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

What's Indecent Here?

[robbway]

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.