0
comments
Sorry about the headline. I thought I could do beter than the one written by Stuff.co.nz.
I have reported on toilet cams on this site in the past, but all of those I've heard about installed by businesses have ended up to be fakes. That is until this report from New Zealand where a drunk student was roughed up by bouncers who were covertly watching him rip down a poster above the urinal.
See: Student shocked to star on club's loo-cam - New Zealand news on Stuff.co.nz.
As part of its contributions program (Contributions Program 2008-2009 - Backgrounder - Privacy Commissioner of Canada), the Ofice of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada is funding a project to look into surveillence in Canada:
Organization: Queen’s University —The Surveillance Project, Department of SociologyLocation: Ontario
Funding amount: $50,000
Project title: Camera Surveillance in Canada: Current Trends
Project description: There is a surprising lack of Canadian research to date on the development of camera surveillance, and the proliferation of surveillance cameras in Canada is occurring without enough oversight or public debate. This project will outline Canadian trends in camera surveillance in public and private spaces by analyzing documentary sources and through interviews with key stakeholders. As part of the project, a final research report will be presented at the International Conference of Data Protection Commissioners in Strasbourg, France (Sept. 2008).
Something like this is sorely needed as police forces and others push for more surveillance of public places, while research in other countries suggest that it just moves crime from one area to another.
Good catch, David Canton, via the Commissioner's blog.
Sometimes CCTV can prove that someone is innocent. And that the cops framed them.
wcbstv.com - Undercover NYPD Officers Frame 4 On Drug Charges....The undercover NYPD officers are seen on video dancing in the street, then attempting to frame four innocent men.
"I asked police officer why are you arresting me," said Maximo Colon. "Never did I get an answer."
The investigators swore under oath they bought drugs from the four men. Jose and Maximo colon say that didn't happen.
"The cops are supposed to help us," said a shaken Jose Colon.
Defense lawyers say the surveillance cameras proved their clients were framed.
"It was nauseating," said defense lawyer Rochelle Berliner.
Two hours of video showed no contact at all between the four men arrested and undercover officers - proof that lead prosecutors to drop charges against the four men, and even declare in court the men did not commit the crime....
The American Library Association has always been a reasoned and reasonable voice for privacy in libraries and the wider community. I was interested to learn they are doing a panel tomorrow at their annual get-together in Anaheim, California entitled "Privacy: Is it time for a revolution":
Protecting reader privacy and confidentiality has long been an integral part of the mission of ALA and its members. Should it continue to be a priority? In an age when people increasingly use social networking to expose intimate life details, does privacy still matter to information seekers? Does anyone care if their library records and online searches are being tracked? If they don't, why should they? A panel of thought leaders from the information economy including author Cory Doctorow, Wired senior writer Dan Roth, and Privacy Rights Clearinghouse director Beth Givens will debate the importance of privacy and what's at stake if the persistent erosion of privacy continues unchecked. Join us for a provocative examination of a librarian's role in the future of privacy.
I look forward to hearing what Jessamyn West and The Shifted Librarian have to say about the session.
In looking into the session, I happened upon the following outrageous story out of Cleveland.
Lakewood library aggressive on checking computer users for porn- cleveland.comI think this is the first time I've ever heard such sentiments from a library professional, who usually advocate computers in libraries as often the sole source of internet access for those without the resources to purchase their own. Should only those who can afford privacy have access to it?... Every 15 minutes, a staff member takes a stroll around the center to make sure library patrons are not looking at pornography, engaging in illegal gambling or visiting other questionable Web sites.
Now the library, which recently opened a new technology center, might expand its monitoring policy by using free software, called virtual network computing, that allows librarians to remotely monitor what a patron is viewing on a computer screen.
Warren has been an avid supporter of keeping an eye on the public access computers since the library first offered the Internet to patrons in 1995.
"If you need privacy, you should get your own computer," Warren said.
Warren's views on privacy for library computer users clash with those of the American Library Association, the oldest and largest library organization in the United States.
The association recommends that a library set a comprehensive, written Internet policy, distribute the policy widely and then respect the privacy of patrons.
Update: Notes from the session are up at: The Shifted Librarian » ALA2008 Privacy Revolution Panel and Loose Cannon Librarian » Privacy Panel ALA 2008.
Because actions speak louder than words, one can easily assume that the British populace is completely passive and accepting of the explosion of CCTV surveillance throughout the green and pleasant lands of England. There is some dissent. Witness: Marina Hyde who has an interesting opinion piece in The Guardian.
