Slashdot Mirror
Surveillance Rights for the Public?
Ian Lamont writes "Mike Elgan has an interesting take on surveillance technology, and how audio and video recordings should be used in private and public life. He cites the case of a New York City Police Detective who was secretly taped by a suspect during an interrogation that the detective initially denied took place during the suspect's murder trial, as well as a case involving two parents in Wisconsin who slipped a voice-activated recorder in their son's backpack after suspecting he was being abused by his bus driver. In the first case, even though the detective was later charged with 12 counts of perjury, Elgan notes that the police interrogation probably would not have taken place had the suspect announced to the detective that he was recording the session. In the second case, the tape was initially ruled inadmissible in court because Wisconsin state law prohibits the use of 'intercepted conversations' (it was later allowed as evidence). Elgan argues that there should be no questions about members of the public being allowed to record such interactions."
I hate to reply to myself, but I am not sure that everyone knows what a "pinhole lens" is for CCTV cameras, as I didn't know when I was buying this stuff.
A CCTV pinhole lens is a lens that has a very small front opening usually 2-3mm, and a narrow lens part that can easily be embedded into the back side of a wall and then be almost invisible on the other side.
An example is here, compared to a normal CCTV type lens. That lens is $20 from B&H, and the camera is $120 from NewEgg, so this stuff isn't very expensive. A "high quality" CCTV lens is $50-$100, so even the good stuff isn't that expensive.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
Your average slashdotter would be the first to cry foul at surveillance by authorities, and yet raise the idea of performing your own surveillance and they start licking their lips and rubbing their palms together...
A policeman might be part of the big govermental boogeyman, but they're also an individual, with an individual's rights. Nobody would like it if a person came into their workplace and recorded them all day. Privacy is a right, and not being american I don't know if its in your constitution or not, but it doesn't matter, its a right nonetheless and one every person should be entitled to.
I think the [MS Word] paperclip is a great idea. - Miguel de Icaza
"Yet in practice, business owners can and do ban you for life from their premises for operating your own video camera."
Sounds like a load of BS to me. How do they "enforce" this ban?
First, they need to be able to ID you - and that's not going to happen, since you have NO obligation to give them any ID, under any circumstances.
Second, if they try to enforce the ban 6 months later, you only have to say "What are you talking about?" What are they going to do - call the cops? To do what? Throw you out for breaking some sort of "ban"? Nah - they'll let it slide instead of making a scene. Besides, with today's cell phones, everyone can take pictures pretty much undetected. Heck, I've taken pics inside Wallyworld (Walmrt) with no problem - and we all know what PITAs they can be! Hey, if they can video me, I can video them.
Kevin Smith on Prince
A friend of mine was a teacher for a while, until a student with severe attention deficit disorder decided to record lessons in order to prove that my friend the teacher was picking on him. Here's the recipe: record what someone says, edit on home computer to make it say what you want it to say, play to parents, get parents to visit school with you, get teacher in trouble. That the school took the kid's word for it without any forensic analysis of the recording shows you what's wrong with the idea of surveillance for the masses - it can be incredibly easily fabricated, edited or modified by computer-savvy kids and the adults are clueless or powerless to stop the false accusations from flying. My friend gave up teaching soon after and went to make money at a tech company instead. What's needed is integrity checks in the recordings to highlight where omissions or changes are made, otherwise it's no better than hearsay.
Yes, but there is the same problems with the government doing surveillance. Tapes can be lost or destroyed, and recordings can be altered (as you said).
What about a normal accusation against a teacher: what if that kid had said that the teacher had sexually assaulted the kid? There is no evidence, nothing to alter, but there is going to be some serious problems for the teacher, especially when that teacher is male. In fact an altered recording would be easier to detect than many other kinds of false allegations.
Yes, recordings can be bad, but not much more so than some other kinds of accusations, and they can be very helpful, just look at all of the tasering videos on YouTube. Most of them don't show the start of the incident, but some show a subject that is completely in custody being tortured with a taser. Would the government release any tapes they had made of those incidents, or would the tapes just be "disappeared"?
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
And you're taking me all wrong. I'm just stating what the reality is: you can get thrown out for life from your favorite business where you've been a perfect and generous customer if you do any one thing they don't like, including bringing in a camera.
So it's best to keep your cameras hidden.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
A friend of mine who was charged with drunk driving attempted to get the police tape of her subsequent interview at the station. It would have proved without question that the arresting officer who described "slurred speech and a disoriented state" was a liar. I can speak with authority on her condition, because I was her "one phone call" and saw her almost immediately.
The tape, of course, was "lost".
I'm certain this is not an isolated case. It cries out for some kind of legal accountability.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
A dark domed camera is not a hidden camera,in the same respect as your other definitions. You know there may be a camera under the dome, but you have no idea which way it is pointing, so your risk assessment changes. It allows fewer cameras to be operated for the same deterrent effect. (360 degree field of view coverage without necessarily recording in any particular direction).
@trolltalk.com:
You are wrong. In most jurisdictions there is a common law right (and in many it's a statutory right) of shopkeeper's privilege that, under certain circumstances, allows a shopkeeper or their agent to detain and conduct a search of someone suspected of stealing. If they adhere to the guidelines and are reasonable in their suspicion, even if they are ultimately incorrect in their accusations, they are immune from prosecution for false imprisonment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_imprisonment#Shopkeeper.27s_Privilege