Slashdot Mirror
Path of Least Surveillance
alewando writes: "iSee is a service provided by the Institute for Applied Autonomy and is intended to allow New York City pedestrians to map out routes in Manhattan that avoid as many surveillance cameras as possible. Their data encompass nearly 2,400 cameras in Manhattan, and plans are in the works to bring the service to Seattle, Chicago, and London. Read the Wired article." This is a great hack - a useful service and a political statement at the same time.
Yeah, right! So now all the muggers will know exactly where to lay in wait while you happily stroll along without being filmed. Yeah, thats really going to help improve your life isn't it. As dumb ideas go, this is on my top 10.
What if you are agressed ?
OK, say it an other way : Are the people who want to avoid the cameras the same that carry a cellular phone ?
It won't be long before this service is outlawed under the DMCA as "security circumvention" or banned by our new Office of Homeland Security as a "possible tool for use by terrorists". After all, these days, just mentioning terrorism will cause any silly law to be passed.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
first post
Yes, but you've obviously taken a route that is quite heavily surveilled...
Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
This is great... I can't wait until they have something like this for Rochester, NH!!!
That is far too complicated. Just do what I do...whenever you venture outside, dress like CarrotTop.
------
Let me give you the lowdown
What your needing is a good map of the sewers and pair of water tight boots!
just wait till the government makes it illegal to provide any information on the locations of the cameras
Who wants to bet that the FBI is logging all connections to the iSee web site ?
(And what will the slashdot effect do to that logging ?)
Could someone explain how this service will be useful?
I gain comfort from the presence of a camera. Not a lot, but a little.
Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
I was under the impression that there were far more surveillance cameras in London than those other cities mentioned. Would this work there?
Back in school, once my whole class was visiting Berlin (long before East and West Germany got united again). We also did a bus trip through East Berlin, and were feeling happy to live in a free country when we noticed the many surveillance cameras there. Little did we know then ...
Someone mod this guy into oblivion. The link logs you out of /., there is no such story.
Moderators: this is not a flamebate! the author has got a right to his point of view. just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's flamebate.
Sorry, but there are just too many surveillance cameras to make this useful. Cameras are small, and are set up by many (perhaps most) private firms. If you want to travel and not be seen in NYC, knowing where a few video cameras are is not the trick.
The way to stay anonymous is to stop using your EZ-Pass, carry no proximity-type cards, use no credit/debit cards, travel by walking, bike, bus, or taxi.
Finally, even my apartment building has a video camera looking out the front and back access ways right now. Hum, and it doesn't seem to be on the list.
In order to get from A to B, if somebody wants to log onto a website, type in their start and finish addresses (and possibly any sites they want to take in along the way), log off, shut down, put their shoes on and then walk the long way round, then they have got A LOT more spare time than me!
Or they have something very serious to hide. these camera's don't have that this rediculous face-recognition software, do they?
Matt
Please, next time you are going to mod a comment check the link first!
http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=userclose
How come this is interesting?I have to wonder if people would be this uptight if the 2400 cameras were replaced with 2400 police officers. Would you still try to avoid going near them?
Apparently you haven't been watching TV much. Every news agency seems to have a camera on the clean-up effort.
City Centre London, especially Oxford Road is notorius for pickpockets, the Metropolitan Police have been using cameras to combat the pickpockets to great effect for some time. The Police can get hard evidence that will lead to the prosecution of individuals for their crimes.
iSee is a tool that can be used to aid criminals who potentially could be identified by security camera pictures.
I can't see that it has any other use, unless you are actually doing something wrong, do you have anything to fear from the cameras?
This works both ways. Sure, you can find a route that avoids security cameras. But if you're the "bad guys" you now know where you need to install more security cameras. And -- at least if it was me -- you'd install those cameras in such a way that people don't know they're there and everyone still thinks they're on a "safe" route.
This is just for the paranoid, though. And I'm not paranoid. They really are out to get me.
The Daily Build
My overactive sense of paranoia likes this...but then again...this is just too stupid. Avoiding a few security cameras won't do much to help your anonymity, so why go through the trouble? Someone out there is either a lot more paranoid than I am...or just has way too much spare time, or both.
I wonder how long this site will be around if a terrorist uses it to avoid security cameras and plant a bomb...
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
Remember: freedom is about having choices, and then choosing.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Those aren't real, they're fabricated images.
If real cameras were there, it would be exposed that the "clean up effort" (as they want people to believe) is really government agents scouring the ruins searching for remaining nuclear and biological weapons materials.
Yes, the government had such materials hidden underneath the world trade center.
Thats why it was attacked. I'm sicked that Americans are not being told why those innocent people died, not because of terror, but because their were human shields for our goverments black ops
..they would set up this service in Virginia Beach, VA , seeing that the local government approved the use of facial recognition software at the oceanfront, making it the second city in the whole US to use it...
I lost my concept of community when my community lost all concept of me.
erroneous dood, thats Security by Obscurity
.... bah ....
read your SAG.
bah
That map covers known, visible cameras. Including red light cams. Oooooooooo!