Marina Hyde: This surveillance onslaught is draconian and creepy Comment is free The GuardianClosed-circuit TV cameras are the crime-fighting tool so fiendishly sophisticated that they can be foiled by the wearing of a hood. Yet having stuck 4.2 million of the things around this country, with nary a consultation on the matter - nor any significant impact on crime statistics - efforts to pimp them to 2.0 status continue
This week it emerged that scientists at Portsmouth University are developing "listening" cameras. Artificial intelligence software will be able to recognise sounds such as breaking glass, so that, when such a noise is detected, they can rotate in its direction and capture the act of vandalism/terrorism/God that resulted in a milk bottle falling off your doorstep. I paraphrase slightly, but given that the most recent Home Office report on the matter found that better street lighting is seven times more effective at cutting crime than CCTV, the truly suspicious behaviour is our deepening obsession with surveillance.
The past few years have thrown up dozens of instances which made one wince to be a citizen of this septic isle, but a personal low came with the discovery that 500,000 bins had been fitted with electronic tracking devices. Transponders in bins ... Could any morning news item be more designed to force one back against the pillows, too embarrassed about one's country to start the day? Yes, as it turned out. A couple of months ago it was discovered that Poole borough council, in Dorset, had used the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act - designed to track serious criminals and terrorists - to determine whether a school applicant and her parents lived where they said they did. They did, and were appalled to discover they had been spied on for three weeks, the subject of surveillance notes such as "female and three children enter target vehicle and drive off". Target vehicle, if you please! The thought of some deep-cover council drone jotting this stuff down as though it were an elite Delta Force operation is not as funny as it is horrifying.
Just who are these people, these swelling legions of unelected, ill-qualified monitors who wield such extraordinary power in our surveillance society? Clarification in one case came last year, when the civilian in charge of a Worcester police station's surveillance team was suspended after detectives found, among one day's footage, a 20-minute sequence of close-ups of a woman's cleavage and backside as she walked oblivious through the streets. Whether the woman ever discovered she was the star of a kind of pervert Truman Show is not recorded. But the offending monitor escaped with a warning and was - unbelievably - back in post within weeks.
In some city centres, such as Middlesbrough, speakers have been put on the cameras, so that those monitoring can interact with potential miscreants. Let's hope these remote bossy boots imagine they're involved in some high-level negotiation, in which they talk down a teenager from his decision to drop a hamburger wrapper on the pavement.
The former home secretary John Reid, on whose draconian watch the Middlesbrough scheme was approved, even suggested at its launch that schoolchildren should enter a competition to become the voice of the cameras - once again laying bare the government's desire to co-opt its citizens into the surveillance process at all levels. We are, of course, coming up to the time of year when we are ordered to shop our neighbours for acts of hosepipe, while the Shoreditch Trust recently trialled a scheme encouraging residents to watch live CCTV feeds on a special local channel, the better to assist in policing.
For all this creepy "outreach", though, the only hands-down beneficiaries of our CCTV obsession (apart from the revenue gatherers) have been broadcasters. For no good reason, all manner of TV networks have been furnished with hours of footage to pad out their witless police chase documentaries, or offensively cheap "street crime UK" shows. Britain's CCTV network: proudly supporting the Bravo channel.
The worst thing is the blithe insistence that this is all necessary and normal. We are watched more closely, by more cameras, with each passing day. But so faultlessly designed is our society that we have never come close to having a say on it.
There's a great bit in Woody Allen's movie Deconstructing Harry when Robin Williams's character goes out of focus, appearing as a sort of fuzzy version of himself, which sounds increasingly like the sort of sickness that should be courted by any attractive woman keen to walk through Worcester. That said, she could always don a hood. Yet there does seem a vaguely depressing irony in governments insisting that constant surveillance is essential to prevent our being overrun by repressive regimes who'd make us all cover our heads and the like. It's these initiatives that drive even the most pliant members of society to dream of taking just that precaution themselves, if only for a bit of privacy.
Shops track customers via mobile phone - Times OnlineThe surveillance mechanism works by monitoring the signals produced by mobile handsets and then locating the phone by triangulation measuring the phone’s distance from three receivers.
[....]
The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) expressed cautious approval of the technology, which does not identify the owner of the phone but rather the handset's IMEI code -- a unique number given to every device so that the network can recognise it.
