FBI Says Utility Pole Surveillance Cam Locations Must Be Kept Secret (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader writes from a report via Ars Technica: A federal judge has been convinced by the FBI to block the disclosure of where the bureau has attached surveillance cams on Seattle utility poles. Ars Technica writes about how such a privacy dispute is highlighting a powerful tool the authorities are employing across the country to spy on the public with or without warrants. Ars Technica reports: "The deployment of such video cameras appears to be widespread. What's more, the Seattle authorities aren't saying whether they have obtained court warrants to install the surveillance cams. And the law on the matter is murky at best. In an e-mail to Ars, Seattle city attorney spokeswoman Kimberly Mills declined to say whether the FBI obtained warrants to install surveillance cams on Seattle City Light utility poles. 'The City is in litigation and will have no further comment,' she said. Mills suggested [Ars] speak with the FBI office in Seattle, and they did. Peter Winn [assistant U.S. attorney in Seattle] wrote to Judge Jones that the location information about the disguised surveillance cams should be withheld because the public might think they are an 'invasion of privacy.' Winn also said that revealing the cameras' locations could threaten the safety of FBI agents. And if the cameras become 'publicly identifiable,' Winn said, 'subjects of the criminal investigation and national security adversaries of the United States will know what to look for to discern whether the FBI is conducting surveillance in a particular location.'"

Comments

I can't wait for Bush to be out of office!

[Anonymous Coward]

Once we get a President who respects our rights, things will get so much better.

I can't wait for an actual transparent administration!

Re:I can't wait for Bush to be out of office!

[raymorris]

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

Re:I can't wait for Bush to be out of office!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh for crying out loud, that was funny.

someone with mod points give her a few.

Re:I can't wait for Bush to be out of office!

[AutodidactLabrat]

Oh, President who respects your rights?
Who would that be?
Not Raygun and his mail stealing
Certainly NOT either Bush who started the mass spying
And absolutely not Trump and his "no Muslims, Mexicans, Washington post reporters or any dissenters at all, punch them in the face"
You want freedom?
Vote blue

Re:I can't wait for Bush to be out of office!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! Hope and change!

Re:I can't wait for Bush to be out of office!

[camperdave]

Seems to me neither Red nor Blue is much of an option. Maybe this is the year you should vote for Orange, Green, or Purple.

Re:I can't wait for Bush to be out of office!

[AutodidactLabrat]

well, except for that "Winner take all" in Texas, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, New York and California.
Meaning no third party can win
So, what solution
Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment voiding the Electoral college
Of course, that means no more Bush v. Gores but, hey, take the bitter with the sweet (sarcasm)

Re:I can't wait for Bush to be out of office!

[Anonymous Coward]

well, except for that "Winner take all" in Texas, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, New York and California.
Meaning no third party can win

Actually this election would be ideal for a third party. With both other candidates being obvious psychopaths and close to globally hated a third party could get the majority of votes.

Re:I can't wait for Bush to be out of office!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually this election would be ideal for a third party. With both other candidates being obvious psychopaths and close to globally hated a third party could get the majority of votes.

No. The US is made up of mostly true believers who will continue to vote for their one true party as it continues to screw their interests in favor of the elite, even when their party offers them psychopaths.

Re:I can't wait for Bush to be out of office!

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol. Good luck. USA cut its own throat and is bleeding out. The USA you were tought to love and believe in as a kid is dead. Long dead. Welcome to the transformation of USA into USSR 2.0.

Re:I can't wait for Bush to be out of office!

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHAHAH. keep believing you are part of blue team, hows the last one working for your rights, freedoms, and peace.

Re:I can't wait for Bush to be out of office!

[evolutionary]

Unfortunately the desk is stacked so that will NOT. Clinton is has no issue with not disclosing activities of the government (see her own email server for details :D). She didn't do anything during her term as Lady of the House, or as Secretary of State to affect Obama's increasing liberal policies when it came to warrantless surveillance, and Trump would tell people if the FBI/CIA wants it's the public should have it to protect us from the deadly "foreigners". Saunders was the only candidate who might give any concern about transparency but I'm not sure even he would address this (although more likely than the others based in history). We have a fixed decks, where our votes are hijacked by "representatives" of private parties. so, don't hold your breath. The Constitution is dead as is the founding father's vision (is in fact there was any). Lincoln would be in tears if he saw this.

Re:I can't wait for Bush to be out of office!

[Creepy]

And will vindicate their choice by saying they had to do it because the other party winning because they supported a third is an even worse option. Too bad we don't have RCV; I will always vote for a third party first, but see Hillary as a slightly lesser evil to Donald based on racism and misogyny/

As far as ignorant stupidity goes, they both win. We've heard tons about Trump, but Hillary saying "People Under FBI Investigation Should Lose Constitutional Rights." Um, Hillary, innocent until proven guilty? Or how about how you propose to do that? Reveal everyone's FBI record and skip having a FOIA request to get that? That sounds rather invasive - why not put cameras in everybody's home like Seattle is doing and hide it from the public (I'm kidding, but that sounds like a wonderful Big Brother scenario, right, because why the fuck not?).

Re:I can't wait for Bush to be out of office!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right! Maybe next time if you just vote harder democracy will work!

Re:I can't wait for Bush to be out of office!

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Obama, despite his promises to be a transparent administration, has been kind of the opposite of that. Neither Red nor Blue respect rights.

Re:I can't wait for Bush to be out of office!

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

I hadn't heard that she said that; it's especially funny because she is under FBI investigation. By her logic, maybe she shouldn't be able to run for President until the investigation is over.

Re:I can't wait for Bush to be out of office!

[AutodidactLabrat]

What do I believe that is wrong?
I believe people will eventually figure out that lying for profit is evil
I've believed that for 52 years.
Trump proves me wrong so far

Re:I can't wait for Bush to be out of office!

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Are you just replying to my sig, or the comment itself?

Re:I can't wait for Bush to be out of office!

[camperdave]

Not harder, just differently.

Re:I can't wait for Bush to be out of office!

[Coren22]

That would be a perfect outcome, but I have a feeling that powerful people like her would suddenly be under much quieter investigation instead.

Well, yes.

[msauve]

"Peter Winn [assistant U.S. attorney in Seattle] wrote to Judge Jones that the location information about the disguised surveillance cams should be withheld because the public might think they are an 'invasion of privacy.' "

If the public thinks they're an invasion of privacy, they are, by definition (since that indicates a public expectation of privacy), whether their location is disclosed or not. Big Brother Peter Winn is watching you.

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

Peter Winn is arguing the latter.

Re:Well, yes.

[locopuyo]

Score:1, Troll.

I see the fbi has mod points.

Re:Well, yes.

[swillden]

If the public thinks they're an invasion of privacy, they are, by definition (since that indicates a public expectation of privacy), whether their location is disclosed or not.

Maybe, maybe not. The principle that there is no expectation of privacy in public places is pretty firmly established in the law. The fact that some members of the public don't think so doesn't change that. If, in fact, a large majority of the public feels like they should have an expectation of privacy on a public street then perhaps you have an argument, but it's probably one that should be made via the relevant lawmaking bodies, not something that courts should take it upon themselves to change.

I do think that this is an aspect of the law that we should think seriously about changing. The approach that has been established over the last century or so was eminently reasonable in the past because there were natural obstacles that limited the amount of surveillance that could be done. It had to be restricted only to high-value targets because it was very expensive, requiring lots of people to do the watching and recording.

Technology has changed that. Today it's feasible to establish comprehensive 24x7 surveillance of large areas, and to record all of it for on-demand analysis. In the near future it will be possible to build AI search systems that can quickly scan huge masses of stored surveillance data to search for specific people, or highlight particular actions. This means that a quantitative difference in the amount of surveillance that can realistically be done created a qualitative difference in the sort of surveillance that can be done, and how it can be used and abused. A qualitative difference that arguably means that actions in a public place *should* carry some expectation of privacy, even if it's just that the expectation is that only people who are present will observe them. Well, plus those who happen to be there and record them for some specific purpose, and maybe those with whom they share those recordings.

That last sentence highlights that this is a really sticky question. If I happen to be doing something in a public street, and someone else is taking video of their kid riding their bike for the first time, and they happen to include me in the frame, and they post that video on YouTube, have they invaded my privacy? I don't think so. Saying that they have basically eliminates the notion of a "public place" entirely.

But clearly there is a difference when some large entity records all actions in a large area at all times and archives them all for later use. What, exactly is the difference? How, exactly, do we draw the line?

These issues are subtle, and these questions are not easy. I think courts should not be trying to decide them, so I think the court did the right thing in just applying existing precedent that there is no expectation of privacy in a public place.

Re:Well, yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

His argument is tantamount to "but if they find out all of the terrible things we're doing, they'll not like it", which is perfectly reasonable. I would want to conceal such things too, but the difference is that I would be considered a criminal if I did it. The FBI is above the law.

Re:Well, yes.

[Qzukk]

If the government believes that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on these streets, then why do they seem quite angry when we suggest that the cameras they have installed on the streets also have no expectation of privacy?

Re:Well, yes.

