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.

Comments

A useful services?!

[Psiren]

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.

Re:A useful services?!

[mip]

I remember seeing somewhere that it is the legal right of the filmee to have access to any recording made of them, for a small fee to cover the costs...so perhaps you could build up a nice collection: "here is me walking down the highstreet..", "and this is me looking at a sign..", "ooh, ohh, this is good! this is me going in a shop!" ;) -dan

How dull...

[Anonymous Coward]

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 ?

My prognosis

[Scutter]

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.

CCTV DPA WTF

[squaretorus]

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!

Re:Here's a thought...

[BeermanUK]

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.

aren't we over-reacting?

[Cesaro]

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.

Re:aren't we over-reacting?

[stubear]

I gotta agree with you and I just want to add one more point I think you vaguely hinted at. Imagine the infrastructure required to track EVERY individual (as many opponents to these systems seem to think they track everyone - themselves being of utmost importance to national security that of course they top the list) by video surveillance? Imagine the manpower required to run the system. What about the hardware infrastructure? Storage of all the video to track every individual?

These systems act as a deterrent to crime, not as a solution to stopping crime. As you are in a public place there is no expectation of privacy and law enforcement should be free to make use of electronic surveillance equipment to improve monitoring of city streets and parks.

Re:aren't we over-reacting?

[isaac]

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.

With all due respect, I'm not sure you're really aware of what exploitation of such data might do to your life.

Everyone finds themselves under scrutiny at some time - job interviews, court proceedings (think divorces, civil suits, subpoenas to testify as witnesses, etc., not just criminal acts). Should a prospective employer be able to purchase information on your movements? Do you want them to know you're, e.g., being treated for a medical condition not relevant to your ability to do the job? Or what about your current employer - should they be able to keep tabs on you outside of work, to see if you're interviewing somewhere else?

What if you witness a crime and are asked to testify in court? Should the adverse party have access to your day-to-day movements, they will certainly attempt to use them to undermine your credibility, with potentially embarrasing results. Involved in a divorce or custody case? Lawsuit with your insurer? Expect this info, if available, to be used against you in the most prejudicial way.

Everyone eventually rubs someone else the wrong way at some time. Do you want the unstable guy you cut off on the freeway this morning to have access to your day-to-day movements?

There really aren't any regulations or statutes pertaining to the sale of this type of information; only very narrow classes of information are protected at all by law (medical records, the privacy rights to which you waive if you have insurance; video rental records, explicitly protected by Congress after the Bork confirmation hearings; student records, also protected from disclosure by statute). Everythign else is pretty much fair game.

I think your apathy belies serious naivete.

-Isaac

And dont use a cell phone.

[Bazman]

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

similar story

[ragnar]

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.

If you have done nothing, you have nothing to fear

[redhog]

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!