Slashdot Log In
A Law to Spy Back on Government Surveillance Cameras?
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Dec 17, 2007 02:51 PM
from the who's-gonna-monitor-the-monitors-of-the-monitors. dept.
from the who's-gonna-monitor-the-monitors-of-the-monitors. dept.
mattnyc99 writes "As the Senate begins debate today on wider new surveillance legislation, Instapundit blogger and University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds has an interesting op-ed as part of Popular Mechanics' cover story on the looming power of spy cameras in America. He cites numerous court cases to argue that our privacy concerns may be backwards, and that there should be a new law for citizen rights — that if Big Brother can keep an eye on us in public spaces, we ought to be able to look back. From the accompanying podcast: 'Realistically I don't think we're going to get much in the way of limits on government and business surveillance. So I think we should be focusing more on making it safe, on making it a double-edged sword.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Don't worry (Score:5, Funny)
Meta-Surveillance is ONe Answer (Score:3, Interesting)
Granted, the latter point creates a problem, in that a negative response to one's meta-surveillance inquiry, if one were a criminal, would be a tip-off. Thus, there would always be some "loose play" in the system,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree.....we don't need "Big Brother" watching us, to protect us from the "terrorists or the criminals or the boo
Re:Don't worry (Score:4, Informative)
It makes good fiscal sense, but doesn't make cultural sense. In the USA, personal freedoms trump collective freedoms every time. So even though paying more for inner-city schools helps society as a whole, it doesn't happen in the USA because it goes against their individualist grain. Ditto spending money on programs instead of prisons. Goes against the national culture.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Any money "given" to "poor people" must first be taken from people who produce. "Guaranteed" income destroys an economy and a culture by removing the concept of "zero" so money has no value and by removing incentive to achieve.
If it worked, the "war on poverty" in the United States would have ended long ago and highly Socialist countries would have the most advanced infrastructures and most productive people. Historically, soc
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Reverse Surveillance (Score:5, Informative)
From the "open government" part of the plan:
There's more, as summarized by Ars [arstechnica.com]:
* Put government data online for citizen access, analysis, commentary, and action. The document cites environmental data on pollution as one type that could be made available.
* Effectively "crowd-sourcing" (though that term isn't used) some amount of agency decision-making by tapping the public's distributed expertise.
* Build an online database that enables citizens to track federal grants, contracts, earmarks, and lobbyist contacts with government officials.
* Give "the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House web site for five days before signing any non-emergency legislation."
Employee supervision (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Employee supervision (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Employee supervision (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're slacking, watching porn, fapping, NOT working, I have a right no know.
It's not that I'm going to sit there and watch you 24/7, but I should have the option. If my boss and my IT department can watch where I go on the internet and walk into my cube at anytime, why is it unreasonable to think that the person who pays your paycheck can do the same?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If my boss and my IT department can watch where I go on the internet and walk into my cube at anytime, why is it unreasonable to think that the person who pays your paycheck can do the same?
A moderately good point, and not one I have a ready answer to. However, the IT dept. at University and one's professors (who are the equivalent of your boss) and co-workers can also walk in at any time. Still, even at a federal job, a right to privacy should be respected.
One advocatus diaboli argument would also be that much of graduate research involves labwork and teaching duties. Do we also need cameras (infrared or other frequencies for darkened labs) to watch labs and classroo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If I want to setup a webcam on my local road and a webcam in my (future) childrens' classrooms and I pay
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now as you point out, watching a grad student is going to bore me to sleep and be useless.
Same as your boss (Score:3, Insightful)
And your boss, who supervises your job all the time, doesn't pay your salary either.
This is one of the lamest political arguments I've ever seen. You don't pay the whole of America's military expenditure ($400 billion/year), so you shouldn't have any opinion on that matter, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Obama's plan in better font (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If he wins, he'll go back to being that other one again.
Oh, you cynical coward. (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, we should compare Obama's actual proposed plan to yet another Republican sound-byte of a policy.
Even if the plan gets neutered (you will perform your duty and call your representatives to support it won't you?), at a minimum, Senator Obama is showing initiative in his understanding of technology and our country's need to embrace it.
Ho
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, I just don't see how two wrongs can make a right here.
In the vein of reverse monitoring (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems quite reasonable (Score:2)
a) involves them personally, and
b) the outcome of conflict resulting from the situation at hand can have big, big effects on life.
Yet it would seem that one of the requirements that will only be realized later is that you need to protect the government itself from denial-of-service attacks brought on by cunning thugs.