I'm going to hide a QuickCam up my ass, run around Manhattan, and see if I can make lyin' bitches out of them!
"The demonstrated tendency of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) operators to single out ethnic minorities for observation and to voyeuristically focus on women's breasts and buttocks provides the majority of the population ample legitimate reasons to avoid public surveillance cameras."
The excellent Mark Thomas Product, a show on c4 in the UK had a pop at "the Data Protection Act and in particular its sections covering Closed Circuit Television".
Essentially, in the UK, if a CCTV camera records your image you just have to write to the owner of the camera with a £10 cheque asking for a copy of all information they hold on you. By law under the DPA they have to provide you with a copy. If they don't they can go to jail.
He went into a McDonalds with a troup of tumblers and jugglers and asked for a copy of the tape. He went a bunch of other places aswell, get him on video, very funny!
Lots of info starting here, at his own FAQ, and if you get hooked check out google directory for stacks of links.
This is trigger happy TV for the broadsheet reader!
..if there are so many cameras, why has no-one filmed the pentagon crash, the queens crash, got anymore shots of the others? i am a sick, sick person who wants to see these...
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
true, 'cos there's never a cop around when you need one.
What kind of psycho would waste the time to go out of their way in a convoluted effort to avoid security cameras which, because there are so many, they have no hope of evading entirely...?
Just about where that iSee introductory flash animation zooms in on.
;-P
Based on the iSee map... I have the distinct joy to tell you that it appears I can't so much as scratch my ass without 3 different Federal and State agencies knowing about it, much less go outside and walk anywhere.
Hey? Is that a casino bubble camera just outside my window? Is that another one over there under that pigeon?
They don't need no Magic Lantern to intercept my keystrokes.
Grumble, grumble... thanks for the link Slashdot, thanks for the map IAA: ignorance really is bliss after all.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I live in central Barcelona in Spain. The petty crime here - bag-snatching, pick-pocketing etc. - is terrible. I wish they would fill the streets with surveillance cameras - that would be much preferable to the damn thieves.
Someone on the city council has a sense of humor. They are doing a trial of surveillance cameras in George Orwell Square.
another fine example of the X-Files syndrome.
Will someone please stop Chris Carter before it's too late?
Thank you,
I sure would!
This is NYC you're talking about. Cops shoot first there!
What's the world coming to when paranoia represents a business opportunity ?
great.
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
No, but I wouldn't throw my cigarette end in the road in front of one :o)
You've really hit the nail on the head, for me at least. What *is* the difference?
Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
The post is here:
John Carmack on Terrorism
This website is really owned by Microsoft. It started as a way for Bill Gates to plot a course thru towns he visits without getting beated down by mobs of people dressed as chubby penguins. Who leaked this?
You people feel secure because of cameras???
Trying to avoid cameras might be silly, but putting your peace of mind into a piece of electronics is freakin' out of this world.
Dont you never learn anything? Is basic common sense so rare these days?
Right, I can just picture it now.
Evil Terrorist Type : I must destroy the (infidels/capitalist opressors/alien invasion force)* for the glory of (allah/jahweh/the big purple dinosaur/elvis told me to do it)*!
ETT: Oh, hang on, they might have some CCTV cameras, and find out it was me. Best not then, that's me really deterred. It's not like I'm on a holy crusade or anything.
*Delete as appropriate to denote your own favourite demon de jour.
CCTV is about as much use against a terrorist threat as a man with a pointed stick.
At best it's useful for tracking known troublemakers (petty criminals, subversives, etc) and producing lots of nice footage to show on 'Americas Crimiest Crimes XII', but I can't really say that the constant feeling of being watched makes me feel particularly safe.
Whether or not this actually decreases a person's chance of being mugged is left to the reader to decide.
Who CARES? People watch other people when they are in PUBLIC places. Who cares if they're watching them in person or on VCR. Someone taping me walking down the street doesn't bother me a lick. Someone taping me in the shower does. It's a simple public space/private space issue.
But then you say...Oh but they could all get together and track you and keep track of everyplace you go! OH NO! Someone is going to keep a log of my dreary day to day activities. I don't even remember stuff I do on a day to day basis, if someone else wants to, go for it.
And this face recognition stuff. This *ALL* hinges on the software working correctly. If it can be proven that it works, and that innocents aren't being persecuted why the hell would you NOT want criminals picked up? If you don't like what we've defined as 'criminal' then by a democratic process (in most nations) you go through the process of changing those laws. That is all there is to it.
Everyone gets on this freedom schtick and doesn't take the time to think about the problems logically.
If it maps out the unfilmed routes, then it maps the filmed too.
You can allways use the filmed ones (Or, more precisely not use the unfilmed ones). If you do not want to get mugged.
And as another poster said, maybe it helps your goverment, to find out the places that should be filmed.
In dream society, people could be given the ability to mod replies. In real life, it would be disaster.
