Turning a Blind Eye to Big Brother 664
SiliconRedox writes: "An article in the NYTimes (user reg.) details what many of us who have worked with video or electronics have known for quite awhile: Shine a laser beam (or infrared, but the article doesn't get into that) at a video camera, and you can effectively blind certain viewpoints of the camera. The article follows one man trying to cope with the surveillence society by removing his own image from everyday video footage using this technique. The most interesting part? What kind of culpability does the individual or institution have in utilizing this kind of technology?"
I've known about this for a long time. (Score:2, Funny)
Privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Privacy (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Privacy (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Privacy (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
It's understandable (imo) to require one's face to be seen for an ID card, but not for every day public life.
Re:Privacy (Score:4, Informative)
It shall be unlawful for any person over sixteen years of age while wearing any mask, hood or other device whereby a substantial portion of the face is hidden or covered so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, to be or appear in any public place, or upon any private property in this Commonwealth without first having obtained from the owner or tenant thereof consent to do so in writing. However, the provisions of this section shall not apply to persons (i) wearing traditional holiday costumes; (ii) engaged in professions, trades, employment or other activities and wearing protective masks which are deemed necessary for the physical safety of the wearer or other persons; (iii) engaged in any bona fide theatrical production or masquerade ball; or (iv) wearing a mask, hood or other device for bona fide medical reasons upon the advice of a licensed physician or osteopath and carrying on his person an affidavit from the physician or osteopath specifying the medical necessity for wearing the device and the date on which the wearing of the device will no longer be necessary and providing a brief description of the device. The violation of any provisions of this section shall constitute a Class 6 felony.
Re:Privacy (Score:3, Interesting)
Obviously there aren't black and white issues. A parent not wanting to trust ritalin for their child based on a hurried diagnosis is different than one refusing a blood transfusion for a child who lost a lot of blood from a deep cut.
Just the same, abortion is an issue with no good hard rules. Even very pro-abortion people would dislike the idea of 9th month abortions and few reasonable anti-abortionists really hold to the view that every sperm is sacred, or that the instant a sperm and egg touch, that they are morally equivalent to a child.
If you've studied any biology it's hard to get worked up about first trimester abortions. They're probably reasonable later, but except for hidden health complications, there are few valid reasons for waiting this long so limiting abortions to the first trimester is a reasonable compromise.
Re:Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
"Isn't it just as much your right to be not seen as it is to seen?"
Oh what basis do you have this right? And am I now obligated to avert my eyes? No, I think that if you don't want to be seen, find a way to not absorb part of the spectrum and reflect the rest back.
I think you've got it backward. You don't have a right to not be seen -- that's placing an emcumbrance upon me, and a "right" that you have yet to provide a basis for, I might add. You have a right to not be seen if you can figure out how. That places no encumbrance upon me to provide you this so-called "right."
Re:Privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, once you give up that right by stepping out of your house, all bets are off. Any random passerby can observe anything you do or say...
And to folks that have a problem with cameras watching everything you do, I have just this to offer - let them. Let the Gubmint put up cameras. The more the merrier, I say. Why? Because eventually the system will implode under the sheer volume of data.
Until, or unless, image recognition gets to be very, very good and very, very fast, there's no way that a computerised system is going to track any one individual. This means that for every person "they" want to track, "they" pretty much have to assign several heads to watch the monitors. The salary bill alone will cripple the system. Then there's the cost of the office space, the equipment, power, A/C, etc.
Pretty soon the only people unemployed would be drunks and drug-users that can't get their eyes uncrossed enough to watch a monitor.
Ah, what the heck, go ahead and flame me. It's just an opinion, and I have the right to give it to you. I just don't have the right to make you understand it, or even to make you listen.
Re:Privacy (Score:3, Funny)
awww shucks (Score:4, Funny)
Re:awww shucks (Score:2)
Sinister hot looking lady (Score:2, Funny)
Security (Score:3, Funny)
Re:awww shucks (Score:2)
Don't you think... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Don't you think... (Score:3, Informative)
ObMSFT-Jab: ...or maybe he just thinks security through obscurity is a good thing.
Video Cameras (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Video Cameras (Score:5, Informative)
I also happens to be legal to record the image of anything, by still or moving pictures, that happens in a public setting.
This is why the cops don't just arrest everyone with a camera.
There is an assumption, like it or not, that when you appear in public you are appearing. . . ummmmm, in public.
This is true even for celebraties who have trademarked their image.
If you don't want to be seen don't stand up from behind the bush.
KFG
Tha art of not being seen (Score:5, Funny)
Ah. Mister KFG has learned the first lesson in the art of not being seen. Don't stand up. Mister KFG, would you stand up now? KA-BOOM!
Re:Video Cameras (Score:4, Interesting)
I read about a recent case where people put "panty cams" on staircases and escalators to catch whatever shows up under skirts. These people were sued but the case went in their favor because it was in a public place where people had no expectation of privacy.
The problem with that is that I'm _certain_ that the people wearing skirts, particularly women, _aren't_ expecting to have their delicates photographed in such a manner in a public place.
Re:Video Cameras (Score:3, Interesting)
Not suprisingly lawmakers have said they're going to alter the voyeurism law so this type of thing does become illegal.
