The Coming War Against Personal Photography and Video 221
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."
Re:Points at Lauren Weinstein (Score:5, Insightful)
so many questions and not any answers - the article serves just as a flamewar starter and has little point in it.
Re:hypothetical (Score:5, Insightful)
And can lie just like everybody else.
Red Herring (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:hypothetical (Score:5, Insightful)
A police officer's testimony is all that is needed for most convictions. Adding a microphone and camera is sort of redundant. Police have eyes, ears, and memory.
Must see: http://www.ted.com/talks/scott_fraser_the_problem_with_eyewitness_testimony.html [ted.com]
Scott Fraser is a forensic psychologist who encourages a more scientific approach to trial evidence
If you're out in public (Score:3, Insightful)
We Need Story Moderation (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Summary misleading - and so is TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:We Need Story Moderation (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
The Invisible Enemy (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:hypothetical (Score:5, Insightful)
All police officers should be forced to wear a camera and microphone at all times. These devices should be sealed with no on or off button. Green light means on, no light means off. They should have to pick this camera up at the beginning of their shift, and return them at the end of their shift. These devices will then have the data transfered by an authorized person, that is audited frequently. Any signs of tampering, or a failure of the officer to return and have a not operational camera replaced should result in immediate dismissal. The data should be shared with any defendants immediately. Failure to supply video of the arrest should result in a dismissal of charges against the accused.
Re:maybe EVERYBODY should be wearing cams & mi (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Points at Lauren Weinstein (Score:5, Insightful)
(and yes, my dear English /. readers, I know you will mod this down as well)
I'm English and I used the last of my mod points yesterday; I would have modded you up. I don't like the spy cameras either.
I suspect that we will never meet:: I won't go to the USA since I don't want to be finger printed (& the rest of it) by the TSA, also it is unsafe to visit the USA since I might be arrested for doing something in my own country that is legal in my country [wikipedia.org].
Re:maybe EVERYBODY should be wearing cams & mi (Score:2, Insightful)
You're being unfair. 86% of cops give the rest a bad name.