Slashdot Mirror


Eye In the Sky For City Crime Fighting

Tiger4 writes "The mayor of the City of Lancaster in the Antelope Valley of southern California is considering a high-definition video flying platform to aid in crime fighting. The aircraft, would circle the city constantly, able to zoom in on activity spots instantly. 'You never know when you are being watched or followed. It would be stupid to commit a crime. You see it with such detail,' said Mayor R. Rex Parris, who took a ride last week in a camera-equipped airplane with pilot Dick Rutan. 'I have every hope that Lancaster will be the first city to deploy it. I've never been so excited about anything.' Dick Rutan is the same pilot who flew around the world non-stop in the Voyager, custom built by his brother Burt Rutan at Scaled Composites in Mojave." The aircraft is nothing special, a garden-variety Cessna or the like, but "the camera is an example of technology developed for and used by the military making a transition to civilian applications, Rutan said."

56 of 389 comments (clear)

  1. Next step by redcaboodle · · Score: 5, Funny

    Outlaw roofs.

    --
    -- Put crudely, the world is an extremely large problem instance. (Russel/Norvig Artificial Intelligence)
    1. Re:Next step by Ihlosi · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Why, with the right type of camera, you can see right through them.

      Btw, could someone tag the story "bluethunder"? I can't seem to add tags.

    2. Re:Next step by N3Roaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The new fashion accessory that every criminal thug just has to have: an umbrella.

      --
      Remember RFC 873!
    3. Re:Next step by siloko · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Well Blue Thunder was an ostensibly civilian undertaking which sort of suggests you agree with the quoted sentiment:

      The camera is an example of technology developed for and used by the military making a transition to civilian applications

      I disagree however. Once government's start using military surveillance techniques on it's citizenry they are no longer a civilian government's but precursors to a police state. And the guys excited about it . . . I'm not sure whether thats scary or disgusting!

    4. Re:Next step by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Well, let's see, so far citizens are unanimously in favor of:
      • Automated Speed Cameras
      • Red Light Cameras
      • Neighborhood Cameras (ala UK)
      • Cameras in the classrooms of elementary schools

      Well, sure, I'm guessing we'll all be embracing the next logical step in govt. surveillance!! The all seeing HD eye in the sky.

      Wait, did I forget my [sarcasm] tag??

      Sadly, there will be a decent number of people that will go for this. More and more these days a saying I heard awhile back is even more pertinent:

      What one generation tolerates, the next generation embraces.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re:Next step by siloko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know you were joking but the awful truth is that when the politicians really are corrupt and they are bouncing off the walls in excitement over deploying military hardware against the electorate then neither they nor the Police are likely to be breaking any laws. Because they will be the law. Cue accusations of overblown paranoia . . . but the surveillance used now against private citizens isn't far away from that envisaged by Orwell . . .

    6. Re:Next step by lobiusmoop · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Curiously enough, here in the UK, the fashion trend for 'hoodies' among teenagers took off pretty much in parallel with the explosion of CCTV monitoring in the cities.

      --
      "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    7. Re:Next step by pacergh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This simply is not true. Yes, the technology has been there for decades. No, it has not been used as a constant surveillance system.

      It is important to distinguish between privacy "concerns" and concerns of the legality of a system.

      Such constant surveillance is plausibly within the current surveillance limits established by the Supreme Court through Katz v. US and its progeny. After all, how much of a reasonable expectation of privacy do we have in our public actions. (There are cases dealing with flyovers using targeted cameras which may preclude Lancaster's use of this system, though.)

      Nevertheless, such an intrusion on the everyday activities of citizenry is a privacy concern. This means that whether or not it is allowable under the law, the question (and concern) is whether it should be done regardless of its legality.

      There are reasons why this is and should be a concern for normal citizens (even outside the fallacious arguments of the "you don't have anything to fear if you are doing nothing wrong" camp).

      First, the belief that someone is watching has chilling effects on the activities of people. This is a benefit for the prevention of crime, but is a negative when you throw in the impact it has on legal actions that may also violate social norms.

      We try not to legislate social norms in this country but, rather, legislate laws that balance utility against liberty. (Note the word try -- there are always cases of bad laws, either intentionally or unintentionally passed.) Government run, controlled, and accessed surveillance in effect chills actions beyond social norms in a way that is nearly as effective as legislation.

