[Knack]

Unfortunately, it is, it was and it will always be necessary to spy on people who are suspicious of committing a crime. Proper surveillance has saved uncountable lives.

Years ago, police was using cameras and directional microphones. But as technology evolves, the methods to prevent crime have to envolve as well. To not allow the police to use the same technology as the criminals would actually endanger stability of the society. If you don't agree, have a look at what happened and happens in Africa all the time as an extreme example to what happens it mankind lives without proper regulations.

The key point that needs to be discussed is not whether this kind of technology should be used, it's how and who is allowed to use it. Countries need a proper separation of powers. And the use of surveillance should only under any circumstances be approved by the independed jurisdiction.

Personally, if you can get one pedophile or terrorist I wouldn't care if the whole police of Germany would share my Jena Jameson collection.

[slowpoke]

> Personally, if you can get one pedophile or terrorist I wouldn't care if the whole police of Germany would share my Jena Jameson collection.

In Germany we call this line of "argument" the "Kinderpornokeule" (which roughly translates to "Child Porn Cudgel"). I'm sick and tired of people using it, in addition to - excuse my language - retarded assertions about surveillance and law enforcement, completely unrelated bullshit that's somehow supposed to prove a nonexistent point (Africa? Seriously?) and loads and loads of FUD to make sure nobody can disagree.

To make my point a bit clearer: No amount of "but think of the children", "we need to catch the terrorists" and FUD bullshit bingo will get me to relinquish essential liberties that generations of people fought hard to obtain.

[Confusion]

  Proper surveillance has saved uncountable lives.

I hate to do this, but: citation needed. All the camera's in London have done nothing to reduce crime or increase the amount of crimes solved.

[anon1385]

I hate to do this, but I downvoted you because you demand evidence for one sweeping generalisation, and then proceed in the very next sentence to make a broad sweeping generalisation without providing any evidence.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but if you are going to be confrontational then at least try not to be so blatantly hypocritical.

[Confusion]

Well, I thought that fact was well known. It has been extensively covered by the media. [1][2][3]

[1] http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/05/londons_camera...

[2] http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-25/opinion/schneier.security...

[3] http://www.google.nl/search?q=london+cameras+reduce+crime

[anon1385]

Well, I thought that fact was well known.

"Well knows" facts are usually anything but, and no doubt the original poster also though that "Proper surveillance has saved uncountable lives" was also a well known fact.

Those are pretty poor citations ( CNN or Bruce Schneier's personal blog are hardly reliable resources for criminology research). Most of it seems to be based on the statements of a single police officer. Schneier cites him as an authority when he agrees with him, but ignores him when he says things Schneier doesn't like . For example:

More training was needed for officers, [Detective Chief Inspector Mick Neville] said. Often they do not want to find CCTV images "because it's hard work"

Whereas Schneier states:

The solution isn't for police to watch the cameras more diligently

It's worth noting that this officer seems to be trying to get support for increased funding for his department, so his remarks need to be taken in that context.

As I said before I don't disagree with you that CCTV is probably a waste of money, but that it has done "nothing" to decrease or help solve crimes is not what studies have found. There also seems to be a large geographical/cultural factor.

http://ann.sagepub.com/content/587/1/110.short

Effects of Closed-Circuit Television on Crime

This article reports on the findings of a systematic review--incorporating meta-analytic techniques--of the available research evidence on the effects of closed-circuit television (CCTV) on crime in public space. A number of targeted and comprehensive searches of the published and unpublished literature and contacts with leading researchers produced twenty-two CCTV evaluations that met our criteria for inclusion in this review. CCTV had a significant desirable effect on crime, although the overall reduction in crime was a rather small 4 percent. All nine studies showing evidence of a desirable effect of CCTV on crime were carried out in the United Kingdom. Conversely, the other nine studies showing no evidence of any desirable effect of CCTV on crime included all five North American studies. CCTV was most effective in reducing crime in car parks. It had no effect on violent crimes but had a significant desirable effect on vehicle crimes.

Crime reduction is also not the only possible effect of CCTV: http://eab.sagepub.com/content/41/1/60.abstract

The Eye of the Camera Effects of Security Cameras on Prosocial Behavior

This study addresses the effects of security cameras on prosocial behavior. Results from previous studies indicate that the presence of others can trigger helping behavior, arising from the need for approval of others. Extending these findings, the authors propose that security cameras can likewise trigger such approval-seeking behaviors by implying the presence of a watchful eye. Because people vary in the extent to which they strive for others' approval, it was expected that the effects of security cameras on prosocial behavior vary with participants' need for approval. To test these predictions, an experimental study was conducted with “presence of security camera” and “need for approval” as independent variables. Results showed that participants indeed offered more help in the presence of a security camera but only to the extent that this helping involved public or observable behavior. As expected, this effect was more pronounced for individuals high in need for approval. Practical implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Now of course there is a question about whether we should be trying to manipulate people in these ways, and whether it is worth it given the costs (reduction in freedom, financial, potential for abuse etc), but I don't think we can have that debate unless we at least attempt to find out what the impacts on crime are (rather than just cherry picking like Schneier does). You can make the argument that the impact on crime is irrelevant; the cost of reduced freedom is just too great. That's a fine argument, but some people seem reluctant to actually make it, instead hiding behind vague and unsubstantiated arguments about crime rates (crime statistics are notoriously unreliable and open to manipulation).

Anyway, we are getting waaaaay off-topic here.

[salvadors]

  Personally, if you can get one pedophile or terrorist I
  wouldn't care if the whole police of Germany would share my
  Jena Jameson collection.

But what else are you willing to sacrifice to allow that? If you placed everyone under permanent house arrest you'd eliminate almost all crime. So why not do that?

[raphman]

Even the CCC agrees that wiretapping is necessary for catching criminals. They actually warned the police about the upcoming disclosure so that running investigations would not be jeopardized.

The issue here is that this malware obviously exceeds the limits that the German Federal Constitutional Court explicitly set for such tools.

For example, anyone can upload and run arbitrary files on the victim's computer - prosecutors but also anyone who knows the computer's IP address. This allows tampering with evidence.

Additionally, not only actual communication is captured but everything you do in a browser window, e.g., writing your diary on Google Docs. Obtaining such information would legally require a search warrant. This means that police can escalate their privileges without judicial oversight.

And finally, all captured information is sent to a server in the USA, clearly outside of German jurisdiction. Weakly encrypted. Together with the previously mentioned problems, this would allow the USA to ask the German police to monitor a suspected terrorist, then siphon off the wiretapping results and even place incriminating data on the victim's computer. Of course, the CIA would never do such a thing.

The question here is not whether the police may use wiretaps, the question is whether the police [1] may systematically break the law and lie to the public and courts about what they actually can do.

[1] of course, the police in this context means only certain representatives and departments.