than 50 fewer Shotspotters in the Robbery
Capital of America.  BTW, your assumption that everyone in that
population of 380,000 has one, isn't empirically correct.

Re. "How about if the moon were suddenly made of cheese?"  Ask anyone
who was alive during Watergate what they would have thought if someone
had suggested, in the 1970s, that in the 21st century people would
eagerly carry around devices with software-controlled microphones,
cameras, and tracking transmitters, all with effectively unlimited
range.  On the other hand, the "drop-in transmitter" and suchlike that
were available to Nixon, didn't get guys laid.

Re. "What are you doing now about this stuff?"  Promoting the usual
tools, talking to people who are in positions to have effects on policy,
some other stuff I'll say more about when it's ready & working, some
other stuff I don't talk about in public, arguing various points in
public places such as this one, and denying being a Luddite.

Re. "sitting in my ivory tower."  Ad-homs work better when they're
creative & funny.  How'bout "chasing squirrels around the yard whilst
claiming to be the reincarnation of Heath Robinson"?  There now, that
hits the mark and has a satisfying ring to it!

Gotta scoot; three work requests from clients that have to be done
tonight...

Cheers-

-G.  (that would be "Heath Robinson II" to you, sir!;-)


=====

On 13-10-15-Tue 9:13 PM, Shawn Lesniak wrote:
> On 2013-10-15 18:21, GtwoG PublicOhOne wrote:
>
>> "Roving wiretaps."  Like when Apple collected GPS data from iPhones and
>> publicly posted the users' locations and movements?   That was an
>> immediate danger to the life of anyone who was a stalking victim.  Like
>> the voice command apps, that require the microphone to be always-on,
>> listening for keywords, relaying them to a corporate server-farm to be
>> processed?  Do you know what other keywords are on that list, aside from
>> the ones they tell you about?
>>
> Roving wiretaps have a specific meaning
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roving_wiretap
> If you would like to willfully ignore well-established meanings of words
> don't be surprised when people choose to stop talking to you.
>
> My phone runs Android 4.3 and it won't take dictation commands unless
> Google Now is in the foreground or I press the microphone at an input
> screen.  IIRC, Siri on iOS requires tapping the home button 3 times to
> activate.
>
>> "Wireshark or a cell signal detector."  I've used Wireshark to
>> troubleshoot VOIP, and it is not something that laypeople would be able
>> to use.  If there's a cell signal detector that's layperson-usable, I'd
>> love to know about it.   (I have a standing design for a "blackout box"
>> that will enable someone to put their "smart"phone in it and block
>> surveillance while being able to ring on incoming phone calls.)
>>
> Have fun trying to fake the location and yet stay in contact with towers
> close enough to be useful.
> Easy to use cell phone detector:
> http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/product/rf+signal+detector+ii.do
> If you don't like that one, you could just as easily find plenty more by
> using the search engine of your choice to search for cell phone detectors.
>
>> "The look of Shotspotter is a secret and afaik we can't even know
>> exactly where they are for that reason."  That's just poor marketing by
>> Shotspotter.  Shotspotter needs to get cool looking enclosures with
>> patented round corners, and an "app" you can buy for $2, and have hip
>> sexy celebrities Oooh and Aaah about them.  Then everyone will want
>> one;-)  (Ad concept: pop music star holding up iPhone with Shotspotter
>> app on it.  Sound effect: repetitive rapid gunfire.  Celebrity voice:
>> "It's the rhythm of the city!  Tune it in, with Shotspotter!")
>>
> I think that's good marketing, if you don't, you don't have your finger
> on the pulse of the police state.
>
>> "The ownership of a smartphone is voluntary..."  And having
>> conversations within earshot of someone else's smartphone that you can't
>> see, isn't voluntary.  Though, per Google's court filing that claims
>> that anyone who communicates with a GMail user consents to be spied on
>> by Google, I suppose one could come up with a similar interpretation for
>> conversations conducted in earshot of someone else's mobile surveillance
>> device.
>>
> Yes it is, in cities like SF and Oakland, if someone is within earshot,
> there's a smartphone within earshot too.  If you think they're all
> picking up all conversations or all conversations with keywords just set
> up a speaker to speak 'sarin bomb al-qaeda active shooter'.
>
> You're probably proposing that everyone on this list throw out their
> phone, so let's pretend that we're going to do that.  There are now
> (let's say) 50 fewer phones out of a population of 380,000 in Oakland.
