1984 Comes To Boston

walmass writes "In preparation for the DNC in Boston, 75 cameras monitored by the Federal government will be operating around the downtown Boston location. There are also an unspecified number of state police cameras, and 100 cameras owned by the Metro Boston Transit Authority. Quote: 'And it's here to stay: Boston police say the 30 or so cameras installed for the convention will be used throughout the city once the event is over. "We own them now," said police Superintendent Robert Dunford. "We're certainly not going to put them in a closet."'"

Comments

Godwin's law, updated

[noname3]

If you make a Nazi or 1984 reference, you lose.

1984?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean "London, England comes to Boston"?

Re:1984?

[AHarrison]

Big Brother is protecting you, I am sure. Way to be an ignorant tool.

Security vs Liberty.

[Cavio]

Is it even possible to live free and untracked anymore? Is this just the price we pay for living in a civilized society?

I'm considering going to cash for most everything. Has anyone experimented with that lately, and what difficulties did you face?

Support the ACLU and the EFF. Those are the people fighting these battles for you. The guy in the article who says "''I definitely think it's good for safety reasons," said Chris Bellomo, a 55-year-old teacher from Cheshire, Conn. ''I feel more comfortable [knowing] that, if something bad happens, more people are going to be watching and aware of it, and that help will be there if it is needed." forgets that freedom has a cost, and I'm willing to live with a little danger in exchange for being beholden to no man other than myself. As Penn & Teller say, these cameras are "Bullshit!".

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[0123456]

"Is it even possible to live free and untracked anymore? Is this just the price we pay for living in a civilized society?"

If we lived in a civilised society it might be a price worth paying, but we have the worst of both worlds: an uncivilised society and a growing police state.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[noname3]

I've handed over thousands of dollars in cash for computers no problem. The worst flak I've ever caught was "may I see some ID?" while $1000 in 20s were passed under a UV light. I initially declined, but then flashed my driver's license because I didn't want to go to another store. Nothing was noted down, the cashier was too busy checking bills.

I've only been ID'd once, but I've bought PCs, a laptop, and a thousand dollar PDA all in cash with no problem. Everyone has checked at least half the bills under a UV lamp though.

Hell, a bunch of places have offered to let me avoid tax on small items if I pay in cash.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[treat]

If we lived in a civilised society it might be a price worth paying, but we have the worst of both worlds: an uncivilised society and a growing police state.

What we have isn't civilization? We have agriculture, arts, science, writing. Did you have a different definition for civilization?

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

I'm just waiting for some "patriot" who has line of sight to the lens to aim a laser pointer at it, and leave it there. Some cameras won't be vulnerable to this, but at least a few will be across the street from someone that has a condo with a balcony, wouldn't they?

Lord knows that if I owned a small business or home near one, they'd never see shit out of it.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[leob]

It was never possible to live free and untracked in a big city.

What had changed is the technology that allowed to track you with better efficiency and with lesser expense (no need to pay an agent or a private detective to sit in a car across the street), that is all.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[abe ferlman]

No.

Privacy's gone. Abandon the flank and start insisting on reciprocal surveillance. You have no other choice.

I'm dead serious.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[Moofie]

Freedom.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[lpp]

I had a friend who went with cash for everything. He lived in an apartment and paid cash for that. A cell phone was out of the question for awhile (this was several years ago) until he managed to get a service plan with Sprint. It was the prepaid version of their plan. Of course, these days you could get a prepaid phone from just about anyone.

The two biggest things I would see a problem with would be a) big ticket items and b) credit rating.

The big ticket items like cars and especially houses are going to require you to either save the money and pay cash for them or have a rich relative willing to lend you the money. Saving for a car may not be a big deal, especially if you don't want or need the latest models out of Detroit. Saving up for a house is an exercise I don't have the patience for.

A credit rating would seem to be useless. If you're living by paying for things with cash, what need do you have for a credit rating? Some companies, however, do background checks on potential employees, including a credit check. Also, and I wish I had more details, I recently was involved in "something" that at first glance I thought should NOT have required a credit check, but the other party did. After it was explained to me, it did some logical, even if I didn't like it. Maybe it was insurance? I don't recall.

Anyway, you would have a bad credit rating because you would have no credit history.

This becomes more of an issue if you eventually decide to go back to a non-cash lifestyle, at which point you begin to have serious problems getting better deals (finance rates, for example) on things.

So continue researching and be careful. If you don't think you can stick with it, I would say it isn't for you.

What you can do, though, is to reduce your footprint. Eliminate as many cards and other credit accounts as possible while paying for cash as much as you can. Stick with a car note, a house note and a credit card that you use to charge a little bit of money on each month while paying it off completely each billing cycle. Think of it is a "good credit report fee" when you see the small interest charge on each monthly bill.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[malloci]

Hmm, let's add not bombing the f*ck out of a country because our leader wanted to? A civilized society would have kept on the course of nonviolent action and only acted when all nonviolent avenues had been exhausted.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[SpacePunk]

If that's the price to pay, then it's far too high.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[asavage]

civ.i.lized

1. Having a highly developed society and culture.
2. Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable.
3. Marked by refinement in taste and manners; cultured; polished.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[antiMStroll]

"We have agriculture, arts, science, writing."

As did medieval Europe, the Romans and 'insert your favourite 20th Century genocidal regime here'. Your definition is broad to the point of being meaningless in the context of a discussion about rights and freedoms.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[d474]

Let's not insist on reciprocal surveillance. Let's implement it. (Shhhhhhhhhh....USG....we are watching you....)

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Gee. Let's see. A 0.0001% chance that these cameras can be used to catch a criminal, who won't pay me for the damage, that will only ransack my house once in my entire lifetime, and will never see any fair justice, one way or the other.

Vs.

A 99.9999% chance that (I'm 29) within my own lifetime some grabass lowlife politician or other "authority" will abuse this system affecting me at least indirectly, and in a serious, lasting manner.

Then again, I was taught math in public skool, so I'm not sure how to finish the equation. I change my mind, bring in the cameras!

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[ari_j]

Dictionary definitions are an existential statement - if one of the definition fits, then the word itself does. The degree to which it fits can usually be measured inversely to the index of the definition being used. The first definition here is the one most fitting to societies, whereas #2 and, especially, #3 are directed more towards an individual.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[Zak3056]

Privacy's gone. Abandon the flank and start insisting on reciprocal surveillance. You have no other choice.

I'm dead serious.

I realize you're serious, but what you suggest is unworkable. Our "civil servants" (who usually seem neither servile, nor particularly civil) will inevitably trot out the "national security" bogeyman should anyone try publically track THEIR actions the way the actions of the average citizen are currently tracked privately.

Additionally, you're left with the paradox that the people whose privacy you wish to compromise in order to level the playing field are the very people who pass the laws in the first place. Would YOU vote to let anyone and everyone track YOUR movements? I certainly wouldn't!

In short, if you're correct--and privacy really is irrevocably gone--then the fight is lost until such time as something happens to make things change back to some reasonable facsimile of the way they were.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[Shihar]

I am a civil libertarian, and yet cameras do not bother me all that much. It does not bother me that a camera might be watching me do something illegal in public. A cop could watch me do something illegal in public. Why does it matter if it is a cop or a computer? If a cop, cop watching a TV screen, or a computer manages to catch a criminal before he does something bad, good.

The real issue, in my opinion, is not the surveillance. It is the laws being enforced by surveillance. What makes the cameras scary is that they might be used to enforce bad laws. There are a lot of laws that we as a people simply accept because we don't expect them to truly be enforced strongly enough for it to be a concern. The risk is that these cameras will make it easy to enforce bad laws imposed by a slim majority. Drug laws a prime example. We do not want them truly enforced. If everyone who has committed a drug violation at one point in there life was suddenly jailed, over half of the population would be in jail. Many people would be facing very long prison sentences. It isn't an issue because few people are actually caught breaking these crimes. Surveillance and improved policing powers such as cameras wouldn't bother me if there were not a lot of fundamentally bad laws in existence. I don't mind the push to monitoring public spaces for criminals so long as that push is also followed by an effort to eliminate unjust laws passed by the majority on the minority, or laws that have simply been around for a while and no on bothers to question any more.

The secondary issue to this is the matter of who controls the information. We don't want corruption and secrecy. We want an open and fair society. If we truly want to push towards a society that has surveillance on itself, then it should be done in an open manner. Hook up the cameras to the internet and take an open source approach. Let the masses monitor themselves instead of doing it secretly in a police building. This sort of control is far too large to be trusted to only a few. It should be entrusted to everyone.

The point is that we do not have a sacrifice freedom so long as the laws are made such that you don't have to be a criminal to be free. If someone wants to bring out their pipe during the DNC and take a few drags of old Mary J, they should absolutely be able to. You shouldn't have to be a criminal to be free. Our society should spend less time trying to control the guy next door and more time trying to snag the bastard looking to commit real crimes, like homicide, rape, and terrorism.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[Anonymous Coward]

anti-American elitism

Glad to see you recognize those of us in the rest of the world as your betters.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[bigbadwlf]

If that's the price to pay, then it's far too high.

