iPhone keeps record of everywhere you go...

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Fri Apr 22, 2011 9:39 am

RobLupella wrote:

Again, this is all OK. If it means we catch a terrorist or two before they blow up the Sears (or whatever its called now) Tower or before they blow up a crowd of people at Grant Park, then a little bit of government watchfullness is good. Actually what is probably better is to put it out to bid to a private company which due to the bid process and competition would both drive the cost down and allow the system to be installed in most major cities a lot quicker and much less expensively. The cameras could be linked together in a master database so if a suspect showed up in Chicago, then went to Indy and NYC and Boston etc he would be recognized and then tracked. Its all good and if you are not wanted for anything and just minding your own business what is the problem?

I am assuming you are saying with this tongue firmly in cheek? I am "generally" ok with cameras in urban areas if there are limits to what they can do and transparency with regards to how they are used. With regards to actually stopping terrorist acts, I think the concept probably fails horribly. I suspect they are much better at dealing with problems in high crime areas. If I am not mistaken, similar systems are use in the UK and generally they aid in "after the fact" analysis (start with a known act and then follow the person backwards over time) and probably do little or nothing with respect to prevention. I don't think we are anywhere near being able to analyze movement behavior in real time and then use that to proactively stop people. Or if we are, I can't imagine the accuracy being anything close to what would be required without it being a huge hassle to the populace in general. Just imagine TSA agents out roaming the streets asking you to produce your papers and asking where you are going and why.

Richard

Graham Jagger · **Joined:** Fri Aug 29, 2003 12:53 am **Posts:** 1718

This is obviously a simple problem to solve. We terminate Steve Jobs and Apple. Done.
Go Bill, yeah Windows. Cause Microsoft would never engage in activities like this.

JamesMilko · **Posted:** Fri Apr 22, 2011 10:09 am

Only because they can't get the market share in the phone space.

ColinOConnell · **Posted:** Fri Apr 22, 2011 10:11 am

I'm retty sure we have safety devices like automatic door locks on VW's, warning stickers on everything stupid, and no dodge ball at recess because (gasp) we have lawyers.

JohnByers · **Posted:** Fri Apr 22, 2011 10:58 am

ColinOConnell wrote:

I'm retty sure we have safety devices like automatic door locks on VW's, warning stickers on everything stupid, and no dodge ball at recess because (gasp) we have lawyers.

This. / Thread

JamesShort · **Posted:** Fri Apr 22, 2011 11:02 am

I bet Colin wished that the iPhone had a feature where it activates a a high speed fan and hovercrafts its way from the grass at CMP to Sanford

.

RobLupella · **Posted:** Fri Apr 22, 2011 1:25 pm

JamesShort wrote:

I bet Colin wished that the iPhone had a feature where it activates a a high speed fan and hovercrafts its way from the grass at CMP to Sanford

.

We had high speed fans in NC last weekend. They just were not easily directionable

RobLupella · **Posted:** Fri Apr 22, 2011 1:31 pm

Stacy King wrote:

Vincent Keene wrote:

Helmets? I never wore one and I rode my bike to and from school about 5 miles each way at age 12. We had a trampoline without (GASP!) padding or a huge net around it too. How did any of us ever survive?

You guys do understand that we have protections/safety products/recommendations like those because (GASP!) kids DO get hurt... right? Just cause you didn't, doesn't mean others didn't.

But by using that definition (someone got hurt)of when "safety" equipment is necessary, then shouldn't there be more protection for every action that *Might* result in injury. So helmets in cars because they will prevent head injuries. Oh yeah and roll cages too. While some of these things are good ideas and should be recommended, every good idea should not be mandated, that's just too nanny state for me. Unfortunately, the problem then becomes all the lawyers on the hurt line, the insurance companies that don't pay up, and the companies who make shoddy products. Oh yeah and our litigous population.....

RobLupella · **Posted:** Fri Apr 22, 2011 1:35 pm

Richard Casto wrote:

RobLupella wrote:

Again, this is all OK. If it means we catch a terrorist or two before they blow up the Sears (or whatever its called now) Tower or before they blow up a crowd of people at Grant Park, then a little bit of government watchfullness is good. Actually what is probably better is to put it out to bid to a private company which due to the bid process and competition would both drive the cost down and allow the system to be installed in most major cities a lot quicker and much less expensively. The cameras could be linked together in a master database so if a suspect showed up in Chicago, then went to Indy and NYC and Boston etc he would be recognized and then tracked. Its all good and if you are not wanted for anything and just minding your own business what is the problem?

I am assuming you are saying with this tongue firmly in cheek? I am "generally" ok with cameras in urban areas if there are limits to what they can do and transparency with regards to how they are used. With regards to actually stopping terrorist acts, I think the concept probably fails horribly. I suspect they are much better at dealing with problems in high crime areas. If I am not mistaken, similar systems are use in the UK and generally they aid in "after the fact" analysis (start with a known act and then follow the person backwards over time) and probably do little or nothing with respect to prevention. I don't think we are anywhere near being able to analyze movement behavior in real time and then use that to proactively stop people. Or if we are, I can't imagine the accuracy being anything close to what would be required without it being a huge hassle to the populace in general. Just imagine TSA agents out roaming the streets asking you to produce your papers and asking where you are going and why.

