real-time – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Mississippi City Trying To Turn Residents' Doorbell Cameras Into Law Enforcement Surveillance Network

from the Jackson-city-council-just-saying-the-quiet-part-loud dept

The Ring doorbell/camera has become a fixture of American life, thanks in part to Ring’s partnership with law enforcement agencies. In exchange for steering people towards Ring’s snitch app, the company has been giving deeply discounted doorbell cameras to police, who then hand them out to homeowners with the implied assumption homeowners will return the favor by handing footage over to cops any time they ask.

There are millions of cameras out there and Ring-enabled portals for law enforcement officers to request footage. If warrants seem to be too much trouble, Ring lets police know they can always approach the company with a subpoena to access recordings stored in Ring’s cloud.

Some enterprising city legislators are narrowing the gap between cops and homeowners’ cameras. A trial program is underway in Mississippi that would give police direct access to cameras, as Edward Ongweso Jr. reports for Vice. (h/t FourthAmendment.com]

On Tuesday, Jackson, Mississippi’s city council signed off on a 45-day pilot program that would let police access Ring surveillance cameras in real time.

In partnership with technology companies PILEUM and Fūsus, the pilot program will run through the police department’s surveillance hub, the Real Time Crime Center, from which Jackson’s police department can stream Ring surveillance camera footage.

The goal, of course, is to fight crime. But the methods are concerning, to say the least. The expansion of law enforcement’s surveillance network in Jackson co-opts cameras owned by private citizens. The police feel this would be a boon for their “Real Time Crime Center,” allowing them to seamlessly access any footage instantly near scenes of reported crimes. According to the mayor, this is a net win for everyone, but it provides the most benefit to the local government, which won’t have to spend money to purchase more CCTV cameras.

None of this is mandatory. Businesses and private citizens have to sign a waiver to grant the police real-time access to their cameras. But this move towards more pervasive surveillance comes at a strange time for the city, which recently took steps to limit local law enforcement’s access to surveillance tech.

This may come as a surprise to those who remember that just a few months ago, Jackson was the first city in the South to ban police from using facial recognition technology.

That might explain why this surveillance hub isn’t much of a hub at this point. According to Vice’s report, there are only five private participants in this program. As for Ring, it’s distancing itself from this co-opting of its cameras, stating that this isn’t a Ring program and the company has had no participation in this program. And while that may be true in this case, the company hasn’t been shy about pushing cameras on citizens via law enforcement and encouraging law enforcement to lean on recipients for camera footage.

This may not be Ring’s doing, but that’s always been the implicit promise of its hundreds of partnerships with law enforcement agencies: an expanded surveillance network that costs cops almost nothing. It hasn’t always worked out the way Ring suggests it will, but this trial program makes it clear others will step up to create a network of their own if Ring can’t or won’t help out.

Filed Under: doorbells, jackson, law enforcement, mississippi, police, real-time, ring, surveillance
Companies: amazon, fusus, pileum

Peru's New Data Retention Law Gives Police Warrantless Access To Real-Time And Historical Mobile Phone Geolocation Data

from the every-step-you-take,-I'll-be-watching-you dept

Techdirt has written a number of posts about the introduction of data retention laws around the world, as well as about the successful legal challenges that are being brought against them. Here’s another such law, this time from Peru, which has a particularly nasty twist, as the EFF reports:

> The Peruvian President today adopted a legislative decree that will grant the police warrantless access to real time user location data on a 24/7 basis. But that’s not the worst part of the decree: it compels telecom providers to retain, for one year, data on who communicates with whom, for how long, and from where. It also allows the authorities access to the data in real time and online after seven days of the delivery of the court order. Moreover, it compels telecom providers to continue to retain the data for 24 more months in electronic storage. Adding insult to injury, the decree expressly states that location data is excluded from the privacy of communication guaranteed by the Peruvian Constitution.

Of course, as the famous example of Malte Spitz showed in 2011, the stream of geolocation data from a mobile phone provides an incredibly detailed picture of where someone goes, and even what they are doing when cross-referenced with other personal digital information. It’s pretty much equivalent to placing a tracking device on someone.

