Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government Technology

The Coming War Against Personal Photography and Video 221

Posted by Soulskill
from the funded-by-cloud-service-providers dept.
Lauren Weinstein writes "Are you ready for the imagery war — the war against personal photography and capturing of video? You'd better be. 'In some cities, like New York, the surveillance-industrial complex has its fangs deeply into government for the big bucks. It's there we heard the Police Commissioner — just hours ago, really — claim that "privacy is off the table." And of course, there's the rise of wearable cameras and microphones by law enforcement, generally bringing praise from people who assume they will reduce police misconduct, but also dangerously ignoring a host of critical questions. Will officers be able to choose when the video is running? How will the video be protected from tampering? How long will it be archived? Can it be demanded by courts? ... All of this and more is the gung-ho, government surveillance side of the equation. But what about the personal photography and video side? What of individual or corporate use of these technologies in public and private spaces? Will the same politicians promoting government surveillance in all its glory take a similar stance toward nongovernmental applications? Writing already on the wall suggests not. Inklings of the battles to come are already visible, if you know where to look."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Coming War Against Personal Photography and Video

Comments Filter:
  • by FudRucker (866063) on Saturday April 27, 2013 @06:03PM (#43570239)
    then there will never be a short supply of witnesses to any potential police misconduct, nowadays cameras and microphones can be hidden in clothing so nobody knows its there, maybe even networked so it is recorded and watched live on the internet in realtime continuously
    • by guttentag (313541)

      then there will never be a short supply of witnesses to any potential police misconduct

      Like in Russia, where misconduct by the authorities has been eliminated due to the fact that everyone has a dashcam?

      • by fionbio (799217) on Saturday April 27, 2013 @06:21PM (#43570401)
        FYI, in Russia even buying anything resembling *hidden* camera may easily get you into jail. There were several cases of guys buying stuff like a camera hidden inside pen and getting several years of jailtime for it. As of dashcams, which are legal because they don't qualify as hidden cameras, while far from eliminating police corruption, they DO help in some cases against corrupt policement, and that's one of the reasons why they're so popular.
        • From what I've read, the Russian police are corrupt to the point that even if you managed to reveal one to be corrupt, his friends would just arrest you on false charges for something else. The court system is little more than a rubber 'guilty' stamp.

          • by AK Marc (707885)
            How is the US any different. Take something simple like a traffic ticket. You were going 53 in a 55 and get pulled over and a ticket for 65 in a 55. The cop goes to court and claims that you were going 65 in a 55. You will be convicted. Short of video proof demonstrating your innocence, you will be convicted on nothing but the word of a cop. Sure, murder is harder to prove on the word of a single cop, but 10 cops could get a conviction if the accused didn't have proof they didn't do it (O.J. Simpson e
            • by amiga3D (567632) on Saturday April 27, 2013 @07:12PM (#43570757)

              I don't know about where you live but around here it is extremely rare, like almost unheard of, for anyone to get stopped for doing less than 10mph over the limit. I've blown through speed traps at 15 or so over many times. The only places they are really strict on is construction sites and school zones. The local sheriff is very popular and remains so by providing excellent protection while basically ignoring traffic violators unless they just get stupid. His deputies are busy patrolling businesses and residential areas to prevent burglaries and he's been doing that for over 40 years. No one bothers to even run against him.

              • by mbone (558574)

                Here in Northern Virginia, the police will rarely stop you (for speeding) if you are not going over the limit; the problem is the limits, which can vary rapidly and arbitrarily. The worst example around here is Dulles Airport, where the access road speed limit goes from 55 to 30 in a very short distance just before a bend, perfect for disguising a radar trap.

                Also, coming from the South, I have to wonder if the strictness of your Sheriff varies by the way you look...

