Smile! Urine Candid Camera!

Anon E. Muss writes "Just because you can put a camera somewhere doesn't mean you should. Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security doesn't grasp this concept. They've installed video cameras in urinals at Houston's Hobby Airport. At least they weren't sneaky about it — they posted a notice saying 'Automatic infrared flush sensors also provide video monitoring for security purposes.' (Insert bad joke about bashful bladder syndrome here)."

Comments

Any other confirmation?

[MindlessAutomata]

Source is just blogspam and image could easily have been faked in photoshop. The government is stupid and paranoid and not deserving of our love but this is might be just a wee bit over the top at this point in time...

Re:Bullshit

[cheros]

3. Has anyone ever done a study (a real study) of the effectiveness of security cameras at preventing crime? Any sort of crime.

Here you go, that's web economy for you (two answers in one link).

Have a nice day.

Re:Why not in stalls in BOTH sexes?

[dbIII]

There's one other reason.
That silly device invented by the writer of Wonder Woman and adopted by the FBI at a time when they were infamous for taking kickbacks doesn't actually work.

Re:Simple solution

[More_Cowbell]

You are trying for some kind of humor? I can't see the joke in your comment.... ^ALL^ of the sensors I've seen (and I've seen quite a few across the US and other countries) have been built into the plumbing of the individual urinal.

Re:Simple solution

[stuntpope]

In the US they are most often located on the urinal itself (not on the porcelain, but on the pipes), just about chest-high, where you normally would find the flush lever.

Re:Not as bad as it sounds

[KatAngel]

Excuse me for that, I'm not quite up-to-date on my Latin. (The irony of "up-to-date" and "Latin" being used in the same sentence...)

So I made one spelling error. Trust me, it's a rare occurrence. ^^;

Re:Not as bad as it sounds

[KatAngel]

You read too much into my post. I was being neither almighty nor defensive. Almighty would mean implying that I was smarter than entity x, or group x. It isn't almighty to be aware that my intelligence is higher than the average, as, I would imagine, are those of a good number of others who frequent slashdot. It takes a certain degree of logical-spacial intelligence to gain a strong affinity for technology. Then again, it's possible I'm overestimating slashdot.

At any rate, even if I *was* being defensive, which I wasn't, it certainly wouldn't have been over the comment that I'm a cat from outer space. I love cats. However, I hear so many stereotypes, perhaps it's merely a matter of instinct to quell them when I hear them, even in jokes. Jokes that rely on stereotypes (especially when those stereotypes are truly believed by a large number of people) fail to amuse me. (And there is a difference between "not amused" and "defensive" or "angry.")

Re:Not as bad as it sounds

[KatAngel]

Actually, "KatAngel" is derived from my real name, which is all the hint I'll give as to what my real name is. And you're the third person to correct my spelling of "per se." And I realized after submitting it that it was the wrong choice of words, but slashdot doesn't let me edit my post, so... there you go. And let's not get into stereotypes. I've talked about them enough on this page already.

Re:Simple solution

[impaledsunset]

Why stickers when you can simply break the fucking camera? Cause damage. That's the right way to do it.

Re:Not as bad as it sounds

[UncleTogie]

They're illegal. In a bathroom you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

That's what I thought, and looked up Texas Penal code Sec. 21.15... It states:

Sec. 21.15. IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY OR VISUAL RECORDING. (a) In this section, "promote" has the meaning assigned by Section 43.21.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of another at a location that is not a bathroom or private dressing room:
(A) without the other person's consent; and
(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;
(2) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of another at a location that is a bathroom or private dressing room:
(A) without the other person's consent; and
(B) with intent to:
(i) invade the privacy of the other person; or
(ii) arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; or
(3) knowing the character and content of the photograph, recording, broadcast, or transmission, promotes a photograph, recording, broadcast, or transmission described by Subdivision (1) or (2). (c) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
(d) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor may be prosecuted under this section or the other law.
(e) For purposes of Subsection (b)(2), a sign or signs posted indicating that the person is being photographed or that a visual image of the person is being recorded, broadcast, or transmitted is not sufficient to establish the person's consent under that subdivision.

I'm no lawyer, but it seems that just posting signs is not a legal waiver to the invasion of privacy.