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?"
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'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?
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
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.)
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."
My
Limekiller