Prying Eyes of Tampa Police 300
Anml4ixoye writes: "Building off of the Super Bowl incident here in Tampa, the Police have instituted the technology directly into the cameras around Ybor City. From Bay News 9:"Police, using pole-mounted, remotely-controlled surveillance cameras, scan crowds of people and feed their digital images into a massive databank with the purpose of finding a match on anyone with an outstanding arrest warrant. The cameras have the ability to tilt, pan and capture digital images of anyone within range." Read the Bay News 9 Report here, the St. Pete Times version here, or visit the Visionics web site or the Tampa Police Web Site."
look-alikes - can you say mistaken identity? (Score:2)
Re:Care to explain? (Score:2)
To take a rather extreme example-- in totalitarian societies, everyday life almost always neccesitates breaking the law-- and thus, if the government disagrees with a person's political actions or thoughts, it can arrest and imprison that person for the comission of that neccesitated crime.
The ACLU has often alleged that vehicular violations are used as a pretext for harrassing certain ethnic groups.
More paronoid folks have alleged that sellective enforcement of certain drig laws has led to widespread dienfranchisement.
Re:I built Some of this Crap(It can be defeated) (Score:2)
I live in a little town like that... (Score:2)
Big Brother is here he just got sidetracked by a dozen years.
Ahh but excessive light interferes (Score:2)
Anyone willing to give up (Score:2)
Re:Toplessness in Ybor City (Score:2)
If they don't have something better to do, then they should be fired: the police department is obviously overstaffed.
--
Why America is failing. (Flame-bait for lemmings) (Score:2)
As we move closer to the world of Orwell's 1984, remember why this country is failing (and sadly the story is the same around the world). Japan is a rare example of a successful, non-violent, low-crime nation, but more on that later.
The US has one of the highest crime rates in the world (except for some African and South American countries.) The reason for this is simple, but not exactly "politically correct". If you weigh the crime rate averages together for the population groups in the US, it makes perfect sense.
- The low crime rate of the Asian/Japanese-Americans make up a small percent of the population.
- The low European-American crime rate is about the same as that of the native people in most countries in Europe.
- The African-American crime-rate(1) is orders of magnitude higher, consistent with the extreme crime rate the sub-Saharan African countries.
- The same is true for the Hispanic crime rate, which mirrors that seen in Mexico and the other South American countries of origin.
Instead of facing these simple facts, the liberals go to great lengths trying to disarm honest citizens whose families have been law abiding for hundreds of years in this country. Since gun ownership is already illegal for criminals, there is no reason to expect felons will obey new laws if guns are outlawed for everybody.Politicians continue promoting the flooding of America with 3rd world immigration that compound the problem further.
The final result of this is still years off, but the US will be no different from The Roman Empire, Egypt, India, Bosnia, South Africa, Israel, Zimbabwe, The English Empire, The Soviet Union or anywhere else where multi-cultural empires have existed. The end result is always the same: The empire's government disintegrates when the "ruling" class becomes too heavily outnumbered, and tribal warfare breaks out.
We're already seeing the beginnings of this in Los Angeles, Cincinnati, Seattle and Washington and other cities around the country.
Measures such as the government cameras (and electronic passports you must carry on your person, and other future protocols) are becoming increasingly necessary while politicians and police scramble to hold the scattering pieces of America together.
The constitution was intended to govern a country populated by the people who founded the nation. Jefferson and the others did not predict that America would turn into a multi-cultural empire (like the British one they has just left), where a legal system based on freedom and liberty cannot work.
So back to where i started, why is Japan so much more successful than us? Because they are not a multi-cultural empire. Japan is a homogeneous nation, made up of 99.8% native Japanese, basically an extended family, with a high average intelligence, and very similar to each other. They do not allow any significant immigration, and as a result, they will continue to prosper while America and Europe deteriorate into tribal civil wars sometime later in the 21st century.
(1) The rate at which Blacks commit murder is thirteen times that of Whites; Rape and assault, ten times. These figures, as given by the F.B.I. reports, vary somewhat from year to year but fairly represent the trend for the past decade. [Source: the FBI uniform crime statistics reports, and Harris, Marvin, Why Nothing Works. Simon & Schuster, New York, NY]
If you are going to flame me, do not use words such as "racist", "bigot" and "hater" that you have learned to repeat after the TV. Reply with your own opinions that you can back-up in a debate, not immature name-calling.
Re:100 Million People (Score:2)
Toplessness in Ybor City (Score:2)
Since this is technically illegal, I could see the cameras being used to enforce that type of law; for the first time, it could be practical to do so, given a sufficient database of shots. Nobody actually at Ybor City wants to have it enforced, as far as I know, but a group of prudes could make it happen.
Needless to say, I would not appreciate that sort of thing. I'm sure it would reduce the revenues of Ybor City businesses, too.
The criminal element would simply avoid Ybor City or only go there masked. If you have any sense, I'm quite sure this sort of thing is trivial to defeat. I saw masks on many of the people in Ybor during New Years', so no, the answer would not be to detain anyone with a mask.
D
----
The truth is in the middle... (Score:2)
As for your arguments about east germany. They didn't have the computing power we have. All you have to do is tell the camera to keep an eye on somebody and then alert you when some event happens. It won't be as rigorous as a human watching all the time, but it will be rigorous enough for most purposes. Part of the reason we should protest such technology is that it makes having an east german grade secret police possible.
