Ubiquitous Surveillance 443
lightray writes: "The New York Times is running an article titled A Cautionary Tale for a New Age of Surveillance which gives an alarming view of America's possible future -- and Britain's present." Excellent article, just excellent. (The author has also written a good book on privacy recently.) "And rather than thwarting serious crime, the cameras are being used to enforce social conformity in ways that Americans may prefer to avoid."
Hah! I will prevail! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hah! I will prevail! (Score:2)
You can be sure to trust the legally enforced backdoors required by government with your privacy. They are after all, supposed to serve and protect. You will never have to be in fear of being arrested for indecent or immorality. That has never happened by a government for the people before. Trust you shall. It will be law.
Oh, the room with the blue ceiling? (Score:2)
Great... (Score:3, Insightful)
JoeLinux
Re:Great... (Score:2)
Airstrip One == UK.
My favorite story along these lines (Score:2, Funny)
And what did the Bobbys do? They asked him for his id
Re:My favorite story along these lines (Score:3, Informative)
And he's another Brixton resident :)
uk resident... (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting perspective but (Score:2)
For example, most buildings in America which use CCTV effectively use it to secure entrences, exits, and a few other critical locations. If you put cameras everywhere, you lose the ability to see something amiss as it is happening because of information overload.
OTOH, this is kind of interesting because it means that the cameras are only useful after the fact-- i.e. to analyze the scene of a crime after it has been committed.
So much for CCTV (which, IMO, has its uses). What about biometrics? The face recognition aspects of biometrics are really poor right now, and I have my doubts as to the ability of engineers to perfect it anytime soon. So it too will fail to deliver on its promise in the short to mid term.
But what if it does become perfected? How will it affect our Freedom of Assembly (here in the US)? If something similar to the UAAC us founded again, as it was in McCarthy's day, what then?
I guess the question is: how much do we really tust our gov't. My answer is: not much.
Re:Interesting perspective but (Score:2)
We might get into a long debate into what the true motivation for these cameras really is. I'd just like to point out that they are being sold to the public for their alleged value in stopping terrorism in real time, not "after the fact".
The Flip Side... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is fine with everyone except the ultra-right Xtian moralizers who want to decide morality for everyone else, because it is a small area, and because everyone knows about it. It also happens to be a very, very nice part of town, with great restaurants and shops, but I digress...
The point is, being gay is not something everyone can be open and honest about in this and most other countries. Gays deserve to be able to express themselves by holding hands or kissing in public just as heterosexuals do, and in this certain part of the city they can do so without offending anyone else, without worrying who may find out, etc. But with CCTV on every corner, their ability to have this part of town where they are in fact the majority and the "normal" ones goes away. With a camera on every street, they'd have to worry about who may be watching, who might see their license plate, who might see them holding hands and turn them in to a boss, their family, etc.
This is just one example of losing important freedoms to this. What's more vital than the right to free association? The right to express oneself, and in an appropriate area full of like-minded people no less? A few cameras would cause a very tangible chilling effect on the ability of these people to have their little slice of town where they're all normal and accepted and don't need to fear being outed or blackmailed for expressing themselves in ways no different from the ones we heterosexuals enjoy.
And what of that, too? Would everyone be so content to enjoy a nice kiss on a street or in a park or town square, if there were cameras around manned by leering strangers who amuse themselves by watching? Britons may not be so big on public displays of affection--though in the linked article there were a few teenagers making out and prostitutes getting rogered on windowsills--and some more conservative Americans aren't either, but a vast majority of us find nothing wrong with a bit of kissing and affection in certain public areas. But we don't want and don't deserve a leering audience of voyeurs recording it if we give our dates a kiss and whatnot. Cameras like that may impose a certain un-American stodginess and reversion further into Puritan sexual mores.
In fact, some of my fondest memories from high school involve "making out" with my gorgeous 16 year old girlfriend just about everywhere we went, and it never hurt anyone--in fact, once, we were kissing a bit fervently while waiting for the L, and a big Texan standing near us turned to his girl and said, "Honey, I think they've got the right idea," and that couple started kissing a bit, and before the train came every couple in the place seemed to be kissing and holding one another. It sounds corny, but such a nice feeling of love and affection pervaded the place as you've never experienced before.
Romantic moments like that are actively discouraged when you know there are cameras everywhere and leering pervs behind them. And Americans like romantic moments like that.
Even more importantly, there's a broader ramification. Americans have a specific constitutional right to assemble to petition the government for redress of grievances--i.e., we have a right to protest. A camera on every corner would discourage many from exercising this Constitutional right--the FBI has been known to abuse its powers and put people on "lists" for peacefully protesting, or doing anything contrary to the current establishment. Giving them face recognition technology with which to match peaceful protesters who are merely exercising their fundamental rights with databases--there's talk of just using all drivers license databases--is a gross violation. We have explicit Constitutional rights in this country which we'd be discouraged from exercising based on likely abuses of this system--the FBI has been known to abuse every power they have, from surveilling unlawfully against political dissidents like Martin Luther King, to shooting innocent women and children at Ruby Ridge. So, we certainly can't trust them with this.
Re:The Flip Side... (Score:3, Insightful)
> "causing an obstruction" (or worst, e.g. if the PDA's are causing such an
> obstruction that pedestrians are placed at risk of being run over to avoid them.)
??? "Causing an obstruction"? Like, causes you to get constipated? A bowel obstruction of some sort?
I think you mean "causes a distraction" or "causes a disruption" or some such. In any event, no, I don't need to work that out, because that's not what we're debating here. We're debating the efficacy and propriety of placing cameras everywhere, not "how far is too far" when it comes to public displays of affection.
And how would pedestrians be "placed at risk of being run over to avoid" PDA? If someone chooses to walk in the middle of the road rather than walk within a few feet of a couple who happens to be kissing, then that person surely deserves to have his stodgy Puritan bum run over. One less extremist Xtian moralizer in the world doesn't sound like a bad thing.
