Slashdot Mirror


Seattle's Creepy Cameraman Pushes Public Surveillance Buttons

theodp writes "People seem to be okay with constant corporate or government video surveillance in public. Let a lone individual point a video camera their way, however, and tempers flare. GeekWire takes a look at the antics and videos of Seattle's mysterious Surveillance Camera Man, who walks up to people and records them for no apparent reason other than to make a point: How is what he's doing different than those stationary surveillance cameras tucked away in buildings and public places?" At least with Surveillance Camera Man, you specifically know that he's watching you — not always the case. (Not even when there's no warrant, on private property in the U.S.)

44 of 387 comments (clear)

  1. Need to take great caution with this by Revotron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One wrong move and this creepy cameraman may end up with harassment charges.

    A prosecutor and possibly a judge may argue that his actions differ from security cameras in the sense that a security camera is fixed in place and watches a predefined area to spot crimes and identify perpetrators. In this case, he is very mobile and instead of filming a predefined area, he films individual people. He walks up to a single person and videotapes them with the intent of aggravating them about being videotaped. That could easily be spun as harassment if he ticks off the wrong person.

    1. Re:Need to take great caution with this by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A prosecutor and possibly a judge may argue that his actions differ from security cameras in the sense that a security camera is fixed in place and watches a predefined area to spot crimes and identify perpetrators.

      I wasn't aware there were regulations limiting the adding of security cameras to places that record what's in the public's view. This is no different than a business putting up a camera on one corner of the building and deciding to move it to another.

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harassment

      The key here seems to be repeated attempts of what he is doing. I'm guessing as long as he doesn't do it after being told to stop he's not harassing anyone.

      Annoying, perhaps but being annoying isn't illegal.

    2. Re:Need to take great caution with this by Zak3056 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A prosecutor and possibly a judge may argue that his actions differ from security cameras in the sense that a security camera is fixed in place and watches a predefined area to spot crimes and identify perpetrators.

      "Fixed in place" is (mostly) true, but "predefined area" does not have to be. PTZ cameras abound, also high megapixel cameras offer digital PTZ, so just because it's pointed at a fixed area doesn't mean that it's somehow limited. One extreme example is Avigilon, which offers a 29MP digital camera. Believe me when I say that the level of detail offered here, and what you can look at is fairly impressive (I've seen a nice demo setup where a single camera with a fairly wide lens is set up on a video wall offering a couple of dozen discrete views).

      Also, I would argue with the logic that "to spot crimes and identify perpetrators" holds any real water. I can cover my neighborhood with cameras just to be a nosy ass, without any real contribution to security.

      While I think this guy's actions are assholish at best, he does raise an excellent point.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    3. Re:Need to take great caution with this by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While I think this guy's actions are assholish at best, he does raise an excellent point.

      That his actions are assholish at best IS the entire point. Surveillance cameras are no less assholish. So if you're opposed to this guy, you must also oppose surveillance cameras.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Need to take great caution with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So if you're opposed to this guy, you must also oppose surveillance cameras.

      Surveillance cameras don't walk up to you and film you right in your face, nor do they sit down next to you while you're on the phone and record your conversation. These are two completely different scenarios where the only common factor is a video camera.

      I'm opposed to speeding on public roadways, but you don't see me picketing a NASCAR race.

    5. Re:Need to take great caution with this by mark-t · · Score: 5, Funny

      Also, surveillance cameras in public places are installed there under the authorization of people who have been democratically elected by society to preserve the best interests of that society.

    6. Re:Need to take great caution with this by staticdragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've seen plenty of security camera footage on youtube. All it takes is a desire on the part of those with the footage.

    7. Re:Need to take great caution with this by Cryacin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So are you voting Pepsi or Coke for this election?

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    8. Re:Need to take great caution with this by Kurrel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's the difference? Cameras can have extremely high resolutions, digital zoom levels, and parabolic microphones. So they can indeed film you right in your face, and record a quiet conversation, remotely. Would you rather see the cameraman walk up to you, or never know he's there?

    9. Re:Need to take great caution with this by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Surveillance cameras don't walk up to you and film you right in your face, nor do they sit down next to you while you're on the phone and record your conversation.

      Like he said, that's the point. Surveillance cameras don't do those things, which is what makes them worse, since they violate privacy to the same degree, but more discreetly.

      You're acting like it's ok that your snail mail censors reseal the envelops after they read all your mail, but there will be hell to pay if they leave the envelopes open, reminding you that your love letters have already been read by some stranger.

