Wikileaks reveals “TrapWire,” a government spy network that uses ordinary surveillance cameras

Wikileaks reveals "TrapWire," a government spy network that uses ordinary surveillance cameras

It's just like an episode of Person of Interest. According to documents leaked on Wikileaks, the government has created a piece of technology, called TrapWire, that siphons data from surveillance cameras in stores, casinos, and other businesses around the country. Apparently agents can use facial recognition software to analyze this footage for, well, people of interest. Are we living in a total surveillance state without even realizing it? Over at Business Insider, David Seaman reports on the contents of the documents at Wikileaks:

Every few seconds, data picked up at surveillance points in major cities and landmarks across the United States are recorded digitally on the spot, then encrypted and instantaneously delivered to a fortified central database center at an undisclosed location to be aggregated with other intelligence. It's part of a program called TrapWire and it's the brainchild of the Abraxas, a Northern Virginia company staffed with elite from America's intelligence community.
The employee roster at Arbaxas reads like a who's who of agents once with the Pentagon, CIA and other government entities according to their public LinkedIn profiles, and the corporation's ties are assumed to go deeper than even documented. The details on Abraxas and, to an even greater extent TrapWire, are scarce, however, and not without reason. For a program touted as a tool to thwart terrorism and monitor activity meant to be under wraps, its understandable that Abraxas would want the program's public presence to be relatively limited. But thanks to last year's hack of the Strategic Forecasting intelligence agency, or Stratfor, all of that is quickly changing."
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17vo...jpg/medium.jpg So: those spooky new "circular" dark globe cameras installed in your neighborhood park, town, or city-they aren't just passively monitoring. They're plugged into Trapwire and they are potentially monitoring every single person via facial recognition.

Currently it's pretty hard to reach Wikileaks to read the papers yourself, because the site has been crushed under an onslaught of DDOS attacks — which, how convenient is that, conspiracy theorists? But you can still see a description of Abraxas' Tripwire technology here, at the USPTO.

I always find it hard to determine this kind of thing as obviously good or bad in itself. People bandy about the word 'Orwellian' but it isn't really. It's not invasion into your thoughts, it's not invasion into your private space, and even if it were it can only be used to prosecute violations of whatever the law is.

What can this technology (as stated) do? It can alert the government to the location of wanted individuals... that doesn't seem like a very bad thing. Basically it's the same as teaching all those shop owners the faces on the most wanted list, except cheaper, more reliable, and less prone to leaks; and that idea doesn't seem very disturbing.

A similar question; what about when neuroscientists develop an infallible method for determining whether somebody is telling the truth? Trials would become pretty much redundant. Correct charges would always lead to imprisonment and there wouldn't be any mistaken punishments... again, seems on the whole like a good thing to me, as long as the legal system is just; the only reason to be worried about it is if you plan on committing a crime.

The problem is that the legal system isn't just. In the US there are plenty of laws that allow the police to arrest pretty much any person, any where at any time.

Yeah I don't disagree.

Of course, in itself it is fantastic. Combined with a power hungry clan, not so great. Especially when they have massive spy centers that accumulate and sort GPS data etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

A similar question; what about when neuroscientists develop an infallible method for determining whether somebody is telling the truth? Trials would become pretty much redundant. Correct charges would always lead to imprisonment and there wouldn't be any mistaken punishments... again, seems on the whole like a good thing to me, as long as the legal system is just; the only reason to be worried about it is if you plan on committing a crime.

---

Wouldn't work if a person genuinely believed they didn't do something or they had no recollection. Trials would still be needed to provide independent evidence.

Another good way to defeat it would be to arbitrarily redefine words in response to a question. If I decide to redefine "murder" to "offer a polite greeting" then I could easily answer the question "Did you murder Mr. Smith" with a legitimate "No", without lying. Even if a specific meaning is given for a term I can still redefine any word within that definition.

Hm. The most recent post on Wikileaks' front page is the Syria Files, from July.

EDIT: ah, this is part of the global intelligence files?

Yep, that's the one ^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

Yep, that's the one ^

---

Oh.

