Sensor Networks For Surveillance And Security 91
gpmap writes "Small Times has an article on the coming age of all-pervasive sensor networks that will feed information of all sorts to monitoring networks. Technology advances have generated intense interest in sensor networks: 'the magic words are surveillance and security.' The Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) hosted the second Information Processing in Sensor Networks workshop this week amid anticipation of significant funding grants from the National Science Foundation. Most believe miniaturization, whether through conventional methods, MEMS or nanotech, will drive the spread of sensor networks. But plenty of issues need working through, on the hardware, software and social fronts."
I hope this scares you. (Score:1, Flamebait)
Especially the rationalization that its ok to trade privacy for so-called security.
Its not a trade-off as the story states, its simply unacceptable.
Re:I hope this scares you. (Score:1)
Re:I hope this scares you. (Score:5, Insightful)
A common argument used here against legal acts such as the DMCA is that they unfairly blame the technology rather than those who misuse it. I don't see how your comment is any different. Personally I believe that sensor networks will provide many research opportunities and genuinely useful applications in the next few years. If organisations misuse one aspect of the technology for surveilance, then obviously those responsible should be held accountable. However, branding an entire field of research as being "unacceptable" is not particularly acceptable either.
No, i understand too well. (Score:2)
In my case, I blame both the technology AND its improper use, I'm not blind to reality.. Once the technology is in place, then it WILL be misused.. this is human nature..
Paranoia does not mean one is wrong or that they are not out to get you
Re:No, i understand too well. (Score:1)
Following your logic, what is the point in performing any kind of research or pursuing any technological innovation in case it might be misused?
Re:No, i understand too well. (Score:2)
Cozzens said the said NSF is well aware of the privacy issues such networks pose. "Look, look, it's a trade-off - do you want to be secure or not?" he said. "This technology will make us more secure, but there is a price for all this."
What part of "price" didn't you understand?
I don't condemn the concept of the research, BTW, I merely condemn the automatic intention by the people funding it that it will be used for pervasive surveillance by the public entities on the private ones rather t
Re:No, i understand too well. (Score:2)
In my case, I blame both the technology AND its improper use, I'm not blind to reality.. Once the technology is in place, then it WILL be misused.. this is human nature.."
HMMM!!
Re:I hope this scares you. (Score:2)
It's true that every technology provides both foreseen and unforeseen uses, but in today's climate where people are willing to exchange privacy (anyone's) for security on the basis of only one foreign terrorist attack, the technology is an especially attractive target.
With politicians in the administration working hard to tear down our structures of fundamental rights (read up on the
Re:I hope this scares you. (Score:4, Interesting)
If you think it is OK for airlines personel (or security personel) to search passengers and luggage for weapons and explosives, then you have already accepted that it is sometimes worthwhile to trade privacy for security.
Here are a couple of ideas you might want to think about for a while.
(1) Sometimes we have no reason to want or expect privacy, like when we hold a conversation with someone in a crowded elevator. Other times we do want and expect privacy. Before going off about intrusions on privacy, it would probably be a good idea to think about those times and places where privacy really matters. If we can trade the kind of privacy that does not matter for greater security then why not do so?
(2) Privacy is not liberty. Sometimes it is a useful means to preserving liberty. The government can't stop you from doing something if they do not know you are doing it. But it is not the same thing as liberty. So while I would accept the claim that any trade of liberty for security is a sham, I would not accept the claim that any trade of privacy for security is a mistake.
(3) Sometimes it is more a matter of trading privacy for liberty rather than trading privacy for security. There are, for example two ways to eliminate the threat of hijacked aircraft, and thus achieve security. You can limit privacy by searching passengers, or you can limit liberty by making comercial aviation illegal. Under the current system we gave up some privacy so that we could achieve a measure of security while also keeping our liberty (to travel etc). In cases like that I will take more liberty over more privacy every time.