But an ICO spokesman said, "we would be very worried if this technology was used in connection with other systems that contain personal information, if the intention was to provide more detailed profiles about identifiable individuals and their shopping habits.”
Only the phone network can match a handset's IMEI number to the personal details of a customer.
Path Intelligence, the Portsmouth-based company which developed the technology, said its equipment was just a tool for market research. "There's absolutely no way we can link the information we gather back to the individual,” a spokeswoman said. “There's nothing personal in the data."
Liberty, the campaign group, said that although the data do not meet the legal definition of ‘personal information’, it "had the potential" to identify particular individuals' shopping habits by referencing information held by the phone networks.
This is similar to a form of "cookies" for the offline world. On the one hand, we have assurances that the phones' serial number will not be connected with other personal information, but there really is no assurance that will not happen. And once this information is collected, it will be in the system available to law enforcement and others who do have the ability to match it to personal information.
Via Schneier on Security: Tracking People with their Mobile Phones.
Halifax Police plan to augment their network of surveillance cameras with hidden cameras in public places. Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear, according to the Mayor. Besides, the Mayor says, people are used to being surveilled on private property. What he doesn't seem to get is that private property is "private" property that you enter on the terms set out by the property owner. Public places do not have those stipuations. Or at least they shouldn't.
From the Halifax Chronicle Herald:
Police plan more camera surveillance - Nova Scotia News - TheChronicleHerald.caHalifax police intend to step up camera surveillance in public places, the city’s police chief said Tuesday.
Chief Frank Beazley said Halifax Regional Police officers will be using portable digital equipment in the near future to record images at "hot spots" in the municipality and public gatherings like rock concerts.
He told a city hall budget meeting the new gear won’t need to be installed — the police department already has fixed cameras at several locations — because police personnel will simply arrive at a potential trouble spot with cameras and leave with the pictures they’ve collected.
Mayor Peter Kelly supports more secret camera use at different sites. He said cameras tracking public goings-on are already a fact of life here and in other cities.
Asked if extra police snooping is an invasion of privacy, Mr. Kelly said law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear.
"For those who cause concern for others, you’ll have things to worry about," the mayor said, adding, additional surreptitious camera work will hopefully lead to crime prevention and the arrests of lawbreakers.
Mr. Kelly said people are routinely photographed on private property, such as banks, stores, parking lots and elsewhere, and the police plan to beef up surveillance at common areas used by many people makes sense.
Chief Beazley acknowledged the enhanced camera gear will be used at various locations throughout the city.
"If we have a hot spot — there’s crime going on in certain areas — we’re going to be able to take these mobile cameras and surreptitiously (use) them" without the knowledge of those being photographed, he told regional council’s committee of the whole.
Metro has seen a month of violent crime, including three murders. The most recent shootings in the city occurred Friday night and Saturday afternoon. Nobody was killed in either attack.
Saturday’s shooting took place at a house in a residential neighbourhood in Fall River, prompting RCMP to say police are concerned an innocent bystander could get hurt, or worse.
Today, May 17, 2011, Patrick Leahy introduced a bill to amend and substantially fix the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). The bill made sense at the time it was first authored by Leahy a quarter century ago, but it has needed a substantial re-write in this cloud computing age. The most problematic provision allows obtaining stored communications that are more than 180 days old with just a subpoena, rather than a warrant based on probable cause. Twenty-five years ago, you might consider an un-downloaded e-mail message to have been abandoned, but that is no longer the case when millions of users are keeping all of their e-mails and documents in the cloud.
The Digital Due Process Coalition has been heavily lobbying for this change for some time.
For more info: Patrick Leahy introduces update to electronic privacy law - Post Tech - The Washington Post
I was stunned to read that British police use new anti-terror powers to stop and search people every three minutes. Section 44 of the Terrorism Act has been used 170,000 to search people in 2008 alone according to the BBC. (See: BBC NEWS | England | London | Capital sees rise in terror stops.) These searches have led to 65 arrests (0.035% success) and zero convictions (0.000% success). Of course there are no official stats on how many times Section 44 was used as a pretense for some other motive.
Draw your own conclusions.
Via London cops catch and search a potential terrorist every three minutes - Boing Boing.