                • by amiga3D (567632)

                  This area is pretty cosmopolitan for a Southern town. The chief deputy for a couple of decades was black and so are many of the deputies. They concentrate mostly on real crime and have one of the highest success rates in the state for solving crimes. The Sheriff is getting pretty old and will probably retire soon but hopefully whoever ends up replacing him will continue the job in the same way. I don't doubt that there are problems since anything that involves people will have problems but not many of ou

            • by black6host (469985) on Saturday April 27, 2013 @07:29PM (#43570851)

              How is the US any different. Take something simple like a traffic ticket. You were going 53 in a 55 and get pulled over and a ticket for 65 in a 55. The cop goes to court and claims that you were going 65 in a 55. You will be convicted. Short of video proof demonstrating your innocence, you will be convicted on nothing but the word of a cop. Sure, murder is harder to prove on the word of a single cop, but 10 cops could get a conviction if the accused didn't have proof they didn't do it (O.J. Simpson excluded).

              Not necessarily. My son, a notorious speeder in his early twenties, racked up so many tickets he was very likely to lose his license, if not go to jail (the last was for drag racing.) He must have had 8 or more tickets, all way over the speed limit, in a relatively short period of time. What did he do? Go to court for each one, made whatever argument made sense to him at the time, and ended up with only 1 ticket sticking. A few times the police didn't bother showing up in court and that's an automatic off the hook kind of thing. This wasn't but a few years ago either so you can fight city hall if you want to. And some do succeed.

        • by TapeCutter (624760) on Saturday April 27, 2013 @07:13PM (#43570763) Journal
          Dash cams are popular in Russia because insurance is cheaper if you have one, their popularity has nothing to do with cops.
  • Will police still be let off the hook for confiscating the cameras of citizens that film them, even though it is 100% legal in nearly every state?

    • by Sabriel (134364)

      Given real-time uploading is already a thing, I expect the inevitable "camera films its own illegal confiscation" lawsuits will have an impact.

  • He interviews suspects with a tape recorder on the table. Then he writes his report. And then purposely erases the tape. So its his testimony and not the tape thats admitted into evidence. I suspect this will be used just like that.

    • Any police officer halfway competent at abusing his power would use a similar trick to get rid of any 'official' recording. He'd forget to turn the camera on, or damage the memory card at the end of the shift. He could also get past any victim's recording quite easily, by either confiscating the camera or using threats and intimidation to get them to hand over the memory card, and his boss's would (and are) lobby for laws banning recording on-duty officers to avoid scandal.

      To use camera to fight corruption, I think two things are required:
      1. The victim must be able to record events without the knowledge of the police officer. That means no whipping out the mobile phone or camera, or even wearing glasses with an obvious camera function.
      2. There must be a means to use this video against the officer, allowing for the fact that he may be backed up by the rest of his department and by court officials and politicians reluctant to cast their system in doubt. The only means I see for this would be going public: If the video of the officer clearly breaking the law is put on youtube and sent to every media outlet, the public outrage would be so great that those above the officer would have no choice but to fire him to save their own skin.

      Even then you still have to deal with possible retaliation: Reveal one officer abusing his power, and his co-workers will avenge him by trashing your house in an aggressive search following an 'anonymous' tip-off about a drug dealer operating from that address.

    • by dr_dank (472072)

      I saw that lecture by the lawyer and cop also. The trick that you describe is that the cop & suspect walk into an interrogation room, he starts pulls out a tape recorder and starts doing paperwork. The silence and nonchalance

  • Red Herring (Score:5, Insightful)

    by meta-monkey (321000) on Saturday April 27, 2013 @06:15PM (#43570357) Journal

    I really think the google glass "OMG people are recording me!" hysteria and demand for legal policy action to govern their use is overblown.

    Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something, and if your behavior (or potential behavior) is too creepy, society avoids or shuns you.

    Since smartphones became ubiquitous, yes, you can sit down at a restaurant with someone and ignore them, instead fiddling with your phone. We call such people boors, and do not invite them to dinner again.

    Bluetooth headsets are great for carrying on phone conversations when it would be difficult (or dangerous) to hold the phone up to your ear. I use mine when driving, or when I'm working and would like to be able to type while I'm talking. However, if you show up to a party wearing your bluetooth headset, people will think you are a douchebag, and will not invite you to another party.