Re:I hope this scares you. (Score:2)
You assume too much. If you don't go through airport security, then you have a travel time measured in days instead of hours to wherever you want to go. It's less trading liberty for security and more trading liberty for speed.
Re:I hope this scares you. (Score:2)
It's not trading liberty at all because the searches by themselves do not introduce any new legal prohibitions on the actions that you are allowed to perform. It is a matter of trading privacy.
For some people who travel it is partly a matter of trading privacy for speed, but obviously not for those who must either travel by air or not at all. For people on the ground it is strictly a matter of trading the privacy of others for thei
Why I don't fly anymore (Score:1)
I travel quite a bit all over the Europe. Ever since the latest airport security measures were put into place last year, I've given up flying. I have traded enough of my privacy and comfort for security. The airlines are not going to get any more of my money if I can just help it.
With th
Re:I hope this scares you. (Score:1)
Sigh. Excellent argument, except for the fact that searching passengers doesn't eliminate anything but the privacy of a few passengers. It does not eliminate the threat of hijacking. For example, you can strip search every passenger, but if I manage to bribe the caterers they can get weapons on board using the food carts.
Or, for example, I can fabricate a
Re:I hope this scares you. (Score:2)
Which is so much easier than just walking on board with weapons - right? Don't you think there would be more hijackings if we did not have these security measures - or have there been none in the US since 9/11 because we ran out of bad guys?
Re:I hope this scares you. (Score:1)
The statement I am replying to had nothing to do with how hard some action was, it was a claim that searching passengers was one way to eliminate the threat of hijacking. Searching passengers does not eliminate anything, except the 4th amendment. In fact, if you care to recall, there were plenty of people who actually got onto airplanes carrying pointy things, even after being searched, and they weren't even trying to sneak things on
Re:I hope this scares you. (Score:2)
Nevermind about searching Grandma. If you don't like searches you have to argue against the best case for having them, not the weakest. You have to argue for a situation where a group of men can walk straight on to a comercial airliner wearing body armor, with automatic weapons, explosives, and any other weapons they might find useful - because there are no searches at all.
If you are not willing to defend a situat
Re:I hope this scares you. (Score:2)
Perhaps you should take off your tin-foil hat and look at what the technology is actualy used for.
You may wish to reflect upon your position, as some would consider you unnaturally fearful. Some might even use rough language such as 'pansy' or 'miserable pussy', but I, for one, would deplore it.
I'll trade my privacy for everybody's privacy. (Score:2, Interesting)
Let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Well, what is your stance on guns?
Re:I hope this scares you. (Score:1)
Re:I hope this scares you. (Score:2)
In my opinion, given the existence of surveillance networks the networks must be public access, to ensure a free society.
ANY surveillance network which gives the watchers more information about the watched than the watched about the watchers leads to an imbalance of power. Thus, the watched must become the watchers, and have equal right of access to any surveillance network. Check out David Brin's book, "The Transparent Society: Will T
an example (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:an example (Score:3, Informative)
Re:an example (Score:4, Funny)
Corrected link [cryptonomicon.com]
DOH! (Score:2)
Bump post up one level.....
Re:an example (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:an example (Score:1)
{never let rednecks play with antimatter}
A downside to the Information Age. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's been demonstrated that you can predict, to a high degree of likelyhood, when a military strike is about to happen by counting how many pizzas are delivered to the Pentagon.
It's somewhat like the before-mentioned leaky abstraction [slashdot.org] concept, but applied to information.
It's going to get alot worse long before it gets better. Those who believe that true privacy is possible in the future are delusional.
For a well though-out article on the subject, try reading this Wired article [wired.com] that
Re:A downside to the Information Age. (Score:2)
Yes, thanks for that. Moron, your bus is leaving.
Re:Obligatory Grammer Nazi Homage (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:A downside to the Information Age. (Score:1)
My guess is they have enough money to build their own pizza hut or dominos right in the building if they really wanted one.
Re:A downside to the Information Age. (Score:1)
Re:A downside to the Information Age. (Score:1)
Ah, yes, divination by pizza.
