A Law to Spy Back on Government Surveillance Cameras?

mattnyc99 writes "As the Senate begins debate today on wider new surveillance legislation, Instapundit blogger and University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds has an interesting op-ed as part of Popular Mechanics' cover story on the looming power of spy cameras in America. He cites numerous court cases to argue that our privacy concerns may be backwards, and that there should be a new law for citizen rights — that if Big Brother can keep an eye on us in public spaces, we ought to be able to look back. From the accompanying podcast: 'Realistically I don't think we're going to get much in the way of limits on government and business surveillance. So I think we should be focusing more on making it safe, on making it a double-edged sword.'"

Comments

Don't worry

[elrous0]

I'm sure our brave Democrats will hold hearings on it just as soon as they cave to the President's latest totalitarian demands once again.

Re:Don't worry

[cayenne8]

"As for TFA the idea sounds interesting at least, if not completely sound. I believe our OSS community has proven to beyond a doubt that innovation + retrospection by others truly creates a product that works. "Big Brother" is not evil because we do not want to be protected from terrorists or the criminals or the boogie monster- "Big Brother" is evil because there is no one watching them."

I disagree.....we don't need "Big Brother" watching us, to protect us from the "terrorists or the criminals or the boogie monster", they only need to be watching the terrorists, the criminals or the boogie monsters.

Watching everyone is like guilty until proven innocent. If they have probably cause on a US citizen, sure, there are laws and procedures for doing that, but, there is no need for a dragnet to watch everyone, even IF we could watch the watchers.

Re:Don't worry

[CohibaVancouver]

Isn't it better to give poor people $13,000 in free money and health care every year rather than paying that to lock them up ($26bn a year).

It makes good fiscal sense, but doesn't make cultural sense. In the USA, personal freedoms trump collective freedoms every time. So even though paying more for inner-city schools helps society as a whole, it doesn't happen in the USA because it goes against their individualist grain. Ditto spending money on programs instead of prisons. Goes against the national culture.

Re:Don't worry

[FredThompson]

Uh....no. That idea goes against human nature and does NOT make good fiscal sense.

Any money "given" to "poor people" must first be taken from people who produce. "Guaranteed" income destroys an economy and a culture by removing the concept of "zero" so money has no value and by removing incentive to achieve.

If it worked, the "war on poverty" in the United States would have ended long ago and highly Socialist countries would have the most advanced infrastructures and most productive people. Historically, societies which "give" "free" money to "the poor" continue to raise the amount of "free money" and the definition of "the poor" with the eventual result that they stagnate and collapse.

Re:Don't worry

[jo42]

Looks like the truth hit a nerve, nyet?

Reverse Surveillance

[Raindance]

Well, I think anyone really interested in the idea of reverse surveillance should read Obama's innovation plan.

From the "open government" part of the plan:

Requiring his appointees who lead Executive Branch departments and rulemaking agencies to conduct the significant business of the agency in public, so that any citizen can watch a live feed on the Internet as the agencies debate and deliberate the issues that affect American society. He will ensure that these proceedings are archived for all Americans to review, discuss and respond. He will require his appointees to employ all the technological tools available to allow citizens not just to observe, but also to participate and be heard in these meetings.

There's more, as summarized by Ars:
        * Put government data online for citizen access, analysis, commentary, and action. The document cites environmental data on pollution as one type that could be made available.
        * Effectively "crowd-sourcing" (though that term isn't used) some amount of agency decision-making by tapping the public's distributed expertise.
        * Build an online database that enables citizens to track federal grants, contracts, earmarks, and lobbyist contacts with government officials.
        * Give "the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House web site for five days before signing any non-emergency legislation."

Re:Reverse Surveillance

[Hijacked Public]

No, this one is trying to get you to vote for him as President.

If he wins, he'll go back to being that other one again.

Ugh

[SamP2]

So if before I was only worried about law enforcement violating my privacy, now I can add the entire US population to the list.

Sorry, I just don't see how two wrongs can make a right here.

Two wrongs don't make a right

[jockeys]

Us doing it to them doesn't really make them doing it to us and less wrong.

