Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Public Warnings For Public Video Surveillance

Posted by timothy on from the steve-mann-has-to-wear-a-sandwich-board dept.

pipingguy writes "The standards project aims to develop a sign which will make apparent surveillance operations using video cameras in public spaces and provide details of the body responsible for the data recorded. It is hoped to produce a simple, easily understood symbol, possibly using design elements already used in other standardised signs. An image (e.g. a camera) and text could be combined, and agreement will have to be reached on the typeface, size and colour of the wording to be used, as well as on its contents."

37 comments

  1. The text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Warning: You are now on-air.

  2. How about either..... by Dark+Nexus · · Score: 1

    "Video Surveillance in use" or "Smile! You're on candid camera!"

    --
    Dark Nexus
    "Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
  3. These warnings appear to only apply to Germany by lightspawn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maybe something like warchalking would be in order for the rest of the world?

    1. Re:These warnings appear to only apply to Germany by TheRoss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      exactly. I put together a few glyphs here.

    2. Re:These warnings appear to only apply to Germany by phorm · · Score: 1
      The "Private Surveillance" Icon might be a bit more difficult to see without fill-in. There are also several other things that could be noted, such as (including yours) whether the surveillance is:

      Public (gov't) or Private (business/personal)

      Monitored or Recorded

      Publically available (can you check the records)

      Constant or only within certain hours
      Also including ownership information would be nice, such as who's recording and how can they be contacted. Gov't surveillance can be done by third-parties at times I believe.

  4. Proposed Symbol . . . by Dausha · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How about a triangle, similar to the one used as warning markers for US farm equipment, and a pair of circles looking like binoculars perhaps resembling the infinity symbol (Slashdot is afraid to let me use "& infin;"). The triangle gives warning, the binoculars suggests you're being watched, the infinity symbol resemblance to say "we're always watching you."

    If you're really concerned, in one of the circles, put the sillhouette of a woman--you peeping Tom, you.

    --
    What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
  5. cam chalking? by TheRoss · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I propose that we don't leave a task this important to the powers that be- we need to put together a set of simple symbols that can be marked with chalk or spray paint, in the spirit of (but a bit more subversive than) War chalking.

    It'd be best not to let the cam-chalking and warchalking symbols overlap, otherwise you would have confusion. The government would have hours of video tape of people walking around with laptops trying to find a WiFi signal.

    http://www.karchner.com/update/archives/000192.h tm l

    1. Re:cam chalking? by TheRoss · · Score: 1, Redundant

      I put together a few glyphs here.

    2. Re:cam chalking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For my simple symbol, I like to use a large opaque black spot. I also prefer spray enamel paint to chalk because it sticks to the camera lens better.

  6. False sense of privacy by cloudless.net · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When the sign gets implemented, I think we will be surprised by how we are being closely watched. But when we don't see a warning sign, can we really assume there is no camera?

    1. Re:False sense of privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      A group called the Surveillance Camera Players has been mapping cameras in New York City, and has instructions for making your own such maps. They found that the number of surveillance cameras in Times Square grew from 75 in 1998 to 258 in 2002.

    2. Re:False sense of privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. We should mark places without a camera!

  7. Obvious Signage by infonography · · Score: 1
    We use the Eye in the Pyramid or maybe a swastika

    Both are fairly creepy.

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  8. Not Enough. by bellings · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's not enough to ask, "is this location being watched by a public agency." The question that must be answered is, "how can I get a copy of the recording."

    If these are public cameras, being paid for by public funds, with the justification that they are recording public space, then only one conclusion is possible. Every person must be allowed complete and uncensored access to these cameras. There can be no argument that anything recorded by these cameras should not be available to the public. Any argument to that effect would imply immediately that these cameras are not recording public information, but are recording something else entirely.

    If these cameras are not, in fact, public cameras recording public actions in public places, freely available to any and all members of the public, then they simply should not exist.

    --
    Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
    1. Re:Not Enough. by qqtortqq · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So if you are standing in the middle of a street, with a camera on you, and your pants accidentally fall down. You would prefer your friends be able to order a copy of the incident on VHS, instead of this accident only being seen by the people around you and a few persons watching the camera who are used to seeing embarrasing stuff on an hourly basis? You would prefer that ANYONE can watch your public actions, rather than a few trained security guards?

      I'm all for an oversight board or something, but your line of thinking doesn't work. "Well, if THE GOVERNMENT gets to do it, EVERYONE should get to do it." It just doesn't work that way. Big brother is not some guy who gets paid $11 an hour to watch cameras.

    2. Re:Not Enough. by bellings · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You would prefer that ANYONE can watch your public actions

      You've perfectly defined "public actions." Was this intentional?

      You're perfectly happy letting some $11 an hour security guards build their own person "america's raciest street videos" for their own wanking pleasure?

