Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

An Imaginative Use For CCTVs

Posted by kdawson on Mon Jun 02, 2008 02:13 AM
from the one-man's-privacy-is-another-man's-publicity dept.
Privacy Media Music Entertainment
An anonymous reader writes "Everyone knows we're being watched by CCTVs everywhere — particularly in the UK — and virtually everyone (at least on Slashdot) complains about that fact. But have you ever stopped to consider the ways you can use all those CCTVs to your advantage? The Get Out Clause, an unsigned band from Manchester in the UK, did just that; they played in front of 80 different CCTVs around Manchester, and then asked for the video via Freedom of Information Act letters. (About 25% of the CCTV owners complied with the law and turned them over.) The result isn't too bad."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Imaginative use for CCTVs by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.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.

An Imaginative Use For CCTVs 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • "Stars of CCTV" (Score:5, Informative)

    by somersault (912633) on Monday June 02 2008, @02:22AM (#23624013) Homepage Journal
    Hard-Fi already has a song called Stars of CCTV, and I saw a video from another band that used CCTV cameras inside a store.. which I actually don't think was the hard-fi song. Anyway, kudos to these guys, the video looks pretty cool :)

    And every move that I make
    Gets recorded to tape
    So somebody up there
    Can keep me safe

    We're the stars of CCTV
    Making movies out on the street
    Flashing blue lights, camera, action
    Watching my life, main attraction
    We're the stars of CCTV
    Can't you see the camera loves me?

    • Levellers beat both of these to the punch (Score:4, Interesting)

      by SpooForBrains (771537) on Monday June 02 2008, @04:30AM (#23624653)
      With their (imaginatively titled) track CCTV: You're starring in a film every weekend On video and stills With all your friends You're there in Black and White Hundreds watch you every night You're great in every scene You're very natural It's as if you cannot see the spotlight on you But when you fluff a line the director says You're doing time When you're walking home In the evening after dark Remember don't hide And show your best side Cos you're the star in a film They also did a fantastic track about Tony Blair, before he became PM: He thought he was as drunk as can be New white skinny rebel was he Because he knew what mattered It's all in a clatter of the bands he's seen His words of wisdom would shock Whether he meant them or not He'd save the world All the boys and the girls But another single's all he'd be That's sad That's right Another night Of someone else's fantasy He thought he was cool with his tunes He practised the knack in his room And in the evening he'd DJ With the slider at eight plus Believing that at his feet we swoom Now he's always there in the queue While down on the dance floor it's you And when he starts playing He's up there playing You don't notice that they're not his tunes He thought he could measure the world Because he loved the flag when unfurled First he's a lawyer, excellent debator You should have heard the mud he hurled Now you've seen his face on TV Leading parliamentary When he makes decisions That meet your derision He reminds us all that we're free Although irritatingly I can't find any reference to the intended meaning of this song, and now I can't remember why I think it's about Tony Blair.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by somersault (912633)
            Compare to Germany's autobahns - what are the accident rates like there? Of course if you drive >100mph on a windy road then you are asking for trouble, but if you are on a fairly straight road, what is the issue?

            There are traffic congestion and speed cameras in the UK, but AFAIK none are used to check for style of driving.

  • Wait, CCTV owners? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pembo13 (770295) on Monday June 02 2008, @02:23AM (#23624019) Homepage
    I kind of just assumed that the government/law enforcement were the "owners". Who is the summary referring to as "the CCTV owners" ?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by zebslash (1107957)
      I live in the UK, I guess that would be the city or county councils.

          • Re:Wait, CCTV owners? (Score:5, Informative)

            by fork_daemon (1122915) on Monday June 02 2008, @05:11AM (#23624847) Journal
            I live in the UK. The CCTVs on the Streets are definitely owned by the Council and some by the Met Police as well.

            The ones outside the stores are their own. The one's inside places like stadiums, Malls are owned by the people who run these places.

            • No-one is watching (Score:5, Insightful)

              by dintech (998802) on Monday June 02 2008, @07:45AM (#23625651)
              And the result of having all this CCTV? Reduced Crime? No. The average person on the street is definitely no safer.

