Surveillance and Tracking Matters

[joele]

I mentioned on the previous incarnation of this forum that I use CalyxOS on my phone. It only works with Pixel devices sadly but allows you to run Android Open Source (no google at all) with a re-locked boot loader (important for device tamper security).

https://calyxos.org/features/

Well until now there were no tablets that supported this kind of OS, until now.. CalyxOS have announced support of the new Google Pixel tablet, ironic the only android tablet you can have a fully open source (and google free) locked OS on is, a Google one.

Installation as standard with CalyxOS went super smoothly, very very happy camper..

https://calyxos.org/install/devices/tangorpro/linux/

[stylofone]

My lineageOS non-google phone is not ideal as it's around seven years old, meaning it is way behind on security updates and both hardware and software are dodgy. But I still prefer it to being tracked by a standard phone, and it's also satisfying to keep an old phone running for so long. When it inevitably dies and I am forced to upgrade I'll get a used Pixel - the newest one that has a sweet spot for price - and give CalyxOS a go.

I have no google services installed, not even the open source replacements. If any apps require the google elements, I just go without. The most notable deficiency is the lack of alerts for incoming email, because the proton app, for now, requires google or microG for notifications. The Signal app has its own notification system and I did notice a slight reduction in battery life when I installed it, but it's manageable.

[Irrev-Black]

I'm not a smartphone type by nature: I don't even send text messages, and I don't like reading 'em, and my dry, old fingers don't work with touchscreens.

My phone traffic is so reliably minimal, I can tell almost immediately if a call is going to be the Chinese Embassy Impersonator or one of its ilk.

Deaf old men have an excuse for answering with a testy, nasal, "Hegh?" - try using that as any form of yes/no verification in a bank scam, chap!

I was an early adopter of email, even when my hearing was so much better, on account of the audit trail in header text.

My phone might, and I stress might, provide a track of my very predictable whereabouts, but I suspect even an AI would be bored shitless surveilling me.

[stylofone]

I'm not a smartphone type by nature: I don't even send text messages, and I don't like reading 'em, and my dry, old fingers don't work with touchscreens.

My phone traffic is so reliably minimal, I can tell almost immediately if a call is going to be the Chinese Embassy Impersonator or one of its ilk.

Deaf old men have an excuse for answering with a testy, nasal, "Hegh?" - try using that as any form of yes/no verification in a bank scam, chap!

I was an early adopter of email, even when my hearing was so much better, on account of the audit trail in header text.

My phone might, and I stress might, provide a track of my very predictable whereabouts, but I suspect even an AI would be bored shitless surveilling me.

The phone company knows where you are because it logs which towers you are close to. They also have metadata about your calls. I need to look into it further, but I am pretty sure that there is legislation governing how that information is used. Google-type surveillance is not covered by that legislation and is much deeper and more detailed.

Telephony is similar to banking, in that it is regulated by laws predating modern surveillance capitalism. Again, I'm not sure of the details, but I think this is why retailers are still aggressive in promoting rewards programs. Asking if you have FlyBuys or whatever holds up every single transaction, especially on the self-serve checkouts, but the T&Cs on a FlyBuys card, for example, would allow them to capture and exploit massive amounts of data compared to what they can legally get when you use a card issued by a bank.

As I typed all of the above I realised my knowledge is sketchy, I need to do more research to confirm some of my assumptions.

[Irrev-Black]

(el snippo)

My phone might, and I stress might, provide a track of my very predictable whereabouts, but I suspect even an AI would be bored shitless surveilling me.

Phone gets left in the shed or the car sometimes.

[Irrev-Black]

Say you've got expensive facial tracking tech, and nine months' use of that tech by a police department leads to exactly NO arrests, let alone convictions.

Where do you go from this point?

Let's see what the US city of New Orleans does...

In 2020, amidst the George Floyd protests and widespread anti-police sentiment, New Orleans was one of several cities where local government voted to ban the use of facial recognition by the cops. The decision was hailed as a great victory by civil liberties advocates. Less than two years later, though, the ban was overturned when the city council voted to allow limited use of the technology when police were investigating “crimes of violence” or were attempting to ID a missing person. At the time, local politicians reasoned that re-instituting face-recording capabilities was really “a win for everybody” and “a tremendous stride towards greater public safety.” Unfortunately, this week’s report would seem to show that those politicians were just saying that to win political points.

The report’s sample size is small, indicating cops rarely even needed to use facial recognition technology. In addition to the revelation about the scanning tech’s zero-arrest record, the NOLA safety review shows that police only used it a total of 13 times during the period observed. Of those searches, only five led to matches and, of those matches, two were considered “bad,” meaning the technology identified a person who was actually “not suspected of having committed the crime.” All of the search requests were related to Black suspects, the report notes. Researchers have found facial recognition technology is less reliable in its attempts to identify people with darker skin.

Source

[joele]

Say you've got expensive facial tracking tech, and nine months' use of that tech by a police department leads to exactly NO arrests, let alone convictions.

Where do you go from this point?

Awesome isn't it, it leads to no identifiable benefit but being creepy, yet privacy hindering technology stays..

This is a fun one, looked nothing like the perpetrator but facial recognition said he did, so 9 days to get him out of jail. Must trust technology, not own eyes.. sigh..

https://www.wired.com/story/face-recogn ... ead-wrong/

[joele]

Now that is creepy as hell..

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-10/ ... /102700822

[Irrev-Black]

Now that is creepy as hell..

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-10/ ... /102700822

An inactive camera needs to have a nice yoghurt container placed over it, to keep the dust off till it's needed again.

[Irrev-Black]

While I oppose electronic surveillance in places that ought, by definition, to be private, I see a need for independently-audited, accountable, camera/mic presence in some public places where vulnerable members of society interface with carers and other strangers.

It has become clear that pre-vetting of workers is not sufficient:

Each state and territory requires people who work with children to have a working with children clearance.

There are differences between state and territory jurisdictions but applicants are required to prove their identity and provide prior aliases.

At the centre of the process is a police criminal history check. Certain records, including charges or convictions for child sexual offences or other violent offences would see an application denied.

This is a start. But it does not mean all employees with a clearance are trustworthy. Unfortunately, many offenders remain undetected, let alone prosecuted. And working with children may give employees the opportunity to offend for the first time, or trigger previously unrealised motivations to offend.

The man charged with 1,623 child abuse offences in multiple jurisdictions, including Queensland, had passed the state’s “blue card” check, clearing him to work with children.

The article I've quoted (link at bottom of post) is about childcare centres, but risks also apply in day or residential places for people with disability, aged people, and institutions such as gyms and youth clubs.

The physical environment of a childcare centre and how it is managed can significantly reduce the opportunity for abuse to occur. Open plan centres allow for natural surveillance and reduce the likelihood of offending.

Where possible, it is also important to prevent blind spots (created by moving furniture, covering windows or building cubbies) that obstruct the natural line of sight. If there are blind spots like windowless offices or storerooms, open door policies or CCTV can be used.

On top of all this, centres can require staff to always be in line of sight of another staff member.

Private areas are, of course, private, but it is quite possible that public-area interactions on camera might provide information on the precedents to any improper action offscreen.

NB: It goes without saying that stringent control of recordings, backup, and archival for a given period, should apply, with penalties for non-compliance.

https://theconversation.com/we-need-mor ... use-211197