Why is it any different that a cop can see you on camera when they could otherwise see you as they drive by in a patrol car?
We have cameras downtown here and the world didn't end on the day they were installed.
Ask the potential victim of the first crime that's prevented because of the cameras if the price is too high.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[RLiegh]

What do you mean? I'm free to express my politically incorrect opinions on race and class, I'm free to support the republican party, I'm free to go to the baptist church of my choice, I'm free to drive around town with the biggest flag money can buy on my car

I truly, honestly don't know what you could be talking about.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[catwh0re]

Camera's in sydney city have been there for many years. We just ignore them. They serve as an advantage as generally there is video evidence for street crimes such as the occasional mugging.

Also street cameras are hardly invasive, cameras are usually installed all over the city to monitor traffic, no one cries about that, and the reason is that they are pointed at traffice and the streets. What they aren't doing is lingering into people's apartment windows.

I wouldn't cry foul about your city's police finding new ways to deter crime, and to follow up crimes committed.

After all what are you really losing? When you walk down a street hundreds of people can see you, some even taking photos that you may get caught in, you don't cry privacy fears then.

I really don't see how this can be a bad thing.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[WNight]

They won't exactly be the most unbiased. Your argument is nothing but a pathetic retread of "Won't *someone* please think of the children."

Instead, ask the first government whistle-blower who is caught and vanished while trying to meet a reporter, because the FBI could use face-recognition software and a vast network of cameras to find him. Stupid emotionally laden arguments are easy.

It's different to have cameras watch you than police officers in their cars because the patrol car is somewhat more visible. You know if you're being followed and watched.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[SquadBoy]

How the hell can a crime be prevented by a camera? Maybe at most solved a bit faster, but prevented? I don't think so. I wish I had my e copy of "Grimmer than Hell" so I could point you at Drake's Lacey stories. They make the point better than I ever could. I'll have to put up a link to it tomorrow at work. In any case let me address your points.

" Why is it any different that a cop can see you on camera when they could otherwise see you as they drive by in a patrol car?"

I'll address a couple of other possible points in addition to your question. A cop driving by who looks at me as some reason to do so and he is certainly not going to recall seeing me unless I'm doing something to bring myself to his attention. You could even go so far as to say that if he looks at me and recalls what I look like as a result of looking at me that I was most likely doing something to give him "probable cause" to look at and remember me. Now the point you are going to try to trot out next is what if they have a camera in cop car. Same thing there is still going to be some reason for them to point the camera at me and keep it on me for any length of time. Same thing with a radar gun. Granted most of them don't do it but the story they have to tell in court is that they looked at you for a few seconds and based on that thought you were speeding before they used the radar gun on you. What all of these things have in common is that there is a person making the choice to use his/her limited resources to pay attention to you. A automatic camera on 24/7 is going to record anyone in its range at all times. You have just removed both the formal and informal requirement for "reasonable cause" from the choice to notice, pay attention to, and record you doing things.

"We have cameras downtown here and the world didn't end on the day they were installed"

Of course it did not end. But there is a chilling effect and there are possible bad effects. Say for example you are a woman trying to get away from a cop who likes to hit you. Well you just made it harder to do so. Say for example you wanted to assemble with some of your friends and express the opinion that W is maybe not doing the best possible job in the world. Given the way things are going in general I know that I and many other people feel that it may not be such a good idea to do that where there are cameras. Over time the kind of chilling effect these things cause will harm the country and will lead to bad things. In any case hope the above helps you to change your mind.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[the_2nd_coming]

hmm, we live in a police state yet we have the worst crime in the western world? you are aware that in a police state like Singapore or the soviet union in its hay day or China under Mao, the crime rate was nearly zero.

we are far from a police state.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[the_2nd_coming]

yeah, like the french and russians wanted to...you know, those nations that just happened to be getting kick backs from Saddam. and we all know that the UN had the best interests at stake with their corruption in the oil for food program.

I am all for cool heads ruling the day and all, but to put our trust in having a consensus in the UN or even among our allies is not how to run a foreign policy.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

I don't think anyone has ever suggested permanently disabling the CCDs, which may not be possible with non-dangerous lasers. What if you miss while fine tuning your aim with binoculars, and blind a baby? Even I wouldn't do that. Rather, disable it temporarily with an eye-safe laser, but leave the damn thing bolted there with the correct aim.

This means:
1) No chance of accidentally blinding someone, yourself included.
2) No chance of damaging the camera permanently, which is probably more illegal than blinding it.
3) They don't replace it tomorrow, when you're not there to blind it again.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[BlackHawk-666]

I think you guys in the USA mustn't have been paying attention lately. You have very little real freedom left. With the DMCA, surveilence cameras, a state that locks people up without charges and detains them indefintely, and a media so powerful they won't even let you share your films with your own friends over the internet, about all you have left is freedom of speech - and even that is in doubt. You fingerprint people as they enter your country, have IP laws that stop small software innovators from releasing a competitive product and still enforce the death penalty (which no civilised country still uses). Check your trousers, I think someone has pickpocketed your freedom while you were all busy buying the next big piece of crap that the marketeers have been selling you.

You *had* freedom, that's for sure, but it's been eroded over the last few decades. You need to act now if you want to preserve what you have left. Let's face it, you can't even show a bit of tit on your TV during the superbowl, just exactly what sort of freedom are you talking about?

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[Anonymous Coward]

the reported crime rate.

1) crimes went unreported a lot to avoid drawing attention to it from the higher-ups
2) crimes were committed en masse by the higher-ups themselves. Though they were often "legal" to the government, it depends on what you define as a crime.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[BlackHawk-666]

Say for example you are a woman trying to get away from a cop who likes to hit you. Well you just made it harder to do so.

Well, wouldn't the women actually want the images of the cop hitting her on camera a-la Rodney King style. How does having this evidence taped and presented in court to convict the cop "chill" her freedom not to be hit.

Say for example you wanted to assemble with some of your friends and express the opinion that W is maybe not doing the best possible job in the world.

Since the right to free assembly is granted in your constituition you would surely be allowed to do this and the cameras would protect your rights. In fact, having them there might stop the police state from cracking your skulls with their batons, not a bad deal for the Bush disidents.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[RLiegh]

I'm also free to support the Communist party. I'm free to not go to any church and paint "God is Dead" on the side of my enviornmentally friendly import. And I'm free to burn the largest flag I can find provided I take the necessary precautions to ensure I don't light anything else on fire. So while you were sarcastic in your statement, I really don't know what he's talking about.

You are not, however, free to your local landmarks.

Um, and I'd love to see what would befall any person who engaged in any of the activities you've mentioned; particularly the reaction they'd get if they painted "god is dead" on anything outside of LA, San Fran or Seattle.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[danila]

Is it even possible to live free and untracked anymore? Is this just the price we pay for living in a civilized society?
Yes, it is. No, it isn't. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that increased surveilance is needed anywhere in the world. The primary reason why more and more tools are being used to track you and me is because the technology is available and the government can never have too much control (in their opinion).

Nothing changed in our cities from the 1940s - the crimes are the same, rapists, burglars, gangs, murderers, pickpocketers, speeders, flashers, drug dealers - there is no change. Look back 100 more years and the 1840s will be the same. Go back in Europe and 1000 years back in time. The 840s, same crimes, no difference whatsoever. Then go back 1000 years more and move to Rome. Same people lived there, they lived the same lives, with same worries about the same criminals. May be they didn't have iPods with white headphones or expensive mobile handsets to lose to the robbers, but whatever trinkets they carried they probably cared just as much for them as we do for ours.

How much police did they have? The farther back in time you go, the less police they had per 1000 people. In Ancient Rome there was no police at all. We are scaried of the crime today, they must have lived in constant fear for their lives, haven't they? Turns out, they haven't. Turns out that even without police people somehow managed to stay fine.

So let me repeat, there is absolutely no reason to have CCTV monitoring of our streets, the illusion of safety they provide is just that - the illusion, but with the attached risk of government abuse. Do we want it? Perhaps not. Do we need it? Absolutely not. Can we change anything? Only by violently overthrowing the government, but it is probably already too late. It's too powerful and it won't die - it will grow, and grow, and grow until it devours the whole world and every free person is controlled by the police state. And ACLU or EFF can't change anything now, they can only slow down the inevitable progress to the totalitarian hell.

Sad, isn't it?

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[KingJoshi]

bullshit! Anyone with any knowledge of social/political dilemmas knows the difficulty of making decisions. Simple games like the prisoner's and chicken dilemma show the dangers of trying to decide the right course of action while modeling the assessments of others.

