Slashdot Mirror
Traffic Cameras Used for Pedestrian Monitoring
Quixote writes "A couple of days ago, there were
news
reports
about
a traffic camera near
Univ. of Alabama
being actually used to checkout passersby by someone at the state troopers' office. Today, there's a
news report
about 3 people being arrested for 'public misconduct' by the same camera (including one man for grabbing his crotch (don't ballplayers routinely do this? ;)). This story highlights an issue which most privacy advocates worry about: the extension of a surveillance technology to cover areas it was not intended to cover. This camera is a traffic camera: it was installed for monitoring the traffic conditions on the road. Now it is being used to monitor people (albeit the 'monitoring' was for some <ahem> other purposes in the beginning). I will submit that in a public place you have no right to privacy; but this yet another example of something to keep in mind when considering other 'privacy eroding' technologies."
At last, we can rid society of the terrible menace of public crotch grabbers.
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
I think the context of a person's actions is just as important as the action. Cameras can not take into account the entire context for what happens in front of them. Maybe this guy had a bad case of jock itch? I mean it sounds silly, but it's not impossible. Where is the line drawn?
Chaos is Divine *
Don't grab your crotch.
Grab someone elses.
are grabbing their crotch RIGHT NOW as they read this...we have web cams right?
I wonder where whats-her-face with the hots grits is right now?
Anyone near the camera should go there and do something unusual but not illegal. (Drink from an imaginary bottle; blow soap bubbles and then snap at them like a dog; pointedly hide your forehead; open an umbrella for no reason; etc., etc.)
-- MarkusQ
From this link
... "The camera zoomed in on the breasts and buttocks of several college-aged women"
"A traffic camera focused on an intersection near the University of Alabama showed a lot more than cars recently -- someone used it to zoom in on young women in an unexpected show that was broadcast on cable TV"
Perhaps this was done to grab some new footage for "Girls Gone Wild 5 - Traffic Teases"
BTW, anyone have a Divx of the cable TV footage?
So now we are not only using traffic cameras to monitor people, but we are also using them to enforce accepted behavior?
<sarcasm>
Well, I for one am thankful that are great system is preventing people from grabbing their crotches...
</sarcasm>
As they say, un-fucking-believable...
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
"In a hierarchy every employee will rise to his level of incompetence". The Peter Principle
the article says the camera was broadcasting to the whole town -- so it's not like they were keeping it to themselves.
Keep your packets off my GNU/Girlfriend!
The last time I checked, baring your breasts for a camera is not indecent exposure. There are thousands of film, many nonpr0n, where this goes on. It is not indecent to broadcast breasts over cable TV. If the woman didn't bare her breasts in view of anyone--which they'd have to prove--simply catching it on camera doesn't mean it's indecent. And if this woman happens to be underage, doesn't that make the police liable for pornagraphy (referring to the Girls Gone Wild underage scandal)? And since they're broadcasting it on TV in a non-news, non-fair use capacity, don't they owe the people acting fees? Aren't people required to sign release agreements for this sort of thing? This can get ugly fast.
Re: "I will submit that in a public place you have no right to privacy"...
That ancient viewpoint, approprite in a world without technology which enhances human senses, needs to change. The public spaces of the world have themselves been altered when new technologies provide the capability for incredible scrutiny, looking under people's clothing, doing camera closeups, facial recognition, whatever, etc. What used to be a *public* place with humans all (with the exception of blind people, deaf people, etc.) on a relatively equal scale interacting with each other, now entails humans being scrutinized by incredibly capable machinery/technology.
The playing field is no longer equal. The former "public" space has been transformed into the "highly and intrusively scrutinized" space. The law needs to catch up and be upgraded to deal with these new realities.
I don't get why everyone seems to get their panties in a wad over cameras in public places. It's a public place. It's not like you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, anyway.
The way I see it, if you're stupid enough to something illegal in broad daylight on a public street, you deserve to get caught and go to jail.
You are attempting to read sigs. Cancel or Allow?
Anyone interested in watching the cameras themselves can go to The city of Tuscaloosa's Website
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GIT d? s: a-- C++++ UL++++ P++ L+++ E- W++ N o-- K- w--- O- M+ V PS+ P
Transparency ought to cut both ways.
If technology for video surveillance is becoming so inexpensive and easy to deploy, it makes sense for private citizens to record their authorities, make the information public and hold them accountable so that the public can expect as high standards of behavior from the authorities as the authorites expect of the public.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Here in Baltimore:
1) The cameras aren't moveable (AFAIK).
2) The cameras can only take snapshots, not video.
3) The cameras only take snapshots when they detect a red light, and a car crossing into the intersection.
I'm not trying to advocate traffic cameras, but at least someone spent some time designing these appropriately.
That's a toughie. I'm all about my privacy. Yet it would be nice knowing I could be safe. Could this be a criminal deterrent? Maybe. But damn...if I get a bit drunk and decide to walk home instead of driving and then someone notices me on the camera and nabs me for public intoxication, that's no fun.
I kinda agree that "it's in the public domain so act accordingly". I definitely think we need to discuss this more. Am I off my rocker here?
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
It continually amazes me how much people forget this when dealing with privacy-invasive technologies.
When such cameras first appeared some people predicted that this kind of thing would happen. In response Police and "spy on the public" types said no they would never do such a thing and even gave us their word on the matter. The same was true for the PATRIOT act. When people are given such a tool, even if they do not use it today, someone will come along and use it tomorrow.
Anyone who believes otherwize should contact me about this great deal I've got. I'll sell you the brooklyn bridge for just 50 bucks.
"including one man for grabbing his crotch"
Since when was grabbing one's own crotch an arrestable offense? Repeatedly grabbing someone else's, perhaps, but it really is a person's right to grab their own as much as they please.
Being tactless isn't a crime, you know. Well, in the USA, who knows.
We should install more cameras, but this time in front of every donut shop in town...and in the police department break room.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
The "watchers" abused the technology, as Human watchers are guaranteed to do, but was caught abusing it by other people "watching" the "watchers". That's how public surveillance should work.
Too bad no one thought to provide official sanctions for when they were caught. Nothing bad will happen to the pervert watching the camera, and they won't even release his name.
This is much worse than anonymous cops spying on people and wondering if they'll be caught if they do something inappropriate. Now it is obvious that any cop who is also a closet freak can grope himself while watching teenage girls on public streets, and nothing will be done about it even if he is caught.
You think this is no big deal? Think again. If the public doesn't come crashing down on the police department with demands that this pervert be fired, then we really will head into 1984. The public caught this freak watching following teenage girls with a public camera, and the cops don't care!
The theory is that the cops should watch the public, but be watched themselves to avoid abuse. What good does it do when they are caught abusing it, and nothing happens?
I say that goddamn police department should be made to release the perverts name, and should be made to fire him. What if one of those teenage girls he was watching was your daughter? If no one is holding them accountable, what abuses will they commit next?
You would say that when I'm out of mod points.
Okay, everybody who is surprised, raise your hand.... So I can slap you.
i do it all the time.
http://www.wearcam.org/shootingback/sears.mpg
ooo, I can see it now. instead of flash-mobbing, flash-crotching. Anyone care to start up a mailing-list and website?
And then they send the whole system straight to hell by implementing it improperly. The pictures are processed not by Baltimore police but instead by private contractors, who are paid on commission basis, giving them huge incentive to ignore mitigating factors. Stop one inch over the line? Ticket for you!
Worst of all, Baltimore abuses the system as a profit center by systematically shortening the yellow light times at photo-monitored intersections. Think you can make it through? Ticket for you!