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.
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?"
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!
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
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.
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
Thank you. I was being serious. It wasn't intended as a troll.
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?
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
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
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!
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.
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)
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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'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.
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
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.
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?
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
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.
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
So you suggest that if someone - anyone is ever "aggressed," then everyone needs to be under constant surveillance to keep this from happening again?
Are the people who want to avoid the cameras the same that carry a cellular phone ?
One would think so. Carrying a cell phone, or a gun, or walking with friends are options for individuals who are worried about their safety. They choose to take those measures for their own peace of mind. This is a way of protecting your freedom without infringing your neighbors'.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
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!"
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
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.
If I had mod points, I'd mod you up. Great post - and I agree completely. If they're going to put the cameras up there, stream them to the web in real time and let the public use them. Many areas in the state of Washington (and I'm sure throughout the rest of the country as well) already do this. You can see current pass & freeway conditions. You can hop on the state ferry system's website and watch ferry docks and traffic buildup. Great resource.
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
However because his wife knows he's close to the secretary but isnt sure if it's anything more than just friendship the film could quite easily trigger her into beliving it's something closer than that.
That's a marriage problem that centers on trust and has nothing to do with cameras at all.
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig