Slashdot Mirror
Prying Eyes of Tampa Police
Anml4ixoye writes: "Building off of the Super Bowl incident here in Tampa, the Police have instituted the technology directly into the cameras around Ybor City. From Bay News 9:"Police, using pole-mounted, remotely-controlled surveillance cameras, scan crowds of people and feed their digital images into a massive databank with the purpose of finding a match on anyone with an outstanding arrest warrant. The cameras have the ability to tilt, pan and capture digital images of anyone within range." Read the Bay News 9 Report here, the St. Pete Times version here, or visit the Visionics web site or the Tampa Police Web Site."
On possible solution is detailed by David Brin, in his book "The Transparent Society". Chpater one is available online here
It's well worth reading, and deals with the societal impact of pervasive surveillance technology, and what to do about it, once it's a given that it's implemented - how to _stop_ a Big-Brother like state arising - his solution is fairly simple - give _everyone_ the right to use public-access surveillance equipment. If the police can watch you, make sure that the citizens can watch the police, etc.
Choice of masters is not freedom.
CCTVs in public places aren't placed there to infringe on the constitutional rights of you or anyone else. They can't do that because the Constitution doesn't protect your right to be invisible in a public place.
My favourite quote by Bruce Schneier in Secrets and Lies: "It is poor socvial hygeine to put in place systems that could facilitate a police state".
- wear coloured sun glasses
- sparkly dust on my face
- a hat
- shiny, colourful clothes
Yah, that'll keep me from being spotted for sure.That's actually my chief problem with this. My buddy's brand new Dodge Ram was stolen, the cops found it parked outside the thief's house (we all knew who did it from the beginning), the thief's comb was in the truck along with a pencil and a piece of paper with his girlfriends name and number on it, and the paper lady saw him get out of the truck and told the cops about it. They didn't arrest him. Same guy later stole a couple hundred dollars from my neighbors house, cops did nothing. Then he stole my Dirt Bike, the cops basically came out and told me that they knew who did it, then basically said they weren't going to do much about it.
If they won't make an arrest in a Grand Theft Auto case with an eye witness, why should we believe that camera systems are going to improve anything? I don't know that all cops are either as cowardly or as corrupt as Isle of Wight Sheriffs, but I would personally not want a technology like this in the hands of our police.
I have serious concerns for the methods used by the Tampa State Police to find people with outstanding arrest warrants. My question is what if someone was photographed and because of the light or if the conditions were right then could they be falsely identified as someone else with an outstanding warrant?
Unless there's a human around to verify that the photographs are correct (as is the case with automated speed cameras in my country, Australia) then bad things could happen. False identification issues aside, I still don't think this is a good idea because it means that someone is collecting information on you without your knowledge or permission. And since this is done without your knowing, you're not always able to verify that the information collected about you is correct.
It might also be interesting to know that the Visionics website has a whole host of press releases concerning the use of FaceIt technology in places like Birmingham City Centre, London, in Iceland's Keflavk airport as part of the upgrade of their CCTV system, in the Oklahoma State Investigation Bureau as part of their Law Enforcement Identification Solution, in Mexico to eliminate duplicate voter registrations, in Rhode Island and even in the largest police department in Australia. In fact, the United States Immigration & Naturalisation Service (INS) has placed a $7.4 million order for an additional 276 live scan systems.
So while this development is not new, it's still worrying because it means that your freedom is now in the hands of computer software which is just as fallable and exploitable as the people who wrote it.
Self Bias Resistor
----------
When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer our friend.
If you don't believe me, just look around at how many people sitting in cars at stop lights pick their noses. Sheesh...half of them eat it too. *grin*
"Rub her feet." -- L.L.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Seems to me that there may be some unintended side effects as a result of this:
Oh, and as these systems become more prevalent, I could see a state- or country-wide network of these being constructed. Thus, a person who has a warrant in one city or state could be more easily located if they should move . For example, police in New York City could forward photos of people with outstanding warrants to the police in Tampa. And vice versa. Add in other major cities, federal agencies, etc. and I expect over time,these disparate systems will become highly interconnected. Call it a high-tech variant on putting out an APB (All-Points Bulletin -- well, that's what they called in on the crime shows I watched as a kid. :)
This isn't the first time that CCTV and surveillance generally has been discussed on /. and it won't be the last.
