Slashdot Mirror
Crowdsourcing Big Brother In Lancaster, PA
sehlat writes "From the Los Angeles Times comes word that in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 165 public surveillance cameras are being set up to be monitored by a 'non profit coalition' of volunteers. The usual suspects, including 'the innocent have nothing to fear' are being trotted out to justify this, and the following quote at the end of the article deserves mention: 'But Jack Bauer, owner of the city's largest beer and soft drink distributor, calls the network "a great thing." His store hasn't been robbed, he said, since four cameras went up nearby. "There's nothing wrong with instilling fear," he said.'"
Crowdsourcing Big Brother in Lancaster, PA
Uh, I read the article and it sounds like 10 self-appointed people running the show with 12 volunteers. How in the hell is that crowdsourcing?
... one operating outside my elected official's jurisdiction would be a true horror show.
Don't even get me started on a who will watch the watchmen rant. Such a monitoring activity operating at all upsets me
My work here is dung.
Why is the surveillance done only by "a private nonprofit group?" In a truly transparent society such an array of cameras would be accessible by anyone, not just a select few.
So strange to see my hometown on the front page of Slashdot...
The Los Angeles Times article states:
"Perhaps most surprising, the near-saturation surveillance of a community that saw four murders last year has sparked little public debate about whether the benefits for law enforcement outweigh the loss of privacy."
I've lived in Lancaster for years and haven't heard a thing about this. I just searched our local newspaper with no results.
There's no public debate because as far as I know this is the first time it's even been mentioned. I saw the cameras go up, now I know the story behind them... thanks to a random mention on a tech news site linking an article from a newspaper on the other side of the country.
Cameras.
I LIVE in Lancaster, and I had no idea! They said 'the people didn't object' hell I didn't even KNOW! This is such a horribly bad idea... I thought Britain was Orwellian with their surveillance camera system, but to have put this in place and for most ppl to not even KNOW about it.. that by definition is a police state! Outsourcing it to some agency is monumentally wrong. I think I need a pocket jammer system just to go to the public library...
If I sound stupid, it's not me talking....
A chilling quote:
"Years ago, there's no way we could do this," said Keith Sadler, Lancaster's police chief. "It brings to mind Big Brother, George Orwell and '1984.' It's just funny how Americans have softened on these issues."
I am not sure "funny" is the term I would use to describe the change.
But then again, I for one welcome our new...actually I don't, screw them and the fear they rode in on!
Going on means going far
Going far means returning
it's a public place where anyone can see what is going on at any point in time. there is no infringement of privacy if this is a public area, and with cameras being visible, there is no deception in the intent.
Actually, I have to agree, but I also think that the camera feeds should be made public. Absolutely public. Publish them on the Web, local cable, anywhere people can get to them. The more people watching, the better.
My blog
How does being watched in public spaces restrict your freedom?
Because you are not free to do things that are not illegal, but may be frowned upon by your community.
Meeting your mistress. Attending AA. Organizing a protest rally. Attending a meeting of an unpopular political group. Going to a fertility clinic. Going to an abortion clinic. Not resting on the sabbath. Going to the wrong church. Going on a date with a woman of a different race. Going to a gay bar. Going to a strip club. Purchasing alcohol. Looking at a child or married woman for too long or in the wrong way. Checking the wrong book out of the library. Stopping to offer condolences to the last victim of wholesale surveillance.
See "chilling effect."
Most boring season of 24 EVER.
4 A.M. to 5 A.M.
4:01 Jack walks around the store 3 times, idly touching various merchandise along the way.
4:02 Homeless man wanders in and goes into the bathroom
4:07 Teenager with long hair reeking of patchouli and weed buys entire stock of Twinkies and 3 bags of Cheetos
4:25 Jack idly flips through latest issue of Penthouse
4:28 Jack kicks homeless man out of the bathroom, sprays Lysol and reminds himself to get the new kid to clean up that mess when he gets in.
4:32 Jack dozes off behind the register
4:43 Door chime wakes Jack, man in dirty flannel and backwards baseball cap buys a pack of Marlboro Lights.
4:52 Jack holds lottery tickets up to light looking for a winner
4:59 Jack dozes off again.
Riveting stuff!
corruption.
shortening the length of the yellow light leads to more tickets and increased revenues for the camera company and for the locality.
if the goal is to reduce the number of accidents caused by people driving through red lights, then installing the cameras and lengthening the yellow would be the optimal solution.
however, the stories I've read/heard on the subject all seem to involve these cameras being installed and the yellow duration being shortened. And the camera's end up generating a good amount of money, but the number of accidents stays about the same.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
Because tickets are sent to the wrong people?
Because tickets are assessed to the owner (not the driver) of the car?
Because you have no accuser to confront in court?
Because rear-end collisions increase at intersections with red-light cameras?
Because yellow lights may be shorter in duration to increase revenue?
Because government and for-profit private companies collude and share the income from what is normally law enforcement (government-only) fines?
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
I wonder about that. I really do.
Why is it that photographs and videos taken of models need copyright consent forms in order to be used, but my images can be snapped by thousands of cameras and copied about servers until doomsday without me even being informed?
Why is it that if I followed someone around every day, taking pictures and recording their movements, I would be convicted or stalking or have a restraining order put on me, yet it's OK for any old group to set up a nationwide system of cameras to track and record forever the movements of every single person in the state?
Why is it OK for them to record me, but it's not OK for me to see the footage?
I think Jack Bauer's comment really says it all. This system is not about protecting people. It's about intimidating them. It's about instilling fear. It's about the watchers gaining power over the watched. That is the systems primary purpose.
Who do you think will be manning these cameras? College students and libertarians? Not a chance. Think prudes and gossips, closet authoritarians and morality police, the perpetually offended and those who long for a society in which people know their place. And that place will be certainly be on camera instead of behind it.
Surveillance systems like this are getting implemented, everywhere, and their effect on society will be colossal. I believe it will be uniformly negative. We will move from the freedom and anonymity of urban society right back into the parochial, scrutinized and regulated mores of rural society. It's coming. In many ways, it's already here. You're only hope is that such systems have legal restrictions placed on them before they run completely rampant.
May the Maths Be with you!