[msauve]

"no expectation of privacy in public places" is a vast oversimplification. A National Park is a public place, and I believe the vast majority of the public would have a reasonable expectation of privacy while in the back country, especially if they looked around and didn't see anyone before they peed on a bush. Similarly, I think there can be a reasonable expectation of privacy even in an urban environment which is violated by a deliberately disguised/concealed camera. One reasonably expects to be able to see any watchers as well as they see them in order to make a determination of how private the situation is. The law recognizes this in other areas - you can look into someone's windows if you're standing in plain sight on the sidewalk, but you're a peeping Tom if you're hiding in the bushes (i.e. the subject couldn't be reasonably expected to know they were being watched). Why should government actions be any different?

Re:Well, yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Right now it is literally the CIA monitoring Slashdot, not the FBI.

4sur3

Re:Well, yes.

[ATMAvatar]

That last sentence highlights that this is a really sticky question. If I happen to be doing something in a public street, and someone else is taking video of their kid riding their bike for the first time, and they happen to include me in the frame, and they post that video on YouTube, have they invaded my privacy? I don't think so. Saying that they have basically eliminates the notion of a "public place" entirely.

But clearly there is a difference when some large entity records all actions in a large area at all times and archives them all for later use. What, exactly is the difference? How, exactly, do we draw the line?

The big difference is that spread around a large enough area, government surveillance is much closer to someone following you around with a camera all day than someone who just happens to catch you while photographing or video recording something else.

If an individual did it, you would be really creeped-out, and if it happened more than once, you'd probably try to obtain a restraining order. It doesn't matter that you can't expect a particular moment in time is private - it's extremely unnerving when you feel like someone is following you.

Or, looking at it from another perspective - how would anyone feel if they saw police officers standing on every street intersection every hour of every day? Would you feel happy, safe and secure?

I can't speak for anyone else, but it would make my neighborhood start to feel more like a prison to me. I remember my last year of high school years ago, when someone decided it was a good idea to have a couple police patrolling the halls, despite having no incidents to warrant it. It was pretty alarming, and I was glad I was leaving soon.

I cannot fathom why so many people accept the current surveillance state. It puts unprecedented power in the hands of government, and there is little evidence that it has produced any meaningful benefit to doing so. Yet, it seems like every time someone brings up their discomfort at something or another, there's a chorus of people who chime in either how they should accept it because they shouldn't expect privacy or because it's really been going on for a long time, so they should be used to it by now.

Re:Well, yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

A National Park is a public place, and I believe the vast majority of the public would have a reasonable expectation of privacy while in the back country, especially if they looked around and didn't see anyone before they peed on a bush.

Well, I suppose it is nice to have a "belief" system, but there is no expectation of privacy while in the backcountry. I travel the backcountry 300+ days a year. Many of the reasons that people go to the backcountry involve things like rifle scopes, binoculars and high-powered cameras.

Re:Well, yes.

[ChrisMaple]

The primary source of a right to privacy is the right to property. You own your house, by right you control what is acceptable there (limited to not violating the rights of others.) WalMart owns its stores, and (I presume) prohibits people from photographing people in bathrooms and dressing rooms.

A secondary source of a right to privacy has evolved from case law, which has developed alongside the "reasonable expectation" idea. The problem with "reasonable expectation" is that it's hard to quantify without a long list of examples or some explicit underlying principle.

Some states have "paparazzi" laws that have to do with abusive photography in public places. These might be stretched to prohibit surveillance in public places without warrant, or (better) new laws should be considered to limit the practice.

Consider also that there are many open places where continuous recording via CCTV is a good thing: 24 hour gas stations in bad neighborhoods where carjacking is a risk, streets around schools, government offices and military installations where kidnapping and firebombs or RPGs are not unreasonable expectations, etc.

I don't like widespread use of government cameras, and hidden government cameras without warrant seem to me to be a real abuse. Legislation needs to catch up to technology, and it needs to be clearly grounded in human rights.

Re:Well, yes.

[CaptainDork]

Both of these points are well taken. However, let's turn the tables.

What I'm about to suggest is something I've thought a lot about.

Let's trade tit for tat.

Let's let the cameras stay. Additionally, let's allow the public to view the cameras in public and record their presence to the public.

Spying has always been a two way street.

We see where citizens are recording police. That's fair. The police work for the public, and what they do is often in public view. Their salaries belong to the public. Their weapons, safety equipment and their actions while on duty belong to the public.

The same applies to the FBI or the CIA or the NSA or a governor or a congressperson or a mayor or a street sweeper.

Let's all spy on each other and call it even.

Re:Well, yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we haven't yet established whether or not those cameras are installed on public streets. They could be renting private office space somewhere looking out to the public space.

Re:Well, yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, maybe not. The principle that there is no expectation of privacy in public places is pretty firmly established in the law.

Perhaps, but this is the same BS rhetoric they drag out when questioned about the use of Stingrays in locations that overlap residential areas where people talking on the phone while within their own residence *DO* have an expectation of privacy. Law enforcement also has their mantra of "If you are not breaking the law you have nothing to hide", so by their very own logic, they must know the locations of these cameras violates the law and thus wants to hide those locations.

Re:Well, yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

because terrorists, and pedophiles, and people who talk in movie theaters.

Re:Well, yes.

[swillden]

One reasonably expects to be able to see any watchers as well as they see them in order to make a determination of how private the situation is.

Do you really? You can attempt to determine if you're being watched, but you generally can't achieve the same level of assurance that you can in a private place. There can always be someone peering through a bush, or looking out through a window -- possibly from some distance away, with a telescope. And while it's true that if I use a telescope to look into your house through an unshaded window the law will probably view me as a peeping tom, I do not think it will do the same if you're in the middle of the street -- even if when you glance around you believe that you're unobserved.

All of this really boils down to what a reasonable person would expect, and I don't think a reasonable person would expect to have privacy in the street, even if they don't happen to see any watchers.

But I do think a reasonable person would expect not to have their every public movement recorded in a database for later searching and tracking. Actually, that seems unreasonable even if the cameras are plainly visible. So I think it's more about the database and the searchability than the ability of the person to see the watchers. But I also think it's sufficiently unclear that judges should avoid making law in this area.

Re:Well, yes.

[swillden]

Yes, this is the "sousveillance" approach. It definitely has its advantages. But there are disadvantages, too, such as the fact that every citizen can use it to track the movements of whoever they're interested in following. I'm not sure I want to live in such a completely transparent society, even though as a parent I think it would be convenient.

Re:Well, yes.

[swillden]

The big difference is that spread around a large enough area, government surveillance is much closer to someone following you around with a camera all day than someone who just happens to catch you while photographing or video recording something else.

You just restated what I said, without actually identifying what the difference is, or where the line is.

Re:Well, yes.

[justthinkit]

This will lead to a massive increase in number of cameras.

Likely scenario: Bob finds out that a camera watches him steal strawberries, so he puts up a very specific blocking thingy. Feds want to catch the strawberry thief and so put up more cameras to get around the blocking thingy. Bob finds a way to steal more strawberries. Feds install more cameras. Kodak wishes they were film cameras. Kingston gets the storage contract. Bob buys a used tank, then crafts a removable floor in it...

Re:Well, yes.

[bingoUV]

That is why the burqah deserves more respect than it gets. Way ahead of its time.

Re:Well, yes.

[bingoUV]

The cycle stops as soon as Bob thinks of getting a bear suit.

Re:Well, yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he meant that he wouldn’t be liable for indecent public exposition for peeing on a bush in a forest, as he'd be for peeing on a bush in a city park.

Re:Well, yes.

[almechist]

Just because the cameras are in public places, that does NOT necessarily mean that the police are only surveilling public spaces. My city has many cameras at intersections etc.and I happen to know someone who's been in the control room for those cameras, he says they can zoom in on cars and see everything the driver and passengers are doing - the phrase he actually used was, "they can count the change in your pocket." I would submit that most people have a reasonable expectation that the little things they do and say in their private vehicles with the windows closed is not public activity. Similarly, a camera mounted on a power pole outside a residence might be aimed at the bedroom window, and when zoomed and filtered can certainly see what's going on in there. Obviously, what happens in bedrooms is private, or privacy means nothing. You can't just say that all cameras in public areas are non-intrusive because, well, it's public. Today's cameras have capabilities that render that argument invalid.

Re:Well, yes.

[rtb61]

A whole bunch of three letter agencies have mod points. In fact forums across the board are full of professional trolls, likely the majority of the first 10 posts in any article to do with anything even slightly political. In forum after the forum, you see the first post go one way and than the following posts, by far the majority of posts going the other. Professional trolls waiting at their keyboards and punching up PR=B$ marketing as so as any thread starts and then it all gets shot down over the next 24 hours.

Re:Well, yes.

[jandersen]

If, in fact, a large majority of the public feels like they should have an expectation of privacy on a public street

Isn't it a contradiction in terms, "privacy in a public space"? It is public exactly because it isn't private, I would have thought.

