Surveillance

[coffin_dodger]

The second operating system hiding in every mobile phone
Thom Holwerda OSNews Tue 12th Nov 2013

I've always known this, and I'm sure most of you do too, but we never really talk about it. Every smartphone or other device with mobile communications capability (e.g. 3G or LTE) actually runs not one, but two operating systems. Aside from the operating system that we as end-users see (Android, iOS, PalmOS), it also runs a small operating system that manages everything related to radio. Since this functionality is highly timing-dependent, a real-time operating system is required.

This operating system is stored in firmware, and runs on the baseband processor. As far as I know, this baseband RTOS is always entirely proprietary. For instance, the RTOS inside Qualcomm baseband processors (in this specific case, the MSM6280) is called AMSS, built upon their own proprietary REX kernel, and is made up of 69 concurrent tasks, handling everything from USB to GPS. It runs on an ARMv5 processor.

The problem here is clear: these baseband processors and the proprietary, closed software they run are poorly understood, as there's no proper peer review. This is actually kind of weird, considering just how important these little bits of software are to the functioning of a modern communication device. You may think these baseband RTOS' are safe and secure, but that's not exactly the case. You may have the most secure mobile operating system in the world, but you're still running a second operating system that is poorly understood, poorly documented, proprietary, and all you have to go on are Qualcomm's Infineon's, and others' blue eyes.

cont: http://www.osnews.com/story/27416/The_second_operating_system_hiding_in_every_mobile_phone

[Allegro]

RESOURCE

The original page was last modified on 29 December 2013 at 14:17. Many links in original.

_________________

WIKI | Tailored Access Operations (TAO) is a cyber-warfare intelligence-gathering unit of the National Security Agency (NSA). TAO identifies, monitors, infiltrates, and gathers intelligence on computer systems being used by entities foreign to the United States.[1][2][3][4] Sean Gallagher of ArsTechnica describes how TAO functions are integrated into analytic software such as XKeyscore[5]

In an anonymous interview with Bloomberg Businessweek, former US officials stated the unit uses automated hacking software to harvest approximately two petabytes of data per hour which is largely processed automatically.[3]

A leaked document describing the unit’s work says that TAO has software templates allowing it break into commonly used hardware, including “routers, switches and firewalls from multiple product vendor lines”.[6] According to The Washington Post, TAO engineers prefer to tap networks rather than isolated computers, because there are typically many devices on a single network.[6]

[Allegro]

RESOURCE

The page of origin was last modified on 29 December 2013 at 14:32. Many links in original.

_________________

WIKI introduction | Ongoing news reports in the international media have revealed operational details about the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and its international partners’ global surveillance[1] of foreign nationals and U.S. citizens. The vast majority of reports emanated from a cache of top secret documents leaked by ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden. On June 6, 2013, the first of Snowden’s documents were published simultaneously by The Washington Post and The Guardian, attracting considerable public attention.[2] The disclosure continued throughout the entire year of 2013, and a significant portion of the full cache of 1.5 million documents[3] was later obtained and published by many other media outlets worldwide, most notably the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Australia), O Globo (Brazil), the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Canada), Le Monde (France), Der Spiegel (Germany), L’espresso (Italy), NRC Handelsblad (the Netherlands), Dagbladet (Norway), El País (Spain), Sveriges Television (Sweden), and The New York Times (USA).[4]

In summary, these media reports have shed light on the implications of several secret treaties signed by members of the UKUSA Agreement in their efforts to implement global surveillance. For example, Der Spiegel revealed how the German Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) transfers “massive amounts of intercepted data to the NSA”,[5] while Sveriges Television revealed that the Försvarets radioanstalt (FRA) of Sweden is continuously providing the NSA with intercepted data gathered from telecom cables, under a secret treaty signed in 1954 for bilateral cooperation on surveillance.[6] Other security and intelligence agencies involved in the practice of global surveillance include those in Australia (ASD), Britain (GCHQ), Canada (CSEC), Denmark (PET), France (DGSE), Germany (BND), Italy (AISE), the Netherlands (AIVD), Norway (NIS), Spain (CNI), Switzerland (NDB), as well as Israel (ISNU), which receives raw, unfiltered data of U.S. citizens that is shared by the NSA.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]

