Slashdot Mirror
Turning a Blind Eye to Big Brother
SiliconRedox writes: "An article in the NYTimes (user reg.) details what many of us who have worked with video or electronics have known for quite awhile: Shine a laser beam (or infrared, but the article doesn't get into that) at a video camera, and you can effectively blind certain viewpoints of the camera. The article follows one man trying to cope with the surveillence society by removing his own image from everyday video footage using this technique. The most interesting part? What kind of culpability does the individual or institution have in utilizing this kind of technology?"
Isn't it just as much your right to be not seen as it is to seen? Wearing black such that people can not see you is just the same as blinding a camera.
And lets not forget the liability of shining a laser in someone's eye. Even though he mentions he's using low powered laser pointers, those still have the potential of harming someone. And in our sue happy society, we don't even have to wait until it actually does harm someone. All it will take is a greedy lawyer to start up a class action lawsuit.
I ride the MUNI in San Francisco, which is the public buses, and well, they have about 3-4 cameras on the new buses and perhaps even microphones (i am not sure).
I cant imagine any normal people running around with laser pointers in side the bus, pointing that thing at the cameras. Okay, there are lots of crazy people on the SF Buses, but no one sane would do it. Doenst one have better things to do? Or worse things to worry about?
While Mr. Naimark acknowledged that he had some ethical discomfort about his project because his information could be useful to terrorists, he decided to go ahead.
.02
"My interest and motivation is to provide the creative community with some stimulating and provoking stuff," he writes. "These are stimulating and provoking times."
I have ethical problems w/these devices being put into place to watch me. They have absolutely NO place in public areas. I do NOT like the fact that people are there watching what I do.
VMS sites in PA have bothered my for some time. They are going to "only watch traffic patterns". Oh fucking bullshit. They are going to say that until they are in place and in use for an undetermined amount of time. Once the devices are there they are going to use them to track speeders and other lawless individuals.
We do NOT need machines tracking us or doing the job of the police. If the cop isn't paying attention, or isn't there when I blow by their hiding spot in the middle of the road at 105, tough.
There's NO reason to have feelings against radar jamming (the cops cheat to find out how fast you are going, why shouldn't we cheat and not let them know how fast we are going?), blocking out video taping in public places of people, etc.
That's my worthless
My guess? Someone will do this while they rob the 7-11, the technique will become "terrorist" (or whatever) & nobody will care [enough] about the Big Brother potential of the cameras.
To blind a CCD or other imaging device, infrared beams won't cut it. You need high enough energy photons that guarantee virtually every photon entering will produce an electron-hole pair in each type of detector. That means at the very least, inside the visible range. Preferably just beyond into the ultraviolet. If I swamp out the reds, a smart technician could just look at the other colors to determine what's going on.
So, you really want ultraviolet. Just barely into that range will work. That would ensure all the detectors were swamped and thus nothing could be done to get an image out. Now, someone please let me know when ultraviolet lasers and high-powered LEDs are avaiable on the market. Well, maybe I'll let you all know when it's done since that's something I'm doing for my PhD work ;)
Long, cute, or funny Sigs are just another form of over compensation, used by geeks, nerdz, etc.
he isnt destroying anything. the blindness is temporary. the only 'camera' i know of that could be permanently blinded by a normal laser pointer is the CMOS inside my flatbed scanner.
"I'd hope that Big Brother wouldnt spy on us outside our legal rights"
The article mentions hidden video cameras in the bathroom [toilet] of hotels. I have actually seen these in UK service-stations (2mm hole in smoke detectors), and everyone who hears about them is disgusted at the concept.
Larger-scale, towns all over the country are rushing to install cameras. Our high-street has a particularly prominent mast being installed, which looks far too spookily like the panopticon in its placement. They don't solve crimes, they don't prevent crimes, they don't make the streets safer.
This has been proven. Video cameras covered the alleged kidnapping of a girl in our town last year, and they were no use whatever with the police investigation. We have video-footage of several thefts, and car-vandalism, again, these have not been used to solve any crimes.
Local councellors are pleading with government for money to install these things without even a clue as to their lack of effectiveness at any sort of real crime.
Italian-job style jammers may be nice playing with these cameras, ultraviolet ones like the US Army is using to permanently blind people would be better, but what can people actually do if the local council (and every other) says you will live in a surveilled society and put up with it?