And don't use a mobile phone. Article in today's Guardian newspaper on mobile phone tracking. A journalist eventually got a list from his mobile provider telling him which mobile masts his calls connected to, but the company wouldn't tell him the location of the masts!
Remember that if your mobile is switched on it 'squawks' every couple of minutes so the system knows where you are. Even if you dont make any calls 'they' can still track you.
And also if people say "If you haven't done anything why are you avoiding surveillance cameras?", then reply with "If I haven't done anything why do the cameras need to see me?".
Baz
With 2400 cameras, I'm suprized they haven't renamed NY state Orwell.
As in: I'll sure stay the hell out of that Orwellian state.
(Ok, they can't all be winners)
Seriously, I am truly distressed at the pro-1984 sentiments in a large number of the comments here. Wake up people, is that the future you really want?
I heard about a guy who robbed banks years ago before they had cameras. He would wear plain clothes, but have a garrish colored necktie. After slipping the cashier a note informing that this was a holdup and that he had a pistol in his pocket, he walked right out with the money. Afterwards when police would ask what he looked like, few could remember. All they remembered was that he wore a very loud necktie.
Well... it wouldn't help much in the age of cameras, but blending in to the surroundings or getting overshadowed by something more interesting can be a good way of avoiding detection. Not perfect, but it helps.
-- Solaris Central - http://w
besides how usefull this camera and vcr taping stuff is, this map shows anyone who wants which cameras a person HAS to pass to reach the target.
So wouldn't it be better to pass more "less polpulated" cameras than the "main route" iSee suggests?
The cops naturally focus on matters of importance, such as actual crimes. Camera recordings, on the other hand, do not discriminate.
It's the difference between being watched and being stalked. With cameras, who's to know what's happening?
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
... for planting explosive devices
:-P The number of people surviving the Tube unscathed at night would drop dramatically.
m
... for working out where the best place to mug someone is
... ensuring that when a crime is carried out by someone who's description matches you, you're not on tape as being somewhere else at the time
Need I go on?
The entire "CCTV cameras are evil" thing has just reared it's ugly head again. If you live in "the land of the free" and all that why the hell do you need to fear CCTV?
Try the London Underground at the dead of night... then remove the CCTV, make a big noise about how it's being done for freedom, and try paying the tube a visit at night again
Also CCTV isnt just used for security. A large number of the major motorways and road interchanges in the UK have full CCTV coverage which is monitored constantly to ensure traffic flow is uninterrupted. The control centre that watches the cameras has control over the electronic information boards by the sides of roads to allow them to impose temporary speed limits, and give warnings about hazards such as fog at a moment's notice. More info can be found in what I think is the original proposal (dating back to 1997) http://www.highways.gov.uk/info/tcc/rtcc/index.ht
Finally dont underestimate the power of CCTV for making the masses feel safe. It's a cheap way to make people feel safer, and also does a fair job at discouraging crime.
There's no oversight. The more effectively the movements of any individual can be tracked, the more likely he is to be surveilled for *any* reason.
Being in a public place does not excuse someone from stalking you.
Imagine the uses of such data to an unscrupulous cop, when we know full well that even current law enforcement databases are heavily misused!
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
If Carrot Top is actually arrested because someone used this technique, I will kiss you.
Are there any laws against walking around with a mask on in these areas?
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Would you still try to avoid going near them?
I would if I could. Officers watch for violations. Cameras just make it easier.
Why is automated aids to survalence so evil? Well, on the road home from work last night, there were two police cars parked in the mall parking lot facing an intersection. This is good, having the potential for traffic laws to be enforced. Unfortunately, as I was attempting to leave the gas station at the intersection, I would find my left turn arrow never turned green. It was a staring contest between me and the officer across the street. I had the chance (oh, boy!) to ask the officer where I could complain about this broken light. He stated he would be report it, but it would be a few days before it may be fixed.
What disturbed me about this light is that just last week I was pulled over for running a "red" light. A camera may have see it was still yellow, but with technology, the operator may adjust the view to favorable conditions for an arrest.
I left the officer, but he remained parked, watching the intersection. It reminds me how cats love watching little animals thinking they may have the sense of freedom. Automated cameras. Fear them.
I used to read a British motorcycling magazine that had adverts for maps of where cameras were on the roads so that they migh be avoided. These cameras are part of a system that snap the tags of speeders and set in motion the auto generation of speeding tickets.
I have to wonder if people would be this uptight if the 2400 cameras were replaced with 2400 police officers. Would you still try to avoid going near them?
What do you mean by this? If there were 2400 police officers on the street, would people be as uptight, or less uptight? Would people be trying to avoid them, or not avoid them? You spouted out a rather 2-sided and pointless statement that doesn't prove or attempt to explain anything.
If there were so many cops on the street that at any moment you're walking in public you're also within view of a police officer, would YOU mind? If every street corner had a police officer with the authority to question and arrest you, if it was impossible to get away from the eyes of a person with such power except in your own home, would you mind?