The natural (knee-jerk?) reaction to this kind of story seems to be negative: I don't want someone, especially the government, watching me, etc, etc.
But all of those comparisons to 1984 and Enemy of the State are just so over the top. Big Brother definitely isn't watching you, and Jon Voight isn't either.
CCTVs in public places aren't placed there to infringe on the constitutional rights of you or anyone else. They can't do that because the Constitution doesn't protect your right to be invisible in a public place.
If your a known criminal or are engaging in criminal activity then a CCTV camera on the street corner isn't exactly welcome. But if your Joe Average it's no better or no worse than someone standing there taking in the view.
Watching everyone all of the time takes a lot of resources. The former East German government tried it back in the days of the Cold War. Eventually, it toppled under the strain that such a machine placed upon itself and, in turn, so did the Berlin Wall.
Paranoia is a healthy thing. In small doses.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
OK, everyone, its time to stock up on KISS and Darth Maul makeup kits!
The law abiding citizen would have a problem with this because it is the law abiding citizen who is made to pay for installation and maintenance of these cameras. The dollar cost of this program may not bother you but the opportunity cost should. For example, have you driven along any of GA's interstates lately? You'll notice these cameras every so many feet, but not a single streetlight. You can guess which would do more to increase public safety, but that must not have been a priority to the lawmakers in that state. However, it is a priority to me, and presumably many other law abiding citizens.
The state is the great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everybody else. ~F. Bastiat
Seriously -- practices like this are becoming far too acceptable by the general public. Why? Does it start at home? Are we as a society raising drones who refuse to question authority or take an active role in something as running this city/county/country (i.e. voting)?
The answer is simple: expansion (and simplification) of media and resulting simplification of public perception. Today, more than ever, the problems of society are covered in mass media (often in simplistic fashion). There is a perception that morality in this country is falling apart, but really we're just more aware of problems that were already there. Crime rates are declining, but today more than ever people are afraid. And when people are scared, they are willing to sacrifice some of their basic freedoms to allay their fears. If technique X infringes on right Y, but catches Z criminals, it suddenly becomes O.K.
Extended out, continuing to sacrifice basic rights for (percieved) safety, you arrive at an Orwellian state.
SUCKS, don't it?
Out of intelligent things to say and searching for good marijuana,
-- If any of the above made sense, I assure it was purely by accident.
Buy yourself a target air rifle, not a cheap one, but a good one with a nice scope. You can easily find angles to hit the camera without being easily seen by the camera. Shoot said camera out. When they fix it, shoot it out again, later. Enough people doing that will make them go away.
The security gestapo at my old univesity (University of New Brunswick) actually noticed someone breaking into a house several kilometers away with a ultra-high-power security camera. (The University is on a large hill). One might wonder what the hell they were doing looking at houses several kilometers away - or for that matter, who's windows they're looking in. Entertainment value, indeed.
Security cameras are just one step closer.. Safe or Free, your pick.. and Prisons aren't the safest places last I checked.
..don't panic
How hard is it to hit a camera with a paintball gun or a .22 anyway?
Think "countermeasures", people!
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
As it happens, in many places in the south, it *is* illegal to wear masks in public. This law was a counter-measure to Ku Klux Klan terrorism.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
"Rub her feet." -- L.L.
The free-thinking and non-bootlicking citizens of Tampa should consider using one of these high-tech camera-disabling products.
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
I think this technology is pretty cool, but of course I hate the idea of this eye in the sky.
It takes everyone's picture - so if your really paranoid then, well there you have it.
But if I'm a criminal visting or living in Tampa - this takes the fun out of cops and robbers. If you're in public anyone has the right to take your picture - and of course take it to the police. But this is the 'napster' syndrome [listen to bob&tom-napster allows millions of copies of a CD unlike taping a CD which would take forever...tangent]. Not only does this thing snap a photo of you, but it does it at such a rate that it becomes more than just taking a few shots.
Who elected these phucks that are doing this? Because I wouldn't be voting for them. It seems more technology means the 'cops' of cops and robbers get the upperhand.
It just doesn't seem like fair play. But if you want to be really [really] paranoid - you could watch "Enemy of the State" and compare.
I guess the rest of us will care when they start documenting where we go in Tampa. i.e. "Mr. Neal went to a strip club last night on Ocean Blvd. - let's follow him for a few days."
just doesn't seem fair.