ABC News article [go.com]
Re:Video Cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
"I do believe that it is well within someone's right to not have their picture taken if they don't wish it to be. Or at least have a warning on the entrance of an establishment that you are being videotaped. I think the law that says you don't have to inform someone that you're videotaping them, but that you do for audio is bogus. The law needs to be changed, it's an invasion of privacy no matter how you want to look at it, if someone doesn't want to be videotaped, then they shouldn't be videotaped, there is no grey area. You should be informed before proceeding that you are under video survailence."
I'm an amateur photographer. I have tons of photographs of people who I never asked to be in my pictures. Generally, they're ancilary to my subject, but occasionally not.
For example, I shoot subway pictures in Boston. You'd like to see this made illegal unless I get everyone'ss permission, presumably in writing?
I've taken pictures of the Rocky Horror Picture Show being performed. Are you suggesting I need to get the signatures of the audience first?
I've taken pictures of street intersections. You feel I should be compelled to ask each pedestrian before I do it?
Are these absurd examples? I don't imagine you'll want to argue that only subjects of the photo need to provide their consent, but if you do, how in-focus are they allowed to be? How close to the center of the picture can they be before I am in violation of your ethic?
Besides, what gives you the idea that you are somehow entitled to the exclusive rights of the photons that have bounced off your body?!
I think it's your obligation to stop scattering light!
Permissions... (Score:4, Informative)
In most countries (US, Europe...), the law says that you can take pictures in public places, but selling them or broadcasting them is something else entirely: anyone who can recognise himself on a picture can oppose its use. 'Recognisable' must be taken in a very broad sense, for instance if you take a picture of Big Ben at 2:13 on a given day and there's one tiny person at the bottom, that person will be able to say: 'it was me waiting there at that time', then you need that person's permission.
This means that whenever you take a picture with someone in it, you should have them sign a 'limited time use' form (unlimited has no value).
So the person who takes the picture owns it, but the person on it can oppose its use. This means that if you take a picture in a crowd and a dork goes: "Hey you! You can't take my picture, gimme that film !", he has no right to ask you for the film, although all you can do with the pic is look at it at home.
That doesn't help the current argument much though.
Re:Permissions... (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably a bad example: Unlike most other European countries, the United Kingdom does not have and provisions in law that gives you a right to privacy. If you are in a public place, then you are in public, and I can take your photo and publish it to my heart's content.
There is a code that the newspapers tend to follw which says that you shouldn't publish pictures of people taken with "very" long telephoto lenses without their consent, but that is just a code of practice, not law.
All of this is likely to change at the European convention on human rights -- which does have a provision guaranteeing some privacy -- is incorporated into British law.
Always remember that (1) not all the world is like the US and (2) if you take any advice given on /., in particular legal advice, serious, then you deserve everything you get...
Re:Permissions... (Score:3, Informative)
I'm a reporter, and I routinely take AND publish pictures of people who do not want me to, including criminal suspects. If what you say is true, I'd be in jail; since I'm not, I contend that you ar full of it.
I would, of course, apologize immediatly upon receipt of proof to the contrary. Links to reputable legal sites are accepted.
And moderators... insightful? Looks more like uninformed to me...
Gotta know there's a camera there (Score:5, Insightful)
And lets not forget the liability of shining a laser in someone's eye. Even though he mentions he's using low powered laser pointers, those still have the potential of harming someone. And in our sue happy society, we don't even have to wait until it actually does harm someone. All it will take is a greedy lawyer to start up a class action lawsuit.
Laser Points Can NOT Hurt You! (Score:5, Informative)
No they don't. Casually shining a single laser pointer across someone's eye is not going to cause anyone any damage - unless they punch you out for it.
Most laser pointers are less than 1 milliwatt in power. That's really, really low. Factor in vibrations and movement and there is no way your going to damage an eye.
The reason a laser can harm your vision is that the eye sees a laser beam as a point source - it is unable to focus on it directly. Instead, the eye focuses to infinity. The beams light is also virtually parallel, allowing for the entire beam to be focused onto one very small part of the retina.
The good thing here in terms of pointers and safety is that any movement of the beam in relation to the eye (be it a person in motion, or the natural jitters in your hand) will cause the focal point on the retina to move.
Thus, in order for a laser to damage your eye it must have sufficient power to burn quickly - the spot being affected changes before cumulative affects can take place.
Laser pointers don't have that power. Short of bolting someone's head to a table, along with a pointer, then forcing their eyelids open, AND keeping the eyeball still, it's not going to happen.
This is not to say that staring into your pointer for kicks is a good idea! Don't do it. Don't do it to others. Don't say I told you you could. If nothing else it is incredibly annoying. But it's not about to permanantly blind anyone.
Now, if you have an unusually high powered pointer (ie those groovy YAG pens) you might be talking a different story.
I've had much nastier beams in the eye than any laser pointer will ever generate - luckily I've gotten away with it too.
Frankly I'm much more worried about these yahoos who are taking a wad of them and bundling them together and pointing the results at low flying helicopters or other aircraft.
Note to anyone tempted to do this: lasers in the sky make a very nice YOU ARE HERE indicator. You're basically pinpointing your position for the Cops. None to bright (ack, pun) if you ask me.