              The only change is that the feral brats who congregate in town centres now wear a sporting baseball cap and hooded top combination to escape identification on camera. Teenagers nowadays have never known life without CCTV anyway so it's not really any sort of deterrent to them commiting crimes. The camera on the street corner is pretty much a totemic reminder of their impunity and the impotency of the police.

              I know friends and relatives over the years who where assaulted and have asked police to survey CCTV in order to catch the offenders. Usually there's some lame excuse about the camera not being on, pointing the wrong way, a technical fault or some equally daft reason. I suspect the police don't have the man power to go back over it or most likely they just plain can't be bothered. Just last year, this happened to my brother when he was attacked by a gang of thugs in Edinburgh.

              Try not to worry too much about your rights being slowly eroded way by CCTV. It's security theatre on a massive scale and no-one's watching anyway...

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by dave420 (699308)
                That's not the whole picture. What the cameras allow is a view of the actions of the people involved. If you see someone wearing a distinctive track suit committing a crime, regardless of whether you capture their face, you can still track them from camera to camera. If the shop's CCTV shows him stealing stuff, and a person in those clothes is then captured running down the street from that shop, chances are that's the guy. The cops can use CCTV to perform an in-the-street identity parade, with the CCTV

                • Re:No-one is watching (Score:4, Insightful)

                  by bkr1_2k (237627) on Monday June 02 2008, @10:57AM (#23627775)
                  You seem to have missed the part where the GP says "I know friends and relatives over the years who where assaulted and have asked police to survey CCTV in order to catch the offenders. Usually there's some lame excuse about the camera not being on, pointing the wrong way, a technical fault or some equally daft reason."

                  The post wasn't about whether or not CCTV is heavily eroding your rights (which is debatable and not as cut and dried as you seem to suggest) but rather about the fact that it doesn't do anything except waste a lot of money. All that crap you see on TV about the cops tracking someone from camera to camera only happens in mass crimes like bombings. For every day crimes, like rape and mugging etc, the cops don't have the manpower or the desire to put forth that kind of effort. Even if they did, it wouldn't be in any reasonable time frame (it would take weeks at a minimum, not days) and it still wouldn't "revoke" the actual crime. Therefore, your public safety has not been enhanced in the slightest, which was the whole point of the GP's post.

                    • Re:No-one is watching (Score:4, Insightful)

                      by Kreigaffe (765218) on Monday June 02 2008, @12:08PM (#23628629)
                      If CCTV only manages to convict a single repeat offender, it's a tremendous waste of resources and an utter and complete failure.

                      We're not living in some magical world with infinite funds. In order to install a massive CCTV system, money has to be taken from some other place -- that other place might be more effective at reducing crime. Or keeping the criminals from an early release. Or some other such thing.
                      But if it's not as newbite-worthy, if it doesn't sound as tech-savvy, well then the CCTV wins!

                      The whole "IF IT SAVES JUST ONE..." argument is a worthless and ridiculous appeal to emotion.

    • Re:Wait, CCTV owners? (Score:5, Informative)

      by julesh (229690) on Monday June 02 2008, @02:31AM (#23624077)
      I kind of just assumed that the government/law enforcement were the "owners". Who is the summary referring to as "the CCTV owners" ?

      Almost all of the CCTV cameras that are frequently cited as being part of a "surveillance state" in the UK are owned and operated by private individuals, not the government. Specifically, most are run by shops. The article refers to the band using one on a bus.

      Which raises the question -- why did the band expect the freedom of information act to apply to these? It only applies to government-run organisations, so the owners of the cameras in question had no obligation to comply with the request.

      • Re:Wait, CCTV owners? (Score:5, Informative)

        by aproposofwhat (1019098) on Monday June 02 2008, @02:59AM (#23624209)
        It's not the FOI that applies in that scenario, but the Data Protection Act.

        Dom Joly did a similar thing in his last series, IIRC.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Which raises the question -- why did the band expect the freedom of information act to apply to these? It only applies to government-run organisations, so the owners of the cameras in question had no obligation to comply with the request.