The EFF post goes on to point out that the move contradicts a variety of human rights obligations that Peru has undertaken to comply with. However, that is unlikely to move the Peruvian authorities much, just as it carries little weight with other countries that have brought in data retention laws. Unfortunately, the underlying problem is deeper than bad laws like Peru’s: it’s that surveillance in general, and blanket data retention in particular, have become normalized around the world. Until that is addressed, it remains a constant battle to challenge the laws that reflect that approach.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: data retention, mobile data, peru, privacy, real-time, warrants

How Would You Improve Image Search On Twitter? Step2 Startups

from the interesting-question dept

We’ve been busy and haven’t had a chance to do a Step2 Startups post in a while. If you don’t recall, this is where startup execs ask you for feedback on something they’re trying to figure out. This time around, a new Twitter image search engine called ThudIT is seeking your feedback on the overall concept. I actually find this to be pretty interesting. We’re all used to things like Google’s image search, but Twitter has become a more and more important platform for realtime images these days. We all know the stories, of course, about breaking news first appearing via mobile phone snapshots on Twitter — things like the airplane that landed in the Hudson River, for example. Having a real-time search for images could be quite useful in a very different context than something like Google image search. ThudIT’s Freddie Wynne provides two examples, one involving a sporting event and another about a conference to demonstrate the basic power of the tool. I could definitely see it coming in handy. But he wants more feedback/advice/suggestions, etc. Feel free to head on over to the thread on Step2 and provide some thoughts.

We’re planning to get back to doing more Step2 Startups posts in the near future, so if you’d like to get feedback on whatever you’re working on, let us know!

Filed Under: image search, real-time, step2 startups
Companies: thudit, twitter

Once Again, Feds Found To Be Abusing Surveillance Procedures With Little Oversight

from the feeling-safer? dept

Every few months it seems that yet another report comes out saying that the various intelligence agencies have abused their powers to spy on people with little (or no) oversight. The latest such report, released thanks to a court battle by the ACLU explains (in heavily redacted terms) that there are still widespread abuses of the process of wiretapping people under the FISA law (though, it may not be quite as bad as in the past). Of course, the specific details are all redacted.

Separately, a Freedom of Information request by Chris Soghoian has turned up how the feds now regularly are tracking real-time info such as credit card transactions (as you make them) without first getting a court order. Apparently, the Justice Department is allowing agents to write their own subpoenas, and the only role a judge plays is in ordering that the surveillance not be disclosed. Once that happens, credit card companies, mobile operators, rental car companies and even retail stores with loyalty cards end up giving the government a direct, real-time feed. So, yes, the government may know about that giant bag of nacho chips you bought at Costco before you even make it home. Obviously, there may be good reasons for the government to want real-time info on certain people that they’re watching but doesn’t it seem a bit strange to avoid having to go to a judge and proving probable cause before being allowed to get that kind of info?

Filed Under: oversight, privacy, real-time, surveillance, warrants, wiretaps

Music In Real Time: Keep Up Or Get Left Behind

from the it-ain't-like-it-used-to-be dept

The Swedish organization Media Evolution is putting on a conference called Moving Images about how the concept of “real time” is impacting the media industry. As a part of that event, they’re running a “blog race,” where different bloggers are writing up a discussion on one aspect of what the conference covers. I’m taking the relay baton from Andreas Ekstrom who wrote about how we are constantly pushing the boundaries of transparency in the real time world, and next week I’m handing the baton off to Bjorn Jeffery at Bonnier R&D, who will be talking about real time in the journalism world.

As for me… I’m talking about it in the context of the music industry. As I started to think about this, I came across a fantastic “must read” blog post from France, that details pretty much everything you need to know about today’s digital landscape for promoting your music. It’s incredibly thorough. I have no idea who wrote it, and the only reason I know about it is because someone sent a Twitter message to me about it — but I can’t even thank them, because whoever did that has since deleted their Twitter account! However, if you’re a musician and you’re doing anything online (and you should be), it’s worth looking through this just to make sure you know what’s out there.