Re:Laser Points Can NOT Hurt You! (Score:5, Interesting)
Red dots appearing out of nowhere can also spook people into thinking that they're being targeted with a laser gun sight. And if you're a police officer (or the Maryland-DC area with the recent plague of random sniper attacks) that might not be an entirely unreasonable fear.
Indeed, Air Safty (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed. The temporary blindess (the same as if a flash bulb had gone off in your face) can cause issues when controlling all sorts of vehicles.
One of the major fears of law enforcement is precisely this problem. I've written about this before on /., but the scheme goes like this:
- Terrorists (or your bad guy of the day) purchases a 3watt solid state YAG laser (yours for only $12,000) and a pair of scanning galvos. Now he has a powerful, portable rig than can run off an AC inverter or other portable power source. Lets say this rig is mounted to a van.
- Go park your van at the end of a runway and proceed to scan the laser back and forth across the cockpits front window. With a tight scan pattern you are highly likely to scan across the pilots eyes.
- This won't blind the pilot for any long period of time... but final approach and near touchdown are critical stages in a landing. Startle or distract the pilot and you might be able to crash the plane.
- While everyone is responding to the crash you drive away... leaving no evidence.
Nasty, nasty thought.
Re:Indeed, Air Safty (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Laser Points Can NOT Hurt You! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Laser Points Can BLIND You! (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sorry, but this is bull. If supermarket scanners were capable of such damage, do you really think they would be allowed? No bloody way. I'm not sure which kind of scanner you are talking about, hand scanner of the kind built into the table, but there is no way it burned you. Absolute puppycock. The only possible way such a thing could have happened is if you'd been mucking about inside one of the large scanners and got beamed. Even then it's very, very, very unlikely. Don't believe me? Go tell your story on alt.laser where many a professional laserist & optical engineer hang out. They'll tell you the same story. In fact someone recently posted a comment along those lines, you'd have loved the response. I can scan a 5watt laser across your eye and you'd be totally fine. In fact, I used to do it routinely as part of laser shows. It's based on power density and exposure. A beam that held in your eye would burn cannot if it is in motion at sufficient speed.
And contrary to your assertion that any movement "will cause the eye to move" -- people have a natural tendency to look directly AT a bright point of light.
Not so. If you notice something you tend to look at it. But if you look towards a bright light (or have on projected at you) then your "Blink Response" takes over. You actually turn away and/or blink. Try it, flash a camera bulb at someone not expecting it. They'll avert their eyes.
Also you must consider the movement of the bodies... just try holding a laser pointer still on one spot at any distance. I guarantee you that it will move about no matter how hard you try to hold it still. The natural twitches in your hand will magnify the further you try to project that beam. Add in any movements of the person being beamed (be it of the body or of the eye itself) and you have a huge range of motion.
If you don't think this is a hazard, try it on yourself first. Remember not to stare into laser beam with remaining eye.
I have. I guess you missed that part of my original post. I used to routinely work with high power lasers (5-7 watts typically), both Pulsed and CW. Even a 5 watt CW laser is safe to scan across an audience, as long as the beam remains in motion. I wouldn't point a static beam of that power at anyone though.
You quote a standard, old, industry joke. That doesn't mean a pointer will do it.
As to the "you are here" nonsense, the beam from a laser is itself invisible. It is only made visible by passing thru something reflective, like clouds, fog, or smoke.
Not quite. The beam isn't "invisible" so much as it's just not aiming into your eye. Since the beam travels in a very straight line, there are no photons being directed away from this path and into your eye. Something must deflect the photons towards you. This is why haze is a favorite.
But guess what, high humidity can give enough air born particles of water to help diffract the beam. As can engine exhaust from, say, that theoretical helicopter. (BTW, I used that example for a reason - it happened)
Additionally take into account the fact that in order to see a laser beam it must enough photons have to be deflected towards your eye. Thus a laser will appear much brighter to someone looking towards the source, than to the person holding the source. Why? For the person holding the source photons must be reflected back the way they came. To someone looking towards the laser they only need to be diverted a few degrees.
Also, since we are talking about pointing it towards someone's eye, their eye is very near the beam - photons need only be deflected slightly from their original path to enter the eye. Not so for the person holding the laser, they require a much greater change in direction.
This is also why a laser appears dimmest when viewed at right angles - the photons must be deflected at a right angle to it's original path to be seen. This is the least likely angle of reflection.
Unfortunately it is people such as you who are responsible for the ridiculous draconian laws of the CDRH in regards to the use of lasers. The US is the only country in the world where audience scanning is illegal. The variance laws are also way out there. It's a shame, done correctly a laser show is a beautiful thing.
Who would actually do this? (Score:2, Insightful)
I ride the MUNI in San Francisco, which is the public buses, and well, they have about 3-4 cameras on the new buses and perhaps even microphones (i am not sure).
I cant imagine any normal people running around with laser pointers in side the bus, pointing that thing at the cameras. Okay, there are lots of crazy people on the SF Buses, but no one sane would do it. Doenst one have better things to do? Or worse things to worry about?
Re:Who would actually do this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Somewhat OT: Cameras don't scare bullies (Score:3, Insightful)
I ride the buses here as well and am strongly in favor of the cameras, as a means of fighting pickpockets, harassment, graffiti, and other crime.
An example where these cameras are NOT having any measureable deterent value can be found here [go.com] where bullies on school buses still physically beat other students knowing full well they are being videotaped. I'm not sure there is a huge difference between child-aged bullies and adult petty criminals...
