Slashdot Mirror


Cities Worldwide Spent Over $3 Billion Last Year To Peep On You (cnet.com)

The world market for security equipment in city surveillance surged past $3 billion last year and won't be slowing down anytime soon, a research report by IHS Markit said Wednesday. From a report: State capitals and major cities have been spurring rapid development of city surveillance market in recent years, mostly to help police forces maintain public safety and reduce crime, the researcher said. Demand has surged for video content analysis, like facial recognition, as well as for things like body-worn cameras and services for police officers. IHS Markit estimated the city surveillance market will grow at average annual rate of 14.6 percent from 2016 to 2021. China is the biggest market for security equipment in city surveillance, taking up a two-thirds share, and it will also be the first country to widely use facial recognition in city surveillance projects, according to the researcher. More than 10,000 smart cameras are expected to roll out in Shenzhen city this year.

44 of 98 comments (clear)

  1. Cities paying for it? No. YOU are paying for it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The nature of government is such that you are being forced to pay for your own breach of privacy.

  2. Translaton by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    Translation: the world needs a good, hard recession to slow things down, maybe bankrupt a few governments. The only thing that made the US think about reducing prison sentences, drug legalization, etc, is that states could no longer afford it during the Great Recession.

    1. Re:Translaton by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I'm going to put an end to recessions in the US forever, along with homelessness and hunger; I'm also absolutely on board with getting rid of FISA 702 and other such things (Elizabeth Warren is your best friend, by the way).

      I need some guidance on where all the messes are. I can solve practically any problem, but I need to be appraised of the problem so I can ferret out the appropriate facts. Criminal justice reform is enormous for me; state surveillance is kind of a quiet topic that the state likes to not talk about,and I'm not a DOD surveillance technician running all those secret programs.

      I'm going to need to look at things like GDPR and this ridiculous CLOUD act to figure out what to implement and what to repeal. USC is too huge and I'm not sure I can find it all by brute force; I may need to hire staff. Lots of staff. I need to check House ethics rules and determine if we need new legislation allowing Members to set up a Leadership 501(c)(4) for official use only--e.g. to hire staff in excess of what Congress allows--along with torpedoing the ridiculous abuse of Leadership PACs for personal use.

  3. I'll just close my curtains by bobstreo · · Score: 2

    Peep is probably not the word they intend, they mean monitor/spy/track/control.

    It's even more intrusive when you consider that most people have an always on, personal tracking GPS/locater in their pockets and purses all the time.

    1. Re:I'll just close my curtains by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      How about ... "creep?"

      As in a creeping stalker.

    2. Re:I'll just close my curtains by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      Peep is probably not the word they intend, they mean monitor/spy/track/control.

      It's not the peeping that I'm worried about. The typical location being watched is a public space and I have no reasonable expectation of privacy for what I do in that space.

      It's the coordination across an entire network of cameras, with "new and improved" facial recognition technologies to boot, in order to surveil individuals in vast numbers across entire geographies, persistently, and with retention of the data even in the absence of an immediate or prior incident, that crosses over from peeping at public activity to governmental stalking, spying, and the like.

      If the government can see me doing anything I do publicly just like Joe Q. Public, fine. If the government is following me throughout my day like Joe Q. Stalker, there's at least the same problem as actually being followed throughout the day by Joe Q. Stalker.

    3. Re:I'll just close my curtains by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      I have no reasonable expectation of privacy for what I do in that space.

      But you do (or at least did) have the reasonable expectation that your movements, actions, time in/out and all would not be recorded, tracked and analyzed...and stored for a long time to be used against you in a number of different methods and manners and who knows when the date could be?

      It's one thing to be seen by people...its quite another to have it recorded and kept by authorities.

      This is a new thing and time to fight it is NOW!!!

      What one generation accepts....the next generation embraces.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:I'll just close my curtains by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      Exactly, those privacy laws and conventions come from a time before automated monitoring could be a 'thing'.

      The ability to have a network of cameras recording all the time; tracking everyone at all times as they move about, might technically be within the letter of the law; but is most certainly very much contrary to the spirit of them.

