Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Your Rights Online

Seattle's Creepy Cameraman Pushes Public Surveillance Buttons 387

Posted by timothy
from the high-performance-art dept.
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This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Seattle's Creepy Cameraman Pushes Public Surveillance Buttons

Comments Filter:
  • by Revotron (1115029) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @04:34PM (#41847019)
    One wrong move and this creepy cameraman may end up with harassment charges.

    A prosecutor and possibly a judge may argue that his actions differ from security cameras in the sense that a security camera is fixed in place and watches a predefined area to spot crimes and identify perpetrators. In this case, he is very mobile and instead of filming a predefined area, he films individual people. He walks up to a single person and videotapes them with the intent of aggravating them about being videotaped. That could easily be spun as harassment if he ticks off the wrong person.
    • by garcia (6573) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @04:47PM (#41847147)

      A prosecutor and possibly a judge may argue that his actions differ from security cameras in the sense that a security camera is fixed in place and watches a predefined area to spot crimes and identify perpetrators.

      I wasn't aware there were regulations limiting the adding of security cameras to places that record what's in the public's view. This is no different than a business putting up a camera on one corner of the building and deciding to move it to another.

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harassment [merriam-webster.com]

      The key here seems to be repeated attempts of what he is doing. I'm guessing as long as he doesn't do it after being told to stop he's not harassing anyone.

      Annoying, perhaps but being annoying isn't illegal.

    • by Zak3056 (69287) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @04:50PM (#41847169) Journal

      A prosecutor and possibly a judge may argue that his actions differ from security cameras in the sense that a security camera is fixed in place and watches a predefined area to spot crimes and identify perpetrators.

      "Fixed in place" is (mostly) true, but "predefined area" does not have to be. PTZ cameras abound, also high megapixel cameras offer digital PTZ, so just because it's pointed at a fixed area doesn't mean that it's somehow limited. One extreme example is Avigilon, which offers a 29MP digital camera. Believe me when I say that the level of detail offered here, and what you can look at is fairly impressive (I've seen a nice demo setup where a single camera with a fairly wide lens is set up on a video wall offering a couple of dozen discrete views).

      Also, I would argue with the logic that "to spot crimes and identify perpetrators" holds any real water. I can cover my neighborhood with cameras just to be a nosy ass, without any real contribution to security.

      While I think this guy's actions are assholish at best, he does raise an excellent point.

      • by Hatta (162192) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @05:22PM (#41847537) Journal

        While I think this guy's actions are assholish at best, he does raise an excellent point.

        That his actions are assholish at best IS the entire point. Surveillance cameras are no less assholish. So if you're opposed to this guy, you must also oppose surveillance cameras.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 01, 2012 @05:39PM (#41847699)

          So if you're opposed to this guy, you must also oppose surveillance cameras.

          Surveillance cameras don't walk up to you and film you right in your face, nor do they sit down next to you while you're on the phone and record your conversation. These are two completely different scenarios where the only common factor is a video camera.

          I'm opposed to speeding on public roadways, but you don't see me picketing a NASCAR race.

          • by mark-t (151149) <markt@@@lynx...bc...ca> on Thursday November 01, 2012 @05:44PM (#41847757) Journal
            Also, surveillance cameras in public places are installed there under the authorization of people who have been democratically elected by society to preserve the best interests of that society.
          • by Kurrel (1213064) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @05:52PM (#41847847)
            What's the difference? Cameras can have extremely high resolutions, digital zoom levels, and parabolic microphones. So they can indeed film you right in your face, and record a quiet conversation, remotely. Would you rather see the cameraman walk up to you, or never know he's there?
            • by Golddess (1361003) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @06:52PM (#41848457)

              Cameras can have extremely high resolutions, digital zoom levels, and parabolic microphones. So they can indeed film you right in your face, and record a quiet conversation, remotely.

              1) It's not about the resulting image, it's about the physical device invading ones personal space. You might not think the distinction matters, but I'm sure for most people, it matters greatly.
              2) With the right camera, you can also see heat patterns through walls. But just because someone is ok with one type of recording done at a distance (recording images in the visible spectrum), doesn't mean they are ok with all types of recording done as a distance.

              • by R3d M3rcury (871886) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @09:07PM (#41849445) Journal

                It's not about the resulting image, it's about the physical device invading ones personal space.

                Ignorance is bliss.

                If the camera is across the street and recording my conversation or the camera is in my face recording the conversation, the only difference is that I'm aware of the camera in my face.