But people do tend to exercise common sense whenever they stop in public places. Much like a person will usually sit off to the curb or on a bench or otherwise off to the side, rather than sitting down in the middle of the sidewalk, so anyone kissing in a public place will probably have the sense to move off to the side rather than stop in the middle of the sidewalk and stand there with lips locked. A good general rule is, if it's an appropriate place to sit or to stand out of the main flow of foot traffic, and it isn't someplace dreadfully inappropriate like a schoolyard or such, then it's an appropriate place to express a bit of modest affection. Kissing, hugging, no fondling. Save the fondling for private places, or at least public places which are unoccupied and will be for a while...
I have a great story about getting caught going a bit too far in a public place we *thought* was secluded, but if I told it the mods would have a field day with that Off-Topic pulldown.
The most important part of my post, however, was the long paragraph at the end about cameras interfering with our Constitutional right to peaceably assemble to petition the government for redress of grievances. It's an explicit right under the Constitution, and with biometrics-fueled cameras scanning the crowd and matching protesters with IDs, it would have a chilling effect on this right. The FBI has historically harassed people who have done nothing illegal, but piss them off for being political dissidents or holding unpopuklar or progressive views and values. Local police departments vary from very trustworthy to absolutely criminal. So we can't let ourselves be constantly watched when the watchmen are known abusers.
Re:uk resident... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's the height of cultural arrogance to believe that fates which at one time befell wise-ranging cultures - German, Russian, Cambodian, Argentinian, Rwanda - couldn't happen in North America. Being opposed to ubiquitous police surveillance isn't paranoia, it's historical perspective.
Huh? Re:uk resident... (Score:2)
Is it so easy to dismiss a love of freedom?
Maybe those of us who oppose cameras have read a little of human history and recognize how terrifyingly easily this system could become a prop of repression -- either official or social. I think I will simply quote Judge Brandeis, speaking presciently:
There are lines we should not cross. There are freedoms we must not sacrfice. And there are roads we dare not tread.
Re:Huh? Re:uk resident... (Score:2)
Let's be less stupid here. Full time surveillance is not a reality in the States, yet, and is close to becoming one. It opens up a huge field of potential abuse, from police misuse to voyeurism to, conceivably, blackmail and character assassination. It takes the public spaces and assigns control over them to a limited, generally unelected few who often cannot be bothered to even write down the criteria under which the evidence gained would be used. It breeds social conformity and limits traditional freedoms of assembly, as well as chilling traditional rights to petition the government.
In return, we are offered some nice-sounding platitudes and an unsupported allegation that these systems might, in some cases, affect crime in some manner. The "evidence" for such is drawn from a decade of wide prosperity, wherein cities that adopted these systems and cities that did not, saw similar declines in crime.
It's fine to be in a police state, if you're the police. And if "universal 24/7 preemptive electronic surveillance" is not "police state" in your dictionary, it's time to grow up and use a real one.
Being concerned about a fundamental shift in the balance between individual liberty and police powers is not "paranoia". It's patriotism.
festering criminal underground (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the criminals are mostly low tech.
Even the terrorists were pretty low tech, with their box cutters and library Internet use.
If we want high tech criminals we should do something like this.
Then we will have an onslaught of mask wearing in public streets, and disguises will become common.
It will also become common not to trust your fellow man. The "lawful" person has many reasons to wish to hide from the eye of public surveillance.
We may not catch many terrorists, but we will catch petty criminals and philanderers (in some countries) using this technology.
It will "blow-back" us to Kingdom Come. Do we really want to walk around distrusting our fellow citizens, every second of the day?
Oh, wait.. we already do.
Re:festering criminal underground (Score:4, Interesting)
Dont know if this is any coincidence or what. In south london (where I live), since all the CCTV camera's have been deployed, a new fashion has started to emerge. Young, male, 'hood-looking types have started wearing baseball caps and hooded tops - at the same time - in such a way that their face is pretty much obscured.
and thats it really....
Re:festering criminal underground (Score:2)
Hi there, I'm the AC with the junkie friend, I already posted somewhere in this story, (& I'm in S London as it goes.) The friend pointed the caps and hoods out to me once when I went down with her to ride shotgun when she scored. She also mentioned that all her regular dealers have disappeared in the last few weeks... their mates all say "yeah, he's alright, he's... 'in the country' at the moment." ie., they've been nicked! It doesn't matter if they can't see the faces, all they have to do is have plainclothes people follow "anonymous hooded dodgy type" for a few days, then jump on them with 20 cops and lo! they have a mouthful of crack, and lo! their board and lodging are covered by Her Majesty for the next few years. Poor bastards.
Biometrics, CCTV and 11-9-01 (Score:3)
The really scary thing about the September attacks is that there is basically NOTHING YOU CAN DO about someone who is absolutely determined, has a clean record, and is prepared to lose his* life. Sure, you can make it harder to hijack planes; but if they make it into the cockpit and disable the flight crew it's game over. Even if they get shot down, it's still a 'victory' for the terrorists, because of the few hundred innocent victims on the plane. This is somewhat analogous to the terrible lesson learned by the US in Vietnam, and by the UK in India, Palestine, Ireland, Malaysia, Kenya and indeed many other bits of the world that used to be coloured red: you cannot win a military victory against a determined guerilla army which has mass support from the population.
[* You'd never catch a woman stupid enough to fall for fairy stories about paradise... ] I reckon this partly explains why it's taking such a long time for bombs to start hitting Afghanistan: there seems to be a strong body of opinion in the FBI that there are other unknown sleeper agents already in the US, just waiting for the first attack to retaliate, either on US soil, US interests overseas, or the loyal friends of the USA here in the UK. I'm really glad I don't work right next to the NatWest Tower in the city any more...
public places (Score:3, Insightful)
I have no problems with them taping me walking home but if they want to see inside my house or tape what I say to friends then that's a different matter
regards
john jones
as an American living in the Uk (Score:4, Informative)
For about the first 5 months living here, I thought that they might give me some sense of security. They did, until my Brother was beat up in the street.. the cameras didn't help him, and he spent 1 night in the hospital.