The disclosure provided impetus for the creation of social movements against mass surveillance, such as Restore the Fourth. Domestic spying programs in countries such as France, the UK, and India have also been exposed. On the legal front, the Electronic Frontier Foundation joined a coalition of diverse groups filing suit against the NSA. Several human rights organizations have urged the Obama administration not to prosecute, but protect, “whistleblower Snowden”: Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Transparency International, and the Index on Censorship, inter alia.[15][16][17][18]

On June 14, 2013, United States prosecutors charged Edward Snowden with espionage and theft of government property.[19] In late July 2013, he was granted asylum by the Russian government,[20] contributing to a deterioration of Russia–United States relations.[21][22] On August 6, 2013, President Obama made a public appearance on national television where he reassured Americans that “We don’t have a domestic spying program” and “There is no spying on Americans”.[23] Towards the end of October 2013, the British Prime Minister David Cameron warned The Guardian not to publish any more leaks, or it will receive a DA-Notice.[24] Currently, a criminal investigation of the disclosure is being undertaken by Britain’s Metropolitan Police Service.[25] In December 2013, The Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger said: “We have published I think 26 documents so far out of the 58,000 we’ve seen.”[26]

[elfismiles]

Ford Exec: ‘We Know Everyone Who Breaks The Law’ Thanks To Our GPS In Your Car
JIM EDWARDS
Business Insider
January 9, 2014

Ford’s Global VP/Marketing and Sales, Jim Farley, said something both sinister and obvious during a panel discussion about data privacy today at CES, the big electronics trade show in Las Vegas.


Image: Jim Farley (YouTube).

Because of the GPS units installed in Ford vehicles, Ford knows when its drivers are speeding, and where they are while they’re doing it.

Farley was trying to describe how much data Ford has on its customers, and illustrate the fact that the company uses very little of it in order to avoid raising privacy concerns: “We know everyone who breaks the law, we know when you’re doing it. We have GPS in your car, so we know what you’re doing. By the way, we don’t supply that data to anyone,” he told attendees.

Rather, he said, he imagined a day when the data might be used anonymously and in aggregate to help other marketers with traffic related problems. Suppose a stadium is holding an event; knowing how much traffic is making its way toward the arena might help the venue change its parking lot resources accordingly, he said.

http://www.infowars.com/ford-exec-we-kn ... -your-car/

Because the agenda at work is the implementation of the tracking and taxation grid.

They want to make it mandatory for all cars to have black boxes to track and tax our asses.

EDIT: here is another new angle on the computerization of private transportation...

California To Start Electronic License Plate Pilot Program
Thursday, October 24, 2013
http://thenewspaper.com/news/42/4242.asp

Branson reports the U.S. Department of Transportation is working with car manufacturers like GM and others to improve security measures.


http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/11/ ... -hastings/

Why not just stop making cars with fucking COMPUTERS in them? WHY does a car have to have a computer?

They don't.

Somebody needs to make cars without them. I would buy one (if I had money, which I never do)

[elfismiles]

http://vimeo.com/87564506

Artists Create Street Light That Monitors Conversations, But It Already Exists For Real
What was meant as a creative warning about surveillance is already really in use on the streets of America
Steve Watson / Infowars.com / April 24, 2014
http://www.infowars.com/artists-create- ... -for-real/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs8upeQymNM

[elfismiles]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLWLL7khOn8

[Elvis]

"I don't care about them, we're the police."

Gawd, watching that makes me tense. I'm rather surprised they didn't taze him.

[Hammer of Los]

...
I have proven to my own satisfaction many times that I am under surveillance, by knowns and unknowns.

I believe I am bugged.

Yes.

That is why I was so keen to contact those who were surveilling me.

It's a long story.

But I sure as hell ain't crazy.
...

