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!

[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!

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

If that fails there's always paintballs.

Re:Easy detection

[kheldan]

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

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....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.