The medicine is still nasty underneath all that sugar.

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[0xdeadbeef]

The ability to monitor the government is a necessary foundation for free and open society. It is not a second "wrong", it's a fundamental right that has been increasingly trampled upon.

Employee supervision

[Harmonious Botch]

Just a modest proposal: Every government employee - except for those working on confidential stuff - should have a 24-hour PUBLIC webcam on his desk ( The camera need not point at the desk, just at the person ) , his car, or wherever he/she works. Police / sheriff / prison employees / corrections officers, etc or anyone who may at some time have someone in custody should have two separate cameras in case one malfunctions.

Re:Employee supervision

[gardyloo]

Scary. I say this probably because I was a graduate student at a state University. Because of that, I was considered a government employee. So were all the shop workers, janitors, and professors. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to watch my fellow employees (well, maybe some of them).

Re:Employee supervision

[Anonymous Coward]

I would really have liked the showercam for my 8th grade French teacher, Miss Galando.

Re:Employee supervision

[0100010001010011]

What's so scary about it? You're at your desk. Doing work. I am paying you. I should be able to watch you.

If you're slacking, watching porn, fapping, NOT working, I have a right no know.

It's not that I'm going to sit there and watch you 24/7, but I should have the option. If my boss and my IT department can watch where I go on the internet and walk into my cube at anytime, why is it unreasonable to think that the person who pays your paycheck can do the same?

Re:Employee supervision

[gardyloo]

If my boss and my IT department can watch where I go on the internet and walk into my cube at anytime, why is it unreasonable to think that the person who pays your paycheck can do the same? A moderately good point, and not one I have a ready answer to. However, the IT dept. at University and one's professors (who are the equivalent of your boss) and co-workers can also walk in at any time. Still, even at a federal job, a right to privacy should be respected.

      One advocatus diaboli argument would also be that much of graduate research involves labwork and teaching duties. Do we also need cameras (infrared or other frequencies for darkened labs) to watch labs and classrooms? Another is to state, "Well, I pay taxes so you can have highways to drive on, public sidewalks to walk on, classrooms in which to learn, and public libraries in which to read. Why can't I watch you all the time to make sure the money isn't being wasted?"

Re:Employee supervision

[0100010001010011]

Why not? From what I gathered from the summary, all they want to do is not let the government prohibit from letting us do this. I don't think that the government should fund every single webcam everywhere. But if there's a Cop that has repeatedly pushed the boundaries of physicalness with suspects, it shouldn't be illegal, imho, to follow the cop around with a camera. He's serving me (and not vice versa).

If I want to setup a webcam on my local road and a webcam in my (future) childrens' classrooms and I pay for it, there shouldn't be a law against it. Unless it can be shown that it is directly disruptive.

If it comes to a situation (which happened in my life) where it's my kids' word against a teacher's it would be extremely 'disruptive' for me to request to be able to sit in on the class to see who is telling the truth. Now if there was a webcam and I could check in on my kid or the teacher both would probably act in their element and quickly forget the camera.

"If you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't fear anything," true, but I think that only applies when you're not on my dime.

I know it's cliche and from a movie: "People should not fear their government, their government should fear the people"

Or what Tommy J said: "When the people fear the government you have tyranny...when the government fears the people you have liberty."

Re:Employee supervision

[0100010001010011]

I still hold that it is perfectly reasonable. As you pointed out, no one is going to care about that low level government employee. No one is really going to care about this grad student. But where do you draw the line between 'no power' and 'i should be able to watch them.' I'm not saying I should be able to or that I'm even going to, but if I am paying part of that research I should have some sort of accountability.

Now as you point out, watching a grad student is going to bore me to sleep and be useless. But paired with the PDF of their findings, I can give an intelligent response to if my money was spent well.