Apart from that, I doubt that a large majority of the public feels that you should have a right to be private everywhere - when you need privacy, you go to a private place, where you can reasonably expect to be private. What many feel unconfortable with is not whether we can be completely invisible wherever we go, but whether we are under constant surveillance by some faceless, potentially hostile entity. I suspect most people are much more uncomfortable about what large corporations do with the data they collect about everybody - they really are faceless and potentially hostile, as well as largely unaccountable. In UK, where the whole landscape sometimes seems to be bristling with cameras (OK, exaggerating a bit), many of them are put up at the request of the local residents. And apparently there are now apps that allows people with smartphones to feed their pictures and videos into the surveillance networks.That should tell us that there are many people - ordinary citizens, not police - who think this is a good idea.

Re:Well, yes.

[misnohmer]

There is more. What is the "expectation of privacy" for a person in their own bathroom that happens to have a window through which they can be observed from a public utility poll? Since it is visible from a public space, does that mean there is no expectation of privacy? What about using laser microphones, laser light bouncing off of windows is also visible from public spaces... Our laws are so far behind the technology it isn't funny...

Re:Well, yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't mean they should be forced to point them out. This whole notion is silly. Crowd source their identification. Simple. Gave over.

Re:Well, yes.

[MitchDev]

And people wonder why no one trusts or likes the government or LEOs anymore...

It's like they are trying to push for a revolution (that is decades off anyway as divided and polarized as politicians keep everyone these days...)

Re:Well, yes.

[onepoint]

I'm not sure about anyone else, but I like my private time.
I walk down to the pool, nobody around, and I just relax.
I'm guessing other people have similar issues. You walk alone
to gather your thoughts in the park, maybe you just want to sit
on the porch with a beer, and watch the traffic go by. I think
knowing that you are being observed reduces or removes that
bit of joy you get.

Re:Well, yes.

[onepoint]

I don't have sources to cite the following;
but I understand that in London England,
camera's are everywhere, How does that
population deal with it? are the camera's
hidden or in plain sight?

Re:Well, yes.

[swillden]

Actually, the law has largely addressed those questions. If seeing into my bathroom window requires the use of some technology, then it's an invasion of privacy. This has mostly come out in cases around photographers trying to get photos of celebrities. If you can take photos through a person's window with a non-telephoto lens while standing on public property, then you're not doing anything wrong. If you use a telephoto lens or similar technology, then you are trespassing. The same would apply to laser microphones and any other technology that allows someone in public space to get more access to private space than an unaugmented human would have.

Re:Well, yes.

[swillden]

Your comment reinforces my point that this is a decision that should be made via public debate in legislative chambers, not by judges.

Re:Well, yes.

[swillden]

Yes, that's part of why I said we should think seriously about revising the law regarding expectation of privacy in public places. I still don't think judges are the right people to be making those changes, though.

Re:Well, yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, by design. They have done studies. It is not pretty knowing one is never alone. Paranoia or just realism...???

Re:Well, yes.

[deathguppie]

The question to me is how are the cameras used, and how prevalent are they?

My reasoning is that while using a camera in public would not be an invasion of privacy using a web of cameras to track my movement would be.

Re:Well, yes.

[MooseTick]

"the public might think they are an 'invasion of privacy.'"

The issue could be the fact that there are over 1000 in the Seattle area alone. I suspect many people wouldn't care if they had 5 watching known terrorists. Those same people may not be as comfortable if they knew there was one on nearly every major street corner.

Re:Well, yes.

[Grishnakh]

I think another important factor is: who owns the cameras?

A few years ago, people were complaining a lot about how you couldn't go anywhere outside in London without being recorded by CCTV cameras. However, the catch was, the vast majority of these cameras were privately-owned by local businesses, like the 24-hour gas station example you mentioned. They weren't government owned or operated.

I think this is a useful distinction. If a crime is committed and it's likely a private camera recorded it, then the government can get a legal warrant and gain access to that recording, and use it for evidence. But without a proper warrant, they can't just comb through the footage at will on a "fishing expedition", looking for something to use against someone. With government-owned cameras everywhere, they can.

As you said, widespread usage of government cameras without a warrant is ripe for abuse. Private camera owners don't have the same motivations, and likely only use them just in case they themselves are the victim of a crime and need evidence.

Re:Well, yes.

[firewrought]

Let's let the cameras stay. Additionally, let's allow the public to view the cameras in public and record their presence to the public.

Cute, but unworkable. The power ultimately belongs to those who operate the camera network.

Re:Well, yes.

[UnderCoverPenguin]

I remember a court case, several years ago, where some one was prosecuted for "indecent exposure" in a public park. The area the girl was in was surrounded by dense trees and bushes, so was not visible from outside the area. Except that there was a hidden security camera.

Authorities, after reviewing the tape, later, were able to identify the girl and get an arrest warrant issued. At the arraignment hearing, the girl's lawyer pointed out that the area she was in was completely secluded, so no one could have seen her except for the hidden camera. The lawyer then cited an earlier case where a woman on private property with a privacy fence had been successfully convicted because she was visible from the upper floor of a nearby apartment building that the woman could have seen.

The judge agreed that the girl had a reasonable expectation of privacy at the location where she was, then dismissed the charge. But, because the case was not appealed, there's no precedent.

Nevertheless, the same logic that applied to the hidden camera could be applied to use of binoculars and/or other telescopic and remote viewing/listening devices.

Whether a particular judge would accept that is a different question.

Re:Well, yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

The principle that there is no expectation of privacy in public places is pretty firmly established in the law. The fact that some members of the public don't think so doesn't change that. If, in fact, a large majority of the public feels like they should have an expectation of privacy on a public street then perhaps you have an argument, but it's probably one that should be made via the relevant lawmaking bodies, not something that courts should take it upon themselves to change.

Not at all true, at least not in the USA. The highest law in the land is the Bill of Rights, which James Madison deliberately made open-ended, with unspecified rights retained by the people (9th Amendment), and unspecified rights reserved to the people (10th Amendment). This was done to deal with the objection of the Anti-Federalists that any Bill of Rights would be incomplete and leave out really important rights. It was a brilliant creative way to deal with that objection, actually.

The laws created by the 'relevant lawmaking bodies' are only relevant and legitimate to the extant that they do not violate any rights retained by the people. Both the courts and law enforcement (including the FBI) by the oaths they swear to uphold the law, are required to recognize this. It's an individual responsibility - that's the nature of oaths. Think Nuremberg.

There are certainly enough people that think they have an expectation of privacy in public places for a right to exist, and thus be protected under the Bill of Rights. You can easily test this: notice how people behave in a National Forest, a public place by definition, when they choose to relieve themselves. There is a clear expectation of privacy on the part of most or all - hidden cameras would violate this expectation. Many other, similar tests are possible.

By definition, rights retained by the people are retained by the people. This means no court can take them away, not even the Supreme Court, which is really a misnomer: by the legal structure of the USA, that court is really only Supreme over other courts (and even then, there are limitations, both from the original Constitution and from the Bill of Rights). This reasoning clearly applies to both precedents and court orders (and similar reasoning applies to executive orders).

Putting this in other terms, if the Supreme Court could take away any rights the people wished to assert as being retained by them, then no such rights could exist - a contradiction, and hence unethical practice of law. Thus, any precedent that states there is NO expectation of privacy in public places is an invalid precedent. How should people respond to this conclusion? Again, think Nuremberg.

In this particular case, if the FBI really believes (or has stated a concern) that the public might feel privacy was being violated, that in itself shows the correct (and legally required) response, and it isn't to hide cameras, classify them, or deny they exist!

If in the past, members of the US legal profession have chosen not to acknowledge these points, then we must treat that as a violation of the oaths those legal professionals have sworn. Further, since the US legal profession - taken as a class or group in society - clearly has many ethical conflicts of interest with regards to recognizing the authority of the 9th and 10th Amendments, we have to also view this as unethical practice of law. US legal history shows long periods in which unethical practice of law is common, such as during slavery, and the Jim Crow laws, so nobody should be surprised to find unethical practice of law playing a major role in the legal system today. Again, think Nuremberg.

Re:Well, yes.

[AK Marc]

It is public exactly because it isn't private, I would have thought.

The term "back alley" is used to mean a place where privacy is assumed in a public place. One wouldn't make a back alley transaction in the lobby of a police station. So the language understands and accepts that there are public places where privacy can be assumed, even if only temporarily.

Re:Well, yes.

[UnderCoverPenguin]

Isn't it a contradiction in terms, "privacy in a public space"?

Back when "no reasonable expectation of privacy in public" was first put forth, one could expect to be seen when in public, but, when talking quietly or whispering, would not expect to be heard by anyone more than several centimeters away. Even now, most people expect to not be heard from a distance, People expect that use of the advanced surveillance technology to be restricted to specific targets under a warrant. (If a private citizen used such equipment to spy on some one, they could be prosecuted for unlawful surveillance - even when the target was in a public place.)

By keeping the locations of the cameras secret, the FBI (and others) is creating ambiguity in an attempt to encourage people to assume the cameras are everywhere. This would then be used to argue that "a reasonable person should expect to be covertly recorded", thus lowering the threshold of "reasonable expectation."

Re:Well, yes.

[CaptainDork]

By definition, a public place is ...

Re:Well, yes.

[dryeo]

If a crime has been committed, the police are free to nicely ask for private video footage, no warrant required. I often hear about the cops canvassing businesses for video, last time it was for a hit and run where someone died. Most people will voluntarily turn over the video if there is a good reason.

Re:Well, yes.

