Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Technology

Southeast To Start Video Monitoring Flights 402

Posted by timothy from the please-turn-off-electronic-surveillance-devices dept.
NormalVisual writes "According to this article, Southeast Airlines will begin digitally recording everything that goes on during one of their flights. Moreover, they have said they will be retaining the recorded video for up to 10 years. The privacy implications here are worrying, and this sets a bad precedent, IMO." (Southeast is a charter company, not a big scheduled carrier.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Southeast To Start Video Monitoring Flights More

Southeast To Start Video Monitoring Flights

Comments Filter:

  • School Buses (Score:5, Interesting)

    by haydenth ( 588730 ) <haydenth AT msu DOT edu> on Sunday July 20, 2003 @03:54PM (#6485988)
    When I was a kid, they used to have cameras on our school busses. Nobody was really sure whether they were 'on' or not. The bus drives used to use it as leverage so we didn't screw around.

    • Re:School Buses (Score:5, Funny)

      by LittleGuy ( 267282 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @04:02PM (#6486038)
      When I was a kid, they used to have cameras on our school busses. Nobody was really sure whether they were 'on' or not. The bus drives used to use it as leverage so we didn't screw around.

      When I was a kid, we have nuns.

      Same things, more lethal.

      • Re:School Buses (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Stonent1 ( 594886 )
        I made it plainly known that there was no way they had a camera in that fake looking box and subsequently we got away with everything. One student threw a rock out the window and broke the windshield of a UPS truck. The driver pulled the bus over and yelled at everyone and when no one admitted to it, she just started the bus back up and continued on the route and nothing ever happened to the guy that did it.

    • Re:School Buses (Score:5, Informative)

      by toddestan ( 632714 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @05:00PM (#6486424)
      I work part time for a school bus company, so here goes. Until about a year ago, they had a ton of the boxes they install on the buses, but only 2 cameras to put in these boxes to go around. To get an idea this bus company has ~200 buses, but not all the buses have a box in them. I'd say about 1/2.

      Because of this, only the real problem buses got the cameras. The cameras recorded onto a tape that looped every couple of hours, so unless they pulled the tape out of the bus for review it just recorded over itself.

      One some buses, there was a switch on the dashboard that would turn the camera on and off. Sometimes it was unlabeled, other times it had some nonsense label like "Landing Light" or "Sign Light" or something like that. Other buses simply ran the camera when the ignition was on. The blinking red light would blink regardless of switch position, camera installed or not.

      Sometimes they would tell the driver there was a camera in the bus, sometimes they don't. I think this was to keep the drivers on their toes more than anything else, because the cameras can also record what the driver does. Nevertheless, the driver does not have keys to open the box.

      In the last year or two, all the new buses they have purchased come with cameras preinstalled. Unlike the old buses with a one way mirror, these buses you can clearly see the camera behind the glass. The trick though is that under the dashboard there is a box that holds a VCR, and they only have so many of these VCRs to go around. So while each new bus clearly has a camera, not all are recording.

      I have seen footage from the new bus cameras and it is quite good too. The old ones weren't so hot. I think the new ones are digital but I'm not sure (haven't asked).
    • We had a cool bus driver once, and he opened it up, showing a real camera. However, there were never any tapes in it, so it was pretty useless.

  • No more sex charters? (Score:5, Funny)

    by MonkeyBoyo ( 630427 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @03:54PM (#6485991)
    Were they having problems with drunken mile-high orgies?

    • Re:No more sex charters? (Score:5, Funny)

      by smcpeek ( 304648 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @03:56PM (#6486005)
      Not really a problem - they just wanted it filmed. Open up a web site devoted to mile-high orgy video and make some extra cash on the side... new business strategy.

      • Re:No more sex charters? (Score:5, Funny)

        by erpbridge ( 64037 ) <steve AT erpbridge DOT com> on Sunday July 20, 2003 @04:23PM (#6486198) Journal
        Ugh... as if we don't have enough Bang this and Bang that, now we'll have BangPlane.com.

