London to send satellite into space

[Firecat]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070326...s_070326183809

We all know this is a front for Torchwood. Anyway....

London is planning to invest in sending a satellite into space to cut out the need for mobile phone masts and possibly monitor motorists from space, local authorities confirmed Monday.

Is that a legitimate concern?

[BlaRo]

At this rate, why don't they just set every car in the country on fire?

[zenkidori]

who wants to bet it takes with it a camera or two?

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by zenkidori

who wants to bet it takes with it a camera or two?

They'd want to get their moneys worth no doubt. It's just funny to see the debate turn to motorists, instead of other privacy concerns.

[Blind_Io]

I would make a snarky comment, but I'm sure the NSA already has a dozen birds in the sky for domestic espionage. Hell, a few years ago I saw a formation of three satellites flying together in the sky - I forget the name of that cluster but it is a series of spy satellites that are designed to work together.

Damn, now that is going to bug me all night. What the hell are those things called!?

[zenkidori]

all i have to say about that is amateur rocketry FTW

[jetsetter]

Britain has more surveillance cameras per square mile than any other country on Earth I believe.

[Cobol74]

I am hoping that Red Ken is the astronaught - byeeeee Ken.

[ruuman]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

Britain has more surveillance cameras per square mile than any other country on Earth I believe.

I was reading about that fact the other day, I'm not going to deny we have a lot of camera's, but depending on the source that number varies a lot.

For instance, the favourite figure 1 camera to every 14 people (4.8 million camera's) was estimated by taking the number of cameras in one of the busiest streets in London and then applying that situation to the whole country!!!

Another of the estimates includes privately owned camera's in shops and stores. Seeing as pretty much every store in Britain has a camera system of some sort (probably an insurance requirement) this is completely over the top too.

Plus the whole of our major roads network has camera's on it to check for accidents and the like.

I have yet to see an honest total firgure for government run/sponsored surveillance camera's.

I used to have a problem with the amount of camera's, but after my sister has been saved twice by them I'm in two minds about it.

[zenkidori]

well Los Angeles has microphones placed around the city, that's kinda disturbing.

[jetsetter]

Originally Posted by zenkidori

well Los Angeles has microphones placed around the city, that's kinda disturbing.

Not really if you know how they are used. It is called the ShotSpotter system and it uses microphones to detect gun shots and identify where they came from. The microphones can't be used for surveillance purposes because they are played high on the top of buildings. The system was been quite helpful in Oakland and Washington D.C..

[zenkidori]

that's how they are supposed to be used. I don't know what kind of provisions there are to stop abuse of such a system, and that's my main objection to any public surveillance system. If there is a legal framework in place to ensure that the systems are only used for legitimate purposes and there is a legal oversight and warrants required(not rubber stamps either) then most things I don't have too much of a problem with. But if there is no oversight and the branch running it is just saying, "trust us", well that I have a problem with, because it just never works out.

[jetsetter]

Originally Posted by zenkidori

that's how they are supposed to be used. I don't know what kind of provisions there are to stop abuse of such a system, and that's my main objection to any public surveillance system. If there is a legal framework in place to ensure that the systems are only used for legitimate purposes and there is a legal oversight and warrants required(not rubber stamps either) then most things I don't have too much of a problem with. But if there is no oversight and the branch running it is just saying, "trust us", well that I have a problem with, because it just never works out.

As I said before, to hear gunshots the microphones have to be placed high up on buildings, places in which they can't hear anything else. Go do some research.

[zenkidori]

go do some research yourself, into microphones. some mics these days are quite good at picking up sounds from a distance, and have you ever been on the top of a building and looked down? many times you can pick out conversations. A lot of these mics aren't on high rises, but smaller 2-10 story buildings. When I'm out on the balcony at my grandma's, 17 stories up in the air, I can pick out conversations on the streets and alleys below. imagine what I could do with a long distance mic.

[jetsetter]

Originally Posted by zenkidori

go do some research yourself, into microphones. some mics these days are quite good at picking up sounds from a distance, and have you ever been on the top of a building and looked down? many times you can pick out conversations. A lot of these mics aren't on high rises, but smaller 2-10 story buildings. When I'm out on the balcony at my grandma's, 17 stories up in the air, I can pick out conversations on the streets and alleys below. imagine what I could do with a long distance mic.

What about my privacy?
ShotSpotter is committed to preserving privacy rights. ShotSpotter systems do not trigger on human speech or other non-threatening sounds. Furthermore, our sensors render human speech unintelligible at distances greater than 20 feet away from our sensors, and therefore even if someone were to be speaking coincidentally at the same time as a gunshot is detected (hence triggering the system), the system would likely only record the sound of the voice, while the words themselves would remain garbled. What about people standing less than 20 feet away from the sensor? Remember that ShotSpotter sensors are deployed on rooftops, telephone poles or in other restricted-access locations. Locations are specifically chosen to avoid the possibility of people or conversations being overheard.

Isn’t this “Big Brother”?
With all due respect to Mr. Orwell, gunshot location systems are not intended or used to spy on our citizens. (See the answer immediately preceding for details on how ShotSpotter does not trigger on noises which do not sound like gunfire.) In cities in which ShotSpotter is deployed, it is illegal to discharge a firearm except on a certified shooting range or under other controlled circumstances. Thus, anyone who does fire a gun has broken the law, and it is our position—with which district attorneys, police and civil rights groups agree—that firing a weapon illegally within city limits creates a significant threat to public safety and therefore warrants the detection of the event, investigation of its perpetrators, and possible indictment of suspects.

http://www.shotspotter.com/products/faq.html#question4

[Firecat]

Not that I really care, but is that the only possible way they can work? One can't simply flip a switch and turn the mic live....?

[jetsetter]

Originally Posted by Firecat

Not that I really care, but is that the only possible way they can work? One can't simply flip a switch and turn the mic live....?

Even if you did you really couldn't pick all that much up. Their position makes them ideal to pick up gun shots but not much else. Read the article.

[AnGuRuSO]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

Britain has more surveillance cameras per square mile than any other country on Earth I believe.

I think that's government surveillance cameras.

[AnGuRuSO]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

Read the article.

oooooh no! What have you said! Are you suggesting the great firecat hasn't been reading all these articles?

[jetsetter]

Originally Posted by AnGuRuSO

I think that's government surveillance cameras.

I know, that's what is worrying.