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!

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.

[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.

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.

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

[inode_buddha]

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

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: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.