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?!

[Marcus Brody]

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.

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

Re:A useful services?!

[fish waffle]

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...

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.

That's too complicated.

[glowingspleen]

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

Re:That's too complicated.

[Pseudonym]

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

2,400 cameras?

[JamesSharman]

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

Not a statement, but a total waste of time

[standards]

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.

Re: Path of Least Surveillance

[Iguanasan]

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?

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!

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.