---
It's for the children! (Score:2)
Since so many teenagers frequent Ybor City, Todd said, it is an area that could be targeted by sexual offenders, who have restrictions in their probation that typically prohibit them from contact with minors or with alcohol, he said.
What do you mean? (Score:2)
In fact, if there's a APB out for someone, and you look like them, the cops will probably stop and ask you for some ID if they see you, I mean, what else can they do?
Re:We aren't invisible (Score:2)
Again, you're making the mistake; being drug tested is more a violation of your privacy; being watched at home is a violation of your privacy.
Being watched in public is something you should EXPECT. You are outdoors, in full view of others, you cannot reasonably expect nobody to look at you. Whether it's a camera or a cop or joe blow on the street who recognizes you, what's the difference.
Now, if they start requiring people to be bare-faced in public... that'd be a different story.
Re:We aren't invisible (Score:2)
Now, another thing: using directional microphones to pick up conversations, that would probably be a complete violation... you have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you are talking quietly to someone on a busy street and there is nobody within obvious earshot.
As for infrared, no, you don't have an expectation that nobody can see your infrared emissions, sorry.
Re:Miscarriages of justice (Score:2)
Secondly, the man in the lineup. Perhaps with Frances strange laws, that could happen. From what I know, most American police lineups are not used in this fashion. The police put their suspect, and several others in the line, and ask the eyewitness to pick the person out. If they pick the suspect, it adds credibility to the case. If they pick anyone else, they do NOT go and arrest the person they picked; they just send everyone on their way, and the eyewitness is basically no good, as they can't recognize the suspect.
The camera is no different than sending out an APB and asking all the boys in blue to keep a lookout for someone. If they think they see him, they alert HQ. They make mistakes too.
When it starts to be used for "other" means... (Score:2)
1) These cameras are only for traffic statistics.
2) We are going to use them for fighting crime now too.
3) We added face recognition.
What next?
1) We need to let insurance and advertising companies use them to help pay for the cameras.
2) Private Investigators willing to pay to use them... maybe to check on a cheating spouse.
3) Maybe employers will want to pay to access it... to make sure you're really out sick on a sick day
Maybe corrupt political uses. You know they will eventually be able to track one person around. Then they can not only watch the "dissident", but also find out all of his contacts, friends, etc. (They will probably come up with a good excuse... how about "need it to follow drug users to find the dealers").
Then there are the operators who will misuse it. Perverts using it to spy on people, nosy person using it to spy on enemies, neighbors, spouse, kids, etc.
If we DO have to put up with the cameras, then I like the idea of the system being completely public. Any person can access any camera at any time. Also they must install a camera pointing at the person in the police department that is watching the cameras. This camera must include the screens so we can see what they are watching. I would also like to see cameras inside the police department (excepting really private areas such as bathroom, locker room, etc). If they don't allow that, then break out the BB guns.
This makes you wonder:
"Corrupt the young, get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial, destroy their ruggedness. Get control of all means of publicity and thereby: Get the peoples' mind off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books and plays, and other trivialities. Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance. Destroy the peoples faith in their natural leaders by holding up the latter to ridicule, contempt and obloquy. Always preach true democracy but seize power as fast and as ruthlessly as possible. Encourage government extravagance, destroy its credit, produce fear with rising prices, inflation and general discontent. Foment unnecessary strikes in vital industries, encourage civil disorders and foster a soft and lenient attitude on the part of the government towards such disorders. By specious argument cause the breakdown of the old moral virtues: honesty, sobriety, continence, faith in the pledged word, ruggedness. Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext, with the view of confiscating them and leaving the population defenseless."
- Vladimir Ilich Lenin
100 Million People (Score:2)
It just seems like way to many people to legitmately have in a data base.
Context of Location (Score:2)
The real question is should they really be able to back haul every video feed from every building and ATM and web cam and run it through their system. While that my very well be legal it shouldn't
Amen to Nonviolent Resistance (Score:2)
I live in the Bay Area. There are cameras on top of every intersection's stoplights, to make sure nobody runs a red light (funny, I personally have never noticed rampant red-light-running, even before the cameras).
The traffic/stoplight cameras are over the line too, but they're very hard to protest nonviolently (they're 25 feet in the air and I'm in my car -- what to do?)
HOWEVER, these CCTV cameras sound much more amenable to resistance. TastyWheat has some interesting ideas (I especially like the "face glitter" idea, though I'm not sure I'd actually wear that around all day). What if a significant proportion of people, say 10%, were to always wear big floppy hats and sunglasses when outside? What if that were a Statement -- you will know my identity when I choose, and on my terms?
In the words of Benjamin Franklin, "When society trades its rights and freedoms for security it deserves neither the freedom or the security."
Resist!
Re:So what? (Score:2)
Of course, those folks living under authoritarian regimes will not be able to get the .22s or shotguns needed. But those of us lucky enough to be living under more enlightened rulers should have no problem.
Re:Nonviolent Approaches to Eliminate Cameras (Score:2)
Wait... you think shooting an AIR RIFLE is a NONVIOLENT APPROACH? Do you people even READ what you post?
Yes, I read what I post most closely. It is nonviolent in that it does not advocate or involve you going and throttling the politicians that let this kind of thing go on. The odds of a well aimed air rifle doing anything beyond superficial damage to anyone's person or property, aside from the aforementioned camera, are slim to nil.
Perhaps the people who might perform such a "crime" also think that automatic police survilence is a crime? Or an excessive violation of the rights given to them in the consitiution? (I'm not an American, mind you).
Don't be a sheep.