Hey, maybe in light (pun) of this guy's antics, the RIAA will now lobby congress to outlaw all laser diodes over a certain wattage (in the name of "homeland security" you understand). This would make CD writers illegal. Look Ma, no piracy problems!
Of course, that would also make CD *players* illegal, so at least for the time being, that might pose a slight problem.
Of course, if they're selling CD's, they don't care if anyone is actually playing them...
While I'm glad someone is out their pushing back at all the video taping aimed at us, I don't see why this is such a huge problem. I agree everyone has a right to privacy. But when you enter a public place, you give up some of your rights of privacy. No one is putting cameras in your house or invading your privacy.
How is it invading anything to watch you where you are already watched anyway (by humans)?
Uninnovate - Only the finest in engineering.
SuperDuG writes:
"I do believe that it is well within someone's right to not have their picture taken if they don't wish it to be. Or at least have a warning on the entrance of an establishment that you are being videotaped. I think the law that says you don't have to inform someone that you're videotaping them, but that you do for audio is bogus. The law needs to be changed, it's an invasion of privacy no matter how you want to look at it, if someone doesn't want to be videotaped, then they shouldn't be videotaped, there is no grey area. You should be informed before proceeding that you are under video survailence."
I'm an amateur photographer. I have tons of photographs of people who I never asked to be in my pictures. Generally, they're ancilary to my subject, but occasionally not.
For example, I shoot subway pictures in Boston. You'd like to see this made illegal unless I get everyone'ss permission, presumably in writing?
I've taken pictures of the Rocky Horror Picture Show being performed. Are you suggesting I need to get the signatures of the audience first?
I've taken pictures of street intersections. You feel I should be compelled to ask each pedestrian before I do it?
Are these absurd examples? I don't imagine you'll want to argue that only subjects of the photo need to provide their consent, but if you do, how in-focus are they allowed to be? How close to the center of the picture can they be before I am in violation of your ethic?
Besides, what gives you the idea that you are somehow entitled to the exclusive rights of the photons that have bounced off your body?!
I think it's your obligation to stop scattering light!
My
Limekiller
I ride the buses here as well and am strongly in favor of the cameras, as a means of fighting pickpockets, harassment, graffiti, and other crime.
An example where these cameras are NOT having any measureable deterent value can be found here where bullies on school buses still physically beat other students knowing full well they are being videotaped. I'm not sure there is a huge difference between child-aged bullies and adult petty criminals...
GMD
watch this
call it low tech but wouldnt a pellet gun make a much more reliable blind spot in public surveillance? well when ya think about it our right to bear arms was intended to control tyrrany by the gov't.. course a spraycan of flat black would irritate the hell out of em too. or fly vision lenses and super glue.LOL come on lets be creative,a sock,gum,taped up pics of saggy naked old people.our right to bear arms or their right to bare arms with that saggy sac o flesh.wheeeeeeeee kinda like alternate hits of nitrous and helium.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Adults can go to jail for assault, kids can't if they're under 17 and don't commit a serious enough one. BIG difference.
sulli
RTFJ.
Am I a rapist, that you must know where I am at all times?
Am I a burglar, that I must explain my reasons for being in a particular place at a particular time?
Am I a murderer, that I may not move about freely of my own accord?
Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
I've always wondered what would happen if you put a horizontally-polarized plate of plastic over a licence plate...it would still be visible if you stood behind it and looked forwards, but if you're at the angle that photo-radar cameras look from (say 40 degrees in the UK) than it would be blocked.
:P
On another vein, what about putting an LCD screen in front of the plate, with a photo sensor to detect the flash of the photo-radar camera. Kinda like the thing that they put on satellites to block them being blinded by lasers (but much cheaper)
Cue The Sun...
In typical freedom-monger fashion, you'll probably continue to recite these little poems until you're raped, and a camera could have seen it, or you're burglarized, and a camera wasn't there. Of course, if you're murdered, you won't be around to care, but your family will probably mourn your loss, and not have any photos to remember you by, because none of them came out.
In all 3 cases, there will no doubt be a lawsuit involved.
This has been proven. Video cameras covered the alleged kidnapping of a girl in our town last year, and they were no use whatever with the police investigation. We have video-footage of several thefts, and car-vandalism, again, these have not been used to solve any crimes.