2 months later, a work mate was robbed , while he was in his house. Cameras didn't help him.
2 1/2 months after that another work mate was robbed. Cameras didn't help (out of his house).
(I am not making this up).. about 2 weeks after the last robbing, my friend was drug out of his car (about 1 block from the office I work) and had the shit kicked out of him for not yielding to another driver. The damn cameras (which where on that street) didn't pick up anything useful that the police could use to find the person that did it. (on that note, I waited with my friend for over 1 hour for the police to even arive to the scene).
Thus far I am the only person in our very small company that hasn't been either asulted or burgled, and Reading England (Uk) has cameras everywhere. Though, about 9 months ago, a CORPSE was found across the street in the garden from my house in near a building of flats. THERE WAS A CAMERA 150 FEET FROM WHERE THEY FOUND THE CORPSE, no-body was ever cought. (Though, they feel that the person was killed and dumped off, he had been out of prison for only 6 days).
My guess is that anyone that would be watching the cameras are too busy trying to look down someones shirt or sleeping on the job.
What I feel we need here in our town is not more cameras, they haven't done a bloody damn thing. More cops on the street would help, and make the ones that are out there a bit happier about their jobs. Criminals here seem to operate without any regard for getting cought. Maybe if the police had guns and the society here wasn't centric to drinking oneself sick before 11:00pm (when the pubs close) things wouldn't be so bad..
Living here though makes me think twice about gun-laws, never had ANYTHING like this happen to me living in the western united states, but maybe I was in a closet..
*sigh*
Re:as an American living in the Uk (Score:3, Insightful)
The damn cameras (which where on that street) didn't pick up anything useful that the police could use to find the person that did it.
On other words, what you're saying is that if it had been a GOOD camera, they would have caught the criminals. What I see in these complaints (and the ones in the article) is that putting phony crap cameras doesn't do any good. Well, duh.
If you're going to put in cameras, make sure they are very good ones that can do some good.
Re:as an American living in the Uk (Score:2)
Cameras are one thing, getting police to act is another.
Re:as an American living in the Uk (Score:2)
This reminds me a lot of Demolition Man. Where everyone could be seen everywhere in the city. It was used to catch criminals yet the police officers didn't really know what to do w/the information they were receiving.
There is absolutely no reason that we should have to resort to EXTREME laziness and use cameras to track people. Yeah yeah, not enough police, not enough money. I don't care. Find some alternative to fight crime (or accept that you really can't) and live w/it.
I am sick and tired of being told that this will increase my security. It doesn't do that and it decreases my sense of private security.
If they aren't working then what's the point of having them?
Just my worthless paranoia.
Re:as an American living in the Uk (Score:2)
There is absolutely no reason for them if they aren't working.
That is certainly true. If you have crap cameras, there is certainly no reason to have them. But proving that bad cameras don't catch criminals has nothing to do with whether good cameras would catch criminals.
Obviously (I hope), good cameras WOULD catch criminals. Why do we have cameras in banks? Is it just a phony sense of security and a total waste of money for banks to invest in cameras?
LOL As a banker let me tell you why we have (Score:2)
It is the exact same thing with the $6 security guards. They are not supposed to actually DO anything, they are forbidden from touching a customer or worker in a bank unless they are certified first aid. It is all to save a buck on insurance.
Re:LOL As a banker let me tell you why we have (Score:2)
Sheesh, what crap. This is only the first page of a google search of "bank robber caught surveillance camera":
http://www.wtcosaka.com/market/item/s_camera.html [wtcosaka.com]http://www.trinidadco.com/stories2000/news/02/15/
http://www.newsherald.com/archive/local/lc082198.
And here are some stories where people were released after tapes showed they were innocent (an interesting twist I would say)...
http://www.truthinjustice.org/robber01.htm [truthinjustice.org]
http://www.thezephyr.com/archives/sornbergers.htm [thezephyr.com]
Do you really think insurance companies are so stupid as to give a 15% discount for totally worthless equipment? I think their statistics on the subject are probably better than yours.
Actually... (Score:2)
On other words, what you're saying is that if it had been a GOOD camera, they would have caught the criminals.
I don't think he gave us enough information to make any conclusion about why the camera didn't pick up anything worthwhile. Was it just a bad camera? Was it not pointed in the right direction? Was it broken? Was it some other reason entirely? Need more info.
Re:no, that's not what he's saying! (Score:2)
What he's saying, ass, is that there CAN NOT be enough cameras to do any good! There will always be a hiding spot for foul deeds.
Bullshit. In this case, there were enough cameras to do the job. The problem wasn't coverage, the problem was a bad camera. And whether they have 100% coverage or not is totally irrelevent. The question is whether you can give enough coverage for people to have zones of safety. Just because you don't have every back alley covered doesn't mean you can't keep the streets safe.
Oh wait, it's Reality Master 101, I've been trolled.
Ah yes, the oh-so-intelligent debate tactic of the Slashdotter. When in doubt, accuse the poster of trolling.
Re:as an American living in the Uk (Score:4, Informative)
Re:as an American living in the Uk (Score:2, Interesting)
Thought about moving out of the town centre? You're probably in the worst place in the whole county...
cheers
alex
(Richmond, Surrey - CCTV capital of West London)
Re:as an American living in the Uk (Score:2)
A interesting thing about that article I believe you found when talking to the police in regards to my co-workers assault, aparantly the guy that stabbed him to death stuffed the knife that he used up his own ass to hide it from the police.
Now get this...
The guy that he had stabbed was HIV positive. Aparantly the cop said that he had infected himself with the knife he used to kill the guy with!!! (I have heard some strange shit in my life, but that has to top it...)
