Record the Surveillance Cams

GruffGoat writes "Have you noticed all the video cams watching your every movement? Perhaps we are becoming accustomed to always being watched. University of Toronto Associate Professor Deibert has an excellent idea of setting aside a day in which we take notice of being watched. Here's a Wired article about taking pictures of the surveillance camers."

Comments

World Sousveillance Day

[Trane Francks]

Now this is an idea I like. It'll prove a point and just happens to be violence-free. Unfortunately, pulling such a stunt in Tokyo would have me permanently under SURveillance, and that's something I wish to avoid.

This is a stunt best avoided in a police state.

Interesting.. I wonder if

[PFAK]

they have a problem with you taking photographs of security cameras with a laser pointer, followed by a nice digital camera..

This shouldnt be against the law, heck its taking a picture. This should be fun to do on Christmas Eve, it's not like I ever need to get back into the mall..

I never go there anyways.

I don't need to take notice

[I Am The Owl]

I'm already on notice! They are watching me and my every move whatever I do! I know that they are, because when the aliens abducted me, they rectally placed a small video camera while I was unconcious and it is acting to slowly take control of my thought processes!

I do not appreciate this kind of surveillance of my daily life. Furthermore, using my penis as a radio transmitter for the imagery is NOT polite at all, but they are hovering their black helicopters and spy satellites over my home so they need to boost the signal somehow. If they keep watching me, I'm going to put a stop to it when I go out to the hardware store to buy my radiation shield so the NSA won't watch me anymore

Fuck you and your cameras, fuckers!

You're missing the real question:

[Noose For A Neck]

What happens when they start installing cameras to monitor the people who are monitoring the cameras?

Re:You're missing the real question:

[wrenkin]

Oh mercy. The recursive Irony. Deibert would love that.

I'm actually one of his students. I was a participant this summer in a reality TV show he did this summer for public television in Ontario, Into America, about Canadian students traveling around the US. The previous year there was one about students trying to fight for recognition of neglected diseases. Both were organised through his lab. Interestingly enough, one of the other things going on in his lab is work on the monitoring of the Chinese governmental firewall, and the companies that provide the technology for it. This seems to be a hot topic what with the Amnesty report that came out a couple days ago and was posted here.

Always interesting to see the Professor in the news. He seems to have a knack for it. I thought Slashdot would be my last refuge... apparently not.

Escorted off...

[zoloto]

Deibert warns that photographing security cameras will quickly cause large men wearing navy blue blazers and two-way radios to place their hands over your camera lens. Photographers may even be escorted off the premises

Not if you're using one of these:

http://wearcam.org/

They'll never know... defeating the reason behing this protest. Then again posting it on your local BBS or area's website forum will sure pop some attention :D

Re:Escorted off...

[Anonymous Coward]

That may be the suckiest website of all time.

Of Course ..

[McCarrum]

Who watches the watchers who watch the watchers watching the watchmen.

Err ... my brain hurts ..

Take pictures of people?

[Trusty Penfold]

Why not take pictures of everyone on the street as well? After all they're all watching you; maybe not as overtly as the cameras but they do notice and they have longer memories than the cameras. The majority of crimes are solved, not by the police watching a grainy, out-of-focus security video but by interviewing witnesses.

If you're bothered about being watched, then don't go out. It isn't worth complaining about a few cameras, they're harmless.

cameras everywhere

[MacAndrew]

The number of cameras is staggering. In addition to those familiar weatherproof housings around city buildings, some of which pivot and zoom, there are the ATM cameras (which can see surprisingly far, I recall a carjacking solved with one), store surveillance (Timothy McVeigh was taped at a McDonald's), traffic enforcement cameras (the DC snipers were photographed by one during their spree, running a red light -- but this was not discovered in time), etc. Many patrol cars now carry cameras; I don't know whether they turn them on outside of stops, where they are useful to deflect charges of police civil rights abuses or, in one case I saw, to tape an officer being murdered.

