Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy

Path of Least Surveillance 274

Posted by michael from the little-brother-is-watching dept.
alewando writes: "iSee is a service provided by the Institute for Applied Autonomy and is intended to allow New York City pedestrians to map out routes in Manhattan that avoid as many surveillance cameras as possible. Their data encompass nearly 2,400 cameras in Manhattan, and plans are in the works to bring the service to Seattle, Chicago, and London. Read the Wired article." This is a great hack - a useful service and a political statement at the same time.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Path of Least Surveillance More

Path of Least Surveillance

Comments Filter:

  • A useful services?! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Psiren ( 6145 ) on Thursday November 29, 2001 @08:52AM (#2630181)
    Yeah, right! So now all the muggers will know exactly where to lay in wait while you happily stroll along without being filmed. Yeah, thats really going to help improve your life isn't it. As dumb ideas go, this is on my top 10.
    • Following your logic: the government will also look for the routes and add cameras to them thus reducing both mugging and freedom at the same time... not a dumb idea, but not a good one either... maybe a kind-of idea ish.. no?
      • I *really* fail to see why it's a reduction in freedom. What can you not do in front of a camera, that you couldn't do before? Apart from commit a crime and get away with it? If you really object to being filmed, then don't live in the city. I live in Cambridge (UK) and I'm probably filmed several times a day. Does it bother me? Not in the least. Why should it?
        • How about this insulting exageration?

          Fuzz: Can we search your home without cause or a warrent?
          You: Umm.... No.
          Coppers: If you have nothing to hide, you have no good reason to object and nothing to fear...
          You: OK. I live in the UK and that makes perfect sense to me.
          Police: Thank you.
          • Geez, how many times have I seen that argument. It doesn't even begin to compare. My house is my private residence. It's nothing like public space. If they wanted to put a camera in my house and film me then hell yes I'd object. What you are suggesting above is a reduction in the citezens basic rights. My argument is that placing cameras in public areas in no way reduces your rights. It does however give the police a better chance of catching criminals on tape.

            • Re:A useful services?! (Score:5, Insightful)

              by fish waffle ( 179067 ) on Thursday November 29, 2001 @10:19AM (#2630498)
              Dunno if it reduces your legal rights, but putting cameras in public places has more of an impact than just catching more criminals.

              One-way observation is an expression of control; it is a social communication. People demonstrate dominion over others through observational dominance. Cameras in public places are continuous reminders that you are a subject of the state, and subservient to its whims. There's a reason why most people associate continuous surveillance with totalitarianism.

              Most people do things they'd rather not have others see. Not all of these can be done in the home. Note that while it is possible that even without cameras you are observed at almost any point outside, it is less likely, and the audience is certain to be far smaller.

              Beyond embarassing actions, it is difficult to live without breaking one law or another at some time. Surely you've jay-walked? Littered? Walked home intoxicated? Put our your garbage before 5pm? Expect a court summons in the mail...

              Potential for abuse is great. Ever seen how security guards use the cameras at malls? Do you enjoy being stalked? Once you've scared away all the pickpockets and muggers, what 'criminals' do you target in order to justify your cameras?

              Ever had a stranger stare at you for a significant length of time? Uncomfortable isn't it? Whether it affects their 'rights' or not, people do not like to be continually observed---it is fundamentally irritating and hostile.

              These are all quality of life kinds of things. How regulated do you want your life to be?

              On the bright side, perhaps they could identify police/government abuses, ala Rodney King --- oh, wait, guess who'll own the videotapes...
            • > [the strawman of police entering one's home without probable cause or warrant] is a reduction in the citezens basic rights. My argument is that placing cameras in public areas in no way reduces your rights. It does however give the police a better chance of catching criminals on tape.

              Although what you say is true, would it not be preferable to simply put more police in public areas?

              Given the choice between being mugged and the mugger getting away with it, being mugged on camera and the mugger maybe being identified and captured a few weeks after I emerge from the hospital, or not being mugged at all because there's a cop on the street corner, I'll take the latter.

          • This already occurs in the UK.

            Try not owning a television.

            You write to the licensing people to tell them you don't have a TV and don't want a licence. They send someone round to visit to check. If you don't let them in then thats enough reason for them to get a warrant to search your house.

        • Re:A useful services?! (Score:5, Interesting)

          by mip ( 534317 ) on Thursday November 29, 2001 @10:10AM (#2630473) Homepage
          I remember seeing somewhere that it is the legal right of the filmee to have access to any recording made of them, for a small fee to cover the costs...so perhaps you could build up a nice collection: "here is me walking down the highstreet..", "and this is me looking at a sign..", "ooh, ohh, this is good! this is me going in a shop!" ;) -dan
          • "here is me walking down the highstreet..", "and this is me looking at a sign..", "ooh, ohh, this is good! this is me going in a shop!"
            And, yet, there's more (the lighter side):
            • "there I am... picking my nose?! oh, yuck."
            • "ah, here's me... checking out that hot gal that walked by me at the bank... oh, she was checking me out -- cool!"
            • "I didn't know my butt was that big!" (the ladies)
            • "I remember this... the day I was singing 'hi ho, hi ho, it's off to work I go'."
            • "wow, my clothes didn't match that day. hmmm, yeah, I don't think I'll wear that again."