    The same thing will happen with google glass. I posted a month ago about how I'd like a pair just to display instructions/schematics while I'm working on a project, or to record myself while I disassemble something in case I can't figure out how to put it back together later. However, I don't think I would wear them at all times. I would only wear them when I have a real need for the additional display/record abilities for work or hobby.

    Society will solve the problem by itself. When your friend shows up to your party wearing his stupid Glass headset, call him a douchebag and tell him to take it off. When you're out to dinner with somebody and they put on their headset, tell them, "Hey, take those off and talk to me, not look at furry porn on your stupid glasses." People generally don't want others to feel uncomfortable around them. When most people would feel uncomfortable talking to someone wearing such a headset, they will get the message and take the stupid things off when it's inappropriate to wear them.

    • by Dan East (318230)

      This "problem" already exists. All cell phones have a microphone designed to pick up ambient sound (aka "speakerphone") and comes with included software to allow arbitrary audio recording. The storage capability of phones allow pretty much non-stop audio recording for days (and recording software designed to pause recording when the sound level is below some threshold can go for months on a single storage card). Yet how many people do you know that does such a thing? One of the reasons people don't bothe

      • This "problem" already exists. All cell phones have a microphone designed to pick up ambient sound (aka "speakerphone")

        That is misleading. The entire point of google glass is to actively point a camera at whatever the wearer is looking at. Until cell phone manufacturers specifically design their products to record ambient sounds, from inside people's pockets and purses, 24x7 the comparison is not meaningful.

        Someday if that is even a possibility, then anytime there is a car wreck, or someone stumbles and falls, or even hiccups, attorneys will be subpoena Google digging for media to prove or disprove the case. Google won't store video or audio data for that simple reason alone.

        Just like facebook doesn't permanently store everything you delete from your account and google hasn't set up an automated interface for law enforcement to read gmail user's email with practically no human intervention

      • by Qzukk (229616)

        then anytime there is a car wreck, or someone stumbles and falls, or even hiccups, attorneys will be subpoena Google digging for media to prove or disprove the case. Google won't store video or audio data for that simple reason alone.

        Google's goal will be to have computers search all that media for the cost of electricity. If an attorney wants it, they'll search for it just like everyone else, no skin off of google's back (though now I wonder what kind of ads adsense shows lawyers?)

      • by tlhIngan (30335)

        This "problem" already exists. All cell phones have a microphone designed to pick up ambient sound (aka "speakerphone") and comes with included software to allow arbitrary audio recording. The storage capability of phones allow pretty much non-stop audio recording for days (and recording software designed to pause recording when the sound level is below some threshold can go for months on a single storage card). Yet how many people do you know that does such a thing? One of the reasons people don't bother i

    • by rtb61 (674572)

      I think you really miss the point of ubiquitous altered reality computing. When all people at the table share the same technology, the altered visual environment, they can simultaneously view the same elements and share them. A photo in space where all can view and then is passed from one person to the other as the file transfer occurs. Playing a shared game, in that altered reality space where of course any one outside the shared visual environment sees nothing. Then you have people using them for visual

    • by Grashnak (1003791)

      Since smartphones became ubiquitous, yes, you can sit down at a restaurant with someone and ignore them, instead fiddling with your phone. We call such people boors, and do not invite them to dinner again.

      Hey Mom, I didn't know you used Slashdot. Good to see you.

      But hey, as I've explained before, people using smartphones at the table are often actually engaged in conversation about the content they are looking at and actively sharing it. I know you yearn for the good old days when everyone sat around and engaged in deep, meaningful conversations about important topics, but I have to remind you that's just your dementia kicking in, because that's not what most dinners were like. Usually we just ended up li

  • Not a new concept... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bughunter (10093) <bughunter&earthlink,net> on Saturday April 27, 2013 @06:16PM (#43570373) Journal

    David Brin's settings in his novels Earth and Kiln People included ubiquitous surveillance, and it was a primary topic in his nonfiction work, The Transparent Society.

    This "coming war" is just the birthing pains of the kind of society he predicts, wherein everyone wears cameras akin to Google Glass, the government records and monitors video everywhere, and privacy is a luxury available only to the wealthy and/or the criminal classes. (Not much of a distinction between the two anymore...)