I am not even living in Reading center (closer to Theal, or however it's spelled), thats probably why I haven't been burgled.. we are actually going to move our office to London and I am going to try and find somewhere a bit safer to live in the process.
Cheers
Re:as an American living in the Uk (Score:2)
Most successful slogan... (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because you've got something to hide, it doesn't mean it's illegal. What if someone used these cameras in a public area to, say, watch for two men/women kissing or something, then send someone over to harrass them. There are better examples but that is the only one off the top of my head. Didn't we used to have some rights that protected us from this sort of thing? What if a camera just happened to be pointed towards somebodys window... Could be just some guy, or maybe someone they suspect of something but can't get a warrant to watch... You know this is going to be massively abused. They said wire taps wouldn't be abused either...
Re:Most successful slogan... (Score:2)
Police don't need a warrant to watch the outside of someone's house or look in through an open window. That's what a lot of us just don't get: these cameras are in public and you don't have an expectation of privacy now.
What's remarkable about this article is that it fails to identify any harm whatsoever that has come about because of these cameras.
Re:Most successful slogan... (Score:2)
oh for fucks sake... get a life!!!
what i dont understand.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I know a lot of people are worried that a system like this can be abused by authorities to track people. I have two uncles that are former police officers (one now is in the Secret Service, other died). Let me explain the point of view of the current SS agent:
There is so much work that a police dept in a major city like NY or Tampa that has to be done that there is no room to abuse a system like an automated facial recognizer. If someone were to abuse it, his/her overall job performance would go down because they would be tracking innocent people instead of catching wanted suspects.
I also have an example of a situation where this would work. I live in Philadelphia. About 2 years there was a serial murderer and rapist in Center City, and got dubbed the name Center City Rapist. A picture of the guy was found and wanted signs appeared all over town, on lampposts, park benches, etc. Also on those signs were how he attacks and how he targets single women who live alone. But the guy got away.
Last month his DNA was found on a rape & murder victim in Denver, Colorado.
If FaceIt were running on Denver and have the Center City Rapist's photo in the db, that guy would have been caught because of his high profile from Philly and perhaps one young woman would still be alive today because of FaceIt.
The murderer and rapist is still on the run.
Re:what i dont understand.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine the night after the Boston Tea Party, all of the patriots that participated are dragged out of bed by the British authorities after being identified by hidden cameras and matched in a large database.
Imagine everyone involved in the underground railroad -- people risking their lives to bring runaway slaves to freedom -- imagine them all being identified and arrested (killed if they are black).
Imagine when advocating birth-control was illegal and feminists went to prison trying to educate other women -- now imagine an all-encompassing system of cameras and databases being used to effectively eliminate this whole crime by identifying all of the "criminals".
The problem with the argument about totalitarian security eliminating all sorts of nasty crimes is that it rarely works that way in practice. Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia both had quite of lot of extreme security measures in place, yet crime by citizens were not eliminated -- I would doubt if they decreased at all. And at the same time, the crimes of the authorities greatly increased -- that's how it works. You give them a new tool to hunt down rapists and murderers and they use it instead to hunt down people who would take away the tool, as well as anyone else who might threaten their power. As they abuse their power more and more, the population has less ability to restrict their power.
And of course they will abuse their power -- that is the nature of power. Power corrupts. The ability for citizens to freely challenge the government's power, and ultimately, to overthrow it, is the one thing that can keep a government in check.
It is a shame that after the cold war ended, so did the need to differentiate between the U.S. and a totalitarian state like the Soviet Union. I remember liberals and conservatives, even Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Rush Limbaugh going on and on about how evil the Soviet Union was for spying on its citizens. After the wall came down, U.S. journalists toured secret police offices filled with TV monitors and expressed horror at the thought of living in such a society. Everyone celebrated the closing down of these security offices. And damn it, they were right. It was evil.
Am I the only one that feels like I'm living in some cheesy sci-fi show where everyone's mind has been wiped clean? If, in the end, the Soviet Union was right, and citizens have no need for privacy and freedom, then what the hell was the whole Cold War for? Why did countless people have to be killed in wars in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Nicaragua, etc.?
Re:what i dont understand.... (Score:2)
-Alert arrives at HQ. Appearing on the screen are a picture of suspect, his/her crime(s), special notes from the police dept that wants that person, live picture of that person, location of the person.
-Analyst decides credibility and priority of the report. If a further look is deemed necessary, pass it off to an officer near the location of the suspect.
-Police stake out suspect. They have a photo of who they're looking for on their video screen inside their police car. They decide what to do about approaching the individual or not.
-If they approach and begin questioning the person right on the street, they can possibly determine whether not the alert was real or not. If they think the situation demands taking the guy in, then that's what it means.
As you can see, there are several spots where a false alarm would be tripped up. For example, if I'm 6'5" in height and have the same face as a 5'4" suspect, then the initial analyst looking at me on the street would see that I'm too tall to match the description of the suspect and mark the alert as a false alarm.
My point being is that the police will be relying on more than just the face an individual in deciding whether or not to take a person in for questioning. There are many other characterists to look for, like a tatoo on the ankle or a scar on the arm. Prior to automated face recognition, this is how things have been done, and this is how I think it'll happen in the future when this stuff is widely used.
Re:what i dont understand.... (Score:2)
Re:what i dont understand.... (Score:2)
This system is used to nap wanted suspects so that they can be brought before the judge and due process will take it's course from there. The FaceIt system does dictate that Person X goes to jail, a judge decides that. FaceIt is used to find Person X when we it knows what Person X looks like.
Also, look at my other post [slashdot.org] about how the police would actually use the system which also covers "what if two people look alike".
Lastly, learn to think for yourself.
Re:what i dont understand.... (Score:2)
Less than 1%. You make it seem like every single cop in the country is gonna do nothing but abuse this thing. If they were to do that what would happen? All hell would break loose because all the cops stay at HQ sitting in front of CC'd TVs.