Re:Technical summary FAQ (Score:2)
Yeah right, and you can't log some packets from a router without logging all of them, and you can't tap and record one person's phone conversations without tapping and recording everyone's phone conversations. It sounds to me like you're full of excrements.
------
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Even playing field (Score:2)
> > are "every day joes with less than conservative viewpoints"
>
> Really? Hmmm, and here *I* was thinking they would use it to track down us conservatives.
> You've got an extremely interesting view of modern America.
Actually, the fnord Illuminati [slashdot.org] fnord are using them to keep track of the conservatives and the liberals. The rest of this thread on Slashdot is just a smokescreen. (Best $3,125 I ever spent!)
Re:We aren't invisible (Score:2)
Y'know, you had me going here. I mean, who would have a problem if the Tampa PD hired 100 patrolmen (recruiting for people with good memories) to walk the beat and keep their eyes open for anyone on the List Of Naughty Folks.
Unfortunately, you just torpedoed your own argument:
> Watching everyone all of the time takes a lot of resources. The former East German government tried it back in the days of the Cold War. Eventually, it toppled under the strain that such a machine placed upon itself and, in turn, so did the Berlin Wall
If I follow your logic here, you mean to say that the society created in East Germany, which enforced compliance with its laws by means of Stasi omnipresence was a Really Swell Idea, and that it's a real shame those poor Stasi leaders didn't have the right tools for the job?
Umm, nothing personal, but... no thanks.
> Paranoia is a healthy thing. In small doses.
But it isn't paranoia when they really are out to get you, is it?
I originally wrote that as a joke. Then I realized that widespread paranoia in a population is a logical consequence of the move towards an omnipresent surveillance / police state.
Consider - the civilians are afraid they'll "get caught" for any of a thousand infractions, and the cops, because they now see so many more infractions, realize there are a lot more criminals than they ever imagined.
Both sides' paranoia escalates as the degree of surveillance increases, each regarding the other as the enemy. The end state is - as in East Germany and the former Soviet Union - a nation of clinical paranoids.
Re:Suggested Readings on Surveillance (Score:2)
Are you nuts? Do you have any idea what our politicians will do if they read all those books at once? Any idea how many ideas it'll give 'em? (Don't fall back on the fact that most of 'em are sub-literate, they got aides and interns to read the books for them.)
Shit, man, we had to pass antiterrorism laws to keep "The Anarchist's Cookbook" out of the hands of kids, and we had to pass that antidrug law to keep textfiles on methamphetamine manufacturing out of the hands of would-be-crankheads...
Now, thanks to you, I gotta get off my ass and lobby for a new law - this time to keep books like "1984" out of the hands of politicians. They use these works of fiction are like .HOWTO files, damnit!
You think I'm gonna trust a politician or a lawyer with a copy of Fahrenheit 451? (I'll see every copy of that book incinerated before I ever let a Congresscritter get his slimy little tentacles on it! :-)
Nor are they (Score:2)
Like, how about the first 5 cameras that are put up focus on the four largest police stations and the town hall. (Where footage is available to any citizen upon request.)
Maybe put another camera up on the street the mayor lives, and where the councilmen live. And where the chief of police lives. They're all public spaces aren't they?
Oh? This is an intrusion into privacy? Well, tough. Police aren't mythical creatures who deserve more rights than the general public. Nor are they entirely honest.
Oh, and the public gets the right to also see what ANY camera is seeing. Say, a couple of cable TV channels that flips between the cameras every 10 seconds.
I want accountability, and I want the people who think this future is a good idea to see it for themselves.. See it from the perspective of the 'sheep' they want to CCTV.
This future is coming, whether we like it or not. But that doesn't mean that it can't be made fair. I would accept cameras in public places as inevitable. But cameras watching police stations, town hall, and the streets where the city council, chief of police and mayor live is not so inevitable. It should be.
(Now I wish I remembered the URL of the guy who gave this view.. I think he was MIT.)
Big Brother Keeps on Creeping on (Score:2)
Re:This is getting out of hand. (Score:2)
if you've ever watched bill maher, this is a subject he brings up frequently. i'd say it helps explain a lot of stupid recent regulations and laws.
Re:In reality (Score:2)
Re:So what? (Score:2)
--Fesh
Re:Problems with Image Recognition Technology (Score:2)
--Fesh
Red Alert: dead president clones walking around (Score:2)
This could be great for detecting corruption (Score:2)
Re:So what? (Score:2)
Burris
Re:1984 is here (Score:2)
a better way (Score:2)
but, i think two things are accetable:
1) continuous recording for later analysis if a crime is reported in the area (perhas a court order will be needed to scan the tape);
2) automated recognition (via computer) of a crime
i'd be against general scanning of the population, totally against it. especially police scanning via joystick...the personal prejudices would be completely out of control.
i doubt i'd ever sign off on facial recognition. the police would start using it for warrants, tickets, deadbeat dads, etc. it would get crazy.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
except (Score:2)
drug test programs are pseudo random -- it comes up in court all the time. just how random will this be? a bunch of people of one race folling people of another race with the joystick? or economic class?
the presumption of innocence? you seem most willing to just blow that whole concept away.
at what point does it become abuse? suppose a parent is accused of child abuse (a common tactic by a disgruntled spouse) and it's false. suddenly state resources are being used in a divorce case as these cameras start scanning for this person.