  • by holophrastic (221104) on Saturday April 27, 2013 @06:23PM (#43570419)

    ...and leave. There are many places in the world where these problems don't exist. Most of them are about a 30 minute drive east of where you live now.

    you've stayed in a city that's growing -- in density. that includes people, companies, buildings, as well as laws, cameras, crime, and traffic, and pollution, and dirt, and homeless, and tax.

    30 minutes east, you'll find the number of people that your city had thirty years ago. you'll find even fewer cameras. you'll find that the city's laws don't exist or aren't enforced. you'll find plenty of internet, movies, groceries, neighbours, schools, hospitals, and -- get this -- roads. you'll find much less traffic. you'll find your mortgage less than half of what it was, and your home twice as big. you'll find less competition for jobs, less expensive service for everything, and even gas will be 3% cheaper (I haven't figured out why though).

    and you can still always drive back into the city in 30 minutes. oh yeah, and the train is express, and is likely faster than your current commute anyway.

    enjoy sharing your city life with a few million people and those who regulate them. life's a lot better with 95% fewer humans. you get more life.

    • by NoMaster (142776)

      There are many places in the world where these problems don't exist. Most of them are about a 30 minute drive east of where you live now.

      I live in Miami, you insensitive clod!

    • by mbone (558574)

      30 miles East of where I live right now would put me in salt water. Yes, salt water is tough on cameras, but...

    • by Wingman 5 (551897)

      But then I would be living in Jersey... I think I rather stick with the totalitarian dystopia.

    • ...and leave. There are many places in the world where these problems don't exist. Most of them are about a 30 minute drive east of where you live now.

      The phrase, "You can run but you can't hide." comes to mind. Imagine, if you will, that you ran away from towns where computers were becoming commonplace.

      Initially there were no laws about what you could or couldn't do with a computer. Now we have the computer fraud and abuse act, and agree that cracking security ( even weak BS), without permission shouldn't be allowed. Well, some of us agree. I don't. I think that folks should be able to hack stuff they're expected to use and rely on so long as th

  • by Pop69 (700500) <billy AT benarty DOT co DOT uk> on Saturday April 27, 2013 @06:24PM (#43570425) Homepage
    Why would you think that you have some sort of right to privacy ?
    • by amiga3D (567632)

      Exactly! Public is.....Public! Imagine that. When they stick a camera in your bedroom then bitch.

    • by BlueStrat (756137)

      [If you're out in public] Why would you think that you have some sort of right to privacy ?

      So you'd be OK with a team of DHS agents following you and recording & archiving everything you do, everywhere you go, who you meet/talk to, and with timestamps, in a search-able government database from the moment you step outside your house until you return?

      My neighbor sees me leave home. That fact does not get added to a DHS or other TLA database for analysis against all other available information. The fact that I may have gone to the gun range to target-shoot with friends the morning prior to board

      • To play devil's advocate: ubiquitous surveillance as in the examples you bring up would not come with unlimited resources to follow up. The very existence of this capability will force the authorities to focus their efforts on people who actually might be a threat. You know, like people who are actually on terrorism watch lists.

        • by Cytotoxic (245301)

          According to Wikipedia, the Department of Homeland Security has a quarter million employees. Given judicious application of intelligent software design, that's more than enough to keep tabs on everyone in the US. (assuming that in addition to the aforementioned intelligent software design, all quarter-million employees are fairly high-caliber. Given that 55k of those employees are from the TSA, well....)

    • by skine (1524819)

      One still can have the expectation of privacy when they are in public.