                • by foofish (10132) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @11:54PM (#41850281)

                  There is an extra annoyance factor of having something (or this guy) IN YOUR FACE though. Would you say that a fly buzzing around across the street is just as annoying as a fly buzzing around your face?

                  • There is an extra annoyance factor of having something (or this guy) IN YOUR FACE though. Would you say that a fly buzzing around across the street is just as annoying as a fly buzzing around your face?

                    What if the guy stood in the corner of the cafe, filming everyone? Would that be okay, or would people still find that creepy? I think they would find it creepy, even though their personal space was not being violated. The difference is one of perception. You notice the guy, but don't notice the camera. I think this guy makes a good point.

          • by Cajun Hell (725246) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @05:57PM (#41847917) Homepage Journal

            Surveillance cameras don't walk up to you and film you right in your face, nor do they sit down next to you while you're on the phone and record your conversation.

            Like he said, that's the point. Surveillance cameras don't do those things, which is what makes them worse, since they violate privacy to the same degree, but more discreetly.

            You're acting like it's ok that your snail mail censors reseal the envelops after they read all your mail, but there will be hell to pay if they leave the envelopes open, reminding you that your love letters have already been read by some stranger.

            I'm not saying you shouldn't be pissed at this jerk. I'm saying you should be even more pissed at someone else, who maybe you had forgotten to be pissed at.

          • by poity (465672) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @06:59PM (#41848535)

            I think there could be other factors at play here besides our initial theory that this is all about expectation of privacy, for example an expectation of not being singled out or not being made a public spectacle.

            I wonder how people would react if someone carried around a camera on a tall pole with a conspicuous sign saying "This camera is recording you" WITHOUT singling out anyone or following anyone. If there is no difference in reaction, then it's evidence that privacy is indeed the primary concern, but if there is a difference in reaction then perhaps considerations other than privacy is the primary concern.

            Something to think about before jumping to conclusions.

        • by Comrade Ogilvy (1719488) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @06:41PM (#41848365)

          While I think this guy's actions are assholish at best, he does raise an excellent point.

          That his actions are assholish at best IS the entire point. Surveillance cameras are no less assholish. So if you're opposed to this guy, you must also oppose surveillance cameras.

          A person physically located a few feet away, staring intently, and not observing the social norms of personal space can be perceived as a menace by reasonable people -- that can generate a number of negative reactions, including FEAR. Adding a camera does not magically make this an innocent exercise. Nor does bringing along an ideological axe to grind.

        • by artor3 (1344997) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @11:56PM (#41850287)

          if you're opposed to this guy, you must also oppose surveillance cameras.

          That doesn't follow. I'm opposed to random strangers pulling me over while I'm driving, but I recognize that cops sometimes need to. I'm opposed to random strangers going through my bags, but it's okay if the TSA scans them for bombs. I'm opposed to creepy fuckers* filming me on the streets, but I have no problem with ATM's having built-in cameras.

          *(though not this particular one, since he's just making a political statement)

          Intent matters. If you're doing something for the public good, and you show restraint, then that's very different from someone with unknown or unseemly motives. The restraint is important. Going back to my earlier examples, cops pulling people over on fishing expeditions is bad. So is the TSA groping people for ... I don't even know what their reasoning is. So is mounting cameras at every street corner.

          Things aren't as black and white as you'd like them to be.

    • by Hatta (162192)

      a security camera is fixed in place and watches a predefined area to spot crimes and identify perpetrators. In this case, he is very mobile and instead of filming a predefined area, he films individual people

      What's the difference between one mobile guy that takes his camera from point A to point B, and two stationary surveillance cameras at point A and B?

    • by mschaffer (97223)

      Not all "security" cameras are fixed. I am sure many people would be agitated if a drone were buzzing around them.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Stationary surveillance is not obtrusive. This guy is obstructing the persons' line of sight and getting in their way. He's also recording the audio of what people are saying. This is more like harassment to prove a point. If he was across the street recording then I doubt anyone would even care.

    • by DeadCatX2 (950953) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @05:22PM (#41847551) Journal

      Stationary surveillance is not obtrusive. This guy is obstructing the persons' line of sight and getting in their way.

      I watched one of his videos. Typically, people notice him and move in *his* direction. Others appear to intentionally go out of their way to swat at him (wouldn't that be assault?) Another time a guy started walking away, only to turn around and swat at him. One time he sat down at a table with someone else. Another time he was video taping someone through a window. A few times he was looking into someone's parked car from beside it, which is hardly "in their way".

      Not a single time did he intentionally get in anyone's way. Not a single time did he block anyone's line of sight, until they intentionally turned to face him. Sounds to me like you're just making shit up and didn't bother to watch the videos to make sure your claims could withstand 5 minutes of verification.