1-adam-12, 1-adam-12, there's a group of teenagers drinking beer under the 12th st. bridge! one has bong and a bag of chronic! BRING OUT THE DOGS!
the truth is ugly -- this is probably unconstitutional. in general, the government is legally obligated to remove itself from your life to the greatest extent possible unless a complaint is lodged. gov is not supposed to be 'scanning' for crime. obviously, capital crimes are an exception.
remember, this probably has more to do with someone trying to sell something to the police depts. than trying to make society safer.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
Resources.. (Score:2)
Just because I am paranoid doesnt mean everyone is not out to get me! Er, I mean watch me walk around the mall, or, hmm what do I mean...
alternate plan (Score:2)
Instead of a cop sitting in secret location watching the public through hidden video cameras, how about we put him or her ON THE STREET?
Then people can ask for directions, mention suspicious activity, approach if they feel threatened, etc.
And it's safe to say that there's no computer system in the world for recognizing human faces that is even remotely as good as the human brain.
Re:No tech comment: (Score:2)
Re:What's the benefit here? (Score:2)
Hmmm.... Same state. You think they'd be a bit more cautious with technology right now.
Re:No tech comment: (Score:2)
Oh, come on! (Score:2)
--
< )
( \
X
Re:This is getting out of hand. (Score:2)
Funny, I was saying the same thing not too long ago when the same Tampa Police department was doing the bidding of the GOP by creating a "First Amendment Zone" [pqarchiver.com] when Bu$h came to town and spoke at a public event. This is also the same police department that at the above said event, injured 1 and arrested 2 elderly citizens because their protest signs were a "security risk".
Anti-camera-surveillance groups in the USA (Score:2)
Survelliance Camera Players [notbored.org]. Others are in the UK: mtp2001 [undercurrents.org], in Belgium here [constantvzw.com] or in Germany - Chaos Curcuit Club [koeln.ccc.de].
If you want to think about all of pros and cons of camera systems, read Public Surveillance System Privacy Guidelines. [oipcbc.org]
Complacency towards privacy (Score:2)
"That's awesome," said Souders, 35, a caterer. "If you don't have anything to worry about, it won't bother you. As far as any invasion of rights -- if you're breaking the law, your rights are kind of dissolved."
If the argument "if you don't have anything to worry about, it shouldn't bother you" makes sense to you, then you have no respect for privacy (your own or that of anybody else). It's about information, and how little information is needed to separate the "good" people from the "bad" people. It is due to a logical fallacy, which only stands if people do not recognize it as such.
This is the same kind of argument that marginalizes encryption. In other words, if encryption is only used by people who have something to hide, then anybody using encryption is suspect. Same goes for the paper shredder I recently bought: if I only shred sensitive documents, then it can be assumed that anything I shred is important.
Examples:
"If only people who are trying to hide something complain about public surveillance, then simply investigate those who complain." This kind of thinking will destroy privacy with amazing efficiency. If people fight the surveillance system for the sake of privacy in general, then it remains impossible to isolate people based on their reaction to the new technology.
"If only people who are hiding something use encryption, then simply investigate those who use encryption." One way destroy this kind of thinking is to use encryption as much as possible to add noise to the system.
"If only important documents are shredded, then it may be worthwhile to reconstruct everything that is shredded." Shred everything. Doing so lowers any perceived value of whatever is shredded. It also increases the volume of things to reconstruct, and makes it difficult to determine how much or how often something important is shredded (i.e. traffic analysis).
I realize that this all sounds somewhat paranoid, but consider how little information it may require to go smashing down your privacy. Just because a technology makes life more difficult for criminals does not mean it is good for everybody else. In other words: I have nothing to hide, but you are just going to have to take my word on that, unless (through due process) you have real evidence to the contrary. Without this attitude, there can be no privacy.
Re:This is getting out of hand. (Score:2)
Huh? You got some references? That sounds like an "interesting" read. Did I miss a Slashdot article?
How to fool it (Score:2)
What are the major causes of face recognition failure?
a. Significant glare on eyeglasses that obstructs the eyes. Adjusting the lighting that causes the glare can typically solve this.
b. Long hair obscuring the central part of the face.
c. Poor lighting that would cause the face to be overexposed and low contrast.
d. Lack of resolution, in pixels, of the face.
So, as long as they don't ban long fringes and wraparound sunglasses or mirrorshades we're safe =)
-- kai
Give a man a mixtape, and he'll be grooving for an hour,
How Much Is Your Privacy Worth? (Score:2)
Its easy to stand up and say that this is a privacy violation, although it seems pefectly legal. If this system enables the capture of one murderer, rapist, or sex offender, then I think its probably worth a minor infringement of our privacy.
Would you sacrifice someone elses life for your paranoia?
I would personally have to provide identification every time the camera falsely identifies me as a criminal than to let a criminal walk the streets. The problem is that there is no guarantee that the criminal will strike again, so the "benefits" of such a system are invisible, while the privacy implications are right in front of us.
Captain_Frisk
Thanks (Score:2)
Re:London: anecdotal evidence (Score:2)
Anyway... this is totally off-topic, but yeah, in general you're completely right about "never trust a junkie". It's complicated by the fact that she's my girlfriend & is making genuine attempts to get clean. OTOH she's stolen money in the past, & lied consistently to me when about being clean when she obviously wasn't.
OTOH she paid the money back (from earnings - she holds a job down, no not that kind of job, one in an office, honestly!!... and she's been honest lately. (Yes, I can tell. She's a very bad liar... ) If she wanted to screw me over for money, she's had ample opportunity to do so & it hasn't happened.