Over the last couple of days, I've blogged a bit about the proposed legislation that came to be known as Bill C-52 in the last session of Parliament. (See: Canadian police state legislation needs closer examination, and Conservative majority would pass lawful access within 100 days. Also check out Michael Geist's excellent post: The Conservatives Commitment to Internet Surveillance.) Bill C-52 fell off the order paper when the 40th Parliament was dissolved for the current election, but I think it really needs to be extensively discussed in the current election. (I should note that this is not necessarily a partisan issue, since it was originally proposed by the Liberals many elections ago.)
The Internet is not quite like the real world. When you go to a library, you don't have to provide ID or leave a record of what you looked at or that you were even there. When you step into a store in the real world, you don't necessarily leave a trace of what you perused and what you bought (if you paid cash). You can send an anonymous letter to the editor of your local newspaper to voice an unpopular opinion without giving your name or any other identifying information. (They probably will not publish it, but that's beside the point.) But the Internet doesn't work like that.
Every device on the network has an IP address. IP addresses can be tied to an individual computer or a range of computers sitting behind a firewall or a router. Every mobile device, such as a cell phone or a smart phone, has a number of unique identifiers that it chirps out to the network that it's attached to. Every interaction that you have online, you can assume is being logged in some fashion in connection with that IP address. Many e-mails you send include in the headers the IP address of the computer it was written on.
It's just the nature of how networks work. That IP can perhaps be traced to you, to your household or to your employer. In most cases, where residential internet accounts are concerned, they are connected to the name and address of the account holder. With phones, that identifier is connected to the individual who owns the phone.
In short: Everywhere you go on the internet or with your mobile phone, you leave digital footprints. That's the nature of the modern, networked world. So what protects your privacy when you do anything online? The fact that whoever allocated that IP address or provides your cell phone service has to keep it confidential unless a judge decides that the public interest (or the state interest) overrides your privacy interest. That's why we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada and why we have an independent judiciary. There is no absolute anonymity online, but there is effective privacy by obscurity because anyone who can connect your IP address to an individual is bound to keep it confidential unless a judge says otherwise.
However, Bill C-52 proposed to take that important balance away. It would give police forces and national security folks virtually unfettered powers to connect those otherwise anonymous footprints to an actual person (or small group of persons).
That is inconsistent with your rights to privacy and is dangerous to the free and open internet. Whoever is elected needs to know that privacy is something that all Canadians value.
I have heard that the Conservatives have said that they will not include Bill C-52 in their omnibus "get tough on crime" legislation they plan to pass within 100 days if re-elected, which is a good thing. This is something that needs a full debate in Parliament, in Parliamentary committees and in the public square.
I try not to get too opinionated on this blog, but there are some things I feel strongly about. One thing is the ability of people to live their lives (online and off) free of state surveillance and intrusion unless an impartial judge decides that the balance needs to be shifted in favour of the state.
When the recent election was called, a bill fell off the order paper that would remove the impartial judge and put significant surveillance powers it the hands of the state. (In fairness, I have to say that this was originally conceived under the previous Liberal goverment, but is currently part of the Conservative Party's law and order platform that they say will be passed within 100 days if they win a majority (Conservative majority would pass lawful access [laws] within 100 days)). One Bill in particular needs a full airing and thorough debate. It was introduced in the last session and never made it past first reading. This means there was no debate and no scrutiny of any kind.
Here's why Bill C-52 - An Act regulating telecommunications facilities to support investigations needs much closer examination.
Section 16 of the Bill requires all telecommunication service providers to hand over enormous quantities of customer information to the police, CSIS or the competition cops. There is no limit on the amount of information to be provided and is only restricted to "duties" of the cops or intelligence agency.
The provisions, at least as they appeared in Bill C-52, read as follows:
OBLIGATIONS CONCERNING SUBSCRIBER INFORMATION16. (1) Every telecommunications service provider must provide a person designated under subsection (3), on his or her written request, with any information in the service provider’s possession or control respecting the name, address, telephone number and electronic mail address of any subscriber to any of the service provider’s telecommunications services and the Internet protocol address, mobile identification number, electronic serial number, local service provider identifier, international mobile equipment identity number, international mobile subscriber identity number and subscriber identity module card number that are associated with the subscriber’s service and equipment.
(2) A designated person must ensure that he or she makes a request under subsection (1) only in performing, as the case may be, a duty or function
(a) of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service under the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act;(b) of a police service, including any related to the enforcement of any laws of Canada, of a province or of a foreign jurisdiction; or
(c) of the Commissioner of Competition under the Competition Act.
(3) The Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Commissioner of Competition and the chief or head of a police service constituted under the laws of a province may designate for the purposes of this section any employee of his or her agency, or a class of such employees, whose duties are related to protecting national security or to law enforcement.