But, what really struck me as I read this is that if you go back a decade almost none of what’s discussed in the article even existed. At all. Most of the services discussed have popped up in the past few years. The digital skills you need to know to be a musician today are changing so rapidly that the service you figure out today might not even exist in a few years — and the hot service next year might not even exist at all today. It’s no surprise that this bothers and worries some people. They worry about how they might need to spend all this time figuring out these online things, rather than making music. That’s a totally understandable reaction. But most musicians are going to need to get over that. Welcome to the new world. And so far, it appears that most of those worries are unfounded.

It’s true that, in the past, the major record labels handled a lot of the marketing side of things — but the cost was super high for musicians. Basically, you gave up all control (and most of the money). And you were basically waiting for a lottery ticket. If the major label decided you were one of a small number of bands it was going to put its monetary muscle behind, then you could break through. If not, you were going to have go back to finding a day job and getting totally bogus royalty statements from a label that’s never going to pay you any money beyond the advance, which all went into recording your album, over which you no longer have any control. Was it worth it? Well, when there were no other options and this was the only shot at success, perhaps.

But these days? All those services that are discussed are the real time music world today. They let anyone route around the old gatekeepers, retain control, and take charge. They allow artists to create, promote, distribute, communicate and inspire — all in real time. You can ignore them if you want, but you do so at your own peril. More and more musicians have been taking charge over their careers and they’re pointing out that musicians who ignore the social networking aspect of the music business only have themselves to blame. It’s not that hard by itself, but it’s part of being successful today in the business.

And, in many ways that’s incredibly exciting. Taking out the need for a middleman gives musicians more control over their own destinies. Yes, they still need to be good and they still need to work hard, but they no longer are at the mercy of a gatekeeper. And it’s opening up all sorts of new possibilities.

Musicians are realizing that the “real time” music industry is a great way to not just build up true fans, but to keep them interested. I was looking recently at a musician I like, and in the last year alone, he actually ended up “releasing” the equivalent of six albums — because he just kept creating music, and releasing it (both digital and CD). I’m guessing that the same people who complain by saying that musicians who do social networking won’t have time to make music will also now complain about this kind of output: saying that if he’s making so many albums, how can he have time for anything else? But, you can’t really have it both ways, can you?

In fact, if you look, it seems like the musicians who are most active on social networks, also seem to be producing a lot more music than those who went the old route (contrary to the claims). They’re realizing that with the barriers for everything getting lower, the “real time” music industry means that they can just keep creating music, releasing it, and building up fans and a true, sustainable business as they go. Social networking in real time doesn’t take away from the ability to create music — it can enhance it.

So, the real time music industry isn’t just about communicating in real time. It’s about doing everything in real time: creating, producing, distributing, marketing, promoting, connecting, performing. Take out the roadblocks and everything becomes a bigger opportunity, and a constant chance to keep connecting with your fans every chance you get. And when you realize that, it’s difficult not to get really excited about what’s coming next for the music industry.

Filed Under: music, music industry, real-time

Even Senators Hated NBC Universal's Olympic Coverage

from the ouch dept

With NBC Universal already under a fair amount of scrutiny by the Senate, as it seeks to merge with Comcast, it seems that it’s antiquated broadcast schedule of the recent Olympics isn’t helping matters. Senator Herb Kohl apparently sent a letter to NBC Universal boss Jeff Zucker, asking him to explain why NBC Universal’s Olympic coverage was so incredibly lame. More specifically, he questioned if NBC’s incredibly restrictive online Olympics video (much more restricted than two years ago at the Beijing summer Olympics) is a preview of “what is to come with respect to TV programming shown on the Internet.”

While it may be a bit of a stretch to connect the two, it does seem like particularly poor timing and bad strategy by NBC Universal officials. Just as they’re trying to convince the Senate (and others) that of course their content will be widely available in a post-merger world, they thought it would make sense to massively restrict the content shown during the Olympics — including requiring viewers to first prove they had cable TV access from certain cable providers? And no one at NBC Universal thought that the loud complaints all over the internet about the ridiculous process and restrictions might wake up someone in the Senate?