GMD
Re:Somewhat OT: Cameras don't scare bullies (Score:3, Insightful)
Phobia??? (Score:3, Funny)
He has ethical problems w/doing this? (Score:4, Insightful)
"My interest and motivation is to provide the creative community with some stimulating and provoking stuff," he writes. "These are stimulating and provoking times."
I have ethical problems w/these devices being put into place to watch me. They have absolutely NO place in public areas. I do NOT like the fact that people are there watching what I do.
VMS sites in PA have bothered my for some time. They are going to "only watch traffic patterns". Oh fucking bullshit. They are going to say that until they are in place and in use for an undetermined amount of time. Once the devices are there they are going to use them to track speeders and other lawless individuals.
We do NOT need machines [slashdot.org] tracking us or doing the job of the police. If the cop isn't paying attention, or isn't there when I blow by their hiding spot in the middle of the road at 105, tough.
There's NO reason to have feelings against radar jamming (the cops cheat to find out how fast you are going, why shouldn't we cheat and not let them know how fast we are going?), blocking out video taping in public places of people, etc.
That's my worthless
Re:He has ethical problems w/doing this? (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you feel about other human beings being in the area, all ready to watch you intently the moment you do something outside of the norm? That is quite simply the reality of being in a public space. Do you scream for everyone to turn their gaze the other way lest they capture some of the light beams that have reflected off you?
Like it or not, cameras are extremely effective criminal deterrence, and when that fails they're extremely effective tools in finding the culprit: When the sniper in Washington is caught, it'll likely be the result of some random electronic camera that caught the culprit speeding away. Personally I find the cost of public cameras (that my image, which is readily visible to everyone there, is captured) well worth the cost to public safety. It's here where we cue that pathetic misquote about temporary safety, et. all.
Re:He has ethical problems w/doing this? (Score:3, Interesting)
However, I take issue with:
- We do NOT need machines [slashdot.org] tracking us or doing the job of the police. If the cop isn't paying attention, or isn't there when I blow by their hiding spot in the middle of the road at 105, tough.
Traffic monitoring is one example of surveillance I would vote for tomorrow, if it came up on a ballot initiative. Traffic fatalities happen when people are reckless, when you "just didn't see" the child crossing the road, or the deer in the dark; or you "didn't have time to swerve" out of the way of a drunk driver, or you lose control in a curve when you hit black ice you don't expect.There's NO reason to have feelings against radar jamming (the cops cheat to find out how fast you are going, why shouldn't we cheat and not let them know how fast we are going?), blocking out video taping in public places of people, etc.
Not to mention that traffic signalling systems are designed to work within traffic law. When people cheat, traffic systems break, traffic backs-up, more people cheat, the traffic gets worse (see a pattern here?)
If installing traffic surveillance systems would help enable the 5-0 to stop the sniper attacks on the east coast or child abductors or bank robbers, or any of the above reasons--it's in society's best-interest. Enforcing the law isn't cheating; cheating is robbing the taxpayers of the services for which we spend so very much in taxes each year. Yes, prevention is a service we pay for.
Don't complain to me about people watching over your shoulder, just make sure the public can watch over THEIR SHOULDERS too, and we can all be happy.
Besides, God can always see what you're doing, right? ;)
Re:He has ethical problems w/doing this? (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem to regard law enforcement as some sort of game, and you think that using technology is 'cheating.' What if they scrap the technology and simply post a cop with a stopwatch at every mile marker and overpass? Will you feel less violated then? Will the game be fair enough for you? What if all the cameras referred to in this thread were replaced by cops with binoculars?
If you're in public, expect to be seen. If you're driving 105 mph, expect to get caught, whatever the means.
Re: speed cameras (Score:3, Insightful)
How do we know the things are even calibrated correctly? Oh, we're supposed to *trust* the companies contracted with the police depts. to ensure their systems are accurate! Of course, how silly of me.
Bleah.... Surveillance is fine by me, but automated systems trying to take the place of human judgement never work out very well.
A security camera in a store does not (at least in the current form) actually determine your guilt or innocence, and places its own call to authorities. It merely records what it sees on tape, for humans to review later. That's a bit different from an automated photo radar system that selectively snaps pictures of those it determines "guilty" because they operated a vehicle outside its parameters. Such systems require much closer scrutiny.
Great.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Infrared? Ummm... probably not. (Score:3, Insightful)
To blind a CCD or other imaging device, infrared beams won't cut it. You need high enough energy photons that guarantee virtually every photon entering will produce an electron-hole pair in each type of detector. That means at the very least, inside the visible range. Preferably just beyond into the ultraviolet. If I swamp out the reds, a smart technician could just look at the other colors to determine what's going on.
So, you really want ultraviolet. Just barely into that range will work. That would ensure all the detectors were swamped and thus nothing could be done to get an image out. Now, someone please let me know when ultraviolet lasers and high-powered LEDs are avaiable on the market. Well, maybe I'll let you all know when it's done since that's something I'm doing for my PhD work ;)
Re:Infrared? Ummm... probably not. (Score:5, Informative)
IR-emitting baseball cap? (Score:4, Interesting)
My variation is to attach a number of small IR LEDs to the underside of the bill of a baseball cap, aimed so as to direct the light towards your nose and cheekbones, to confound facial-recognition camera systems.
