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.