Atlanta's Growing Video Surveillance System

McGruber writes "An Atlanta newspaper reports on the city's 'Video Integration Center,' which allows Atlanta's Police Department to control more than 100 public and private cameras. 'Officials say hundreds or thousands more private-sector cameras will eventually feed into the center.' According to the Atlanta Police Foundation, 'This is going to grow by leaps and bounds over the years. The goal, of course, is to have the entire city blanketed [with cameras].'"

Comments

4th Amendment

[DanTheStone]

And since the cameras are technically privately-owned, there's no need to worry about a warrant!

Re:4th Amendment

[GritsConQueso]

In cases where the government argues that the 4th Amendment exclusionary rule does not apply because the search was conducted by a private party, the government loses if it can be demonstrated that the private party was a de facto government agent, or acting at the behest of a government agent. Surely it would be the same with cameras?

Re:4th Amendment

[Baloroth]

It's a public area, privacy in a public area is not reasonably expected (OP is flamebait). Not to say the cameras are good or even perfectly legal, just that this isn't a "search" that would require a warrant.

Re:4th Amendment

[adolf]

If an officer knocks on my door and asks "Do you mind if we have a look around?" and I say "No problem. Get to it," there's no warrant required, since they've got my permission.

Similarly, with a camera: If an officer knocks on my door and asks "Do you mind if we tie into your camera system," and I say "go ahead," then there is also no warrant necessary: I've given them consent.

More to the point, I don't even think it's a public-vs-private sort of thing. If I've got cameras installed at my own home or business (inside or outside - it doesn't matter), and want I LEO looking through them and/or archiving them, then that should be completely permissible.

Now, of course, I would never submit affirmatively to any such request ("I do not consent to any searches, officer. Am I free to go?"). But I most certainly do fully support the rights of others to do as they please in their own interaction with law enforcement.

Job of the Future?

[rocker_wannabe]

I guess that eventually one half of the population will be watching the other half....Actually, if you include YouTube, that might already be true.

"Excuse me sir. What do you do for a living?"

"I'm a professional voyeur!"

Re:Job of the Future?

[Beorytis]

I guess that eventually one half of the population will be watching the other half...

Or one half of each person will be watching the other half. Read A Scanner Darkly . There was a movie too, but I haven't seen it.

Re:Open it to the Public

[Anonymous Coward]

Open the camera control room to the public. They watch us, we watch them.

Surveillance of public areas OK

[backslashdot]

However, they must not be used to prosecute or investigate any crime or attempted crime other than serious assault, murder, and rape.
It should not be used to fine people for littering or even peeing.

Re:Surveillance of public areas OK

[sheepofblue]

However, they must not be used to prosecute or investigate any crime or attempted crime other than serious assault, murder, and rape.
It should not be used to fine people for littering or even peeing.

Yet it WILL be used for that and a ton of other things. Self control and self regulation is not something the government does even moderately well.

Re:Camera Vandalism?

[houstonbofh]

A super Soaker filled with cooking oil will render it unviewable for more then 5 feet. But I am sure that falls under domestic terrorism in most of the "Free" world.

Cripe people, wake up and stand against this crap

[metalgamer84]

It blows my mind that people think this is a good thing. Why are people so damn eager to give up freedoms, liberties and privacies? Why do people want to live under constant surveillance? Why are people so eager to be cattle led to slaughter? FFS, crap like this should be causing outrage and riots. Instead people are complacent and eager for it.

Re:One nation under surveillance

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Atlanta is leading the charge in becoming London.

Re:Camera Vandalism?

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

A few years ago I ran into a guy from Arizona and he was telling me how they put post-it notes on the traffic cameras. It actually went to court and a judge decided that the post-it notes were not vandalism.

Re:Cripe people, wake up and stand against this cr

[MacTO]

Extremism doesn't help here.

Standing up for privacy where there is a reasonable expectation for privacy is entirely reasonable. People expect privacy in their homes. People expect their personal correspondence to be private (e.g. phone calls, letter mail, email). The same goes for things they stuff in their bags or cram onto their computers because whatever is inside forms a sort of private space. We see those boundaries to privacy being violated all of the time, and I think that most people would be supportive of protecting privacy in those spaces.

