Stabilized Cameras for Long-Distance Surveillance

DrBlake writes "New York Times has an article about new systems used to stabilize cameras hung from aircraft. Apparently they make it possible to see many details at 500 meters or higher. The systems are interesting in themselves and the article raises interesting concerns about what implications the systems have on privacy."

Comments

Privacy is a myth

[laetus]

From an American perspective:

1) Employers, insurers and financial institutions have access to your credit records
2) Employers and financial institutions have or are fighting for access to your medical records (why employ or make a loan to a dying man)
3) Marketing companies are tracking your shopping, spending, web viewing, etc. habits on a daily basis
4) In its fight against terrorism, the federal government is putting in place systems to find out anything about you at anytime (scan the headlines if you don't believe it).

I'm not paranoid. Just realistic and a bit fatalistic. Privacy in modern America is a myth. Watch what you say or do, because others certainly are.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[lrichardson]

"The reality check for today is that no one cares about 99.99999% of the people in this world. "

Two things wrong with this:

First, there are huge industries which keep and use all sorts of personal information. Banks use credit history, insurers use health history, and, in something which everyone in the US and most of Europe is familiar with, marketers use purchase history (and anything else they can get their paws on). It's really not accurate to say most people don't care when there are huge numbers of people employed in industries that do care.

Second, and more insidious, is the effect it has on society. When you have to curtail your own actions, for fear of what might happen - despite the fact your actions would be legal - then we've entered into the "Enemy of the State" scenario. How many people write scathing articles about scientology? Or, with reference to this article, have sex in their enclosed back yard? Both are legal, and both could lead to years of harassment.

On to the technical side of this ... I find it damn funny they're talking about removing the vibrations from helicopters to stabilize the picture. Think balloon. Think fixed-wing drone. Heck, I saw a prototype of the latter, with an electric drive, solar cells, and a simple vibration dampened camera (no gyros, no electronic compensation), and around a 30 ft wingspan that gave pictures better than those in the article ... back in 1989.

Then, of course, there's the fact that large parts of urban areas are already covered by cameras. How long will it be before the police request 'access', such that they can track a suspect? I've seen demos where they've tracked people from their apartment to their workdesk. And into the stores and restaurants they hit at lunchtime. These demos were put together after the fact, in part to argue for real-time access for the LE world. Yeah, the eye in the sky is nifty, but hardly earth-breaking with respect to the total lack of privacy we currently exist under.

There's a growing concern about 'Privatization of public space'. This applies to cell phone users, public demonstations, street vendors, and really ought to apply to the LE agencies.

Old hat

[drunkmonk]

This kind of stuff has been around for years in the military. Sure, it's a nice compact little civilian package now, but it's not exactly revolutionary.

If you're a privacy zealot, I don't see this as nearly as concerning as tracking through credit card transactions, etc. And honestly, I don't have any problem with my picture being taken when I'm walking around outside. I'm not doing anything illegal, I'm not going anywhere shameful, and if someone wants to spend thousands of dollars on technology to enable them to watch my fat ass stroll from place to place then more power to them. And hey, they might even catch a criminal or two.

Privacy?

[t_allardyce]

Your so concerned about privacy, but out-side your own homes, your privacy is 0. Even if the government (uk) doesn't put security cameras everywhere for all you know its because their hidden. Take a look next time you walk down the street. Any one of those people could be spying on you, with hidden cameras, microphones, wireless scanners, or even just cutting eye-holes in a newspaper :). Any of those buildings on the sides of the road could be full of people spying on you. How many times have you looked out of the window and watched someone walk down the road? It could be the government, a private detective, the mafia or even terrorists. What about camera crews? how do you know they're filming a documentary, they could be the government spying on you... I know there are laws to protect you from this sort of thing, but who follows laws?

Even in your home, the privacy you have is only there because of the walls surrounding you. Your phone could be tapped, there could be lasers pointing at your windows to pick-up sound. There could be infrared cameras looking for heat sources.

Lets not even talk about the isp admins who could be reading your mail...

You don't have any privacy.

Privacy?

[OpIv37]

I'm not exactly sure how this relates to improved police surveillance cameras, but Americans (and probably many other countries as well, especially England) have lost their privacy years ago. Think about it:

-Almost every school/store/bank/gas station/place of employment has security cameras- there is video footage of you almost anywhere you go
-Every time you do any banking at a branch office or pay for anything electronically (ATM, Credit Card), there is an electronic record of where you were at that time
-Every time you log into the Internet or use any site to purchase/pay a bill etc, there is an electronic record that you (or at least someone with access to your account) was online at that time
-If you attend college, there is an electronic record every time you use your ID to enter your dorm, go to the dining hall, check books out of the library, use the gym, etc.

I know I'm getting dangerously close to paranoia- I'm 99.99% sure that no one is tracking me or has ever attempted to track me. My point is simply that if someone wants to track me (or anyone else for that matter), it would be fairly simple to pinpoint my exact locations throughout the day.

Our society is becoming ever closer to matching the Big Brother/Enemy of the State model. The question: How do democratic nations such as the US defend civil rights while still protecting their citizens from criminals and terrorists?

I find myself being somewhat ambiguous on this issue. I hate the thought of the police or the government being able to observe common citizens- it is clearly dangerous and, in many cases, unconstitutional. However, what's the point of freedom if you can't leave your house without getting mugged or blown up? I'm going to have to do some more thinking about this, but my gut reaction is that I'll take my chances with the terrorists and the murderers rather than being under constant surveillance when I've done nothing wrong.

As far as the specific issue of high-tech police cameras- there are only two of these cameras and they are only in one city. Cameras are nothing new- simply increasing the technology is no more of a violation of privacy (or a police necessity, depending on your opinion) than the previous versions.

US Military insurrection

[intermodal]

See, the thing is, according to their oath that they all take, the US military should have revolted against the government decades ago. They are sworn to uphold the constitution, not the current regime or "US Foreign Policy". The constitution has been increasingly subjected to bastardizing and degradation at the hands of politicians, getting worse with every succession of each Congressman and Senator's term. However, since the military brass can't technically get another star to improve from Brigadier General to Major General and such without Congressional approval, it'll never happen...