Whether To Design Open Source Public Records Equipment

[Karl]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 3:33 PM Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks at tfwno.gf> wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 14:59:57 -0400
> Karl <gmkarl at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >         well, surveill the authorities all you want. Put a camera in
> every
> > > cop's bathroom...
> > >
> >
> > I mean recording their public presence for accountability as public
> > figures, not violating their pricacy.
>
>         I wasn't being sarcastic. So again, surveill the authorities in
> any way you wish - they don't have any 'right to privacy'. Actually the
> authorities should be beaten to death. They don't have any right all. They
> forfeited their rights long ago,
>

Thanks, sorry, stuck in banter-mode.

> >         But that's very different from 'wearing' some device that
> records
> > > everything around you. That is not surveilling the authorities but
> spying
> > > on everybody within the reach of your cameras.
> > >
> >
> > It sounds like this is dangerous and should be discussed before actually
> > producing.  Are you able to relate around making something that could do
> > that respectful of others?  Maybe we could even influence present-day
> cell
> > phones and digital cameras somehow.
> >
> > It is primarily for when your life is imminently threatened, which is
> > neither all the time nor everywhere and could theoretically be paired
> with
> > a call to 911.
>
>         ....call to what?
>

Another error on my part.  Are you in Russia?  911 is an emergency dispatch
number in USA.  It works on every phone and immediately calls a local
dispatcher who sees your location and sends police, medical, and fire
authorities while talking with you.  Jim mentioned this in his original
proposal.  There'd be no way to prevent other coders from removing such a
possible feature, but most people aren't coders.

>         As a side note of sorts, the argument (just an assertion actually)
> > > that it's ok to record people on 'public property' is exactly govcorp's
> > > 'argument' eh?
> > >
> >
> > The difference is that I like consensus, so it is only okay if
> > _absolutely_everybody_visible_ by it says that it is okay.
>
>
>         That\s good. So it turns out that whetehr it's OK or not to
> surveill people has nothing to do with 'public property' or even 'private
> property' and evenything to do with individual  consent.
>

Sounds reasonable to me.  Your thoughts?
And I'd only want people using guns on citizens or setting their laws to be
people who would consent to that.

> I was trying to
> > mention providing it when it is specifically requested by a community.
> >
> > It sounds like there's value around the device that prevents the
> operation
> > of nearby cameras too.
>
>
>         Indeed. That would be an actual cypherpunk project. The pixel
> clock rate trick is clever, but I doubt it's practical. It can be countered
> by RF shielding of the camera probably.
>

Probably, and coverup noise could be added, the clock jittered, but not
completely nor cheaply nor soon for most cameras, and you can't effectively
shield a lens itself.

You can also amplify signals by adding more antennas or on the receiving
side summing the spectrogram over a long time window, even in time with the
period of the signal like with van eck phreaking, which would actually let
you recover the image the camera is seeing.  Summing over time is how radio
astronomers examine distant nebulas and pulsars.  You can also collect and
send more signal with a well-positioned satellite dish; people even mount
these on stepper motors to cover an area.  But I haven't had opportunity to
learn about and test such things like likely others here have.  You
probably know this all already.

It's probably easier to take out all the electronics with an EMP but that
doesn't need any software, and software is what I'm used to being familiar
with.


>         It would be better to point something like an IR laser at the
> camera and destroy the sensor. Question is, how do to that without getting
> caught?
>

Ask someone already targeted to do it for you?

        What about a microwave beam? Could that fry any unshielded
> electronic device?
>

I'm not prepared for you to ask that; it reminds me of helping people learn
possibly-illegal things and getting in trouble for it.  The word "any" got
me all confused.  Do you mean for cameras?  Do you mean microwave ovens or
microwave signals over 300mhz?  The pixel clocks were under 25mhz, but cpus
obviously go that high.

Maybe I should think more about why you say the things you say, to hold a
better role in a conversation.

>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 6881 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20200612/ea129efc/attachment.txt>