        • Re:A useful services?! (Score:4, Insightful)

          by sphealey ( 2855 ) on Thursday November 29, 2001 @11:22AM (#2630814)
          I *really* fail to see why it's a reduction in freedom. What can you not do in front of a camera, that you couldn't do before? Apart from commit a crime and get away with it? If you really object to being filmed, then don't live in the city.
          If there were a few hundred laws, and 99% of the population agreed on those laws and their consequences, and if those laws were enforced evenly with no hypocracy or exceptions for the rich/powerful/politicians/children of politicians, and if the people making and enforcing the laws were truely pure of heart, with no emotions, personal agendas, desire for their own gain, or desire for power for its own sake, then you might be right (I would still disagree on pure philosophical grounds, but you might be).

          In fact, there are millions of laws and hunderds of millions of pages of executive branch interpretation of those laws, people become politicians/police/Attorneys General because they enjoy power and think they know better than others how the others should live their lives, hypocrisy and self-righteousness are rampant among the powerful. Always has been that way in human history.

          So for that reason, it is better not to be watched all the time, even at the cost of some safety.

          sPh

        • Re:A useful services?! (Score:3, Insightful)

          by 4of12 ( 97621 )

          I *really* fail to see why it's a reduction in freedom. What can you not do in front of a camera, that you couldn't do before? Apart from commit a crime and get away with it? If you really object to being filmed, then don't live in the city. I live in Cambridge (UK) and I'm probably filmed several times a day. Does it bother me? Not in the least. Why should it?

          You're right, it shouldn't bother you, as long as you're comfortable with larger parts of your life being on public display as technology improves.

          Arguments to the contrary typically rely on a premise along the lines of the definition of "crime" not being to your liking. If your government defines crime in a manner to your liking, and always will in future, then there is no problem whatsoever.

          On the other hand, if your definitions of crime do not coincide with those of the government, (say PRC, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, North Korea, other places at different times), then you might be bothered by those cameras. Slander of the state may be a serious crime.

          Those governments, too, would justify their policies based on the same statements you just gave.

    • Re:A useful services?! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Marcus Brody ( 320463 ) on Thursday November 29, 2001 @10:10AM (#2630470) Homepage
      Where do you live? Have you been mugged recently?

      I live in campberwell (near Brixton), South London. It has a high crime rate - especially muggings. It has alot of CCTV cameras. AFAIK, i am filmed by at least 12 cameras on my 5 minute walk to/from work.

      I have been mugged on my way home from work. Alot of the people I work with have been mugged (perhaps 1/4 - and yes, there is a tendancy for WASPs and/or foreign nationals to be targetted). However, despite the cameras, not one single culprit for the muggings I know of have been caught.

      Why not?

      1. The muggers already know where the cameras are. I was mugged on my own resedential street, perhaps the only place on my way home where I am not under servaillance. A friend was mugged in a park.

      2. The muggers tend to wear baseball caps and hooded tops at the same time, pretty much obscuring their face altogethor - especially at night, with there heads held down, looking towards the ground (remeber where most cameras are mounted...)

      3. The police are severely underfunded (perhaps too much money on cameras eh?). I would much rather see (as would a large majority of people) patrolling police officers, which offers a much better detternt than any camera. Also, the police dont have the money/resources to chase up many muggings.

      Anyway, perhaps if you read the applied autonomy README:

      http://www.appliedautonomy.com/isee/info.html

      This may provide a few other points of the problems with CCTV, and why what they are doing is a good idea.
    • Don't fool yourself. The muggers all knew that already anyway. The only difference now is that you know they know.

      Why do some people always think that bad things come from freedom of information. Don't you see that the Bad Guys will already have gone to the effort of finding this sort of stuff out anyway? If they didn't they would get locked up very quickly. This info only helps the people who don't already know it. ie, people who won't get locked up for what they are doing. ie, the Good Guys.
    • The government is not responsible for your personal safety - you are. If you are concerned about being mugged, take steps to defend yourself: be aware of your surroundings, avoid putting yourself in dangerous situations, always leave yourself an escape route, and exersize your RIGHT to bear arms. As my sensei always used to say, the best way to win a fight is to not get into one in the first place.

    • Not to mention, the next time a terrorist wants to do some harm, they can use this wonderful service!

  • How dull... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    What if you are agressed ?
    OK, say it an other way : Are the people who want to avoid the cameras the same that carry a cellular phone ?
    • So you suggest that if someone - anyone is ever "aggressed," then everyone needs to be under constant surveillance to keep this from happening again?