Obviously I realise that I'm taking several enormous risks*[1], on the other hand I couldn't sleep at night if I threw her out on the street. *shrug* Perhaps I'll look back in a few years & curse my stupidity; perhaps not. It just seems the best thing to do at present.
[1]: When she first told me, right after we met, I thought about it... "why, what could possibly go wrong?" I thought. "I mean, what's the absolute *worst* thing that could happen?" *pause* "Uh,.. oh, fuck!"
We now return you to your normal programme of flamewars and ill-informed ranting from zealots :-)
--
"I'm not downloaded, I'm just loaded and down"
selective rights and privacy (Score:2)
This really ticks me off because in my own city (Columbus, Ohio), the corrupt Columbus Public Police Department is also going to implement a similar system. This is the same police department which is run by the bigot Cheif Jackson and has been under Federal investigation for such things as racial beatings. The point is that although some good police departments may be able to use the technology for a slightly good purpose, what happens if it falls into the hands of creeps like these?
There has also been the argument that as long as you're in public, someone can take your picture and has full rights to it. I'm sorry, but that's just not correct. This is why the media has to obtain permission to TAKE YOUR PICTURE. Suddenly, the police are exempt from this. They can take anyone's picture and not tell a soul. Since your picture belongs to you (it's your body, isn't it?) they are steeling when they run it through their system and use it for their purposes. If a model gets paid for her picture, why can't you? Why has this right been taken away selectively when you're dealing with the police?
Another good point is the police must have probable cause for obtaining any evidence or doing any types of personal checks. This was made to protect the privacy of citizens and to eliminate the ability of the police to do things like "Check 'em out." to try to get information on someone for a friend, or a favor for a favor type things. You can't just go digging into someone's personal records for no reason, which is exactly what this system does. By converse, if you are not a match, they know you don't have a record == invasion of your privacy.
It's sad that our privacy is being taken away, and there is no one there to stand up for it. Instead, we have people believing what they are told, including the fact that the government owns you, your image, and your life. When will people realize that they, indeed, have personal and certain fundamental rights?
Re:This is getting out of hand. (Score:2)
(Previously submitted and rejected, BTW)
Re:This is getting out of hand. (Score:2)
The ACLU associates with tons of stuff like this. Just go check out their website. They're not popular because they take on unpopular causes-- unpopular, but just and important. Look at it this way-- probably 85+% of the people in this Florida town think that putting cameras around town is a great idea. Stops crime, right? They're not concerned about the potential for abuse, or the threat to privacy. So if the ACLU were to walk in there and try to do something about it, they'd just muddy their name even more (those damn interfering liberals!)
By the same token, plenty of people think that property forfeiture law is great. Takes property away from those damn drug dealers. They don't realize that the seizure laws make a mockery of the constitution (relying on archaic English law), and will eventually be used against them (ie Giuliani siezing drunk drivers' cars, even if the car belonged to somebody else.) But the ACLU does something about this, and conservatives accuse them of protecting drug dealers. Get over it.
No, No, No, No, and You're Wrong! (Score:2)
This is about a computerized facial recognition system that will be used to automatically match video to faces in a database. This technology, whether constitutionally authorized or not, is ENTIRELY different from placing cops on the street. It's also potentially worse than anything Orwell envisioned. Let's face it, the scenario outlined in 1984 could never have encompassed more than a small percentage of the population. The USSR, even at during its most brutal Stalinist periods was never able to bug or surveil more than a fraction of the populace.
This technology gives the government the potential ability to monitor the comings and goings of every single American who travels through a public space. This seriously changes the balance of power between the people and their government, even if the people don't yet realize what's going to happen as this technology matures (and I say this as a certainty. This tech will become ubiquitous and will be used for significantly more than it is today, unless we do something about it.)
You may be right that our constitution gives us no precise guarantee of privacy in a "public" space. It does, however, give us certain intangible guarantees to liberty, which this technology may seriously undermine.
The natural (knee-jerk?) reaction to this kind of story seems to be negative: I don't want someone, especially the government, watching me, etc, etc.
As far as I can see, the knee-jerk reaction is the one you just had. Most people in this country probably say "hey, cameras on the street'll reduce crime." What's the matter with those damn liberals?
Re:This is getting out of hand. (Score:2)
That's a sickening story. Is anyone else feeling like government and business (and what's the distinction?) are treating the Bill of Rights as something to be fought, rather than a guiding principle?
As in, they're saying "We'll do anything we damn well feel like. If you don't like it, argue it in court after the event. That's your, heh heh, 'right'."
I know they've always done that to some extent ("When we said 'All men are created equal', we meant 'All white land owning men'..."), but it seems more and more prevelant under the current political climate of career politicans bought and paid for by corporate America. Damn.
Re:Technical summary FAQ (Score:2)
What's scary to me is that I'm almost certainly just a few bytes different from somebody that's wanted and classed as armed and dangerous.
Picture it: "John Adam Twenty, be advised that Bloodbath Bill is standing ten feet in front of you. He is known to be armed, dangerous and HIV positive. Use of unnecessary violence in the apprehension of Bloodbath Bill has been approved."
That's what I find scary.
Re:I built Some of this Crap(It can be defeated) (Score:2)
Whoa there! Got references? Cameras everywhere, sure, but this is the first I've heard that they're tracking faces.
Re:No tech comment: (Score:2)
Uh, actually, that's the only way I'd be happy about these things being up.
If we're having camera in public places, and I'm on them, I want public access to the feeds. Make everyone a watchman.