Get your Unix fortune now!
The video system in Ybor City has bee in place on the main drag (7th Avenue) for a couple of years. It pretty much went up without any fan fare, and the PD said it was for better crowd control during weekends and Gasparilla and Guavaween, when Certified Madness takes over the place. Now, as of last week I hear they are augmenting the system with face recognition. Now, whats REALLY interesting about all this is that Ybor city has gone froma place of miscreants and party goers helbent on rowdiness to a "High Class Locale" and Family Entertainment Venue in less than a year. What was once projects and low quality commercial and industry has become Luxury Apartments (that caught fire and burnt the local Post Office down...). Prior to the interests of a HUGE complex called Centro Ybor and the $$$$ for development, the place was a police wasteland where the boys in blue pretty much treated it as ground zero. Needless to say, this has ruined the club scene.:) SasserianSection
These are the books I've seen listed on privacy violations so far on the discussions here. I figured I'd put em all in one place so their easier to find. George Orwell, "1984." Franz Kafka, "The Trial." William G. Staples, "The Culture of Surveillance: Discipline and Social Control in the United States." David Brin, "The Transparent Society." If there are any other ones, feel free to add.
---
There are many ways to aprehend someone who has a warrant out for them. You pick them up at home, you pick them up at work, you wait till they get pulled over for having a tailight out. Most of the people with warrants out for them are for traffic offenses or other minor crimes. Even if this works as well as they claim, its not going to be instantanious. By the time you've got a "potential" match, the mark will be long gone. Sure, you can attempt to establish a pattern, but frankly as a law abiding tax paying public citizen, I'm willing to wait until he gets pulled over before you call out the swat team for that $200 ticket.
The potential for misuse is too great here. Technology is not infallible. It can be 99.9%, but that means nothing in the grande scheme of things. There will be LOTS of false positives in a system like this. Even if the prospect of getting picked up for someone else's crime doesn't bother you (after all, subsequent validation will vindicate you from this incident), if you ARE attempting to develop a pattern, then false positives will make for an extremely diverse pattern, one that can't be relied on for much.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
They are becoming all too common because of the media. Most people are pacifists by nature, they'll avoid confrontation at all costs. CNN(insert favorite govertainment channel here) will call something like the Million Mom March "groundbreaking" but will insert another adjective like "contraversial" in front of the Guns Owners of America. The sheeple automatically are drawn to a don't-rock-the-boat mentality.
Why do you think people accept drug tests being part of job interviews? If my employer can prove that my being a coke addict directly affects my job performance fine. But it's an invasion of privacy to see if I am indeed a coke addict. People are drawn to it because some Demopublican will mask it about being for the children.
It's very similar to what that idiot Steve Gibson is doing. Cnet, ZDnet, whatever-pc-magazine prints his half-baked theories about UNIX sockets in XP. Just having UNIX sockets isn't necessarily a bad thing, its in how they're used obviously. They follow his words since he has a flare for the dramatic and sounds very clueful to the average AOL user. UNIX sockets don't spoof packets, script-kiddies spoof packets. Look at those kennedy elitists: all of my unregistered handguns have kill less people than kennedy cars and golf clubs combined.
If you really want to do something about this organize a day of protest. Image several thousand people wondering around downtown Tampa dress as Santa or wearing Nixon masks. Will they get arrested for not showing their face in public? What will the police in Tampa charge them with?
Another day closer to redwood heaven
Most people aren't 100% law-abiding, are they? Ever smoke a joint? Spit in public? Swear on a public street? Stop your car temporarily in a spot where you weren't supposed to stop your car? Exceed the speed limit? Let your dog take a poop without cleaning it up? Cross at a location which is not an intersection? Keep in mind that the Supreme Court recently ruled that the cops are within their rights to arrest you even for failing to wear a seat belt. Are you absolutely sure you haven't broken any laws recently?
Or maybe you might have a family member or friend who has done something illegal, and you've been spotted on camera talking with them. Perhaps you wouldn't mind the cops bringing you in for questioning so you can rat out your buddy. Or perhaps a judge would okay a search of your premises on the grounds that you were frequently associating with a known criminal.