      • Apparently you didn't watch the videos where he kept opening the door and pushing his way into the scientology church. Or the active classrooms. Or where he went through what appeared to be an unmarked door (so definitely not a storefront or something) and climbed the stairs to watch a bunch of people playing mahjong.

        Antics like these really defeated the point of this production in my mind. He was not in a public place and had already been asked to leave. He was trespassing. He should have stuck to t

    • by war4peace (1628283) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @06:51PM (#41848445)

      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.

  • Public vs private (Score:5, Insightful)

    by harvey the nerd (582806) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @04:35PM (#41847031)
    Of course many would like to think that "public" surveillence camera are safer with pre-screened employees. Given the abuse, injure, rob, thieve record of TSA, the kill-sorry-wrong-house adventures of various city and federal agencies, and various asset forfeiture abuses these past 25 years, is no strong reason to believe this more than the tooth fairy.
    • Re:Public vs private (Score:5, Interesting)

      by inKubus (199753) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @05:19PM (#41847489) Homepage Journal

      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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 01, 2012 @04:39PM (#41847061)
    Person with no concept of personal space gets in someone's personal space to make a point about a topic completely unrelated to personal space.
    • by MightyYar (622222) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @04:58PM (#41847261)

      "You even look like a dumb fuck."

      Funniest part of the video and sums up my feelings on the whole project. This has nothing to do with surveillance and everything to do with a sociopath making people uncomfortable.

      • by Ichijo (607641) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @05:09PM (#41847371) Homepage Journal

        Yes, it can be uncomfortable to have your beliefs or your security measures challenged, but sometimes they need to be.

        • by MightyYar (622222) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @05:30PM (#41847631)

          If the dude had no camera, it would be almost the same thing. Walk up to a guy sitting in a car and just stare in the window. Sit down at a table with someone talking on the phone. Stare in through a plate-glass window at someone eating, then when they move, follow them inside. No camera, the reaction would have been the same.

          I get the point he was trying to make. I may even agree a bit. He just did a horrendous job of making that point and instead behaved like a sociopath, and because he had a camera rolling we get to see what people do when sociopaths interact with normal (or even abnormal) people.

        • by Comrade Ogilvy (1719488) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @05:54PM (#41847881)

          No, you are confusing yourself because you have an ideological axe to grind.

          AC and MightyYar brought up the topic of "personal space". Privacy and personal space are not necessarily related at all. My privacy may be approximately nil in a crowd, while the crowd could still be very respectful of my personal space. Likewise, a full body cavity search may not violate my privacy in any important way (depending on my personal attitude about my details of biology), while it has everything to do with personal space.

          He is violating social taboos very dear to most people, and violence is a likelihood. Juries are not going to sympathize with this fellow any more than they would sympathize with a naked man caught masturbating in front of a grade school.

          Furthermore actions very close to another's personal space that a reasonable person might construe as purposefully menacing can be grounds for assault. "Assault", unlike "battery" does not require any actual physical contact. All it takes is a jury to believe "he scared me" from one victim and this guy could be in the hospital as warm up for his time in jail.

  • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @04:40PM (#41847071) Homepage Journal
    Why isn't he following politicians and LEO's?

    Seriously, man, I hate ubiquitous surveillance as-much-if-not-more than the next guy - following me around doesn't prove anything, except that you're an asshole with entirely too much free time.
    • ...suicidal
    • following me around doesn't prove anything, except that you're an asshole with entirely too much free time.

      In Seattle? That's hard to believe!

    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by Hatta (162192)

      Following you around with a camera does prove something. If surveillance cameras don't bother you as much as this guy does, that's proof that you're a hypocrit. You don't want to be a hypocrit do you? No? Then you better start hating surveillance cameras and complaining loudly about them.

  • The difference... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by skelly33 (891182) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @04:43PM (#41847105)
    the difference is that you never know what some a-hole private individual is going to do with video footage of you including, but not limited to:

    * Adding it to his private collection of masturbation material
    * Posting it on YouTube for everyone to enjoy a good laugh at your expense
    * Modify the material and use it for blackmail/extortion/public humiliation
    * Worse?