(4) The number of persons designated under subsection (3) in respect of a particular agency may not exceed the greater of five and the number that is equal to five per cent of the total number of employees of that agency.
(5) The Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service may delegate his or her power to designate persons under subsection (3) to, respectively, a member of a prescribed class of senior officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or a member of a prescribed class of senior officials of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
17. (1) A police officer may request a telecommunications service provider to provide the officer with the information referred to in subsection 16(1) in the following circumstances:
(a) the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the urgency of the situation is such that the request cannot, with reasonable diligence, be made under that subsection;(b) the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the information requested is immediately necessary to prevent an unlawful act that would cause serious harm to any person or to property; and
(c) the information directly concerns either the person who would perform the act that is likely to cause the harm or is the victim, or intended victim, of the harm.
The police officer must inform the telecommunications service provider of his or her name, rank, badge number and the agency in which he or she is employed and state that the request is being made in exceptional circumstances and under the authority of this subsection.
Let me break this down: Any designated police officer or CSIS agent can ask a telecommunications service provider to hand over any of the following information about a customer:
This goes well beyond the usual scenario of when the cops have an IP address of someone suspected of online child exploitation and want the customer name and address information. But the bill doesn't say that if the cops have X info, they can get Y subscriber data. Instead, it just says on request the telco has to hand over the entire laundry list of data on customers. This is without a warrant, without a production order and without any court oversight at all. Unlike wiretap laws where stats have to be released, there is no obligation on the part of the police or the ministers responsible to release information about how these powers are used and under what circumstances. The Privacy Commissioner gets to audit it, but I don't think this saves any of the problems with the Bill.
The Bill contained no limitation on what level of investigation was required. It isn't limited to serious crimes or even trivial crimes. It is not limited to criminal or national security investigations. All that's necessary is that it be connected with the cop's duties. Collecting parking tickets fit within that category.
Think about what this means, given the laundry list of data to be provided with no threshold of probable cause or even a real investigation. The police can scan the airwaves at a protest and identify the IMEIs of the mobile phones in the vicinity. One request to the telcos can get the names and addresses of virtually everyone who was there. I bet the Egyptian authorities would have loved to have done this in Tahrir Square. Next time there's a G-20 protest in Canada, the police can do this, too.
There is no limitation in the statute that would prevent the police from asking for all the above data for any subscribers who connected, for example, to any cell site in a particular neighbourhood at a particular time.
In Canada, we expect that we can generally live our lives free of government surveillance and intrusion, unless an independent judge says that the government interest in crime fighting outweighs our individual right to privacy. This legislation would remove this balance and tips the scales dramatically toward police state powers.
Over the last little while, there has been much discussion about cooperation between telcos and ISPs, on one hand, and law enforcement, on the other hand. We've certainly seen a lot of talk about "lawful access" in Canada.
If you're curious about some of the goings on behind the scenes at American telcos and ISPs in this regard, Cryptome and Wikileaks both have some interesting leaked documentation about policies and procedures for companies like MySpace, Sprint, Yahoo! and others. Just go to Cryptome.org and WikiLeaks.org and do a little digging around.
As of today, all internet service providers in Europe are required by law to retain information about every e-mail and VOIP call made by their users thanks to the European Data Retention Directive.
BBC NEWS Technology Net firms start storing user dataAnd, as an aside, I'm not sure many will find comfort in the idea that RIPA will act to protect privacy: RIPA surveillance may break human rights laws - ZDNet.co.uk.Details of user e-mails and net phone calls will be stored by internet service providers (ISPs) from Monday under an EU directive.
The plans were drawn up in the wake of the London bombings in 2005.
ISPs and telecoms firms have resisted the proposals while some countries in the EU are contesting the directive.
Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, said it was a "crazy directive" with potentially dangerous repercussions for citizens.
All ISPs in the European Union will have to store the records for a year. An EU directive which requires telecoms firms to hold on to telephone records for 12 months is already in force.
The data stored does not include the content of e-mails or a recording of a net phone call, but is used to determine connections between individuals.
Authorities can get access to the stored records with a warrant.
Governments across the EU have now started to implement the directive into their own national legislation.
The UK Home Office, responsible for matters of policing and national security, said the measure had "effective safeguards" in place.