      You would have no problem with someone following you around every moment you're in public, watching you closely, and keeping notes, as long as that person has a shiney badge on. However, you want to be absolutely certain that no-one without shiney badges be allowed to follow around the people with the badges.

      You have far more trust in shiney badges than I do.

      --
      Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
    3. Re:Not Enough. by fuzzybunny · · Score: 1

      Or mimes. It could be worse. You could be followed around the park by a bunch of mimes.


      As for the "raciest street videos", there was an affair in (Michigan? Minnesota? Wisconsin?) a few years back where highway patrolmen were using the drivers license database to help each other stalk girls they liked.


      And where do you think the recorded material for all the COPS clone TV shows comes from? World's stupidest drivers, crooked employees, whatever. The material is already all over TV-land (especially here in Europe, the land of data protection).

      --
      Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
    4. Re:Not Enough. by hether · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who said anything about allowing copies? I think the post is referring to something like the open records law that gives us access to public documents. You could go to the courthouse and ask to watch a copy of the tape if you so choose, not make copies and distribute it to your friends. He/she is perfectly on target with the comment that if we as taxpayers are expected to finance this, then this must be a provision.

      --

      Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
    5. Re:Not Enough. by violent.ed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well you could allways put up a TV screen near the bottom of the pole in clear view showing the actual video that is currently being recorded. Sorta like in conveniece stores where you can see your (and my) ugly mug on cam.

      Of course the TV would have to be encased in some sort of plexiglass box or sumthin to prevent vandals from smashing the screen with rocks... and sum non-stick stuff that they make those neat shirts out of (the ones where the milk just rolls off the sleeve) so they cant spray paint over the screen ;)

      --
      - You're not paranoid, they really are after you.
    6. Re:Not Enough. by GeoGreg · · Score: 1

      This is a subset of a proposal I first heard several years ago: make all data collected about citizens by the government (exempting perhaps ongoing criminal investigations) public. The theory is, if people know that the information from their annual tax return, for example, will be available on demand, they won't let the government collect the information. Of course, this idea completely misses the voluminous information collected by private entities. Big Brother is more likely to be a corporation than a traditional government, IMHO.

    7. Re:Not Enough. by TheCatWhisperer · · Score: 1

      If we were to use your logic, then ANYTHING paid for by the public should be publicly available (including your SIN/SSN, Criminal/Traffic records, education history, tax hisory, etc.. these are ALL paid for by tax payers). There's a thin line between parania and idiocy. If cameras are being used to monitor PUBLIC areas for PUBLIC safty, then what's the problem? Why should you or anyone else who is not working for the group that is monitoring public safy see the tapes? Mabe your looking for your g/f cheating on you, or your employee slacking off, etc, etc... What your suggesting is just plain silly. Unless oyur doing somthing ILLIGAL you really have very little to fear from public cameras. Hell, I'de worry more about the cameras stores & businesses use. They can (in the future, through face recognition, etc) monitor what you buy, how much you spend, etc...

    8. Re:Not Enough. by JuggleGeek · · Score: 2, Interesting
      There can be no argument that anything recorded by these cameras should not be available to the public and If these cameras are not, in fact, public cameras recording public actions in public places, freely available to any and all members of the public, then they simply should not exist.

      That is complete nonsense.

      Eventually, I think cameras can help with a lot of the problems we have today. The snipers in Maryland would have been caught faster if every person had a camera on their car. Someone in the area of a shooting would have had pictures of the snipers vehicle. Someone in the area of another shooting would have also had pictures. If, after a local shooting, people turned in the videos they had in that area, for that time period, it would have made it fairly simple for the cops to narrow down the one vehicle that was always in the area of a shooting. Then they know who to look for.

      Similarly, many businesses use video survelance as security measures. In most cases, nobody is watching the video at all - it's just recording. You're $11 security guard isn't usually involved. Many camera's just loop their recordings, and only if there is a problem (a robbery, a mugging, etc) does anyone see it. Then they go swap tapes (or spool off a copy of the file to backup, in the case of digital) in order to try to identify the culprit.

      If the local 7-11 has a video going, I don't think your wife should be able to request copies in order to find out if you were buying beer (or whatever.)

      And most important, since I believe that this type of surveilance is going to continue one way or another, and that it can be quite beneficial, I want individual people and companies doing it - not the government. That way, the feds only get copies of things that individuals decide to give them.

      I also believe that this can be considered a logical extension of an "eye witness". In order for a tape to be considered valid, someone has to put their own reputation on the line and say "Yes, that video came from my camera, and I beleive it to be accurate to the best of my knowledge." If they aren't willing to say that, then the video doesn't mean much - video's can be faked. (Believe it or not, not everything you see on TeeVee is completely true and accurate.)

      I expect to see most cell phones with built in cameras, so lots of people will have cameras with them at all times. I believe you'll see more and more businesses using video surveillance. I believe more people will start using video to help protect their homes. The technology is there, and as you know, technology doesn't tend to just "go away" whether you like it or not. In addition, it can make most of us safer.