[elfismiles]

Court Rules No Fly List Process Is Unconstitutional and Must Be Reformed
Court Orders Government to Give Plaintiffs in ACLU Lawsuit a Chance to Clear Their Names
June 24, 2014
https://www.aclu.org/national-security/ ... e-reformed

FBI Plans to Have 52 Million Photos in its NGI Face Recognition Database by Next Year
April 14, 2014 | By Jennifer Lynch
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/f ... -next-year



http://privacycoalition.org/Ltr-to-Revi ... rogram.pdf

June 24, 2014

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
United States Attorney General
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530

Re: FBI Next Generation Identification System (NGI)

Dear Attorney General Holder,
We write today to urge the Department of Justice (DOJ) to quickly complete an updated Privacy
Impact Assessment (PIA) for the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Next Generation
Identification System (NGI) as part of a broader effort to examine the goals and impact of NGI.
The previous PIA on NGI’s face recognition component dates back to 2008.1 Since that time the
program has undergone a radical transformation—one that raises serious privacy and civil
liberties concerns.
The FBI recognizes this transformation and, at a July 2012 Senate hearing, committed to
updating its privacy assessment of the agency’s use of facial recognition.2 Jerome Pender,
Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Service Division, stated in
his statement for the record that “[a]n updated PIA is planned and will address all evolutionary
changes since the preparation of the 2008 IPS PIA.”3 Furthermore, Assistant Director Pender
said the updated privacy assessment would have “an emphasis on Facial Recognition.”4 Nearly
two years later an updated privacy assessment has not been completed.5
PIAs are an important check against the encroachment on privacy by the government. They
allow the public to see how new programs and technology utilized by the government affect their
privacy and assess whether the government has done enough to mitigate the privacy risks. As the
DOJ’s own guidelines on PIAs explains, “[t]he PIA also gives the public notice of this analysis
and helps promote trust between the public and the Department by increasing transparency of the
Department's systems and missions.”6
The PIA, as the DOJ’s guidelines state, is not optional:
A PIA is an analysis required by the E-Government Act of how information in
identifiable form is handled to ensure compliance with applicable legal,
regulatory, and policy requirements regarding privacy, to determine the risks and
effects of collecting, maintaining, and disseminating such information in an
electronic information system, and to examine and evaluate protections and
alternative processes for handling information to mitigate potential privacy risks.7
Additionally, PIAs should be conducted during the development of any new system “with
sufficient lead time to permit final Departmental approval and public website posting on or
before the commencement of any system operation (including before any testing or piloting.)”8
The FBI’s NGI program has instituted multiple pilots using biometric identifiers including facial
recognition and iris recognition without completing a proper privacy assessment.9 And despite
the fact that FBI has so far failed to produce a PIA for NGI, the Bureau has stated it plans for
NGI’s face recognition component “to be at Full Operating Capacity (FOC) in fiscal year
2014.”10
The capacity of the FBI to collect and retain information, even on innocent Americans, has
grown exponentially. It is essential for the American public to have a complete picture of all the
programs and authorities the FBI uses to track our daily lives, and an understanding of how those
programs affect our civil rights and civil liberties.
The FBI’s NGI system is a massive biometric database that includes iris scans, palm prints, and
face recognition. NGI builds on the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System, the
FBI’s legacy fingerprint database, which already contains well over 100 million individual
records—equal to nearly one third of the U.S. population.11 NGI combines these biometric data
in each individual’s file, linking them to personal and biographic information like name, home
address, ID number, immigration status, age, race, etc. This immense database is shared with
other federal agencies and with the approximately 18,000 tribal, state and local law enforcement
agencies across the United States.

The facial recognition component of NGI poses real threats to privacy for all Americans, and
could, in the future, allow us to be monitored and tracked in unprecedented ways.12 NGI will
include criminal and non-criminal photos, and the FBI projects that by 2015, the database could
include as many as 52 million face images.13 4.3 million of those would be taken for noncriminal
purposes, such as employer background checks. It appears FBI plans to include these
non-criminal images every time a law enforcement agency performs a criminal search of the
database.14
According to an FBI study, the quality of images in the database is inconsistent and often of low
resolution.15 Partly for this reason, the FBI doesn’t promise accuracy in its search results.
Instead, it ensures only that “the candidate will be returned in the top 50 candidates” 85% of the
time “when the true candidate exists in the gallery.”16 In fact, the overwhelming number of
matches will be false. This false-positive risk could result in even greater racial profiling by
disproportionately shifting the burden of identification onto certain ethnicities. The false-positive
risk can also alter the traditional presumption of innocence in criminal cases by placing more of a
burden on the suspect to show he is not who the system identifies him to be. And this is true even
if a face recognition system such as NGI offers several results for a search instead of one,
because each of the people identified could be brought in for questioning, even if he or she has
no relationship to the crime.17
The use of facial recognition technology allows the government to track Americans on an
unprecedented level. Despite FBI statements to the media that NGI will merely be a mug shot
database, the Bureau’s plans for its face recognition capabilities are much broader. According to
an FBI presentation on facial recognition and identification initiatives at a biometrics
conference in 2010, one of the FBI’s goals for NGI is to be able to track people as they move
from one location to another.18
The extensive collection and sharing of biometric data at the local, national, and international
level raises significant concerns for Americans. Data accumulation and sharing can be good for
solving crimes across jurisdictions or borders, but can also perpetuate racial and ethnic profiling,
social stigma, and inaccuracies throughout all systems and can allow for government tracking
and surveillance on a level not before possible.