        Looks like it was already taken: (WHOIS)

        Registrant:
        PFM Technologies
        6373 NW 110th Ave
        Parkland, Florida 33076
        United States
        Registered through: Go Daddy Software (http://www.godaddy.com)

        Domain Name: BANGPLANE.COM
        Created on: 23-May-03
        Expires on: 23-May-04
        Last Updated on: 07-Jun-03

        Administrative Contact:
        Kline, Jason
        jason@pfmtechnologies.com
        PFM Technologies
        6373 NW 110th Ave
        Parkland, Florida 33076
        United States
        (954) 757-3115

        Technical Contact:
        Kline, Jason
        jason@pfmtechnologies.com
        PFM Technologies
        6373 NW 110th Ave
        Parkland, Florida 33076
        United States
        (954) 757-3115

        Domain servers in listed order: NS1.RANKINC.COM
        NS2.RANKINC.COM

  • What right to privacy do you think you have (Score:5, Insightful)

    by duckpoopy ( 585203 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @03:54PM (#6485996) Journal
    regarding what you do in public? The other people on the plane may be looking at you. Does that worry you also?

    • Re:What right to privacy do you think you have (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 20, 2003 @03:58PM (#6486015)
      The other people don't have my personal details and they won't remember what I did for the next 10 years...
      • Why does this bother anyone? They already have your flight information on file, where it will likely stay forever. They probably have to keep the flight passenger lists anyways to comply with the law. So, it's not like this is a change of how your movements are monitored.
        I'll be redundant here: You have no right to privacy on someone elses private property, except where excluded by law.

        • Just because this may be a step above any existing monitoring, and just because no law prevents it, why can't we be bothered by this? When it comes to issues like this the line is fairly arbitrary, as it is a personal feeling. Just because you are comfortable with this doesn't mean everyone has to be.

    • Re:What right to privacy do you think you have (Score:4, Interesting)

      by NineNine ( 235196 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @03:59PM (#6486021)
      Actually, you're not even in public on their planes. It's their property, they can tape whatever they want (as long as they tell you). Don't like it, don't fly their airline.
    • Sensible post and very true. You are already being video taped in many other areas of your life without your knowledge so why is this any different. What exactly are you planning on doing while sitting in that seat that has you concerned folks?

    • Differences (Score:5, Insightful)

      by abulafia ( 7826 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @04:59PM (#6486415)
      Do you see a difference between the following two situations:

      (1) you are in a public place, and other people can see you

      (2) you are in a public place, and video archives of everything you do are stored and accessible, now, for 10 years, but almost certainly, for life

      Do you not see a difference?

      One is called reputation. The other is something that enables Orwellian nightmares.

      There is a certain invevitability that is working here, but all that recommends is that the state not be in charge.

    • I think people missed the whole point of these cameras intirely. By having cameras if and when something happens there is something to show what heppened. As it was i was thinking the other day they need cameras with live feeds to the ground and a screen in the cockpit. If someone tries to do something both the pilots know and the ground.

      On top of this think about if the plane crashes. Currently we have nearly worthless flight recorders. Having tape of what happened on the plane would be great. One co

  • There's really nothing wrong with this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kmweber ( 196563 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @03:56PM (#6486003) Homepage
    An airline is a private organization. You're free to choose whether or not you fly with them. If you're going to step on board their property, you've got to follow their rules--it's that simple.

  • XXXAIRPORN.NET?? (Score:5, Funny)

    by phunhippy ( 86447 ) * <zavoid&gmail,com> on Sunday July 20, 2003 @03:57PM (#6486009) Journal
    Huy said cameras wouldn't be installed in the restrooms.

    Well so much for www.livemilehighclub.com :(

  • Airplanes != Public, hence your leave your (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cscx ( 541332 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @03:59PM (#6486020) Homepage
    Freedoms at the door. Flying isn't a God-given right, it's a damn privelege. When you board a plane, you play by their rules. The public transportation in my city has cameras on all the busses... it's meant to aid in finding those the vandalize or otherwise break the law.

    Whining about this is almost as bad as the tool that got kicked off [politechbot.com] a British Airways flight for wearing a button that said "Suspected Terrorist." When you board a plane, you no longer follow the Constitution to the letter --- it's not the open public. It's either their way, or the Long Island Expressway.

    Learn to play by others' rules or until then, STFU.

    That is all.
    • Are you trying to sell the idea that if some twisted transport company chose for whatever reason (I can think of a dozen politically-correct-spin-doctor-on-speed arguments) to enforce racial segregation we should accept it? No, no. If a cable tv network chose to install micro cameras in sitting rooms to verify license agreement compliance what would you say?

