Slashdot Log In
Path of Least Surveillance
Posted by
michael
on Thu Nov 29, 2001 07:48 AM
from the little-brother-is-watching dept.
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This discussion has been archived.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.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
A useful services?! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A useful services?! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:[ot] moderators (Score:2)
Re:A useful services?! (Score:2)
Re:A useful services?! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:A useful services?! (Score:2)
Re:A useful services?! (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Parent
Re:A useful services?! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:A useful services?! (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Parent
Re:A useful services?! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
My prognosis (Score:5, Interesting)
That's too complicated. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's too complicated. (Score:5, Funny)
If you want to avoid surveillance, the optimal strategy is to walk six feet behind someone dressed like Carrot Top.
Parent
similar story (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
2,400 cameras? (Score:5, Funny)
Let us be really paranoid (Score:2, Funny)
(And what will the slashdot effect do to that logging ?)
Re:Let us be really paranoid (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
I gain comfort from the presence of a camera. Not a lot, but a little.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
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)
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?!
Re:Why? (Score:2)
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)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
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)
Remember: freedom is about having choices, and then choosing.
Almost like in former communist countries (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a statement, but a total waste of time (Score:5, Funny)
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 dont use a cell phone. (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Or they have something very serious to hide. these camera's don't have that this rediculous face-recognition software, do they?
Matt
Re:Spare time. (Score:2)
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)
Cops have a short memory (Score:2)
It's the difference between being watched and being stalked. With cameras, who's to know what's happening?
goes both ways (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just for the paranoid, though. And I'm not paranoid. They really are out to get me.
Good intentions but... (Score:2)
CCTV DPA WTF (Score:5, Interesting)
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]!
I live in Times Square (Score:4, Funny)
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.
I would like to see more surveillance cameras (Score:4, Funny)
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 ... (Score:2)
so they'll know where to put new cameras. (Score:2, Insightful)
aren't we over-reacting? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:aren't we over-reacting? (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Parent
Addendum (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm talking about a decade from now when TransUnion and Equifax are brokering this information.
-Isaac
a useful service.... (Score:2, Insightful)
... 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
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.ht
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.
Re:a useful service.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
If you have done nothing, you have nothing to fear (Score:3, Interesting)
you miss the point (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Read Brin (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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
Troll, link is bad, do not click (Score:2)
Someone mod this guy into oblivion. The link logs you out of /., there is no such story.
Re:Here's a thought... (Score:4, Interesting)
Evil Terrorist Type : I must destroy the (infidels/capitalist opressors/alien invasion force)* for the glory of (allah/jahweh/the big purple dinosaur/elvis told me to do it)*!
ETT: Oh, hang on, they might have some CCTV cameras, and find out it was me. Best not then, that's me really deterred. It's not like I'm on a holy crusade or anything.
*Delete as appropriate to denote your own favourite demon de jour.
CCTV is about as much use against a terrorist threat as a man with a pointed stick.
At best it's useful for tracking known troublemakers (petty criminals, subversives, etc) and producing lots of nice footage to show on 'Americas Crimiest Crimes XII', but I can't really say that the constant feeling of being watched makes me feel particularly safe.
Parent
Great point! I have some other ideas. (Score:3, Insightful)
We could even go one step further, out of convenience, and require people to carry location transmitters, so we can track who goes where in the city, after all.. those who aren't doing anything wrong have nothing to fear, right?
It goes without saying that anyone who has a fake pass or refuses to wear a location transmitter must have something to hide, and should therefore be detained and questioned.
Also, all telephone calls, and all conversations (everyone should have to wear a mic), should be taped and databased (with strict privacy laws, of course, only law enforcement officials would be permitted to listen to this stuff in order to protect us). In the case where people use an alternate communication method, that should be recorded as well. Any communication that circumvents these recording devices would be evidence that someone was up to no good, after all, if they aren't doing anything wrong, they have nothing to hide.
As for having many laws... laws DO have meaning, even if not enforced. THey become dangerous laws; tools of those in power to get their way. You see, the more laws there are, the higher the chances are that you broke one or two along the way. And when everyone is guilty of something, it's rather easy for a corrupt system to use that to its advantage.