Given the serious and wide ranging scope of NGI we urge the Department to review the goals of
the program and ensure that information collection is solely of individuals who are part of the
criminal justice system and does not become a tool for surveillance of innocent Americans.
Completion of a comprehensive Privacy Impact Assessment is the first step of what we hope will
be a robust assessment and review.

Sincerely,
American Civil Liberties Union
Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC)
Brennan Center for Justice
Center for Digital Democracy
Center for Democracy & Technology
Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights
Center for National Security Studies
The Constitution Project
Constitutional Alliance
Consumer Action
Consumer Federation of America
Consumer Watchdog
Council on American-Islamic Relations
Council for Responsible Genetics
Cyber Privacy Project
Defending Dissent Foundation
Demand Progress
DownsizeDC.org
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
Friends of Privacy USA
Government Accountability Project
Liberty Coalition
NAACP
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
National Urban League
OpenTheGovernment.org
Patient Privacy Rights
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
Privacy Times
R Street Institute
World Privacy Forum


cc: Erika Brown Lee
DOJ Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer
Senator Al Franken, Chairman
U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law
Senator Jeff Flake, Ranking Member
U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law


1 FBI, Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for the Next Generation Identification (NGI) Interstate Photo System (IPS)
(June 9, 2008), available at http://www.fbi.gov/foia/privacy-impact- ... oto-system.
2 What Facial Recognition Technology Means for Privacy and Civil Liberties: Hearing Before the Subcomm. On
Privacy, Technology and the Law of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. 3 (2012) (statement for the record
of Jerome Pender, Deputy Assistant Director, FBI), available at http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/12-7-
18PenderTestimony.pdf.
3 Id.
4 Id.
5 See FBI Response to EPIC FOIA Request (Mar. 19, 2014) (stating the FBI is still drafting the Privacy Threshold
Analysis and Privacy Impact Assessment for facial recognition), available at
http://epic.org/foia/fbi/FBI.Response.PIA.FR.pdf.
6 OPCL DOJ, Privacy Impact Assessments Official Guidance, 3 (Rev. March 2012).
7 Id. (footnotes omitted).
8 Id. at 4.
9 See Federal Government Approaches to Issuing Biometrics IDs: Part II: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on
Government Operations of the H. Comm. on Oversight & Government Reform, 113th Cong. 4 (2013) (statement for
the record of Steve M. Martinez, Executive Assistant Director Science and Technology Branch Federal Bureau of
Investigation), available at http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/u ... Final.pdf..
10 See FBI record released in response to EFF FOIA Request, Interstate Photo System Face Recognition Operational
Prototype Project Plan, CJIS Document Number - NGI-DOC-27239-2.0, 1 (Sept. 28, 2011) available at
https://www.eff.org/document/fbi-ngi-20 ... otype-plan.
11 See Jennifer Lynch, FBI Ramps Up Next Generation ID Roll-Out—Will You End Up in the Database?, EFF (Oct.
19, 2011) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/f ... -willyour-
image-end.
12 “The FBI’s Next Generation Identification Program: Big Brother’s ID System?” Electronic Privacy Information
Center, December 2013, available at http://epic.org/privacy/surveillance/spotlight/ngi.html.
13 Jennifer Lynch, “FBI Plans to Have 52 Million Photos in its NGI Face Recognition Database by Next Year.”
Electronic Frontier Foundation, April 14, 2014, available at https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/fbi-plans-have-
52-million-photos-its-ngi-face-recognition-database-next-year.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 What Facial Recognition Technology Means for Privacy and Civil Liberties: hearing before the S. Committee on
the Judiciary Subcommittee of Privacy, Technology, and the Law, 112th Congress (2012) (statement of Jennifer
Lynch, Electronic Frontier Foundation), available at https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/Jenn ... FF-Senate-
Testimony-Face_Recognition.pdf.
18 Richard W. Vorder Bruegge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Facial Recognition and Identification Initiatives,
(pdf, pp. 4-5), available at http://biometrics.org/bc2010/presentati ... ition-and-
Identification-Initiatives.pdf; Biometric Consortium Conference, September 21-23, 2010, Program, available at
http://www.biometrics.org/bc2010/program.pdf.