But the moment that you start screaming about privacy in places where there isn't a reasonable expectation for it, a lot of people just tune out. They will either assume that you are an antisocial nutbar, a paranoid nutcase, or a criminal. Streets, parks, transit, and businesses are places where you don't have a reasonable expectation for privacy because you are interacting or intermingling with other people. Most people recognize that, and behave accordingly.

So if you want to do everyone a favour, argue for privacy but do so on reasonable grounds. The moment you adopt an extremist position, you are fighting the battle for the other side because you will lose legitimacy in the eyes of the people who you are trying to persuade.

Chicago has 15,000 cameras networked

[vinn01]

"The city links the 1,500 cameras that police have placed in trouble spots with thousands more... Even home owners can contribute camera feeds....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704538404574539910412824756.html

If you link your camera to the city "highly trained crime surveillance specialists will have access" ...
http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/oem/provdrs/tech/svcs/link_your_cameras.html

IBM press release about it's Chicago's video analysis software that "detects suspicious activity and potential public safety concerns " ...
http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/22385.wss

Re:Open it to the Public

[Riceballsan]

Personally I have to agree with that one, I am all for a public DVR database where anyone on the street can just pop in, cut to 3:53 corner of north main and broad street, and see exactly what happened. It even eliminates the cops 1/4th legitimate complaint of civilians filming them (cops claim the civilians may be cutting out the suspects attempts to attack or run before they use force), If the camera is opened to the public, then both the civilians and the cops adn judges can see the entirety of what happened. Unfortunately in general the right to pick only the evidence that helps their case and hide the portion that contradicts is something the police will always want to have exclusively in their hands.

Re:Camera Vandalism?

[exploder]

I'm sure your envisioned "open-source target acquisition system" can distinguish between the reflection from a surveillance camera lens and the reflection from my eyeglasses, right?

Private Cameras...faking evidence?

[shellster_dude]

So if private feeds are coming in, what's to prevent a malicious private party from staging anything from a robbery to a murder and editing the footage to implicate their choice of targets and splicing said footage into the feed?

Other than tampering with evidence (and the actual crime), I doubt it would even be illegal since they own the feed.

Re:I used to be a spy...

[Shatrat]

Wouldn't recommend a visible spectrum laser (although something in the 35mW range might work) because they could also blind you

Infrared is as dangerous or more than visible light. With an infrared laser you don't know to blink until it's too late.

Re:Cripe people, wake up and stand against this cr

[wisnoskij]

There is a big difference between, you are in public nothing you do is private and you are in public you are under constant surveillance and the government can know where you are at any given time if it so desires.

Re:Or lasers.

[Nadaka]

Lasers in the 1 watt range DO work like that when they hit anything that isn't perfectly matte black. I am not talking about a keychain laser pointer. I am talking about a laser that poses an instantaneous blinding hazard to a range of dozens of kilometers on a direct hit and up to a kilometer from specular reflection.

Re:Camera Vandalism?

[Mars Saxman]

A friend of mine used to mix a 50% solution of elmer's glue and water in a spray bottle for a similar effect.

Re:Camera Vandalism?

[Gordonjcp]

So far, they haven't decreased the crime rate even a single %

I know that in Edinburgh the CCTV cameras in conjuction with the Shopwatch systems (all the shops have a radio link back to the CCTV control centre, which in turn can contact the police if the "mall cop" types can't get the job done) has a pretty damn near 100% success rate at getting shoplifters and other "petty criminals" caught.

Sad to say, the conviction rate is almost zero, because in the face of overwhelming evidence against the accused, the courts just issue a small fine which they have no expectation of ever seeing paid.

The cameras work well. The security guys and the police work well. The courts, they're not so great.

Re:I used to be a spy...

[Shatrat]

Longer wavelength light would tend to reflect less and be absorbed more, for relatively useless values of 'more' in this case.
All telecom lasers are infrared, from 850 to 1610 nanometers wavelength and the long haul stuff is definitely dangerous.
Some optical amplifiers can put out 200mw+ 1550 nm light.
Even the low powered stuff I wouldn't point at my face.