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?"

Comments

Privacy

[DBordello]

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.

Re:Privacy

[SeanWithoutPants]

Eh, I would be suprised if those laws that you speak of would hold up to any scrutiny. Simply consider a woman who wears a burka as part of her religious beliefs.

It's understandable (imo) to require one's face to be seen for an ID card, but not for every day public life.

Re:Privacy

[limekiller4]

DBordello writes:
"Isn't it just as much your right to be not seen as it is to seen?"

Oh what basis do you have this right? And am I now obligated to avert my eyes? No, I think that if you don't want to be seen, find a way to not absorb part of the spectrum and reflect the rest back.

I think you've got it backward. You don't have a right to not be seen -- that's placing an emcumbrance upon me, and a "right" that you have yet to provide a basis for, I might add. You have a right to not be seen if you can figure out how. That places no encumbrance upon me to provide you this so-called "right."

Gotta know there's a camera there

[ShawnDoc]

The problem is you have to know there is a camera there in the first place. If you don't know its there, you can't shine a laser at it.

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.

He has ethical problems w/doing this?

[garcia]

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.

"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 .02

Re:He has ethical problems w/doing this?

[Scratch-O-Matic]

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.

You seem to regard law enforcement as some sort of game, and you think that using technology is 'cheating.' What if they scrap the technology and simply post a cop with a stopwatch at every mile marker and overpass? Will you feel less violated then? Will the game be fair enough for you? What if all the cameras referred to in this thread were replaced by cops with binoculars?

If you're in public, expect to be seen. If you're driving 105 mph, expect to get caught, whatever the means.

Re:Well, you know....

[blibbleblobble]

"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?

they are public places

[ageitgey]

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)?

Re:they are public places

[Phanatic1a]

This isn't just watching; it's recording.

Yes, people can see you when you're walking about your daily business, but mutant superpowers aside, they're not watching you intently and making a file of everywhere you visit and everything you do.

If every day when you left the house, I started following you with a digital video camera and stopped only when you returned home, I'd just bet that you'd feel I was invading your privacy.

Unless you're some sort of exhibitionist freak, of course.

Re:Video Cameras

[limekiller4]

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!

Re:What are you? Thief? Rapist? Burglar? Murderer?

[dbarclay10]

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?

Re:It happens EVERY DAY

[island_earth]

A cheap webcam mounted on a light pole in her neighborhood could have brought the murderer to justice. But some people would rather indulge in 1984 fantasies....

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.

Re:Permissions...

[cybaea]

for instance if you take a picture of Big Ben at 2:13 on a given day and there's one tiny person at the bottom

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...