Surveillance in Washington DC And At Bookstores

dioscaido writes: "From reuters: 'Washington police are building what will be the nation's biggest network of surveillance cameras to monitor shopping areas, streets, monuments and other public places in the U.S. capital, a move that worries civil liberties groups, The Wall Street Journal said on Wednesday.'" Aragorn_2002 writes "I found this new article on Salon.com about how feds are subpoenaing book-purchasing records. Just imaging if they start to use DMCA and the new Anti-terrorist bill to subpoena someone buying books on breaking encryption." If you've ever ordered from Amazon, this might concern you. Update: 02/13 21:30 GMT by M : The full WSJ article is available on MSNBC.

Comments

Living in Britain

[Tribbles]

As I live in Britain, I'm not worried at all by all the cameras that we have here. It doesn't bother me that I can be seen going from A to B to C - the only thing I'd like to know is why someone would want to know where I've been ;-)

We've had a number of high profile cases where surveillance cameras have been instrumental in solving crimes, and I really don't have a problem with that - in fact, I'm pretty pleased with the results.

Re:Living in Britain

[Muad'Dave]

I guess You've not read this article in the current Issue of Scientific American. I block-quote the following for your perusal (emphasis mine):

In the camera-filled U.K., the London borough of Newham claimed its pilot scheme produced a 21 percent drop in crimes "against the person" and unprecedented decreases in criminal property damage, vehicle-related crime, and burglary. In August 2001 the U.K. approved a further £79 million (about $114 million) for 250 new CCTV systems. Simon Davies, a fellow at the London School of Economics and the founder and director of Privacy International, estimates that the country has at least 1.5 million CCTV cameras now in place.

Jason Ditton, professor of law at the University of Sheffield in England and director of the Scottish Center for Criminology in Glasgow, is one of the few academic sources of CCTV information. His research, funded by the government's Scottish Office, shows that the cameras are not cost-effective and that they reduce neither crime nor the fear of crime. His 1999 study of CCTV in Glasgow's city center revealed that although crime fell in the areas covered by the cameras, the drop was insignificant once general crime trends were taken into account. Even worse results were in Sydney, Australia, where a $1-million system accounted for an average of one arrest every 160 daysa quarter of the Glasgow rate, which Ditton thought was poor.

Moreover, it is not clear how much of a role the displacement effectthe shifting of crime from one area to anotherplays. A Sydney city council's report indicates that the cameras probably displaced some crime to areas outside the lens's view. And therein lies a fundamental design conflict. For the cameras to be an effective deterrent, everyone has to know they're there; however, to be effective in spotting criminals they need to be covert.

Re:Living in Britain

[elmegil]

If you're not doing anything wrong, why get all strung up on the so called invasion of your privacy?

Because what I consider wrong, and what the law considers wrong are sometimes at odds, the law frequently changes, so what isn't wrong today might be wrong tomorrow, and because what I consider wrong and what the public at large considers wrong are more frequently at odds.

If I want to buy books about growing pot or what the LSD experience is like or how to pilot a 777, it's nobody's goddamn business. If I use that information to do something illegal, then and only then does it become anyone else's business. I don't need to be harassed because I am interested in out-of-the mainstream activities, and that interest is no one's business unless it leads to lawbreaking behavior.

Jack B. Nimble is better than Uncle Fester

[mangu]

According to amazon.com readers, at least. "The Construction and Operation of Clandestine Drug Laboratories" by Jack B. Nimble got 4 1/2 stars, while "Advanced Techniques of Clandestine Psychedelic & Amphetamine Manufacture" by Uncle Fester got 3 stars.

Now that you have read this post, the highly sensitive combination of those two book names has gone into your computer. This fact has been duly recorded by Carnivore.

Re:Jack B. Nimble is better than Uncle Fester

[renehollan]

You miss the point.

The titles of those two books are now associated, with you, the reader. That could be construed as reasonable suspicion to arrest you for drug dealing and confiscate all your property under the asset forfeiture laws.

No, you don't get your property back if you're innocent.

Re:Say Goodbye to the 4th Amendment

[Lemmy Caution]

The problem is that, while the US population extolls "freedom" as an abstract virtue, in reality there is little concern for actual freedoms, when warranting those freedoms proves inconvenient, uncomfortable, or unpleasant. And, increasingly, the freedoms of others have become less important to many Americans - people who don't read could care less about freedom of the press, the War on Drugs doesn't strike your typical beer- or wine-guzzling alcoholic as a problem, racial profiling doesn't bother people who aren't in the profile, and so forth. And in each case, a "reasonable" argument can be made for the contraction of freedom.

rights are being upheld in this case

[mrroot]

I found this new article on Salon.com about how feds are subpoenaing book-purchasing records.

