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.
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.
-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?
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?
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.
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.