      Are the people who want to avoid the cameras the same that carry a cellular phone ?

      One would think so. Carrying a cell phone, or a gun, or walking with friends are options for individuals who are worried about their safety. They choose to take those measures for their own peace of mind. This is a way of protecting your freedom without infringing your neighbors'.

  • My prognosis (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Scutter ( 18425 ) on Thursday November 29, 2001 @08:53AM (#2630191) Journal
    It won't be long before this service is outlawed under the DMCA as "security circumvention" or banned by our new Office of Homeland Security as a "possible tool for use by terrorists". After all, these days, just mentioning terrorism will cause any silly law to be passed.

  • That's too complicated. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by glowingspleen ( 180814 ) on Thursday November 29, 2001 @08:56AM (#2630206) Homepage
    That is far too complicated. Just do what I do...whenever you venture outside, dress like CarrotTop.

    • Re:That's too complicated. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Pseudonym ( 62607 ) on Thursday November 29, 2001 @09:36AM (#2630330)

      If you want to avoid surveillance, the optimal strategy is to walk six feet behind someone dressed like Carrot Top.

      • similar story (Score:4, Interesting)

        by ragnar ( 3268 ) on Thursday November 29, 2001 @09:54AM (#2630398) Homepage
        I heard about a guy who robbed banks years ago before they had cameras. He would wear plain clothes, but have a garrish colored necktie. After slipping the cashier a note informing that this was a holdup and that he had a pistol in his pocket, he walked right out with the money. Afterwards when police would ask what he looked like, few could remember. All they remembered was that he wore a very loud necktie.

        Well... it wouldn't help much in the age of cameras, but blending in to the surroundings or getting overshadowed by something more interesting can be a good way of avoiding detection. Not perfect, but it helps.
    • If Carrot Top is actually arrested because someone used this technique, I will kiss you.

  • 2,400 cameras? (Score:5, Funny)

    by JamesSharman ( 91225 ) on Thursday November 29, 2001 @08:57AM (#2630207)
    What your needing is a good map of the sewers and pair of water tight boots!
  • Who wants to bet that the FBI is logging all connections to the iSee web site ?

    (And what will the slashdot effect do to that logging ?)
    • Yes. Instead of showing up in the cameras you post you starting location and destination to the Internet.
      Makes perfect sense, doesn't it? After all we know that internet is so secure nobody can monitor you there, right?

  • Why? (Score:3, Funny)

    by mustafap ( 452510 ) on Thursday November 29, 2001 @08:58AM (#2630215) Homepage
    Could someone explain how this service will be useful?

    I gain comfort from the presence of a camera. Not a lot, but a little.

    • I suppose you'd also gain comfort in having armed military patrolling the streets, and stopping and searching people who look "out of the ordinary". ph33r the terrorists! Gimme a break. He odds of you dying in a car accident or from slipping in the shower are like 500,000 times greater than dying as a result of terrorist activity. Ban cars! Take baths!

      • Re:Why? (Score:2, Funny)

        by Roofus ( 15591 )
        Ban cars! Take baths!

        Sure, until one day, while running late, you try to make toast while taking a bath. The toaster slips off that damn railing, and then.....POW!

        Who's going to protect you then?!

        • Yeah, looks lie we can't wash anymore at all. Oh, and there is also a higher risk of dying from heart attacks and cancer than from terrorism, so McDonalds and cigarettes should also be outlawed. To protect the citizens of course.

          • Re:Why? (Score:3, Funny)

            by banuaba ( 308937 )
            RMS is so far ahead of you as far as the not-washing thing goes. He's the safest guy I've ever met.


    • If you object to the presence of the cameras and want to make a (tiny) political statement you can go to the webpage and have a look.

      That can result in 2 things:

      1) If enough people go there, often enought, it will make the news that either 1) there is an enormous amount of criminals in the area or 2) (more likely) a lot of people object to the presence of the cameras.
      or
      2) If enought people start avoiding the cameras there is bound to be a quiet place somewhere that will suddenly be flooded with people walking by it. This can also have similar effects as (1).

      Either way, it's usefulness is in giving you the ability to make a (tiny) political statement.
      The real criminals have, without doubt, figured out their "least surveilled" path long time ago, and are probably just laughing at this whole thing.

      • Forgot one thing: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by AftanGustur ( 7715 )

        Remember: freedom is about having choices, and then choosing.

  • I was under the impression that there were far more surveillance cameras in London than those other cities mentioned. Would this work there?
    • As I'm living here in London I may as well offer my two pence. I'd have to say that you wouldn't be able to go anywhere without being seen, at least certainly not in Central London. There are cameras absolutely everywhere both public and private. Trying to find the "path of least observance" wouldn't be viable IMHO.

      On my commute to work (including traveling via the Tube) I would have to pass in the order of 100+ cameras (and those are just the ones I can see).

