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!

[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!

[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!

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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]

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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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.

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!

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

[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

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.

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.

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?

[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?

[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: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.

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'

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.

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.

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"

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

[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?

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

[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.

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?

[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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

Could it be any more clear?

[fredrated]

That the FBI is now public enemy number 1?

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.

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?

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!

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.

Here is a pic of the cameras

[SonicSpike]

They are doing this in South Florida too:

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