Privacy and civil rights groups warn against rapidly growing mass-surveillance network

Jimmy2x

Posts: 239   +29
Staff
A hot potato: Fusus is a surveillance platform integrating public and private cameras into an accessible, cloud-based surveillance network. Law enforcement organizations tout the technology as an essential expansion of monitoring capabilities by creating a real-time crime lab. However, privacy advocates and civil rights watchdogs see it as a threat to the Fourth Amendment and a high-risk cybersecurity target full of personally identifiable information.

Fusus is designed to provide law enforcement organizations (LEO) and other public safety institutions access to accurate, relevant information via a cloud-based network of authorized video monitoring assets. The company claims the platform "enhances all public safety and investigations assets for law enforcement, first responders, and private security personnel." The system began rolling out in several small participating cities and organizations in 2019, later expanding to a footprint of more than 33,000 supported cameras in more than 60 cities and counties nationwide.

Law enforcement and public safety professionals say the system gives them much-needed access to real-time incidents, allowing faster response times and decreased criminal activity without risking the safety of local contributors. For example, businesses and other organizations regularly receiving requests to review video footage for investigative purposes can choose to deploy specific hardware devices, known as FususCores, to their network. Once deployed, these devices make it possible to include the owner's cameras in the area's more extensive Fusus network.

The system then adds authorized camera feeds to FususOne, a map-based interface that combines all access points into a single feed. Access to this aggregated dashboard and its tools saves law enforcement and other first responders valuable time by directly accessing the cameras and information rather than going to the site and requesting permission to review the video.

The company says police and other officials do not have unfettered reign over the camera streams. The system relies on policy-based conditional access, which gives camera owners the final say regarding whether or not to grant or deny access to their camera streams. Fusus and its clients claim this makes the system a low-risk but high-return tool for expanding monitoring activities.

Opponents argue the platform creates a supersized network of cameras and personal data, increasing the potential for abuse and misuse. The Triad Abolition Project's Nia Sadler cites the potential for over-policing areas already receiving increased attention and potentially (and unfairly) targeting minority groups, protestors, or others based on demographics or affiliations.

Albert Fox Cahn, founder of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (S.T.O.P.) in New York, believes Fusus creates many privacy and civil rights concerns to consider before implementation.

"Fusus takes surveillance tools that are constitutional on their own, and aggregates them into the kind of persistence tracking that is blatantly unconstitutional (when used by government bodies)," Cahn told Reuters.

From a technical standpoint, the amount of data aggregated in Fusus and the number of users accessing it raises concerns. The potential for exploiting connections to thousands of disparate feeds could make the technology a prime target for hackers looking to sow chaos or obtain unauthorized access to available personal or business information. If there's one thing we've learned about cloud-based technologies – nothing is ever truly safe.

Permalink to story.

 
The problem isn't so much the surveillance but how law enforcement and the courts are using it. The laws have not caught up but when they do all but the most egregious crimes should be prohibited from using it, at all, and any one, group, agency, etc. that does so should be arrested and charged with a 1st class Felony, NO EXCEPTIONS. Only the stiffest penalties will result in change.
 
Welcome to Orwellian corporate capitalism surveillance dictatorship.
Western media have "complained" often about Chinese surveillance as being dangerous, now they promote surveillance as being useful and good.
This kind of surveillance is bad, regardless who is doing it, because it does not have the mandatory check-in mechanism and regulations to not being abused.
On the contrary the governs all over the world, regardless of political system, are embracing it as a tool to control people and enforce them to obey whatever they like to rules as a "being law".
And who has the most success in making, promoting and "lobbying" the laws? You guessed it, corporations and the richest actors in the state. Even if tools like this may have some positive, they will be hijacked and skewed by these bad actors.
Instead we better start to use these kind of surveillance tools to check the corporations and the richest actors. Doing so, definetely will make them to pay their taxes like anybody else, not with exceptions or hiding them in heaven tax states, or exporting their profit over the countries.

Check here about Fusus and let's begin using Fusus to surveil their execs first, to see how their response will be.

Fusus CEO is a former military.
 