      It seems like a bit of a waste of time to me...but then I guess I'm not that paranoid.

    • Probably not. Not sure what the situation is in NYC, but the vast majority of the cameras in London are owned and operated by companies for their own security. The Police can request tapes etc (which the companies are obliged to keep for a certain length of time I believe) with a warrant after a crime has been committed, and often do. Most Londoners are not bothered by the cameras because 1) they are not linked together into some spy-net 2) they are not operated by the government and 3) they are reasonably effective in reducing crime, and providing evidence in court.

  • Almost like in former communist countries (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Random Walk ( 252043 ) on Thursday November 29, 2001 @08:59AM (#2630218)
    Back in school, once my whole class was visiting Berlin (long before East and West Germany got united again). We also did a bus trip through East Berlin, and were feeling happy to live in a free country when we noticed the many surveillance cameras there. Little did we know then ...

  • Not a statement, but a total waste of time (Score:5, Funny)

    by standards ( 461431 ) on Thursday November 29, 2001 @09:01AM (#2630222)
    Sorry, but there are just too many surveillance cameras to make this useful. Cameras are small, and are set up by many (perhaps most) private firms. If you want to travel and not be seen in NYC, knowing where a few video cameras are is not the trick.

    The way to stay anonymous is to stop using your EZ-Pass, carry no proximity-type cards, use no credit/debit cards, travel by walking, bike, bus, or taxi.

    Finally, even my apartment building has a video camera looking out the front and back access ways right now. Hum, and it doesn't seem to be on the list.
    • And don't use a mobile phone. Article in today's Guardian newspaper on mobile phone tracking. [guardian.co.uk] A journalist eventually got a list from his mobile provider telling him which mobile masts his calls connected to, but the company wouldn't tell him the location of the masts!

      Remember that if your mobile is switched on it 'squawks' every couple of minutes so the system knows where you are. Even if you dont make any calls 'they' can still track you.

      And also if people say "If you haven't done anything why are you avoiding surveillance cameras?", then reply with "If I haven't done anything why do the cameras need to see me?".

      Baz

  • Spare time. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by matthayes ( 459103 ) <matthew.hayes@ g m a il.com> on Thursday November 29, 2001 @09:01AM (#2630224) Homepage
    In order to get from A to B, if somebody wants to log onto a website, type in their start and finish addresses (and possibly any sites they want to take in along the way), log off, shut down, put their shoes on and then walk the long way round, then they have got A LOT more spare time than me!

    Or they have something very serious to hide. these camera's don't have that this rediculous face-recognition software, do they?

    Matt
    • r they have something very serious to hide. these camera's don't have that this rediculous face-recognition software, do they?

      Here in London, yes they do. Not all of them, but I think that's probably just a matter of time...

  • Re: Path of Least Surveillance (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Iguanasan ( 304342 ) on Thursday November 29, 2001 @09:06AM (#2630238)
    I have to wonder if people would be this uptight if the 2400 cameras were replaced with 2400 police officers. Would you still try to avoid going near them?
    • Would you still try to avoid going near them?

      I would if I could. Officers watch for violations. Cameras just make it easier.

      Why is automated aids to survalence so evil? Well, on the road home from work last night, there were two police cars parked in the mall parking lot facing an intersection. This is good, having the potential for traffic laws to be enforced. Unfortunately, as I was attempting to leave the gas station at the intersection, I would find my left turn arrow never turned green. It was a staring contest between me and the officer across the street. I had the chance (oh, boy!) to ask the officer where I could complain about this broken light. He stated he would be report it, but it would be a few days before it may be fixed.

      What disturbed me about this light is that just last week I was pulled over for running a "red" light. A camera may have see it was still yellow, but with technology, the operator may adjust the view to favorable conditions for an arrest.

      I left the officer, but he remained parked, watching the intersection. It reminds me how cats love watching little animals thinking they may have the sense of freedom. Automated cameras. Fear them.
    • I have to wonder if people would be this uptight if the 2400 cameras were replaced with 2400 police officers.
      Individual policemen at least have (a) human judgement (b) limited memory. Take an example: you spit on the sidewalk. Policeman sees you and decides in that time and place, under those circumstances, it is best to ignore that violation of the law. By evening he has forgotten about the incident.

      Case two: you spit on the sidewalk. You are filmed by a video camera. Five years later Atty. General Ashcroft decides to put every member of your ethnic group behind bars with no recourse. All the tapes are run, you are spotted spitting on the sidewalk, hauled in, transferred to a secret prison in New York with no lawyer or contact with your family (it is happening today in the USofA, and its all over but the gang rape.

      Do you see the difference?

      sPh

      • Do you see the difference?

        Yeah, in one case you're being an idiot and in the other case not.

        It could just as easily be that a police officer sees you walking around the WTC with a camera and even though there is no law against it he uses his "human judgment" to haul you in, at which point they discover you have overstayed your visa and have 20 pounds of cocaine on your person and the AG decides to put you in a secret prison because you are a threat to national security.