Filed Under: coverage, delays, herb kohl, jeff zucker, limitations, merger, olympics, real-time, restrictions
Companies: comcast, nbc universal

NBC's Delayed Telecasts Show A Company Living In The Last Century

from the wow dept

This is just bizarre. As NBC continues its screwed up process of broadcasting the Olympics by delaying the actual telecast of important events until prime time, apparently a bunch of folks are pissed off that real news sources are reporting on what’s actually happened. They’re targeting the wrong thing, of course. If they’re upset that the news is being reported before it’s being shown on TV, the real problem is NBC’s decision not to show stuff live on TV or to webcast it for those who would prefer to see it live. But people are taking out their anger on newspapers who are giving live reports of what’s actually happening:

“Could you please ask the editor of the front Web page to not name the winners within the headlines/sub-headlines?” asked Ken Waters of Phoenix. Matt Gooch of Harrisonburg, Va. said he was disappointed when The Times reported the results of the men’s downhill before NBC showed the event. “This is not Taliban news, nor TARP news, or even Paula Jones type news,” Gooch said. “There is no meaning to this except the anticipation and suspense that sports viewers feel watching the event live. Please help me understand why your organization needs to spoil the experience.”

Other news organizations are hearing similar complaints. Liz Spayd, managing editor of The Washington Post, told a reader who asked for a spoiler alert yesterday that, “It’s an issue we’re trying to evaluate right now.” She said that it’s a tricky question “for a news site whose greatest value is to break news. We don’t want to be the game spoilers, but when big news happens — an unexpected gold for the U.S., for example, we want it prominently visible on the site.”

Thankfully, the NY Times “has no intention of changing its approach,” recognizing that it’s a news organization, rather than a business to prop up NBC’s ridiculous broadcast scheduling choices.

This does highlight a larger issue that I’ve been noticing lately. In our more “real-time” society, especially with things like Facebook and Twitter, the idea that you can hide from “spoilers” is increasingly arcane. Now, for most broadcasters (other than NBC, apparently) this should represent good news: as it will drive more people to watch content live, rather than trying to save it for later, since they’ll want to avoid spoilers ahead of time. In this case, though, NBC has apparently decided that it knows better than to enable such things.

Of course, plenty of people are smart enough to realize just how badly NBC is managing this, falsely believing that people will just sit and wait until NBC decides to show what it wants, rather than letting people actually_follow_ what’s happening. News reports are popping up highlighting how many people are pissed off at NBC for the ridiculous decision to hide live events in a real-time world. With the end result being that NBC’s brand is being dragged through the mud for not understanding how to broadcast a sporting event in a real-time world:

“In the age of DVRs, Hulu, and mobile phone scoreboards, the pointlessness of NBC’s broadcast strategy — Olympics and otherwise — has never been more obvious. People don’t eat dinner during Nightly News then settle in for three hours of prime-time network programming anymore. They want things when they want them, not when NBC wants them.”

NBC’s bizarre reasoning for this is that it wants to put all the “highlight” moments during prime time when it can sell the most advertising. But, apparently no one there thought that perhaps they could show the actual events live and then use prime time for a nice summary of what happened that day at the Olympics. In that way, they might actually get more viewers. If you ever wanted the epitome of a company still living in the last century, it appears to be NBC Universal.

Filed Under: coverage, delays, olympics, real-time
Companies: nbc universal

Online Journalism vs. Print Journalism: Real Time vs. Batch Processing

from the think-about-it dept

Last week, there was a bit of a silly fight over the NY Times publishing an article noting that blogs sometimes publish rumors. I didn’t find the story to be all that bad, actually, as it did a fair job explaining why those blogs publish rumors without confirmation, and how they do it in a reasonable way (i.e., saying it’s a rumor and hasn’t been confirmed). Some felt the article was a hit piece, but on the whole it actually seemed pretty reasonable and accurate. Still, in response to that, Cody Brown (via Jay Rosen) put up a fascinating and thought-provoking writeup comparing online to print journalism — noting that print is “batch processing” while online is “real-time processing” and explaining why this makes it so difficult for print to either understand the value of online journalism, or to keep up with it. To be honest, I think the point was made even clearer in last week’s hilarious Daily Show takedown of the NY Times, where Jason Jones refers to the newspaper as “aged news” and asks Rick Berke, the assistant managing editor to point out a single article in today’s newspaper that “happened today” (at around 3 minutes):