In the winter this could provide some minimal added protection against frostbite :)
Re:Infrared? Ummm... probably not. (Score:5, Informative)
Silicon is basically transparent to light of wavelengths longer than about 1000nm, so only very near-IR will work. The LEDs and photodiodes that let you surf from your LaZBoy with a remote operate at about 800nm, and a CCD is sensitive enough at this wavelength to be affected by an 800nm laser -- but this is invisible so you aren't going to find laserpointers in this "color." (Experiment -- shine your remote at your handicam... see anything? Cool, eh?)
Anyway, many surveillance cameras are black and white, with no color filtering or separation, so really, any color laser is useful as long as the CCD is sensitive to it. The quantum efficiency of most CCDs peaks around 400-600nm, but it is still quite high at the most common laser diode wavelength of 650nm, so there isn't really a problem. At 300nm and lower, CCDs are virtually blind without expensive processing called "backside thinning," and you won't see backside-thinned devices on common surveillance cameras because they are very expensive.
Yes, color surveillance cameras are more and more common. For a color camera, a strong enough laser beam will still overwhelm a color CCD that uses a mosaic filter (as opposed to a three-chip camera with beamsplitters). This works because the princple that the author uses is that of "blooming." Basically, if your bright source creates too many photoelectrons, the excess flows over the walls of the pixels (which are really just potential barriers, not physical walls) into neighboring pixels. Make even a one-pixel source bright enough and you can flood a whole region of the array. Since the readout electronics can't tell which pixel any given electron originated in, it just looks like one big, bright extended source on the image.
This phenomenon is often encountered by anyone who works with focal plane arrays or uses data collected by them... ever seen an astronomical photograph with long bright lines emanating from either side of the brightest stars on the image? That's blooming, and it looks like bars instead of a smudge because astronomers pay extra for CCDs with "antiblooming" sinks to the substrate -- think of them as drains between pixel columns. But the chipmakers can't put drains between rows because that is the direction in which the pixels are shifted to be read out. In addressable pixel devices, like CMOS active pixel sensors, 2D antiblooming is easier, but it cuts down on the available area for collecting light, so it often isn't used on inexpensive CMOS APS chips found in surveillance applications.
Three-chip color cameras are only used for professional video production -- they're just not cost effective for surveillance or consumer applications when color mosaic CCDs are so much cheaper. There may be some high-end consumer cameras with three-CCD technology but they aren't common at all.
Of course, all bets are off for military applications -- only the military and their suppliers know for sure what's in their surveillance gear, and I suspect that they have already contended with the problem of laser-blinding CCDs used in night vision.
Re:Infrared? Ummm... probably not. (Score:3, Informative)
I was looking for these earlier today - not for jamming Big Brother, but for use in a display of color-change gem materials. Most gem materials change fine under fluorescent light, but some work better between 395 and 400nm, which these LEDs will cover admirably.
Don't Give Saddam (or the RIAA) Ideas! (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, maybe in light (pun) of this guy's antics, the RIAA will now lobby congress to outlaw all laser diodes over a certain wattage (in the name of "homeland security" you understand). This would make CD writers illegal. Look Ma, no piracy problems!
Oh, dear, there are too many good ideas in this thread that the fringe-lunatics could grasp onto.
Re:Don't Give Saddam (or the RIAA) Ideas! (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, that would also make CD *players* illegal, so at least for the time being, that might pose a slight problem.
Of course, if they're selling CD's, they don't care if anyone is actually playing them...
Re:Don't Give Saddam (or the RIAA) Ideas! (Score:5, Funny)
Oh c'mon, Biggs, it's just like hunting womp rats back home.
For a direct link to this guys paper... (Score:5, Informative)
It's even got pictures and everything.. Don't be too hard on his server though.. mirrors anyone?
Government. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I wonder whether or not shining a laser or infrared (or any other light) into a video camera might be illegal somewhere, and if not, I wonder how long it takes before it becomes illegal?
As a sidenote, what never ceases to amaze me is how the government is so dumb and unimaginative when it comes to what people can do to advance themselves. In making weird laws to "protect" people, they're actually causing a lot of the trouble they're trying to get rid of.
Ooooooooooooooh well.
Re:Government. (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Bill gates has one (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Bill gates has one (Score:2, Funny)
or did I??
Jamming? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Jamming? No way (Score:3, Informative)
Jamming is also a violation of FCC regulations. 47CFR15.5 (b) and (c):
Sweet Irony (Score:5, Funny)
Step 2.) Look at pictures to right, then the ad
Step 3.) Anyone else notice the LIVE TIMES SQUARE CAM??
A view of Times Square beamed to the Internet by EarthCam. "We're offering a window on the world," said Brian Curry, the company's chief.
Re:Sweet Irony (Score:2)
Have at it.
Not a workable solution (Score:2, Insightful)
Try that while walking.
they are public places (Score:5, Insightful)
How is it invading anything to watch you where you are already watched anyway (by humans)?
Re:they are public places (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, people can see you when you're walking about your daily business, but mutant superpowers aside, they're not watching you intently and making a file of everywhere you visit and everything you do.
If every day when you left the house, I started following you with a digital video camera and stopped only when you returned home, I'd just bet that you'd feel I was invading your privacy.