[Errol backfiring]

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

You forgot one:

• Surveillance is Privacy

Re:Well, yes.

[Grishnakh]

Yeah, that too, I didn't say that wasn't possible. The warrant is for when they don't cooperate, but yeah, in the real world, if there's a hit-and-run and the cops go to the camera owner and tell him, not many will refuse the cops for that. I have no problem with that. But still, that's an extra layer of security: they aren't going to turn over the video for no reason at all (and on a regular basis) just so the cops can go on a fishing expedition, and it's extra trouble for the cops to get video from private sources like this anyway. With government-owned cameras, this isn't the case.

Why government software runs so slow

[marcle]

Feds' argument:

"It should be kept secret because it's supposed to be a secret, otherwise it won't be kept secret, and then it won't be a secret any more."

If I wrote a program like that, it would no doubt take a long time to get anything done.

Re:Why government software runs so slow

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly what Ed Snowden was talking about.

Re:Why government software runs so slow

[Anonymous Coward]

modded down by CIA

Easy detection

[Khyber]

I bet they've got IR on them for night surveillance. Anyone with IR detection in the same wavelength range could likely spot these suckers on a utility pole at night without a problem.

Re:Easy detection

[Anonymous Coward]

Can the optical element be burned out by overexposure to, say, some intense green light? preferably at a somewhat obtuse angle?

Re:Easy detection

[Sir_Eptishous]

God I love your sig.

Re: Easy detection

[Anonymous Coward]

If that fails there's always paintballs.

Re:Easy detection

[PopeRatzo]

God I love your sig.

The misspelling does blunt the impact a bit though.

Re:Easy detection

[kheldan]

There can't be any 'paleo vegans', ever, though; they'd starve to death.

Re:Easy detection

[Immerman]

Hardly. Our ancestors were probably primarily vegetarian - just look at the other great apes for comparison. They do hunt, but the majority of their caloric intake is fruits and vegetables. Even among most modern humans, meat was generally more luxury than staple until quite recently.

Not sure how our insectivore leanings rank on the vegan scale though...

Re:Easy detection

[Parafilmus]

There can't be any 'paleo vegans', ever, though; they'd starve to death.

How do you figure?

The caloric content of fruits and nuts is quite high. No reason a person can't survive indefinitely on that.

Plenty of large mammals survive on vegan or nearly-vegan diets. Gorillas, for example, eat a diet that's about 97% plant-based. And those guys need a lot more calories than we do.

Re:Easy detection

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, are these utility poles street lights with LED bulbs? Maybe they're sending point cloud data over the grid?

Re:Easy detection

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet they stick these mostly on the hood of a street lamp for this very reason.

Re:Easy detection

[Khyber]

That wouldn't work very well with newer LED light poles. Anyone with half a brain would spot the IR LED in them (being the only ones not visibly lit up.)

Re: Easy detection

[camperdave]

Paintballs... Riiight.

Re: Easy detection

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn you beat me. How about a crossbow?

Re:Easy detection

[lgw]

Calories mostly come from vegetables, even today (80% of the calories consumed in the US came originally from corn). Protein mostly comes from meat (or milk, if we go back a ways). It takes reasonable sophistication in farming to reach the point where you can be vegan without serious protein deficiencies, which is why we were originally hunter-gatherers, not just gatherers.

Re:Easy detection

[donaldm]

I bet they've got IR on them for night surveillance. Anyone with IR detection in the same wavelength range could likely spot these suckers on a utility pole at night without a problem.

If the infra-red (IR) cameras are passive which would be the norm then they would be difficult to detect by external means. Passive IR cameras work by detecting an IR source which in the majority of cases is a living creature, they don't emit IR.

Of course, if there is an active IR source to enhance the detectability of the camera then it would be possible to detect the source which may not be near the actual camera itself.

Re:Easy detection

[Anonymous Coward]

Worse, the things are Near-IR in most cases, which means you can see a faint red glow at nighttime

Re:Easy detection

[Zak3056]

Nitpick: corn is a grain, not a vegetable.

Re:Easy detection

[lgw]

Nitpick: corn is a
Vegetable
Angiosperm
Monocot
Commelinid
Poale
Poacea
Panicoidea
Andropogonea
Zea
Z. mays

All are equally valid, if we're nitpicking.

Re:Easy detection

[kheldan]

You, and you, and you, and you, and you, apparently, have no sense of humor. Or are easily triggered. Not sure which. I was just making a joke, which went right over your heads, apparently. If I'd've been trolling, I'd've got a perfect score. Y SO SERIOUS??? Jeez lighten up already.

Re:Easy detection

[Grishnakh]

Nitpick: corn is a grain, not a vegetable.

Not really, it depends on your context. If you're going by the old "animal - vegetable - mineral" classification scheme, then it's a vegetable, since it's obviously neither a mineral nor an animal.

Furthermore, the term "vegetation" is used to describe any kind of plant life. There's nothing incorrect about calling a corn stalk "vegetation". Therefore, corn has to be a vegetable.

It seems to me that this "grain not vegetable" thing comes from nutritionists or botanists or some culinary group trying to coopt the word "vegetable" and make it a precise scientific term. It's just a synonym for "plant".

From Wikipedia's "vegetable" article:
"In everyday usage, a vegetable is any part of a plant that is consumed by humans as food as part of a savory meal. "

and also, more importantly:
"The original meaning of the word vegetable, still used in biology, was to describe all types of plant, as in the terms "vegetable kingdom" and "vegetable matter"."

farther down:
"The broadest definition is the word's use adjectivally to mean "matter of plant origin" to distinguish it from "animal", meaning "matter of animal origin". More specifically, a vegetable may be defined as "any plant, part of which is used for food","

So basically, the definition of the word varies greatly, depending on who you're talking to. Apparently, botanists and biologists can't even agree on it. For us laypeople who aren't involved in biological sciences, botany, or culinary arts, corn is indeed a vegetable. The US Supreme Court even agreed in one case, where tomatoes were taxed as vegetables even though they're technically a fruit. IMO, if the botanists and others want a term to distinguish some items from fruits, then they need to make up a new term.

Re:Easy detection

[Grishnakh]

Nope.

Living creatures do not emit near IR. They emit far IR, because of their heat signature.

Regular cameras cannot see thermal IR; you need a special kind of camera for that, and those things are really expensive. (I think they need to be actively cooled too.) Worse, you can't see much with them, except the actual heat signature. They're really great for spotting a criminal hiding in some bushes, but you'll never be able to identify his face or anything close to the level of detail; all you'll see is some bright colors in a vaguely human shape against a dark background.

Normal cameras (that see in near-IR) can make out a lot of detail, but there has to be near-IR illumination, just like a visible-light camera needs visible-light illumination of some kind (either sunlight or artificial).

Re:Easy detection

[Zak3056]

Touché, sir.

Re:Easy detection

[Anonymous Coward]

B12 deficiency. I'm not sure about other animals, but B12 deficiency is bad news for humans. The plant sources that provide enough B12 are two types of algae (seaweed I think). So unless the prehistoric people were lucky enough to be near such supplies of seaweed (and knew to eat it), they would have needed to eat some foods from animal sources.

Re:Easy detection

[AK Marc]

You couldn't see the thermal. It's too low resolution to pick out features to identify a person from. It'd be near-useless as a security camera, where you want to identify people. They are used for finding a person in a field, not identifying a person out of a lineup.

Near IR is better used, along with lights that emit it. If they wanted to get smart, they'd blanket entire areas with near-IR that is independent from the cameras, so the light sources didn't spotlight the recording location.

Re:Easy detection

[dryeo]

As you go north (and it wasn't far in the ice ages), primitive people ate more meat. Look at the Inuit, close to pure carnivore.

Re:Easy detection

[dryeo]

It doesn't take that much sophistication to grow hemp, perhaps the first farmed food as it grows so easily. Grind up the seeds and all your protein and essential oils are supplied, eat the leaves as well and you're close to having all the nutrition needed to survive, especially if there are some insects mixed in.

Re:Easy detection

[Immerman]

True, but that was more of a regional adaptation than a general rule. Keep tracing the lineage back and pretty much everyone lived in more equatorial climes. We can survive on a primarily meat diet, but our teeth suggest we didn't start doing so until we had pretty advanced technology to do most of the the killing and cutting.

Re:Easy detection

[RockDoctor]

Nitpick : nits, locusts, weevils, grubs and whole hordes of insects always have been, still are, and increasingly will be major sources of human dietary protein.

Look at you relatives as they indulge in mutual grooming.

Re:The FBI couldn't find their ass if it had a hol

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not slashdot or cia.gov, it's your spyware / bot doing that.

No expectation of privacy on public streets

[ScentCone]

The better discussion would be about what's done with the imagery and any resulting (say, facial recognition/tracking) database that's created from that imagery. But it's not an invasion of privacy to have your image taken on a public street. We've all been recorded in high resolution in the background of a million selfies, on people's dash cams, on retail stores' security cameras, on ATM cameras, and more. If the FBI is mounting one of these with a long focal length lens on a utility pole outside my window, looking IN, in a way that someone walking by on the street wouldn't be able to see - that's another discussion.

Re:No expectation of privacy on public streets

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the same when it is the government doing it though. An individual might be a stalker. A company could be collecting data to sell to advertisers.