    With corporate cameras, odds are much higher that the footage is going onto a temporary buffer which will eventually (usually 1 week to 1 month kind of time frame) be wiped out and replaced by the next day's worth of footage. With corporate cameras, the fixed field of view, the image is general. With an asshat like this guy, you are specifically targeted (reference list above as to why that is a problem). Occasionally we see these situations in the news such as TSA staff intercepting and/or duplicating video/images of passengers moving through the line. That is not acceptable behavior. When they are caught, they should be terminated as their actions are inappropriate.
    • by Kaenneth (82978)

      I agree, they should be put to death.

      or did you mean their employment should be 'Terminated', as opposed to their existence?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      I don't think laws are based on "odds". It's like saying it's OK to stab someone in the foot but not in the neck, since the former is less likely to kill them!
      • It's like saying it's OK to stab someone in the foot but not in the neck, since the former is less likely to kill them!

        Well, you'd probably get grevious bodily harm for stabbing someone in the foot, but attempted murder for stabbing them in the neck. So, there is a difference, legally.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I fail to see the difference if it's some a-hole with his own camera or an a-hole in a room in a building working for someone. Sure, they might be afraid of losing their job if they do the wrong thing, but at the end of the day it's still some creep looking at pictures of you.

      Besides, the real problem here is that we DON'T know what anyone's doing with surveillance photos - doesn't matter who the individual is. I know it's easier to get upset at one person, because he has a face and he gets up in yours. But

    • by Hatta (162192)

      With corporate cameras, odds are much higher that the footage is going onto a temporary buffer

      A false sense of security is worse than no sense of security.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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 fi

  • by justsomecomputerguy (545196) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @04:49PM (#41847163) Homepage
    His antics are DIFFERENT because he is a PERSON, and he keeps getting right up in other peoples face (within distance to physically touch or be touched) A much better test that would eliminate the CREEPY GUY factor, would be to just mount a camera on a tripod and place it by the doorway of a building or even in the middle of a crowd or public square and then walk away from it. Maybe have it mounted on a stand that can turn and focus... I could should that people were "afraid of balloons" if I stepped right up in there faces and stared at them while holding balloons. Possibly interesting idea executed very lamely. Next.
    • +this.

      Also, would be more interesting to see it done within the field of view of a real surveillance camera (either on a tripod or him walking around with it). The closest he gets in those videos is some comments like "Weren't there cameras in the store you just came out of?". Would be much more compelling if he were saying "well that camera right up there is filming both of us right now, why don't you care about that one?"

    • His antics are DIFFERENT because he is a PERSON

      Agreed, it's so weird that he's a person. Now if he was just a normal old drone [slashdot.org], I'd be completely fine with it hovering next to me, watching me scratch my balls and walk out of 7-11 with three cases of beer, lottery tickets and an illegally sized Big Gulp. I mean, it's not like there's people behind those drones and security cameras watching me, right?

      • Ewww. THAT's creepy. But your point about the drones is only partially right. It's not so much the acknowledgement that "someone" is passively (but intrusively) watching you as it is the invasion of "your space" . One of those fragile Quad-Helicopter Drones would also be creepy, not because it could hurt you as much as it is invading your "space". My IMPLIED point was that anything that is mobile and right there in-your-face is creepy. I "person" holding the camera is probably the most creepy, the onl
  • by supersat (639745) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @04:50PM (#41847179)
    Not because he recorded video of people in public, but because he recorded audio. Audio has much stronger legal protections, and Washington is a two-party consent state, at least when it comes to telephone calls, etc.
    • Nope. So long as it doesn't cross the line into harassment and remains on public property, what he's doing is completely legal. Photography and videography in public is protected under federal law.

    • by dills (102733) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @05:10PM (#41847383) Homepage

      There's no expectation of privacy in public, therefore it's exempt.

    • by dills (102733)

      In Washington State, the "2 party rule" specifically only applies to telephone conversations and other conversations where there is an expectation of privacy. Just because the rules are different in say, Maryland, doesn't mean that every state's 2 party rules are the same.

  • ... I'm filming you reading /. right now.
  • by Fubari (196373) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @04:56PM (#41847241)
    Certainly thought provoking.
    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 [photograph...acrime.com]..
    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.)
  • What if I were to do the following:

    Creepy guy comes up to me as I am minding my own business, and starts to film me to make this point. He's very close, which irritates me.

    So in response, I get very close to him, and yell in his face very loudly. No real words, just a very loud scream. As loud as possible, right at him, over and over.

    Now, from my standpoint, the point I would be making is: if you irritate and act obnoxiously to others, they might do the same to you, so try not to irritate and act obnoxiou

    • A better response is probably to get out your phone and record him recording you. Apparently people don't know who he is. And apparently he also doesn't like being recorded.