      And as has been previously mentioned; once the government gets a new tool, which can be sold to the public as a 'safety' measure, it's there, forever.

      The lack of (real) push-back regarding CCTV systems and the like is only the beginning. Surveillance technology will only become more pervasive and more automated. This should be seen as an absolute fucking crisis -- we're quickly approaching an Orwellian nightmare where personal space, privacy, and liberty are no more.

      Kaczynski was on to something. (minus the whole murder and bombing business.)

  4. Cockroaches by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Governments like the communists in China don't seem to understand: The more cameras they install, the more actual criminals will improve at hiding, and the more the average citizen, minding their own business, is made miserable. Even if they implanted GPS, cameras, and microphones on everyone, cradle-to-grave, criminals will find ways to circumvent it all and do what they want to do anyway. Meanwhile, again, the average citizen has more and more of their basic human rights taken away, more and more of their privacy destroyed (until there is none), and the more and more miserable their existence becomes. When will they stop? When people start committing suicide en masse, because the Afterlife has to be better than the Hell they're living in? I feel sorry for the average Chinese citizen. Before too long, farm animals will be treated better than they are.

    1. Re:Cockroaches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You don't seem to understand the whole point of this. The point is not to prevent crime. The point is to manage the lives of everyone. Governments understand that very well. They're not stupid.

    2. Re:Cockroaches by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

      The ones that do have something to hide.

      Trollolololol.

      *yawn* there's nothing more boring than an unoriginal troll. That whole "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" line is older than Last Thursday.
      LOW QUALITY BAIT; LURK MOAR.

  5. Re:Exclusives. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    That's a feature, not a bug.

  6. making that less bad by Jodka · · Score: 1

    I am ok with video surveillance only with these protections:

    - Non-exclusive access. If the police or any government agency can see the video feed, then the feed must be made public and everyone gets to stream it.
    - Cameras only in public spaces

             

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    1. Re:making that less bad by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Terrible idea -- if it's public, anyone can archive it, bypassing data-protection regulations. Also, why should a husband be able to watch the street outside his wife's suspected lover's house 24/7? How about an employer watching the street outside your house to see if you were out partying late last night? People should have a safety valve -- the ability to do certain things and even tell lies without getting caught. We don't need a panopticon where our families, friends, employers, etc can keep us under a microscope all the time.

      Public place or not, limits on retention in the absence of a violent crime in the area are in everyone's interest.

    2. Re:making that less bad by BronsCon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Are there limits on the retention of photos and video I shoot in a public space?

      This is no different.

      You can't tout the argument that one should have no expectation of privacy in a public space (which is the only justification I ever hear for these cameras) while simultaneously shouting "MUH PRIVACIES!" The world doesn't work like that, it's one or the other and you have to choose.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    3. Re:making that less bad by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Effectively, there are limits to you creating the content in the first place. If you dropped a camera in a public place and left it unattended, it would probably get stolen or confiscated fairly quickly. Whereas, a government, with unlimited ability to record in a public place, should be subject to stricter data protection laws.

    4. Re:making that less bad by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Funny, the camera I have aimed down my street, which is in a public place, hasn't been stolen yet.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    5. Re:making that less bad by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      You're limited to placing them on your property or property you rent, you can't go around dropping cameras everywhere. A government can.

    6. Re:making that less bad by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      I can also shoot from anywhere I'm allowed to access. It's really no different.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    7. Re:making that less bad by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Yes, you can film there, but it's unlikely you'd be allowed to put a camera there that records 24/7. Thus your ability to film is limited by your physical presence there.

    8. Re: making that less bad by Type44Q · · Score: 1
      Bullshit. If you're somewhere, your rights to document what you experience outweigh the rights to privacy of those in uour vicinity.

      If you're not physically present somewhere, you have no right to invade the privacy of those that are.

      Anyone who says otherwise is a fucking cretin.

    9. Re: making that less bad by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Actually, the law says otherwise. Whether or not my camera will still be there when I go back, or whether it's creepy or not, are completely different issues. Plenty of private parties have cameras sitting in locations where they're not physically present; ever seen a news channel traffic cam? That's just one example, there are many more.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    10. Re: making that less bad by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      You need the property owner's or city's permission (in the case of a public space or road) to set up a traffic cam. You can't just zip-tie a camera to a phone pole and expect it to still be there next week.