Given how responsible so many government officials and non-elected staff seem to be, I think it is a fair to assume it is and will be abused for no government related work. The abusive people that get into government, which is a small fraction of government, can and will do bad things with all this information that is suppose to be for protecting the public, not keeping tabs on your wife and mistress.

Sure, you should expect your image will be taken while in public and you will likely be video recorded in many places as well because businesses do this for shrink and litigation purposes.

At least the city is fighting this as best they can.

Re:No expectation of privacy on public streets

[Anonymous Coward]

No Expectation of privacy? really?

So if a group of people followed you around all day, every day while in public, cataloged where you went, what you bought, and who you associated with you are fine with that?

Tie facial recognition in, and it becomes fairly easily to profile all of the above.

From there it's a short step towards curtailing dissent or unpopular opinions simply by association....

Re: No expectation of privacy on public streets

[Anonymous Coward]

The paparazzi do that every day. Perfectly legal.

Re:No expectation of privacy on public streets

[Anonymous Coward]

So if a group of people followed you around all day, every day while in public, cataloged where you went, what you bought, and who you associated with you are fine with that?

"Fine with that"-ness is not the issue. The issue is legality. It is legal to observe people while they are in public.

Re:No expectation of privacy on public streets

[Anonymous Coward]

No Expectation of privacy? really?

So if a group of people followed you around all day, every day while in public, cataloged where you went, what you bought, and who you associated with you are fine with that?

You didn't read the post you replied to, did you? It says the exact opposite of what you think it says.

Re:No expectation of privacy on public streets

[inode_buddha]

And yet the cops *hate* being on cam....

Re: No expectation of privacy on public streets

[Anonymous Coward]

Except -

A. The figures followed in this regard are "public" figures e.g. their career hinges on being in the public eye.

B. While the paparazzi can follow you, (even shame you in the public eye if you do something stupid) they do not have the authority to throw you in jail, deny you the right to travel etc....

The FBI could very easily stifle dissent for those with unpopular opinions -
show up at your work merely to "ask questions" about you
put you on the no fly list,
generally make it a pain to live your life.

Alternately they could also attempt to make you into an informer on others with questionable beliefs.

Re: No expectation of privacy on public streets

[Anonymous Coward]

You've no proof the FBI / police have ever or will ever do this. Why? Because they'll do it in secret, as the judge says. That's the frightening smell I detect in the statement that the cameras must be kept secret so people don't think they're privacy invasions. Who cares what people *think* - they either are or they aren't something; that's what the law concerns itself with. But keeping something secret so people don't think something about it, well... where would that ever end, in terms of bad acts the people might *think* are being committed against them by secret law enforcement projects?

Re:No expectation of privacy on public streets

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it is relevant.

The "expectation" of privacy is what can determine/influence the legality of items such as these. Hence the FBI's concern about the public and their expectations of privacy.

My expectations of privacy preclude being tracked when I leave my house. I expect to have my right to associate with whomever I choose, whenever I choose and wherever I choose to be free from government recording and potentially government influence.

Tthe above should only be challenged when there is evidence a crime HAS BEEN committed and that the gathering of evidence for said crime focuses solely on the alleged perpetrator.

To do otherwise flips the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" on it's head. That is not compatible with a free country

Re:No expectation of privacy on public streets

[Anonymous Coward]

To do otherwise flips the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" on it's head. That is not compatible with a free country

Nonsense. Being observed while in public is not akin to being convicted of a crime.

Re:No expectation of privacy on public streets

[ChrisMaple]

The legality of observing people while they are in public does have limitations. There are laws against stalking. Stalking consists in law of two parts, following someone and threatening him. Whether continuously following someone and recording his every action is abusive enough to be considered a threat by itself is an open question.

Re:No expectation of privacy on public streets

[Anonymous Coward]

The better discussion would be about what's done with the imagery

Tony Soprano and his crew are given a copy. You really don't want to know the rest.

Re:No expectation of privacy on public streets

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems an unreasonable breach of privacy for government to know where everybody is all the time.

Yet, that's where we are headed.

You don't need to disarm the citizens if you can track what they are doing.

What's really unfortunate is that many of the problems that our government (OG) is trying to deal with with this technology are side effects of previous things done by OG.

Re:No expectation of privacy on public streets

[ravenscar]

Then it would be like owning an Android phone with the Google location services turned on (and I'll say that I am in this group).

Re:No expectation of privacy on public streets

[triffid_98]

The better discussion would be about what's done with the imagery and any resulting (say, facial recognition/tracking) database that's created from that imagery

Um...cross referenced with the cell-phone location and call records they receive sans-warrant from all the major cellular providers?

That said, you technically have no right to privacy in a public space, even before the "Patriot Act" stepped in. Unreasonable? Yes. Perfectly legal? Also yes.

Random driver facing cameras?

[Anonymous Coward]

Been seeing a few of these in the FL Tampa/Temple Terrace area.

Re:Random driver facing cameras?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Dallas/Fort Worth area too.

Becoming more like dear old dad every day

[Anonymous Coward]

You young american whippersnappers, wait until you have a CCTV camera every 6 feet in every city in the country like us english then you can start complaining.
Mass surveillance and monitoring of movements...i'm sure i read about that in a certain dystopian book...

At least we know our government has aspirations of fascism; you guys are being lead there blindly.

Re: Becoming more like dear old dad every day

[Anonymous Coward]

Come to Chicago. We've got a system here that left the blokes from London in awe when they toured our emergency management and fusion centers.

Re:Becoming more like dear old dad every day

[Grishnakh]

From what I've read about the CCTV cameras in England, the vast majority of them are owned and operated by private businesses. That's not the same. The government doesn't have easy access to that data, and needs to get a proper warrant for it in case they have a valid suspicion that it recorded a crime.

Fascist Bureau of Intimidation

[Anonymous Coward]

It's for your own good, we can't tell you why 'cause NATIONAL SECURITY. Go back to sleep, nothing to see here. Don't worry, we won't abuse our nearly unlimited powers of surveillance to track you down and hunt you like an animal if you speak out against tyranny. . . (never-mind every time we look they ARE abusing their power).

Answer

[SeattleLawGuy]

The FBI's concerns are legitimate, but should not be the end of the story.

The answer to this is to do a case-by-case redaction where an active investigation is threatened, but to produce the total number and identify those that do not threaten an investigation, and to identify for each camera (redacted or not) whether a warrant was obtained for a specific camera and investigation (as opposed to a general warrant for thirty cameras, etc...). You can't have freedom unless your security has some measure of transparency and meaningful, critical oversight.

Re:Answer

[DarkOx]

No if you know what something looks like and how to spot it you have basic right under the first amendment to tell others howto as well. If you see something in a public location you have a similar right to talk about where and what it is. Just like its perfectly legal to report speed traps.

That should be the end of the story. If our expectation of privacy cannot include not being photographed in public or to bar others from reporting sightings of us in any particular place the FBI cannot expect to keep cameras in public view a secret. EVEN IF IT "THREATENS AN INVESTIGATION" stuff in public is in public!

Re:Answer

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer to this is to do a case-by-case redaction where an active investigation is threatened

The FBI has already admitted that there are no active investigations, since the courts have already ruled that all video surveillance of private property MUST have a warrant.

Re:The FBI couldn't find their ass if it had a hol

[Anonymous Coward]

Attain the know-how to find out first, and you will see that they do connect.

Two Word Solution

[BlueStrat]

Paint balls.

Or alternatively, if paint balls prove ineffective, 4 digits.

30.06

Of course, depending on the degree of hardening of the cameras' enclosures, it's possible that two digits and two letters may suffice.

12GA

Strat

Re:Two Word Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just crowdsource a map? that would probably be way more annoying to the spooks than material damage.

Re:Two Word Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Brilliant idea. Stand in public with a paintball gun ("marker") that can be mistaken as a firearm and shoot at a federal device. Just brilliant!

What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Two Word Solution

[cyn1c77]

Paint balls.

Or alternatively, if paint balls prove ineffective, 4 digits.

30.06

Of course, depending on the degree of hardening of the cameras' enclosures, it's possible that two digits and two letters may suffice.

12GA

Strat

Yes. Firing a high-power rifle round or a shotgun blast in the air, with no backstop, is a fantastic idea. Especially in an urban environment.

That's the third thing they teach you not to do with guns. Right after "don't put your finger on the trigger if you don't want to fire the gun" and "don't look down the barrel."

When you miss and that round kills someone a mile away in their apartment, or all the little shotgun pellets ricochet back and blind you and other, the FBI will use that as an excuse to install more cameras, while limiting your access to firearms.

Why don't you do something even more intelligent? Dress up like a utility worker, get a ladder, and just remove the camera?

Re:Two Word Solution

[david_thornley]

In an urban area, discharging a firearm in public is likely to be illegal, because of the danger to others. You're probably having a camera record an illegal act that people are going to notice. Firing a paintball is likely to be safer legally.

Re:Two Word Solution

[BlueStrat]

Yes. Firing a high-power rifle round or a shotgun blast in the air, with no backstop, is a fantastic idea. Especially in an urban environment.

I never made any statement in my post which advocates for a particular method/tool/location for any or every situation.