        The only argument you have made against automatic surveillance is that sometimes people should be able to break the law and get away with it. First you'd need to convince me that this is the case. Second you'd need to convince me that using cameras somehow makes this impossible. I can still contest a ticket and convince a judge that I should have been allowed to break the law in a specific case. And then the judge gets to use his human judgment to decide whether or not it is a valid argument.

        So I guess I'm saying I don't understand your problem with automatic surveillance to detect breaches of law.
        • The only argument you have made against automatic surveillance is that sometimes people should be able to break the law and get away with it.
          As per my post toward the beginning of this discussion: that would be fine if there were a few hundred laws, if 99% of the population agreed on those laws and penalties, if they were all enforced evenly across the population, and if those doing the enforcing were only and always pure of heart.

          Now, can you say "Richard Nixon and the IRS"? How about "J. Edger Hoover and Martin Luther King"? "My Lai"? Any clearer?

          sPh

          • > Now, can you say "Richard Nixon and the IRS"? How about "J. Edger Hoover and Martin Luther King"? "My Lai"? Any clearer?

            Leaving aside Nixon and Hoover, I point out that Calley was tried and convicted. (And as far as Hoover goes, think of how little oversight there'd be on the FBI were it not for the bad PR from COINTELPRO?)

            Sometimes, the system does work.

      • Yeah. Case 1, I see reason. Case 2, I see typical slashdot slippery-slope paranoia.


        That was the answer, right?

        • Case 2, I see typical slashdot slippery-slope paranoia.
          I assume you are not (a) of Middle-Eastern descent (b) living in Detroit, MI, USA at the moment, eh? No slippery slope there: Just 5000 people being "invited" to report to the nearest police station for "friendly" questioning. And anyone who declines that "invitation"? 3000 people are currently being held in federal custody (up to 10 weeks now) with no lawyer and no communication with their family. Slippery slope for sure...

          sPh

  • City Centre London, especially Oxford Road is notorius for pickpockets, the Metropolitan Police have been using cameras to combat the pickpockets to great effect for some time. The Police can get hard evidence that will lead to the prosecution of individuals for their crimes.

    iSee is a tool that can be used to aid criminals who potentially could be identified by security camera pictures.

    I can't see that it has any other use, unless you are actually doing something wrong, do you have anything to fear from the cameras?

  • goes both ways (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bluebomber ( 155733 ) on Thursday November 29, 2001 @09:09AM (#2630247) Homepage
    This works both ways. Sure, you can find a route that avoids security cameras. But if you're the "bad guys" you now know where you need to install more security cameras. And -- at least if it was me -- you'd install those cameras in such a way that people don't know they're there and everyone still thinks they're on a "safe" route.

    This is just for the paranoid, though. And I'm not paranoid. They really are out to get me.
  • My overactive sense of paranoia likes this...but then again...this is just too stupid. Avoiding a few security cameras won't do much to help your anonymity, so why go through the trouble? Someone out there is either a lot more paranoid than I am...or just has way too much spare time, or both.
  • I wonder how long this site will be around if a terrorist uses it to avoid security cameras and plant a bomb...

  • CCTV DPA WTF (Score:5, Interesting)

    by squaretorus ( 459130 ) on Thursday November 29, 2001 @09:23AM (#2630292) Homepage Journal
    The excellent Mark Thomas [channel4.com] Product, a show on c4 [channel4.com] in the UK had a pop at "the Data Protection Act and in particular its sections covering Closed Circuit Television".

    Essentially, in the UK, if a CCTV camera records your image you just have to write to the owner of the camera with a £10 cheque asking for a copy of all information they hold on you. By law under the DPA they have to provide you with a copy. If they don't they can go to jail.

    He went into a McDonalds with a troup of tumblers and jugglers and asked for a copy of the tape. He went a bunch of other places aswell, get him on video, very funny!

    Lots of info starting here [mtcp.co.uk], at his own FAQ [channel4.com], and if you get hooked check out google directory [google.com] for stacks of links.

    This is trigger happy TV [triggerhappytv.com] for the broadsheet reader [guardian.co.uk]!
    • Thanks for that link - it confirmed that another random show I saw a few years ago was indeed Mark Thomas too (Tax-Exempt Artworks [mtcp.co.uk]).

      For more similar stuff in the US, with an anti-Corporate bent, try Michael Moore [michaelmoore.com], purveyor of the excellent TV Nation.
  • Just about where that iSee introductory flash animation zooms in on.

    Based on the iSee map... I have the distinct joy to tell you that it appears I can't so much as scratch my ass without 3 different Federal and State agencies knowing about it, much less go outside and walk anywhere.

    Hey? Is that a casino bubble camera just outside my window? Is that another one over there under that pigeon?

    They don't need no Magic Lantern to intercept my keystrokes.