Think about it: COPS HAVE JOBS TO DO OTHER THAN ABUSIVELY TRACK INNOCENT PEOPLE!!
It's also important to note that those cops you talk about got caught. This means that those who abuse the system would sooner or later be caught themselves and other cops thinking about abusing it would learn from it.
Once again: Cops have a job to do. If they were to abuse it, they would hurt themselves and further injure the public by failing to catch truly wanted crooks. That would make them lousy cops.
My advice for you: Get a life, learn how to think for yourself, and learn how to draw your own intelligent conclusions.
Re:what i dont understand.... (Score:2)
My advice for you: Get a life, learn how to think for yourself, and learn how to draw your own intelligent conclusions.
Well, let's just see what you wrote above that, Mr. Jeffy the All-Wise.
ok, how many police officers are there in this country? Probably millions. How many have been caught abusing their power? About 100/year. 100 out of 1 million is less than 1%.
Where do you get this suspiciously nice, round, 100 per year number? Or this suspiciously nice, round, 1 million number?
As it happens the Bureau of Justice Statistics says there are about 664,000 police officers in the US (http://www.theiacp.org/faq.htm). But that 100 number needs a lot of explanation, I suspect it's at least one, and possibly two, orders of magnitude higher.
Think about it: COPS HAVE JOBS TO DO OTHER THAN ABUSIVELY TRACK INNOCENT PEOPLE!!
Some do. But see the Detroit Free Press of a year or two ago. The state of Michigan's Law Enforcement Information Network was widely and systematically abused by Michigan police. It does happen and it is not harmless. And when there is a tool that can be abused to harass the innocent, but has yet to show significant utility in protecting those same law-abiding citizens, it should not be placed in government hands. (Sometimes it shouldn't be placed in those hands even if it does have such utility.)
It's also important to note that those cops you talk about got caught. This means that those who abuse the system would sooner or later be caught themselves and other cops thinking about abusing it would learn from it.
You should look up something called a "fallacy of logic", because you just committed a classic one here, equating the portion with the whole. "Some corrupt cops are caught on a regular basis, therefore all corrupt cops will eventually be caught." Your conclusion does not follow. In fact we should be drawing entirely the opposite conclusion: police abuse of power is so widespread that its exposure has become literally an everyday event. The proper response is to tighten the screws, but not on us -- on the cops.
Cops have a job to do. If they were to abuse it, they would hurt themselves and further injure the public by failing to catch truly wanted crooks. That would make them lousy cops.
Taking this in order, yes they do; they do and they do because they do; and the ones who do are, and there are far too many of them.
Re:what i dont understand.... (Score:2)
let me put it another way since i just thought of it...
all cops carry weapons like a handgun, pepper spray, and night sticks
when we walk down the street and happen to walk past a police officer, do we fear that they'll randomly pull their gun on us, randomly spray us with pepper, or randomly beat us with their sticks? The answer is no, we dont. If someone were to do that, that cop would permanently lose his badge.
Just because they have the tools and the tools pose a possibility of abuse doesnt mean that the tools will be abused. And even if that tool is abused, they will get caught, much like the Rodney King beating in LA many years ago.
IMO of limited use (Score:2, Insightful)
Friend is hit by a car in an area with literally tens of cameras. What happened? Nothing. Nothing was caught on camera.
Friend gets the shit kicked out of him by bouncers in a night club. He was in front of a camera as it happened. What happened? Nothing. Tape 'dissapeared'.
WTF type of crime are these cameras supposed to catch? Assault and "Hit and run" type crimes do not benefit. A terrorist incident isn't likely to happen in half the places they seem to be used.
My greatest worry about new 'Net laws' is that in a society dominated by legal precedant, the line between virtual and reality is all to penetrable.
To give an example of this thin line:
hacker ((cracker) but I'll use hacker here) = terrorist
The fact is the actions of a hacker translated into the real world could be pretty serious. But they are'nt IRL. I was glad to see that hacker != terrorist.
How it looks in South London (Score:5, Interesting)
And, contrary to what the report says, MANY terrorists have been caught using CCTV: most recently, the loony rascist who planted a nailbomb in my local market street was caught using CCTV images. PLenty of IRA bombers have been caught in similar ways.
This is not to say that the potential for abuse isn't there, or that there won't be some test cases before things are bedded down; and it behoves us to be *cough* vigilant about abuses of the system.
But really, Americans should worry more about your right to avoid having to mop your children's brains off the floor because they had a bad attack of the teenage blues and decided to end it all. What's more, even in this hotbed of class A drug dealing, there are still less than 400 murders in the entire COUNTRY per YEAR. (Population 65 million.) Personally, I'm just happy that I can walk around Brixton at 3am without worrying that I'm going to be shot.
How it might look in NY (Score:3, Interesting)
"No, it ISN'T."
Isn't what you mean to say. "It keeps terrorists off of planes AND keeps punks out of shopping malls." It sounds like you are arguing it doesn't do anything...
"So they And, contrary to what the report says, MANY terrorists have been caught using CCTV: most recently, the loony rascist who planted a nailbomb in my local market street was caught using CCTV images. PLenty of IRA bombers have been caught in similar ways."
OK good. So where are the punks supposed to shop?
"This is not to say that the potential for abuse isn't there, or that there won't be some test cases before things are bedded down; and it behoves us to be *cough* vigilant about abuses of the system."
Very vigilant. How about specific legal protections, like being able to log into a web site and perform meta surveillance. If the security team looks up a skirt and you are watching their peticular cammera, you look up a skirt!!! Bet they won't do it again after the first time they caught.
"But really, Americans should worry more about your right to avoid having to mop your children's brains off the floor because they had a bad attack of the teenage blues and decided to end it all."
Having guns here is about keeping the govenment (local or federal) in check. Kids can kill themselves with a car and a closed garage too. Cars can be far more dangerous than hand guns. What if the Columbine kids ran over kids at 3:30 with their parents SUV. Would we ban SUVs??????