Personally, I can't think of a better use of the term "police state." Having such a force is unnessecary, and would only intimidate and sustain the status quo.
-Kef
let's all start fscking about privacy until they find someone arab with flight plans on such a camera. Then everybody finds it the best thing in the world. These things aren't put there to watch your girlfriend, but to find filth.
Marko No. 5
-- grow yourself some brains
The problelm with surveillance isn't the act itself, but the limited access to it.
The video on all those cameras should be made available to the public.
Besides the obvious crime deterrents mentioned above:
Imagine pulling up mapquest with your route to work and being able to get a live video feed from those cameras that lie along your route. Now you can avoid traffic.
Imagine your walking down a dark street, unsure of the neighborhood. You don't know whats around the corner, but you pull out your wireless handheld and get the video feed of that upcoming corner.
That information being available to everyone, not just the authorities is what draws the line between a police state and a utopia.
Heh. Anyone else notice that at the top of the page it says version "v.911" and the tagline "now more than ever"? Obviously no coincince about the timing of this tool.
When did it launch originally?
http://www.aspendailynews.com/Search_Columns/view_ column.cfm?OrderNumber=546
I think iSee's plan is great...where else can you meet girls as paranoid as you...you see the same girl over and over again on your extended long walks...nice conversation starter...just be careful approaching her!
Walk with Music;
Sure--it tells the world just how many paranoid nutcases there are with net access and way too much time on their hands.
I'm going to goto a plastic surgeon and have him hardcode a virus into my facial features. I'll teach those face scanners to scan me!
Walk with Music;
I've read a lot of comments stating more or less "f you have done nothing, you have nothing to fear". The problems with the cameras have nothing to do with criminals getting caught (thats a good thing imho), or someone who shouldn't have seen it, accidentally whatching you and your lover kissing... It has to do with demonstrations. In A free country, you are allowed to walk in a demonstration to show your political standpoint, without the police recording your personal presence! Such recording is in e.g. Sweden called opinion registration, and is forbidden by our constitution!
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Maybe I'm being naive, but what are the actual negative consequences of an extensive surveillance system? Is it that everyone does stuff deemed illegal by our society every once and a while and don't want to be caught? I'm by no means a perfect citizen, but when I do something "illegal" such as speeding, I am willing to suffer the consequences for my actions. A society is only as good as the laws that govern it and these laws are meaningless if not enforced. I think it goes without question that the majority of people will break laws that they deem inappropriate if they feel that they will not get caught (look at the number of people that exceed the speed limit on highways).
It seems that any of the potential negatives would be outweighed by the positives:
- Potentially higher rate of capturing criminals; therefore a safer environment.
- Potentially higher rate of actual criminal being caught since the surveillance cameras should also help an innocent person's alibi.
- Everyone thinking twice before committing a violation of the law.
It seems that the majority of concerns regarding surveillance and privacy are centered around potential misuse of the information by the government. While I agree that it can be a valid concern, we must remember that the government is made of people like us who were elected by us. If the government does misuse surveillance or any other law enforcement capability, it is our fault for not being involved enough to allow it to happen and our responsibility to change the situation by electing different people to office or voting on different laws. The problem with our government system (in the US at least) is that we have the burden of being involved with the operation of our government and the responsibility to know who we are electing to office.
Wear a plain old paperbag over your head if you don't want to be recognized. Alot cheaper than carrying around a PDA, and a better way of showing your statement.
If you don't fancy a paperbag, ask a local bank robber whats "in" these days.
I know I'd be uptight living in a police state with 2400 police officers on about 1200 blocks.
Okay. Take any big downtown London area, notorious for pickpockets. You have an area with an inordinate amount of crime, in public. When I was there a while ago, the police had funky vans parked in the area, with cameras sticking out of the top, and signs when you enter the square pointing out that police surveilance was underway (and to beware of pickpockets).
In this case, we have something where it's quite obvious that the police are helping to cut down on crime, and make this a safer place for people to hang out.
This is quite different than sticking cameras everywhere 'just in case someone does something bad'.. it's totally different.
To put it differently. If the local gang keeps running up and down my street, smashing everyone's car and throwing rocks at houses, as well as rampant theft, I will not have a problem when the police seal off the block and start asking for ID for people going in and out. Why? Because they are directly addressing a real, current problem.
On the other hand, if they start (a-la Dark Angel) cordoning off sections of the city, and requiring sector-passes in order to move around, 'just in case' there might be crime, that's a totally, completely different situation.
The implicit assumption in my comment, of course, is that information about people's movements, gleaned through automated surveillance techniques (like cell-phone tracking and face-recognition (however imperfect the technology is today)), will eventually be collated and sold just as other sorts of personal data are sold. Think credit-reporting bureaus, etc.
I'm talking about a decade from now when TransUnion and Equifax are brokering this information.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
How about we require everyone to carry digital ID, and to present it when entering/leaving any building or public transportation device. We could use a big wireless network to database all this information. That way, everyone automatically has an alibi.