    Grumble, grumble... thanks for the link Slashdot, thanks for the map IAA: ignorance really is bliss after all. ;-P
    • > Hey? Is that a casino bubble camera just outside my window? Is that another one over there under that pigeon?

      If there's a bubblecam underneath a pigeon, I truly pity the poor bastard who has to operate it all day long.

  • I would like to see more surveillance cameras (Score:4, Funny)

    by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Thursday November 29, 2001 @09:32AM (#2630318)
    I live in central Barcelona in Spain. The petty crime here - bag-snatching, pick-pocketing etc. - is terrible. I wish they would fill the streets with surveillance cameras - that would be much preferable to the damn thieves.

    Someone on the city council has a sense of humor. They are doing a trial of surveillance cameras in George Orwell Square.
  • What's the world coming to when paranoia represents a business opportunity ?

  • aren't we over-reacting? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Cesaro ( 78578 ) on Thursday November 29, 2001 @09:46AM (#2630362) Journal
    Who CARES? People watch other people when they are in PUBLIC places. Who cares if they're watching them in person or on VCR. Someone taping me walking down the street doesn't bother me a lick. Someone taping me in the shower does. It's a simple public space/private space issue.

    But then you say...Oh but they could all get together and track you and keep track of everyplace you go! OH NO! Someone is going to keep a log of my dreary day to day activities. I don't even remember stuff I do on a day to day basis, if someone else wants to, go for it.

    And this face recognition stuff. This *ALL* hinges on the software working correctly. If it can be proven that it works, and that innocents aren't being persecuted why the hell would you NOT want criminals picked up? If you don't like what we've defined as 'criminal' then by a democratic process (in most nations) you go through the process of changing those laws. That is all there is to it.

    Everyone gets on this freedom schtick and doesn't take the time to think about the problems logically.
    • There's no oversight. The more effectively the movements of any individual can be tracked, the more likely he is to be surveilled for *any* reason.

      Being in a public place does not excuse someone from stalking you.

      Imagine the uses of such data to an unscrupulous cop, when we know full well that even current law enforcement databases are heavily misused!
    • I gotta agree with you and I just want to add one more point I think you vaguely hinted at. Imagine the infrastructure required to track EVERY individual (as many opponents to these systems seem to think they track everyone - themselves being of utmost importance to national security that of course they top the list) by video surveillance? Imagine the manpower required to run the system. What about the hardware infrastructure? Storage of all the video to track every individual?

      These systems act as a deterrent to crime, not as a solution to stopping crime. As you are in a public place there is no expectation of privacy and law enforcement should be free to make use of electronic surveillance equipment to improve monitoring of city streets and parks.
      • Imagine the infrastructure required to track EVERY individual

        Not all that hard, actually. Assuming the technology works well, the infrastructure (ie, cameras and networking) is already in place in most cities. You don't need to store all of the video, you simply assign a unique identifier to each person and time/date stamp each time they are recognized on a camera. Assuming one person is recognized by 100 camears, he will only generate a few kilobytes of info in the database.

        #112742343746 Doe, John 0800 CamID#2534
        #112742343746 Doe, John 0815 CamID#2512
        #112742343746 Doe, John 0900 CamID#1865

        etc. Even in a city the size of New York, the database - while quite large - is manageable with current, off the shelf technology. Video from these cameras is probably stored for a few days to a week already, in case they need to pull the records for some reason. The database could be stored for the same amount of time with a few terrabytes of disk space. The face recognition technology notwithstanding, everything else is trivial.

        So what's the paranoia? Nobody is going to want to track ME, right? Probably not. Until, of course, I piss off the wrong person. Maybe I accidentally cutoff one of the sysadmins, or an off duty cop. Maybe a staffer in the office that runs the equipment and I got into a verbal argument in a grocery store. Maybe someone who doesn't like me for whatever reason knows someone who has a brother who has access to the records. What could someone do to me with this data? Lots of things. They could harass me. They could stalk me quite efficiently. They could setup a crime and frame me. The list goes on and on.

        I know someone who supervises an office. She was given training on how to avoid retaliation by ex employees. Part of that is to not take the same route home every night. What happens when someone she fired who wants revenge gains copies of her movements throughout the entire city - not video info, just a dump of a few entries in a database printed on a single sheet of paper?

        The whole idea is just bad...

    • Re:aren't we over-reacting? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by isaac ( 2852 ) on Thursday November 29, 2001 @11:15AM (#2630785)
      But then you say...Oh but they could all get together and track you and keep track of everyplace you go! OH NO! Someone is going to keep a log of my dreary day to day activities. I don't even remember stuff I do on a day to day basis, if someone else wants to, go for it.

      With all due respect, I'm not sure you're really aware of what exploitation of such data might do to your life.