Note that I'm not a nutty civil libertarian (cut out the nutty part): the parenthetical examples above illustrate desirable uses of these cameras. But I also wonder, when the technology is developed to read license plates and recognize faces, if there won't be a temptation to track someone everywhere they go, without warrant or even any particular suspicion. I don't think this would violate the Fourth Amendment as currently interpreted. Imagine how use it would be for some civil actions, say to prove adultery.

Interesting that security guards would be upset at your taking pictures of cameras. Granted you might be casing the joint, but I also feel that if they can film you because you're in public, the reverse should be true.

Some group (applied autonomy) designed software to help the camera-shy navigate Manhattan's 2400 or so cameras -- a controversial project.

Re:cameras everywhere

[jon787]

but I also feel that if they can film you because you're in public, the reverse should be true.

The problem is that a mall is private property, not public property.

Re:cameras everywhere

[MacAndrew]

Oh, I know. This is just quid pro quo. (And by "in [the] public" I meant as opposed to "in your home.")

In some cases, taping you without your consent, private property or not, can be problematic as an invasion of privacy -- e.g., in the dressing room, in the bathroom. Your entry on the property doesn't mean all privacy bets are off.

Re:cameras everywhere

[YDdraig]

I like the idea but rather suspect the Powers that Be would be not happy with people photographing cameras.

Out of interest I totted up how many I passed on my walking route to work this week. It was 23.

I live in Swansea,a not particuarly large city in Wales. I live near the city centre and work on the outskirts which probably affects the number of cameras I pass. I also pass the police station en route which definately bumps up the figures.

9 of those were at traffic lights and petrol stations.
4 on or in shops.
2 on houses.
2 on the police station.
4 on the side of a particuarly paranoid chinese takeaway.
1 at the railway station.
1 (which bothered me) on the side of a school, watching the playground.


And then I arrived at work and was promptly checked out on the cameras before I was let in.(I'm a technician in primary schools)

What is the point?

[iq in binary]

Aside from extreme paranoia.

Security cameras should be welcome in our consumer lives. Aside from the people who carry intent to break the law, the rest of us don't really have to worry.

They serve as an alibi if need be, proof of our law-abiding citizenship.

Now, as for our private lives, that is our business and our business alone.

But that is not the focus here.

Re:What is the point?

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

That's kind of the point--if the police and mall security aren't doing anything wrong, why do they object to ordinary citizens taping them? What I can't wait for is when every day becomes World Sousveillance Day. It'll be like living in a Transmetropilitan comic book! Who wouldn't love that?

Re:What is the point?

[bluGill]

It cuts many ways. If there is enough problems with crime that they need cameras, then I as a consumer want them to have it because crime makes the prices honest people pay for goods.

However you need to ask yourself if you really want to be in a place with enough of a crime problem that they can justify cameras, since a store without cameras could in theory lower prices. (Which would likely amount to a penny on just one item, but the theory stands)

If I'm a crime victom though, I would love to have someone nearby have it on videotape, and I don't care why they were taping, just so long as the police/courts get a copy.

Then again, it all cuts into privacy. I like to be ananymous.

Re:What is the point?

[GothChip]

Security cameras can be useful in preventing crime and generally make people feel a lot safer. The UK is supposed to have more survellance cameras than any other country and most of the time I don't even notice them.

But if you're on the back of an empty train trying to make out with your girlfriend they sure are damn intrusive.

And trying to find an alley in London that's out of public view and not covered by CCTV is nigh on impossible (without resorting to tresspass).

Re:What is the point?

[jelizondo]

Everything is fine as long as they do it to "them", the law-breaking "others".

As we should have learned in Germany 50 years ago "them" and "others" become "us" real fast if you do not watch the government closely and put a stop to their power.

I got kicked out of our mall for something like th

[jon787]

We were doing a "video scavenger hunt" and one of the things to find was a glass elevator. The closest one is in our mall so we went in and video taped it. Needless to say we had a nice run in with your friendly neighborhood rent-a-cops.

I don't get it

[inc01]

Why December 24th? The malls are closed then where I live. Besides that, seems like a fun idea.