Sometimes, you have to stand your ground, or the bully/lunatic wins. Sometimes, you have to make threats, and if your "bluff" is called, you have to follow through. The UN made demands for years and the world was sure Iraq didn't comply, hence the resolution calling for Iraq to cooperate (Iraq was too stupid not to cooperate better). Anyhow, you have to follow through on the threat or your "word" and position is lessened for the future and that brings many other problems.

Situations aren't clear cut or simple. Your line you draw on when to fight might not be similar to anothers. But the decisions aren't so simple as to say, that guy was wrong and I'm right. Some decisions are a gamble, and some just can't get second guessed. It does no good. We can learn from it and analzye failed intelligence, etc. But some calls are gut calls where the right course of action isn't known.

This goes in hand with security vs liberty. Where people draw the lines differ. Some things are easier to see than others (the administration failed to plan for peace, they only listened to defectors and had 4 year old intelligence, likewise, giving up liberty for security is bound to have government abuse their power). But things aren't so clear cut (the defectors had good evidence before and Saddam could never be trusted, likewise, police have done a relatively good job and I'd prefer them to anarchy and every man for themselves).

It's just finding the line. Sometimes, the majority comes to a conclusion you don't agree with and you continue to argue your position but must give way to the majority at times.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[espo812]

Ask the potential victim of the first crime that's prevented because of the cameras if the price is too high.

As has been said, cameras don't prevent crime. Another thing most people miss is that police also do not prevent crime. In fact, in Warren v. D.C. the court held "courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community."

You may think of police mainly as historians. They are charged with collecting the facts and figuring out what happened and arresting the person responsible. They are not there to prvent crime, only to deal with committed crimes. It is up to individuals to defend themselves.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[CrowScape]

Would that reaction be coming from the government, or from the population? In a free society, the other side is always allowed to express itself in opposition. A recent example would be Whoopi Goldberg being dropped by Slim Fast. In a nice irony, Whoopi is outraged that a group excercised their First Amendment freedoms to get her fired because she was excersing her First Amendment freedoms to get a certain President fired. The moral; freedom of speech cuts both ways.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[bigbadwlf]

How the hell can a crime be prevented by a camera?

Umm, because you'd have to be pretty stupid to commit a crime in sight of one?

Sorry, I'm just not paranoid and that's not going to change. I'm not one of these people who gets uncomfortable just because someone is looking at me.
Maybe it's just a difference between Canadians and Americans that we don't sweat these kinds of things while Americans are (by comparison) more paranoid. Who knows?
If I was doing something wrong, then and only then would I worry about the cameras.
I'm not so arrogant to think that someone is just dying to watch me on security cameras as I walk downtown.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[TheLoneDanger]

As I understand it, a camera uses RGB to record images. Most lasers (cheap readily available ones) are red and would only overwhelm the red scale part of the image. If they shift it to either the green scale or blue scale part of the data, they can see just fine. If you want to go to the trouble of setting up a red, blue and green laser combo to hit a camera, then you could be relatively sure.

Of course, if I am very wrong, I would like to know that and why. Thanks.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[BlackHawk-666]

Living here in good old blighty (London) where we are constanly under surveilance, probably because of the decades of terrorism we can happilly light up the ole pipe and enjoy a Mary J. Despite Americans thinking we enjoy less freedoms than them, we actually have more. Next time the anti-cap demos are on saunter down and see how much leeway they give the protestors. Light up a J in the park over here, if an officer comes along you only get a warning - not prison time or a fine, a warning. We might not have it in our constitution, but if you want free speech go down to speakers corner where anyone and everyone can rant to their hearts content. We can enjoy Absinthe, I'm drinking a glass now, too bad you Americans with all your freedoms can't even have a glass of this fine liquor. I guess the prohibition isn't quite over yet. I can go to a shop in Camden and buy psychadelic mushrooms over the counter, and some LSA seeds, and it's legal. You should check out the stuff we can show on TV and print in the press, you guys really just aren't aware of how badly censored your freedoms are.

Seriously, you can't even go into a department store or a bookshop without security cameras and undercover security watching you. Why are people so het up about it in the steets?

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[paganizer]

You have a small problem with your logic.
you are presupposing that the cameras will be controlled by, and only available to, honest, loyal, trustworthy boy scouts.
Logic, and a brief period spent reviewing documented police power abuses, should make it obvious that this is very far from the situation we actually have.
and, BTW, don't forget that the Governor of Georgia declared martial law so he could deny assembly permits during the G8 conference...

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[Thomas Shaddack]

Additionally, you're left with the paradox that the people whose privacy you wish to compromise in order to level the playing field are the very people who pass the laws in the first place. Would nyone and everyone track YOUR movements? I certainly wouldn't!

So don't ask them to vote for it and just unleash it upon them. Develop systems for anonymous whistleblowing, anonymous information sharing, anonymous publishing. Repurpose mainstream technologies for surveillance, use the same toys They have (or their cheaper off-the-shelf versions) against themselves. They may control the Laws, but we control the Technology.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[zogger]

You can still get the home and skip the banks. It's called owner financed, I bought a house like that before. I paid aboput 4 months what would have been rent for the same place down,and then we arranged a contract with terms that satisfied both of us, went and notarised it together, and that was that, and I even dropped off the payments in person in cash once a month. The owner loved it, they were getting the interest the bank normally would have been getting. They make a lot more loot for the same property without involving real estate skimmer middlemen and the banks "loaning" money they don't even have and charging interest on top of it.

You can still find deals like that, a lot of homes are just sitting on the market now, un saleable in this economic climate, try it out, make some offers, you might be surprised.

As to the cameras with the cops, notice cops and government-who are the same humans everyone else is and have the exact same percentage of criminals inside their ranks, absolutely no different, and in a lot of cases are even WORSE criminals than the general population, with ALL crimes, are in no particular hurry to have cameras monitoring THEM anyplace, and keep trying to make it even harder to get records, etc. All they do now to cover up their crimes is mutter "security" and that makes it some sort of fact that they don't need oversight or any surveillence on "them".

I think we need cameras and microphones-inside police stations, running 24/7/365 and accessible through a web interface anyone can look at, and inside every patrol car. We need cameras in every office of every elected politician, same deal. We need cameras for every non elected bureaucrat in government, and complete records transparency. We need cameras in every governmental and non governmental but still "the same guys" meetings, like the bilderberg conferences and the economic gang of 8 and WTO closed door meetings, we should be able to see and hear EXACTLY what these plutocratic despotic parasites are up to, all the time, 24/7/375. When we have that, sure, stick cameras on all the street corners then. Until that time, nope, trash the cameras in public. Screw them turkeys, buncha lying thieving murdering gouging bribe takin scumbag criminals guilty until proven innocent as far as I am concerned. Same with any non human corporation of maximum cheating profits-if they want the benefits of having a non human take all the so called "risk", to hide behind their shysters and the legalese they bribed into "law", to conduct their secret business deals consisting of bribes and kickbacks and collusion, then the humans connected with management in those corporations need to be under 24/7/365 surveillence,because we have too many examples now of high level corruption and thieving going on with all these big corporations, the default should be, they are all crooked until proven innocent.

See how all these big brother types in government and industry would like that!

heh heh heh

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Yeah, America has certainly shown how to run a foreign policy. This Saddam, was all bottled up, keeping his country under (reasonably lawful albeit despotic) control, and disuading Iran from invading; and with a minimum of weapons.

Now, you've pissed off half of Islam (and Islam is a big, big place; bigger than America). Iraq's economy is all but destroyed, Iran is eyeing up the place and Americans and Iraqis are dying by the hundreds/thousands. The US governments budget is in deficit.

About the only one happy about the situation is Osama Bin Laden; America has managed to fumble the situation in every one of the top holy places of Islam. Nice work.

That UN- what do they know? They know enough not to take a poison chalice...

And you know what? Dumb moves like create the kind of uncertainty that helps put cameras in American cities.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[Artifakt]

I live in the south, and believe it or not, most of what you're talking about happens here too. Yes there's been some trouble with people who have kneejerk reactions to the explicit atheism of the "god is dead" variety, but even that is generally tolerated. No one down here is ripping Darwin fish off cars (I admit my Cthulhu fish gets some looks), one of the local 7-11's has a big sign out front praising Allah in both English and Farsi, (although since 9/11 they have also put up some newspaper clippings quoting prominent muslems saying "We're not all terrorists" type sentiments, so maybe they are a touch worried about being allowed to express their opinions), and the Wicca supply shop in the arts and crafts mall hasn't been picketed yet. Put up a "God is dead" sign down here, and eventually some jerk just might burn it down, but the police will at least take that seriously, and the local church is likely to just put up a sign reading "Sorry yours is dead, ours is feeling fine." Judging by the last general election, somebody voted for Angela Davis, and no one is trying to winkle him or her out, although maybe that's because it's not like there are enough Communists or classical socialists to take seriously.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[SquadBoy]

Yea because they could *never* use the camera to get pictures of you at say a perfectly legal protest, put you on their enemies list then send you a secret letter and putting you away in some hole with no access to communications to the outside for a very long time. That could never happen in America.