I have an 8 hour car ride coming up. I'll have a look around and let you know what I think. I don't know if any of you guys grabbed that torrent, but it's worth a look see. It's actually really interesting to read through some of those emails, when you realize what you're looking at. One of the few I read all the way through contained some interesting discussion about the Czech Republic and Russia.

I have to start threads on these issues faster. Everyone keeps beating me to them. Lol.

It's probably a problem with the long title of this thread, but this is the only one that I get in e-mail updates that when I click the thread link it doesn't open the browser.

Creepy coincidence?

And sorry O' :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Another good way to defeat it would be to arbitrarily redefine words in response to a question. If I decide to redefine "murder" to "offer a polite greeting" then I could easily answer the question "Did you murder Mr. Smith" with a legitimate "No", without lying. Even if a specific meaning is given for a term I can still redefine any word within that definition.

---

That seems like lying to me. I also question your ability to actually pull this off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Wouldn't work if a person genuinely believed they didn't do something or they had no recollection. Trials would still be needed to provide independent evidence.

---

Well, sure, but that's an extreme minority of cases.

Quote:

---

Another good way to defeat it would be to arbitrarily redefine words in response to a question. If I decide to redefine "murder" to "offer a polite greeting" then I could easily answer the question "Did you murder Mr. Smith" with a legitimate "No", without lying. Even if a specific meaning is given for a term I can still redefine any word within that definition.

---

It's a hypothetical method... nitpicking like this isn't really the point. I define the method such that it can't be tricked like this.

Since we seem to be developing these technologies that allow for an absolute police state, does that seem to be powerful motivation to get rid of goverments that will clearly abuse the power?

Huxley > Orwell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

Huxley > Orwell

---

I think it's absolutely the point, that: more people associating "police state" with Orwell makes it so hard for people to understand/fathom that we really are heading toward a [Huxlean?] police state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

I think it's absolutely the point, that: more people associating "police state" with Orwell makes it so hard for people to understand/fathom that we really are heading toward a [Huxlean?] police state.

---

Paranoia as a means of lethargy, if I didn't know it was of human design I'd start talking nonsense; angels and demons. It's right in front of us all, lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

I think it's absolutely the point, that: more people associating "police state" with Orwell makes it so hard for people to understand/fathom that we really are heading toward a [Huxlean?] police state.

---

There wasn't any police state in Huxley. ._.

Video surveillance = Orwellian.

Yeah, was gonna say the same thing. Huxley never wrote about a police state as far as I know.

Personally, and I think I've said this before, I think we will have a hybrid of the two. Actually, I think we already do have a hybrid of the two. But it will get worse.
Reality TV shows and celebrity gossip are taking care of Huxley's warning, while government spy agencies and some multinational corporations are using 1984 as a guidebook.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

Yeah, was gonna say the same thing. Huxley never wrote about a police state as far as I know.

Personally, and I think I've said this before, I think we will have a hybrid of the two. Actually, I think we already do have a hybrid of the two. But it will get worse.

---

Two parts Huxley, one part Orwell imo. We've devolved into a culture of complacency that isn't quite as numb to it all as Huxley's vision, but just enough so that Orwellian tactics can start being applied without a reaction from the masses.

i so scurrd :[

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

There wasn't any police state in Huxley. ._.

Video surveillance = Orwellian.

---

Excuse me, I should have use quotation marks when I said "police state".

I am speaking about the covert level of control over the population that was displayed in Huxley's book - not the in-your-face, boot-stamping type in 1984. What went on in Brave New World was very much a level of control, brought about by conditioning. It was a system that 'policed itself', through indoctrination. I'm not talking about video surveillance, in this case. I'm talking about the subconscious and manipulative methods of control exerted over a population. Don't forget about what happened in Brave New World, when you 'went off your programming' and started thinking adversely to the system; you were exiled. That is very much a 'police state', and the relation between the two is what Huxley wrote to Orwell about in his letter. They both had visions of the way the government would control and manipulate their people. It is just that they had different visions. What Huxley envisioned was more a 'passively coerced' 'police state' than Orwell's, but they were two sides of the same coin.