We could even go one step further, out of convenience, and require people to carry location transmitters, so we can track who goes where in the city, after all.. those who aren't doing anything wrong have nothing to fear, right?
It goes without saying that anyone who has a fake pass or refuses to wear a location transmitter must have something to hide, and should therefore be detained and questioned.
Also, all telephone calls, and all conversations (everyone should have to wear a mic), should be taped and databased (with strict privacy laws, of course, only law enforcement officials would be permitted to listen to this stuff in order to protect us). In the case where people use an alternate communication method, that should be recorded as well. Any communication that circumvents these recording devices would be evidence that someone was up to no good, after all, if they aren't doing anything wrong, they have nothing to hide.
As for having many laws... laws DO have meaning, even if not enforced. THey become dangerous laws; tools of those in power to get their way. You see, the more laws there are, the higher the chances are that you broke one or two along the way. And when everyone is guilty of something, it's rather easy for a corrupt system to use that to its advantage.
Case two: you spit on the sidewalk. You are filmed by a video camera. Five years later Atty. General Ashcroft decides to put every member of your ethnic group behind bars with no recourse. All the tapes are run, you are spotted spitting on the sidewalk, hauled in, transferred to a secret prison in New York with no lawyer or contact with your family (it is happening today in the USofA, and its all over but the gang rape.
Do you see the difference?
sPh
Why exactly does it say "now more than ever" and the version number is 911? The character is a guy with a bomb walking around new york city. Do they WANT to imply it is great for terrorists?
You just said that you live in Times Square, dude. Did you expect to have some privacy? BTW, why the hell would anyone live in Times Square? The Italian tourists drove me out of SOHO to the East Vill -- I can't imagine how awful it would be to live amongst all those fat American, greasy french fry-eating TRL fans.
OTOH, these cameras are useful in reconstruction of events after the fact. Mugged with no witnesses? If there is a camera recording what is going on, it doesn't matter. What irks me the most about this is that (outside of Slashdot) the people that whine the most about the cameras are the ones that they are there for in the first place. Recently there has been a lot of talk about traffic light cameras to catch people who run red lights. All of the interviewees that I have seen that are against it say something to the effect of "Yeah, I do it" and then give some lame excuse. Guess what buddy -- its AGAINST THE F*CKING LAW. If you get caught breaking the law then I have no sympathy for you whatsoever.
-1, Stupid
-1, Wrong
-1, Alarmist
I read through http://www.appliedautonomy.com/isee/info.html and yet I still don't see what's wrong with being recorded as I walk down the street. This webpage even has a section on "But what's the harm?", but the section doesn't actually do any more than reiterating that you can be recorded. So what if I'm recorded?
I mean really: if you're not doing anything wrong and the law is on your side then you have nothing to worry about. If you're not doing anything wrong and the law is not on your side, work to change the law. If you're doing something wrong then cut it out.
I only see cameras as a positive thing generating more information (which geeks should love). They are not repressive in and of themselves. Some structures exist that can use cameras to be oppressive, but these are a seperate issue from the cameras themselves. Fight them, not the cameras.
Abuse of CCTV cameras is NOT a given.
Far from oppression, cameras actually spell empowerment for people if they're accepted and used properly!
Well, I'm not necessarily talking about enormous video archives - that's probably not practical or especially marketable. But I suspect there is probably a sizable commercial market for databases of condensed location information collated from many sources, just one of which may be cctv/face-recognition systems (another might be cell-phone tracking, which unlike face ). Just the rather mundane direct marketing possibilities would be lucrative - Think of a store buying a list of shoppers who frequent a competitor, for the purpose of pitching offers to these persons. I'd wager that such information is much more salable than video rental records or student records. (Medical records, while nominally protected, are freely traded if you use health insurance.) The likelihood that there's large sums to be made selling such information suggests that such information will eventually be collected and sold.
Furthermore, TransUnion, Experian, Equifax, the Direct Marketing Association and others have been very active in lobbying against privacy legislation precisely because they make money by trading personal data. I do not believe they are likely to stop, nor do I believe there are others with similar financial interests lobbying on the other side of this issue.
While this map may be a silly exercise, it is a thought-provoking one. My original post on the matter has little to do with this exercise and a lot to do with addressing the "who cares if we're always on camera?" argument.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
Do you see the difference?
Yeah, in one case you're being an idiot and in the other case not.
It could just as easily be that a police officer sees you walking around the WTC with a camera and even though there is no law against it he uses his "human judgment" to haul you in, at which point they discover you have overstayed your visa and have 20 pounds of cocaine on your person and the AG decides to put you in a secret prison because you are a threat to national security.
The only argument you have made against automatic surveillance is that sometimes people should be able to break the law and get away with it. First you'd need to convince me that this is the case. Second you'd need to convince me that using cameras somehow makes this impossible. I can still contest a ticket and convince a judge that I should have been allowed to break the law in a specific case. And then the judge gets to use his human judgment to decide whether or not it is a valid argument.