Oh wait in the last 3 years the groundwork to be able to do just that has been laid by the people now in power. The same ones who where able to pull a huge piece of complex legislation out of their asses in a couple of weeks. The same ones who at that time said "now we can do some things that we have wanted to for a long time now". The same ones who during the campaign said "there should be limits on speech". The same ones who are trying to get rules in place so that a unelected committee can overrule the Constitution.

Yea I pretty much think that anyone who has been paying attention has good reason to think that anything that increases potential government power at this point is a bad thing. 3 years ago I would not have been really up in arms over these cameras. But combine this trend to public cameras along with a lot of what has happened in the last 3 years and I start to get scared. And so should you.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[bnenning]

Even terrorists have demands.

Which often consist of "convert to Islam and follow sharia, or die".

They would like jobs, and goodies, and reasonable prices, and many of the same things you like.

Most of the 9/11 hijackers were from middle class backgrounds. This isn't about jobs and food; it's about our infidel behaviors like allowing women to drive cars.

Sometimes you have to make some concessions, even if it's really, really distasteful and you don't want to.

A terrorist wishes to kill 1000 people. You wish him to kill 0 people. Do you compromise on 500? Or perhaps you sit down with him and discuss the "root causes" of his anger. Sorry, but when someone starts deliberately murdering innocent civilians he instantly loses any moral claims he may have had.

Oh, and congratulations on your "lasting peace" in both Afghanistan and Iraq, I hear that's working out really well.

Thank you. Yes, both are significant improvements over the previous regimes.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[Atzanteol]

Being free to do something does *not* mean you won't take flak for doing it.

I can walk into harlem and shout a long stream of racial slurs, but I can't expect people to just say "Well, he's free to do that!"

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[mormop]

Not as stupid as it may sound. In the UK, the police took to videoing protestors at demonstrations as a method of intimidation, oops sorry, monitoring demonstrators in case there's trouble.

Worked well until camcorders became cheap enough for demonstrators to turn up and video the police lines which caused a similar level of discomfort.

Some enterprising types will even send you a copy of their (admittedly one sided) handy work.

.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[badasscat]

Actually, I doubt that the typical American has any problem with cameras in public places. It's mostly just the Slashbots that care.

No doubt. I'm an American (a New Yorker, actually) and my reaction when I saw this headline was "please!" I mean, this is real tinfoil hat stuff here, if you ask me.

There are something like 5,000 cameras running in New York City at any given time. I have not heard of any case where one of these cameras has been abused, but I do know they've cut red-light running down by 50% and have also led to a big drop in graffiti, not to mention helping get the drug dealers out of Washington Square Park. I'd call that a net gain in my quality of life.

I really wonder what people are worried about here. When you ask somebody, they'll always say something like "there's the potential that the government could use these images in some undefined, nefarious fashion. 1984! 1984!"

If you're going to talk about things in terms of the potential for abuse, well then, I have a real feeling you're playing both sides of the fence. How do you feel, for example, about P2P programs? Plenty of potential for abuse there too, but we here on Slashdot do nothing but whine about prior restraint whenever anybody tries to regulate these apps (and we do so for good reason). Plenty of potential for cops to abuse their firearms too, or their summons pads, or for judges to abuse their warrant-writing authority, or whatever. The point being we don't restrain anybody from doing something because of the potential for abuse in this country - it's unAmerican to do so if you ask me.

I mean you have to accept that the government exists and that it has things in its power that could be used in an inappropriate manner, but that hopefully aren't generally used that way in practice, and that hopefully will result in a net gain for society. That's why government exists, after all.

Around 90% of the cameras in use in NYC are actually privately owned and are protecting private property. So it's not even really about "big brother", because big brother by its very nature is one controlling entity (re-read 1984 if you've forgotten this important fact). It's mostly about landlords trying to keep their property and their tenants safe. I'm sure there are more than just these 75 (or whatever number) cameras already in Boston too and that most of them are used for the same reason... but I sure wouldn't worry about law enforcement having this small number of cameras to protect the city either.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[tekunokurato]

Singapore STILL has corporal punishment, and while the repeat offender rate is close to 7%, far lower than the US' repeat offender rate for comparable crimes (i.e. felonies) of roughly 70% (my stats are four-five years old, sorry), it's really because more than half the people who are caned for severe crimes are either killed or beaten to severe incapacity. Is that how you want to run a society?

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[Queer Boy]

free assembly is granted in your constituition you would surely be allowed to do this and the cameras would protect your rights.

Yes, because we all know that anytime we make a law or a way to enforce a law or a way to deter from breaking the law, it grants and secures greater freedom. Give me a break.

That's like saying that having a courts system guarantees you will not be wrongfully accused or convicted of a crime like they were in Salem. We have a pardons and appeals system because the system is flawed.

There will be loss of video when it is to the police's advantage (just as they lose other evidence) tampering with video (just like other evidence) and the same amount of bullshit as there ever was, only because it is video, i.e. TV, people will believe it at face value.

I don't care WHAT argument you want to put forth, there is no reason why I need to be monitored at ANY time in a free country. If this were done in Cuba, North Korea, The New Boogeyman Country, we would be outraged.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[abreauj]

Well, wouldn't the women actually want the images of the cop hitting her on camera a-la Rodney King style.

The issue is the cop using the surveillance to track the woman's movements. If she's dating someone else, the cop can learn this and then make excuses to harass that guy and scare him off. He can develop a profile of the woman that gives him a great deal of power over this woman, and with no safeguards in place to "watch the watcher", he's free to abuse that information as much as he likes.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[dcam]

Sorry, but when someone starts deliberately murdering innocent civilians he instantly loses any moral claims he may have had.

No. The moral high claims are likely to be somewhat diminished, if not removed, but they may not be totally removed. Suppose the person who is doing the killing of hundreds is avenging the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians?

The Palestinian suicide bombers would argue that they are avenging those innocent palestinans killed by the Israeli army, with some justification.

People/groups generally fit somewhere between extremes on a moral scale. All you can claim is that you are closer to one extreme than the other.

BTW I am not condoning murdering innocent civilians, I am just pointing out that in many cases these things tend to degenerate and neither side can claim the absolute moral high ground.

This should have been apparent after ABU Graib.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[BlackHawk-666]

Since when has pot been legal in the US. Probably not since around Lincoln was chuffing the stuff down. Although it has just been re-classed over here, the police have turned a blind eye to it for quite a number of years. I made a police report a few years back and sat in the police station and told the officer we were smoking weed, she just said to go on with the story, it wasn't important that we were smoking canabis.

The Prince Charles story would be protected on two levels. Firstly, after Diana's accident the government brought in laws to help prevent pazaratzi from hounding public figures - this especially pertains to the royal house. Secondly, did you miss the part about the court injunction? You have the same thing in your country - inability to publish a story whilst awaiting the court hearing. This is to protect people from smear campaigns. This stuff does fly in the US.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[ponxx]

Oh come on ... no country in this world has an ethical foreign policy. Certainly not the US.

In case you forgot, the US supported Saddam for decades when he was just as despotic as he was recently. The US stood by and and even cooperated while Saddam fought a terrible war against the Iran, because Iran was the bigger evil, so Iraq was a friend. Incidentally, the CIA also trained Bin Laden for his terrorist work, which was supposed to be against the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. He was just as much of a lunatic back then, but had a different enemy, so that was fine...

Now they've done the same again, backing for example the Kurds, who are by no means better than Saddam in their political outlook, and if they allow free elections they'll probably get an islamist government of the Iranian variety...

It's all a big mess, and it's getting no closer to being sorted out. The Iraq war was a most bizarre reaction to 9/11 as it was probably the only country down there that *didn't* have *anything* to do with it. Iraq was secular for a start and loathed by Bin Laden...

Anyway, there appears to be no coherent concept of any kind, so either it's such a subtle plan no-one can understand it or it's a very flawed foreign policy and an engagement with no exit strategy...

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[ncc74656]

[Whoopi] was 'fired' for her political views. not cool.

When you consider that the guy who runs Slim-Fast is a left-winger who's given lots of money to the Democrats and that it was his decision to 86 Whoopi, what are the odds that the decision was political? You don't piss off your customers if you want to stay in business.

You can have whatever opinion you want, but it's wise to exercise discretion in where and how you voice it. Free speech is not an absolute right, regardless of what the pinheads at the ACLU would have you believe. If you say something that offends people, you have no right to assume that those people will continue to back you up. Deal with it.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[Tassach]

Suppose the person who is doing the killing of hundreds is avenging the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians?

Intentionally targeting civilian populations is never justifiable, regardless of the provocation. Those who intentionally kill innocents are murderers, not soldiers.

You cannot use evil to fight evil without becoming evil, the ends do NOT justify the means, and "I was only following orders" is never a valid defense.

