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!
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 ...
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
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
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.
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
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.
Every letter was opened by state security forces.
A file was kept on everybody.
Where people were arrested and jailed without explanation
Then we turn around and defend things like:
Security cameras on every street corner.
Surveillance cameras on highway bridges that track our cars by their license plates.
Databases contianing all manner of personal informantion which are incerasingly becoming available to every Tom Dick and Harry.
People being discriminated on the base of their genetic makeup.
And we still manage to claim we are more free than the people who lived under Soviet communism. Well perhaps we are in some ways more free than the peoples of the old eastern-bloc. In others we are increasingly becoming less free. It is easy to point at Crime as a reason to put up security cameras. This however ignores the fact that Crime is the result of poverty. Setting up cameras is only treating the symptom of a disease and not the cause of it. Even the British admit that the only thing cameras achieve is to move the crime to places where there are no cameras.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
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
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