    • Re:Airplanes != Public, hence your leave your (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tshak ( 173364 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @04:24PM (#6486208) Homepage
      Airlines are common carriers. They are therefore regulated and justly so. I can't say, "All blacks to the back of the Plane - it's my business". There are rules. The "suspected terrorist" button is quite appropriate, because it's true for every person sitting on that plane. What's the difference between that and wearing the same button in a taxicab?

      Just because you're on someone elses private property doesn't mean that certain rights go out the window. I'd hate for my landlord to have the legal power to place camera's in her house - the house in which I live.
      • Actually, they can do this, at least in some states (if not all). However, if they do so, they must make it explicit before you sign the contract, otherwise you'll be able to break the lease whenever you find out about it. You wont be able to get any damages, or have them arrested though. Its the same principle as the nanny-cam: you can surveil your own property. There was a case of this in Florida last year I believe, where the landlord was simply chastised.
    • The tools are the ones that sit idly by while the government and the corporations chip away at our rights, bit by little bit. If you're happy to be a complacent little piggy, that's great, have fun at the sausage factory. Just don't insist on dragging the rest of us down with you.

      For those of you who want to join in the fun, get your own Suspected Terrorist tshirts and stuff here [cafeshops.com].
    • I'm pretty sure the USA Constitution remains in effect for American companies even if they post a sign. Flying isn't a right, but for Americans, all the rights and freedoms in your Constiution ARE rights and cannot be ignored by American companies.

      And why would a SUICIDE terrorist care if his picture is taken? It is not like he is planning on flying again. Much of the "security" measures the USA is implementing are like this - completely ineffectual, but make a nervous public feel better.

    • Re:Airplanes != Public, hence your leave your (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dragoon412 ( 648209 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @04:58PM (#6486410)
      That 'tool' was John Gilmore; a co-founder of the EFF.

      I'm not one to agree with his actions; he had to have known that wearing such a pin would cause problems. Then again, I'm fairly sure Rosa Parks had to have known that not giving up her seat would cause problems, too.

      Now, before I'm shouted down for drawing that comparison, let me point out that, no, I don't believe the two actions are of the same importance, but Gilmore's message is no less respectable: a cry to bring some measure of sanity to the airline industry.

      How much government money has been thrown at existing air carriers of late? They're living in their own world right now, where they use taxpayer money and have common carrier status, yet seem to be exempt from the finer points of Constitutional decree. They just have way too much lattitude to govern peoples' behavior, and they chose to use that lattitude to install a false sense of security for the absolute dumbest fucktard imaginable.

      Any rational person would view Gilmore's button as a political statement. Any reasonably intelligent person realizes that he can even more damage with his bare hands than a pair of nail clippers. Even the dumbest of the dumb realize that a 3-inch G.I. Joe doll's gun poses no threat to anyone.

      Yet the airlines continue to enforce these absurd policies, and have turned flying into such a frustrating, nerve-wracking experience, that people just want to scream! Enough of this crap!

      And if the above plea for sanity doesn't sway you, think of it this way:

      The government is pouring tons of taxpayer money into an existing private industry that's a borderline monopoly (well, more an oligopoly), and exists to serve the public, yet is still allowed to behave as an entirely private industry, free from the constraints of Constitutional decree.

      Sound like any other industry you know of? Maybe those telecoms we all hate so much, here on Slashdot?

      It's the same concept: out tax dollars are being spent on a private, non-competetive industry. So where's our say? Why is our money being given to another industry that's just going to turn around and screw us over?

      With the RIAA, it's our money. With the telecoms, it's our money. With the airlines, it's our money and our rights.

    • You are either a troll, or ignorant of law.

      Common carrier status, which is applied to airlines, requires that no customer seeking service upon reasonable demand, willing and able to pay the established price, however set, would be denied lawful use of the service or would otherwise be discriminated against.

      If British Airways was an American company, they would have broken the law by violating their common carrier status. Just like if telephone companies started to censor your communications.

    • John Gilmore is nobody's tool (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SiliconEntity ( 448450 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @05:35PM (#6486612)
      Whining about this is almost as bad as the tool that got kicked off [politechbot.com] a British Airways flight for wearing a button that said "Suspected Terrorist."

