Slashdot Mirror
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].'"
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
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.
"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
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.
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?
Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
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.
A friend of mine used to mix a 50% solution of elmer's glue and water in a spray bottle for a similar effect.