Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

Traffic Cameras Used for Pedestrian Monitoring 50

Posted by michael from the slip-slip-slipping dept.
Quixote writes "A couple of days ago, there were news reports about a traffic camera near Univ. of Alabama being actually used to checkout passersby by someone at the state troopers' office. Today, there's a news report about 3 people being arrested for 'public misconduct' by the same camera (including one man for grabbing his crotch (don't ballplayers routinely do this? ;)). This story highlights an issue which most privacy advocates worry about: the extension of a surveillance technology to cover areas it was not intended to cover. This camera is a traffic camera: it was installed for monitoring the traffic conditions on the road. Now it is being used to monitor people (albeit the 'monitoring' was for some <ahem> other purposes in the beginning). I will submit that in a public place you have no right to privacy; but this yet another example of something to keep in mind when considering other 'privacy eroding' technologies."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Traffic Cameras Used for Pedestrian Monitoring More

Traffic Cameras Used for Pedestrian Monitoring

Comments Filter:

  • Only the guilty have anything to fear (Score:4, Funny)

    by kinnell ( 607819 ) on Friday September 19, 2003 @10:32AM (#7003671)
    At last, we can rid society of the terrible menace of public crotch grabbers.
    • Yes, because we aren't supposed to know that we have crotches! We aren't supposed to know what sex is, because sex is a dirty, horrible, evil misdeed, because it spawns more humans, and for chrissakes, isn't six billion enough?

      (I'm still not sure I understand what exactly is wrong with grabbing your crotch in public. I mean, if you're specifically trying to sexually harrass someone, that's one thing, but besides that, why should anyone care?)
    • No, this won't eliminate public crotch grabbers. It just mean now we'll have photos of them.

      Eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, explainin' what each one was to be used as evidence

      Pictures of the approach, the getaway, the northwest corner, the southwest corner, and that's not to mention the aerial photography

      -

  • Context (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ErisCalmsme ( 212887 ) on Friday September 19, 2003 @10:39AM (#7003725) Homepage Journal
    I think the context of a person's actions is just as important as the action. Cameras can not take into account the entire context for what happens in front of them. Maybe this guy had a bad case of jock itch? I mean it sounds silly, but it's not impossible. Where is the line drawn?

  • It is criminal to grab your crotch (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Don't grab your crotch.
    Grab someone elses.

  • Time to fight back... (Score:3, Funny)

    by MarkusQ ( 450076 ) on Friday September 19, 2003 @10:48AM (#7003855) Journal

    Anyone near the camera should go there and do something unusual but not illegal. (Drink from an imaginary bottle; blow soap bubbles and then snap at them like a dog; pointedly hide your forehead; open an umbrella for no reason; etc., etc.)

    -- MarkusQ

    • Take a video camera out and videotape the traffic camera. That will make them wonder what you're up to!
    • Start up a surveillance cam theater in your town!

      And I can't believe that I'll be the first one to remark that if state troopers are watching university students from a surveillance camera, most of the crotch grabbing has got to be on the watchers' side of the lens.

      I will approve of ubiquitous surveillance cameras only when there is universal access to watching them.

      • Re:Time to fight back... (Score:3, Informative)

        by SpaFF ( 18764 )
        I will approve of ubiquitous surveillance cameras only when there is universal access to watching them.

        That's how this was discovered. They are braodcasted on a cable channel here in town, and you can watch them online here [tuscaloosa.al.us]

    • i do it all the time.
    • the hippies of Arcata [cbsnews.com] have been living with pedestrian-monitoring cameras for some time now. Near the University campus boundry (where shiny rocks and crystals are sold on blankets) there's a large, ugly cement kiosk, which houses the camera. Repeatedly, and without fail, every few weeks the unsightly camera-box is broken into, and the camera is either stolen or smashed. Hippies really don't like getting their picture taken.