Mod parent down

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, people who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear from a police state. I hope the parent-poster was trolling, I would have modded it as such.

What makes you think they are going to stop at having cameras in public places? It's only a matter of time until webcams in homes are mandated in order to protect against someone in your family becoming a victim of domestic violence/child abuse/elder abuse/whatever tomorrow's pretext is for bringing big government into your home.

Wow

[Strange Ranger]

I LOVE Dilbert! I wonder if he got this idea from his garage man?

Re:Wow

[Strange Ranger]

!@#$!% garBage man.

Sousveillance means "to view from below."

[cei]

So what they're really saying is, "World Up-Skirt Day"...

Re:Sousveillance means "to view from below."

[Anonymous Coward]

:-)
sounds good to me

Re:Sousveillance means "to view from below."

[McFly69]

That is true for women. But all men must then wear kilts.


Bart to Lisa, "I wonder if Willie has anything under his kilt."

Maps of the cameras

[GothChip]

What would be interesting to see are maps produced from the data in the photographs.

It would be useful to see a map of the local city and find out just how much is covered by CCTV.

Re:cameras everywhere - Pentagon

[MacAndrew]

An hour ago I was driving by the Pentagon on one of the smaller highways and saw a sign saying, "Entering Pentagon Reservation / Unauthorized Photography Prohibited." For the unfamiliar (I'm trying not to be U.S.-centric!), the Pentagon is a five-sided military HQ hit last year by a hijacked airplane -- hence their heightened concern for security. However, it seemed like a weird rule, that you could not take pictures even on the no-man's-land of the highway or adjacent grassy areas. But given the armed presence here and there around the perimeter these days, I won't be yanking their chains, thank you.

America: Home of the (surveilled) free and land of the (cowed) brave

(Eat that, Carnivore. :)

Notice the unobtrusive peekers!

[GruffGoat]

Surveillance cams have many legitimate and worthwhile uses. No argument there.

----Aside from the people who carry intent to break the law, the rest of us don't really have to worry----

Civil liberties exist not to protect citizens from criminal intent but to protect citizens from those with the power to enforce.

People do however have a sense of privacy or anonymity even in a crowd. Even though some people are aware of cameras watching them, I think most people forget or ignore their presence. Taking photos of the cams is a way to focus people's attention.

If a person is directly watching you for any extended period of time, I think you would become aware of that person and modify your behavior. With surveillance cams, you (or your beautiful wife, or your innocent children) can easiliy overlook the fact that you are being watched.

We used to have cameras at work

[inode_buddha]

But I spent a lot of time scratching various body parts in front of them (along with the occasional booger, well-aimed).

They did away with the cameras last year.

Corporate copyright concerns vs. Fair use

[Minkey Brines]

This is the first year I've tried to make Christmas video "wish lists" with my camcorder. However, while minding my own business, following around perspective hard-to-shop-for family members while they shop, I get accosted by store managers telling me to immediately stop. They say I am violating store copyright policy by filming products in their store. No mention of the fact that I could just buy the product in question and film it when I get home.

So the questions are:

1) Do we have the right to film whatever we want when we are in public?

2) Are we in public when we are in a store?

3) Can a company place restrictions on us filming them or their products when they film us all the time using their "security" video cameras? What rights do you have over your own countenance? If you own the rights to your face, does every company violate copyright by filming you on their "security" video system?

4) Do we "lose" all rights when we walk into a store? (Similar to losing all rights when we work for a company) If so, when someone says "well you could just go to another store/work for another company" is that bogus because all stores/companies are the same with regard to this?

5) Is this the same as believing one has a right to sit in a movie theater (a public place?) and film the movie one watches (clearly a copyright violation)?

6) Where do "Fair Use" laws come into this?

I hate to be a "but I have rights" stick-in-the-mud on this but... This is America... And we actually do have rights here... And corporations are in business to make money... And if they have to step all over our rights do do it I'm sure they wouldn't bat an eye over it...

What's the right way of thinking about this?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion