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."
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?
"In a hierarchy every employee will rise to his level of incompetence". The Peter Principle
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.
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.
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?