  • Filming for a new video? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    From this link [nbc13.com]

    "A traffic camera focused on an intersection near the University of Alabama showed a lot more than cars recently -- someone used it to zoom in on young women in an unexpected show that was broadcast on cable TV" ... "The camera zoomed in on the breasts and buttocks of several college-aged women"

    Perhaps this was done to grab some new footage for "Girls Gone Wild 5 - Traffic Teases"

    BTW, anyone have a Divx of the cable TV footage?
  • A "traffic camera" nabs a guy for grabbing his crotch...

    So now we are not only using traffic cameras to monitor people, but we are also using them to enforce accepted behavior?

    <sarcasm>
    Well, I for one am thankful that are great system is preventing people from grabbing their crotches...
    </sarcasm>

    As they say, un-fucking-believable...

  • reciprocity? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by frAme57 ( 145879 ) <snakefeet@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Friday September 19, 2003 @11:13AM (#7004196) Homepage
    I wonder what the local police would think if I put up web cams showing their station entrances or their parking lots. Or even better: multiple web cams on the impound lot where, according to recurring rumors, our men in blue go shopping for car stereos and accessories.

    • I've always wanted to know how many cops get caught by speed-trap and red-light cameras.
      • Cops in Seattle are constantly driving the wrong way down a one-way road to get in to their parking lot (because they don't want to drive around the other, legal way). And when I say constantly, I mean hundreds of times a day.

        But they're nowhere near as bad as Seattle's (well KC Metro anyways) bus drivers - running red lights, blocking intersections, etc.

  • before you get too upset (Score:3, Funny)

    by Hubert_Shrump ( 256081 ) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {tenarboc}> on Friday September 19, 2003 @11:16AM (#7004238) Journal
    the article says the camera was broadcasting to the whole town -- so it's not like they were keeping it to themselves.

  • What's Indecent Here? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by robbway ( 200983 ) on Friday September 19, 2003 @11:22AM (#7004320) Journal
    The last time I checked, baring your breasts for a camera is not indecent exposure. There are thousands of film, many nonpr0n, where this goes on. It is not indecent to broadcast breasts over cable TV. If the woman didn't bare her breasts in view of anyone--which they'd have to prove--simply catching it on camera doesn't mean it's indecent. And if this woman happens to be underage, doesn't that make the police liable for pornagraphy (referring to the Girls Gone Wild underage scandal)? And since they're broadcasting it on TV in a non-news, non-fair use capacity, don't they owe the people acting fees? Aren't people required to sign release agreements for this sort of thing? This can get ugly fast.

  • Right to Privacy in a Public Place (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Re: "I will submit that in a public place you have no right to privacy"...

    That ancient viewpoint, approprite in a world without technology which enhances human senses, needs to change. The public spaces of the world have themselves been altered when new technologies provide the capability for incredible scrutiny, looking under people's clothing, doing camera closeups, facial recognition, whatever, etc. What used to be a *public* place with humans all (with the exception of blind people, deaf people, etc

  • So? (Score:1)

    by BeProf ( 597697 )
    I don't get why everyone seems to get their panties in a wad over cameras in public places. It's a public place. It's not like you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, anyway.

    The way I see it, if you're stupid enough to something illegal in broad daylight on a public street, you deserve to get caught and go to jail.

    • Re:So? (Score:1)

      by nija ( 667087 )
      according to the article
      "Meanwhile, officials said they were still investigating who had diverted the focus of the camera from traffic -- where it normally is used to monitor vehicles -- to pedestrians, particularly young women.

      The remote-control camera, located at an intersection near a row of nightclubs, usually shows traffic. But officials said someone in a state trooper office diverted the camera to focus on pedestrians in the pre-dawn hours last Friday.

      Footage broadcast citywide on a cable TV channel
    • Apparently you have never read 1984 have you?
  • Anyone interested in watching the cameras themselves can go to The city of Tuscaloosa's Website [tuscaloosa.al.us]


  • Transparency ought to cut both ways.