      John Gilmore [toad.com] has done more for personal freedoms and liberties on the net than anyone you know. He founded or helped found the EFF, the "alt" newsgroups, the Cypherpunks, and Cygnus Support, the first company that showed that you could make money supporting open source software. Cygnus was later bought by Red Hat for umpteen millions of dollars, but Gilmore was already rich, having been one of the first employees at Sun Microsystems.

      He has steadily plowed his money back into causes designed to promote freedom online and in the physical world. He has funded the FreeS/Wan [freeswan.org] project designed to provide automatic link-based encryption. He's also funded efforts to add security to the DNS. He provided the money for the machine that proved once and for all that DES was insecure [eff.org]. He is presently suing the government over travel restrictions [cryptome.org].

      As for the button incident, his point is that we are all being treated as suspected terrorists under the current regulations. As long as people put up with that without a protest, nothing is going to change. We should all be grateful that someone with Gilmore's credentials and financial strength is doing something about the increasingly harsh restrictions that all of us face as the government cracks down.

  • No more fingers in the nose (Score:4, Funny)

    by aplank ( 678451 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @04:00PM (#6486027)
    I guess this might motivate nosepickers to stop such an ugly and disgusting habit.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) * on Sunday July 20, 2003 @04:01PM (#6486030)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • A friend was on an american airline soon after the new measures were introduced. It was nothing he didn't expect from a British airport.

      The fact they still sell glass bottles shows how little they actually care.
    • The problem is airline security doesn't think like someone who is in the business of getting something done. I don't think I have ever been through any kind of general security checkpoint that could have kept me from getting weapons or anything else in if I so desired. True, it is impossible to account for EVERYTHING someone might try, but instead of putting more and more useless security checkpoints and provisions in place that aren't going to stop anyone with the will and the know how to f something up,
    • I was pulled off a plane recently because TSA forgot to do the extra security number on me. I had been randomly selected for this honor. They took me all the way back to the security chekpoint and then when they were done they took me back to the plane. No problem, right? Right. Except for the fact that my carry on bag never left the overhead compartment. Oh, and have you ever tried to get off of a plane from row 25 while there are still passengers boarding? That's a lot of fun, I can tell you! It o

  • who cares? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ASAPnetworks ( 673312 )
    Does it really matter if there's a camera on the plane? did you really have any privacy to begin with? you're only sitting in a plane with 200+ other people. And what would you be trying to hide on a plane besides something that isn't suppose to be there? I mean, the only real reason I can see some objecting to this is so the airline can't sell the tape of you having sex in the washroom.

  • how long before we see crash footage? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pair-a-noyd ( 594371 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @04:02PM (#6486039)
    You KNOW that there will be some crashes that will get recorded and soon or later they will be leaked onto the internet.

    We'll see people getting spammed about and cooked as planes auger into the ground or the ocean or buildings.

    You know some sick bastards will do this.

    I used to work in a TV studio many years ago and there was one camera man that was seriously sick. He kept a personal library of death videos, car wrecks, murder scenes, you name it. I think he probably masturbated to this stuff considering how excited he would get when he got new footage of dead people.

    Sad to say it but there really are some sicko's out there...
    • Basically affirming for me that there's something on the internet for anyone, no matter how fucked up the person or the thing is. I wouldn't be surprised if stuff like that ended up on the net. There's also not much you can do about it.
    • That used to be the stock-in-trade of the National Enquirer and similar papers. When a large airplane crashed, the whole paper would be taken up by grisly shots of firemen scooping body remnants out of the wreckage; car accidents that produced a decapitation or an impalement would get a single shot.

      Their revenues were pretty limited in those days because the papers were only sold at the grubby newsstand downtown next to the bus station, along with the jerkoff books. The business was revolutionized when som

  • What privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by avalys ( 221114 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @04:03PM (#6486050)
    It seems like people have taken to appending that phrase, "the privacy implications here are worrying" to every article they submit. It's a fucking airplane, people - since when do you expect to have privacy?

    Christ, talk about a knee-jerk reaction. About the worst this will do is enable a bored technician to watch you pick your nose ten years from now, and the best it will do is help the FBI catch a terrorist (or even an ordinary, everyday criminal).