An honorable soldier will do his best to minimize the chances of harming innocents, but sometimes it's unavoidable. Take for example a military support facility like a weapons factory, or a strategic dual-use facility like an oil refinery: these are clearly valid targets in war, even though they are privately owned and staffed by civilians. Another example would be a dishonorable government which sets up a missle launch site right next to a school or hospital. In that situation a commander might have no choice but to attack the weapon even though he knows many civilians may die as a result; if he is honorable, he would do everything he could to reduce civilian casualties, even if it means exposing his troops to additional risk.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[cellocgw]

I don't know any serious atheists who go around painting "God is dead" on things.
At the risk of being serious here, let me point out two things.
First, atheists don't believe God is dead. We believe there is not and never has/have been mythological beings.
Second, the "God is dead" statement, made IIRC by Nietzche, was intended as an observation that religion was no longer useful or functional in the roles under which it came into being.

"We own them now,"

[way2trivial]

anyone else wonder if the chief is a hacker who was just misquoted?

And...

[Karma Star]

The difference between that and modern day NYC is? Take a look around Washington Sq. park if you're in the area...

Bar-hopper

[arakon]

damn, I guess there will be no more public Urination for me...

Re:Bar-hopper

[Richthofen80]

Maybe if Boston bars were open later than 1:30, this would apply. But Since we're a puritanical blue-law-happy city, our subway shuts down at 12:30 and our bars close at 2, latest.

New York City, now there's a city where public urination is possible!

Re:Bar-hopper

[fenix down]

You were sober enough to think about security cameras the last time you pissed on the sidewalk? And sober enough to care?

Re:Bar-hopper

[ThatsNotFunny]

New York City, now there's a city where public urination is possible!

Little known fact, this was the slogan before "I Love New York".

They did that in Tampa

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea was to use facial recognition software in order to identify any potential threats. After the system failed to identify a single problematic person or otherwise do much good, it was cancelled.

Defending Freedom?

[toetagger1]

"will be able to zoom in from their work stations to gather details of facial descriptions or read license plates""

Somehow this tells me the terrorists won

Re:Defending Freedom?

[Timesprout]

Cities were deploying cameras for years before 9/11 mostly for crime prevention. The technology behind them was only ever going to get better. Its not the terrorists winning, its law enforcement implementing a phased plan. How comfortable we all feel with it is another matter.

Re:Defending Freedom?

[toetagger1]

So all you are saying is that the terrorists didn't need to do anything to win.

Re:Defending Freedom?

[Iesus_Christus]

Has it ever occurred to all the "The terrorists have won" people that the terrorists more than likely don't fucking care about our freedom? They want us out of the Persian Gulf. They want us to stop helping Israel. They hate our imperialistic actions. But, if we were to leave them alone and not interfere with them, would they really go out of their way to bomb us?

And this is only Al-Qaeda. The vast majority of terrorists out there are in it for one of two things: radical change on one issue that no one seems to care about, and drawing attention to themselves and killing as many people as possible. While the lower-level operatives of terrorist organizations often believe in what they're doing, the leaders are frequently just trolling because of their own psychological issues. Even without our freedom, they'd sill hate us.

Re:Defending Freedom?

[ReverendHoss]

The impact of terrorism wasn't the cameras being added, but the fact that many people they are watching are welcoming them with open arms.

Besides, are the cameras going to be able to prevent anything, or just document any attack?

"Hey, looky there! Sure enough, that guy brought at unmarked bag into the building right before it blew."

Re:Defending Freedom?

[Qrlx]

I think it's quite possible for terrorists to lose, and for us to lose as well. It's a false dichotomy.

I think these cameras will have very little effect on terrorism. How exactly would cameras have stopped 9/11 or Oklahoma City? Instead they will be used by the government to track, monitor, and selectively prosecute us.

How does the saying go: Treat people like criminals, and they'll behave that way. Putting the world at large under surveillance is far too reactive a solution to the problems we're facing.

Why do police write speeding tickets? The pigs would say it's to keep the roads safe. But that's just a side effect. The raison d'ete is to generate revenue. Parking tickets are an even better example.

So no, I don't trust the government, and I don't see why I should be expected to. Their track record over the past 20 years is abysmal. Just look at the war on drugs. A criminal justice system that provides "customers" to a for-profit privatized prison system (NYSE: CXW). Civil forfeiture laws completely out of whack with common sense.

Fundamentally, the government is not there to hold my hand as I traverse life. There are occasions when a helping hand is appopriate. But not every time I step out into public.

Re:Defending Freedom?

[beakburke]

From a historical perspective, many ideologial groups have attempted to use totalitarianism to achive their goals over the last 100 years or so, and even farther back of course. The first two, facsist dictatorships and communism, have suffered major defeats and are no longer the threat they used to be to free countries. Radical islam however is still a very entrenched and is now becomming a bigger threat to "free" countries.

The idea of "leave them alone" was very popular before WWII, just like the anti-Iraq position is now. It hold a lot of appeal to people who think that somehow the terrorists wouldn't have been "mad" at us if we hadn't provoked them. I agree that the freedom itself isn't necessarily what upsets them, it's that many of us use that freedom to live our lives in ways that they don't agree with. Remember, the stated goals of Al-Qaeda et al. isn't just the removal of US troops from the Gulf, they really do want lifestyles they don't agree with wiped out. They aren't going to be happy to simplly have the US out of the Gulf. To steal a phrase "if you give a mouse some cheese, he's gonna want a cookie."

So what?

[kentrel]

They're only cameras.. they're in public places.. What do you expect? Why do you care? Are you planning on doing something you shouldn't? If so, that's why the cameras are there. And FYI, by law, you're entitled to access any CCTV footage that contains your image, so exercise your right.

Re:So what?

[treat]

Are you planning on doing something you shouldn't? If so, that's why the cameras are there.

Is it really? Every 6 months or so, someone breaks into one of the cars in my building's parking lot. Despite being caught on several cameras, the perpetrator is never pursued nor apprehended.

And FYI, by law, you're entitled to access any CCTV footage that contains your image, so exercise your right.

What law is this? This doesn't sound plausible.

Certainly any government-owned camera should make everything it captures available to the public. But we are moving away from, not towards, this level of freedom.

Re:So what?

[rokzy]

this dipshit should be modded down.

step 1: make absolutely retarded claims - "I'm in public, and damn it, I reserve the right not to be watched"

step 2: appeal to patriotic bullshit - "Land of the free, home of the brave"

step 3: slippery slope fallacy - "you may as well get the barcode stamped on your head and install the cameras in your home"

step 4: end with The Ben Quote

step 5: get modded up by similarly retarded people

Re:So what?

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

In the UK the Data Protection Act (well, an extension to it under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 IIRC) specifies that you have the right to request any information that may be held about you from any data controller - this includes obtaining any CCTV footage you appear in.

This is rarely used unfortunately, especially given the density of cameras here: I live in a fairly small town (Glossop, Derbyshire) and there are 8 cameras on the main street alone. I commute to work in Manchester by train and, between home and my office, I must pass about 30 cameras.

Hats

[toetagger1]

So will you still be allowed to wear hats or other facial coverings, so that you can't be identified by those cameras? Or would that be ruled as "unpatriotic" and grounds to be arrested?

Re:Hats

[BabyDave]

I read about an AI system a while ago that could accurately spot car theives walking around a car park, just by the way they walked.

Yes, but IIRC that was more along the lines of "This guy keeps walking up to cars, giving them an all-round inspection, peering in the window, [... etc] so he's probably a thief" (whereas a normal car owner would just walk up to their car, get in, drive off). It's not "That gate matches 'Fingers' MacDougal - get him, boys!"

Re:Hats

[ctr2sprt]

No, more likely you'll see hat-based profiling. Those who wear hats look like they have something to hide, to the people who operate these cameras, so you're more likely to get detained if you wear one.

Happened to me at work. Was out in the parking garage during the graveyard shift on a smoke break. Naturally the place has cameras all over. So I got bored of standing in the designated smoking area and decided to walk around and check the place out. The security guard came out and demanded to see my ID. In her defense, she hadn't seen me go from the lobby into the garage, so she thought I'd broken in somehow. But when she apologized, she did mention the fact that I was wearing a baseball cap (either sideways or backwards, I forget which) as a reason for being suspicious.

Re:Hats

[Felonious Ham]

As an American in England for the past few months, I was a little skeptical about Britain's growing use of CCTV being in the public interest. After a couple months seeing the number of crimes that were solved in a pretty short amount of time (one that comes to mind is the Huntley case), I now believe they really are a force for good. I don't know if they're a deterrent to the heinous body snatching-type crimes, but I definitely feel they make some of the sketchier areas of the city safer. Hoodlums are less likely to practice their intimidation tactics when small crimes are no longer anonymous (I think Britain has issues with punk kids who "smash and dash" or worse).

I'm not at all comfortable with the idea of gov't peering into my home (the infrared peekaboo case comes to mind), but you are a public person in the public space, and CCTV is actually a very small price to pay for the benefit of many fewer "broken windows".