      I'm not saying you shouldn't be pissed at this jerk. I'm saying you should be even more pissed at someone else, who maybe you had forgotten to be pissed at.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    10. Re:Need to take great caution with this by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While I think this guy's actions are assholish at best, he does raise an excellent point.

      That his actions are assholish at best IS the entire point. Surveillance cameras are no less assholish. So if you're opposed to this guy, you must also oppose surveillance cameras.

      A person physically located a few feet away, staring intently, and not observing the social norms of personal space can be perceived as a menace by reasonable people -- that can generate a number of negative reactions, including FEAR. Adding a camera does not magically make this an innocent exercise. Nor does bringing along an ideological axe to grind.

    11. Re:Need to take great caution with this by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Funny you should mention FUD... Want an example of that? Okay, here you go (and mind that it's PDF). That was the the result of 5 seconds poking around on Google. Analyze it to your heart's content, but know that you're missing the point of the exercise - read on and you'll see why...

      Like I said in the previous post:
      "Even if he were perfectly non-liable in civil court and perfectly innocent of any criminal charges, the time, effort, money, and potential loss of freedom (e.g. while awaiting trial) would be more than enough to make his life a living hell."

      Seriously - in your rush to 'win' a 'debate', you missed the point entirely: It doesn't matter if it applies to him or not. Doesn't matter one whit if he's perfectly legit or if he's flirting with a long stint in PMITA prison. Let me repeat that: It. Does. Not. Matter. Fact is, he's still flirting with a long expensive legal process that, even if innocent/non-liable, will cost him a shitload of money, time, and possibly freedom.

      All it takes is someone with an axe to grind with the guy, and who can find a lawyer dumb enough to do it on contingency. The rest equals upwards of a year+ of one very expensive living hell for the gent in TFA.

      Do you understand what I was getting at now?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    12. Re:Need to take great caution with this by Golddess · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cameras can have extremely high resolutions, digital zoom levels, and parabolic microphones. So they can indeed film you right in your face, and record a quiet conversation, remotely.

      1) It's not about the resulting image, it's about the physical device invading ones personal space. You might not think the distinction matters, but I'm sure for most people, it matters greatly.
      2) With the right camera, you can also see heat patterns through walls. But just because someone is ok with one type of recording done at a distance (recording images in the visible spectrum), doesn't mean they are ok with all types of recording done as a distance.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    13. Re:Need to take great caution with this by poity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think there could be other factors at play here besides our initial theory that this is all about expectation of privacy, for example an expectation of not being singled out or not being made a public spectacle.

      I wonder how people would react if someone carried around a camera on a tall pole with a conspicuous sign saying "This camera is recording you" WITHOUT singling out anyone or following anyone. If there is no difference in reaction, then it's evidence that privacy is indeed the primary concern, but if there is a difference in reaction then perhaps considerations other than privacy is the primary concern.

      Something to think about before jumping to conclusions.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    14. Re:Need to take great caution with this by myowntrueself · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So are you voting Pepsi or Coke for this election?

      I'd vote Dr Pepper but they don't have big corporate sponsors pouring bazillions of $$$ into their campaign so I'm not allowed to.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    15. Re:Need to take great caution with this by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not about the resulting image, it's about the physical device invading ones personal space.

      Ignorance is bliss.

      If the camera is across the street and recording my conversation or the camera is in my face recording the conversation, the only difference is that I'm aware of the camera in my face.

    16. Re:Need to take great caution with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let me get this straight. He's doing something non-violent and *LEGAL*, but you hope that someone "kicks the shit out of him".

      You think the proper response for *not* committing an illegal act is to commit assault and battery?

      Tool.

    17. Re:Need to take great caution with this by cyn1c77 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also, surveillance cameras in public places are installed there under the authorization of people who have been democratically elected by society to preserve the best interests of that society.

      What about the video cameras in privately owned "public" spaces, like the mall or Starbucks. Or the changing room at your favorite clothing store?

    18. Re:Need to take great caution with this by foofish · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is an extra annoyance factor of having something (or this guy) IN YOUR FACE though. Would you say that a fly buzzing around across the street is just as annoying as a fly buzzing around your face?

    19. Re:Need to take great caution with this by artor3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      if you're opposed to this guy, you must also oppose surveillance cameras.