      But I'm a fan of privacy, and while I recognize that it's going to happen, I want it controlled by the people who own the camera's - and I don't want the people owning the camera's to be the government. We can do a better job ourselves.

    9. Re:Not Enough. by JuggleGeek · · Score: 1
      Who said anything about allowing copies?

      That would be bellings (137948)

      He/she is perfectly on target with the comment that if we as taxpayers are expected to finance this, then this must be a provision.

      While a few people have focused entirely on the government doing it, as I understand it, they want those signs to be visible where anyone is doing it, including businesses or individuals. I'm not convinced that copies should be made available to the general public regardless of who did the filming. I'd prefer that most of the video be controlled by businesses and individuals, not by the government.

    10. Re:Not Enough. by hether · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about allowing copies?
      That would be bellings (137948)

      You're right. My mistake. I mistakenly assumed he meant somthing similar to what I was talking about when it looks like he meant anyone and everyone having copies. I don't agree with the idea that the video tape should be handled in this way. In fact, I really believe that the government really has no business doing this kind of stuff anyway. I was thinking though that if they did though that we certainly want a way to have access to these tapes the same way we do through the open records and open meetings laws to prevent an abuse of power.

      --

      Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
    11. Re:Not Enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we were to use your logic, then ANYTHING paid for by the public should be publicly available (including your SIN/SSN, Criminal/Traffic records, education history, tax hisory, etc.. these are ALL paid for by tax payers).

      Uh...hate to tell you this, but you can already get most of this information today. Remember the big stink raised because a privacy group published partial SSNs of politicians?

  9. The preferred method of marking is... by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 4, Funny

    A bunch of wires hanging down, and smashed electronics and lenses lying on the ground beneath them.

    1. Re:The preferred method of marking is... by Wolfger · · Score: 1

      This sounds good to me! Can I help mark cameras? :-)

      --
      Nothing to see here. Move along.
  10. Needlessly obscure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    No need to dance around the point so. How about this: Triangular sign, with an eye against an orange background; underneath, a smaller rectangular sign, saying:
    THIS AREA IS UNDER
    VIDEO SURVEILLANCE
     By: [Organization]
    [Contact Info]
    And maybe another one underneath with the same stuff in French, Spanish, or whatever. Short and to the point.
  11. A cheaper alternative by skinfitz · · Score: 1

    Considering the amount of cameras around nowadays, perhaps it might be cheaper to only have the symbol where there is no surveillance?

  12. Big Brother by SomethingOrOther · · Score: 1

    I cant beleive I'm the first one to suggest this

    Surely it should be a poster of a large black-moustachio'd man with the slogan "Big Brother Is Watching You" undreneath. A poster so constructed that the eyes follow you whearever you walked...

    (1984 anyone?)

    --
    Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
    Don't believe what you read is the truth.
    1. Re:Big Brother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      In the photo linked, the sign clearly says, "George Orwell". Seems odd since the site owner is a quasi-governmental organization.

  13. Signs by Ratbert42 · · Score: 2, Funny

    When I was in college, a certain vending machine area had signs that said "AREA UNDER VIDEO SURVEILLANCE". We never could see a camera anywhere. So we stole the sign.

  14. Serious question on CamChalking by SolemnDragon · · Score: 1
    These cameras are already placed everywhere. Since they have great deterrent and follow-up trial value for crimes such as shoplifting, etc., and really very little for things such as one-time major events (bank robberies, terrorism) will CamChalking be a crime? If it isn't marked by the sign they're talking about, it must belong to some secret organisation (i.e. CIA, FBI, RIAA) and wouldn't they want to make public disclosure of their location an illegal act?

    I think that the sigil should include an indication not only of surveillance, but from which direction and if possible, by whom. Certainly the signs should include by whom, and i agree with the idea that anyone should have access to a public camera's recordings. Just look how much mess has happened with the stoplight cameras (remember the ones where the timing was switched so that more accidents would happen, rather than less, with more running red lights for the camers to snap photos of? Boy, did THAT ever not work in California.) *sigh* Anyway, i'm digressing- my point is that we'd also need to make it stay legal to mark such surveillance for ourselves where the signs fail to do it. i kind of like the idea of an eye, with an arrow indicating the direction of the camera's location.

    --
    "I'd say 'Have a good time,' but arson is still illegal.
  15. sign verbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone notice that the sign was for the Plaza GEORGE ORWELL?!?!

    1. Re:sign verbage by i_need_no_nick · · Score: 1
      Heh. I was wondering why they'd given us a link to the image as part of the actual /. post.

      I can't help thinking that not having a 'Big Brother Is Watching You' poster is a waste of an opportunity, though...

  16. Ideal logo by terrencefw · · Score: 1

    I think most people in the UK (any maybe elsewhere) would understand this logo straight away.

    --
    Like tinyurl, but one letter less! http://qurl.co.uk/