But what's more worrisome is the idea that it will become much easier to keep an eye on people who are political threats: Opposition party rank-and-file workers and other political nuisances could find themselves in court for petty violations people don't normally receive summonses for. They could become the object of harrassment and search warrants, all "justified" because they were caught on camera throwing a chewing gum wrapper upon the sidewalk.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
A face is compressed to between 100 and 300 bytes. Even with 100 bytes the reconstructed face looks remarkably similar to the real one.
With a 500 MHz Pentium, up to 47,000,000 rough ("vector") matches per minute can be made. A vector is an 88 byte representation of a face. Then, a finer scan can pin down the top matches.
In other words the entire population of the US can be scanned in a few minutes with a single PC. Is it just me, or is there something scary about this?
The reason for implementing this is that police officers were complaining that they just couldn't manage to get a good look at ALL the women on the beach without these.
There are a thousand forms of subversion, but few can equal the convenience and immediacy of a cream pie -Noel Godin
When did "ACLU" become a dirty word? How did defending the bill of rights come to be out of fashion? Did I miss the spaceship that took all the rational people away?
Seriously -- practices like this are becoming far too acceptable by the general public. Why? Does it start at home? Are we as a society raising drones who refuse to question authority or take an active role in something as running this city/county/country (i.e. voting)?
Ok. Stop the ride. I want to get off. It's finally starting to make me sick.
-jhon
I live in Brixton, an area of South London known for a very high level of street drug dealing (smack, crack). A very close friend of mine has the misfortune to be a heroin addict. I went down with her once when she went to score. In a five minute walk around this particular area (which is also the heart of Brixton's new-found fashionable status,. with lots of new clubs and bars, very much part of the London scene[tm]) she was approached *by* no less than eight dealers, most of whom were part of groups of three or four.
For some reason (more yuppies in the area?), the police have decided that open crack dealing is a Bad Thing. As part of a new campaign to *cough* crack down on the problem, CCTV was installed a year ago, the whole length of the street.
It has made no difference at all as far as I can see.
In the last three months, however, the residents of the estate where I live - about a ten minute walk from this inferno - have been kicking up a fuss because prostitutes and junkies bean to come up here after they'd scored / picked up a client. There are lots of young kids round here, & it's not very nice to find used works in your apartment stairwell in the morning. So, CCTV to the rescue again; another few dozen cameras now cover the entire estate. This has actually helped. The reason the dealers can't be busted even when they're seen on video clearly dealing, is that actual drugs are needed to get a conviction - and of course they swallow it immediately if the cops show up. It's harder for a junkie to swallow a syringe, however ;)
Ironically I then met someone who works for the local council on the second scheme. Although when it's completed, only the police will have access to the pictures, she has a stack of monitors on her desk at present for 'debugging' purposes - and she sure as hell uses it for personal use (checking up on her S.O. to make sure he goes to the shops when he said he would, for instance.) She was also attacked on the street a few weeks ago. She called her boss afterwards, who took the tapes straight to the cops 20 minutes after the incident, and the attacker was picked up 30 mins after that. As she herself said, however, this was only because of who she was... if she was a random member of the public, the service would have been much, much slower.
I just remembered another anecdotal data point... another junkie, friend of the above-mentioned one, was beaten up just outside his apartment block. This block is staffed 24/7 and, yep, they have CCTV which is supposed to be monitored. Surpise, they happened to be "looking the other way" at the time... he's apparently talking of sueing them (IIRC it's a criminal offence not to respond in such a situation) - but what's the betting that teh relevant tapes get "lost" or "accidentally wiped"?
--
"I'm not downloaded, I'm just loaded and down"
I have worked in the face detection and recognition business. I think its time to show people how they might be able to defeat the system. In england such a defense system to your identity is highly desired because almost every sqr foot of london is covered by face detectors. Actually the system is so error prone that its really a piece of cake to defeat it. Simple hats and big sun glasses pretty much keep you anonymous. iridescent surfaces will reek havoc with the algorithms also. A good amount of high frequency changes in the image and it won't even detect your face anymore. The systems are appearance based and appearance based systems have trouble with multiclored high frequeny changing images. Such as sparklies on your face cause the system to have more noise in its algs. I can forsee a public revolution as people start to wear more iridescent colored glasses in larger numbers. I plan on doing some research on the defense mechs. Right after my thesis, which will be the tool I use to help discove good defenses. I am a member of the OpenCV group on sourceforge and on Yahoogroups. I will release the tracking program as open source if possibble.