      That doesn't follow. I'm opposed to random strangers pulling me over while I'm driving, but I recognize that cops sometimes need to. I'm opposed to random strangers going through my bags, but it's okay if the TSA scans them for bombs. I'm opposed to creepy fuckers* filming me on the streets, but I have no problem with ATM's having built-in cameras.

      *(though not this particular one, since he's just making a political statement)

      Intent matters. If you're doing something for the public good, and you show restraint, then that's very different from someone with unknown or unseemly motives. The restraint is important. Going back to my earlier examples, cops pulling people over on fishing expeditions is bad. So is the TSA groping people for ... I don't even know what their reasoning is. So is mounting cameras at every street corner.

      Things aren't as black and white as you'd like them to be.

    20. Re:Need to take great caution with this by SomePgmr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's illegal and what deserves an ass kicking have two very different criteria.

      But there are a number of places I can think of where I would like to see that guy try this stunt. None of them are at a Starbucks in a nice neighborhood.

    21. Re:Need to take great caution with this by jalopezp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If freedom of speech is not respected for fascists, then it may not be respected for anyone. Hate speech is always ambiguously defined, and where the line is today, it may not be tomorrow. I'd have thought that with your sig you'd be more inclined to shame and pity racism than to ban it. Finally, if nazi marches were outlawed, no one would have proved their worth in Cable Street.

  2. Public vs private by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of course many would like to think that "public" surveillence camera are safer with pre-screened employees. Given the abuse, injure, rob, thieve record of TSA, the kill-sorry-wrong-house adventures of various city and federal agencies, and various asset forfeiture abuses these past 25 years, is no strong reason to believe this more than the tooth fairy.

    1. Re:Public vs private by inKubus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Right, it's classic cognitive dissonance due to imperfect information. You can't see the security guard watching the surveillance camera video, so you assume it's fine. Whereas on the street, you are afforded more of a choice and so you take it. Unfortunately this, from an economic prospective, puts security guards with access to surveillance footage at a relative advantage to everyone else as far as having access to video. But what people don't take into account is that the kind of people who are attracted to the job are also the people who enjoy having that relative advantage. Thus, over time, it's likely the worst people you'd want to have access to video footage of you will have it and the people you'd most want to have it won't. Video is video, and that's the point this guy is trying to make. Just because you can face your accuser in this case doesn't make what he's doing any WORSE than other surveilance. But people feel it is because they associate it with a person. Any strong power that can make use of this advantage will have a very strong position of power due to the information imbalance.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
  3. So, To Summarize... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Person with no concept of personal space gets in someone's personal space to make a point about a topic completely unrelated to personal space.

    1. Re:So, To Summarize... by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "You even look like a dumb fuck."

      Funniest part of the video and sums up my feelings on the whole project. This has nothing to do with surveillance and everything to do with a sociopath making people uncomfortable.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:So, To Summarize... by Ichijo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, it can be uncomfortable to have your beliefs or your security measures challenged, but sometimes they need to be.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    3. Re:So, To Summarize... by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the dude had no camera, it would be almost the same thing. Walk up to a guy sitting in a car and just stare in the window. Sit down at a table with someone talking on the phone. Stare in through a plate-glass window at someone eating, then when they move, follow them inside. No camera, the reaction would have been the same.

      I get the point he was trying to make. I may even agree a bit. He just did a horrendous job of making that point and instead behaved like a sociopath, and because he had a camera rolling we get to see what people do when sociopaths interact with normal (or even abnormal) people.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  4. If He's Trying to Prove a Point... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why isn't he following politicians and LEO's?

    Seriously, man, I hate ubiquitous surveillance as-much-if-not-more than the next guy - following me around doesn't prove anything, except that you're an asshole with entirely too much free time.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  5. The difference... by skelly33 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the difference is that you never know what some a-hole private individual is going to do with video footage of you including, but not limited to:

    * Adding it to his private collection of masturbation material
    * Posting it on YouTube for everyone to enjoy a good laugh at your expense
    * Modify the material and use it for blackmail/extortion/public humiliation
    * Worse?

    With corporate cameras, odds are much higher that the footage is going onto a temporary buffer which will eventually (usually 1 week to 1 month kind of time frame) be wiped out and replaced by the next day's worth of footage. With corporate cameras, the fixed field of view, the image is general. With an asshat like this guy, you are specifically targeted (reference list above as to why that is a problem). Occasionally we see these situations in the news such as TSA staff intercepting and/or duplicating video/images of passengers moving through the line. That is not acceptable behavior. When they are caught, they should be terminated as their actions are inappropriate.