        Indeed, I suspect the article may be wrong. It's the Data Protection Act (DPA) that restricts the information which companies can hold about individuals, and limits the way that information can be processed and used.

        It is a provision of the DPA that an individual can request that a company discloses all of the information that it holds on that individual. This can include information stored on video tape, such as that gathered by a company's CCTV cameras.

      • DPA not FoI (Score:5, Informative)

        by Xest (935314) on Monday June 02 2008, @03:40AM (#23624411)
        Under the data protection act you have the right to request a copy of any data stored on you so it's covered by that.

        It could get expensive though as they're allowed to charge a processing fee which by the way I think absolutely stinks. Why should you have to pay to see if they've fucked up your data? The burden should be entirely on the data holders and if they get lots of malicious requests designed to cost them money in man hours then maybe they should reconsider the need to store data on you in the first place. At very worst the costs should be capped at something trivial like £0.50.

        • Re:Data Protection? (Score:4, Informative)

          by Oktober Sunset (838224) <sdpage103@yahoo . c o.uk> on Monday June 02 2008, @03:33AM (#23624373)
          yes, footage of you on camera is data, and you can request that a company hands over any data on you that it holds.

        • Re:Data Protection? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by asnare (530666) on Monday June 02 2008, @03:49AM (#23624465)
          A common theme for privacy/data protection legislation is that the person whom the data is about has the right to:
          1. Access that data;
          2. Correct any mistakes in the data.

          I get the feeling that the latter is normally the main goal here, but the former is required for that to be tenable.

          Specifically in the UK, according to Wikipedia's entry on the Data Protection Act [wikipedia.org]:

          The Data Protection Act creates rights for those who have their data stored, and responsibilities for those who store or collect personal data.

          The person who has their data processed has the right to

          • View the data an organisation holds on them, for a small fee, known as 'subject access'
          • Request that incorrect information be corrected. If the company ignores the request, a court can order the data to be corrected or destroyed, and in some cases compensation can be awarded.
          • Require that data is not used in a way which causes damage or distress.
          • Require that their data is not used for direct marketing.

          So they may have tried to use the 'subject access' thing. Wikipedia also mentions that costs cannot exceed £10.

          • Re:Wait, CCTV owners? (Score:5, Informative)

            by glas_gow (961896) on Monday June 02 2008, @04:13AM (#23624571)
            Where I live (Scotland), they can charge you with "breach of the peace", which is a remarkably elastic law that allows the Police to charge you for doing just about anything. Basically they approach you and tell you to stop doing whatever you are doing, and if you disagree, then you are breaching the peace, and they arrest you.

            • Re:Wait, CCTV owners? (Score:4, Informative)

              by the-stringbean (884738) on Monday June 02 2008, @05:44AM (#23624979)
              Breach of the peace also applies in England and is equally 'elastic'. The current favourite by police at the moment (especially the PSCO wannabe cops) is the Terrorism Act 2006 which can be very easily stretched to include pretty much anything. I'm surprised that this stunt didn't get flagged up as suspicious (aka terrorist) behaviour.

              Kudos to these guys for pulling this off though. How they managed to set up a drum kit on one of the Metrolink trams and on the travelator in Sainsbury's supermarket in Fallowfield (which is at a 45 degree angle!) is crazy.

              • Re:Wait, CCTV owners? (Score:4, Insightful)

                by Builder (103701) on Monday June 02 2008, @08:04AM (#23625815)
                The fact that they can't secure a conviction doesn't stop them from arresting you, getting your DNA on file forever, causing you some grief and angst, then letting you go and marking the case No Further Action.

                Just because you're not convicted, doesn't mean the law isn't abused.

  • Music Video (Score:5, Informative)

    by antdude (79039) on Monday June 02 2008, @02:23AM (#23624021) Homepage Journal
    Go to YouTube [youtube.com]. :)

  • Is it just me... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ChowRiit (939581) on Monday June 02 2008, @02:24AM (#23624027)
    Is it just me, or is the important part of this not "band makes music video" but than 75% of organisations will deny a legitimate request under the Freedom of Information Act? Surely someone should be investigating this...

