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.)
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.
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.
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.)
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.
:(){
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.
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
/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.
/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.
/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.
/that/ point that it became an issue and they decided to stop and continue some other time.
/him/.
I mostly play on
The curious thing I've noticed is that nobody ever cares about the spying
What is more interesting is that when a player dies, they become an observer in the round and can hear and see
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
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.