Unless you're some sort of exhibitionist freak, of course.
Go back to life (Score:3, Interesting)
Go straight back to life without entering public places. Do not collect the bones.
Seriously, this is a real matter. "Collecting photons" is off the point like all matter being energy is off the point when it hits your body at 300mph.
When someone can analyze someone else's actions without risking the same, that gives the analyzer power over the victim. In a "civilized" society that power would be spread equally. Not sharing the power leads to despotism, which, in turn, leads to anger. Anger leads to things taking each other apart. Very much like in that 300mph example. Or "Fight Club" for that matter.
Re:they are public places (Score:3, Insightful)
As I recall the policeman's motto is "To protect and to serve." A camera does neither; it merely surveys and records. It doesn't direct traffic, it doesn't provide assistance, it doesn't help old ladies across the street, it doesn't even eat donuts. And even if a policeman does stand and scrutinize, he doesn't record. And don't try the bit about his brain is recording. His brain cannot simultaneously record the activities of hundreds of passersby, or recall them perfectly say ten years from now. He cannot remember clothes worn, items carried, or routes taken for even a small handful of pedestrians. His job is to look for suspicious activity and then act on it, discarding all other information. A camera merely records the activities of all persons, making no judgements and providing no assistance.
Your refutation is refuted.
your thick-headedness nonwithstanding
Just FYI, ad hominems rarely win points in debates. They're generally considered bad form.
there could easily be a detective at the same place
I suppose for argument's sake we could suppose a policeman on every corner doing nothing all day but sketching and taking notes, but in fact I've never seen this. Have you? And if I did go out one day to find police to stand around sketching the activities of random citizens, I'd sure as hell be demanding to know a) who authorized my tax dollars to be so wasted, and b) what business it is of the police department to be so recording my activities.
the only real difference is that the camera is vastly more efficient.
As mentioned above, there is a qualitative difference: the cop observes in order to discover and act upon suspicious activity. The camera merely observes.
Lee Kaiwen
Taiwan, ROC
OK, until it gets common... (Score:2)
Lasers are easy to block this way... by definition they only put out one frequency of light. With a good enough filter you could filter out that wavelength and never really notice the difference to the final image (except for scientific purposes of course).
MadCow.
Re:OK, until it gets common... (Score:5, Informative)
If someone seriously wants to block out all handheld laser pointers, they are going to have to throw out everything over 600nm, as well as 532 in the green. That is hard to do with high enough extinction that the laser doesn't overwhelm the CCD while maintainting high sensitivity.
I'm just going to copyright myself (Score:5, Interesting)
Plantiff "We have here your honor is video tape footage of the defendent attempting to steal a Macintosh Computer worth over $3,000 from his local CompUSA a dozen video games also a leather chair, a box of M&M's and even the store manager's goldfish.."
Me "Your honor, those images are copyrighted 2002 Treeluvinhippy and they do not have written consent of the copyright owner. I motion that the video tapes be removed as evidence and returned to the copyright holder immediatly. If the tapes are allowed as evidence I will have to force to remmind your honor about the FBI warning agaisnt public viewings of copyrighted materials. Your honor is most certainly familar with such warnings
as it appears at the beginning of every purchased video cassete. You know the one with the blue background and white letters threating five years imprionment and/or a $25,000 fine, certain death and other such unpleasantries."
What about a license plate cloaking device? (Score:5, Interesting)
Polarizer (Score:3, Insightful)
On another vein, what about putting an LCD screen in front of the plate, with a photo sensor to detect the flash of the photo-radar camera. Kinda like the thing that they put on satellites to block them being blinded by lasers (but much cheaper)
Re:What about a license plate cloaking device? (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with this approach is that they difference between the background with the license plate and the numbering is too large and no flash remove the contrast.
The only one that truly works are polarizers.
But even now in Europe they are stopping putting out ummanned cameras. People are contesting it too much. For example lets say that you get caught speeding, you say, hey that was my friend in the US. Your friend in the US says, yupe was me. The local law is powerless to do anything. Therefore they now catch speeders the old fashioned way of snapping their picture and then stopping them immediately.
Fun and profit! (Score:5, Funny)
This also works on people. (Score:5, Funny)
Don't like people looking at you? Dind staring rude? Well now there's a solution:
Simply shine the laser beam directly into the pupil of the starer's eye and you can effectively blind certain viewpoints of said person.
Makes for a much less verbally inciteful alternative than the stockstandard quips:
"Did you get eyes for your birthday?"
"Am I wearing something of yours, Motherfucker?"
Full HOW-TO article (Score:5, Informative)
How To ZAP A Camera [naimark.net]
A much simpler solution (Score:3, Interesting)
There is No Right to Privacy... (Score:3, Informative)
Many people today, especially in the US, seem to have gotten it into their heads that they have something like a "natural right" to privacy.
I will acknowledge that a pretty good argument can be made that we have a right to privacy regarding the most intimate portions of our lives and our bodies. But that's a far cry from expectations of privacy in the public sphere--such as the expectation that one has a right to walk down the street unobserved and unrecognized. Part of what it means to be a member of society is to be accountable for one's actions within that society--anonymity should be the exception, not the rule. Look at how anonymity affects the level and quality of discourse all over the Internet. This is why I have used my real world identiy as my online identity for many years now.