Re:Hats

[bwb]

In some cities, such as Oakland, CA, it is already illegal to obscure your identity with masks, etc. Hats are still legal, however.

9.08.070 Masks and disguises.
It is unlawful for any person in the city to appear in public in any mask, cap, cowl, hood or other thing concealing the identity of the wearer; excepting, however, persons attending or taking part in carnivals conducted in accordance with law or under permission of the proper authorities of the city and persons holding a written permit to so conceal their identity, which permit is issued by the Chief of Police. (Prior code 3-4.06)

So, here's the question I find interesting.

[mcc]

Let's say-- we of course hope this will not happen, but stuff is hard to predict-- there are, as is sometimes unavoidable in a situation where there are protesters (and I'm sure there will be protesters) instances of police brutality during the upcoming DNC.

And let's say that the police cameras record this.

Do you suppose anything will come of said recordings?

Another question: when Britain installed similar cameras, there was some thing where some tripped-out version of the FOIA would allow you to request any film they had of you on those cameras. Does Massachusetts have any kind of state-local version of the FOIA that would allow private organizations to request copies of these Boston street cameras?

It's Everywhere

[Spineless Jellyfish]

London has it, Monaco has it. The question you have to ask, is "Are you entitled to privacy in the middle of a public street?"

Naive or what?

[0123456]

"Are you planning on doing something you shouldn't?"

Indeed. Only those who've done something wrong, or are misidentified, have anything to fear... and no-one should be worried about a mere few years spent in Cuba because they were misidentified as a criminal. Of course what's legal today might be 'wrong' tomorrow, like, say, trying to cross the border to Canada in order to avoid being drafted to die in Iran or Syria, but as long as you're docile little sheep who do whatever the government tells you to do (and don't get misidentified), you'll probably be OK.

Re:Naive or what?

[peculiarmethod]

actually, it's already illegal to run to Canada. The US and the kanoooooks have had agreements in place for a few years now. Good stuff, huh?

pm

Re:Naive or what?

[Jardine]

actually, it's already illegal to run to Canada. The US and the kanoooooks have had agreements in place for a few years now. Good stuff, huh?

It was illegal to run to Canada to avoid the draft in the Vietnam era too. The difference now is that the Canadian government has signed a deal with the American government to send back draft dodgers.

This is not something the average man on the street has heard about. I do wonder how long it would take after the first group of dodgers gets sent back before political pressure would force the Canadian government to stop. Remember that Canada has only once in its history had a draft. And those soldiers drafted were not even sent to the war, they were used to protect home military bases to free up the soldiers who were protecting them.

Your Rights Online? What a joke.

[Ken@WearableTech]

What rights are in question?
People do NOT have a right of privacy in public. This is nothing new. This is NOT 1984! 1984 is government cameras in your home. This shrill scream of "1984" all time just weakens it's real meaning.

Re:Your Rights Online? What a joke.

[josh3736]

What rights are in question?
People do NOT have a right of privacy in public.

Oh, but you do.

Just not as much as when you're sitting at home on a beanbag naked eating Cheet-ohs.

Like most other things, my expectation of privacy is not binary, 1 or 0, black and white. When I am at home on my beanbag, I have a full expectation of privacy. It is my very reasonable expectation that no one is watching and recording what I do, listening to my phone conversations, or going through my porno collection to see what kind of pornos I have. (Warrants notwithstanding.) When I'm walking down the street, it would not be a reasonable for me to expect that no one is watching me. However, I do expect that no one is following me around with a camcorder, and I think that is perfectly reasonable. However, I can resonably expect to show up on a camera if I go to a baseball game.

Likewise, if I'm on a crowded street, chances are somebody will hear my phone conversation. If I don't like that, I should find somewhere a little out of the way so no one can hear what I'm talking about. But I do expect that the streetlamp isn't recording what I'm saying.

I also expect that no one will look through my brown bag full of pornos-- It's my bag, even though I'm in a public space.

The examples can go on and on. It's simple: There are varying degrees of privacy.

Re:Your Rights Online? What a joke.

[black mariah]

You expect nobody is following you with a camcorder, but it is perfectly legal for them to do so. You're correct that the streetlamp shouldn't be recording your conversation, but we're not talking about listening to people here. We're talking about doing something that sticking a cop on a pole could do, namely basic surveillance of a large area. Cameras are far cheaper than police officers, and it frees up officers to do other, more important, work.

While your bag may be in public, it is a PRIVATE belonging. Check your 'illegal seach and seizure' Constitutional amendments for more information.

Re:Your Rights Online? What a joke.

[Ken@WearableTech]

The difference that you are missing is that "government monitoring" and "using public spaces to track, monitor and database the movements of 'free' citizens" has been going on since law married order, its just the method that changed. It's that difference thay seems to scare everyone and I have a hard time understanding why as today's methods are fairer and better.

For Example:

Old Way-
Cops Parked in a Stake Out, Tail citizens car and log movements on paper.

New Way-
Camera's wait for person to enter street, track car by licence plate recognition, log movements to database.

Nothing has changed but the methods.

Re:cash?

[Cavio]

Yeah. Still, you cannot reserve a hotel room or rent a car with cash.

And don't even THINK about trying to buy an airline ticket with cash, unless you ENJOY body cavity searches and long vacations in Guantanimo.

Sounds like

[teamhasnoi]

Boston is ripe for another Tea-Party...(ominous music here)

It isn't the 'terrorists' we need to worry about - it's those who would 'save' us from them.

Now ask yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

Who really poses a bigger threat to your well being on a day to day basis?

A) Osama 'been bombin'

B) The local police force

Uhmm...hmmm...let's see.... 'B'!

Shouldn't that be "All your CCTV are...

[TheScienceKid]

...belong to us" ?

It's a city, and a public place.

[Adolph_Hitler]

This isnt about freedom, you don't have cameras in your home or microchips in your arm. If you don't like cameras then move out of the city and move to the country where you'll have more privacy. When they start putting cameras in my house or start using satelites to spy on what I'm doing inside my private area thats when its a violation of my right to privacy.

Re:It's a city, and a public place.

[sfjoe]

When they start putting cameras in my house or start using satelites to spy on what I'm doing inside my private area thats when its a violation of my right to privacy

By the time they start doing that, you will have lost your right to protest against it. The time to fight is now.

Re:It's a city, and a public place.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, we must fight for our public privacy! I'm sorry, I'm just far more concerned with those peeping Toms in the appartment building next to me that I see through my telescope than the camera pointed at the intersection below.

Re:It's a city, and a public place.

[The Only Druid]

No, this isn't something that's appropriate to fight. This is the State administering public space. Its placing cameras in public space, and thus not invading your privacy in any way, whatsoever. This is no worse than the ticket-cameras in Ft. Lauderdale or any of the other cities that have such pilot programs.

Re:It's a city, and a public place.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like cameras then move out of the city and move to the country where you'll have more privacy.

Canada?

Re:It's a city, and a public place.

[ArsonSmith]

I just want to cry reading your post, to think someone would actually belive this. "No worse than the ticket-cameras..." As if that is saying something good about them.

Camera Placement

[telstar]

Maybe they can put one inside Fenway to watch the RedSox terrorize their fans with another losing season.

MBTA = Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority

[shimbee]

not Metro Boston....

get it right or pay the price!

You leave that to the Baron and me

[Cumstien]

Time to break out - Baron von Costume's DELUXE DISGUISE KIT

Now police will be anticipate crime waves when sales of fake mustaches and chin putty go up.

cinatas si gis siht

Not only cameras...

[RedMage]

Not only are there cameras, but:
. Random searches on public transportation
. Restrictions on what you can carry
. Restrictions on where you can go
. Restrictions on when you can go
. Major road closings
. Just about every ATF and FDA dog in the country will be in town

Not only will we be the most watched, but also the most controlled. Except for some protests in the past few weeks, Bostonians seem to be the most cowed and beaten people I've met. I'm amazed, simply amazed. We've truely traded our feedom for a false sense of security. When the next terrorist attack comes (which most likely won't be in Boston), hopefully we'll open our eyes to this. If not, we will only give the terrorists more power over us.

RM

Your activities in public are public

[Jayfar]

I'm in public, and damn it, I reserve the right not to be watched while I'm doing whatever the hell it is I'm doing!

Uh, when you're out in public everything you do is subject to observation by the public. That's why it's called public.

Re:Your activities in public are public

[CanadianCrackPot]

Well I miss the good old days where if you weren't part of the public then what happened in public was still somewhat private...

Enough fucking sensationalism

[The Master Control P]

This is NOT 1984! They are installing extreme security measures in preparation for the DNC because of what the DHS tells them is a considerable threat from terrorists. Then, once the DNC is over, they don't want to just throw everything away. If this were 1984, they'd be installing the cameras in your house and Micheal Moore would vaporize.

If nothing else, we've seen that (on the whole) it's morbidly inefficient for a single authority to try and use cameras to monitor a large area for an extended period of time.