However say you carry the same logic over to the police. No webcam, but just 'results'. Well I may see that they caught the murderer or that someone confessed, but without seeing all of it (in a completely open environment) I can't intelligently form an opinion if it was done justly.

it's our government

[circletimessquare]

so it's also our spy cameras. the idea should be greater transparency. most of the spy cameras out there pointed at public places are there for our safety, and, all paranoid schizophrenia aside, are used for our safety to catch crooks

so let us look at the damn cameras too

in fact, it might even be useful for strapped law departments: scenario: "person XYZ (show mugshot) on trial for armed robbery skipped out on court today: oh great america's most wanted watching public: monitor the security camera feeds for daytona and orlando. here's 3,000 of them. find our guy"

distributed computing. distributed security. people are motivated by the search for justice. so empower them. let average citizens sift the data and report on interesting findings... like: "these 19 guys at this security gate at logan airport were taking flight school lessons just last week in florida"

all i'm saying is that 30,000 busybodies with a broadband connection around the country can do a better job than 300 trained CIA analysts at langley

noooo

[dotpavan]

that would kill the "in Soviet Russia.." meme

Re:noooo

[JavaBrain]

Something like?

In Soviet Russia, government spying on you spying on government spying on you spying on government... ...on YOU!

Obama's plan in better font

[Harmonious Botch]

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:IMo5tMSMfO8J:lessig.org/blog/Fact%2520Sheet%2520Innovation%2520and%2520Technology%2520Plan%2520FINAL.pdf+%22Barack+Obama+understands+the+immense+transformative+power+%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Sousveillance

[Rob T Firefly]

This sort of thing is often known as Sousveillance.

It just so happens that this coming Monday, December 24th is orld Sousveillance day.

Not for me

[cadeon]

Protect my Privacy by invading yours? Sounds like our current foreign policy.

Oh, you cynical coward.

[apparently]

Yet another pointless footnote for a Presidential candidate that will never see the light of day. He might as well have said "Read my lips," just to make sure it dies.

Yes, we should compare Obama's actual proposed plan to yet another Republican sound-byte of a policy.
Even if the plan gets neutered (you will perform your duty and call your representatives to support it won't you?), at a minimum, Senator Obama is showing initiative in his understanding of technology and our country's need to embrace it.
How do you vote for any candidate? Do you just assume that every idea they have will be "chewed, digested" and wanked on in Washington?

Spy Yourself

[mycal]

Spying yourself has never been easier. I've been playing with the Aviosys 9100a video serve with the after market Yoics firmware. I can pretty much install this
anywhere there is an internet connection, even if they people that own the internet connection don't know, and view it from anywhere else.

This thing also supports sound! Not bad for $80.

So go ahead and spy back! Until it is against the law that is.

See the Yahoo Group http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/9100/ and the Yoics Software at http://9100.yoics.com/ for this device.

-M

I agree

[gurps_npc]

We need the following laws: 1. It it NEVER illegal to make any audio recording of an on-duty government employee

2. It is never illegal to make a video or other recording og a clothed on-duty government employee.

3. It is illegal for any government employee to request or insist that such a device be deactivated. Attempting to do so results in a fine equal to one day's pay. If violence was used, they are too be dismissed immediately, even if it was 'justified' by other actions. I.E. If you tell them to stop filming and they hit you, then you hit them back, you get fired even though 'they started it.'

4. If a government employee takes possesion of a a recording device that is not theirs and a recording is damaged, it must be returned in 100% working condition, with a copy of any recordings on it, within 2 days. Failure results in an investigation by Police, or by Internal Affairs if they are police. If a court case finds that there is a preponderous evidence that the employee intentionally damaged the device or the recording, than that employee will be dismissed from their government position. If the court find they did it beyond a shadow of a doubt, they are to be arrested and tried for grand theft.

Re:I agree

[StarEmperor]

So anyone can make a recording of the on-duty government employee who's changing the launch codes for the nukes? Or the state-paid lawer who's talking with a client? Or the government doctor who is reviewing someone's medical records?

I agree with the sentiment of what you're advocating, but surely some things should be kept secret.

Re:I agree

[swillden]

It is never illegal to make a video or other recording of a clothed on-duty government employee. So anyone can make a recording of the on-duty government employee who's changing the launch codes for the nukes? Or the state-paid lawer who's talking with a client? Or the government doctor who is reviewing someone's medical records?