1) They aren't stupid.
2) Free pizza on the governments dime in peace time is cool, in time of conflict it gets cold too quick.
When the only thing viewing you are automated tools how can you call the witnesses to the crime?
Since it's in most written constitutions at the state level and it's in the federal one that you have a right to call your accuser, should we make these sensors have real time sentience or is 'just a recording' seen by a sentience enough?
I'm pretty sure tha
Think how great this would be (Score:1)
This will literally change our lives. As long as we don't all die of smog first.
Re:Think how great this would be (Score:3, Interesting)
\begin{sarcasm}
And we could detect independent thinkers, non-conformists and other people that used to be protected by freedom and turn them into more prisoners.
And what great tools these networks would make to identify unbelivers, terrorists and people that do not cheer at political speeches! Finaly no filthy abnormals can stay hidden! Glory to the world for finally
Again, we focus on gathering the information (Score:5, Insightful)
Other unanswered questions involve how companies will filter the data generated by large networks of sensors...
Leaving aside the other interesting bits of the article ("Videocams 1 sq.mm large? I'll crush them under my sandaled feet!"), this unanswered question is actually very, very important. For far too long both military* and non-military intelligence has focused far to much on gathering information and far to little on actually going thru it and learning from it. During WWII and the early part of the cold war each and every bit of gathered intelligence was a treasure, troughtly analysed and carfully matched with what other bits of intelligence that was gathered before, letting the analysers build up a pretty complete picture (so good in fact, that towards the end of that war the allies often knew better than the germans where the german troops were). But as we got better at collecting information, through ELINT, satelites and such, we 'drowned' in the sheer amount of information... succumbing to the idea that seeing something was as good as knowing what we saw (hint; it isn't). So I sure hope someone out there figures out a way to both filter and interprent the information they may gather with this - otherwise it is useless.
*) Come to think of it, the idea to 'sow' enemy territory with a sensornetwork like this before and during an attack might be quite usefull - if they don't figure out a way to jam it off course.
Re:Again, we focus on gathering the information (Score:4, Insightful)
If you collect tons of useless intelligence, you can then use it to manufacture your OWN intelligence - as the Iraq WMD situation demonstrated very graphically. Anthony Cordesman points out in a recent news piece that the problem was that Bush and Powell couldn't check everything themselves, they had to rely on their intelligence agencies - who were busy manufacturing "evidence" in the usual way - connecting the dots - dots that were really on a Roschach blotter, not an actually existing graph...if you get my meaning...
The problem is - if you have people connecting the dots for you, you have to be sure they are connecting REAL dots, not random dots. But the intelligence and law enforcement agencies make their living by coming up with dots to be connected - whether they are real or not.
As Robert Anton Wilson has pointed out numerous times, you can connect anything to anything if you look hard enough. That's what human brains do - interpret patterns - the key word being "interpret". There's plenty of connections between George Bush and the bin Laden family - the same family that many people find are still "linked" to Osama. Does this prove George Bush funds Osama? Well, no, but if someone WANTS it to, it WILL.
So the more information you have, the better the people whose job it is to "interpret" that information like it.
Which is why the rule is: when the FBI comes to your door, you say this and ONLY this: "On advice of attorney, I have nothing to say to the FBI." Period. Full stop. If you say ANYTHING else, they WILL use it against you or against anyone else they can...even if you just say, "Well, my brother-in-law said it rained yesterday"...somehow they will find a way to use that to prove that you contacted your brother-in-law and it was raining in Afghanistan yesterday so he must be an Al-Qaeda operative...
If you think this is paranois, you have never read anything about the FBI or the CIA - or talked to anyone who has been or is in prison in this country.
Re:Again, we focus on gathering the information (Score:2)
Missing the point? On the contrary, let me quote a single sentence from my original post; So I sure hope someone out there figures out a way to both filter and interprent the information they may gather with this - otherwise it is useless.. Raw data on it's own is nothing but raw data - and pretty much useless.