Last edited:
Privacy, if it ever existed was a very long time ago. Governments will do whatever they feel is needed. No one is going to stop them. If they want info they will get it or find away to get it. It's just that simple for them.

Private companies will do the same. Nothing is out of reach when you have the finances or means to get whatever you need.
 
The problem isn't so much the surveillance but how law enforcement and the courts are using it. The laws have not caught up but when they do all but the most egregious crimes should be prohibited from using it, at all, and any one, group, agency, etc. that does so should be arrested and charged with a 1st class Felony, NO EXCEPTIONS. Only the stiffest penalties will result in change.
No. They both are a problem.

The surveillance is too great a temptation and new laws won’t change that.
 
I've seen the show Person of Interest. Coupled with AI that companies are pushing more and more.....pretty soon Samaritan will be online and monitoring your every move.
 
Always safer, less crime, less terrorists, its just the few steps forward towards a goverment with a big brother style is watching you.

Dutch intelligence is pretty much tapping in the root cables coming and passing through Holland. Any digital communication, is at risk here.

I just live with the idea that everything I do wether it's from my PC, mobile or whatever, someone can listen to it. There's no such thing as privacy.

 
I'll go against the grain here and say I'm for it. Where I live (big city but quiet road and fairly large houses) we get a few crazies speeding at 3 or 4 x the speed limit, we also get trucks dumping rubbish at the side of the road and, a little more personally, I've been burgled 8 times now. Cameras would stop all this immediately.

At the moment we have various people in the neighbourhood with cameras but the police have to knock on doors to see any footage. This means most issues don't go investigated because it takes too much man power to chase up. Being able to enter a quick search for dump trucks on such and such a road at a given time would stop rubbish dumping immediately. Excessive speeding would also stop pretty quickly. I know some folks would cry about losing (your interpretation) of the fourth amendment but the delivery rider who got killed outside my home by a speeding driver would probably be OK with that.

I can see the upsides of doing this quite easily but I find it difficult picturing the exact downsides. Sure, I'd be recorded as I move about my neighbourhood and that video would be stored for a short period unless a crime has been committed. I don't think I'd really care if the net result is less crime. Your mobile phone already gives a fairly accurate record of your movements. The only real issue I see is whether the video can be used as evidence in court against people.
 
I'll go against the grain here and say I'm for it. Where I live (big city but quiet road and fairly large houses) we get a few crazies speeding at 3 or 4 x the speed limit, we also get trucks dumping rubbish at the side of the road and, a little more personally, I've been burgled 8 times now. Cameras would stop all this immediately.

At the moment we have various people in the neighbourhood with cameras but the police have to knock on doors to see any footage. This means most issues don't go investigated because it takes too much man power to chase up. Being able to enter a quick search for dump trucks on such and such a road at a given time would stop rubbish dumping immediately. Excessive speeding would also stop pretty quickly. I know some folks would cry about losing (your interpretation) of the fourth amendment but the delivery rider who got killed outside my home by a speeding driver would probably be OK with that.

I can see the upsides of doing this quite easily but I find it difficult picturing the exact downsides. Sure, I'd be recorded as I move about my neighbourhood and that video would be stored for a short period unless a crime has been committed. I don't think I'd really care if the net result is less crime. Your mobile phone already gives a fairly accurate record of your movements. The only real issue I see is whether the video can be used as evidence in court against people.

If you think having cameras constantly on will "stop all this immediately", you're sorely mistaken.

People that do crime, many of them are just dumb as F. Don't you pay attention to those that actually video tape themselves and post it on social media? They video tape themselves and post it for everyone to see! How F'ing stupid are they? Or clearly, they just don't care they're being video taped.

Have you ever seen video clips of someone being told they are being video taped and they still don't care and still act out against the law and when cops show up that same person denies their actions?

Most people are stupid. This is obvious when you have those extreme leftists and extreme rightists believing anything and everything they're told without even thinking for themselves. The stupid keep the wicked in power and if you ask me, the stupid will be the ones that want a system like this in the hands of any kind of group with power over them. While the idea may have good intentions, it's not going to end that way.
 
Back