  • Why bad? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WegianWarrior ( 649800 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @04:04PM (#6486056) Journal

    So an airline has said that they will start taping the cabind during flight, to prevent terrorism and other safety threats. Why is this bad? Is this any different from a drugstore or a bank having a surveilence camera running? No, it isn't. Do we complain about those? Not that I've heard.

    I know, some of you may say that beeing taped while you're on board a plane is a breach of your right to privacy - but since when is a chartered plane your private area anyway? It's a public area, and when you're in public, you can be seen by others.

    That said, I'm not too happy about them storing the video for ten years - two years should be the most, and unless something spectacular happened on the flight (like Elvis materialising and singing 'love me tender'), it should only be released to the proper authorities by the orders of a court. The one exeption to that rule would be if the carrier themself needed to use the video if it had to sue a passenger for air-rage (endangering the safety of the other passangers).

    No, installing a few cameras in an airplane wont - as the article points out - prevernt terrists from attemting to take over the plane. But it might just be enought to stop that fatass next to you from getting hideously drunk and suffer from air-rage. And that can't be a bad thing, can it?

    • but since when is a chartered plane your private area anyway?

      Am I missing something? I thought a chartered plane means the customer hires a plane and pilot to fly somewhere. How is this different than, say renting an apartment? Should your landlord be allowed to put video cameras in your apartment? After all, maybe you are assembling bombs in there. You might even be having sex in it. Eeewww. Disgusting. Landlords should track the sexual habits of all their residents (even the married ones), then make the

  • they're going to far (Score:2, Informative)

    by rokzy ( 687636 )
    recording is fine for security e.g. recording violent passengers.

    but I see no reason to keep the tapes, especially for 10 years. (plus increased fares for storing all these files?)

    also, recording private conversations with no prior good reason and without consent is not acceptable imo.

    here in the UK, the data protection act means (IANAL) that you must be provided with a copy of all footage of yourself if requested.
    • here in the UK, the data protection act means (IANAL) that you must be provided with a copy of all footage of yourself if requested.
      There was a series on UK TV a couple of years back - "The Mark Thomas Product", where the presenter urged members of the public to go into banks, garages and department stores, and dance about in front of a camera, so they could then demand any footage of themselves under the terms of the data-protection act. I thought that was a genius idea - imagine if a few thousand people

  • Transparent Society (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mcrbids ( 148650 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @04:26PM (#6486217) Journal
    Every time I see an article like this, I'm reminded of another work I consider a landmark - The Transparent Society [wired.com].

    I find it quite amazing that this work in 1996 highlighted so many issues now coming to bear - such as this one - and the article is clearly written.

    Here's the first thing I'd change - All audio and video collected by any police organization should be public record 14 days after it was first recorded.

    Access to the video in realtime as suggested by the above article (You did READ it, didn't you?) can be used to tactical advantage by criminal organizations - but the 14 day delay would have the same effect of keeping the cops honest without surrendering any meaningful tactical information.

    Then, we could expand out from there.

  • Why waste weight for this useless flight data? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MagikSlinger ( 259969 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @04:27PM (#6486220) Homepage Journal
    Most airplanes in the US record less than 10% of the flight data they are supposed to, and they want to waste their time with this? When your airplane crashes, the black box usually doesn't have near enough information to figure out what killed you and what they can do to prevent it. That's why it can take anywhere from months to years to come up with a recommendation. In the meantime, for lack of black box data, you get to fly with increased risk. What argument do the airlines use to get away with it? Too much weight.

    In Europe, every carier records hundreds of parameters of the flight. After even a minor problem on the flight, the data tape is pulled and analyzed by maintenance. The result is they don't have stupid maintenance accidents like Alaska Airlines did. Stuck rudder? It's analyzed and fixed within weeks, not left unchecked for months.

    The only reason they are recording their passengers is to protect them from liability when they handcuff an unruly passenger. It has little to do with increasing your safety.

  • Employee Monitoring? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The chance of any particular flight having "terrorists" is virtually nil. That can't be the reason that the airline is considering doing it. I see this as a way to check job performance of the airline employees. "See, we have of it right here. You weren't nice enough to customer Joe X." Just like all other forms of workplace monitoring, I suppose, and a CYA against employee-based suits for wrongful termination, discrimination, etc.