      Everyone finds themselves under scrutiny at some time - job interviews, court proceedings (think divorces, civil suits, subpoenas to testify as witnesses, etc., not just criminal acts). Should a prospective employer be able to purchase information on your movements? Do you want them to know you're, e.g., being treated for a medical condition not relevant to your ability to do the job? Or what about your current employer - should they be able to keep tabs on you outside of work, to see if you're interviewing somewhere else?

      What if you witness a crime and are asked to testify in court? Should the adverse party have access to your day-to-day movements, they will certainly attempt to use them to undermine your credibility, with potentially embarrasing results. Involved in a divorce or custody case? Lawsuit with your insurer? Expect this info, if available, to be used against you in the most prejudicial way.

      Everyone eventually rubs someone else the wrong way at some time. Do you want the unstable guy you cut off on the freeway this morning to have access to your day-to-day movements?

      There really aren't any regulations or statutes pertaining to the sale of this type of information; only very narrow classes of information are protected at all by law (medical records, the privacy rights to which you waive if you have insurance; video rental records, explicitly protected by Congress after the Bork confirmation hearings; student records, also protected from disclosure by statute). Everythign else is pretty much fair game.

      I think your apathy belies serious naivete.

      -Isaac

      • Addendum (Score:3, Insightful)

        by isaac ( 2852 )
        The implicit assumption in my comment, of course, is that information about people's movements, gleaned through automated surveillance techniques (like cell-phone tracking and face-recognition (however imperfect the technology is today)), will eventually be collated and sold just as other sorts of personal data are sold. Think credit-reporting bureaus, etc.

        I'm talking about a decade from now when TransUnion and Equifax are brokering this information.

        -Isaac

  • a useful service.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by growler66 ( 52493 )
    ... for planting explosive devices
    ... for working out where the best place to mug someone is
    ... ensuring that when a crime is carried out by someone who's description matches you, you're not on tape as being somewhere else at the time

    Need I go on?
    The entire "CCTV cameras are evil" thing has just reared it's ugly head again. If you live in "the land of the free" and all that why the hell do you need to fear CCTV?

    Try the London Underground at the dead of night... then remove the CCTV, make a big noise about how it's being done for freedom, and try paying the tube a visit at night again :-P The number of people surviving the Tube unscathed at night would drop dramatically.

    Also CCTV isnt just used for security. A large number of the major motorways and road interchanges in the UK have full CCTV coverage which is monitored constantly to ensure traffic flow is uninterrupted. The control centre that watches the cameras has control over the electronic information boards by the sides of roads to allow them to impose temporary speed limits, and give warnings about hazards such as fog at a moment's notice. More info can be found in what I think is the original proposal (dating back to 1997) http://www.highways.gov.uk/info/tcc/rtcc/index.htm

    Finally dont underestimate the power of CCTV for making the masses feel safe. It's a cheap way to make people feel safer, and also does a fair job at discouraging crime.
    • It is a gentele irony that whe here in the west continually critisize the old communist-block states. A place where:

      Every letter was opened by state security forces.

      A file was kept on everybody.

      Where people were arrested and jailed without explanation

      Then we turn around and defend things like:

      Security cameras on every street corner.

      Surveillance cameras on highway bridges that track our cars by their license plates.

      Databases contianing all manner of personal informantion which are incerasingly becoming available to every Tom Dick and Harry.

      People being discriminated on the base of their genetic makeup.

      And we still manage to claim we are more free than the people who lived under Soviet communism. Well perhaps we are in some ways more free than the peoples of the old eastern-bloc. In others we are increasingly becoming less free. It is easy to point at Crime as a reason to put up security cameras. This however ignores the fact that Crime is the result of poverty. Setting up cameras is only treating the symptom of a disease and not the cause of it. Even the British admit that the only thing cameras achieve is to move the crime to places where there are no cameras.

  • Heh. Anyone else notice that at the top of the page [appliedautonomy.com] it says version "v.911" and the tagline "now more than ever"? Obviously no coincince about the timing of this tool.

    When did it launch originally?

  • If you have done nothing, you have nothing to fear (Score:3, Interesting)

    by redhog ( 15207 ) on Thursday November 29, 2001 @10:52AM (#2630652) Homepage
    I've read a lot of comments stating more or less "f you have done nothing, you have nothing to fear". The problems with the cameras have nothing to do with criminals getting caught (thats a good thing imho), or someone who shouldn't have seen it, accidentally whatching you and your lover kissing... It has to do with demonstrations. In A free country, you are allowed to walk in a demonstration to show your political standpoint, without the police recording your personal presence! Such recording is in e.g. Sweden called opinion registration, and is forbidden by our constitution!
  • I can't see how this is a useful service. It seems that everyone here is under the assumption that there are people actually watching the stuff fed from the cameras. Assuming the 2400 number is correct, I seriously doubt that the NYPD, FBI, CIA, or any other Black Helicopter organization would have the manpower to watch the 57000 hours of tape collected per day!