    If technology for video surveillance is becoming so inexpensive and easy to deploy, it makes sense for private citizens to record their authorities, make the information public and hold them accountable so that the public can expect as high standards of behavior from the authorities as the authorites expect of the public.

    • Re:Turn Tables (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sylver Dragon ( 445237 )
      I had a thought along similar lines to this once. Basically start up a non-profit organization that employed people to follow around every elected representative 24/7 with a video camera. The only time the camera would not be recording the assigned representative would be when that rep. is in a private location, e.g. their home. And even then, the camera would be recording the front of the house, waiting for people to come and go. The footage is then put up on the internet for anyone and everyone to rev

  • Improper camera setup (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Friday September 19, 2003 @12:30PM (#7005058) Homepage
    Here in Baltimore:
    1) The cameras aren't moveable (AFAIK).
    2) The cameras can only take snapshots, not video.
    3) The cameras only take snapshots when they detect a red light, and a car crossing into the intersection.

    I'm not trying to advocate traffic cameras, but at least someone spent some time designing these appropriately.
    • From what I can gather from the article, it's not a red-light enforcement camera but a camera to monitor traffic volume through the intersection (ie. not meant to be used for law enforcement at all). This makes it necessary for it to be video (snapshots won't show how fast traffic is moving) and making it moveable allows them to see how far the traffic extends.
    • at least someone spent some time designing these appropriately

      And then they send the whole system straight to hell by implementing it improperly. The pictures are processed not by Baltimore police but instead by private contractors, who are paid on commission basis, giving them huge incentive to ignore mitigating factors. Stop one inch over the line? Ticket for you!

      Worst of all, Baltimore abuses the system as a profit center by systematically shortening the yellow light times at photo-monitored intersec

  • Mixed feelings (Score:3, Insightful)

    by chia_monkey ( 593501 ) on Friday September 19, 2003 @12:32PM (#7005086) Journal
    That's a toughie. I'm all about my privacy. Yet it would be nice knowing I could be safe. Could this be a criminal deterrent? Maybe. But damn...if I get a bit drunk and decide to walk home instead of driving and then someone notices me on the camera and nabs me for public intoxication, that's no fun.

    I kinda agree that "it's in the public domain so act accordingly". I definitely think we need to discuss this more. Am I off my rocker here?
    • I'm all about my privacy. Yet it would be nice knowing I could be safe.

      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

      "and will lose both" is commonly added afterwards.

      The only reason to even have certain behavior classified as criminal is to prevent behavior that is detrimental to society. When the method of prevention is more detrimental than the behavior is, what's the point?

  • It continually amazes me how much people forget this when dealing with privacy-invasive technologies.

    When such cameras first appeared some people predicted that this kind of thing would happen. In response Police and "spy on the public" types said no they would never do such a thing and even gave us their word on the matter. The same was true for the PATRIOT act. When people are given such a tool, even if they do not use it today, someone will come along and use it tomorrow.

    Anyone who believes otherwi

  • "including one man for grabbing his crotch"

    Since when was grabbing one's own crotch an arrestable offense? Repeatedly grabbing someone else's, perhaps, but it really is a person's right to grab their own as much as they please.

    Being tactless isn't a crime, you know. Well, in the USA, who knows.

    We should install more cameras, but this time in front of every donut shop in town...and in the police department break room.

  • Cop should be held accountable (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The "watchers" abused the technology, as Human watchers are guaranteed to do, but was caught abusing it by other people "watching" the "watchers". That's how public surveillance should work.

    Too bad no one thought to provide official sanctions for when they were caught. Nothing bad will happen to the pervert watching the camera, and they won't even release his name.

    This is much worse than anonymous cops spying on people and wondering if they'll be caught if they do something inappropriate. Now it is obv

  • Okay, everybody who is surprised, raise your hand.... So I can slap you.

Slashdot Top Deals

Never ask two questions in a business letter. The reply will discuss the one you are least interested, and say nothing about the other.

Close