Separately, I should point out that I find it amusing that around 1:45, the video quotes Kristin Mason, the NYT’s communications coordinator, noting that “The NY Times really prides itself on making sure that the information we’re putting out in the newspaper and online is factual. We have editors going through and checking on a variety of sources….”

Fair enough… But what happened on Friday? That’s when the NY Times falsely reported that The Pirate Bay had lost its appeal… and that false story has remained uncorrected at least up until I published this story. It appears that the “pride” the NY Times takes in getting the story right doesn’t necessarily extend to things like The Pirate Bay.

Filed Under: batch processing, fact checking, journalism, online, print, real-time
Companies: ny times

from the it's-coming dept

The history of copyright law is pretty straightforward: basically every time some new technology comes along that shows just how obsolete copyright law is, rather than recognize that fact, entrenched interests warn politicians about how they’ll just die if they don’t get new protections, and another layer of protectionism is slapped onto the law — not (as copyright law intends) for incentives to create new works, but as a policy to protect an old industry. That’s created a house of cards, where copyright law keeps getting stretched and twisted every time it’s adjusted. In 1909 the problem was player pianos. A big part of the reason for changing copyright law in 1909 was the fear that player pianos would destroy the market for sheet music and even (potentially) live performances. So the law was changed… but the player piano soon died. But the copyright law it gave us stuck around. When radio came about, we got changes to copyright law to deal with that. When the internet came about, we got the DMCA. So what’s next? Perhaps the internet’s new big buzzword: “the real-time web.”

We’ve already talked about how it was only a matter of time until someone was sued for “lifecasting.” With video recording and streaming technologies getting cheaper and cheaper, there are a number of services out there that let people broadcast anything they’re doing. For many of them, it’s a lot of fun… but in almost every case, some copyright lawyers could make an argument that it represents copyright infringement. If you are videotaping, and you walk past a TV broadcasting a copyrighted show, some would argue that’s infringement. If you happen to hear some music, that’s infringement. Yes, there may be a fair use defense, but this is hardly a situation where people are going to want to go to court just to defend the fact that they walked past a TV.

In reality, this should (again) demonstrate the silliness of copyright laws right now. The fact that merely walking past a TV while streaming video could be considered a copyright violation should be seen as a joke. It’s legal if I see it with my own eyes, but if I include a virtual eye that lets others see it as well… that’s infringement? Yet, there are already lawsuits over this sort of thing, and Liz Gannes at NewTeeVee has a thoughtful article wondering if copyright holders are going to start complaining that the DMCA is insufficient to deal with these sorts of situations.

As it stands now, the DMCA already goes too far in allowing someone to claim they are a copyright holder and demand a takedown of content they believe is infringing. To retain the DMCA’s safe harbors and avoid potential liability, a site then has to take down the content. This gives copyright holders (or even those who claim to be copyright holders) tremendous power to force content offline for at least a few days. Yet, the fear is that in a “real-time” world, that’s not fast enough. If I’m watching a baseball game, and turn on my camera, by the time MLB or whoever the broadcaster is discovers it and sends out the takedown, the game is already going to be over. They could still sue me and perhaps that acts as a deterrent, but we’ve see how little a deterrent mass lawsuits have had in the music industry.

So what happens next? My guess is that we’ll see some sort of push to change copyright laws again to try to deal with this “problem.” Perhaps even something that would put liability on any company that enables “real-time” streaming. The content companies won’t want the burden of actually changing their business model, so they’ll try to dump the burden of enforcing the old business model on the innovators. Hopefully, though, there are enough folks out there who won’t simply let such a change go through unchallenged.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, life casting, live streaming, real-time, takedown