[Emphasis mine]

This should result in some interesting new security policies. Government employees will now be required to strip before doing anything that requires secrecy.

Paging David Brin

[StarEmperor]

The Transparent Society

Do we even have a Constitution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Endless gov't spying, yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Support Dr. Ron Paul ($6 million yesterday).
Last link (unless Google Books caves to the gov't and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)

Re:Ewww....

[Malevolent Tester]

I cannot be the only one that REALLY does not want to see Cheney's "intimate moments"..... Especially not when he shoots his friends by mistake.

(Why is there no -1 Horrific Mental Image mod available?)

In the vein of reverse monitoring

[paranode]

I think that every cop car should be required to have a tape that is rolling whenever they pull someone over. I think they should have the detected speed displayed on said camera as well. This way no cop can lie about what they are pulling you over for and they can't get a conviction if the evidence is not present. Some jurisdictions have this but I don't think it's required for the most part. I would even take it so far as to say every cop should have a recording device on his person somewhere at all times to verify the authenticity of his story. They work for us and if they want surveillance we should make it work to OUR benefit also.

sad drive home last night

[blhack]

Does anybody other than me think that our founding fathers would be upset, and ashamed of us for letting all this bullshiat happen?

I was driving home last night (101, north scottsdale arizona) and passed by some of the new speed cameras that have been put up in that area. The speed limit on the road is normally 65 MPH but it is currently at 55 because of construction. It was very late at night, and there was literally NOBODY on the road, and no construction workers of any kind. So i was driving 65 MPH...which is a completely safe speed to drive in the conditions I was in at the time. The WHOLE TIME i was driving home i was freaked out that I was going to get popped by one of these stupid things.
That is a small example, obviously
Howabout the fact that they set up the "surprise!" speed trap vans all over the place now in tempe, and south scottsdale? Or the fact that there are red light cameras at almost all of the intersections in tempe/scottsdale?
okay thats another small example
Howabout the fact that kids are getting shocked with enough electricity to knock them to the ground and incapacitate them for a few seconds when the talk back to an angry cop?
Okay thats also a really small example.
Howabout the fact that I think twice every time i go to a chemistry website, or a website with any types of schematics/blueprints because i just MIGHT get flagged as "suspicious" because by using information from both of those sites i could cause havoc.
Yeah, thats not TOO big of a deal.

Stuff like this honestly makes me sick to my stomach. :(

Re:sad drive home last night

[Sloppy]

The speed camera thing is weird. My objection isn't so much with the cameras themselves, as with the other aspects of the situation.

First, you were driving safely, but illegally. That suggests that arbitrary speed limits are not useful. You didn't do anything you'd be ashamed of. You didn't do anything wrong. So why are you worried and nervous? You're worried because you know some bully might take advantage of you, anyway. Yeah, I wonder what TJ would say about you living in fear of your government.

Also, here in Albuquerque, one of the "interesting" things about the speed cameras, is that they issue civil citations instead of criminal ones. All the usual rights you'd normally have when defending yourself from government's power, don't apply. No innocent-until-proven-guilty presumption, no court-appointed defense, arguably no double-jeopardy restrictions, etc. You're guilty and have to spend money on court costs (which is typically more than the fine itself), a lawyer, etc just to get a real trial. It's a blatant abuse, and yet, all people talk about is whether or not the program is "effective." Fairness is an extraneous issue.

The authors of the Bill of Rights would be amazed by that.

The cameras are no big deal, compared to all that.

Same as your boss

[mangu]

Unless you make something like $200,000 a year in taxable income after deductions, you won't come close to paying a government workers salary. At best, you will only get part of it done

And your boss, who supervises your job all the time, doesn't pay your salary either.

This is one of the lamest political arguments I've ever seen. You don't pay the whole of America's military expenditure ($400 billion/year), so you shouldn't have any opinion on that matter, right?

Surely agree

[wikinerd]

I agree with sousveillance. In fact for me the problem is not so much the invasion of privacy, but rather the monopoly of surveillance. I don't really have much of a problem with cameras (although I am a bit unsure about microphones just above the seats in subway stations - how exactly do they protect the subway's property and the public?), but my problem is actually who has access to the recorded data and who gets the monopoly of surveillance...