  • Look, I understand that we're surrounded by video cameras *statically* recording us as we move through an area, but just sitting down at someone's table while they're on the phone and shoving a camera in their face, and his other antics, is just pure douche-ness, plain and simple!
    • by Hentes (2461350)

      Yet if he was doing the same thing to policemen the whole Slashdot bunch would rally in his defence.

    • It's because you think of cameras as static. Add a network of zoom and pan cameras with some software smarts that can track an individual and it's pretty much the same thing, except the filmed are unaware of it occurring.

  • This is not comparable at all to surveillance. What part of get out of my face does he not understand?
    • He is just being a camera on the wall. If you look at the camera on block, ask it to get off your face, does it go away?

  • ... the guy can do what he likes, right? He's not breaking any law or harming anyone.

  • A bright laser pointer aimed directly into the lens ought to damage the CCD - after a few such 'treatments' the camera will be seriously impaired, or outright useless. (Just make sure the videographer isn't looking through an optical viewfinder, and that the beam or its reflection doesn't hit anyone's eye).

    IANAL, however I doubt very much that the police would even lay charges over such an incident, (never mind secure a conviction), and Mister Asshole would probably find better things to do with his time af

  • by Sibko (1036168) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @05:44PM (#41847763)
    There's a sandbox game I play from time to time called Space Station 13, usually as the AI. It's a 2D multiplayer RPG/roguelike of sorts, and much like Dwarf Fortress or MUD's, not the easiest thing to get into.

    I mostly play on /tg/ server 2 as Wintermote, an AI that enjoys monitoring all communications and drama going on around the space station. The AI has a lot of tools at its disposal for doing this - you can change frequencies on a room's intercom; using its microphone to transmit and eavesdrop on nearby conversations over a private channel, you can hack into the PDA messaging system and read every single private message sent between players on their PDA's (think, tablets/phones), and you have cameras covering nearly the entire station so that you can see almost everything that is happening.

    The curious thing I've noticed is that nobody ever cares about the spying /until/ it both involves them and is specifically brought to their attention. The Head of Security doesn't care that I'm spying on two scientists in the bomb testing lab, but if she finds out I'm spying on her in the interrogation room where she's beating a prisoner to death, wellll suddenly it's creepy and weird.

    What is more interesting is that when a player dies, they become an observer in the round and can hear and see /everything/; moreso even than an AI, because the AI is limited by game considerations - intercoms, power, working computer systems, etc. Every player knows that anything they say can and probably /is/ being seen by another player who is currently dead in the round.

    So an interesting story relating to this: I see the librarian and a medical doctor in the library having a rather private conversation - I turn on the intercom and eavesdrop, and then comment on something one of them said, I was immediately told to stop listening, and the two then turned off their intercom. An admin shortly thereafter made all dead players visible. The librarian and doctor were surrounded by a swarm of ghosts, all listening to their conversation. Once it was done, they immediately stopped their conversation and departed the library, but the dead players had always been there, listening. Both the Librarian and Doctor knew that dead players or the AI could hear anything they said, but they continued their conversation until it was made directly apparent (By an admin making dead players visible, or by me speaking to them) that someone was dropping eaves. It was only at /that/ point that it became an issue and they decided to stop and continue some other time.

    I've asked players if they mind if I spy on them, and the response is almost always "I don't mind, so long as you don't interject or comment about things, or tell other people".

    Basically, out of sight, out of mind. People generally don't care that I see/hear what they're doing, so long as I don't bring it up or mention it. And that, I think, relates to this article - the government CCTV cameras and ubiquitous surveillance isn't really made apparent to people. You don't have a government agent calling you up and saying that he listened to that conversation you just had on the phone, and that he found that one joke really hilarious.

    In the back of your mind, you know or think you know the government is spying on you like that, but it isn't really shoved in your face and it doesn't really impact you, and so people ignore it. It's only when it's brought to a person's attention that they ever give a shit.

    And that is exactly what this man is doing. He's shoving the surveillance into people's faces, to try and get them to give a shit. I fear, however, that instead of fighting against the government surveillance - which he is trying to bring to their attention - people are just going to fight against /him/.
  • My Hero (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Charliemopps (1157495) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @06:28PM (#41848261)
    I love this guy. His point is entirely valid. The most hilarious thing about this entire situation is that all the people that are hating him, that think he should get arrested, he completely agrees with. And all the people that excuse what he's doing and try to defend him completely disagree with his point. It's the most fucked up thing ever. He shouldn't be able to do this, and neither should businesses, the government or anyone else. He's pointing out just how creepy it is and saying wake the fuck up.

The use of anthropomorphic terminology when dealing with computing systems is a symptom of professional immaturity. -- Edsger Dijkstra

Working...