So I guess I'm saying I don't understand your problem with automatic surveillance to detect breaches of law.
That was the answer, right?
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
I got the beaten up on Australia Day two years ago outside the old Utopia Record store on George Street.
Right under a surveilance camera.
They're not a deterrent. So what's the point? Really? I'd rather see more police walking the street than more cameras. This would bring dual benefit - being able to finger the assailant, and also having proactive crime prevention measures instead of purely reactive ones, like all "after the fact" "safeguards".
Incidently, the incident that started all this was another geek with a loud mouth, but that's another story.
Sure, cameras may help nab a few pickpockets that otherwise wouldn't be prosecuted. Ask yourself how many people are pickpockets? Maybe 1% of people are willful criminals? That's probably very high.
That means that 99% of the people that are spied on by cameras are doing nothing wrong. "If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide." That's a joke. We all have something to hide...our private lives. I'm not willing to surrender the freedom and privacy of 99% of people just so that 1% may (or may not!) have a better chance of being prosecuted.
There's too much potential for abuse. We already know this. Security guards in malls stalk/ogle women. They make their own copies and pass them around to buddies. If the gov't gets involved in this, you can bet this information will be available "as a public service." Do you want potential employers getting tapes of you walking into a bar every night? It's none of their business how you relax on your private time, but they might get the impression that you'd be a less reliable employee.
The question you should be asking yourself with any proposed legislation is not, "What effect will this have if properly enforced," but, "What effect will this have if it's abused?"
Being able to monitor someone is a control issue. Are you comfortable with someone staring at you? Didn't think so. So why are you comfortable with cameras watching your every move?
Being monitored is a statement that gov't doesn't trust us. I thought we were innocent until proven guilty in the US. Now we're all presumed guilty, and Big Brother is just waiting to catch it. Where's the probable cause for this evidence collection? This isn't simply "happening" to catch someone in the act of a crime, this is purposeful evidence collection without just cause.
Constitutionally Correct
sPh
The thing that most people don't know - and I didn't until just recently - is how MANY closed circuit video cameras there are in England. How many? Over 2,500,000 of them. We're not talking about just the cameras that are inside certain businesses, but outside on the street. There are over 150,000 in London alone. 1,400 in the Underground, and 1,600 around other public transportation. Just walking down the street in London you will get filmed an average of 300 times in a single day.
/. leads me to believe that the English have completely become accustomed to having their right to privacy thrown out the window. I didn't even know what a CCTV WAS until a week or so ago. The English basically live 1/2 a step away from a big-brother police state and are used to it already.
The history of the cameras is that in the 1990s when the IRA was putting bombs all over London, the Brits started putting cameras up to spot the terrorists. But since no one protested, the numbers grew from a few thousand a decade ago to the millions that now adorn every little hamlet across the cold little island today.
The casualness of the above post and others I have read here in
Actually, they are quite proud of it: A recent article in Spain's El Mundo has a wonderful little quote (translated back into English) "I think that only those that have something to hide oppose the video cameras. If you're an honerable citizen, I don't see what there is to fear, they're there to protect you. -- Lucy Chapman, a London Lawyer of 32 years." Well isn't THAT wonderfully cliche?
A society has to have a base level of pettiness, distrust and basic disgust for their fellow man to have as many cameras as England has. It's amazing to me that they aren't out in the street protesting about them. But 2.5 million isn't enough: The secretary of the Interior, John Denham just announced that Great Britain is investing another 160 million Euros in MORE cameras.
The article has a variety of whingers talking about how the cameras have cut crime rates, etc. But at what price? Why try not fix a society that has massive cultural and class divisions which cause this sort of pettty crime that the cameras are stopping in the first place?
I'm hoping that we Americans can keep our heads after 9/11 and not go nuts like the Brits and put cameras everywhere in some sort of deluded attempt to stop crime and terrorism.
-Russ
Me
Now, can you say "Richard Nixon and the IRS"? How about "J. Edger Hoover and Martin Luther King"? "My Lai"? Any clearer?
sPh
I live in Virginia Beach, VA, and the city council is trying their asses off to get cameras installed at the beach, not just cameras, but cameras armed with facial recognition software, you think Manhattan is bad, try having your face scanned.
"You're going to jail"
"Why?"
"Because the computer said you're Carlos the Jackal."
"But I'm not."
"Well, computers don't lie son, I mean, Carlos, lets load him in the Paddy Wagon next to Osama, Manuel Noriega, and the Olsen twins."
I hate sigs.
As per my post toward the beginning of this discussion: that would be fine if there were a few hundred laws
I don't see how the number of laws is relevant.
if 99% of the population agreed on those laws and penalties
This also isn't relevant. Just because you disagree with a law doesn't mean you should be able to break it. You know the laws, you choose to live in this country, that's a fairly explicit agreement to abide by the laws. If you feel so strongly that a law is unjust you can go to court and a jury can acquit you.
if they were all enforced evenly across the population
You don't think removing arbitrary human judgments from the equation wouldn't help make laws be more evenly enforced? Now the attractive young woman in a halter top is just as likely to get the speeding ticket as the short, ugly, old man.
and if those doing the enforcing were only and always pure of heart.