I agree that being unsafe with a gun is being unsafe with a gun or any type of tool, for that matter. Those were just the first few methods/tools that came to mind that had a very high likelihood of disabling even a hardened unit.

As a long time builder in construction, mechanical/automation, and radio and navigation/guidance electronics-related fields and disciplines, among many others, "The proper tool for the job!" is a maxim in one's life (yes, I've been around a while, watched X-15 flights and Shepard's and Glenn's first Mercury launches). Crowbars, hammers, etc can be extremely useful as well depending on the situation, location, etc etc. As a bonus, those tools are the easiest and least expensive to procure, as well as least likely to attract undue LE attention nor engender the more-severe legal penalties for possession.

As a matter of fact, either whole or parted-out, those things might be worth a tidy sum of cash. Mighty tempting for drug addicts, etc that don't concern themselves much with legalities, particularly in lower-rent urban/ghetto areas as found in many large cities in the US. Heck, there are areas in Detroit that police and emergency services will not go, and I don't mean just in the outer-'burbs! I wouldn't give one of those cameras more than 2 weekends at the most there before some crack/meth-heads try to salvage it for anything they can, the metal content if nothing else!

It may even be possible to re-purpose and/or compromise them for counter-surveillance, possibly even such that they are not aware that it has even happened, but yet being capable of total control of the data they see. Like any exposed system, they could never be 100% certain it had not occurred.

That kind of technical challenge should be right up a large number of nerd/geek's wheelhouses. I wonder if the contractor/supplier/builder's sales representative pointed this serious security vulnerability out to the FBI/DHS procurement office during his sales presentation/contract proposal or related paperwork?

Strat

... because logic

[Anonymous Coward]

[...] information about the disguised surveillance cams should be withheld because the public might think they are an 'invasion of privacy.'

Someone explain this to me. Actually, just fire the judge and require all future judges to pass a basic course in logic.

If the public thinks this, then it's up to the feds to deal with that and find less spy-ish ways to do their job. So why deprive the public of their opinion, hm?

An Invtation for Destructiom

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry about that.
  - I thought it was a hornet's nest and hit it with a sledge hammer.

Please contribute you own excuses below.

Can you disclose the location so that others can use them for target practice?

Re:An Invtation for Destructiom

[inode_buddha]

Wet toilet paper is best. Here in [a heavily populated north eastern state] I have seen paper wasps build a nest the size of a basketball around a camera in a year. Nobody is going to try and remove it, they just cut the cord and move on.

Re:An Invtation for Destructiom

[Iamthecheese]

Excuses? Here's mine: This was an act of civil disobedience, and I demand the maximum possible sentence. When you let me go I will do it again. I encourage every other freedom-loving American to do the same.

Finders keepers

[penguinoid]

There's already plenty of law about what is done when one person's property is intentionally abandoned without permission on another person's property, or in public.

Re:Finders keepers

[jklovanc]

So a car parked on a public street is fair game? I don't think so. There are still property rights even when something is found in a public space. That is why it is the law that found things are turned into the police and if not claimed they are then returned to the finder.

Crowd Source

[Chelloveck]

I will be shocked if there's not a web site up within 24 hours with detailed photos and pins on Google Maps showing the location of every utility pole camera in the city.

Re:Crowd Source

[qeveren]

This. Definitely a worthy crowdsourcing project.

Why would the FBI need warrants

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is a warrant necessary to surveil the public space where there is no expectation of privacy? Assuming they got permission from the city of Seattle, or whatever utility company owns the light poles to install the cameras and the cameras are not capable of recording sound, I don't see how the FBI needs a warrant.

Re:Why would the FBI need warrants

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, isn't a warrant always restricted to a specific person, legal or natural? Surveillance of a public space is by definition non-specific.

Re:Why would the FBI need warrants

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually. It occurs to me that the FBI may be installing something other than just surveillance cameras, like, say, stingray cell tower simulators.

What do they look like?

[AdamThor]

Huh. I wonder what they look like? I'll have to start eyeing up utility poles. Anyone got a (non locating!) picture? If you're in Seattle have you seen any unusual equipment on the poles?

Re:What do they look like?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of images available. Google: utility pole cameras

Re:What do they look like?

[93 Escort Wagon]

The Seattle utility poles I see are invariably covered with paper fliers - at least at lower levels. Maybe we should just start papering them all the way to the top?

I think it'd be funny if Random FBI Agent went to check one of the cameras but could only see "Guitar 4 Sale, Bob 555-1212".

Re:What do they look like?

[AHuxley]

The correct way most nations police or clandestine services do it would be some expected hardware like a "random" new transformer upgrade or like for like replacement after "random" local supply issues. Another option would be an upgrade to existing phone or network hardware on a pole. Nobody would look twice at network or power company hardware and actual company uniformed staff. What seems to have happened is a bulk buy in of CCTV like lens products that got placed for a rushed event not long term well thought out, creative concealment via expert blending in with existing older services..
This would show a total lack of trust or secure project "sharing" with the utility company staff or other networking brands with a monopoly or duopoly of CCTV ready services and enclosures in the area.
Sticking random very new looking CCTV like devices with lens that can be seen next to very old, weathered hardware shows a lack of understanding, lack of trust in brands and the private sector's staff or a "deal" to buy in devices based on other needs that keeping the new devices very well hidden.
If this was been done in the correct way, a real company worker would have swapped an existing company device out with a CCTV upgraded device, same service, new hidden feature with no comment from the media or local population over many years.
This seems to be a case of place the lens at the best position at any cost "now" and hope its not noticed over time. Why such a public deployment was allowed is strange. With a bit of company and contractor advice the CCTV like lens placement would have never been seen over many years.

Re:What do they look like?

[Anonymous Coward]

[[ Why such a public deployment was allowed is strange. ]]

Who would tell them "no"?

Re:What do they look like?

[AHuxley]

With the correct design and a bit of thinking they could have got decades of effortless parallel construction but would have had to shared details with local utility workers...
Guess the case load needed hardware to be in place not long term well thought out quality.
Or so many are now been placed that funding for hidden quality nationally was not an option per year.

Re:What do they look like?

[No Longer an AC]

Apparently putting "DANGER: HIGH VOLTAGE" on them is common practice.

Here's a story where the utility company put one on their own pole: Mysterious Camera in The Neighborhood

And does the picture on this page look like it's anything "High Voltage"? Covert Video Surveillance System

It seems reckless to start putting "Danger: High Voltage" on things that aren't really dangerous (physically anyway) or high voltage. Some people will stop believing signs like that and just start investigating anything with such a warning - just to see if it's a camera or something.

Re:What do they look like?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people will stop believing signs like that

Good. The FBI has proven over and over again that it deserves neither to be believed nor the benefit of the doubt.

Leaving aside

[Anonymous Coward]

... the FBI is conducting surveillance in a particular location.

Leaving aside the ethics of watching everyone in a public location, and the fact several countries already do this, the big question is: What security do these devices have? Given that IoT devices tend to contain security equal to a biscuit jar, what will stop someone also surveilling a particular location, or even knowing when that location is monitored?

weasel words: National Security Adverseries

[hguorbray]

nice brush to tar those who are concerned about privacy and surveillance overreach with........Look for this term to be used more often to imply that there is something unpatriotic or anti-government about those with concerns about these things such as ACLU, etc

-I'm just sayin'

I've installed these before

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL but I have installed several of these "pole cams" and they do not typically require warrants.
The area the cameras include is generally publicly viewable (front door, driveway, storefront, etc) and if the camera were positioned to view a non-public space (backyard, walled interior open space, etc) Bureau lawyers - who review and approve these would require a warrant.
These cameras are intended to replace physical surveillance (from a car on the street or from inside an adjacent building) where human surveillance would be infeasible or resources are scarce.

Odd to see folks second guessing this type of police surveillance during the same week that the FBI is being asked why it can't keep an eye on every potential bit of hay that might become a needle.

Re:I've installed these before

[Asgard]

'Resources are scare' was intended to be one of the brakes on pervasive surveillance -- it was historically hard to do, and required a good reason to follow someone around. Slapping up a camera requires far fewer resources so the bar naturally drops, and probably lower than it should.

New Geocache Style Game

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

Let's play Find-The-FedCam and pin the results on geocache sites and Google Earth. Bonus points for Panoramio pix of the cam.

So it is only an invasion of privacy if we know it

[Anonymous Coward]

So if the knowledge of the position will cause a feeling "of invasion of privacy" then how is the existence not an invasion of privacy

Sorry to disappoint everybody

[fustakrakich]

But the numbers say most people are okay with this. If they weren't, the Greens and Libertarians would be getting much more attention.

Re:Sorry to disappoint everybody

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup: boiling frog. (Even if the effect among frogs is not actually true.)

Re:The FBI couldn't find their ass if it had a hol

[Anonymous Coward]

Who modded this down, it's a fact.

What

[phantomfive]

if the cameras become 'publicly identifiable,' Winn said, 'subjects of the criminal investigation and national security adversaries of the United States will know what to look for to discern whether the FBI is conducting surveillance in a particular location.'"