Two wrongs don't make a right (Score:5, Insightful)
The medicine is still nasty underneath all that sugar.
Re: (Score:2)
Having seen my fill (and then some) of governmental bureaucracy, I can tell you right now that the very thought of putting video cameras into ever gov't bureaucrat's office would make the gov't workers' union scream bloody murder, and thus if the two were tied together (gov't watching us in public only if we can eyeball our gov't workers in (in)action), neither would get off the ground.
While having 24/7 webcams of hundreds of thousands
Re:Two wrongs don't make a right (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Ewww.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot be the only one that REALLY does not want to see Cheney's "intimate moments"
At least it would be over quick, not like Iraq.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
(Why is there no -1 Horrific Mental Image mod available?)
it's our government (Score:4, Interesting)
so let us look at the damn cameras too
in fact, it might even be useful for strapped law departments: scenario: "person XYZ (show mugshot) on trial for armed robbery skipped out on court today: oh great america's most wanted watching public: monitor the security camera feeds for daytona and orlando. here's 3,000 of them. find our guy"
distributed computing. distributed security. people are motivated by the search for justice. so empower them. let average citizens sift the data and report on interesting findings... like: "these 19 guys at this security gate at logan airport were taking flight school lessons just last week in florida"
all i'm saying is that 30,000 busybodies with a broadband connection around the country can do a better job than 300 trained CIA analysts at langley
Re: (Score:2)
noooo (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In Soviet Russia, government spying on you spying on government spying on you spying on government...
Sousveillance (Score:5, Informative)
It just so happens that this coming Monday, December 24th is orld Sousveillance day. [wikipedia.org]
Not for me (Score:2, Insightful)
Spy Yourself (Score:3, Informative)
Spying yourself has never been easier. I've been playing with the Aviosys 9100a video serve with the after market Yoics firmware. I can pretty much install this
anywhere there is an internet connection, even if they people that own the internet connection don't know, and view it from anywhere else.
This thing also supports sound! Not bad for $80.
So go ahead and spy back! Until it is against the law that is.
See the Yahoo Group http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/9100/ [yahoo.com] and the Yoics Software at http://9100.yoics.com/ [yoics.com] for this device.
-M
I agree (Score:5, Interesting)
2. It is never illegal to make a video or other recording og a clothed on-duty government employee.
3. It is illegal for any government employee to request or insist that such a device be deactivated. Attempting to do so results in a fine equal to one day's pay. If violence was used, they are too be dismissed immediately, even if it was 'justified' by other actions. I.E. If you tell them to stop filming and they hit you, then you hit them back, you get fired even though 'they started it.'
4. If a government employee takes possesion of a a recording device that is not theirs and a recording is damaged, it must be returned in 100% working condition, with a copy of any recordings on it, within 2 days. Failure results in an investigation by Police, or by Internal Affairs if they are police. If a court case finds that there is a preponderous evidence that the employee intentionally damaged the device or the recording, than that employee will be dismissed from their government position. If the court find they did it beyond a shadow of a doubt, they are to be arrested and tried for grand theft.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with the sentiment of what you're advocating, but surely some things should be kept secret.
Re:I agree (Score:5, Funny)
[Emphasis mine]
This should result in some interesting new security policies. Government employees will now be required to strip before doing anything that requires secrecy.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
This is a fascinating concept, and deserves further expansion.
Perhaps if public surveillance cameras of the kind used in London, England ever gain popularity in North America, the feeds should be broadcast uninterrupted on a portion of all that public bandwidth they're planning to sell off when television goes digital.
If there is no public record of an arrest on those cameras, then one must be made on a police camera that is surrendered to the arrested person's representative immediately. Otherwise, n
Re: (Score:2)
Great idea! Let's call it "The Richard Nixon Law."
What, oh what to do?!? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Paging David Brin (Score:5, Informative)
Do we even have a Constitution? (Score:3, Interesting)
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Support Dr. Ron Paul ($6 million yesterday).
Last link (unless Google Books caves to the gov't and drops the title):
America Deceived (book) [iuniverse.com]
Watching the Watchers (Score:2)
The same policy is needed in the many other agencies with draconian powers of search seizure and arrest. In other words, any official with opportunity and motive for abuse of power should be monitored and recorded whenever they are on duty.
