Amsterdam replacing Chinese CCTV and traffic cameras over spying, human rights | Hacker News Reader

Amsterdam replacing Chinese CCTV and traffic cameras over spying, human rights

nltimes.nl

37 pointsTechTechTech11 comments

So cameras that are used to spy on people are going to be replaced because someone might be spying along? :)

Surveillance is bad, but let's not pretend that all surveillance is equal.

It's much less harmful to be transparently, legally surveilled by your local democratic govt than to be secretly surveilled by an antagonistic authoritarian government in another country.

> Surveillance is bad, but let's not pretend that all surveillance is equal.

Of course not. When it is comming from the rulling party, it is a gift.

> transparently, legally surveilled

Adjectives like these are basically content-free until we get a handle on the disposition of surveillance data.

To pose an example, I'd like to know that the video from inside my nearby shopping center is wiped after 72 hours (barring a warrant), and provably so. That would mean computer code available for audit, and surveillance equipment (including on-device storage and no feed off-device) with tamper resistance and seals and checksums and all that. For all surveillance equipment surveilling public areas.

transparently: Government surveillance in Amsterdam is not done secretly.

legally: The citizens of Amsterdam have not chosen to elect officials who would make surveillance illegal in the city.

Your example is not the same context we're discussing here because it's on private property.

But even if it were, the freedom from surveillance that you describe is impossible, unrealistic, and not even precedented. Even before motion photography, there were people like the Pinkertons stalking private citizens and surveilling them for nefarious actors and debt collectors.

I meant for my example to include public areas too, like ordinary streets and squares. My error.

Odd that you mention Pinkerton. Certainly surveillance has been with us forever. But nowadays the threat is from systems like those of China, where 24/7 face ID can in principle track individuals from door to door. This is the kind of threat scenario where I would like to see surveillance of public areas put on a leash.

EDIT: To quote Apple from another context, "Security and privacy guarantees are strongest when they are entirely technically enforceable, which means it must be possible to constrain and analyze all the components that critically contribute to the guarantees of the overall [system]."

TFA makes the vague claim that the devices call home, but yes it seems all this is under false pretences. e.g., concerns about the Uyghurs but then just finding another source of slave labor to build their surveillance devices

> Instead, the coalition government including the mayor and aldermen want to adopt new contract conditions including criteria regarding human rights when purchasing camera systems.

> It is expected that all current Chinese cameras in use in Amsterdam will be replaced at lower costs within five years.

So that’s the same to you? If somebody else has unauthorized access to security cameras, it’s okay because they are for surveillance?

They're saying legal surveillance is also spying.

"The municipality is not going to immediately replace all Chinese cameras because of the high costs involved. Instead, the coalition government including the mayor and aldermen want to adopt new contract conditions including criteria regarding human rights when purchasing camera systems."

Isn't it possible to force these devices only call a fixed IP address? Same thing for phones: why are these devices allowed to call back arbitrary IP addresses without the owner's control?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com