Re:What's the benefit here? (Score:2)
Picked up, or gunned down? What happens if your face is just a few bytes differene from Bloodbath Bill's, and some armed rookie cop gets the call that you're right there, you're standing right in front of him! ?
Extreme example, sure. The most likely snafu is people being falsely convicted after being placed near a crime scene. "Can I see the pictures?" "No, but we'll tell you the 300 bytes that identified you."
Re:So what? (Score:2)
That's pretty funny, considering that you used to be able to get automatic weapons, pistols with >10 round magazines, that you didn't have to prove that you weren't a criminal before getting a gun...
Pop quiz: will taking out cameras with your guns hasten the slide towards the inevitable situation of them being taken from you?
Re:1984 is here (Score:2)
I agree. Only it's not working. During this spring's anti-capitalist protests in London, the police took the BBC's (publically funded) webcams offline whenever any trouble started. Not a great precedent.
Re:What do you mean? (Score:2)
No, if John #34 is known to use PCP/be HIV positive/be armed/be an arrest resistor/be Walking While Black, you might end up just being beaten, maced, tazered or even gunned down.
Re:We aren't invisible (Score:2)
In a post above, the stats for these things are given. A ballpark figure is 47,000,000 matches a minute.
The matching isn't the problem, it's what you do with it. I can't help but wonder what exactly the police are going to do with this information? Place people near crime scenes? It's only going to take one proven false positive to screw that one up.
Re:We aren't invisible (Score:2)
It's already illegal to be masked in some Southern states (KKK laws). Police in all US and European cities regularly detain (or punishment beat) anyone wearing a mask during civil disorder - or, importantly, before expected civil disorder. Probably cause and all that. A 2600 guy got charged with conspiracy to be naughty after Seattle last year because he made a call on a cell phone to tell his buddies where the police were moving to.
It's already illegal - or punishable - to hide or conceal your actions, and to monitor the actions of the state. We're already there, in Europe and the USA.
Re:Side effects? (Score:2)
That's exactly what happens. CCTV is very popular in most UK cities. Urban crime dropped a little, but suburban and rural crime rocketed, and the overall street crime figures went up after CCTV took off in a big way.
Re:Care to explain? (Score:2)
Exactly. In the UK, it's illegal to use a radar detector, and the Home Office is up in arms about new GPS based system that tells you where static camera are - they want the information to be illegal.
If the intent was to slow down traffic, they'd welcome these systems. It's not. Most traffic cameras are primarily revenue generating devices. In the UK, speeding violation fines go straight into central government coffers, not into local safety initiatives.
Re:How to fool it (Score:2)
Ha ha. Not. It's already illegal to wear masks in some southern States (KKK laws) and the police in all large US and European cities regularly detain or punishment beat anyone concealing their identity during or prior to civil disorder (their definition of civil disorder, e.g. anti-capitalist demonstrations).
Re:1984 is here (Score:3)
It's well worth reading, and deals with the societal impact of pervasive surveillance technology, and what to do about it, once it's a given that it's implemented - how to _stop_ a Big-Brother like state arising - his solution is fairly simple - give _everyone_ the right to use public-access surveillance equipment. If the police can watch you, make sure that the citizens can watch the police, etc.
Re:We aren't invisible (Score:3)
CCTVs in public places aren't placed there to infringe on the constitutional rights of you or anyone else. They can't do that because the Constitution doesn't protect your right to be invisible in a public place.
My favourite quote by Bruce Schneier in Secrets and Lies: "It is poor socvial hygeine to put in place systems that could facilitate a police state".
Re:I built Some of this Crap(It can be defeated) (Score:3)
- wear coloured sun glasses
- sparkly dust on my face
- a hat
- shiny, colourful clothes
Yah, that'll keep me from being spotted for sure.Re:Finally (Score:3)
That's actually my chief problem with this. My buddy's brand new Dodge Ram was stolen, the cops found it parked outside the thief's house (we all knew who did it from the beginning), the thief's comb was in the truck along with a pencil and a piece of paper with his girlfriends name and number on it, and the paper lady saw him get out of the truck and told the cops about it. They didn't arrest him. Same guy later stole a couple hundred dollars from my neighbors house, cops did nothing. Then he stole my Dirt Bike, the cops basically came out and told me that they knew who did it, then basically said they weren't going to do much about it.
If they won't make an arrest in a Grand Theft Auto case with an eye witness, why should we believe that camera systems are going to improve anything? I don't know that all cops are either as cowardly or as corrupt as Isle of Wight Sheriffs, but I would personally not want a technology like this in the hands of our police.
Problems with Image Recognition Technology (Score:3)
I have serious concerns for the methods used by the Tampa State Police to find people with outstanding arrest warrants. My question is what if someone was photographed and because of the light or if the conditions were right then could they be falsely identified as someone else with an outstanding warrant?
Unless there's a human around to verify that the photographs are correct (as is the case with automated speed cameras in my country, Australia) then bad things could happen. False identification issues aside, I still don't think this is a good idea because it means that someone is collecting information on you without your knowledge or permission. And since this is done without your knowing, you're not always able to verify that the information collected about you is correct.
It might also be interesting to know that the Visionics website [visionics.com] has a whole host of press releases concerning the use of FaceIt technology in places like Birmingham City Centre, London, in Iceland's Keflavk airport as part of the upgrade of their CCTV system, in the Oklahoma State Investigation Bureau as part of their Law Enforcement Identification Solution, in Mexico to eliminate duplicate voter registrations, in Rhode Island and even in the largest police department in Australia. In fact, the United States Immigration & Naturalisation Service (INS) has placed a $7.4 million order for an additional 276 live scan systems.