      Second, this is a fairness issue here. Surveillance only flows one way -- information taken in goes to the government. It is not widely disseminated. Therefore, those in power to review the information also have the power to highlight and bury information as they deem necessary. These people may deem it necessary for valid reasons, or invalid ones based on avoiding the embarrassment of friends or family.

      Allowing all people to access the surveillance would alleviate this problem. The information will be free so, as an above poster commented, ordinary citizens will also be allowed to see when the watchers are caught figuratively (and literally) with their britches down. Even so, you will still have a chilling effect based upon social norms.

      Third, there are real questions as to whether this is the best method of achieving the alleged goals of law enforcement. Does surveillance work better in creating a safe society, or does active police interaction within a community work better? Studies are inconclusive and often fail to properly measure effectiveness. The methodology of studies connecting cost-per-arrest are inherently flawed since some arrests do more to provide a community safety than others.

      In the end this is a far more pervasive and intrusive surveillance than the past aerial surveillance referenced by the poster above.

      So, privacy concerns from eyes in the sky were not settled decades ago. First, you confuse privacy concerns (which are necessarily ongoing and ever-changing in nature) with legal concerns (which are more static, albeit not completely static). Second, the surveillance discussed by the OP is significantly different than the kind you reference and, therefore, even the legal concerns of this program were not "settled decades ago."

      - John

    8. Re:Next step by Painted · · Score: 2, Informative

      Having operated FLIR gear, there is no way the umbrella would be "completely transparent" to IR. Perhaps there will be a new technology in the future, such as sub-millimeter radar that could give the resolution you're implying, but current IR gear cannot. You would simply see that there was a heat source under the umbrella making it warmer than the background. The drug deal taking place under it would be undetectable.

      --
      http://marsandmore.com - Posters of space, spacecraft, and astronomy.
    9. Re:Next step by element-o.p. · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not to sound like I like this sort of thing, but we didn't have privacy in the past. We are just returning to a more village type of mindset.

      Yes, except that in a village, everyone had the scoop on you, but you had the scoop on them, as well. Consequently, everyone agreed to ignore each others little indiscretions. With where we are headed now, the government has the scoop on us, and we have...nothing on the government. That imbalance of power makes this a very dangerous situation.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    10. Re:Next step by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 2, Informative

      Calling Parris shady is like calling Hitler mean.

    11. Re:Next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The other abuse factor is that it is selective, based on the operator.

      "Gee, that's my friend Charlie with walking towards those drug dealers..." (pans camera away from Charlie)

      "Gee, looks like those officers are about to nightstick-sodomize that homeless dude..." (flies drone back to landing strip for "maintenance")

      "Gee, looks like my girlfriend... WTF?! WHO IS THAT GUY?!" (zooms in close, follows them around, dupes the tape for his personal use... and during this time, ignores the punks roughing up random passersby in front of the convenience store across the street.)

    12. Re:Next step by element-o.p. · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If this "sentimate" (sic) isn't in line with "tin-foil hat over-reactions," I don't know what is.

      I call Bovine Scatalogy.

      As is, privately owned security cameras aren't worth the effort for the government to monitor on a large scale. NSA/ATT aside, law enforcement generally needs a subpoena or warrant to require you to release your private security camera's recordings. With this new technology, surveillance is possible 24x7 without the necessity of obtaining those pesky warrants and subpoenas. As if that's not enough (and I think that it is), while we have had "sky cams" the new camera is using technology that previously was only available to NASA, the military and maybe a handful of others, but this camera will be available to local law enforcement as well...and as you admitted, the previous air cams were not "ALWAYS ... up". Besides, I know this is /., but did you read TFA? Mayor Parris was practically drooling over himself as he contemplated the possibilities this thing opens up for him.

      Call me a tin-foil hat if you want, but I just can't convince myself that GP was overreacting.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    13. Re:Next step by Reziac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Our mayor (yes, I live in the AV) would indeed outlaw roofs if he could. This is the same guy who said that he would seize and kill law-abiding citizens' pets if doing so would discourage gang members from owning dogs.

      Think I'm making this up??
      http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/26/local/me-dogordinance26?pg=1
      ======
      "What happens when these gang members that you're trying to target move on to Dobermans or German shepherds? You going to restrict them too?" Listman asked the council.

      "If they move on to cats," Parris responded, "I'm going to take their cats."
      ======

      He's an ambulance chaser by profession, which means in his worldview, there is only one solution for every social ill: SOMEONE MUST PAY!!