What kind of 'national security adversaries' are they hoping to catch with these cameras anyway? Are the North Korean infiltrating our Seattle Coast, and the only way to stop them is with cameras? Do those spies who managed to enter the country undetected not know that you can be filmed in public??

Re:What

[jklovanc]

Way to cherry pick an argument. You dropped the "subjects of the criminal investigation". That can mean anything from drug traffickers to car thieves.

Re:What

[phantomfive]

Sure, I understand what "subjects of a criminal investigation" are. Do you know what a conjunction is? It means they're also looking for "national security adversaries"

Re:The FBI couldn't find their ass if it had a hol

[Anonymous Coward]

In your Adblock plus browser plugin go to Filter Preferences / Add Filter and add this line to whatever block lists you have. You can also create a new filter group called SPIES and add it there.

Add this line:
||symcd.com^

It will block all of them. Every time you notice some tracking site just add it there.

Hypocrisy, thy name is government

[Qzukk]

in a way that someone walking by on the street wouldn't be able to see

Yet the government doesn't want people on the street to see the cameras, because while I am not permitted to have an expectation of not being filmed while walking on a public street, the government has an expectation of privacy for their cameras they've installed on that same public street.

I wonder what will happen when someone publishes a series of artistic photographs showing off Seattle street life and architecture, each one carefully framed to include one of these publicly posted cameras?

Re:Hypocrisy, thy name is government

[ScentCone]

Yet the government doesn't want people on the street to see the cameras

In exactly the same way that law enforcement agencies don't want you to see unmarked cars, or under cover cops. Because if they're obvious, they lose why they're useful.

Re:Hypocrisy, thy name is government

[Anonymous Coward]

In exactly the same way that law enforcement agencies don't want you to see unmarked cars, or under cover cops. Because if they're obvious, they lose why they're useful.

Except there's a counter-theory, which is that the presence of open and obvious observation deters crime. That's why police cars are marked, and some places have cops WALK a beat.

Re:Hypocrisy, thy name is government

[ScentCone]

It's not either-or. You don't use marked cars and guys in uniform when you're trying to bust up an organized crime ring, right?

Re:Hypocrisy, thy name is government

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not either-or.

Is there room for both? Perhaps, but you didn't examine the counter-theory, and you did say "Because if they're obvious, they lose why they're useful" so I brought it up, as you did seem to be dismissing the idea of advertising the presence of surveillance. Sometimes it is useful because it is obvious.

Did you not realize how your words might come across? It seems pretty express to me, so I don't think I was misunderstanding you, but if you meant something else, please explain.

You don't use marked cars and guys in uniform when you're trying to bust up an organized crime ring, right?

Yes, the police might do so, depending on the circumstances. Not all work is undercover, and sometimes, yes, copious displays of vigilance are important. And in a police raid, mistakes happen with no-knock warrants, I'd hate to see what happens when they don't even have the lights, sirens and uniforms. There are benefits to seeing the police. Even how matters, I was just on the road today, I was delayed in noticing a police car because it didn't have the bar of lights on the roof, for whatever reason. It had the side markings, so it wasn't unmarked. Didn't cause any problems, but I question the choice.

So that is why, perhaps, the idea of the cameras being open and notorious, has its own merits to examine, rather than dismiss, as I believe you did. And this isn't even getting into the right to have these cameras kept secret, and what steps the government can take to foster that, this is just the value to cameras that are known to be around.

(Of course, there is the secondary problem of people masquerading as the police, but that's yet another issue. Same with caller ID, and people claiming to be from the IRS, FBI, or whoever. A problem, but another issue. I suppose somebody COULD put up fake Street Cameras though, maybe they have already and nobody knows since there's no list? Scary thought that.)

Judge Jones

[Anonymous Coward]

The Judge is the nephew of Quincy Jones.

Dear Mr. Peter Winn,

[WolfgangVL]

For years, you and yours drum has been beating to the tune of, "You have no expectation of privacy while in public"
Congratulations to you! We are all now merrily dancing to your beat. Now that we are finally liking the song, you would change the the words?

Not about privacy

[jxander]

The chief complaint here isn't about simply being recorded out in public. Plenty of stores, banks, train stations, and other public locations run CCTV without public outcry. As best as I can tell, there are two main differences.

One is the subterfuge involved with these cameras. By not disclosing their location, and further by disguising the devices, people can never be sure whether or not someone is watching. If a bank is keeping tabs on me while I'm on their premises, fine. The cameras are easy to spot, there are probably signs posted telling me that I'm on camera. I fundamentally understand that I'm on camera and why. But the entire nebulous entity of the FBI keeping general tabs on an entire city for no clearly defined reason is most certainly not fine

Secondly is the intent and scope. When BestBuy installs security cameras, it's to make sure that no one is damaging or stealing their merchandise. Protecting your own property is a very real and tangible reason. We can relate to that. And that reason begins and ends at their front door. BestBuy isn't going to come knocking because they saw me browsing, but I ended up buying from Walmart instead. They're not trying to keep tabs on the people specifically, just their gear. I'm only tangential to them keeping tabs on their stuff.

People don't really mind being recorded, if we understand the specifics. Tell me exactly where I'm being recorded, and why. With that information withheld, I assume the worst. Especially when that info was explicitly acknowledged. "People want to know this, and we're not telling."

Not exactly confidence inspiring stuff there.

Re:Not about privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

One is the subterfuge involved with these cameras. By not disclosing their location, and further by disguising the devices, people can never be sure whether or not someone is watching.

Giving your police the authority to randomly do sneak and peaks against everyone with some small but tangible frequency is a rather similarly ethically nuanced issue. R.I.P. nuance, it was nice knowing you when I was a young man.

Re:Not about privacy

[camperdave]

But isn't the FBI is the security department of the country? They're making sure that no one is damaging or stealing the Nations Merchandise. Exactly the same role, it seems.

Re:Not about privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

No they're not. In fact, they don't actually have a basis in legitimate (as in possessing authority) law in the first place.

Even if you accept that they have a legal basis, they're a police force intended to investigate crimes on the Fed books. Not this.

No expectation of privacy in public?

[hawguy]

If the FBI's argument for these cams is that there's no expectation of privacy in public, then I suppose the FBI wouldn't mind if a group of citizens go together and published a map of all of these cameras? If they can be seen by the public, then that's fine, right?

And likewise, if I choose to park outside of an FBI field office every day and publish license plates, and video of everyone going in and out, that wouldn't be a problem either, would it? It's a public street, so no one should expect any privacy.

Re:No expectation of privacy in public?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the best comment in this thread.

Re:No expectation of privacy in public?

[rapjr]

Maybe the cameras general appearance has already been revealed publicly? As shown on these two sites: http://www.dailytech.com/Feder... http://www-math.mit.edu/~rstan... In which case criminals already may know what to look for.

Re:No expectation of privacy in public?

[Attila Dimedici]

You make a good point. The thing about this that I am trying to wrap my head around is the logic involved:
It is OK for the FBI to have these cameras, because people do not have an expectation of privacy in the locations where these cameras are recording.
However, the FBI cannot reveal the specific locations of these cameras because the majority of people would then consider them an invasion of privacy.

If people would consider these to be an invasion of privacy, then they have an expectation of privacy in the places these cameras record.

Re:No expectation of privacy in public?

[The Cisco Kid]

They might mind, but there isn't a thing they could do to prevent it.

However, I suspect these cameras might harder to spot and identify than you might think.

And regarding your latter part - again, they might mind, but as long as you were legally parked, in a public parking lot and weren't interfering with or disturbing anyone else's legal activity, then they can't stop you doing that either. Mind you, "legally parked" would of course include having YOUR car properly registered and plated.

Re:No expectation of privacy in public?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean they look like a pair of welcoming frogs?

Re:No expectation of privacy in public?

[Anonymous Coward]

Far be it for me to call bullshit based on little evidence but...

When the picture of the pole mounted camera in both those, unrelated, stories is exactly the same I have to question the veracity of the claims made by one or both (my money is on the second story being made-up tbh) of the authors.

Creating a fictional narrative to make a point doesn't actually make a point, it merely makes the 'narrator' a liar, and actually weakens their argument.

Re:No expectation of privacy in public?

[Anonymous Coward]

>However, I suspect these cameras might harder to spot and identify than you might think.
Then again, maybe not:

http://www.dailytech.com/Federal+Court+Cops+Cant+Spy+on+Your+Yard+and+Home+Without+Warrant/article37002.htm

Sounds like it's time....

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Sounds like it's time for a new website: fbi-camera-directory.com

Lol, no, really?

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

"Peter Winn [assistant U.S. attorney in Seattle] wrote to Judge Jones that the location information about the disguised surveillance cams should be withheld because the public might think they are an 'invasion of privacy.'"

Really? Why would anyone think a camera deployed to target you and pointed specifically at your home or place of business would be an "invasion of privacy"? Golly gee, I can't imagine...

Re: The FBI couldn't find their ass if it had a ho

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time you notice some tracking site they have already got you.

Watch the watchers

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad WAZE doesn't let you report these unconstitutional government surveillance devices like you can with a traffic accident.

Re:Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie SUCKS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Independent Drone Pilots unite!

Get educated or get mad

[Anonymous Coward]

You're feelings about how things should be have zero impact on what the law actually is.

There is an answer...

