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."
Not a new concept... (Score:5, Interesting)
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...)
this is true (Score:2, Interesting)
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 potential terrorist found to date has been found by more conventional investigation methods (open for another debate), and not by individuals expressing constitutional rights to photograph in public spaces. The Second is the police and other government officials to a lesser extent do not like being photographed in the course of duty. They would much prefer to have everything happen behind closed doors so there is no accountability, someone taking a picture, compromises this and often leads to a case where they have to become accountable for some action or situation, a position they would rather not be in. So often, #1 is used to disguise #2 and their problem is solved and "the people are safe".
Re:maybe EVERYBODY should be wearing cams & mi (Score:5, Interesting)
A jury might give a shit about it. Video evidence is some of the most convincing evidence there is. Ubiquitous cameras won't stop an angry cop from stomping your face in, but a hidden camera that he doesn't know about might help you sue the city for hundreds of thousands afterword and prevent you from rotting in prison for years on trumped up "cover charges" afterward.
I wouldn't have an "assault and battery against a police officer" on my record now if I had had a recording of the event that showed how the cop just made everything up in his story. It's hard to prove that you didn't do something while the camera was turned off but a video that shows an entirely different sequence of events from those in the official police report is simply gold and will tend to sway a jury away from their natural where-there-is-smoke-there-is-fire prejudice against you and in favor of the cop.
I think requiring the police to have video evidence of their probable cause/reasonable suspicion or of the alleged crime itself before they can even legally make an arrest would do a great deal to control police violence against the public. Basically it should be assumed that anything a cop says is a lie until/unless proven otherwise on video. Currently we have the reverse situation where police are assumed to be 100% perfect law-abiding angels until/unless a video demonstrates otherwise. This is why most cops hate video.
PedoGlass.com (Score:3, Interesting)
That sounds like a great strategy to kill Google Glass: register the domain PedoGlass.com and post fully legal videos of children taken in public places: the beach, on the way to school, making out etc. complete with time and exact location they were recorded. There's no expectation of privacy in public places, right ? Add a bunch of degenerate-looking comments complementing the kids on their looks, offers to meet up, but nothing illegal. Claim videos are recorded using Google Glass. You are on Oprah in less than a week.
It pretty much guarantees anyone caught wearing a pair of Pedo Glasses around children (i.e. everywhere) will have them beaten off their face. I love how it turns "thinking of the children" working against the police state, for a change.
Re:maybe EVERYBODY should be wearing cams & mi (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Points at Lauren Weinstein (Score:4, Interesting)
It doesn't work that way. Take for instance the "terrorist" in the UK a few years ago that got run down and shot in the back of the head repeatedly. Mysteriously all of the cameras (that the uk is known for) in the area were "not working" that day.
Are you really going to pin your hopes and dreams on the idea that someone in your local government is going to be as honest when its your life on the line?
Boston Marathon.
Not only was every fixed security cam in range scoured for images, but private images were also solicited, and soon high res shots appeared via public submission of random grab shots.
At the first sign of something odd going on, in any American city, you will see every second bystander whip out a cell phone and start shooting pictures. Its everywhere. Even fender benders are photographed by uninvolved bystanders.
The cat is out of the bag, the Supreme Court has spoken [abajournal.com], and nobody is putting down their cameras any time soon in the US.
That's not to say that all police reports are immediately to be trusted, simply that there is no place the police can hide either.
hurrah for Cams (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Points at Lauren Weinstein (Score:3, Interesting)
Mysteriously all of the cameras (that the uk is known for) in the area were "not working" that day
Which is the primary reason why I have been avoiding the UK like the plague. The UK is the prime example of what the US should not become: a police state with 1 CCTV camera per 14 people (source [channel4.com]).
/. readers, I know you will mod this down as well)
None of my tourist of business dollars will flow to that island anymore...
(and yes, my dear English
Re:As a photographer... (Score:5, Interesting)
I was fined 2 years ago for taking photographs of a city street near where I live, because they were filming "Warm Bodies" there (in Montreal). The street was blocked off, but I was standing on the public side, I took a few pics and was told it was illegal, and was fined $171. I was acquitted in court, however the prosecutor insisted what I did was illegal and said she only dropped the case because there wasn't enough evidence....
(more details here: http://www.reddit.com/r/montreal/comments/1cyxfm/update_i_was_acquitted_photography_in_public/ [reddit.com] )
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)