      The man is a menace to the Constitution.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    14. Re:Next step by Aphoxema · · Score: 2, Funny

      With a strong helping of facism throne in.

      I thought for a moment you should have wrote "thrown" but I decided "throne" is more fitting.

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    15. Re:Next step by michaelhood · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If something takes place in public, I don't think there's any violation of here. If they put a camera in the sky that can "see" through walls, or bounce lasers off our home windows to "hear" what's going on inside WITHOUT a warrant and trust me, I'll grab the pitchfork, you grab the torch.

      Yeah, I'm sure they'll close their eyes if they see something in your privacy fenced-in backyard.

  2. Whoa, they invented the maintenance-free plane? by Ihlosi · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Or how else is this thing going to circle the city constantly if they only have one?

    Seriously, though, the whole idea is wrong on so many levels it's not funny anymore. Privacy aside, couldn't they at least use a platform that's better suited to long-term surveillance, such as a small (drone-sized), unmanned airship?

    1. Re:Whoa, they invented the maintenance-free plane? by Akido37 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's like those cities with cameras everywhere, except some of the camera boxes don't even contain a camera.

      For the system to work, it doesn't actually have to record every crime. It only has to deter people from committing crimes out of fear that they MAY be recorded.

      That said, I think that constant surveillance will be the end of our republic.

    2. Re:Whoa, they invented the maintenance-free plane? by cmdrkynes · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is no way they can really afford to keep a small jet airplane in the air just circling for hours... That is thousands of dollars a day worth of fuel.

    3. Re:Whoa, they invented the maintenance-free plane? by furby076 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Privacy outside of a building is not constitutionally mandated. Walking on the street? Anyone can take pictures of you - media, gov't, private citizens and you have zero privacy claims. There is no expectation of privacy when you leave the protection of a building.

      There were some issues, in the past, with aerial photos of people in their backyard which had walls (and obviously no ceilings). I don't recall what the ruling was but I think it was ruled that if there is no roof there is no expectation of privacy....so you may want to make sure your drug deals are done within 5 enclosed walls :)

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    4. Re:Whoa, they invented the maintenance-free plane? by mdwh2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Privacy outside of a building is not constitutionally mandated. Walking on the street? Anyone can take pictures of you - media, gov't, private citizens and you have zero privacy claims. There is no expectation of privacy when you leave the protection of a building.

      But as soon as an individual points a camera at this aircraft, you can bet that police will be telling them they're not allowed to do it, that they must delete the photos, or arresting them on some terrorism charge (at least, that's what would happen in the UK).

      It's as if objects, buildings and so on have more of an expectation of privacy than individuals do...

    5. Re:Whoa, they invented the maintenance-free plane? by mraudigy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The average Cessna plane consume between 5 to 9 gallons of fuel per hour. With an rough estimate fuel price of $5.25/gallon in the SW region, a "surveillance" plane that flys 24/7 would cost:

      $5.25 * 7 = $36.75/hr.
      $36.75 * 24 = $882/day.
      $882 * 365 = $321,930/year.

      As such...
      Cessna Surveillance Plan: $125,000
      1 year of fuel: $321,930
      Killing both privacy, the economy, and the budget is one fell swoop: Priceless.

    6. Re:Whoa, they invented the maintenance-free plane? by furby076 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But as soon as an individual points a camera at this aircraft, you can bet that police will be telling them they're not allowed to do it, that they must delete the photos, or arresting them on some terrorism charge (at least, that's what would happen in the UK). It's as if objects, buildings and so on have more of an expectation of privacy than individuals do...

      Not sure why your post would be marked insightful since it is pure speculation. There are valid concerns with top secret items and the gov't not wanting you to take pictures of them. For example if the gov't came out with a new plane that had some new, awesome and secret technology it makes sense they don't want you taking a picture of it. This technology is nothing new...it's been featured in games, tv shows, and hell is just a combination of technology that's been around for decades with some relatively new technology (HD TV).

      Feel free to take all the pictures you want of this aircraft...once the military sells something to civies it loses it's top secret status.

      BTW this technology amounts to an RC airplane + HD cam corder + a transmitter of the cam corder. I'd imagine someone here on /. could make said device...it may not be as good as what these cops will have - then again they have hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on professional gear - but it will do the same thing.