"What's more, even in this hotbed of class A drug dealing, there are still less than 400 murders in the entire COUNTRY per YEAR. (Population 65 million.) Personally, I'm just happy that I can walk around Brixton at 3am without worrying that I'm going to be shot."
Me too, I just hope the police don't start exercising undue force, for your sake. They keep swat equiptment, including machine guns, at every station right?
Bin Ladden attacked the USA and NY specifically for our freedoms and tollerance. Let me spell this out for anyone who dosn't get it. Female Afganistani imagrants can walk around UNVAILED here. That makes Bin Laden and the Taliban look REALLY BAD when word gets back to the homeland. Our freedom threatens their Draconian grip on their people so they tried to destroy a symbol of our successful marketplace made possible by our broad FREEDOMS.
If cameras make those women feel as if they must wear a mask for fear that somone will find SOMTHING that they are doing wrong then BIN LADEN HAS WON! Even if it is from his grave. The attacks were a SUCCESS if the blanket of uniform bland gray ash that covered Greenwich Village remains there!!!!! After all, where are the punks supposed to shop?
Sincerly
A pissed off NYer
Swat team vs thousands of armed civilians (Score:2)
As for the argument that tanks, jets, etc could massacre those rising up against the state: all such things require fuel and bases of operation. If 50,000 civilians in a mob (not inconceivable in a state even as small as mine, Virginia) rush onto a military base each armed with a few hundred rounds of ammo and pistols, shotguns and rifles then those things would be worthless. What good is a tank that gets a few dozen sticks of dynamite thrown underneath it? What good is a jet that has had its pilot shot by a civilian sniper as he takes off (and a lot of long-time hunters could do that)?
And of course you aren't even taking into consideration the distinct possibility of a military uprising as well if the civilian population started one. At that point it wouldn't be swat vs civilians, it would be swat vs navy seals/army rangers.
Re:Swat team vs thousands of armed civilians (Score:2)
... then some jets or copters from a different base come and strafe them. Let's get real: No mob can long stand up to a modern army. At best, you're saying "My gun gives me the ability to disappear into the mountains and become a guerilla". If that.
Sure, if 50,000 people storm a base, you might reasonably expect people in the military to be equivalently honked off and so not support an air strike. But then it isn't your guns that's doing the convincing or the defending. It's the fact that the US military is not made of mindless automatons and malicious brutes... in other words, that we can trust the people in the military because they are us.
You can have your Second Amendment fantasies if you want, but please don't pretend they're relevant to the modern world. Red Dawn might have been a mildly amusing movie but it certainly isn't a political primer.
Re:Swat team vs thousands of armed civilians (Score:2)
Re:Swat team vs thousands of armed civilians (Score:2)
Your talk of gun owners of this country getting pissed and rising up against our military disgusts me and is why I am embarrassed by people like you. Spend a little time in real combat with a gun in your hands. See how you feel about being scared out of your mind and having to look through the scope as you take another human beings life. Another human being who has parents, a family and friends.
And if you persist in your delusion, consider this: Honestly most gun owners in this country really do not know how to handle a gun and survive, despite what they may think. In all reality, all other things being equal if you put up a redneck brigade of 2000, against a good team of five trained marksmen, it would be the five marksmen who would walk out alive.
Please, grow up.
Re:How it looks in South London (Score:4, Interesting)
Wow. I admit that I haven't been to Brixton in a few years, but last time I went, you couldn't walk around there at 3pm and not worry a little about being shot
Cheers,
Tim
View from the UK (Score:3, Insightful)
The subject is not really as controversial here as it might seem. I know that my local town council (Wokingham) has been pressing to get funding to install CCTV in the twon centre for some time. The argument for CCTV is made every time there is a ram-raiding incident, or some other such crime where someone drives a 4x4 (SUV to Americans
I personally think that the sheer amount of data collected from CCTV cameras is so great that any general surveillance and control of the population at large would be very difficult. I would assume that most CCTV cameras do not have a pair of human eye-balls watching them. It's only really worth digging through mountains of material when a serious crime has been committed, ususally murder (which is pretty uncommon in this country).
Personally I feel more reassured than threatened by CCTV, I'm do nothing that I want to hide (but then I'm not an anti-globalisation eco-nutter!), but there is a reasonable chance that CCTV might catch anyone committing a crime against me - which works for me!
The Register (Score:3, Informative)
"Face recognition useless for crowd surveillance" [theregister.co.uk]
"Face-scan outfit rushes to exploit WTC atrocity" [theregister.co.uk]
Interesting (Score:2, Insightful)
In most cases, this is what would happen! The captured images would mostly serve the media.
At any point, it is the human element that is the weakest. No amount of technology can replace that part, whichever way you look at it. Networking people takes on a whole new perspecive here =)
Avoid social conformity? (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't get kids kicked out of school for wearing Pepsi T-Shirts during a Coca-Cola employment drive day, if you don't love conformity.
You don't get Jerry Falwell if you don't love conformity. My god, if there's a man and his masses who would love everyone to conform, it's that gang of hoodlums.
You don't get Sikhs going turbanless this month in a country that doesn't threaten their lives for not conforming.
And you certainly don't get Brittany Spears and the other kiddy bands if conformity isn't desired.
Cameras to enforce conformity? Hell, yes! It's the American Way!
Would this be more palatable? (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, I have less of a reaction to cameras in general, and wonder what people would think of this: The cameras exist, but there are no humans scanning, they simply go into a N-day archive that may only be viewed with a warrant, i.e., when police know something illegal happened in the vicinity of the camera.
I personally would have less of a problem with that kind of surveillance.
Alternate Solution (Score:4)
Unfortunately the most viable one goes right in the opposite direction of the one that public safety and survaillence advocates want.
It is the solution hinted at by the brave actions of the Passengers of Flight 93, who figured out what was happening, and fought back.