Well, gosh, you've proven it there. Because in those incidents the cameras didn't "solve" the crime, clearly cameras are useless. But I'm curious: What information would they have without the cameras?
You don't 'copyright' anything. Copyright arises automatically upon the creation of a of 'work,' of a species recognised by copyright law. One's personal appearance is not a recognised work. No I don't have a sense of humour, I'm a lawyer!
It's a thing called "privacy," and it's not something to be given up lightly. Letting the police enter any home at will would, no doubt, find some evidence that would help solve crimes, but most people think there should be some limits on police powers.
Allowing the government to attach tracking devices to all citizens would prevent a few crimes, too, I think. Should we all go downtown to get our implants tomorrow?
For any hideous crime you can identify, there are some steps law enforcement could have taken ahead of time that would have prevented it, if only the general public didn't mind having their rights trampled. That's not a reason to hand over the house keys to the government.
Sorry, but that's just dumb (I mean using a visible laser as a gunsight). It's been shown in movies, probably because it looks cool or whatever, but if you want to shoot someone, you don't want to be seen, and you don't want to give them an advance warning. And a beam of red light pointing to your location is detrimental to that (granted, depends on atmospheric conditions, but lasers can be seen pretty well most of the time, especially in dark environments). Laser sights have originally been designed for short range, close quarter combat, where you have to aim quickly, but they are completely obsolete by now, and the advantage over traditional iron sights was dubious at best in the first place. For CQB, holographic sights are commonly used, and snipers still prefer the good ole' scope.
Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
What's wrong with doing 105? I can handle it, my car can handle it, and if there arn't any other cars around for me to run into for at least a half a mile, who am I endangering? The only reason going that fast is illeagal is because in most, but not all, situations it is unsafe.
It was me, I did it, I moved your cheese
The police in my area use intersection cameras to record red light runners. these cameras take a snap of you if you go into the intersection during a red light, and you get mailed a ticket later.
Even though the camera is in public view, and you could argue that you have as much right to illuminate it as it has to take a picture of you, I think the police would like to talk to you if you started doing this with a laser, no? What do you think?
Perhaps you didn't read the story on these speed cameras then? At least as they're being used in the United States, they're not trustworthy at all. The big problem is, they're installed and maintained by 3rd. parties.... *not* by the police themselves. In fact, these commercial companies taking care of the photo radar cameras are getting kickbacks from each fine levied against a speeder. Therefore, it's in the best interest of the company to generate as many tickets as possible with their systems. (EG. Not really sure you can read all the letters on the license plate in that photo? Oh well, let's just assume that fuzzy letter is an E, and issue a citation against the owner of that plate.)
How do we know the things are even calibrated correctly? Oh, we're supposed to *trust* the companies contracted with the police depts. to ensure their systems are accurate! Of course, how silly of me.
Bleah.... Surveillance is fine by me, but automated systems trying to take the place of human judgement never work out very well.
A security camera in a store does not (at least in the current form) actually determine your guilt or innocence, and places its own call to authorities. It merely records what it sees on tape, for humans to review later. That's a bit different from an automated photo radar system that selectively snaps pictures of those it determines "guilty" because they operated a vehicle outside its parameters. Such systems require much closer scrutiny.
Um, Rodney King is actually a bad response for something like this. Rodney King was not a victim of racism. The media only showed a fraction of the actual tape -- the part that favored Rodney King (aka just the beating). Why do you think the case ended the way it did? Because those in the courtroom got to see everything.
In most university classes that talk about he influence of the media, the Rodney King case is THE prime example of how easily the media can get away with distorting the facts. Seeing the whole tape, you realize the cops were largely right in what they did. Some may still think it's excessive, but few do. Those who only saw what they saw on the news were the ones that rioted. The ones who saw the whole tape were the ones that were disgusted with the soap opera that ensued.
Think about it, the media was able to make people riot by cutting out portions of a video tape. Think about what they (or anyone else...it's public information, right?) could do to you with some creative editing. This was a national circus and the cops couldn't get people to watch the whole tape. How much hope do you hold for clearing yourself when the edited video is right there for people to look at?
No. It has simply been displaced. But what do you care... not your problem anymore.