    • Re:Is it just me... (Score:5, Informative)

      by julesh (229690) on Monday June 02 2008, @02:36AM (#23624101)
      Is it just me, or is the important part of this not "band makes music video" but than 75% of organisations will deny a legitimate request under the Freedom of Information Act? Surely someone should be investigating this...

      My suspicion is that the band doesn't actually understand the FIA. From the article:

      They set up their equipment, drum kit and all, in eighty locations around Manchester - including on a bus - and proceeded to play to the cameras.

      Afterwards they wrote to the companies or organisations involved and asked for the footage under the Freedom of Information Act.

      [...]

      Only a quarter of the organisations contacted fulfilled their obligation to hand over the footage - perhaps predictably, bigger firms were reluctant, while smaller companies were more helpful - but that still provided enough for a video with 20 locations.

      The bus and "bigger firms" are referring to cameras operated by private organisations which have no legal obligation to respond to such a request. "Smaller companies" were presumably more helpful due to the fact that they didn't have lawyers to inform them of this fact.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ChowRiit (939581)
        This is true, I went and actual READ a bit of the Act, and it does indeed only cover government and similar organisations.

        It would be interesting to know, though, if any of the refusals came from any such organisations...

      • Re:Is it just me... (Score:4, Informative)

        by spooky ghost (70606) on Monday June 02 2008, @02:53AM (#23624179)
        They probably would have got further making the request under the UK Data Protection Act.
        • They probably would have got further making the request under the UK Data Protection Act.

          Yes, although the DPA allows organisations to make a charge of £20 for providing the requested information. With "80 locations" that would have come in at £1600, probably more than the band wanted to spend on this project.

      • Re:Is it just me... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jrumney (197329) on Monday June 02 2008, @03:40AM (#23624415) Homepage

        "Smaller companies" were presumably more helpful due to the fact that they didn't have lawyers to inform them of this fact.

        Smaller companies' cameras are more likely to be outsourced to security firms, who, since it is their primary business, would be well versed in their obligations relating to cameras covering public spaces, and are generally quite lenient in making the video available. It is probably chargeable back to the client, so an additional revenue source for them, and not worth refusing over a technicality like the wrong Act being used to request the images.

  • Heads up (Score:3, Informative)

    by Ethan Allison (904983) <slashdot@neonstream.us> on Monday June 02 2008, @02:25AM (#23624029) Homepage
    Got AdBlock? Turn it off or the video won't show up.

  • Mark Thomas (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Allicorn (175921) on Monday June 02 2008, @02:27AM (#23624049) Homepage
    British comic and political activist Mark Thomas ( http://www.markthomasinfo.com/ [markthomasinfo.com] ) has been doing this kind of thing for years.

    In 2000 (I think) he orchestrated a national "talent show" kind of competition where all entries had to be submitted as CCTV footage recovered from CCTV operators through measures under the Data Protection Act. Hilarious stuff :-)

    Alli

    • Re:Mark Thomas (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Martian_Kyo (1161137) on Monday June 02 2008, @02:48AM (#23624159)
      You know, these ideas aren't as brilliant, as is the fact they actually went out and did it. I am sure millions of people thought 'wouldnt it be cool if we used these CCTV cameras for show?' and then got sober next morning, and never did it.

      Don't get me wrong, I applaud this band as well as the comedian. So many good ideas, get wasted due to indolence. I am glad someone didn't waste this one.

      Many people may have thought 'whats the big deal, I thought of doing that as well, it's no stroke of genius.'
      I ask 'But did you do it?'

      Kudos and applause to these guys, not only for the idea but for the balls and willingness to do it.

      So if you got an idea, don't waste it. Do it, or at least tell someone who will do it. Don't let ideas die.

      No I am not promoting some self-help book.

  • I see flash mobs. Many, many flash mobs, all obsessed with CCTV cameras. All overcome by a powerful need to bend over and drop trou.

    You just KNOW somebody would leak the video before long.

  • How is being illegally refused in 75% of requests considered "[not] too bad"?
    • How is being illegally refused in 75% of requests considered "[not] too bad"?

      Because the refusals probably weren't illegal. See my comment here [slashdot.org].