It is what is called in the US code of Laws as the un-organized malitia and consists of every adult in the US. It consists of every adult getting trained on self defense, on how to use a weapon, how to apply first aid, how to take care of oneself. It consisists of every adult being able to be responsible for them selves, and the people around them.
This is just the exact opposite direction from the direction some folks want to go.
It is the direct of all citizens taking responsibility for the government and the society, not the government taking reponsibility for the citizens.
Re:Alternate Solution (Score:2)
Of Course in a safe society, we don't need guns and stuff like this.
In a world where every one can trust one another, then we can have peace, and we do not need to provide our own self defense. We would not need to be responsible for our own self defense. Someone else would always be doing the job.
In light of recent events, can you really say that you should trust everyone, and that you trust everone around you utterly with your defense and your rights?
What about certain big businesses? can you trust them? They would love to have total survaillence on their employees.
I merely think that you should be competent in any technology that is needed to survive. This includes self defense and weapons. If you want to be incompetent in a technology, hey it's your life, however short it is.
Let me know when you come back to planet Earth. We might throw a party. Then, we might not.
David Brin's suggestion (Score:4, Insightful)
The important part: Brin wanted ANYONE to be able to tap into the cameras, ANY TIME. He also wanted cameras watching the watchers: we should be able to turn into our local police station, and make sure they're doing their job properly. This is the part that's missing from current proposals in the US and current practice in the UK, yet it would clearly be beneficial:
In a world where surveillance seems impossible to avoid, I can only wish that Brin's vision had a better chance of becoming reality.
Re:David Brin's suggestion (Score:4, Interesting)
Brin's vision is interesting, but naive. That's the peril of smart, well meaning people devising ideas like this. Public access of ubiquitous surveillance would be used for negative purposes. That's beyond even making voyeurism a public value. If you think that wouldn't happen you clearly haven't watched the absolute trash the American public enjoys watching on TV.
Count me out.
Smile ;) (Score:2)
Smile
Sinister.
However, a Hospital is a pretty special situation, and I dont think we can draw many conclusions from their utility here....
Re:Smile ;) (Score:2)
Defective camras (Score:2)
The problem as I see it is the camras are cheap worthless POS units.
In the United States we have this whole issue reguarding camras at stop lights to catch traffic violations.
They don't work.. Reports of the camras going off when the light is green or yellow. Or when nobody is in the intersection.
The issues are simple.. Poor technology and poor impliementation of technology.
Stop light camras shouldn't even be used to ticket but just to find the best places to put police officers. Ticketting really works best so I'm told when an officer pulls a person over just after the violation...
In the UK just put in better camras. See where it's NOT working and fix it. Attend to abuses.
Change policys. Change technologys.
It could do a lot of good and it could do a lot of evil. It's just a matter of making it work.
As to the teen suiside comment made elsewhere.
A bathtub of water, sleeping pills, drug overdose, "huffing", knifes... Outside of gangs kids don't have a whole lot of access to guns to start with... suisidal teens pritty much have to make due with what they have... and thats more likely to be a bathtub full of water than a gun.
In the end the best solution to general crime is to arm the population.
Terrorism is a diffrent issue I'm affrade... Terrorists plan ahead... if being shot and killed is a posability the terrorist just plans for it and dose his deal anyway.
life during wartime. (Score:2)
What disturbs me is not the cameras of Briton, it is the way Briton embraced them. The argument that we Americans are bred different does not hold with me. America has shown you and I annoying knee-jerk and herd mentalities before.
What scares me is the wave of laws that will follow, the laws that decide exactly how we will define "public safety" against "privacy".
The ability to make your home transparent using 3rd and 4th generation thermal imaging is already in the possession of your local Feds, some of our larger police department's intelligence units have them as well.
The resolution on these devices is frightening. If people knew just how scary it is to watch a person as he/she wanders through what he/she thinks is their personal life behind closed doors... well we could say that Americans would find it unacceptable. But after 9/11 and with a PR campaign. Well who knows?
Technology will always continue to peal away the walls that separate your life from mine. Privacy then becomes more of an ethereal definition. We as Americans will have to decide how we want that defined. Lets hope we don't let fear mongering, terrorists, and dubious PR types do it for us.
The irony of Bush's sound-bites (Score:2, Insightful)
The irony is that the terrorists did attack our freedoms, though not in any way Bush may have meant. They attacked our freedom, and the freedom of nearly everyone around the world, by giving a large amount of power to people like Bush. After the attacks in September, few people (and certainly no politician) would dare question that Americans must sacrifice civil liberties for the promise of "security".
And around the world, governments declared they were in solidarity with the U.S. government - China vowed to step up their efforts against "terrorists, extremists, and separatists" (separatists, as in Tibetans...), the Israeli government killed some more Palestinians, Russia vowed to step up their efforts to crush opposition in Chechnya, etc.
If Bin Laden wanted to decrease the power of George Bush, he made a serious miscalculation -- Americans are uniting behind Bush's efforts to take away our civil liberties, and around the world, everyone seems happy to allow Bush to bomb the hell out of anyone he wants.
Unfortunately, if "freedom will be defended," it won't be by the likes of Bush -- that will be up to us.
Cost big $$$, provides little coverage ... hmmm (Score:2)
It seems to me the question should be asked:
Will this actually solve the problem?
Basically, it costs a terrorist a few dollars in Theatrical Makeup to thwart your multi-million dollar security. Doesn't sound like a very good idea if they are doing it for the reasons that they say
Re:Cost big $$$, provides little coverage ... hmmm (Score:2)
I've seen this "easy to defeat" argument, and it doesn't hold water. First of all, the matching system use bone structure.
But second, and most significantly, these things don't have to be perfect to be useful. Why do we look for and collect fingerprints? It's trivial to defeat fingerprint detection... just wear gloves. Even easier than than theatrical makeup. Yet, fingerprints identify criminals every day.
I think a lot of people forget that -- almost by definition -- criminals are stupid. Just because they can do something doesn't mean they will do something. And being able to create a believable disguise requires a much higher talent level than just wearing gloves.