http://privacycoalition.org/Ltr-to-Revi ... rogram.pdf

[elfismiles]

Supreme Court bans warrantless cell phone searches, updates privacy laws
Major ruling updates privacy laws for 21st century
By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times
Wednesday, June 25, 2014

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police cannot go snooping through people’s cell phones without a warrant, in a unanimous decision that amounts to a major statement in favor of privacy rights.

Police agencies had argued that searching through the data on cell phones was no different than asking someone to turn out his pockets, but the justices rejected that, saying a cell phone is more fundamental.

The ruling amounts to a 21st century update to legal understanding of privacy rights.

“The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the unanimous court.

“Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple— get a warrant.”

Justices even said police cannot check a cellphone’s call log, saying even those contain more information that just phone numbers, and so perusing them is a violation of privacy that can only be justified with a warrant.

The chief justice said cellphones are different not only because people can carry around so much more data — the equivalent of millions of pages of documents — that police would have access to, but that the data itself is qualitatively different than what someone might otherwise carry.

He said it could lay bare someone’s entire personal history, from their medical records to their “specific movements down to the minute.”

The chief justice cited court precedent that found a difference between asking someone to turn out his pockets versus “ransacking his house for everything which may incriminate him” — and the court found that a cellphone falls into that second category.

Complicating matters further is the question of where the data is actually stored. The Obama administration and the state of California, both of which sought to justify cell phone searches, acknowledged that remotely stored data couldn’t be searched — but Chief Justice Roberts said with cloud computing, it’s now sometimes impossible to know the difference.

The court did carve out exceptions for “exigencies” that arise, such as major security threats.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -searches/

[fruhmenschen]

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/do-the ... ts-private

[elfismiles]

Boston PD Tested Facial Recognition Software By Recording Every Face At Local Music Festivals (Video)
12:05 PM 08/18/2014

Concertgoers at last year’s annual Boston Calling music festivals weren’t just there to watch the show — they were watched themselves as test subjects for Boston police’ new facial recognition technology, which reportedly analyzed every attendee at the May and September two-day events.

Employees at IBM — the outside contractor involved in deploying the tech alongside Boston Police — planned the test of its Smart Surveillance System and Intelligent Video Analytics to execute “face capture” on “every person” at the concerts in 2013. Targets were reportedly described “as anyone who walks through the door,” according to company memos obtained by Dig Boston.

Using 10 cameras capable of intelligent video analysis, police and IBM captured thousands of faces and scanned individuals for details including skin color, height and clothing to screen for possible forensic identification. The tech also watched traffic and crowd congestion, searched for suspicious objects and monitored social media in real-time.

Attendees and promoters were wholly unaware of the test, which was conducted amid a slew of media and photographers regularly in attendance and during a public event where the expectation of privacy is at a minimum. Sensitive documents detailing the program were found unsecured online, where they’ve reportedly been accessible for more than a year.

The images, video and information obtained by the program will be kept for months and years — even after the sorting process deems it irrelevant — and more than 50 hours of video footage from the events are still intact, according to the report.

Other data stored online by Boston police in unsecured servers include drivers’ licenses, addresses, parking permit information and more.

Boston PD initially denied any involvement in the programs’ deployment on May 25-26 and Sept. 7-8 at City Hall Plaza, stating in an email from a representative that “BPD was not part of this initiative.”