  • Wow, countless times I've mentioned how thanks to video, photography, credit cards, radio signal and etc... how we don't have privacy any more. Everytime a bunch of hard core privacy freaks looses there lids and has a tyraid about how I'm wrong and how I should shut the fuck up, well now that the NYC Police Commissioner has said the same thing how about people realize PRIVACY IS DEAD!.
  • this is true (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    There is two parts of this situation that the article does not mention. First is Terrorism, One problem photographers have had since 9/11 is getting branded a "terrorist" for taking pictures. This is because our government does not have a text-book way to spot a terrorist, so in order to appease the public they have said that Photography of things not "normally" photographed (Trains, Transit, Bridges & Structures) must mean the person is planning some ill against them. The real fact of the matter is any

  • by guttentag (313541) on Saturday April 27, 2013 @06:32PM (#43570503) Journal
    -1 Flamebait Title
    The coming war? The second paragraph of the article contradicts the title. Against Personal Photography and Video? The first two-thirds of the summary talks about surveillance by the authorities.

    -1 Blog posting written like TV news
    The author (who is also the submitter, promoting his own blog as a slashdot story) writes in a voice that mimics a TV news personality, asking lots of questions, sometimes answering them, sometimes forgetting to answer them, blusters a lot but doesn't provide any new information.

    -1 Blog post makes many expansive claims but does not cite any sources
    The author claims there are plans and laws and pushes and a whole lot of other things without citing any sources. It's like listening to the guy at the bar grumbling about how the government's coming for his guns.

    -1 Even the author's wikipedia page is sketchy
    The wikipedia page for Lauren Weinstein [wikipedia.org] points out it "includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations."

    -1 Author says the sky is falling, offers no solutions
    Near the end of the blog posting, he says "I don't have a 'magic wand' solution for this situation." In other words, an "OMG! Cameras are everywhere! I don't know what to do about it!" blog post is worthy of consideration by the slashdot masses?
    • by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Saturday April 27, 2013 @06:47PM (#43570593)

      Yes, 100%. It also completely ignores recent court decisions which have ruled public photography to be a FIRST AMENDMENT right.

      http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers [aclu.org]

      If anything I think the ubiquity of cameras carried by public citizens is having exactly the opposite effect this article claims. Actions by police trying to suppress people recording them in public are leading to court rulings clarifying the rights of citizens to photograph and record in public.

      • It also completely ignores recent court decisions which have ruled public photography to be a FIRST AMENDMENT right.

        The rulings that public photography is a First Amendment right goes back a long, long ways. The recent ones just re-affirm that. The author of TFA is woefully ignorant of the state-of-the-law when it comes to photography.

    • -1 The article was submitted here by Laura Weinstein herself.

  • While the author has some good points, she also has his tinfoil adjusted just a bit to tightly... because while he rails against the [big, bad, ebil] gub'ment, and the [equally big, bad, and ebil] survelliance-industrial "complex" (he really hits all the buzzwords and hot buttons nicely I must admit)... Pretty much nowhere does he actually address or provide much (if anything) of support to the nominal thesis of the piece.

    So this pretty much seems to be a chance for him to get hits and 'net cred by namechecking the Boston bombings, and since it's a slow news day and nothing else has come along... for Slashdot to get it's daily Two Minute Hate.

    • by guttentag (313541)
      (For anyone who doesn't get the Two Minute Hate bit, it's from Orwell's 1984 [wikipedia.org]. It's sort of a televised daily propaganda broadcast that gets the audience worked up and involves chanting, screaming and throwing things at the screen.)
      • . It's sort of a televised daily propaganda broadcast that gets the audience worked up and involves chanting, screaming and throwing things at the screen.)

        Like Monday Night Football when Cosell was still in the booth.

    • well conveniently the submitter and the author of the blog are the same person. Nice of the "editor" to put maximum trolling on the frontpage.

      / one of the worst articles I've ever seen on Slashdot. That's saying something since I was around during the Jon Katz days.

  • by rbrander (73222) on Saturday April 27, 2013 @06:53PM (#43570627) Homepage

    The Rodney King beating was taped with a video camera you could not have fit in a shoebox [nydailynews.com]. Now, of course, you can do decent video with a camera you can hide in your hand.

    There are certain minima to the light-collecting-spot enforced by the laws of optics, of course, but it seems clear that the police will soon not be able to tell whether they are being video'd or just watched. Glasses? They'll look like shirt buttons. And folks who know in advance the location of the police action (say, protestors) will be able to carpet an area with cameras that are very hard to spot.