So far, every attempt at installing cameras to monitor the public by the government has been a huge FUBAR because people destroy the cameras, and the software that tries to automate the surveylance process sucks. So take off your tinfoil hat and stop hassling the local food store to order more spam for the compound.

This is NOT a evil gubmint attempt to take over your life, it's an attempt to stop a potential attack on the DNC.

Re:Enough fucking sensationalism

[d474]

Is anyone seeing the double standard here?

People who are suspicious of the government's actions are branded "PARANOID!" yet when the government get's suspicious of it's citizens, it's labeled as "VIGILENT".

WTF?

Re:Enough fucking sensationalism

[Zebbers]

Hey guess what.

Fuck using the convention as a way for the city to make money and move it SOMEPLACE RURAL.

If it wasnt so fucking commercialized, they would. But its all about the money.

Now thousands upon thousands of bostonians are going to be inconvienced for the joy of one group.

Place it out in the middle of nowhere, they can have their circle jerk and it will be easy to see people who shouldn't be there.

Mobile cameras

[mikael]

Oddly enough, the police department in various parts of Scotland have discovered that the CCTV cameras installed on public buses have helped to catch criminals. Fixed point cameras are helpful in deterring crime in certain areas, but eventually criminals figure out the blind spots in the system.

I've seen the television sized screens on the double deckers. A 16" LCD display is mounted on the ceiling at the front of the top deck of the bus. There are around six cameras on the top of the bus which cover the staircase, both sides of the back row of the bus; the favourite location for drunk teenagers -neds (Non Educated Delinquents) and the front of the bus. The display cycles through the entire set of cameras. Quite entertaining if you can get a front row seat. Then you can watch the ned-cam as the bus goes through the city.

Civil disobedience

[fhic]

So practice an art long admired in the great city of Boston: civil disobedience. If you don't like them, destroy the cameras. One second with a spray can and they're useless. And then the cops come and guard them, and you post pictures of that on the 'net, and they look like idiots. If you get busted, you'll get your day in court.

Re:Similar situation in UK

[StateOfTheUnion]

a few streets were covered with CCTV cameras. Result: crime shifted towards other areas,

Maybe we could put cameras all over the US except for one tiny area (e.g. Jersey City . . . sorry if your from there) and all the criminals would find themselves corraled into a tiny area.

Who will watch the Watchmen?

[jjh37997]

Who will watch the watchmen? The watched!

People.... this can be a good thing. The rich, powerful or corrupt have always had the power to invade your privacy because its just an illusion and will alway be so. Privacy laws just protect the powerful from being watched by the masses.

Instead of fighting a lossing battle to stop this technology we need to ensure that it will be available to everyone and that the feeds will be open to the public. Put cameras on the streets, in the police stations and in government buildings. I don't mind being watched as long as I can watch everyone else. Imagine a world were everyone is equipped with their own personal cameras and recorders... with so many eyes spreading their light everywhere the world might become a more peaceful and happy place.

If you don't vote Libertarian, you ASKED FOR THIS

[Bob_Robertson]

Yep. For your own good.

Only following orders. We had to destroy the village in order to save it.

Protect and Serve, with fries on the side. Don't film the cops, however, they HATE that.

Those who give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty, nor safety.

I wonder how Paul Revere and the Sons Of Liberty would like it if the "lawful government" of Boston had been able to watch their every move...

The mighty American constitutional republic lasted, what, 4 score and 7 years? Naa, not even that long.

All hail the great Empire of the United States! Unfortunately, the wonderful article "America's Empire of Bases", Freedom Daily, April 2004, is not yet online. It will be, and you will be able to read it here:

http://www.fff.org/toc/fr04.asp

As the US governments do to others, we find they also do to Americans. And it sucks.

But don't blame me, I vote Libertarian.

Bob-

MBTA != Metro Boston Transit Authority

[darksaber]

Actually, it's Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority. Almost noone gets it right, even native Bostonians...

Dammit

[Orne]

And yet, they make us pay for New Orleans' Mardi Gras videos... why can't the public get free feeds of that? Please?

it's funny

[Ari_Haviv]

everyone here is going crazy that the cops have cameras everywhere but are totally oblivious that some guy with a camera phone is taking pictures of your credit card

Re:cash?

[fenix down]

Well that's your problem for wanting to stay in somebody else's house, drive around in somebody else's car, and fly around in somebody else's plane. Money buys privacy. You don't got the money, you're gonna get watched.

Let's do the same to the government!

[dbretton]

I propose that we put a video camera in every hallway and every office of all major government buildings and play the videos back in all major cities across America.

Not about our right to privacy

[Tony]

Oh, for fuck's sake, people, this is not about our right to privacy; it's about the government's right to monitor its (presumably innocent) citizens.

Do we want a government powerful enough to track us wherever we go? I don't. They *don't* need this power to do their jobs of attempting to protect us. (Nobody can "protect" us, they can only *try* to protect us.)

Liberty is not only about our rights as citizens, but more about our rights to be free of a government that feels free to track and control us. That's why "free speech zones" are an abomination, and this surveillance is a slap in the face.

If we allow our government to control us instead of us controlling it, we are no longer a democracy. (Are we a democracy?)

Re:Not about our right to privacy

[praksys]

My understanding of it was that after all the recounts, it was Gore that won.

No he didn't. There were various ways in which the Florida votes might have been recounted. Limited number of counties, vs. all counties, and under-votes only vs. under-votes and over-votes. On most of the scenarios Bush would have won (including all of the scenarios that had been proposed in court). On one scenario Gore might have won if the counting had gone his way (and this was a scenario that was not proposed in court). Details are here.

Democrat Al Gore likely would have narrowly lost last year's presidential election even if he had gained the partial recounts of Florida's uncounted ballots that he sought, a national news media consortium's review of the ballots has found.

But Gore might have eked out a win if a complete state recount of both undervotes and overvotes had been carried out, the review concluded.

Not the damning issue

[gmhowell]

Cameras in public are not the issue. You are in public, what you do can be watched. It's when the cameras are installed in the bedrooms that it's time to worry.

No, the important stomping of civil rights and liberties goes back a couple of years. Those 'free speech zones'. Areas where you are allowed to protest. Guess what, there's a real big damned free speech zone; it's called the United States of America. Shame that most of the sheep in this country don't get too pissed off about that, yet tin foil beanie types get all worked up over cameras.

Godwin's law, misstated - convenient for neo-NAZIs

[Ungrounded Lightning]

If you make a Nazi or 1984 reference, you lose.

Wrong.

Godwin's law, as originally stated, was (approximately) that any discussion thread on usenet (and similar systems), if it did not die first, would eventually warp into something that would provoke a mention of NAZIs - and that the NAZI reference indicated that it had wandered from interesting topics to topics that had been rehashed so many times that they were no longer interesting - at least to old hands (such as Godwin) who had other things to spend their time and internet access on.

Of course, this was quicky misstated into the "Folk Godwins Law" - warped forms like "Mention NAZIs and the thread is dead. You can all drop the discussion and go home now." or "First one to mention NAZIs loses." These forms have been used to systematically shut down debate, whenever someone makes a posting propagating any totalitarian meme that happens to have been used by the NAZIs and someone else points out how the meme had been used to aid oppression.

Such misuse is not merely misinformed, but dangerous. It leads to the increased spread of totalitarian memes and the suppression of counter-memes in the form of historical evidence of the memes' horrendous effects. "Those who do not understand history are condemed to repeat it." And this misstatement of Godwin's law is a prime example of an enabling meme - which selects against learning history and promotes "improved" cover-versions of its worst disasters.

Godwin himself has pointed out the misstatement. But he also asserts that his original law holds - because discussions of the downside of the Folk version (such as this one), though they point out the misuse, do NOT put the thread back on the subject - instead diverting it down the rathole of discussing the misstatement of Godwin's law. So the damaage due to the misuse still occurs.

But venues like Slashdot allow branching. This can take asides aside - so the main thread can continue.

Since you have been so nice as to make the Folk Godwin's Law posting as the FIRST (still above threshold) post, perhaps we can pull that discussion aside RIGHT HERE, and head off repeated Folk Godwin cites in the rest of the comments.

Perhaps that way we can ACTUALLY DEAL WITH the important business at hand: Defending freedom from yet another totalitarian encroachment.

So I STRONGLY suggest that anyone who has read this far STOP following this thread and GET BACK TO that more life-critical task.

Re:Raise the alert level.....

[demo9orgon]

Citizen d474 is so rightwise you can bellyfeel it.

Citizen 242493 should report themselves for such crimethink and malquote at the thought of facing B.B. and possibly comitting facecrime. When the Boston Hate Week commences, all crimethinkers will be shown to B.B. and know the joycamps.

Because such crimespeak is fullwise here it will indulge crimethinkers in their fantasies against the Inner Party, what is being shown here is an act of love, blackwhite love shown to the citizens facing possible action from thoughtcrime,sexcrime crimethinkers from the Disupted territories. Our dayorder is love of B.B., the Inner Party, and crimestop.