    OTOH, these cameras are useful in reconstruction of events after the fact. Mugged with no witnesses? If there is a camera recording what is going on, it doesn't matter. What irks me the most about this is that (outside of Slashdot) the people that whine the most about the cameras are the ones that they are there for in the first place. Recently there has been a lot of talk about traffic light cameras to catch people who run red lights. All of the interviewees that I have seen that are against it say something to the effect of "Yeah, I do it" and then give some lame excuse. Guess what buddy -- its AGAINST THE F*CKING LAW. If you get caught breaking the law then I have no sympathy for you whatsoever.

    • Assuming the 2400 number is correct, I seriously doubt that the NYPD, FBI, CIA, or any other Black Helicopter organization would have the manpower to watch the 57000 hours of tape collected per day!

      The fear is not the current state of the cameras. It's that they'll be used to construct and tie into databases in the future. 57000 hours of tape is worthless to anyone unless they know the time and location that something took place. A huge database full of text info gleaned from those cameras, however (say, using face or behavior recognition technology) is easily searched. Want to know what John Doe did on his lunchbreak? Just search the database and it will return a list of where he was spotted and what he was doing according ("walking", "running", "picking nose", etc).

      This technology isn't IF, it's WHEN. Face recognition is already working, albet not perfectly, and they're already talking about behavior recognition software. That's the fear here.

  • you miss the point (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ChristTrekker ( 91442 ) on Thursday November 29, 2001 @01:01PM (#2631431)

    Sure, cameras may help nab a few pickpockets that otherwise wouldn't be prosecuted. Ask yourself how many people are pickpockets? Maybe 1% of people are willful criminals? That's probably very high.

    That means that 99% of the people that are spied on by cameras are doing nothing wrong. "If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide." That's a joke. We all have something to hide...our private lives. I'm not willing to surrender the freedom and privacy of 99% of people just so that 1% may (or may not!) have a better chance of being prosecuted.

    There's too much potential for abuse. We already know this. Security guards in malls stalk/ogle women. They make their own copies and pass them around to buddies. If the gov't gets involved in this, you can bet this information will be available "as a public service." Do you want potential employers getting tapes of you walking into a bar every night? It's none of their business how you relax on your private time, but they might get the impression that you'd be a less reliable employee.

    The question you should be asking yourself with any proposed legislation is not, "What effect will this have if properly enforced," but, "What effect will this have if it's abused?"

    Being able to monitor someone is a control issue. Are you comfortable with someone staring at you? Didn't think so. So why are you comfortable with cameras watching your every move?

    Being monitored is a statement that gov't doesn't trust us. I thought we were innocent until proven guilty in the US. Now we're all presumed guilty, and Big Brother is just waiting to catch it. Where's the probable cause for this evidence collection? This isn't simply "happening" to catch someone in the act of a crime, this is purposeful evidence collection without just cause.

  • I live in Virginia Beach, VA, and the city council is trying their asses off to get cameras installed at the beach, not just cameras, but cameras armed with facial recognition software, you think Manhattan is bad, try having your face scanned.

    "You're going to jail"
    "Why?"
    "Because the computer said you're Carlos the Jackal."
    "But I'm not."
    "Well, computers don't lie son, I mean, Carlos, lets load him in the Paddy Wagon next to Osama, Manuel Noriega, and the Olsen twins."

  • Read Brin (Score:3, Informative)

    by loosenut ( 116184 ) on Thursday November 29, 2001 @03:51PM (#2632693) Homepage Journal
    If you are at all interested in the issues brought about by introducing one-way cameras to public places, I strongly recommend David Brin's Transparent Society [kithrup.com] .

    He sees (and I agree) that these technologies will become more and more prevalent, and that all we can do to prevent their abuse by police and the government is to carefully monitor the people that are monitoring us.

    It's a fascinating book, and covers a wide range of topics, from Internet censorship and toxicity of ideas, to the need for a society to criticize its leaders in order to remain healthy and free.

  • Not that anyone will read this (Score:3, Insightful)

    by lblack ( 124294 ) on Thursday November 29, 2001 @04:13PM (#2632850)
    So I'll keep it brief. After comment #200, nobody pays attention.

    The problems with cameras is not that they are an invasion of privacy in the same sense as, say, police entering your home without a warrant.

    The problem with them is that they require you to place absolute trust in your government. In the states, at least, that seems to run completely counter to the ideas of the founding fathers.

    Whoever is in power has access to tapes of everything you do -- including who you spent time with. (Right to associate freely), including what placard you were holding (free speech), your religious dress / ornamentation(freedom of religion).

    So whoever is in power, with some simple cross referencing, could isolate dissidents/undesirables pretty quickly, assuming they bothered to maintain an index of the tapes.

    Too much information possessed by a government regarding its citizenry is a very very bad thing. Film showing everything a citizen does in a public place is certainly too much information.

    -l

Slashdot Top Deals

Genetics explains why you look like your father, and if you don't, why you should.

Close