There is concern that access to our data is widening to include many public bodies
ISPs across Europe have complained about the extra costs involved in maintaining the records. The UK government has agreed to reimburse ISPs for the cost of retaining the data.Mr Killock said the directive was passed only by "stretching the law".
The EU passed it by "saying it was a commercial matter and not a police matter", he explained.
"Because of that they got it through on a simple vote, rather than needing unanimity, which is required for policing matters," he said.
Sense of shock
He added: "It was introduced in the wake of the London bombings when there was a sense of shock in Europe. It was used to push people in a particular direction."
Sweden has decided to ignore the directive completely while there is a challenge going through the German courts at present.
"Hopefully, we can see some sort of challenge to this directive," said Mr Killock.
Isabella Sankey, Policy Director at Liberty, said the directive formalised what had already been taking place under voluntary arrangement for years.
"The problem is that this regime allows not just police to access this information but hundreds of other public bodies."
In a statement, the Home Office said it was implementing the directive because it was the government's priority to "protect public safety and national security".
It added: "Communications data is the where and when of the communication and plays a vital part in a wide range of criminal investigations and prevention of terrorist attacks, as well as contributing to public safety more generally.
"Without communications data resolving crimes such as the Rhys Jones murder would be very difficult if not impossible.
"Access to communications data is governed by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa) which ensures that effective safeguards are in place and that the data can only be accessed when it is necessary and proportionate to do so."
A US Federal Court has declared that the Bush-era "warrantless wiretap" program was unlawful. The administration, up to and including the Obama administration, argued that in a time of war, it was lawful to eavesdrop on communications without a warrant, particuarly international communications. The decision is here: http://cryptome.org/alharamain-v-nsa.pdf and the New York Times' has an article on the decision here: Federal Judge Finds N.S.A. Wiretaps Were Illegal - NYTimes.com.
| C-29 | An Act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (Safeguarding Canadians’ Personal Information Act) | First Reading in the House of Commons (May 25, 2010) |  |
| C-50 | An Act to amend the Criminal Code (interception of private communications and related warrants and orders) (Improving Access to Investigative Tools for Serious Crimes Act) | First Reading in the House of Commons (October 29, 2010) | |
| C-51 | An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act) | First Reading in the House of Commons (November 1st, 2010) | |
| C-52 | An Act regulating telecommunications facilities to support investigations (Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act) | First Reading in the House of Commons (November 1st, 2010) | |
Google Street View went live in the UK last week. Despite the prevalence of surveillance in Britain, complaints have rolled in and Google has taken down hundreds of pictures. See: Google forced to black out hundreds of Street View photos after privacy protests - but site gets record hits Mail Online.
Computerworld is reporting that the Electronic Privacy Information Center has obtained documents under the Freedom of Information Act that suggest the Department of Homeland Security is on the hunt for portable body scanners. This is not surprising, but what is most chilling is the suggestion that they're seeking devices that can be deployed to covertly see through clothing of unsuspecting people.
See:
DHS seeks systems for covert body scans, documents show - ComputerworldComputerworld - Documents obtained Tuesday by the Electronic Privacy Information Center suggest that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has signed contracts for the development of mobile and static systems that can be used scan pedestrians and people at rail and bus stations and special event venues -- apparently at times without their knowledge.
The documents indicate that DHS moved to develop the technology as part of an effort to bolster the ability of law enforcement personnel to quickly detect concealed bombs and other explosives on individuals.
EPIC obtained the documents from the DHS under a Freedom of Information Act request for data on mobile and static scanning systems it filed last year....
Last weekend, after a day of meetings, I wandered around downtown Ottawa. When I lived there in 1999-2000, I noticed that a number of light poles in the downtown area have directional antennas on top of them. I had only seen them in the vicitinty of Parliament Hill. Being paranoid, I wondered what they were. I even called the city and asked what they were and whose they are. The city was not able to answer my question, though they acknowledged that the poles are theirs and putting anything on them would require the city's ok.
You can read the text on the label on the back, which says it's made by TIL-TEK, model TA-2408. The TIL-TEK brochure describes it as:
The TA-2408 is a vertically or horizontally polarized panel antenna. The antenna consists of a printed broadband dipole array enclosed in an aluminum cavity with a UV stabilized ASA radome for superior weatherability. It is designed for wireless data in the ISM band and is at DC ground to aid in lightning protection.
Here are two other pictures:
If anyone knows anything about these, please help satisfy my curiosity ... Email me or put something in the comments.
Web world of law online surveillance © 2012