There is long standing precedent that an employer has the right to
One day in New York. (Score:2)
Enjoy looking at them looking at me.
sad drive home last night (Score:3, Insightful)
I was driving home last night (101, north scottsdale arizona) and passed by some of the new speed cameras that have been put up in that area. The speed limit on the road is normally 65 MPH but it is currently at 55 because of construction. It was very late at night, and there was literally NOBODY on the road, and no construction workers of any kind. So i was driving 65 MPH...which is a completely safe speed to drive in the conditions I was in at the time. The WHOLE TIME i was driving home i was freaked out that I was going to get popped by one of these stupid things.
That is a small example, obviously
Howabout the fact that they set up the "surprise!" speed trap vans all over the place now in tempe, and south scottsdale? Or the fact that there are red light cameras at almost all of the intersections in tempe/scottsdale?
okay thats another small example
Howabout the fact that kids are getting shocked with enough electricity to knock them to the ground and incapacitate them for a few seconds when the talk back to an angry cop?
Okay thats also a really small example.
Howabout the fact that I think twice every time i go to a chemistry website, or a website with any types of schematics/blueprints because i just MIGHT get flagged as "suspicious" because by using information from both of those sites i could cause havoc.
Yeah, thats not TOO big of a deal.
Stuff like this honestly makes me sick to my stomach.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The speed camera thing is weird. My objection isn't so much with the cameras themselves, as with the other aspects of the situation.
First, you were driving safely, but illegally. That suggests that arbitrary speed limits are not useful. You didn't do anything you'd be ashamed of. You didn't do anything wrong. So why are you worried and nervous? You're worried because you know some bully might take advantage of you, anyway. Yeah, I wonder what TJ would say about you living in fear of your government
Surely agree (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with sousveillance. In fact for me the problem is not so much the invasion of privacy, but rather the monopoly of surveillance. I don't really have much of a problem with cameras (although I am a bit unsure about microphones just above the seats in subway stations - how exactly do they protect the subway's property and the public?), but my problem is actually who has access to the recorded data and who gets the monopoly of surveillance...
For example: A supermarket here has two signs, one saying "you are on CCTV" and another saying "you can't operate recording equipment here". The first sign (CCTV) is ok. But the second sign is problematic: Suppose I want to put a camera on my head and let it record 24h and send pics over a 3G or WiFi connection to my server, in case someone attacks me and kills me on the street or on a mountain, so that the police etc can see the pics from the camera and catch the killer (this is good for society as well, not only for me, in fact sometimes I think that everyone should have such a safety device). If a supermarket tells me that operating my own personal safety camera is not ok, then it should at least accept liability in case someone kills me while inside their premises. I'm paranoid here to make a point, and in fact I don't have such a safety device on me, but I could have one if I wanted, and my question is: Why should I give up my safety to buy a banana? Why should I trust that the supermarket is a safe place and not operate my own safety camera? One could argue that I have much more important assets to protect (my life which is one-off) than the supermarket's company (their material property which can easily be repurchased in case of a criminal attack). So, why on earth should the supermarket operate cameras but not me? One could say that the supermarket is the owner of its land and can decide the rules, but my answer is whether it is reasonable to expect to give up one's safety just to buy something to eat.
To give a real example of frustation with unbalanced supermarket policies (unbalanced in the meaning that the policies are designed only with the supermarket in mind, not taking into account customer needs), it has happened to me many times to enter a supermarket to buy something to eat while being on travel, of course always carrying my laptop bag because I never get out of my home office without a laptop or subnotebook, and employees always come to me and ask me to give them my laptop bag to keep it while I shop because they are afraid of shoplifters. My reaction in all cases is either to explain my reluctance and refuse to give them my laptop and continue my shopping (I specifically say "will your manager sign me a paper accepting liability of such and such thousands euros in case you lose my laptop or you damage it?"), if they let me do so under their supervision, or if I see that they don't like this (until now in 100% of all cases, and from their part this is ok if they merely follow company policies, the problem is the company policy not the individual employees) then my reaction is to not buy anything and leave, never to buy anything from the same shop again. I can't understand this paranoia in big supermarkets. I mean, in small independent shops the owner either just discreetly supervises people as they buy stuff, and this is the proper and reasonable thing to do (someone comes to buy stuff from you, you want to protect against shoplifters, the reasonable thing is to stay near them while they buy stuff and watch them, not to demand them to give you their bags or anything). In big supermarkets and department stores they demand that you surrender all your bags to them, as if bags are now some sort of dangerous weapon or something... My answer is that they already have cameras, but if they really feel so nervous they should hire more employees to oversee customers as they buy rather than take away customer's property even temporarily. Shoplifting is a serious crime that must be tackled, but passing the cost to the consumer is not ac