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."

7 of 37 comments (clear)

  1. 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?

  2. 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.
  3. 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

  4. 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 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.
    3. 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.