    1. Re:The difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I fail to see the difference if it's some a-hole with his own camera or an a-hole in a room in a building working for someone. Sure, they might be afraid of losing their job if they do the wrong thing, but at the end of the day it's still some creep looking at pictures of you.

      Besides, the real problem here is that we DON'T know what anyone's doing with surveillance photos - doesn't matter who the individual is. I know it's easier to get upset at one person, because he has a face and he gets up in yours. But that doesn't change the reality of the surveillance situation.

      At least he's calling attention to the issue, even if it pisses people off. Not in a classy way, not in a particular intelligent or friendly way, but he's doing it.

    2. Re:The difference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I did some IT work for a surveillance company once and you know what they do when they're bored? Go through old video looking for "weirdos", "sexy bitches" and criminal activity just for the LULZ

      So if you think that passive eyeball hanging in the roof doesn't somehow connect to a weak and demented human being at some point in the chain you're delusional.

      It's also kind of freaky where some cameras are, take a good close look to the "jumble o' crap" wall in a chain coffee store, you might be surprised to find a camera hiding the eye of that cute teddy bear or part of that quaint "tile" fresco :-/

  6. His actions/presence MAKE it different by justsomecomputerguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    His antics are DIFFERENT because he is a PERSON, and he keeps getting right up in other peoples face (within distance to physically touch or be touched) A much better test that would eliminate the CREEPY GUY factor, would be to just mount a camera on a tripod and place it by the doorway of a building or even in the middle of a crowd or public square and then walk away from it. Maybe have it mounted on a stand that can turn and focus... I could should that people were "afraid of balloons" if I stepped right up in there faces and stared at them while holding balloons. Possibly interesting idea executed very lamely. Next.

  7. Re:File this under.. by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He's not trying to make a right. He's trying to call attention to a wrong.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  8. thought provoking, could be better done. by Fubari · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Certainly thought provoking.
    It could be done more interestingly, perhaps operating in an area with a public facing surveillance cam. Then he could engage passers by in conversations more like: "Why are you taking a video?" "Do you think there is a difference between what I'm doing and what that camera over there is doing?" As it is, he just seems to be irritating people and not planting any seeds for future thought.

    I say this after watching the second video here ..
    0:23 shopper exits store
    shopper: "Can I ask who you are?"
    video guy: "What."
    shopper: "What are you doing?"
    video guy: "Oh I'm taking a video."
    shopper: "Of what?"
    video guy: "Just a video."
    shopper: "Why are you taking a video?"
    video guy: "Why not?"
    shopper: "I don't really care for other people just to be taking a random video of me."
    video guy: "Didn't you just come out of the drug store?"
    shopper: "Yeah"
    video guy: "They have cameras in there."
    shopper: "So?"
    shopper: gets on bike, rides off.

    (The other interactions go down hill from there.)

  9. Re:hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    The engrish is strong with this one.

  10. Re:This is (probably) illegal... by dills · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's no expectation of privacy in public, therefore it's exempt.

  11. Re:Stalking vs Surveillance by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Stationary surveillance is not obtrusive. This guy is obstructing the persons' line of sight and getting in their way.

    I watched one of his videos. Typically, people notice him and move in *his* direction. Others appear to intentionally go out of their way to swat at him (wouldn't that be assault?) Another time a guy started walking away, only to turn around and swat at him. One time he sat down at a table with someone else. Another time he was video taping someone through a window. A few times he was looking into someone's parked car from beside it, which is hardly "in their way".

    Not a single time did he intentionally get in anyone's way. Not a single time did he block anyone's line of sight, until they intentionally turned to face him. Sounds to me like you're just making shit up and didn't bother to watch the videos to make sure your claims could withstand 5 minutes of verification.

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
  12. Omnipresent AI in a Multiplayer Game by Sibko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's a sandbox game I play from time to time called Space Station 13, usually as the AI. It's a 2D multiplayer RPG/roguelike of sorts, and much like Dwarf Fortress or MUD's, not the easiest thing to get into.

    I mostly play on /tg/ server 2 as Wintermote, an AI that enjoys monitoring all communications and drama going on around the space station. The AI has a lot of tools at its disposal for doing this - you can change frequencies on a room's intercom; using its microphone to transmit and eavesdrop on nearby conversations over a private channel, you can hack into the PDA messaging system and read every single private message sent between players on their PDA's (think, tablets/phones), and you have cameras covering nearly the entire station so that you can see almost everything that is happening.