So while this development is not new, it's still worrying because it means that your freedom is now in the hands of computer software which is just as fallable and exploitable as the people who wrote it.
Self Bias Resistor
Of course people think they are invisible (Score:3)
Re:Big publicity (Score:3)
Side effects? (Score:3)
Seems to me that there may be some unintended side effects as a result of this:
Oh, and as these systems become more prevalent, I could see a state- or country-wide network of these being constructed. Thus, a person who has a warrant in one city or state could be more easily located if they should move . For example, police in New York City could forward photos of people with outstanding warrants to the police in Tampa. And vice versa. Add in other major cities, federal agencies, etc. and I expect over time,these disparate systems will become highly interconnected. Call it a high-tech variant on putting out an APB (All-Points Bulletin -- well, that's what they called in on the crime shows I watched as a kid. :)
We aren't invisible (Score:3)
This isn't the first time that CCTV and surveillance generally has been discussed on /. and it won't be the last.
The natural (knee-jerk?) reaction to this kind of story seems to be negative: I don't want someone, especially the government, watching me, etc, etc.
But all of those comparisons to 1984 [constitution.org] and Enemy of the State [imdb.com] are just so over the top. Big Brother definitely isn't watching you, and Jon Voight [imdb.com] isn't either.
CCTVs in public places aren't placed there to infringe on the constitutional rights of you or anyone else. They can't do that because the Constitution doesn't protect your right to be invisible in a public place.
If your a known criminal or are engaging in criminal activity then a CCTV camera on the street corner isn't exactly welcome. But if your Joe Average it's no better or no worse than someone standing there taking in the view.
Watching everyone all of the time takes a lot of resources. The former East German government tried it back in the days of the Cold War. Eventually, it toppled under the strain that such a machine placed upon itself and, in turn, so did the Berlin Wall.
Paranoia is a healthy thing. In small doses.
Re:I built Some of this Crap(It can be defeated) (Score:3)
OK, everyone, its time to stock up on KISS and Darth Maul makeup kits!
Re:Care to explain? (Score:3)
Re:This is getting out of hand. (Score:3)
The answer is simple: expansion (and simplification) of media and resulting simplification of public perception. Today, more than ever, the problems of society are covered in mass media (often in simplistic fashion). There is a perception that morality in this country is falling apart, but really we're just more aware of problems that were already there. Crime rates are declining, but today more than ever people are afraid. And when people are scared, they are willing to sacrifice some of their basic freedoms to allay their fears. If technique X infringes on right Y, but catches Z criminals, it suddenly becomes O.K.
Extended out, continuing to sacrifice basic rights for (percieved) safety, you arrive at an Orwellian state.
SUCKS, don't it?
Out of intelligent things to say and searching for good marijuana,
Nonviolent Approaches to Eliminate Cameras (Score:4)
Buy yourself a target air rifle, not a cheap one, but a good one with a nice scope. You can easily find angles to hit the camera without being easily seen by the camera. Shoot said camera out. When they fix it, shoot it out again, later. Enough people doing that will make them go away.
The security gestapo at my old univesity (University of New Brunswick) actually noticed someone breaking into a house several kilometers away with a ultra-high-power security camera. (The University is on a large hill). One might wonder what the hell they were doing looking at houses several kilometers away - or for that matter, who's windows they're looking in. Entertainment value, indeed.
Security cameras are just one step closer.. Safe or Free, your pick.. and Prisons aren't the safest places last I checked.
Comment removed (Score:4)
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re:This is getting out of hand. (Score:4)
D-FENS (Score:4)
No tech comment: (Score:4)
It takes everyone's picture - so if your really paranoid then, well there you have it.
But if I'm a criminal visting or living in Tampa - this takes the fun out of cops and robbers. If you're in public anyone has the right to take your picture - and of course take it to the police. But this is the 'napster' syndrome [listen to bob&tom-napster allows millions of copies of a CD unlike taping a CD which would take forever...tangent]. Not only does this thing snap a photo of you, but it does it at such a rate that it becomes more than just taking a few shots.
Who elected these phucks that are doing this? Because I wouldn't be voting for them. It seems more technology means the 'cops' of cops and robbers get the upperhand.
It just doesn't seem like fair play. But if you want to be really [really] paranoid - you could watch "Enemy of the State" and compare.
I guess the rest of us will care when they start documenting where we go in Tampa. i.e. "Mr. Neal went to a strip club last night on Ocean Blvd. - let's follow him for a few days."
just doesn't seem fair.
Whats really interesting... (Score:4)
Suggested Readings on Surveillance (Score:4)
---
What's the benefit here? (Score:5)
The potential for misuse is too great here. Technology is not infallible. It can be 99.9%, but that means nothing in the grande scheme of things. There will be LOTS of false positives in a system like this. Even if the prospect of getting picked up for someone else's crime doesn't bother you (after all, subsequent validation will vindicate you from this incident), if you ARE attempting to develop a pattern, then false positives will make for an extremely diverse pattern, one that can't be relied on for much.
-Restil
Re:This is getting out of hand. (Score:5)
They are becoming all too common because of the media. Most people are pacifists by nature, they'll avoid confrontation at all costs. CNN(insert favorite govertainment channel here) will call something like the Million Mom March "groundbreaking" but will insert another adjective like "contraversial" in front of the Guns Owners of America. The sheeple automatically are drawn to a don't-rock-the-boat mentality.
