Slashdot Mirror
Traffic Cams Co-opted for Surveillance
Aardpig writes "The Register has a brief piece reporting that some traffic-monitoring CCTV cameras in London are offline today, for "operational reasons so that maintenance can be performed". Coincidentally, or not, the offline cameras happen to lie along the route of today's May Day demonstrations. As The Reg points out, the same happened earlier this year, during two of the anti-war demonstrations which took place in the capital. The UK is already one of the most monitored states in the world, as far as CCTV monitoring goes. Does this bode ill for our future privacy, or is this a necessary measure to maintain safety at large protests?"
The government can still use the cameras. It's only the general public that's been cut off.
No. This is really a "Bad Thing"(c)
To me it looks a lot like the government is trying to keep people from seeing just how many other people oppose the government.
May day is a revolutionists holiday. The government is using it's power to keep people from seeing other viewpoints, and at the same time, it may do whatever ugly things to the crowd without anyone seeing them.
If a government is just, it has no reason to hide.
police in many cities worldwide do video surviellence of major demonstrations/protests/etc - but as part of their own defense. Some protest groups, for whatever reason, are quick to say there was undue police force involved if they get arrested, deny things like resisting arrest, etc. The tapes are used to counter those arguments.
Think I'm off my rocker? Guess what - protest groups bring their own cameras to do their own surveillence of the police. It's used both ways to keep everyone (protesters and police) in check.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
It may not be a coincidence, but that still doesn't make it a big deal. Since there may be a lack of traffic along the parade route, it seems to me that it would be a good time to take the system down for maintenance. There probably won't be a big need for it.
...then let them go out en-mass armed with vaseline and ski masks. Smear the vaseline over the lenses (or paint-ball) and they will become useless. As long as you don't damage the camera, you haven't really hurt anything irreparably.
I've videotaped public demonstrations here in Los Angeles (on both the pro and anti-war side) and had no problems with the police or others[*]. The police will film protesters for exactly the reasons cited previously.
It is a fact that even when the police are just doing their job, they look like the heavies. I've seen many cases of protesters deliberately trying to provoke the police, relying on the fact that the cops automatically look like villains.
D
[*] I have been mildly assaulted (hit with no injuries) a few times by anti-war people when I've mentioned my pro-war views during anti-war events, but that has nothing to do with my videotaping the events.
It took me a long time to realize the game of the anti-activist squad. There is a certain cost in time and possible bad publicity (the latter turning into internal pressure on the person responsible inside the organization) for 'taking out' an activist.
So, the goal is to find those who are organisers, who get other people to attend and generally make things happen- but who do not have the economic or political resources to defend themselves effectively.
This is ultimately the danger of modern surveillance. In the past taking people out has been risky because you might get the 'wrong' guy. I have personally seen cops plant crack on a protest organiser who turned out to be a very bad choice for them. He was straight edge, studying to be a catholic priest, and his dad was CEO of a major bank. Oops.