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Fusen (841730)
      As already posted above, the FOIA only applies to government organisations. Majority of the CCTV cameras that people talk about are owned by small shops and private businesses. Which is why I get so bored of the scaremongering that goes on on slashdot. It can take police weeks to get access to the tapes from these CCTV cameras, it's nothing like 1984...
  • (About 25% of the CCTV owners complied with the law and turned them over.) The result isn't too bad."

    Erm, 75% failure to commit to a act specified by a law is pretty damn bad if you ask me.

    Also the BBC did something along these lines where they asked for the videos, I think they got like 50% back, some claimed there was no record (i.e. they weren't actually recording) and others stated various security clauses.

    Oh, and no I haven't read any other replies, I maybe redundant -_-

  • The story is about a month old (Score:5, Informative)

    by simong (32944) on Monday June 02 2008, @03:53AM (#23624493) Homepage
    and it's since transpired that most of it was fake [manchester...news.co.uk]. Taxis generally don't have CCTV in them. Yet.

    • Re:The story is about a month old (Score:5, Informative)

      by TheRealJFM (671978) on Monday June 02 2008, @04:21AM (#23624597) Homepage Journal

      Exactly, I was about to suggest that it was fake.

      I work as a part-time CCTV operator (while I'm at University), and the footage just doesn't look remotely real to me. Specifically the frame-rate is FAR too high, most CCTV systems have the frame-rate turned down quite low (say 3-5 FPS) to save space.

      Second, not every CCTV camera is necessarily recording at the same time. While every camera probably CAN record, usually only key cameras will be set to record, maybe half or less, to save space on the system. The idea is that if anything happens the CCTV operator will record that camera, not that everything records all the time.

      If a band asked me to look up their footage because of something like this, the footage they'd get back wouldn't look that good. This is a publicity stunt.

      (and, as has already been pointed out, the Data Protection Act, not the Freedom of Information Act)

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Tony Hoyle (11698)
          I've been in the Manchester CCTV center (which is a joint operation of the council and NCP who paid for it). Those cameras are pin sharp and lose none of their sharpness when zooming in... they can read a number plate 100 yards down the street - let alone across it - at night. Hell, these things can zoom into watches...

          I've always half suspected the blurry black and white images were postprocessed to look like that, just to make people feel better about CCTV - I've met a lot of people who think they stil

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Tony Hoyle (11698)
          In places they added fake text to make it look 'real'. eg. the Tram footage has the wrong text. The taxi firm doesn't even use CCTV... The castlefield footage is the most convincing - except the text is probably fake (it's not council CCTV.. totally different text.. and I don't think castlefield basin even has 21 cameras.. I've never seen more than 3).

          I'm not persuaded they used *any* real CCTV at this point.

  • Stratospheric (Score:3, Informative)

    by evilviper (135110) on Monday June 02 2008, @03:54AM (#23624495) Journal
    The Indie Alt-Rock group "Kiosk" did something similar with the music video for "Stratospheric". It includes CCTV video of the band on the street, edited together with video surveillance of criminals in the act.

    On MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/londonkiosk [myspace.com]

    On YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BBCMYO2PHQ [youtube.com]

    Free MP3 download: http://www.contactmusic.com/new/home.nsf/webpages/kioskx25x09x03 [contactmusic.com]

    No connection to the band. In fact I think the music sucks... Still, they simply don't have as good of a PR guy working for them.

  • Video was a P.R. stunt.. (Score:4, Informative)

    by evilpresley (1300313) on Monday June 02 2008, @03:58AM (#23624519)
    This video was discussed over at Metafilter [metafilter.com] a few weeks ago, where Ericb [metafilter.com] discovered that the video was just a PR stunt [manchester...news.co.uk].

    Regardless, it was a pretty good one all the same!

    • Re:nothing to "comply with" (Score:4, Informative)

      by Zelos (1050172) on Monday June 02 2008, @03:55AM (#23624503)
      Under the Data Protection Act you have the right to view data an organisation holds on you for a reasonable fee (~£10 I think) including CCTV footage: Wiki Link [wikipedia.org]. Comedian Mark Thomas did a whole programme on it a few years back.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.