Seattle's Creepy Cameraman Pushes Public Surveillance Buttons 387
theodp writes "People seem to be okay with constant corporate or government video surveillance in public. Let a lone individual point a video camera their way, however, and tempers flare. GeekWire takes a look at the antics and videos of Seattle's mysterious Surveillance Camera Man, who walks up to people and records them for no apparent reason other than to make a point: How is what he's doing different than those stationary surveillance cameras tucked away in buildings and public places?" At least with Surveillance Camera Man, you specifically know that he's watching you — not always the case. (Not even when there's no warrant, on private property in the U.S.)
This is (probably) illegal... (Score:3, Interesting)
thought provoking, could be better done. (Score:5, Interesting)
It could be done more interestingly, perhaps operating in an area with a public facing surveillance cam. Then he could engage passers by in conversations more like: "Why are you taking a video?" "Do you think there is a difference between what I'm doing and what that camera over there is doing?" As it is, he just seems to be irritating people and not planting any seeds for future thought.
I say this after watching the second video here
0:23 shopper exits store
shopper: "Can I ask who you are?"
video guy: "What."
shopper: "What are you doing?"
video guy: "Oh I'm taking a video."
shopper: "Of what?"
video guy: "Just a video."
shopper: "Why are you taking a video?"
video guy: "Why not?"
shopper: "I don't really care for other people just to be taking a random video of me."
video guy: "Didn't you just come out of the drug store?"
shopper: "Yeah"
video guy: "They have cameras in there."
shopper: "So?"
shopper: gets on bike, rides off.
(The other interactions go down hill from there.)
Re:Public vs private (Score:5, Interesting)
Right, it's classic cognitive dissonance due to imperfect information. You can't see the security guard watching the surveillance camera video, so you assume it's fine. Whereas on the street, you are afforded more of a choice and so you take it. Unfortunately this, from an economic prospective, puts security guards with access to surveillance footage at a relative advantage to everyone else as far as having access to video. But what people don't take into account is that the kind of people who are attracted to the job are also the people who enjoy having that relative advantage. Thus, over time, it's likely the worst people you'd want to have access to video footage of you will have it and the people you'd most want to have it won't. Video is video, and that's the point this guy is trying to make. Just because you can face your accuser in this case doesn't make what he's doing any WORSE than other surveilance. But people feel it is because they associate it with a person. Any strong power that can make use of this advantage will have a very strong position of power due to the information imbalance.
Re:The difference... (Score:3, Interesting)
I did some IT work for a surveillance company once and you know what they do when they're bored? Go through old video looking for "weirdos", "sexy bitches" and criminal activity just for the LULZ
So if you think that passive eyeball hanging in the roof doesn't somehow connect to a weak and demented human being at some point in the chain you're delusional.
It's also kind of freaky where some cameras are, take a good close look to the "jumble o' crap" wall in a chain coffee store, you might be surprised to find a camera hiding the eye of that cute teddy bear or part of that quaint "tile" fresco :-/
My Hero (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Stalking vs Surveillance (Score:5, Interesting)
What makes me wonder is that pretty much NOBODY managed to handle the issue gracefully. I was trying to put myself in their shoes and I am positive I would have started to talk to the guy, trying to find his reasons, in a polite way. I don't mind being filmed as long as I can find the reason.
Almost everyone being filmed there, on the other hand, acted aggressively, from "stop" to violent movements towards the guy or even hitting him. Maybe it's a different culture, maybe taught privacy is so strong that people forget reasoning and start acting irrationally.
Re:Need to take great caution with this (Score:5, Interesting)
So are you voting Pepsi or Coke for this election?
I'd vote Dr Pepper but they don't have big corporate sponsors pouring bazillions of $$$ into their campaign so I'm not allowed to.
Re:Need to take great caution with this (Score:3, Interesting)
Let me get this straight. He's doing something non-violent and *LEGAL*, but you hope that someone "kicks the shit out of him".
You think the proper response for *not* committing an illegal act is to commit assault and battery?
Tool.
Yes, sometimes the correct response to something non-violent and legal is to use violence.
If someone (adult) was harrassing one of my kids and making them cry I would feel entirely justified in lamping the fucker, whether what he was doing was legal or not.
If some neo-Nazis want to have a march, I would feel entirely justified in disrupting it with violence (no, I'm not from the US and do not consider freedom of speech for fascists to be sacrosanct).