Why do you think people accept drug tests being part of job interviews? If my employer can prove that my being a coke addict directly affects my job performance fine. But it's an invasion of privacy to see if I am indeed a coke addict. People are drawn to it because some Demopublican will mask it about being for the children.
It's very similar to what that idiot Steve Gibson is doing. Cnet, ZDnet, whatever-pc-magazine prints his half-baked theories about UNIX sockets in XP. Just having UNIX sockets isn't necessarily a bad thing, its in how they're used obviously. They follow his words since he has a flare for the dramatic and sounds very clueful to the average AOL user. UNIX sockets don't spoof packets, script-kiddies spoof packets. Look at those kennedy elitists: all of my unregistered handguns have kill less people than kennedy cars and golf clubs combined.
Re:No tech comment: (Score:5)
Well, you've trolled me. "Cops and Robbers" is not a game. When people have crimes committed against them then the perpetrators need to be punished.
Have you ever been Robbed? Assaulted? Raped?
I think you watch too many trashy films. Criminals do not deserve an even playing field when it comes to law enforcement.
1984 is here (Score:5)
If you really want to do something about this organize a day of protest. Image several thousand people wondering around downtown Tampa dress as Santa or wearing Nixon masks. Will they get arrested for not showing their face in public? What will the police in Tampa charge them with?
Re:Care to explain? (Score:5)
Most people aren't 100% law-abiding, are they? Ever smoke a joint? Spit in public? Swear on a public street? Stop your car temporarily in a spot where you weren't supposed to stop your car? Exceed the speed limit? Let your dog take a poop without cleaning it up? Cross at a location which is not an intersection? Keep in mind that the Supreme Court recently ruled that the cops are within their rights to arrest you even for failing to wear a seat belt. Are you absolutely sure you haven't broken any laws recently?
Or maybe you might have a family member or friend who has done something illegal, and you've been spotted on camera talking with them. Perhaps you wouldn't mind the cops bringing you in for questioning so you can rat out your buddy. Or perhaps a judge would okay a search of your premises on the grounds that you were frequently associating with a known criminal.
But what's more worrisome is the idea that it will become much easier to keep an eye on people who are political threats: Opposition party rank-and-file workers and other political nuisances could find themselves in court for petty violations people don't normally receive summonses for. They could become the object of harrassment and search warrants, all "justified" because they were caught on camera throwing a chewing gum wrapper upon the sidewalk.
Technical summary FAQ (Score:5)
A face is compressed to between 100 and 300 bytes. Even with 100 bytes the reconstructed face looks remarkably similar to the real one.
With a 500 MHz Pentium, up to 47,000,000 rough ("vector") matches per minute can be made. A vector is an 88 byte representation of a face. Then, a finer scan can pin down the top matches.
In other words the entire population of the US can be scanned in a few minutes with a single PC. Is it just me, or is there something scary about this?
In reality (Score:5)
This is getting out of hand. (Score:5)
Seriously -- practices like this are becoming far too acceptable by the general public. Why? Does it start at home? Are we as a society raising drones who refuse to question authority or take an active role in something as running this city/county/country (i.e. voting)?
Ok. Stop the ride. I want to get off. It's finally starting to make me sick.
-jhon
London: anecdotal evidence (Score:5)
I live in Brixton, an area of South London known for a very high level of street drug dealing (smack, crack). A very close friend of mine has the misfortune to be a heroin addict. I went down with her once when she went to score. In a five minute walk around this particular area (which is also the heart of Brixton's new-found fashionable status,. with lots of new clubs and bars, very much part of the London scene[tm]) she was approached *by* no less than eight dealers, most of whom were part of groups of three or four.
For some reason (more yuppies in the area?), the police have decided that open crack dealing is a Bad Thing. As part of a new campaign to *cough* crack down on the problem, CCTV was installed a year ago, the whole length of the street.
It has made no difference at all as far as I can see.
In the last three months, however, the residents of the estate where I live - about a ten minute walk from this inferno - have been kicking up a fuss because prostitutes and junkies bean to come up here after they'd scored / picked up a client. There are lots of young kids round here, & it's not very nice to find used works in your apartment stairwell in the morning. So, CCTV to the rescue again; another few dozen cameras now cover the entire estate. This has actually helped. The reason the dealers can't be busted even when they're seen on video clearly dealing, is that actual drugs are needed to get a conviction - and of course they swallow it immediately if the cops show up. It's harder for a junkie to swallow a syringe, however ;)
Ironically I then met someone who works for the local council on the second scheme. Although when it's completed, only the police will have access to the pictures, she has a stack of monitors on her desk at present for 'debugging' purposes - and she sure as hell uses it for personal use (checking up on her S.O. to make sure he goes to the shops when he said he would, for instance.) She was also attacked on the street a few weeks ago. She called her boss afterwards, who took the tapes straight to the cops 20 minutes after the incident, and the attacker was picked up 30 mins after that. As she herself said, however, this was only because of who she was... if she was a random member of the public, the service would have been much, much slower.
I just remembered another anecdotal data point... another junkie, friend of the above-mentioned one, was beaten up just outside his apartment block. This block is staffed 24/7 and, yep, they have CCTV which is supposed to be monitored. Surpise, they happened to be "looking the other way" at the time... he's apparently talking of sueing them (IIRC it's a criminal offence not to respond in such a situation) - but what's the betting that teh relevant tapes get "lost" or "accidentally wiped"?
--
"I'm not downloaded, I'm just loaded and down"
I built Some of this Crap(It can be defeated) (Score:5)