[Lumpy]

Everyone go out and take high res photos of utility poles and their GPS coordinates, upload to a site where crowdsourcing can investigate them and identify the cameras and create a public database of the locations.

Fuck you FBI.

Why would you live in a city?

[Anonymous Coward]

The country has much cleaner air than the central toxic dumps the FBI/NSA/CIA breed in.

Well this question is easy to answer...

[maharvey]

will know what to look for to discern whether the FBI is conducting surveillance in a particular location

That's easy:THEY ARE.

The Solution to Everything

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone! Just agree on everything and think like each other. Don't ever do anything wrong, obey every single law, even if they conflict with each other. And most of all, be perfect. It's just that simple.

Are these cameras

[The Cisco Kid]

recording only events that are visible IN PUBLIC? Because you don't need a warrant for that.

ANYone can legally observe and/or record anything that is visible IN PUBLIC.

Its part of "freedom of the press". No, they can't require you to "register" to be recognize as the press, its called citizen journalism.

Again, IN PUBLIC.

If it's in the public...

[Anonymous Coward]

...they have absolutely no legal justification to expect privacy. In fact, they judge just said that citizens have a legal right for privacy from the government even when in the public. Assuming you're interested in equal application of the law.

Re:The FBI couldn't find their ass if it had a hol

[omnichad]

Registrant Organization: Symantec Corporation
Registrant Street: 350 Ellis Street
Registrant City: Mountain View
Registrant State/Province: CA

Yeah...I doubt Symantec is competent enough to be a threat. Or to protect against threats either, for that matter. Maybe before being paranoid, you should learn how the Internet works, and that when visiting an SSL-protected web site, your browser might compare the certificate against CRLs to make sure it's still valid.

We have ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... a contract to creosote the power poles. If you won't tell us where the cameras are, we are painting right over them.

Where are the poles located?

[johngaunt]

Most utility / telephone poles are located on easements of private property, and those easements have restrictions and limitations. Is the ability for the federal /state/ local government written into the easement? Most of them are very specific about what can and cannot be placed in the easement, and to change them most often requires the approval of the governing authority that placed the easement. Ma Bell fought for a long time to keep other peoples wires off their poles and used those very easement rules as a block. Many utility companies do the same. If you put it on a pole in an easement in my yard, Whicxh is still my yard, I still have to pay taxes on it, it is still "my" property, shouldn't you have to tell me about it?

Zero expectation of privacy in public...

[Anonymous Coward]

In public, you have zero expectation of privacy. However, if these cameras can see into homes, anyone looking into homes with them could be fined under "peeping tom" laws.

I would argue that the locations of the cameras must be known for those whose expectation of privacy is artificially reduced due to being under the camera's purview.

If it were in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK people are more pragmatic and rebel at heart. They randomly paint the cameras with black ink or glue papers in the lens.

Re:If it were in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Paintball guns. Although you need to disable the camera first so it doesn't capture you shooting at it.

Posting anonymously because fuck the government.

Sauce for the goose....

[Anonymous Coward]

Hundreds of comments and none [yet] on that old trope about surveillance in the UK.

They aren't searching for terrorists or crims

[ThatsNotPudding]

The FBI is gathering dirt on current / future politicians and judges to cement their extra-legal dominance for perpetuity.

This is why FBI HQ is still named after that tyrant Hoover.

Followers

[Anonymous Coward]

I cannot fathom why so many people accept the current surveillance state

Because the vast majority of human beings are followers, preferring to outsource critical thinking rather than hamper themselves with it. This is also, incidentally, why goverment is the largest and most successful business in human history: because most human beings are followers, as they have been since the dawn of organized coercion.

Regsiter all cameras, put owner info on the camera

[BubbaDave]

See a camera with no owner info, KILL IT!
Won't take long for FBI/CIA/NSA/Gov't 'fake' registrants to become known, then we can kill those too.

So what's the SOA on EMP guns?

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't mass shootings on American soil prove that surveillance is just not effective? The UK is full of CCTVs, and that does not stop crime.

similar to public records - security thru obscurit

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your points are valid, and in some ways, it's like public records (birth certificates are a good example). When you have to physically go to the repository of the records and pull them out one by one, it's a lot different than getting a 9-track tape or CD-ROM of all the info on thousands of people; and that's still different than going to a website.

There is a public service to making the records available, but that access can have unexpected consequences as technology evolves.

Could it be any more clear?

[fredrated]

That the FBI is now public enemy number 1?

Re:The FBI couldn't find their ass if it had a hol

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when do "facts" concern moderators?

Re:The FBI couldn't find their ass if it had a hol

[Anonymous Coward]

Registrant Organization: Google Inc.
Registrant Street: Please contact contact-admin@google.com, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Registrant City: Mountain View
Registrant State/Province: CA

And here is Google. Yeah...I doubt Google is competent enough to be a threat. Or to protect against threats either for that matter. Maybe before overlooking the point you should consider others besides you know what Verisign is... and not the actual intentions of the employees of that corporation.

Google is SSL-protected, gee maybe they might be tracking you? But oh, not Symantec no way. Moles would have never thought of that. Get a job at a CA? naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah that's crazy.

9/11 didn't happen.
Ed Snowden was lying.

Maybe you should study ostriches. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrich

Creepy

[Sperbels]

Is it just me, or does it seem odd that the FBI itself is putting up cameras. This is kind of creepy, especially considering the nature and history of the FBI.

Re:The FBI couldn't find their ass if it had a hol

[Anonymous Coward]

Web Site: slashdot.org
Owner: This web site does not supply ownership information.
Verified by: GeoTrust Inc.

Click the lock on your browser, genius. Is GeoTrust Inc. also named Symantec? Which one is more competent based on your vast experience with "how the internet works"?

Could not verify this certificate because the issuer is unknown

Issued to
Common Name (CN) *.slashdot.org
Organisation (O) SourceForge Media, LLC
Organisational Unit (OU)
Serial Number 62:7B...

Period of Validity
Begins on 04/01/16
Expires on 04/12/17

Fingerprints
SHA-256 Fingerprint 37:7A...
SHA1 Fingerprint D6:4E...

CN = *.slashdot.org
O = "SourceForge Media, LLC"
L = San Diego
ST = California
C = US

Pittsburgh Robinson Area

[Anonymous Coward]

I just noticed this around the Robinson area in Pittsburgh, PA at the Lowe's main intersection. On my motorcycle I just happened to look up and noticed cameras on the backend of the stop light poles. I'm guessing they are to catch license plates!

Satellite image matching?

[mongothesecond]

I have to wonder if you could image match on google maps to derive a fairly recent mapping of where there devices are.

Smart Net users reroute the info

[WillAffleckUW]

Nothing is stopping you from hosting the location data in another country.

Nothing.

Nothing at all.

We built this Internet so that nobody could stop you.

So why do you believe TLD lies?

It's obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Just go out. Find the cameras on the utility polls and in other areas, take a picture. Post the pics with location information on line.

Crowdsource it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Put up a web site, and let people post photos of utility poles near-by. Take a photo or two of the top of the mast, record the pole number from the ID tag, and let it go.

Who cares if you can definitively identify an FBI camera, you'll be able to identify cameras in general at least, and adapt your behavior accordingly.

Blocking disclosure seems kind of hard to do

[carbonates]

Aren't those big gray boxes on utility poles with coax cables coming out of them kind of hard to miss? What do people think they are? Bird houses? In my neighborhood the roof rats would nest in them!

trivia

[Anonymous Coward]

The federal Judge Richard Jones referenced in this article is the brother of musician Quincy Jones.

Re:The FBI couldn't find their ass if it had a hol

[omnichad]

nslookup crl.geotrust.com

crl.geotrust.com canonical name = crl-ds.ws.symantec.com.edgekey.net.
crl-ds.ws.symantec.com.edgekey.net canonical name = e6845.dscb1.akamaiedge.net.
Name: e6845.dscb1.akamaiedge.net
Address: 23.65.5.163

There's your proof that Symantec is involved in the distributed CRL system GeoTrust uses. Your results will vary slightly based on your geographic location, but it should be close enough.

Re:The FBI couldn't find their ass if it had a hol

[Anonymous Coward]

GEOTRUST.COM - Geo Information
IP Address
69.58.181.102 Whois Trace Route DNSBL lookup
Host geotrust.com
Location US US, United States
City Reston, VA 20190
Organization Verisign
ISP Verisign
AS Number AS30060 VeriSign Infrastructure & Operations
Latitude 3895'99" North
Longitude 7734'28" West

SYMANTEC.COM - Geo Information
IP Address
155.64.16.51 Whois Trace Route DNSBL lookup
155.64.49.54 Whois Trace Route DNSBL lookup
Host symantec.com
Location US US, United States
City Cupertino, CA 95014
Organization Symantec Corporation
ISP Symantec Corporation
AS Number AS26282 MessageLabs Inc.
Latitude 3730'42" North
Longitude 12209'46" West

Now go to cia.gov and look at certificates.

What happens when you click the lock on your browser address bar?

Also, dig is better than nslookup.

what do they look like

[ULTROS]

I need target practice lol.

Here is a pic of the cameras

[SonicSpike]

They are doing this in South Florida too:

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/315...