“We do not and have not used or possess this type of technology,” the department wrote to Dig.

Files on the program uncovered online include photographic evidence showing Boston PD present inside IBM’s program monitoring stations and receiving instruction on how to use the tech. When presented with this evidence, Boston officials admitted the city’s direct involvement.

“The city of Boston engaged in a pilot program with IBM, testing situational awareness software for two events hosted on City Hall Plaza: Boston Calling in May 2013, and Boston Calling in September 2013,” Boston Mayor Marty Walsh press secretary Kate Norton wrote in an email to the publication.

“The purpose of the pilot was to evaluate software that could make it easier for the city to host large, public events, looking at challenges such as permitting, basic services, crowd and traffic management, public safety, and citizen engagement through social media and other channels. These were technology demonstrations utilizing pre-existing hardware (cameras) and data storage systems.”

According to the statement, the city found the “situational awareness software” to be without much “practical value,” and as a result, said it will not be pursuing the implementation of such surveillance. The city also said it currently has no guidelines governing or barring the use of such technology at large public events like Boston Calling.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/18/bosto ... festivals/

http://digboston.com/boston-news-opinio ... -prove-it/

[elfismiles]

Report: Arizona Counterterrorism Center potentially covered up breach
By KTAR.com, | September 8, 2014 @ 8:27 am

According to a report by TheVerge.com, Arizona's Counterterrorism Information Center -- the largest center of its kind in the state -- may be covering up a huge data breach.

The breach stems from the center's relationship with Lizhong Fan, a Chinese national who was hired back in 2007 to serve as a facial recognition expert.

A new investigation launched by ProPublica and The Center for Investigative Reporting centers around Fan's activity dating back to June 2007, when he left on a trip back to Beijing with two laptops and luggage filled with other hard drive materials.

Fan never returned to Arizona, only sending sporadic emails to his bosses back at the ACIC. No one at the center has heard from him since 2011.

His work computers were also retrieved, although all information was erased from the hard drive.

Because of his work title, ProPublica believes Fan had access to all data at the center, including a database that holds more than five million driver licenses and other sensitive law enforcement information.

There are still a lot of questions to be answered, including how the breach stayed secret for the seven years since Fan left the country. The two officials in charge of the center, Maricopa Country Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano, have been silent about the breach, and Arpaio's deputies seem to have worked to keep the information secret, instructing officers not to discuss the incident.

http://ktar.com/22/1764732/Report-Arizo ... -up-breach

[elfismiles]

I wonder how many towns / cities have these systems?

NYC approves sensors to pinpoint gunfire

Posted: Sep 09, 2014 7:11 AM CDT Updated: Sep 09, 2014 7:25 AM CDT

NEW YORK (AP) - New York City's comptroller has approved a contract for rooftop sensor technology for the NYPD to help pinpoint and reduce gunfire.

Comptroller Scott Stringer approved the contract for the ShotSpotter Flex System on Monday.

The technology will pinpoint the exact location of a gunshot, allowing officers to respond quickly.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the two-year $1.5 million contract will allow the NYPD to target about 15 square miles with the new technology. Officials say that's up to five separate coverage areas in the five boroughs.

The law enforcement agency is still working to determine where to place the sensors. It hopes to have them operating by early spring 2015.

http://www.myfoxny.com/story/26483613/n ... nt-gunfire

See also:

http://psiopradio.com/2007/08/17/austin ... n-program/

...

Audio: East Palo Alto plane crash
Audio: Gunshot spotter system captured East Palo Alto plane crash as it happened
San Jose Mercury News - ‎3 hours ago‎
The crash killed three employees of Silicon Valley electric-car maker Tesla Motors. No one on the ground was injured.
Warning: The audio files contain what may be disturbing sounds from the scene of the crash.
http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_14428180

I wonder if Austin's gunshot detector microphone system caught the crash?

[elfismiles]

Cameras to Detect ‘Abnormal’ Behavior
By Sander Venema
September 18, 2014

In the chimerical pursuit of perfect security, Western countries are turning to advanced technology to detect and stop terrorist attacks. But these expensive schemes often fail to deliver greater safety while further eroding personal freedom, as Sander Venema observed in the Netherlands.

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/18/ca ... -behavior/