  • blacking 'em out (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @04:29PM (#6486236)

    Ok, so what's to stop you from slipping a little piece of airplane-trim-colored tape over the lens staring you back in the face? Or a little vaseline to blur things a tad? Or, if you're feeling really nasty, some nail polish, clear or otherwise(it'll permanently bond to the plastic lens.)

    • >>Ok, so what's to stop you from slipping a little piece of airplane-trim-colored tape over the lens...
      A: The sure-to-follow Federal law against tampering with an aircraft security device. It's just a matter of time.

      I'm predicting that within twenty years it will be a Felony to wear any face covering in public that might conceal your identy from Big Brother's Telescreen Network.
  • I've thought seriously about setting up a couple cameras on my car to video tape all the lunatics on the highways in the morning. I supposed I'd be required to but a bumper sticker on my car that says I'm recording, but I'd have to check on that.

    Personally, I think it's a good idea. They should record what is happening in the cockpit, and the passenger compartment. Though I'm not sure what they're trying to see ...

  • Surveillance Cameras or just Advanced FDRs (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @04:34PM (#6486259) Homepage Journal
    I RTFA, but couldn't figure out whether they plan to use the cameras as live surveillance equipment (video beamed live to surveillance centers on ground) or just as a more advanced flight data recorder (to be recovered and used for investigation after something untoward happens and/or serve as a deterrent as in gas stores-not useful for suicidal criminals).

    If they indeed are planning to install cameras, I would like to see them choose the first alternative...beam all videos live to monitoring stations, to constantly monitor the passengers, warn the crew of dangerous activity and take preventive action.

    FDRs are basically doomsday equipment, useful only after an incident has occurred, it would make more sense to work towards preventing incidents, rather than plan towards subsequent investigations and lawsuits.

    Ofcourse, the costs involved in setting up live broadcasting of video, and the infrastructure to monitor the large number of simultaneous flights/cameras would prove prohibitive.

  • Doh! (Score:3, Funny)

    by rzbx ( 236929 ) <slashdot@rzb x . o rg> on Sunday July 20, 2003 @04:45PM (#6486325) Homepage
    So much for joining the mile high club on Southeast.

  • Honey Roasted Nuts (Score:4, Funny)

    by malia8888 ( 646496 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @04:46PM (#6486329)
    Damn, I guess this means I can't pinch an extra bag of Airline-Small-Bag Honey Roasted Nuts from the drink cart.

  • What folks seem to be missing here... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wowbagger ( 69688 ) * on Sunday July 20, 2003 @04:47PM (#6486339) Homepage Journal
    Sure, it is the airline's aircraft, the airline can do what it wants, and if you don't like it, don't fly on that airline.

    And were the airline merely recording the flight, holding the recording a couple of days or so, then scrubbing it, I personally would not have a problem with it - there are many cases of air rage, gross stupidity, and so on that could best be handled with a tape ("You claim the flight attendants were needlessly violent in denying you your drink? Well, let's roll tape... Hmmm, seems you took a swing at them first. CASE DISMISSED!")

    But while it is one thing to hold the video for a couple of days, to allow for any complaints or issues a chance to come out, it is quite another to hold the video for TEN YEARS! What possible logic would require a video to be held for ten years in the absence of a complaint?

    What, do they expect some flight attendant to remember, after 8 years, "Oh yeah, that Mr. Tuttle in 3A pinched me, made lewd comments, and tried to steal the headphones - let's go get the tape and bust him!"?
    • The passengers, or the airline employees, could file a lawsuit against the airline years after an incident.
    • What possible logic would require a video to be held for ten years in the absence of a complaint? The statute of limitations for a passenger's filing a complaint would have something to do with the length of time they keep the tapes. And they have to satisfy the longest possible time in every place they could be sued.

      A California restaurant was sued at the last possible moment (AFAIK - 5 years after the incident allegedly happened) for some supposed discrimination against the disabled. After that lengt

  • I hope this means I will soon be able to download movies of Mile High Club members from usenet!