    The curious thing I've noticed is that nobody ever cares about the spying /until/ it both involves them and is specifically brought to their attention. The Head of Security doesn't care that I'm spying on two scientists in the bomb testing lab, but if she finds out I'm spying on her in the interrogation room where she's beating a prisoner to death, wellll suddenly it's creepy and weird.

    What is more interesting is that when a player dies, they become an observer in the round and can hear and see /everything/; moreso even than an AI, because the AI is limited by game considerations - intercoms, power, working computer systems, etc. Every player knows that anything they say can and probably /is/ being seen by another player who is currently dead in the round.

    So an interesting story relating to this: I see the librarian and a medical doctor in the library having a rather private conversation - I turn on the intercom and eavesdrop, and then comment on something one of them said, I was immediately told to stop listening, and the two then turned off their intercom. An admin shortly thereafter made all dead players visible. The librarian and doctor were surrounded by a swarm of ghosts, all listening to their conversation. Once it was done, they immediately stopped their conversation and departed the library, but the dead players had always been there, listening. Both the Librarian and Doctor knew that dead players or the AI could hear anything they said, but they continued their conversation until it was made directly apparent (By an admin making dead players visible, or by me speaking to them) that someone was dropping eaves. It was only at /that/ point that it became an issue and they decided to stop and continue some other time.

    I've asked players if they mind if I spy on them, and the response is almost always "I don't mind, so long as you don't interject or comment about things, or tell other people".

    Basically, out of sight, out of mind. People generally don't care that I see/hear what they're doing, so long as I don't bring it up or mention it. And that, I think, relates to this article - the government CCTV cameras and ubiquitous surveillance isn't really made apparent to people. You don't have a government agent calling you up and saying that he listened to that conversation you just had on the phone, and that he found that one joke really hilarious.

    In the back of your mind, you know or think you know the government is spying on you like that, but it isn't really shoved in your face and it doesn't really impact you, and so people ignore it. It's only when it's brought to a person's attention that they ever give a shit.

    And that is exactly what this man is doing. He's shoving the surveillance into people's faces, to try and get them to give a shit. I fear, however, that instead of fighting against the government surveillance - which he is trying to bring to their attention - people are just going to fight against /him/.

  13. Privacy != Personal Space by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, you are confusing yourself because you have an ideological axe to grind.

    AC and MightyYar brought up the topic of "personal space". Privacy and personal space are not necessarily related at all. My privacy may be approximately nil in a crowd, while the crowd could still be very respectful of my personal space. Likewise, a full body cavity search may not violate my privacy in any important way (depending on my personal attitude about my details of biology), while it has everything to do with personal space.

    He is violating social taboos very dear to most people, and violence is a likelihood. Juries are not going to sympathize with this fellow any more than they would sympathize with a naked man caught masturbating in front of a grade school.

    Furthermore actions very close to another's personal space that a reasonable person might construe as purposefully menacing can be grounds for assault. "Assault", unlike "battery" does not require any actual physical contact. All it takes is a jury to believe "he scared me" from one victim and this guy could be in the hospital as warm up for his time in jail.

  14. My Hero by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I love this guy. His point is entirely valid. The most hilarious thing about this entire situation is that all the people that are hating him, that think he should get arrested, he completely agrees with. And all the people that excuse what he's doing and try to defend him completely disagree with his point. It's the most fucked up thing ever. He shouldn't be able to do this, and neither should businesses, the government or anyone else. He's pointing out just how creepy it is and saying wake the fuck up.

  15. Re:Stalking vs Surveillance by war4peace · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What makes me wonder is that pretty much NOBODY managed to handle the issue gracefully. I was trying to put myself in their shoes and I am positive I would have started to talk to the guy, trying to find his reasons, in a polite way. I don't mind being filmed as long as I can find the reason.
    Almost everyone being filmed there, on the other hand, acted aggressively, from "stop" to violent movements towards the guy or even hitting him. Maybe it's a different culture, maybe taught privacy is so strong that people forget reasoning and start acting irrationally.

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  16. Re:Stalking vs Surveillance by Ksevio · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or more likely, the people that handled the issue gracefully were too boring to upload, so he moved on.

  17. Re:Stalking vs Surveillance by Bardez · · Score: 3

    The videos are clearly edited to make people look more like assholes. You can see time gaps in the first one linked in TFA, and the later ones are edited a bit less obviously.

    --
    Perception is the thin dividing line between reality and fiction.