    11. Re:making that less bad by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I look forward to Google's and Facebook's shadow profiles getting significantly better.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    12. Re: making that less bad by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      I'll ignore the remark about property owner because we're talking about public spaces. From there, that's not as true as you might think.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  7. Re:Cities paying for it? No. YOU are paying for it by BronsCon · · Score: 1

    Indeed, we dare not put a price on the value of a human life. Freedom and liberty, however, are worth more; they cost quite a large number of human lives.

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  8. Re: Cities paying for it? No. YOU are paying for i by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Middle ground: somewhere like Costa Rica. A neutral country can be much less worried about things like terrorism, and its economy can be a lot better due to lack of military spending waste.

  9. Now I know what I'm worth....

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
  10. catching taggers? by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    I see graffiti on bridges, signs, etc. but has any of this surveillance stuff get any of this as it occurs? Any arrests from video footage? Just wondering.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  11. Re:Cities paying for it? No. YOU are paying for it by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
    You know...not long back, I saw some stories about guys putting high output IR LEDs I think it was, on hats, that would basically blind out cameras.

    Is something like that, a wearable that blinds the cameras but not the human eye available or a viable option these days?

    Is there a way to build an analagous "faraday cage" optically around you so that cameras can't really capture your image very well?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  12. Feed, cloth and house a person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    groceries are as little as $125/month/person (USDA's estimate), but that does not include preparation costs. But let's say that's our lower bound of $1500/year/person.
    Volunteer organizations often claim that it costs less than $2/meal. Assuming a person has 3 meals a day that's $2190/year/person.
    Salvation army estimates it costs them $20-$30 to feed and shelter a person for one night. So up to $11k/year. Homeless shelters that charge in Honolulu are taking $70/month and L.A.'s Skid Row charges $7 a night (equivalent to $210/mo), which is believed to be below both their total cost.
    So for argument's sake, let's say that it's $2k + $11k to feed and house someone. or $13k/year.

    $3B means we could have helped nearly 231,000 people. Sounds like money wasted on surveillance that could have improved life for residents of a city as well as removed the major complaint of homeless causing problems or being an eyesore.

  13. Call me a cynic by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    The cameras are mainly pointed at the neighborhoods around gated communities and the property of prominent business owners in the best parts of a commercial district. These cameras are not pointed at industrial areas or poor residential areas where you're likely to find people tagging bridges.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re: Call me a cynic by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      These cameras are targeting virtually every major intersection but you're probably right re: foot traffic.

  14. Re: Cities paying for it? No. YOU are paying for i by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    Could be worse - I misread the headline; thought we were paying for the privilege of getting peed on.

  15. Re:Cities paying for it? No. YOU are paying for it by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

    Freedom and liberty, however, are worth more; they cost quite a large number of human lives.

    Yep, and once rights are LOST you never really stand a chance of getting them back.

    And worse, once you allow things like this...well, the old saying is:

    "What one generation accepts....the next generation embraces...."

    And as far as the police go....do keep in mind, it has been established by many a court verdict, that the police are NOT, in fact, responsible or culpable for your protection against crime.

    They are only there to try to solve crimes that have happened, and charge people with those crimes, but they are under no legal obligation to come to you aid or prevent or interact in a crime that you have in progress on your person or property.

    Remember that....when you are anxious to give up any of your rights, or your privacy which allow you freedom, and the ability to defend you and your families' lives.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  16. Re:Cities paying for it? No. YOU are paying for it by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

    People have figured out how to provide security for their families since time immemorial without have a police camera jammed up their ass.

    The trouble is, there are a lot of people, many of which are quite young and have little real life experience, that are actively fighting to remove the ability to protect yourself and your family.

    I've not see such a large movement to, voluntarily in the US, remove and lose rights.

    Once they are gone....they are GONE.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  17. Not really that much by Solandri · · Score: 1

    Latest estimate is that 54% of the world's population lives in cities. That's over 4 billion people. So $3 billion spent on surveillance works out to less than 75 cents per person.

