On Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 3:33 PM Punk-Stasi 2.0 <[1]punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:

     On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 14:59:57 -0400
     Karl <[2]gmkarl@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.

References

   1. mailto:punks@tfwno.gf
   2. mailto:gmkarl@gmail.com