Actually, the article says the records have not been turned over after more than 2 years because lawyers got involved. According to the article, "Through the years, the protections accorded materials covered by the First Amendment, such as books and newspapers, have evolved to protect the institutions that provide those materials as well."

I think this article is more about how the rights are being successfully upheld rather than taken away.

Good for the goose -- Good for the gander!!!!

[4/3PI*R^3]

The surveillance is bad enough; but, with the current political climate it will probably be hard to stop the implementation. What needs to be pushed for is open access to the surveillance.

Surveillance of itself is not good or evil. But when only the government has access to the surveillance video then a small group of people get to decided on what to keep and what to discard and peoples' motives should always be suspect.

If law enforcement wants surveillance on every street corner then fine let it be. However, the citizens need to DEMAND free access to the surveilance cameras and not just after the costly legal process of a subpoena (i.e. display the images over the web). This technology already exists, the infastructure can be installed right along with the cameras. Then every citizen can see unadulterated the actual events taking place in a location and draw their own conclusions and not have to rely on the molested interpretation of the involved parties.

If law enforcment can surveil the citizens, the citizens should be able to surveil law enforcment.

Goodbye American Rights...

[UTPinky]

When they took the 4th Amendment away
I was quiet because I didn't deal in drugs...
When they took the 6th Amendment away
I was quiet because I had never been arrested...
When they took the 2nd Amendment away
I was quiet because I didn't own a gun...
Now they have taken the 1st Amendment away
and all I can do is be quiet...

Re:Goodbye American Rights...

[Tackhead]

> Will you nutsos get over yourselves on the drug thing? I'm tired of people acting like the supreme goal in life is to make drugs legal.

I've never done drugs other than alcohol and caffeine.

I think drug use should be decriminalized. Marijuana is the largest cash crop in North America. I think Philip Morris (Oops, "Altria!") could make a fscking fortune growing and selling pot, and I think the IRS and state governments could make just as big a fscking fortune taxing the sale thereof.

I also think that both the federal and state governments could save a fscking fortune by not having to house potheads and crackheads in jail. Bust the ones who drive while impaired and who get aggressive. DWI's still a crime, so's assault.

Note that I'm talking about saving taxpayer dollars by lightening the load on prisons, not downsizing law enforcement.

I'd feel safer walking the streets at night if I knew that (a) I was unlikely to be mugged for $10 in my pocket, because drugs were affordable (due to increased supply), and (b) it was more likely there'd be a cop on the street to kick the guy's ass anyways (due to cops having more free time).

More importantly, I'd also feel a hell of a lot safer getting on a plane if I knew that (c) the law enforcement effort currently targeted against drug use were channeled into securing our borders and our transportation networks against terrorists.

Legalize drugs and you generate billions in tax revenues, save billions on prison expenses, eliminate the motivation for most gang violence, and simultaneously free up the resources of a million cops to secure their communities against other criminals such as sexual predators and terrorists. Everybody wins, even the cops.

The War on Drugs is obsolete; it's a WOMBAT: a Waste Of Money, Brains, And Time. Our tax dollars can be better spent elsewhere.

It's article 12

[jeti]

I wasn't sure if privacy is really mentioned in the
human rights. To safe others the work of looking it
up:

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Re:Say Goodbye to the 4th Amendment

[SirSlud]

Right on. The best evidence is how culture perceives these types of infringements in entertertainment and media.

In basing the economy and culture on self-interest, there is little social importance placed on 'paying your interests forward' - that is, respecting that even if a decision doesn't affect you or your family right now ("Id never need an abortion", or "I'd never be an alcoholic", or "I'm not gay, so what do I care") doesn't mean it won't in the future.

The market (that by which we depend on to exist) has little interest in social rights until they affect a majority that hurts a bottom line. Large books stores are obstinately worried about their customers privacy, but only in so far as it will affect their profit margin. If each decision of this type alienates or resticts the liberty of 2% of their consumer base (especially if they are in the 'light users' category, which can be up to 70% of your customer base, but only 10% of your profits), they are unlikely to defend said restrictions vohemently. What the market fails to take into account is that once you've sufficiently chipped away at various liberties, ovet time, the cost of the social damage is far larger than the sum of the parts. This is when everyone wakes up and realizes that the attitude references in your post do do make up a larger social structure that we've depended on to justify the more destructive aspects of our political and economic system. Everyone is (or will be) in the same boat, so the 'It doest affect me' attitude really does the society, including the immediately unaffected, a disservice.

A wise observation on your part, in my opinion.

george orwell plaza under surveillance

[remou]

ohh, the irony...:-)

what the heck where they thinking???

photo of orwell plaza surveillance