    A lot of cameras will just be running all the time, pointing in four directions from every bicycle helmet and car, for use in accident investigations. Anything that happens in front of any place of business will be on the private anti-theft video cameras of the business - this is all already true, but in a decade or so, it won't be a few businesses, a few cars, a few cyclists, it'll routinely be everybody.

    A certain amount of the "war on photography" is about police pushing back against people *visibly* trying to intimidate them by sticking cameras in their faces; police do NOT like to be in any position but domineering control of a volatile situation - a big part of their training - so they push back hard when pushed, challenged, mocked in any way. Obeying the law is secondary to Controlling The Situation. (I have some sympathy there; it's basic human psychology that this keeps them safer; never back down before a crowd.) But people invisibly photographing them - well, what are they going to do, arrest everybody in sight of any stop-and-frisk and demand they all be subjected to some kind of wanding that will find all six cameras about their person? Police routinely get away with high-handed, illegal behaviour with one or two people who get in their face, but there are limits.

    Nope, I think its a lost cause. Anything that happens in public sight will presumably be recorded, multiple times, more or less *automatically*, in a matter of years.

  • As a photographer... (Score:5, Informative)

    by FuzzNugget (2840687) on Saturday April 27, 2013 @07:03PM (#43570689)
    I follow these stories closely and can tell you that this war is already being waged ... and not just in the US.

    Some nitwit in Vermont wants to make it illegal to photograph anyone without explicit consent [petapixel.com] (except for government surveillence, obviously)

    It's illegal and severely punishable to photograph a police officer in the UK if that officer thinks it could be used for terrorism [wikipedia.org] (guess who gets to make the decision on that one...)

    Just a few weeks ago, a California man was brutalliy beaten by thugs-in-uniform claming that his phone was a "weapon" [petapixel.com] (because it said so on teh intarnetz!!)

    In Montreal, a woman was recently arrested for taking a photo of graffiti, the claim being that it's publication on Instagram was tantamount to harrassment [www.cbc.ca] (note that she was not the vandal, she only took a photo ... mind you that's in Quebec, we already know they're a pretty odd bunch)

    After being told to stop over a loudspeaker (in super-creepy Orwellian fasion), a photographer was forcefully arrested for taking pictures on a Metro rail in Miami [petapixel.com]

    You need only browse Photography is Not a Crime [photograph...acrime.com] for 2 minutes before you realize that this war is already happening. There's a metric shit-ton of this stuff going on, with video evidence to back it up.

    As for your rhetorical questions...

    Will officers be able to choose when the video is running?

    Yes. Obviously.

    How will the video be protected from tampering?

    It won't.

    How long will it be archived?

    Not long enough.

    Can it be demanded by courts?

    Well sure, but you'll find that every time it does, the video stream is "conveniently" missing or corrupted.

    Stop asking questions citizen, you're not supposed to be creative, just shut up and watch the Dumb Bimbos of Retard Valley.

  • With population growth and security issues... privacy will someday be a thing of the past, and the concept of 'hiding' things will be taboo. For those who would defend privacy to the death, what do you have to hide?
    • With population growth and security issues... privacy will someday be a thing of the past

      In the past we had less privacy than we do now, a fancy camera system is no match for gossip in a small town. In the past, if you wanted privacy you looked for it out of town.

  • by Mister Liberty (769145) on Saturday April 27, 2013 @07:12PM (#43570753)

    Do unto them what they do to you.

    The important thing doing so is: on and off the job, i.e. 24/7.
    Police and politicians will not have private lives anymore if you don't.
    And publish publish publish soon and often -- even the most dull and
    humdrum.

    Don't allow them to hang you -- hang together.

  • I'd like to propose two changes to how we talk about pretty much everything.

    1) No more use of the phrase XXX-industrial complex.
    2) No more attaching the "gate" suffix to scandals.

    We can talk about the growth in surveillance technology and *all* of its associated problems without resorting to a term that was originally coined to discuss the complex relationship between Congress, the military, and the industrial base that supported both. According to Wikipedia, the industry covered by the "military industri

  • He has a "host of critical questions" and I will answer them.

