Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
Can the optical element be burned out by overexposure to, say, some intense green light? preferably at a somewhat obtuse angle?
If that fails there's always paintballs.
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....
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?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
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.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.