Again, removing human judgment from the equation seems to help with this, contrary to what you are implying.
Now, can you say "Richard Nixon and the IRS"? How about "J. Edger Hoover and Martin Luther King"? "My Lai"? Any clearer?
What do these have to do with automatic surveillance versus human suveillance?
- The Light Of Other Days
which addresses the question "What would the world be like if anyone could open up a little wormhole connected to anywhere at anytime and peek in?". The end of all privacy. Some answers: The end of crime, exhibitionists for future viewers, and toms peeping on Jesus. IMHO, this is a first rate book and as usual, Clarke follows up with why years from now it might be for real.The publisher has some sample reading from this book at www.tor.com/lood.html.
I personally would find a map of the path of most surveillance more comforting.
-- Each tock of the Planck clock is a new world and here we are still life. --
It would be easier.
And if I go to a sports game, I'm on camera.
And if I drive on the freeway, I'm on camera.
And if I go to a govt agency, I'm on camera.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Leaving aside Nixon and Hoover, I point out that Calley was tried and convicted. (And as far as Hoover goes, think of how little oversight there'd be on the FBI were it not for the bad PR from COINTELPRO?)
Sometimes, the system does work.
The result is that just about every activity you can think of is sort of illegal in some way or another. You did remember to get an EPA permit for exhaling, didn't you?
So whenever someone like John Ashcroft takes it into his head to put you in jail because you don't agree with his religious beliefs (see Oregon), he can find some law to use for that purpose.
But I am guessing you realize that, so there isn't much point to continuing this discussion.
sPh
If you are at all interested in the issues brought about by introducing one-way cameras to public places, I strongly recommend David Brin's Transparent Society .
He sees (and I agree) that these technologies will become more and more prevalent, and that all we can do to prevent their abuse by police and the government is to carefully monitor the people that are monitoring us.
It's a fascinating book, and covers a wide range of topics, from Internet censorship and toxicity of ideas, to the need for a society to criticize its leaders in order to remain healthy and free.
So I'll keep it brief. After comment #200, nobody pays attention.
The problems with cameras is not that they are an invasion of privacy in the same sense as, say, police entering your home without a warrant.
The problem with them is that they require you to place absolute trust in your government. In the states, at least, that seems to run completely counter to the ideas of the founding fathers.
Whoever is in power has access to tapes of everything you do -- including who you spent time with. (Right to associate freely), including what placard you were holding (free speech), your religious dress / ornamentation(freedom of religion).
So whoever is in power, with some simple cross referencing, could isolate dissidents/undesirables pretty quickly, assuming they bothered to maintain an index of the tapes.
Too much information possessed by a government regarding its citizenry is a very very bad thing. Film showing everything a citizen does in a public place is certainly too much information.
-l
CCTV is about as much use against a terrorist threat as a man with a pointed stick.
No, since a "terrorist" would LIKE to bring attaention to his cause, he actually has an incentive to get captured on film. A point stick, at least, can put an eye out. A more accurate analogy would be something like:
CCTV is about as much use against a terrorist threat as a bag of free money to the first terrorist to succeed.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
iSeeThatAppleHasACopyrightOnAllThingsThatBeginWith A-W ordAsThey-
u ct
l
LowercaseLetter'I'AndGoOnLikeThisCapitalizingEach
Go.
iAmAboutToGetSuedByAppleForThisLetter,
iTakeIt?
iAlsoGuessThatAppleWillSueThePeopleWhoMakeTheProd
iSee
iWillDieNowIf
iDontStopWritingPostsLikeThisOrAtLeastMyWalletWil
iSayByeByeNow,
P-iGuy...
Useful service? What the hell?
Can anyone tell me how this would be a useful service?
A great political statement.
Completely useless as a "service" to anyone.
Just fuck off if you have nothing to say, dont try to make yourself sound good.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Anyone know of a way to disrupt signals from CCTV's as you walk along? I'm thinking along the lines of that cell phone blocking a while back where they would cancel the signal out.
You can't cross from Washington, DC into Virginia without passing through the eyes of a camera. On the DC side of each bridge over the Potomac is a camera that takes your picture if you go too fast, or run the light at the end of the bridge (it might be on all the time, and only record your image, if you break the law). Also, if you are a pedestrian, and you take the Metro, there are cameras _everywhere_. Outside that, there are probably many, many cameras elsewhere in this city.
So instead of stopping the government from infringing on our civil liberties, we avoid the issue until cameras are so widespread that we CAN'T escape them? Now that's what I call ass-backwards.
This also isn't relevant. Just because you disagree with a law doesn't mean you should be able to break it. You know the laws, you choose to live in this country, that's a fairly explicit agreement to abide by the laws.