>
>> "Voluntary" is a slippery word, whereby manipulation of "consumers" is
>> regularly justified.  Have you read every EULA you've clicked "OK" on?
>> Fine print at the bottom of a "user agreement" doesn't hold a candle to
>> the frequent appearance of hip sexy celebrities Ooohing and Aaahing over
>> the latest piece of self-surveillance hardware.
>>
> I do.  It's easy when they're mostly GPL thrust upon users as EULA (GPL
> is a distribution license, not a EULA).
>
>> "Provides advantages" vs. "thrust upon us."  Advantages like lower cost
>> to taxpayers for transcribing conversations recorded at closer range?
>> "Thrust upon us" like the disappearance of anonymous-cash-paid public
>> telephones that used to be on every street corner?  Or is everything
>> justifiable in exchange for "convenience" and Angry Birds?  (When
>> Microsoft put Solitaire on Windows, people were cynical.  But Angry
>> Birds and Farmville?)
> You should talk to someone with a smart phone sometime.  Maybe you'll
> see that the advantages include things like providing driving
> directions, access to email from multiple locations, making phone calls.
>  The sort of thing that gets you laid.  I think asking people to page me
> would have a profound negative impact on my sex life.
>
>> What level of invasiveness would be sufficient to make that "voluntary"
>> transaction a bad bargain?
>>
> That's up to the user.  You can sit in your ivory tower all day and
> night and think people are stupid, but in the end you've likely made 0
> people give a fuck.
> I'm against surveillance, so I spoke at city council against DAC, I've
> taught at crypto parties and otherwise.  I'm building up my chops to
> make more contributions to privacy software.  I care about taking steps
> that people will actually follow.  If I stood on the street corner
> telling people to delete their Facebook and throw out their smart phone
> no one will follow that advice.
>
>> How'bout "smellavision" (ambient chemical sensors) where the
>> "smart"phone picks up smells in its vicinity, for example the scent of
>> recreational marijuana?  How'bout a "smart" EEG sensor that gives you
>> the "convenience" of not having to say a word: just think the thought?
> How about if the moon were suddenly made of cheese?
>
>> How'bout all your phone calls being recorded in realtime by default?  I
>> didn't believe this one either, until a few months ago, when I heard it
>> straight from a proverbial horse's mouth.
>>
> RedPhone, SilentPhone.  Mark Klein said this was happening in 2005 and
> apparently it was happening since February 2001.  Again, it's really
> hard to get people to care, but I do.  I've gotten dozens using these
> tools, how many cell phones have you got people to throw away?
>
>
>> Where do you draw the line in the sand, and what do you do when it's
>> crossed?
>>
>> Or is it "OK" if these intrusions are introduced slowly enough for
>> people to "get used to them," frog-in-boiling-water style?   First GPS,
>> then always-on microphones, then one camera per device, then two cameras
>> (front and back) per device, then speech recognition (constant
>> monitoring of the microphone, as I said: what else is on that keyword
>> list?).
>>
> Cell phone detector + reciting likely trigger words.  Cameras can be
> dealt with using adhesive bandages (they don't leave residue over the lens).
>
>> What next?  Here's one example of "what next."  Microsoft plans to
>> introduce a permanent replacement for cookies, embedded in Windows, that
>> will track people even more aggressively and will be impossible to turn
>> off.  Google, Apple, and Amazon are doing likewise.  And if anyone here
>> thinks that's only about "personalized advertising," I have a bridge for
>> sale, cheap.
>>
>> http://www.wired.com/business/2013/10/private-tracking-arms-race/
>>
> Those aren't here yet and it's hard to tell what's fact and what's
> fiction in regards to the future of online tracking.  There are loads of
> tools like privoxy, adblock, ghostery, Tor Browser Bundle and Tails
> available.  Now get people using them.  Adblock is the easiest sell
> possible, run this and the ads go away.
> It is important to keep our eyes to the future, but not to the extent
> that we should ignore what's going on today.  What are you doing now
> about this stuff?
>
>> Principle:  If it's not-OK for government to do something, it's not-OK
>> for corporate interests to do the same thing.  That's the core of the
>> difference between left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism.
>>
> What?  Since when did this become libertarian-talk?  Where does this
> principle come from?  Is the converse true?
>
>> Keyphrase: "predict and control."
> Keyphrase: Allah (pbuh) airplane September 11th, sarin gas underwear bomb
>

_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss