Slashdot Mirror
The Coming War Against Personal Photography and Video
Lauren Weinstein writes "Are you ready for the imagery war — the war against personal photography and capturing of video? You'd better be. 'In some cities, like New York, the surveillance-industrial complex has its fangs deeply into government for the big bucks. It's there we heard the Police Commissioner — just hours ago, really — claim that "privacy is off the table." And of course, there's the rise of wearable cameras and microphones by law enforcement, generally bringing praise from people who assume they will reduce police misconduct, but also dangerously ignoring a host of critical questions. Will officers be able to choose when the video is running? How will the video be protected from tampering? How long will it be archived? Can it be demanded by courts? ... All of this and more is the gung-ho, government surveillance side of the equation. But what about the personal photography and video side? What of individual or corporate use of these technologies in public and private spaces? Will the same politicians promoting government surveillance in all its glory take a similar stance toward nongovernmental applications? Writing already on the wall suggests not. Inklings of the battles to come are already visible, if you know where to look."
so many questions and not any answers - the article serves just as a flamewar starter and has little point in it.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
And can lie just like everybody else.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
I really think the google glass "OMG people are recording me!" hysteria and demand for legal policy action to govern their use is overblown.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something, and if your behavior (or potential behavior) is too creepy, society avoids or shuns you.
Since smartphones became ubiquitous, yes, you can sit down at a restaurant with someone and ignore them, instead fiddling with your phone. We call such people boors, and do not invite them to dinner again.
Bluetooth headsets are great for carrying on phone conversations when it would be difficult (or dangerous) to hold the phone up to your ear. I use mine when driving, or when I'm working and would like to be able to type while I'm talking. However, if you show up to a party wearing your bluetooth headset, people will think you are a douchebag, and will not invite you to another party.
The same thing will happen with google glass. I posted a month ago about how I'd like a pair just to display instructions/schematics while I'm working on a project, or to record myself while I disassemble something in case I can't figure out how to put it back together later. However, I don't think I would wear them at all times. I would only wear them when I have a real need for the additional display/record abilities for work or hobby.
Society will solve the problem by itself. When your friend shows up to your party wearing his stupid Glass headset, call him a douchebag and tell him to take it off. When you're out to dinner with somebody and they put on their headset, tell them, "Hey, take those off and talk to me, not look at furry porn on your stupid glasses." People generally don't want others to feel uncomfortable around them. When most people would feel uncomfortable talking to someone wearing such a headset, they will get the message and take the stupid things off when it's inappropriate to wear them.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
A police officer's testimony is all that is needed for most convictions. Adding a microphone and camera is sort of redundant. Police have eyes, ears, and memory.
Must see: http://www.ted.com/talks/scott_fraser_the_problem_with_eyewitness_testimony.html
Scott Fraser is a forensic psychologist who encourages a more scientific approach to trial evidence
Tell your friends about xenu.net
David Brin's settings in his novels Earth and Kiln People included ubiquitous surveillance, and it was a primary topic in his nonfiction work, The Transparent Society.
This "coming war" is just the birthing pains of the kind of society he predicts, wherein everyone wears cameras akin to Google Glass, the government records and monitors video everywhere, and privacy is a luxury available only to the wealthy and/or the criminal classes. (Not much of a distinction between the two anymore...)
I can see the fnords!
FYI, in Russia even buying anything resembling *hidden* camera may easily get you into jail. There were several cases of guys buying stuff like a camera hidden inside pen and getting several years of jailtime for it. As of dashcams, which are legal because they don't qualify as hidden cameras, while far from eliminating police corruption, they DO help in some cases against corrupt policement, and that's one of the reasons why they're so popular.
...and leave. There are many places in the world where these problems don't exist. Most of them are about a 30 minute drive east of where you live now.
you've stayed in a city that's growing -- in density. that includes people, companies, buildings, as well as laws, cameras, crime, and traffic, and pollution, and dirt, and homeless, and tax.
30 minutes east, you'll find the number of people that your city had thirty years ago. you'll find even fewer cameras. you'll find that the city's laws don't exist or aren't enforced. you'll find plenty of internet, movies, groceries, neighbours, schools, hospitals, and -- get this -- roads. you'll find much less traffic. you'll find your mortgage less than half of what it was, and your home twice as big. you'll find less competition for jobs, less expensive service for everything, and even gas will be 3% cheaper (I haven't figured out why though).
and you can still always drive back into the city in 30 minutes. oh yeah, and the train is express, and is likely faster than your current commute anyway.
enjoy sharing your city life with a few million people and those who regulate them. life's a lot better with 95% fewer humans. you get more life.
-1 Flamebait Title
The coming war? The second paragraph of the article contradicts the title. Against Personal Photography and Video? The first two-thirds of the summary talks about surveillance by the authorities.
-1 Blog posting written like TV news
The author (who is also the submitter, promoting his own blog as a slashdot story) writes in a voice that mimics a TV news personality, asking lots of questions, sometimes answering them, sometimes forgetting to answer them, blusters a lot but doesn't provide any new information.
-1 Blog post makes many expansive claims but does not cite any sources
The author claims there are plans and laws and pushes and a whole lot of other things without citing any sources. It's like listening to the guy at the bar grumbling about how the government's coming for his guns.
-1 Even the author's wikipedia page is sketchy
The wikipedia page for Lauren Weinstein points out it "includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations."
-1 Author says the sky is falling, offers no solutions
Near the end of the blog posting, he says "I don't have a 'magic wand' solution for this situation." In other words, an "OMG! Cameras are everywhere! I don't know what to do about it!" blog post is worthy of consideration by the slashdot masses?
Any police officer halfway competent at abusing his power would use a similar trick to get rid of any 'official' recording. He'd forget to turn the camera on, or damage the memory card at the end of the shift. He could also get past any victim's recording quite easily, by either confiscating the camera or using threats and intimidation to get them to hand over the memory card, and his boss's would (and are) lobby for laws banning recording on-duty officers to avoid scandal.
To use camera to fight corruption, I think two things are required:
1. The victim must be able to record events without the knowledge of the police officer. That means no whipping out the mobile phone or camera, or even wearing glasses with an obvious camera function.
2. There must be a means to use this video against the officer, allowing for the fact that he may be backed up by the rest of his department and by court officials and politicians reluctant to cast their system in doubt. The only means I see for this would be going public: If the video of the officer clearly breaking the law is put on youtube and sent to every media outlet, the public outrage would be so great that those above the officer would have no choice but to fire him to save their own skin.
Even then you still have to deal with possible retaliation: Reveal one officer abusing his power, and his co-workers will avenge him by trashing your house in an aggressive search following an 'anonymous' tip-off about a drug dealer operating from that address.
While the author has some good points, she also has his tinfoil adjusted just a bit to tightly... because while he rails against the [big, bad, ebil] gub'ment, and the [equally big, bad, and ebil] survelliance-industrial "complex" (he really hits all the buzzwords and hot buttons nicely I must admit)... Pretty much nowhere does he actually address or provide much (if anything) of support to the nominal thesis of the piece.
So this pretty much seems to be a chance for him to get hits and 'net cred by namechecking the Boston bombings, and since it's a slow news day and nothing else has come along... for Slashdot to get it's daily Two Minute Hate.
A jury might give a shit about it. Video evidence is some of the most convincing evidence there is. Ubiquitous cameras won't stop an angry cop from stomping your face in, but a hidden camera that he doesn't know about might help you sue the city for hundreds of thousands afterword and prevent you from rotting in prison for years on trumped up "cover charges" afterward.
I wouldn't have an "assault and battery against a police officer" on my record now if I had had a recording of the event that showed how the cop just made everything up in his story. It's hard to prove that you didn't do something while the camera was turned off but a video that shows an entirely different sequence of events from those in the official police report is simply gold and will tend to sway a jury away from their natural where-there-is-smoke-there-is-fire prejudice against you and in favor of the cop.
I think requiring the police to have video evidence of their probable cause/reasonable suspicion or of the alleged crime itself before they can even legally make an arrest would do a great deal to control police violence against the public. Basically it should be assumed that anything a cop says is a lie until/unless proven otherwise on video. Currently we have the reverse situation where police are assumed to be 100% perfect law-abiding angels until/unless a video demonstrates otherwise. This is why most cops hate video.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
The Rodney King beating was taped with a video camera you could not have fit in a shoebox. Now, of course, you can do decent video with a camera you can hide in your hand.
There are certain minima to the light-collecting-spot enforced by the laws of optics, of course, but it seems clear that the police will soon not be able to tell whether they are being video'd or just watched. Glasses? They'll look like shirt buttons. And folks who know in advance the location of the police action (say, protestors) will be able to carpet an area with cameras that are very hard to spot.
A lot of cameras will just be running all the time, pointing in four directions from every bicycle helmet and car, for use in accident investigations. Anything that happens in front of any place of business will be on the private anti-theft video cameras of the business - this is all already true, but in a decade or so, it won't be a few businesses, a few cars, a few cyclists, it'll routinely be everybody.
A certain amount of the "war on photography" is about police pushing back against people *visibly* trying to intimidate them by sticking cameras in their faces; police do NOT like to be in any position but domineering control of a volatile situation - a big part of their training - so they push back hard when pushed, challenged, mocked in any way. Obeying the law is secondary to Controlling The Situation. (I have some sympathy there; it's basic human psychology that this keeps them safer; never back down before a crowd.) But people invisibly photographing them - well, what are they going to do, arrest everybody in sight of any stop-and-frisk and demand they all be subjected to some kind of wanding that will find all six cameras about their person? Police routinely get away with high-handed, illegal behaviour with one or two people who get in their face, but there are limits.
Nope, I think its a lost cause. Anything that happens in public sight will presumably be recorded, multiple times, more or less *automatically*, in a matter of years.
It won't take much to get the feeds from all those cameras.
It doesn't work that way. Take for instance the "terrorist" in the UK a few years ago that got run down and shot in the back of the head repeatedly. Mysteriously all of the cameras (that the uk is known for) in the area were "not working" that day. It took someone weeks of soul searching (probably hoping to collect one last paycheck) for someone to come forward and admit that the cops were lying.
Are you really going to pin your hopes and dreams on the idea that someone in your local government is going to be as honest when its your life on the line?
That sounds like a great strategy to kill Google Glass: register the domain PedoGlass.com and post fully legal videos of children taken in public places: the beach, on the way to school, making out etc. complete with time and exact location they were recorded. There's no expectation of privacy in public places, right ? Add a bunch of degenerate-looking comments complementing the kids on their looks, offers to meet up, but nothing illegal. Claim videos are recorded using Google Glass. You are on Oprah in less than a week.
It pretty much guarantees anyone caught wearing a pair of Pedo Glasses around children (i.e. everywhere) will have them beaten off their face. I love how it turns "thinking of the children" working against the police state, for a change.
Some nitwit in Vermont wants to make it illegal to photograph anyone without explicit consent (except for government surveillence, obviously)
It's illegal and severely punishable to photograph a police officer in the UK if that officer thinks it could be used for terrorism (guess who gets to make the decision on that one...)
Just a few weeks ago, a California man was brutalliy beaten by thugs-in-uniform claming that his phone was a "weapon" (because it said so on teh intarnetz!!)
In Montreal, a woman was recently arrested for taking a photo of graffiti, the claim being that it's publication on Instagram was tantamount to harrassment (note that she was not the vandal, she only took a photo
After being told to stop over a loudspeaker (in super-creepy Orwellian fasion), a photographer was forcefully arrested for taking pictures on a Metro rail in Miami
You need only browse Photography is Not a Crime for 2 minutes before you realize that this war is already happening. There's a metric shit-ton of this stuff going on, with video evidence to back it up.
As for your rhetorical questions...
Yes. Obviously.
How will the video be protected from tampering?
It won't.
How long will it be archived?
Not long enough.
Can it be demanded by courts?
Well sure, but you'll find that every time it does, the video stream is "conveniently" missing or corrupted.
Stop asking questions citizen, you're not supposed to be creative, just shut up and watch the Dumb Bimbos of Retard Valley.
His/her eyes ears and memory cannot be trusted.
All police officers should be forced to wear a camera and microphone at all times. These devices should be sealed with no on or off button. Green light means on, no light means off. They should have to pick this camera up at the beginning of their shift, and return them at the end of their shift. These devices will then have the data transfered by an authorized person, that is audited frequently. Any signs of tampering, or a failure of the officer to return and have a not operational camera replaced should result in immediate dismissal. The data should be shared with any defendants immediately. Failure to supply video of the arrest should result in a dismissal of charges against the accused.
I don't know about where you live but around here it is extremely rare, like almost unheard of, for anyone to get stopped for doing less than 10mph over the limit. I've blown through speed traps at 15 or so over many times. The only places they are really strict on is construction sites and school zones. The local sheriff is very popular and remains so by providing excellent protection while basically ignoring traffic violators unless they just get stupid. His deputies are busy patrolling businesses and residential areas to prevent burglaries and he's been doing that for over 40 years. No one bothers to even run against him.
Dash cams are popular in Russia because insurance is cheaper if you have one, their popularity has nothing to do with cops.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Not necessarily. My son, a notorious speeder in his early twenties, racked up so many tickets he was very likely to lose his license, if not go to jail (the last was for drag racing.) He must have had 8 or more tickets, all way over the speed limit, in a relatively short period of time. What did he do? Go to court for each one, made whatever argument made sense to him at the time, and ended up with only 1 ticket sticking. A few times the police didn't bother showing up in court and that's an automatic off the hook kind of thing. This wasn't but a few years ago either so you can fight city hall if you want to. And some do succeed.
It doesn't work that way. Take for instance the "terrorist" in the UK a few years ago that got run down and shot in the back of the head repeatedly. Mysteriously all of the cameras (that the uk is known for) in the area were "not working" that day.
Are you really going to pin your hopes and dreams on the idea that someone in your local government is going to be as honest when its your life on the line?
Boston Marathon.
Not only was every fixed security cam in range scoured for images, but private images were also solicited, and soon high res shots appeared via public submission of random grab shots.
At the first sign of something odd going on, in any American city, you will see every second bystander whip out a cell phone and start shooting pictures. Its everywhere. Even fender benders are photographed by uninvolved bystanders.
The cat is out of the bag, the Supreme Court has spoken, and nobody is putting down their cameras any time soon in the US.
That's not to say that all police reports are immediately to be trusted, simply that there is no place the police can hide either.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
It is my understanding that private videos helped identify the Boston terror strikers. The public has a very big stake in wanting lots and lots of private and business cams being in action.
Unlike Britain...
Mysteriously all of the cameras (that the uk is known for) in the area were "not working" that day
Which is the primary reason why I have been avoiding the UK like the plague. The UK is the prime example of what the US should not become: a police state with 1 CCTV camera per 14 people (source).
/. readers, I know you will mod this down as well)
None of my tourist of business dollars will flow to that island anymore...
(and yes, my dear English
None of my tourist of business dollars will flow to that island anymore... (and yes, my dear English /. readers, I know you will mod this down as well)
I'm English and I'd mod you up. Because I hate tourists.
(and yes, my dear English /. readers, I know you will mod this down as well)
I'm English and I used the last of my mod points yesterday; I would have modded you up. I don't like the spy cameras either.
I suspect that we will never meet:: I won't go to the USA since I don't want to be finger printed (& the rest of it) by the TSA, also it is unsafe to visit the USA since I might be arrested for doing something in my own country that is legal in my country.
The reason why is because of the rampant false claims made by professional groups of people who make it their living from causing accidents and making claims. It has nothing to do with being a snitch rather than saving your own ass and if it helps the insurance company and you save money I say good for them.
Personally I have a dash cam in my car ever since some a-hole tried to run me off the road when I would not let him in to the line of traffic because he used the shoulder (against the law here) to get to the front of the line. I wish they would offer that kind of discount here.