  • Apple Vacations (Score:2, Informative)

    by sward ( 122951 )
    If you book a trip with Apple Vacations, you will fly on Southeast Airlines. Southeast is a subsidiary of Apple.

    www.applevacations.com

  • I would like to offer my opinion regarding the comments basically saying "there is nothing wrong with this, since the planes are their property they can do whatever they want".
    First of all, I agree there is nothing illegal about this, but it is not the same thing as "there is nothing wrong". There is more to human interaction than what is defined by laws. Second, planes might be private property but the airlines cannot do whatever they choose. They are using my airspace, polluting my air, irritating my ear

  • Is Skyway Communications a Scientology operation? They're in Clearwater, FL., home of the largest Scientology organization.
  • Taxies in many cities already video passengers in the back seat. I don't much like being recorded but feel for the poor drivers who get mugged regularly.

    Dan Gillmore [siliconvalley.com] isn't so crazy about this Southeast "innovation".

  • if someone does commit a big crime on a plane it's likely that everyone will see it anyways.

    if they're terrorists they're probally going to kill themselves anyways.

    sure it might help get id on those people, but does it really HELP?

    seems a little pointless...
  • has either a 4 or 5 camera system (they use two different systems) that records to hard drives on every bus in their system. They swap the hdds every night and transfer the data to central servers. If I remember correctly, they hold the data either 7 or 14 days- plenty of time for a crime to be reported and the police to make the request for a review of the recordings. Very few of the train stations have cameras yet, but their changing that and will soon be adding camera systems to all the rail cars of the

  • Mile-High club membership... (Score:3, Funny)

    by yiantsbro ( 550957 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @06:56PM (#6487044)
    ...will be a lot more difficult to obtain in the furture (but on the plus side, it will be a lot easier to prove)

  • It's NOT SouthWest airlines. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Comrade Pikachu ( 467844 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @07:10PM (#6487123) Homepage
    The airline is Southeast, not Southwest.

    I just thought I'd point this out, before people start changing their travel plans.

  • This Bogus For Many Reasons (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Master of Transhuman ( 597628 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @08:14PM (#6487405) Homepage
    This is obviously a bogus concept for any number of reasons:

    1) Since they don't videotape the johns, anybody can can do anything in there - including nookie between the pilots/stewardesses/passengers (make up your own combination!), terrorists preparing weapons, criminals smoking dope, etc. So there's no advantage.

    2) As someone pointed out, keeping it for ten years is braindead. It's extremely unlikely that any liability or security concerns - or even marketing concerns - could justify that time span.

    3) As for processing the video, keep in mind that this stuff is probably going to be digitized and stored where pattern recognization software might be able to process it - if not now, then ten years from now. This means a vast store of videos for Homeland Security to look at and analyze - at taxpayer expense - to no good ends. Or for the airlines - and whoever else they sell the data to - to use for marketing purposes.

    4) They ADMIT that the purpose is to enable law enforcement to keep track of criminals! THIS MEANS YOU! This means the tapes WILL BE PROVIDED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT ROUTINELY! Read the fraggim' article!

    5) As someone in the article points out, what's the point of keeping tapes of flights where nothing happens? It is obvious that there are ulterior motives here.

    6) As for why THEY are doing it, the article says Homeland Security WILL eventually mandate it, so they are starting now. This means the ball comes from Homeland Security's court, but the airline sees a marketing advantage from analyzing all those videos for marketing purposes. This also means that once Homeland Security has mandated it, the notion "if you don't like it, don't fly with this specific airline" is not a viable option for business travelers who MUST fly on business.

    While it is obviously true that you have no privacy in public places and should not particularly expect any, there is a difference betweem being inspected by your fellow asshole citizen and being inspected by some marketing asshole or some security asshole you don't know and who may have an agenda and the authority to put your ass in jail based on misinterpretation of some grainy vidcap.

    One hopes all the stupid, right-wing, patriotic American dolts on /. who support this sort of thing for "security" reasons will wake up and smell the ruminant evacuation, but I'm not holding my breath.

    Morons...

    • This is purely a charter-plane operation here, so the most likely criminal they'll spot is the white-collar robber who is spending his ill-gotten loot under a pseudonym... pulling the video is a good way to match a pseudonym to a face.

  • I wonder if it would be possible... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Salsaman ( 141471 ) on Sunday July 20, 2003 @09:22PM (#6487696) Homepage
    To copyright your face ? Then you could charge companies like this a royalty for videoing you.

Slashdot Top Deals

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Close