Richard

So how do we get to the point of being able to analyze the behaviour unless you track people and see what behaviour falls outside the norm and use that to profile the folks that are walking around? Then instead of the TSA strip searching 6 year olds because they are the 32nd person in line, they would search person 24 because they profiled to fit someone with bad intentions. You gotta start somewhere to build a database and the bigger the sample size the more accurate the prediction.

Stacy King · **Posted:** Fri Apr 22, 2011 1:58 pm

RobLupella wrote:

But by using that definition (someone got hurt)of when "safety" equipment is necessary, then shouldn't there be more protection for every action that *Might* result in injury. So helmets in cars because they will prevent head injuries. Oh yeah and roll cages too. While some of these things are good ideas and should be recommended, every good idea should not be mandated, that's just too nanny state for me. Unfortunately, the problem then becomes all the lawyers on the hurt line, the insurance companies that don't pay up, and the companies who make shoddy products. Oh yeah and our litigous population.....

The problem is that works both ways. Plenty of people don't get hurt, so why have any regulation or protections at all? For anything? Obviously, the people getting hurt are stupid. Every man, woman, and child for him or herself right? Let the "market" rid itself of unscrupulous business practices, let the gene pool rid itself of helpless individuals if they're not smart enough to recognize how dangerous something is (motorcycle helmet laws anyone?)

(EDIT: Just to be clear, the above paragraph was to be read with heavy sarcasm)

I don't disagree that lawyers compound the problem, and probably as often, politicians do too.

How'd we get on this topic on this thread anyway? LOL

JamesMilko · **Posted:** Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:14 pm

Stacy King wrote:

Let the "market" rid itself of unscrupulous business practices

Ha, because that has ever happened.

The government's job is to protect me from other countries and other citizens. I'll take care of protecting me from myself.

RobLupella · **Posted:** Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:59 pm

JamesMilko wrote:

Stacy King wrote:

Let the "market" rid itself of unscrupulous business practices

Ha, because that has ever happened.

The government's job is to protect me from other countries and other citizens. I'll take care of protecting me from myself.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
I agree with the above

BTW my post can be read with the sarcasm meter on too. I have an Iphone and don't like the idea that it knows where I'm going/am/was and retains it without my buying a app for that.

Brian Marks · **Posted:** Fri Apr 22, 2011 4:30 pm

Android does it too, but reports to Google more often, and apparently maybe not anonymously:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 53610.html

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Fri Apr 22, 2011 4:39 pm

RobLupella wrote:

Richard Casto wrote:

RobLupella wrote:

Again, this is all OK. If it means we catch a terrorist or two before they blow up the Sears (or whatever its called now) Tower or before they blow up a crowd of people at Grant Park, then a little bit of government watchfullness is good. Actually what is probably better is to put it out to bid to a private company which due to the bid process and competition would both drive the cost down and allow the system to be installed in most major cities a lot quicker and much less expensively. The cameras could be linked together in a master database so if a suspect showed up in Chicago, then went to Indy and NYC and Boston etc he would be recognized and then tracked. Its all good and if you are not wanted for anything and just minding your own business what is the problem?

I am assuming you are saying with this tongue firmly in cheek? I am "generally" ok with cameras in urban areas if there are limits to what they can do and transparency with regards to how they are used. With regards to actually stopping terrorist acts, I think the concept probably fails horribly. I suspect they are much better at dealing with problems in high crime areas. If I am not mistaken, similar systems are use in the UK and generally they aid in "after the fact" analysis (start with a known act and then follow the person backwards over time) and probably do little or nothing with respect to prevention. I don't think we are anywhere near being able to analyze movement behavior in real time and then use that to proactively stop people. Or if we are, I can't imagine the accuracy being anything close to what would be required without it being a huge hassle to the populace in general. Just imagine TSA agents out roaming the streets asking you to produce your papers and asking where you are going and why.

Richard

So how do we get to the point of being able to analyze the behaviour unless you track people and see what behaviour falls outside the norm and use that to profile the folks that are walking around? Then instead of the TSA strip searching 6 year olds because they are the 32nd person in line, they would search person 24 because they profiled to fit someone with bad intentions. You gotta start somewhere to build a database and the bigger the sample size the more accurate the prediction.

We are going off topic but...

Wow! :shock:

Let's build a huge monitoring network and then once it is done see if we can find a way to make it work. :roll:

To use your TSA and 6yr old search example, A large TSA system is in place today and I think most people feel it's not doing a great job. Lets keep making it bigger until it works? IMHO, "IF" the technology can be created to automate this process, it should not require the roll out of a huge preliminary system first. Your argument is basically saying we will have to "train" the system to "learn" the behavior it would need to track. How do you do that? Observe and monitor X number of large terrorist attacks and then figure out what it looks like so you can catch them the next time? You want to catch terrorist #1 not #10.

Overall, I personally think it is impossible to predict the type of behavior you are talking about short of huge costs and significant loss of civil rights. I can envision activities that would look normal and fall within historical patterns, but could still result in terrorist activity. Eye in the sky systems can be defeated if you try hard enough.

Richard

Kevin Allen · **Joined:** Thu Aug 28, 2003 6:42 pm **Posts:** 3479

There's a reason why we shouldn't fight natural selection.

THSCC Forums

iPhone keeps record of everywhere you go...

Who is online