    Will officers be able to choose when the video is running?

    Yes and no. When they are on duty and not in a private situation (eg using the washroom) the camera will be on. They may choose to turn it on if off duty and in a relevant circumstance

    How will the video be protected from tampering?

    Video tampering is quite easy to spot forensically .

    How long will it be archived?

    With backups, probably forever and I do not see a problem with that.

    Can it be demanded by courts?

    Yes and a good thing.

    Divorce lawyers?

    Yes as a prevention of fraud against a spouse.

    Insurance companies?

    Yes as a prevention of fraud against an insurance company thereby keeping insur

  • Reading the summary I' say it's a good time to live outside the US... ...but then again history has shown that most western countries sooner or later copy the US laws, so damn, we're all fucked
    • Historically it's better they've copied the US than, say, Germany I suppose...

      • by mvar (1386987)
        Not so these last years, because since 9/11 the US citizens have abolished so many of their rights and freedoms in the name of the "war on terror"
  • by Improv (2467) <pgunn@dachte.org> on Saturday April 27, 2013 @07:59PM (#43570979) Homepage Journal

    Article amounts to trolling, but it goes all conspiracy theory at the end. "if you know where to look" indeed. Suuuuure, I'll keep all that under my hat.

    Grade: D+
    Try harder next time.

  • hurrah for Cams (Score:4, Interesting)

    by b4upoo (166390) on Saturday April 27, 2013 @08:32PM (#43571117)

    It is my understanding that private videos helped identify the Boston terror strikers. The public has a very big stake in wanting lots and lots of private and business cams being in action.

  • Here's a news item from yesterday:

    April 26, 2013, INDIANAPOLIS (AP) -- A proposal that would make it illegal to secretly take videos or photographs that could make a business look bad is advancing toward possible approval in the Indiana Legislature. The Senate voted 29-21 on Friday in favor of the bill and a House vote is expected later in the day. Bill sponsor Sen. Travis Holdman of Markle says the bill is needed to protect factories and farms from "vigilantes" who are out to harm those businesses. The b

  • by lexsird (1208192) on Sunday April 28, 2013 @03:15AM (#43572419)

    What interests me are the policies that we will be seeing regarding drones. I'm not talking about "death from above" drones, (i hope) but surveillance drones. I can see where corporations will want to keep private drones grounded. After all, what good are fence to keep people out from observing your shenanigans when a damn drone can wiz over, capture everything in high definition? It's not trespassing and they don't own the airspace yet. It could lead to easy evidence of foul doing unearthed by those pesky liberal hippies and their damnable ideas about not fucking up the environment, fair trade, dumb shit like that, right? So, there goes big evil money with big evil lawyers after it right now.

    But how about the farmer who is trying to keep his costs down and invests in a drone to check his livestock instead driving a gas guzzling 4 wheel drive all over hell and creation? Send out the drone, it can count cows, at least living ones, maybe even dead ones with an upgrade. Environmentalists who want to count Spotted Owls or something silly, they will be wanting to tap into this awesome bit of tech. And why shouldn't they? There are countless applications for this technology. My idea of where it could go if not fucked with, might even be an advancement in delivery services. Don't laugh too hard, but imagine a FedEx drone with a special delivery for you. Or how about a Dominoes Pizza Drone? An automated postal service? Your own personal utility drone that picks up your prescriptions, drops off your dry cleaning. It could all be orchestrated from data servers, flight plans instantly filed, the entire hive of a community of drones operating at peak efficiency and safety. Much mundane traffic by humans could be eliminated.

    Dreamers, huh? Who do they think they are? We're not going to see progress if neanderthals make policies. We have to balance our fears with our aspirations and of course we need to preserve our freedoms and privacy. We can do it, but we can't let the bad people win. Who are the bad people? If you has to ask, seriously, get with the program.

  • Inklings of the battles to come are already visible, if you know where to look.

    How I pine for the day when that inkling was present in the story submission itself.

The degree of technical confidence is inversely proportional to the level of management.

Working...