Suppose a deer jumps into the road and had you been going 60 you could have breaked in time or it would have made it across? A better argument is: how do you know the road conditions won't change suddenly, endangering your car and the people inside it? Current safety features make surviving a crash at 60(mph) quite possible. Surviving a crash at 100mph is far less likely. Even if you take this road every single day, the cop who pulls you over won't know this.
The quality and level of discourse on the Internet isn't purely a matter of honestly any more than what you say to your spouse is purely a matter of honesty. Honesty is just one virtue among many.
But even if honesty was paramount in all things, you are wrong if you think that it is the chief characteristic of anonymous Internet discourse. It isn't. Viciousness is the chief characteristic. Viciousness, and the indulgence in a toddler-like anger and hurtfulness just because you can. Truth doesn't require such things; and, for that matter, neither do lies.
"Accountability" means not avoiding the responsibility for what one says and does. It's part of being an adult, and it's part of being an adult member of civil society.
Probably a bad example: Unlike most other European countries, the United Kingdom does not have and provisions in law that gives you a right to privacy. If you are in a public place, then you are in public, and I can take your photo and publish it to my heart's content.
There is a code that the newspapers tend to follw which says that you shouldn't publish pictures of people taken with "very" long telephoto lenses without their consent, but that is just a code of practice, not law.
All of this is likely to change at the European convention on human rights -- which does have a provision guaranteeing some privacy -- is incorporated into British law.
Always remember that (1) not all the world is like the US and (2) if you take any advice given on /., in particular legal advice, serious, then you deserve everything you get...
Hi!
Well, gosh, you've proven it there. Because in those incidents the cameras didn't "solve" the crime, clearly cameras are useless. But I'm curious: What information would they have without the cameras?
My point was that CCTV footage has rarely to never been used to solve crimes. The specific example being a TV camera watching a girl's kidnapping. Despite being able to identify many people walking down that street, no clues were ever provided which helped to find the person.
More famous example: we've all seen the CCTV footage of two teenagers kidnapping a young boy from a shopping mall. Can anyone tell me how useful they were then? Did security staff react? Did the police react? No, they showed it on the evening news.
Example from work: Colleague's car was vandalised. In a well-lit private carpark with cameras every 50 metres. Nobody was ever caught.
Another example from that same office: same well-lit, surveilled car park. Stack of unix machines were stolen from the office, and carried through bushes to a car at the nearby motorway. Cameras missed it all. Nobody was ever caught.
Personal example: my bike was stolen from luggage-van of a train. Station CCTV cameras have a clear, close-up view of the faces of each and every person involved in that theft. Was the bike found? No. Were any of the thieves found? No.
Your point seems obvious: surely cameras are better than no cameras. A chance piece of evidence is better than no chance. That is arguably true, but only if you discount cost.
Outdoor high-street surveillance cameras cost a lot more than anything you'd use in your office-security. High-res cameras, remote-control servos, and the sheer installation cost of taking up the street and planting a tower in it add up to a lot of cost. I see quotes of $4000 upwards for even the smallest cameras, without installation or cabling.
Policemen on £40,000 per year are then paid to watch these cameras. At several policemen per installation (often in a control room shared between several towns), that's a lot of money per hour. Add the cost of data-connections and the control-room itself, plus a beaurocratic overhead.
The reason this hindering, rather than being irrelevant to safety, is: This is money not being spent on improving the safety of our streets. Good street-lighting, building design, town design, police patrols, special constables, neighbourhood-watch, these are the measures which are proven to reduce crime, and these are the measures which are having their funding cut to pay for CCTV cameras.
What use is a town with not enough money to keep a police station open, if they have five-thousand-pound camera installations in every corner of every road? Even places as large as Nottingam, it's not unknown to have 3 or 4 police on duty at night, to cover vast swathes of the city. Break-ins occur at the same time/same place every night, and there was simply not enough police resource to send a guy there to arrest the burglars. Response times of many hours are typical. "Sorry we're late, but you're looking at the night-watch, both of us" a young policeman told me last time they responded to a call, 9 hours later.
I hope that some of those answers clarify my question a bit better: surveillance cameras are bad not because of the implicit somebody-watching-you (police patrols watch you too), but because they simply don't work, and divert valuable resources from schemes that do work.
So, in answer to "But I'm curious: What information would they have without the cameras?"
They'd have information from the patrol cars driving around.