As far as manufacturing intelligence goes... thats a dangerous business. Take, as you do, the situation with Iraq and WMD. Yes, we know that they have had them in the past. Yes, we know that they ha
Re:Again, we focus on gathering the information (Score:2)
Politicians look a information in terms of relative advantage. Does the information provide a way to reward friends and punish enemies? For example, if a scientist had a record of everyone's beer drinking habits, they would wonder what patterns indicate abuse, moderation, etc..
Power? (Score:3, Insightful)
And why would you want a sensor network in your bedroom? I am thinking they are something like a bunch of small video cameras... No?
Re:Power? (Score:2, Insightful)
In fact, you've hit on the central issue in sensor networks. These sensors normally have a battery on board. Often times the battery is bigger than the rest of the mote. The most expensive operation in terms of battery usage is communication. So
Read David Brin's "The Transparent Society" (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmm (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hmm (Score:2)
Re:Hmm (Score:1)
The real advantage of sensor networks (Score:4, Interesting)
The security issue is a ruse. Security is what is selling today...so it is what you put in ad copy and press releases. It is like the B2B craze...remember when B2B appeared in the investor relation pages for all the dot bombs? Today, you need to have the word security in your ad copy.
Of course, the fact that we are twisting more and more fundamental research into security concerns is itself a cause for concern. It means the applications will not be benign.
I suspect that, when all is said and done, the devices themselves will tend to add more reasons to feel insecure than they will do to add reasons to feel secure. The programs will be used as much for spying as for defense. The result is that the primary use of such networks will be to detect and counter the other sensor networks trying to spy on your sensor networks.
It will be a white-spy black-spy sort a game.
I know how to stop it!! (Score:4, Funny)
2. Salvation (not in the religious sense though.)
See, no ??? part.
Think how great this would be... (Score:5, Insightful)
We could root out all the criminals, misfits, homeless, and other undesirables.
We could create a new service under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security.
We'll call it the S.S., and it can use double lightning bolts for its insignia. Wouldn't that be lovely?
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin
It's about time.... (Score:2)
But then, they'd be able to find me by looking at the ever-moving deadspot on their network.
Next: WLAN sensors (Score:1)
The globalists won't like it (Score:1)
Sensor networks in real life (Score:3, Insightful)
Care not to be overdependent on these (Score:3, Insightful)
However I hope that in the future as our first world societies incorporate these technologies we don't become overly dependent upon them. We're going to become increasingly susceptible to terrorist type attacks in the future and imagine the havoc that could be wrought on a society completely dependent on electronics and nanotech by a few well placed EMP bombs.
Back to the stone ages, Baghdad-style riots, bludgeoning your neighbour to get that last sack of rice and so on.
Wireless Sensor Network Standards (Score:3, Insightful)
I found the article's comment about the need for the NSF to motivate standards in wireless sensor networks to be strange, since the IEEE 802.15.4 standard [ieee802.org] is due to be published any day now (the final draft is alread for sale at the IEEE online store [ieee.org]). The IEEE 802.15.4 standard is designed for low cost, very low power consumption wireless sensor networks; it has a raw over-the-air data rate of 250 kb/s, operates in the unlicensed 2.4 GHz ISM band, and can support peer-to-peer multihop (so-called "mesh") networks with device duty cycles below 3 ppm.
The IEEE 802.15.4 standard is being used by the ZigBee Alliance [zigbee.org], an organization of more than 50 large and small companies, to establish networking and application profile interoperability standards, much like Wi-fi has done with IEEE 802.11. The ZigBee Alliance will have a session open to the public at its next meeting, in Berlin June 3.
The IEEE 1451.5 wireless sensor standard [ieee.org], which will standardize sensor discovery and data formatting, is at an earlier stage of development; proposals are now being presented [ieee.org].
With all this activity, it's not clear to me just what the NSF is expecting to standardize.
Soon to be in YRO (Score:1)
What's good for the goose... (Score:2)