    Of course most of that spending is skewed towards developed countries. But even there, the OECD accounts for about 18% of the world's population, or 1.37 billion. 68% of them live in cities, or 930 million. So $3 billion represents about $3.20 per OECD citizen, or 0.017% of the average OECD government spending of $18,496 per citizen.

  18. Does it actually work? by cheezhankrn · · Score: 2

    I have never heard of any crime stopped, or the perpetrator caught via these.
    Just the old anecdotal, friends with cars broken into under cameras in parking lots or people mugged in areas with cameras in cities.

    The actual effect is never mentioned. Does it reduce crime significantly? Is it all just security theatre?
    $3 billion on 'look how much we spent on making you safe!'

    1. Re:Does it actually work? by baboon · · Score: 2

      I just finished watching season 2 of 3 of "Caught on Camera" on Netflix (UK CCTV, mostly police). Prior to that, I would have been as adamantly against such government surveillance like CCTV as anyone else here. But now, I'm not so sure this is entirely a bad thing. I welcome anyone to intelligently dispel my illusion.

      With all the private security cameras and smart phones everywhere, I haven't had much expectation of physical privacy for a long time, except restrooms/etc and inside my own residence (if I elect to use curtains). Ok, on a side note, I also think flying drones (private or government) without permission over anyone's private property needs to be explicitly illegal. There is clearly some gray areas that need to worked out.

      Of course, the TV show is going to focus on successful restraint of the the worst people and only occasionally show examples of mocking people acting foolish. But watching the operators track some extremely violent offender from street to street, or better yet, with that extraordinary good IR camera in the helicopter, hopping fences and ducking into bushes, is all really quite satisfying.

    2. Re:Does it actually work? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I have never heard of any crime stopped, or the perpetrator caught via these.

      The Austin Bomber. It was last week, FFS.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  19. Re:Cities paying for it? No. YOU are paying for it by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    I've looked into it some and you need a lot of IR power to do it. Basically you want something that really messes with he metering on the camera which takes a lot of light. For something like a vehicle and ALPRs (automated license plate readers) it seems doable but for a single person you many need to lug around a fairly sizable battery that is capable of 10s of watts of continuous output. For cars 100s of watts of continuous output is nothing

    --
    Time to offend someone
  20. Re:Cities paying for it? No. YOU are paying for it by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

    I've looked into it some and you need a lot of IR power to do it. Basically you want something that really messes with he metering on the camera which takes a lot of light. For something like a vehicle and ALPRs (automated license plate readers) it seems doable but for a single person you many need to lug around a fairly sizable battery that is capable of 10s of watts of continuous output. For cars 100s of watts of continuous output is nothing

    Well, could start with the car.

    Do you by chance have any links you could share?

    Thanks in advance!!

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  21. Re:Cities paying for it? No. YOU are paying for it by BronsCon · · Score: 1

    Too many people just don't get this. Very well stated.

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  22. Re:Cities paying for it? No. YOU are paying for it by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    Yes I do. When I first wondered if it would be possible to do such a thing I did some searching and found the following 2 posts from someone who had puttered around with it some:
    post 1
    post 2
    My takeaway from that is that he was gong for more of a flare effect which he did sort of achieve but only with modifying the plate which would likely result in other legal issues. In the tests he did he was still operating in the 10s of watts range which isn't that much power. Instead my thought would be to throw the exposure off of the camera and massively underexpose the plate. To do this you would need to have a draw in the 100s of watts and have it be over a larger area near the plate. Also the LEDs to use looks to be these ones. Working in IR also has the advantage that many states have resigned their license plates so that they are easier to read in the IR spectrum as the cameras used for ALPRs are IR cameras. Also keep in mind that covering your license plate with anything may be illegal in your state as it is in Minnesota and that there may be vehicle illumination laws which apply but that doesn't appear to be the case in MN as they only cover visible light. But from what I can tell pumping out half a KW of IR in front of and behind your car in MN isn't illegal (IANAL) so long as the device doing it doesn't cover the license plate.

    --
    Time to offend someone