Slashdot is so fullwise duckspeak and oldthought. This space is doubleplusungood even for the Pornosec, it's such prolefeed. This article isn't even goodsource for two-minute-hate, but should be enough for the ThinkPol to identify crimethinkers.

Re:Godwin's law, misstated - convenient for neo-NA

[AndroidCat]

Originally Mike Godwin called it "Godwin's Rule". I'm not sure at what point it morphed into a law.

re-read the book!

[Fuzzums]

The book is about a government controlling the whereabouts of their citicens.

Things like installing camera's in public places, wiretapping without court order, demanding things like creditcard information for x-referencing when entering a country (1) and so f***ing on.

Like a terrorist will have just one suspicious crecitcard. -DUH-

Get the name right

[Ebeach47]

"Metro Boston Transit Authority" wow. Its Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

Where I live there is a camera on every street

[Diplo]

Where I live in city-centre Liverpool (England) there are CCTV cameras on all the main streets. If I walk out of my house, I'm on camera, and if I walk into the town centre nearly every step of the way I'm on camera. The aim is to have around 240 cameras around the city centre monitoring millions of square metres as part for the Liverpool CitySafe Initiative.

And you know what? When I'm walking back from town at night I'm extremely glad of it. When you've been assaulted and most of your friends who live nearby have been mugged then perhaps you'll understand why. I'm normally extremely libertarian in my views but when you and your partners safety are in question then it sadly pays to be pragmatic. The Guardian newspaper featured an interesting article on CCTV in Liverpool and it's privacy implications, but the fact remains that surveys show that 93% of people are in favour. It works, too, because crime has been cut quite dramatically as part of the initiative.

Of course, were are more accustomed to CCTV cameras in Britain. We have the highest ratio of CCTV cameras per population of any country - something like 4m (or one for every 13 people). There are traffic cameras on many roads capable of snapping speeding drivers or those that jump red lights. It is estimated that each person in Britain is caught on camera 300 times a day. The implications are worrying, and the situation needs to be carefully monitored, but when I'm walking back from the pub at night I can't help but feel a little more reassured.

My apologies

[noname3]

Yes, my first post sucked. It was karma whoring at its basest. I've read your entire post and nodded my head. Your post, this article, AndroidCat's reply, and this article have made this teenager slightly less ignorant. Thank you. (I'll be willing to put that in writing if you want.)

Now, here's why I think this article is dangerous, sans my contorted view of Godwin's Rule.

Rather than discuss the negative ramnfications of recording people in public, the ACLU director Barry Steinhardt is quoted as saying "What this demonstrates is that '1984' is now technologically possible."

The problems with this I have are that 75 cameras viewing the public does not demonstrate that 1984's millions of cameras in home and in public are feasable. It does not discuss the negative effects of cameras in public. It stirs fear by using a book as reference, a book that includes torture as a punishment for thought crime.Plus, references to 1984 are almost as done to death as references to Nazis.

Once again, Canada leads the way on privacy

[Jack Action]

For some years now, Canada has had offical privacy commissioners at both the national and provincial levels. Though they can't force governments to act, they can call witnesses, hold royal commissions where average citizens are invited to testify and issue recommendations as to how the government should act.

Canada still remains a functioning democracy to a large degree, so when ombudsmen like the privacy commissioner castigate the government, public pressure often forces a change in policy.

If that doesn't work, like the Americans, you can always sue.

CCD Cameras + powerful IR source =

[rsw]

white out.

Someone needs to make some strong IR radiators and put them near these cameras. If they're cheap enough and easy enough to make, everyone could carry them around just dropping them casually in line of sight of the cameras.

Re:Godwin's law, misstated - convenient for neo-NA

[Anonymous Coward]

How many times have you stood up for our rights to keep and bear arms? Or are you one those fluffy cafeteria constitutionalists who like to pick and choose which part of the Bill of Rights you adhere to?

Hmmm? I thought so.

Put a frog in boiling water...

[Shadow of Eternity]

And he jumps out. Put a frog into cold water, and slowly heat it up and he'll just sit there and boil to death without ever noticing. Yall are making such a fuss over this now, but you still dont realise just how hot the water already is. I think its time we did what our forefathers intended us to do with government, fight with it. It is every citizens right to fight tooth and nail with his government over matters they find controversial, it is every citizens DUTY to question their government should they have an issue with it. And no, said government does not have the privelige(sp?) of denying you an answer. Despite bush's desire for blind sheep to lead around, there are still those with their eyes open. It starts with camera's and police patrolling public area's (excessively, not just like in the mall and whatnot), and it progresses onward. Pretty soon you've got cheney running the gestapo and bush tossing the constitution into the ovens at Dachau 2.0 time to jump out of the pot. time to turn off the stove.

"state police cameras" and "police state cameras"

[Anita Coney]

It's amazing how just a little juxtaposition could change everything.

Over 10,000 public CCTV cameras in LONDON alone!

[mdrejhon]

That's not that many cameras in Boston. There's something like TWO ORDERS of magnitude more public monitoring cameras in London!

London Underground subway ALONE is reported to have over 6000 monitoring cameras now, being increased to 9000 source link. When including CCTV cameras elsewhere, there's well OVER 10,000 CAMERAS monitoring you.

Although, apparently, most Londoners doesn't seem to mind. As long as they're only pointed to public areas.

Cryptome Pictures of DNC Location

[Anonymous Coward]

http://cryptome.org/dnc-insec.htm

Current security at the location of the DNC is pretty lax (to put it mildly). The pictures were taken by someone who appears to have had full, unchallenged access on their "unencumbered tour".

linguistics

[beakburke]

"A well regulated militia" doesn't mean in your modern parlance what it did to the founding fathers. To them it meant that all able bodied citizens had the right, and potentiall the obligation, to help protect and defend their country against a tyrant, whether foreign or domestic. Remeber that ordinal colonists,were the primary fighters in the revolutionary war. This was to be a safeguard against the emergence of another tyrant.

Secondly, the linguistics of the first clause are not restrictive. They are explanitory. If I said, "since it is necessary for you to drink orange juice to get your intake of vitamin C, no one shall deny anyone the right to have an orange juice", would you argue that I only intend to protect YOUR right to drink OJ, and not those of other individuals? It does provide some rationale as to WHY they wanted "the rights of the people to keep and bear arms" to not be infringed upon.

Furthermore, your interpretation makes absolutely no sense. Why would the government need to grant any army the right to have arms? Plus, using your interpretation, the 2nd ammendment is a grant of power to the government, instead of a guarantor of individual rights, which would make it completely out of character for the Bill of Rights, which is all about limiting what the governemnt is allowed to do. Logically that interpretation makes no sense and is out of line with what the founders intended.

If the anti-gun lobby were honest they would say that the second ammendment is a "dangerous anachronism" that needs to be repealed, instead of trying to pretend that it doesn't say what it clearly says. At least that would be intellectually honest. Then we could have an honest debate about the need (or lack thereof) of such a right. Unfortunately I don't see this happening.

Re:linguistics

[beakburke]

If you want to AMMEND the US Constitution then you can make that arguement, and we could have that argument and rehash the debate perhaps where it would be more on topic :). But what I am saying is that you can't pretend that the constitition doesn't say what it clearly says, that's just intellectually dishonest IMHO.

The MBTA

[glwtta]

Living in Boston I can say that the MBTA has really taken the task of stirring up paranoia and hysteria to heart.

That creepy voice imploring you "if you see something, say something" is on the subway PA about every 15 minutes.

The stations and trains are covered in posters depicting "vigilant" citizens doing their part to protect Freedom, close-ups of an eye reminding you that our enemies only wait for you to drop your guard - really straight out of some cheesy science fiction movie about a semi-futuristic totalitarian regime.

Now apparently they are going to be doing random bag-checks for the DNC (I think they've decided on bag screens now, not sure if that's better or worse), and I am sure that's going to stop right after the DNC is over.

So yeah, the MBTA is definitely doing their part in the whole fear mongering campaign.

Re:Over 10,000 public CCTV cameras in LONDON alone

[NoMercy]

There may be 10,000 CCTV cameras in london, most of which are probably on private land, shopping centers, inside shops or pointed at road trafic.

Only the high-street cameras are easilly accessable to the police, then trafic cameras which just requires phoning up the trafic monitoring station... after which it requires people handing over VHS cassettes or being issuesd with writs fromthe court to do so.

But the federal goverment is installing these cameras, not a city law inforcement, or even a state law inforcement.... I don't know about you but I think that's the most scary part.

When they were young

[Ungrounded Lightning]

ok, lets update the rule then. if you say "meme" or "paradigm" or any other buzzword, you lose.

All words were buzzwords when they were young. This is how useful new words happen.

Abandoning any conversation when a buzzword shows up cuts you out of all conversations about subjects where an important generalization has been made recently (in language-evolutionary timescales).