Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Path of Least Surveillance

Posted by michael on from the little-brother-is-watching dept.

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.

19 of 274 comments (clear)

  1. A useful services?! by Psiren · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:A useful services?! by Marcus+Brody · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Where do you live? Have you been mugged recently?

      I live in campberwell (near Brixton), South London. It has a high crime rate - especially muggings. It has alot of CCTV cameras. AFAIK, i am filmed by at least 12 cameras on my 5 minute walk to/from work.

      I have been mugged on my way home from work. Alot of the people I work with have been mugged (perhaps 1/4 - and yes, there is a tendancy for WASPs and/or foreign nationals to be targetted). However, despite the cameras, not one single culprit for the muggings I know of have been caught.

      Why not?

      1. The muggers already know where the cameras are. I was mugged on my own resedential street, perhaps the only place on my way home where I am not under servaillance. A friend was mugged in a park.

      2. The muggers tend to wear baseball caps and hooded tops at the same time, pretty much obscuring their face altogethor - especially at night, with there heads held down, looking towards the ground (remeber where most cameras are mounted...)

      3. The police are severely underfunded (perhaps too much money on cameras eh?). I would much rather see (as would a large majority of people) patrolling police officers, which offers a much better detternt than any camera. Also, the police dont have the money/resources to chase up many muggings.

      Anyway, perhaps if you read the applied autonomy README:

      http://www.appliedautonomy.com/isee/info.html

      This may provide a few other points of the problems with CCTV, and why what they are doing is a good idea.

    2. Re:A useful services?! by mip · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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

    3. Re:A useful services?! by fish+waffle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dunno if it reduces your legal rights, but putting cameras in public places has more of an impact than just catching more criminals.

      One-way observation is an expression of control; it is a social communication. People demonstrate dominion over others through observational dominance. Cameras in public places are continuous reminders that you are a subject of the state, and subservient to its whims. There's a reason why most people associate continuous surveillance with totalitarianism.

      Most people do things they'd rather not have others see. Not all of these can be done in the home. Note that while it is possible that even without cameras you are observed at almost any point outside, it is less likely, and the audience is certain to be far smaller.

      Beyond embarassing actions, it is difficult to live without breaking one law or another at some time. Surely you've jay-walked? Littered? Walked home intoxicated? Put our your garbage before 5pm? Expect a court summons in the mail...

      Potential for abuse is great. Ever seen how security guards use the cameras at malls? Do you enjoy being stalked? Once you've scared away all the pickpockets and muggers, what 'criminals' do you target in order to justify your cameras?

      Ever had a stranger stare at you for a significant length of time? Uncomfortable isn't it? Whether it affects their 'rights' or not, people do not like to be continually observed---it is fundamentally irritating and hostile.

      These are all quality of life kinds of things. How regulated do you want your life to be?

      On the bright side, perhaps they could identify police/government abuses, ala Rodney King --- oh, wait, guess who'll own the videotapes...

    4. Re:A useful services?! by sphealey · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I *really* fail to see why it's a reduction in freedom. What can you not do in front of a camera, that you couldn't do before? Apart from commit a crime and get away with it? If you really object to being filmed, then don't live in the city.
      If there were a few hundred laws, and 99% of the population agreed on those laws and their consequences, and if those laws were enforced evenly with no hypocracy or exceptions for the rich/powerful/politicians/children of politicians, and if the people making and enforcing the laws were truely pure of heart, with no emotions, personal agendas, desire for their own gain, or desire for power for its own sake, then you might be right (I would still disagree on pure philosophical grounds, but you might be).

      In fact, there are millions of laws and hunderds of millions of pages of executive branch interpretation of those laws, people become politicians/police/Attorneys General because they enjoy power and think they know better than others how the others should live their lives, hypocrisy and self-righteousness are rampant among the powerful. Always has been that way in human history.

      So for that reason, it is better not to be watched all the time, even at the cost of some safety.

      sPh

  2. My prognosis by Scutter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?"
  3. That's too complicated. by glowingspleen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That is far too complicated. Just do what I do...whenever you venture outside, dress like CarrotTop.

    --


    ------
    Let me give you the lowdown
    1. Re:That's too complicated. by Pseudonym · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you want to avoid surveillance, the optimal strategy is to walk six feet behind someone dressed like Carrot Top.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  4. 2,400 cameras? by JamesSharman · · Score: 5, Funny

    What your needing is a good map of the sewers and pair of water tight boots!

  5. Not a statement, but a total waste of time by standards · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  6. Re: Path of Least Surveillance by Iguanasan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  7. goes both ways by bluebomber · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  8. CCTV DPA WTF by squaretorus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!

  9. I live in Times Square by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just about where that iSee introductory flash animation zooms in on.

    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. ;-P

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  10. I would like to see more surveillance cameras by pubjames · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  11. Re:Here's a thought... by BeermanUK · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  12. aren't we over-reacting? by Cesaro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:aren't we over-reacting? by isaac · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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

      --
      I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
  13. similar story by ragnar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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