From the article:
There is a perfect two-word response to this: Rodney King.Re:There is No Right to Privacy... (Score:3, Insightful)
The quality and level of discourse on the Internet isn't purely a matter of honestly any more than what you say to your spouse is purely a matter of honesty. Honesty is just one virtue among many.
But even if honesty was paramount in all things, you are wrong if you think that it is the chief characteristic of anonymous Internet discourse. It isn't. Viciousness is the chief characteristic. Viciousness, and the indulgence in a toddler-like anger and hurtfulness just because you can. Truth doesn't require such things; and, for that matter, neither do lies.
"Accountability" means not avoiding the responsibility for what one says and does. It's part of being an adult, and it's part of being an adult member of civil society.
Don't Like This, But Precedents Exist (Score:3, Informative)
In principle, how is this different than getting a glance from a cop on the beat? Yes, you can see the cop, and you probably won't see the cameras. But, so long as notice is given that an area is under surveillance, the legalities are probably handled.
Another precedent: Police checking for speeders. They watch us; odds are we don't see them.
A lot different, unless RoboCop roams your streets (Score:4, Interesting)
A camera tapes you. If one tape-reviewer doesn't know who you are, he can ask around until he finds someone who does. The tape can be matched with other tapes in the area to see where you were and where you're going. The tape can be stored so that, a few years from now, the 'eventually will be better than 50% accurate' facial scanning system will identify you.
Not insignificant differences, especially if you live in a large town where the chances that any individual officer knows you is vanishingly small
(1) People rewrite a memory each time they play it: the stronger the emotion involved in a memory, the more likely it is to be inaccurate. A recent study asked people about their 9/11 memories: a huge % of people remembered watching the one tape of WTC North being hit on 9/11 itself, even though that tape didn't come out until the next day. Similar research occured with Challenger: a professor had students write down their memories on the day after, and then two years later asked them about those same memories. Less than 25% of students remembered most or all of that day correctly. Most had at least one major detail wrong. Except for the very rare person, we don't have anything like a video camera in our brain. Or if we do, the video camera is run by a 5 year old- never stays focused on one thing for very long, and easily distracted by bright, shiny or chocolately things.
Money (Score:3, Funny)
Good to know that personal principles are no match for market economics. Whew.
Double Standard for Video Tape (Score:4, Interesting)
How many times have you heard the words "I can't believe I did that!" or "I don't really do that, do I?" after watching themselves on a video tape.
It's pretty easy to judge others, but we almost never apply the same standards to our own behavior.
You could see the jurors in that child beating in the parking lot vilifying the woman and taking away their child, but going home and smacking their kids around. Not until someone tapes them and confronts them with it, would they realize how bad it looks. But I... I didn't mean... I uh, um, etc.
Did they hit their kids? Yes. Should we as a society start playing self-righteous Church Lady with video tape evidence at all instances?
Emphatically, No!!
Disqualified Presidential Candidates (Score:3, Funny)
Worker on phone with headquarters
"We can't support that candidate, sir. He was caught on a Walmart security camera rooting around in his nose."
"No, we couldn't supress it. CNN's already got copies. You think Ford's stumbling was bad... Sir, we're going to have dump him. Inviable candidate. Need to find someone with shorter softer nose hairs and less mucus buildup."
"Yes sir, we'll start looking for a clean nose right away. There's nothing more important in a presidential candidate natually clean nasal passages."
consider this situation (Score:3, Insightful)
Even though the camera is in public view, and you could argue that you have as much right to illuminate it as it has to take a picture of you, I think the police would like to talk to you if you started doing this with a laser, no? What do you think?
Why am I a criminal? (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Close observation of a person or group, especially one under suspicion.
2. The act of observing or the condition of being observed.
So if I am under surveillance, I must be under suspicion. What am I under suspicion for? I haven't committed any crimes, no one has even accused me of anything. Why am I upset? I guess you could say that I don't like being treated like a criminal when I have done nothing wrong.
Solution to upskirt cams? (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, I originally meant this to be somewhat humourous, but I wouldn't be surprised if I see these in the next lingerie magazine.
Not that I, um, read lingerie magazines or anything... they're my girlfriend's... - phorm
Interesting situations may arise from this.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider this situation:
My neighbor goes out and buys and X10 camera and puts it on the front of his house. My house is directly across the street. I don't want a camera contiuously looking at me so I buy a $10 tripod and a $10 laser pointer, and aim it right at his camera. I leave it on continuously, making the camera worthless.
Is this legal or is one of us doing something illegal? I'm sending unauthorized photons onto his propoerty. He's recieving photons from my property without authorization. Neither one seems to be explicitly ilegal.
Seems like a couple lawyers could have a lot of fun with this one. What who you do if you were either the neighbor or myself? What is instead of being a neighbor's camera it was a camera at a local park, across the street?
Of couse, in reality, they'd probably think the camera was broken, replace it a few times, and then give up.
Welcome America, to surveillance. (Score:5, Interesting)
If governments could get away with it, we'd all be subcutaneously tagged with GPS tracking devices with cameras in our homes, this, naturally would also "would have prevented [insert recent crime]" which is the generic argument that "they" use.
