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."

Comments

Context

[ErisCalmsme]

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?

Right to Privacy in a Public Place

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Mixed feelings

[chia_monkey]

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?

Re:Turn Tables

[Sylver Dragon]

I had a thought along similar lines to this once. Basically start up a non-profit organization that employed people to follow around every elected representative 24/7 with a video camera. The only time the camera would not be recording the assigned representative would be when that rep. is in a private location, e.g. their home. And even then, the camera would be recording the front of the house, waiting for people to come and go. The footage is then put up on the internet for anyone and everyone to review. Afterall, these are the rep's who are asking us to put up with being monitored, let's start out by testing the monitoring on them. Moreover, I would try and see about getting these sorts of cameras inside their offices, and in any meetings where they discus stuff that might affect us citizens. The govenment these days seems to have forgotten that it is supposed to be them serving the people, not the other way around. Of course, most people have lost sight of that too, sigh.