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    7. Re:Whoa, they invented the maintenance-free plane? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Informative

      He is referring to reports of incidents where the police have attempted to confiscate cameras that were used to take pictures of them making an arrest. There was a case a year or so ago where the police arrested someone for videoing them making an arrest. There was actually a law in that state making it illegal to video a police officer. Fortunately, the state courts ruled the law unconstitutional.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    8. Re:Whoa, they invented the maintenance-free plane? by stim · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think he is referring to the growing trend of police /themselves/ believing you cant film them or take pictures of them. I don't know how many times I have seen video of cops confiscating cameras and or arresting civilians for taking pictures of them.

      --
      Browse at -1 to keep an eye out for abuses.
    9. Re:Whoa, they invented the maintenance-free plane? by dzfoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >> If its going to be in the Air all the time, and just circle. Why don't the replace it with a few balloons or Zeppelins as fixed air platform.

      OK, I'll bite: Because the mounting harness of the camera system sold by the contractor buddy of the Mayor, is custom made to install on airplanes sold by the golf partner of the contractor. The owner of the balloon/airship company was not aware of the project, and so couldn't offer to chip in for the Mayor's summer vacation trip.

              -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    10. Re:Whoa, they invented the maintenance-free plane? by kheldan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Fear" being the operative word in all these conversations. We're becoming a world ruled by fear, and it's BULLSHIT.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    11. Re:Whoa, they invented the maintenance-free plane? by DrVomact · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not to mention that its pretty much proven that surveillance equipment does not prevent crime.

      Precisely. The first prerequisite for crime prevention is that the police actually give a rodent's posterior about protecting citizens, instead of getting themselves on TV and beating the PR drums. Heck, my car radio was stolen out of the parking lot where I work. My employer turned over the video—complete with clearly visible license plate of the truck these yahoos were riding in—and nothing has happened. That was a year ago.

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
  3. And criminals... by radtea · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...never do anything stupid, so the Mayor pointing out "It would be stupid to commit a crime" is a really excellent example of how compelling the case is for using this sort of surveillance technology.

    If politicians and police were honest about this they'd be doing a controlled experiment on these deployments, putting out these systems in ways that varied both in space and time that allowed them to determine whether these things had any effect on quality of life amongst the citizens, which is the metric that matters.

    Instead, they are content to make stuff up, and the average person is so relentlessly anti-empirical that they have no idea what they are missing.

    --
    Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    1. Re:And criminals... by WindowlessView · · Score: 5, Insightful

      so the Mayor pointing out "It would be stupid to commit a crime"

      If this is true, then why are government officials so reluctant to have their own activities monitored? Why do law enforcement get so edgy about being filmed? Why are cameras not allowed in most court rooms? Why aren't public officials monitored all day long? It just stops crime, after all.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
    2. Re:And criminals... by nyctopterus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I get your point--especially about law enforcement, but you need to recognise than "government" isn't a monolith. Many government officials and employees don't want the crazy surveillance of other people either.

    3. Re:And criminals... by hacker · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If this is true, then why are government officials so reluctant to have their own activities monitored? Why do law enforcement get so edgy about being filmed? Why are cameras not allowed in most court rooms? Why aren't public officials monitored all day long? It just stops crime, after all.

      You bring up a very interesting point. What if the flying-camera-drone catches some police abuse on civilians, or some other egregious violation of human or civil rights? Do we, as civilians, have the right to request the footage of that incident at that time? After all OUR money paid for this plan, the pilot's salary, the camera, the fuel and everything else related to putting that object in the air. Does the FOIA cover this too?

    4. Re:And criminals... by Ihlosi · · Score: 4, Insightful
      What if the flying-camera-drone catches some police abuse on civilians, or some other egregious violation of human or civil rights? Do we, as civilians, have the right to request the footage of that incident at that time?

      Oh, you certainly have all the right in the world to request the footage of the incident, which will do you a whole lot of good if the tape has been "misplaced" or just doesn't exist because the camera had a "glitch" just when it happened. *winkwink*

  4. Re:Anyone... by Ihlosi · · Score: 5, Insightful
    going to offer a reward to the first person to shoot the damn thing down?

    Ask your friendly neighborhood drug lord.

    The next version of the plane is then going to be armed with 20mm cannons. Why just watch crime when you can stop it dead?

  5. bad idea + bad idea by RingDev · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The camera is an example of technology developed for and used by the military making a transition to civilian applications, Rutan said."