For example: A supermarket here has two signs, one saying "you are on CCTV" and another saying "you can't operate recording equipment here". The first sign (CCTV) is ok. But the second sign is problematic: Suppose I want to put a camera on my head and let it record 24h and send pics over a 3G or WiFi connection to my server, in case someone attacks me and kills me on the street or on a mountain, so that the police etc can see the pics from the camera and catch the killer (this is good for society as well, not only for me, in fact sometimes I think that everyone should have such a safety device). If a supermarket tells me that operating my own personal safety camera is not ok, then it should at least accept liability in case someone kills me while inside their premises. I'm paranoid here to make a point, and in fact I don't have such a safety device on me, but I could have one if I wanted, and my question is: Why should I give up my safety to buy a banana? Why should I trust that the supermarket is a safe place and not operate my own safety camera? One could argue that I have much more important assets to protect (my life which is one-off) than the supermarket's company (their material property which can easily be repurchased in case of a criminal attack). So, why on earth should the supermarket operate cameras but not me? One could say that the supermarket is the owner of its land and can decide the rules, but my answer is whether it is reasonable to expect to give up one's safety just to buy something to eat.

To give a real example of frustation with unbalanced supermarket policies (unbalanced in the meaning that the policies are designed only with the supermarket in mind, not taking into account customer needs), it has happened to me many times to enter a supermarket to buy something to eat while being on travel, of course always carrying my laptop bag because I never get out of my home office without a laptop or subnotebook, and employees always come to me and ask me to give them my laptop bag to keep it while I shop because they are afraid of shoplifters. My reaction in all cases is either to explain my reluctance and refuse to give them my laptop and continue my shopping (I specifically say "will your manager sign me a paper accepting liability of such and such thousands euros in case you lose my laptop or you damage it?"), if they let me do so under their supervision, or if I see that they don't like this (until now in 100% of all cases, and from their part this is ok if they merely follow company policies, the problem is the company policy not the individual employees) then my reaction is to not buy anything and leave, never to buy anything from the same shop again. I can't understand this paranoia in big supermarkets. I mean, in small independent shops the owner either just discreetly supervises people as they buy stuff, and this is the proper and reasonable thing to do (someone comes to buy stuff from you, you want to protect against shoplifters, the reasonable thing is to stay near them while they buy stuff and watch them, not to demand them to give you their bags or anything). In big supermarkets and department stores they demand that you surrender all your bags to them, as if bags are now some sort of dangerous weapon or something... My answer is that they already have cameras, but if they really feel so nervous they should hire more employees to oversee customers as they buy rather than take away customer's property even temporarily. Shoplifting is a serious crime that must be tackled, but passing the cost to the consumer is not ac

Meta-Surveillance is ONe Answer

[ebusinessmedia1]

I have long argued for something I coined as "meta-surveillance". Essentially, this would permit any citizen to query the surveillance network for information about how, when, where, and why s/he was surveilled - and by whom. Exceptions would only be made for those under criminal investigation.

Granted, the latter point creates a problem, in that a negative response to one's meta-surveillance inquiry, if one were a criminal, would be a tip-off. Thus, there would always be some "loose play" in the system, but systems might actually be worked out that could adapt to these exceptions.

Either we open up to meta-surveillance, or we risk losing rights down the road.

I believe that most societies will ultimately introduce surveillance; it's the ones that won't let their citizens have access on-demand access to surveillance data that will be the most repressive.

btw, I'm not a surveillance fan, but plainly see the handwriting on the wall. We are approaching an era when just a few people with easy access to certain technologies will be capable of doing irreversible harm to the planet and our species. As this scenario intensifies, I think we will see surveillance used far more heavily than we ever imagined.

Some of what I'm suggesting was prompted by a read of Bill Joy's essay in Wired, some years ago. Here's the URL for that essay http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html

Re:Sorry...

[elrous0]

I have it on good authority that they saved his head for a comeback in the year 3000.