We've sadly had a few prominent child abductions and murders recently in the UK, and I predicted that someone would bring out some form of implanted child tracking device. Lo and behold the nutter Kevin Warwick has the same idea and uses it to get some publicity [theregister.co.uk].
So we all get our kids chipped... now - how many people think that once it becomes "standard practice" to have children chipped at birth, how long will it be before it's illegal to remove the chips?
Oh hello Big Brother - you're late.
Watermark your T-shirt (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Mirror of article (Score:5, Interesting)
I Can't Believe What I'm Seeing Here! (Score:3, Funny)
This is like a goddam circus! You should see yourselves! It's better than anything on The Onion, and scarier...
Re:Mirror of article (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Culpability (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Culpability (Score:5, Funny)
It's not destruction of anybody's property if it's temporary, which is what the article suggests.
In fact, if he copyrights his own image, he's actually enforcing his rights, and any attempt to make the camera capture his image will then be a DMCA violation...
Re:Well, you know.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The article mentions hidden video cameras in the bathroom [toilet] of hotels. I have actually seen these in UK service-stations (2mm hole in smoke detectors), and everyone who hears about them is disgusted at the concept.
Larger-scale, towns all over the country are rushing to install cameras. Our high-street has a particularly prominent mast being installed, which looks far too spookily like the panopticon in its placement. They don't solve crimes, they don't prevent crimes, they don't make the streets safer.
This has been proven. Video cameras covered the alleged kidnapping of a girl in our town last year, and they were no use whatever with the police investigation. We have video-footage of several thefts, and car-vandalism, again, these have not been used to solve any crimes.
Local councellors are pleading with government for money to install these things without even a clue as to their lack of effectiveness at any sort of real crime.
Italian-job style jammers may be nice playing with these cameras, ultraviolet ones like the US Army is using to permanently blind people would be better, but what can people actually do if the local council (and every other) says you will live in a surveilled society and put up with it?
Re:Well, you know.... (Score:3, Insightful)
My point was that CCTV footage has rarely to never been used to solve crimes. The specific example being a TV camera watching a girl's kidnapping. Despite being able to identify many people walking down that street, no clues were ever provided which helped to find the person.
More famous example: we've all seen the CCTV footage of two teenagers kidnapping a young boy from a shopping mall. Can anyone tell me how useful they were then? Did security staff react? Did the police react? No, they showed it on the evening news.
Example from work: Colleague's car was vandalised. In a well-lit private carpark with cameras every 50 metres. Nobody was ever caught.
Another example from that same office: same well-lit, surveilled car park. Stack of unix machines were stolen from the office, and carried through bushes to a car at the nearby motorway. Cameras missed it all. Nobody was ever caught.
Personal example: my bike was stolen from luggage-van of a train. Station CCTV cameras have a clear, close-up view of the faces of each and every person involved in that theft. Was the bike found? No. Were any of the thieves found? No.
Your point seems obvious: surely cameras are better than no cameras. A chance piece of evidence is better than no chance. That is arguably true, but only if you discount cost.
Outdoor high-street surveillance cameras cost a lot more than anything you'd use in your office-security. High-res cameras, remote-control servos, and the sheer installation cost of taking up the street and planting a tower in it add up to a lot of cost. I see quotes of $4000 upwards for even the smallest cameras, without installation or cabling.
Policemen on £40,000 per year are then paid to watch these cameras. At several policemen per installation (often in a control room shared between several towns), that's a lot of money per hour. Add the cost of data-connections and the control-room itself, plus a beaurocratic overhead.
The reason this hindering, rather than being irrelevant to safety, is: This is money not being spent on improving the safety of our streets. Good street-lighting, building design, town design, police patrols, special constables, neighbourhood-watch, these are the measures which are proven to reduce crime, and these are the measures which are having their funding cut to pay for CCTV cameras.
What use is a town with not enough money to keep a police station open, if they have five-thousand-pound camera installations in every corner of every road? Even places as large as Nottingam, it's not unknown to have 3 or 4 police on duty at night, to cover vast swathes of the city. Break-ins occur at the same time/same place every night, and there was simply not enough police resource to send a guy there to arrest the burglars. Response times of many hours are typical. "Sorry we're late, but you're looking at the night-watch, both of us" a young policeman told me last time they responded to a call, 9 hours later.
I hope that some of those answers clarify my question a bit better: surveillance cameras are bad not because of the implicit somebody-watching-you (police patrols watch you too), but because they simply don't work, and divert valuable resources from schemes that do work.
So, in answer to "But I'm curious: What information would they have without the cameras?"
They'd have information from the patrol cars driving around.
Re:What are you? Thief? Rapist? Burglar? Murderer? (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I a burglar, that I must explain my reasons for being in a particular place at a particular time?
Am I a murderer, that I may not move about freely of my own accord?
Re:It happens EVERY DAY (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a thing called "privacy," and it's not something to be given up lightly. Letting the police enter any home at will would, no doubt, find some evidence that would help solve crimes, but most people think there should be some limits on police powers.
Allowing the government to attach tracking devices to all citizens would prevent a few crimes, too, I think. Should we all go downtown to get our implants tomorrow?
For any hideous crime you can identify, there are some steps law enforcement could have taken ahead of time that would have prevented it, if only the general public didn't mind having their rights trampled. That's not a reason to hand over the house keys to the government.