    When you have the Military controling civilian security, the civilians become the enemy. This would normally just be a gross overstepping of the government, but to use it as a "transition" for EASing military is just crazy. Things are different in the Military. The rules, norms and expectations are completely different. You can't just take an MP out of the fleet, give him a badge and a gun, and expect him to take a squad car around the block with out incident.

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    1. Re:bad idea + bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      When I was on guard duty in the Marine Corps, I was given the following instructions:

      If you see someone attempting a crime, or entering a secure area, you will give ONE and ONLY one order to halt.

      If the individual does not halt, you will fire one warning shot, directly at center of mass.

      If the warning shot does not cause the person to halt, you will fire at him until he halts.

      For unarmed posts, they told you to call a "react" if you saw anything out of the ordinary. What's a react, you say? When you call a react, the guard shack hands everyone currently on duty an M-16 and a loaded magazine, they all pile into a humvee and haul ass to your location, then they all jump out, aim, and give the order to halt.

      Disobey the order, and they ALL fire a warning shot.

      I'm not exaggerating, either. There's a reason nobody screws around on a Marine Corps base.

    2. Re:bad idea + bad idea by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Informative

      When you have the Military controling civilian security, the civilians become the enemy...You can't just take an MP out of the fleet, give him a badge and a gun, and expect him to take a squad car around the block with out incident.

      We've been militarizing ordinary police work for the past few decades, since the Reagan era. It's part of the general trend of the militarization of society pushed by authoritarian neoconservatives.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  6. City of Lancaster? by funkatron · · Score: 4, Funny

    For a moment I thought I knew where that was. Are there any place names America didn't steal?

    --
    "Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
  7. Worst idea ever by moogied · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Criminals rarely think "Gee... I sure hope no one sees me do this!" they think "Gee... I sure hope I can get the hell away from the scene before a cop gets me.". Having something floating around would require several things to actually work:

    1. Someone to know the crime is happening and thus record it, send cops over, and prevent it.
    2. No blind spots(good luck on a roaming platform. Last I checked, buildings still are 3d and thus will cause blind spots.
    3. The criminals not to take the most basic of all precautions to hide there identity(sky masks aren't exactly hard to make or buy.).

    So, in conclusion, it looks like some dumb ass company built this device and decided to market it to whatever sucker they could find. World keeps on turning.

    --
    So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
    1. Re:Worst idea ever by dzfoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      >> But hey, when someone asks you to make a robot to do X, how many engineers will step back and ask "Are you SURE X is what you want to do?"

      I'll go out on a limb and say, the answer is Y engineers.

              -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
  8. Agreed. by Yvanhoe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wholeheartedly agree. On the condition that the loop includes a trip above the Mayor's house and that all video feeds are released to the public.

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  9. Re:It was a matter of time. by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just remember what else trickled down. Drone aircraft for military use were originally unarmed, observation only craft. When they started mounting Hellfires and 25 mm cannon, there were a few debates about the legal niceties, but it basically just happened.

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  10. Re:Anyone... by localman57 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Awesome. The local private pilots are gonna love it when their Cessna 172's start being shot at for no apparent reason.

  11. In a world where umbrellas are outlawed... by SoVeryTired · · Score: 2, Funny

    only outlaws will have umbrellas.

    --
    Slashdot: news for Apple. Stuff that Apple.
    1. Re:In a world where umbrellas are outlawed... by jDeepbeep · · Score: 3, Insightful

      only outlaws will have umbrellas.

      Relinquish your right to carry an umbrella. After all, if you carry an umbrella, you must have something to hide.

      --
      Reply to That ||
  12. Trying to counter irrational acts, rationally by petes_PoV · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Criminals don't think "oooh here comes the crime fighting plane - I don't think I'll mug that little old lady "

    They either plan around it (unlikely) or commit impulsive acts when the opportunity arises. They also don't always commit their crimes out-doors, or in cloud-free weather. They also don't ever expect to get caught (if they did, that would be a deterrent - it isn't).. So while keeping a plane in the air (and presumably a control room staffed, to watch the spy cameras) and a mechanic on standby to refule it and maintain it, might sound like a good idea - and may even impress the voters the chances of it reducing crime are small.

    Luckily for the mayor, it's impossible to correlate one act of crime prevention with any movement in the crime statistics, so whatever happens (short of someone stealing the plane), he, she or it will be able to call the initiative a success.