Most of us aren't little sheep that just go along for the ride. Have you ever read those lists of stupid laws? In some cities, it's still illegal to tie a horse to a pole before noon on a Sunday. If you were to actually sit down and go through the lawbooks, you would find that you are breaking minor laws every single day. Laws that most police officers wouldn't do a damn thing about. But what happens when some jackass politician decides to further his career by "cracking down" on anyone who spits on a sidewalk? "We're going to clean up this town, and we'll use our video cameras to do it." So, you're walking along one day, something gets in your mouth (dust, a mosquito, maybe a piece of food from breakfast that was lodged in your teeth) and you spit it out. Next thing you know, you've got a $500 fine in your mailbox.
Most laws are bullshit. If they were all good, we wouldn't have millions of them, we'd only have a few hundred.
As for your bold statements about abiding by all laws, have you ever exceeded the speed limit? How would you like a network of cameras recording your speed, and mailing tickets if you exceeded the limit even slightly? This already happens in some US cities. I can't count how many times I've looked down and realized I was doing 38 in a 35. Probably happens every day, but I don't give it a second thought. It's only a couple miles per hour - who cares, right? With a CCTV network monitoring this, they'd throw my ass in jail with the rest of the scofflaws.
I bet you tell me next that it would be my own fault, that I should learn to adhere to the speed limit. You know what? I do. But it's impossible to keep a vehicle exactly at 35mph all the time. Everyone - even cruise control systems - will fluxuate a few mph in either direction. It's not an issue for 95% of us because we notice we're speeding and slow back down before a cop sees it. When that cop is an automated camera network, every infraction is a ticket. And everyone on the road would get one.
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
What you conveniently skip over is the usefulness of CCTV in combating terrorism. CCTV has been used very effectively for this roll in London. For instance take this report - Bomb suspect caught on CCTV - where CCTV was used to show the bomber and jog the memory of people in the area. And this report where you can clearly see the face of the nail bomber (in the picture further down).
I personally feel safer with CCTV than without, and when I cycle into town deliberatly lock up my bike at safe locations that are under the visible gaze of the CCTV poles.
The majority of people in the UK see CCTV as a beneficial thing to have, as do I.
Then they could actually stop the petty crime, instead of providing a false sense of security and causing the criminals to hide their faces more, instead of moving?
Oh really? Try listening in on two people holding a conversation on the street. Betcha they object and say something like, "Hey asshole, we're trying to have a private conversation."
Let's see how far you with a reply of, "You have no expectation of privacy in a public place. Therefore I can listen all I want." I hope you get the shit kicked out of you.
this is in response to all the "if you have nothing to hide..." people: the whole idea behind fighting big brother surveillance/monitoring tech and other big-brother-ish activities, is that under a big brother situation, the powers that be do not always have YOUR best interests in mind. Sure, one can argue that countries such as the US are not an all-out police state yet, so why not allow more and more big brother activities? The idea of prevention being the best cure applies here. Lets prevent our semi-free nations from becoming less so. Lets keep in mind not only our freedom but the freedom of future generations as well. Technology which allows these big brother activities hasnt been around for even one century, and already look whats happening. How much freedom do you envision your children enjoying, or your great great great grandchildren? Where do you see your beloved, supposedly "free" nation 100 years from now? 500? 5000? Also all of the arguments against this mapping of cameras are ridiculous. Right, Joe SmokesALottaCrack who lives on the corner of 3rd and Main might go home to his cardboard box and get on his computer and during his daily checking of slashdot, happen onto the posting about these camera mappings, and now thanks to those damned tree huggers he can devise some master plan to go rob your grandmother walking down the street and not get caught on tape. Oh, and lets not forget the terrorists, who also btw check slashdot every day, who's sole goal in life is to die a martyr and go straight to allah...yes, now they too can devise a master plan of planting a bomb and not get caught on video tape. Of course they would never dream of planting bombs had it not been for the tree huggers who made these camera mappings...
This is not true - the only terrorist they have ever caught thru CCTV was the brixton nailbomber, who himself didn't try to hide and always said he thought he would be caught. In fact he wanted to be caught. They never caught the bombers who blew up the Taxi outside the BBC, despite having great footage of it exploding.
I also refute your claim that the majority of Londoners don't mind CCTV - the majority of people i know in london, which is a pretty representative selection of society I would say, find it oppressive. It rarely prevents crime, and all too rarely solves it either, except inside buildings where the quality (lighting and proximity) is better. But I suppose you think it's OK for Virgin mobile (for instance) to retain *location* logs of all their subscribers for over two years too. We are being increasingly monitored by the state, London especially, all in the name of catching a few bad guys who in the end adapt their methods and circumvent it all. And what is left? constant surveillence of the public, who have committed no crime. It enforces social conformity, which IMHO is a bad thing.
convince everyone you know to purchase a long green parka and an O.J. mask. Wear these when ever you leave the house.... I do!
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.