    I do have a feeling though, that this plan was not exactly thought out. Any sale to a gullible official - who isn't spending their own cash yet comes out with statements like "I've never been so excited about anything" sounds like exuberance has got the better over common sense. I would expect that the money earmarked for this plan would be far better spent on orthodox police patrols: more officers, more man-hours and maybe even a few public awareness campaigns. Not as sexy, but far more effective.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  13. Stupid to commit a crime? by bazorg · · Score: 3, Informative
    It takes someone stupid to commit a crime? maybe someone with motivations that are hard to understand... Just yesterday on BBC3 we had interviews with 14-18 year old thugs who were really keen on their "street cred", their "reputation", the robbing and stabbing of other kids who ventured into their post code, and the appeal these activities have when looking for a girlfriend.

    Not one seemed so keen on going to school or on avoiding the police. Actually, going to prison was part of the networking with other thugs and the reputation building. So yes, there could be an investment of millions on cameras that can even see through the £5 hooded clothes but I don't think it will be much of a deterrent.

  14. first reference to Orwell by rs232 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live -- did live, from habit that became instinct -- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized"

    --
    davecb5620@gmail.com
  15. fallout by zogger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If the video feed was open to the public, it wouldn't be long before there would be clips of the mayor's butt crack showing up on youtube, as he bent over to work in his garden, or the city council folks walking their dogs and letting them take a dump on neighbor's lawns, or local fatcat businessmen passed out drunk in their back yards, all the local cop cars on patrol making illegal left turns at stoplights, etc.

    The spy in the sky program would end pronto then.

  16. Re:Solution: Move. by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the city I lived in started doing this, I'd move and take my tax revenue with me (paltry as it may be).

    Why don't we hear of more people fleeing the state in droves? I've never lived in CA, but if I did the decision to move would be a simple one.

    When you move out of your parent's basement, you'll find the world a bit less black and white and that Brave Words (while free and easy to make on the 'net) cost money and are sometimes hard to implement.

  17. Re:Privacy? by hacker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, at least people are innocent until proven guilty, but it is best to do your hardest to prove them guilty.

    Here's part of the problem. We should be innocent unless proven guilty, not until proven guilty.

    This fallacy presumes that we're all guilty, and it's just a matter of time until someone catches us. We need to stop referring to it as such.

    • We are not consumers, we are customers
    • We are not innocent until proven guilty, we are innocent unless proven guilty
    • Just because I have nothing to hide, does not mean you have a right to look.

    This whole country is being turned upside-down by very subtle, un-noticed changes in our vernacular. We need to stop that.

  18. Crowbar by lymond01 · · Score: 2, Funny

    As demonstrated by one Gordon Freeman as he fled City 21 during the unrest in the early 2000s, these surveillance drones are particularly susceptible to blunt force attacks. Alternatively, subway tunnels and fast waterborne craft also make it difficult for the drones to follow and/or record.

    If people stopped acting all crazy, this sort of thing wouldn't be suggested in the first place. As usual, it's the group of kids in the corner of the playground who ruin it for the rest of us.

  19. Warning shot: a shot directly at center of mass by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Funny

    Military definition of "warning shot" duly noted 8-|

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  20. And you expect a mayor to obey the same laws? by Shivetya · · Score: 2, Interesting

    because here in Atlanta when police protecting the mayor scanned the plates of a car visiting her son and found the car stolen the policeman doing got into trouble and the police were prevented from doing future scans.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  21. The Secret History of Lancaster, CA by aquatone282 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I was stationed at Edwards Air Force Base from 2001 - 2003. After the burgs of Rosamond, Mojave and the tragic-comedy of California City, Lancaster-Palmdale was the closest form of civilization to the base - just a 35-mile drive from the back gate!

    While there I formed the theory that Lancaster was used as a checkpoint during the Okie migration of the Great Depression (see "The Grapes of Wrath" for further details). If you were halfway decent-looking, you were allowed to cross the San Gabriel mountains. If you were a freak of nature, you stayed in Lancaster.

    Seriously - I never saw so many ugly people in one place in my life.

    --
    What?
  22. Alan Parsons Project by gaspyy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am the eye in the sky
    Looking at you
    I can read your mind
    I am the maker of rules
    Dealing with fools
    I can cheat you blind
    And I don't need to see any more
    To know that
    I can read your mind.