Re:Cost big $$$, provides little coverage ... hmmm (Score:2)
"I think a lot of people forget that -- almost by definition -- criminals are stupid. "
I believe we have heard you make similiarly poigniant points before about other things. This statement is just plain absurd of course. First it substitutes 'criminals', when the discussion is clearly about 'terrorists.' Second, it suggests that a group of extremely stupid people organized the September 11th attack. Finally, it ignores the fact (yes-siree this is a honest and true bonafide fact guy) that the potential for abuse of this system far outweighs the advantage(s) it affords.
Re:Cost big $$$, provides little coverage ... hmmm (Score:2)
First it substitutes 'criminals', when the discussion is clearly about 'terrorists.'
The article was specifically about how well cameras worked for criminals. But in any case, I highly doubt that the average rank-and-file terrorist is highly intelligent. Certainly the people who planned it were, but the guys who implement it are not going to be super-criminals. For proof, look at all the evidence these guys left around. They are most likely a lot like cult members -- low intelligence and easy susceptibility to strong personalities and religious doctrine.
We shouldn't underestimate these people, but we shouldn't overestimate them, either. This is not some comic book world where everyone is masters of disguise.
Finally, it ignores the fact (yes-siree this is a honest and true bonafide fact guy) that the potential for abuse of this system far outweighs the advantage(s) it affords.
I don't buy into "slippery slope" and "potential abuse" arguments. If it requires protections against abuse, then implement those protections. But "potential for abuse" is not an argument against anything.
Sinister Conspiracy Theory (Score:2)
In fact, I have uncovered the truth, and it is far, far, more horrid...
The network of monitoring systems across the UK were actually secretly sponsered by the secrative NewWorldDocumentary film co. They have drawn up plans to turn the entire UK into one huge reality TV program "Bigger Brother". It will run for 200,000,000 weeks, and each week, you - the American audience - will vote one UK citizen to be deported immidiatly to Australia (current favourite to win - Tony Blair).
For the next 350,000 years, all you will be able to watch on TV is english people scratching their arses, eating deep fried cod & chips, smoking woodbine, discussing shelly's hairdo in eastenders and talking rubbish after 7 pints of stella.
Enjoy
Smile (Score:2)
Technology - it's all in how you use it.
Re:Smile - likely abuses (Score:2)
This will occur ahead of the image arriving at the watchers, or, in Dave Brin's society, the public.
Cynical, a'int I? Or is it just the pragmatism of inevitability.
Iris-scanning is dubious (Score:4, Interesting)
Stopping Prisoner Rapes (Score:2)
Amazing, isn't it, that instead, we get surveillance of people who are not even suspected of a crime.
Re:Stopping Prisoner Rapes (Score:3, Offtopic)
You don't get it, do you?
The fear of anal rape in prison is one of the
things that makes it undesirable.
The threat of anal rape in prison is one of the
main weapons in the war on drugs.
US Law is enforced, ultimately, by the threat of anal sex...
Re:Stopping Prisoner Rapes (Score:2)
Prisoner rapes could be stopped (with surveillance cameras in the prisons)
fishbowl responded:
You don't get it, do you?
The fear of anal rape in prison is one of the things that makes it undesirable.
No, I get it just fine -- but above all else, government authority is about monetary authority [geocities.com].
... assumes terrorists don't disguise themselves (Score:2)
From the article:
There is a very serious problem: People in power want to use technology, but they don't understand it. Lack of understanding doesn't stop them! They just charge ahead with laws like the DMCA and other craziness.
There is considerable use of the feelings surrounding the September 11 terrorism to get support for goals that they wanted to accomplish anyway, but that would not be supported before.
ABC News article: "Abu Sayyaf
This is rather annoying ... (Score:2)
That's not all biometrics is. "Biometrics" generally just means "biological measurement," and is a wide-ranging field of study covering biostatistics, various types of bioengineering (e.g. the development of various medical monitoring devices), clinical data analysis, etc. Its use in this context is just another example, IMO, of PHB's adopting buzzwords they barely understand. (Cf. "six sigma" -- how many biztypes can tell what a sigma is, or why six of them is important?) I think it's very unfortunate that biometrics scientists, most of whom are decent people working on research that will serve only to help people, will find themselves lumped in with assholes who want to make a quick buck (or quid) helping their governments take away the rights of their fellow citizens.
Soon... (Score:2)
Of course, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Isn't that right?
Wave of the future (Score:2, Insightful)
Real world security is no different from network security really. You try to protect vulnerable systems from unauthorized access and damage. To accomplish that, you use identity-establishing mechanisms, authentication procedures, and security policies (or laws). These things have been around forever, but technology is making them a whole heck of a lot more efficient -- and we probably need it.
Picture a world in which everyone is genetically fingerprinted and face printed. Seems scary, of course, but picture it. There would be cameras everywhere tracking your whereabouts by signalling your location to a giant database. If an authorized agent of the government wanted to know where you've been, who you were with, and who they were with, etc., it would be a simple query.
Just about any crime that involves even so much as a lost hair or a few skin cells would be immediately, conclusively solved. Would-be hijackers would lose their right to fly the minute they had lunch with bin Laden's stepsister's cousin. O.J. would not be golfing.
People would commit fewer crimes and would shun those who do. In short, it would once again be like living in a small isolated village where everyone knows everyone else.
How do you prevent abuse of the system? First ask yourself if it is easier to control a well-defined system or a pell mell system like we currently have. If the system were well defined, you would have the right, as in credit reporting, to dispute your record and to know what it is.
You wouldn't have government officials asserting that someone was "linked" to something by who knows what vague circumstance. The database would be authoritative and objective. If you were caught on camera on more than one occasion with someone, that's a link. If that someone later proves to be Timothy McVeigh, yes, you have some explaining to do.
A (legislatively and technologically) well-defined automated system of identification, authentication, authorization, and tracking might better protect freedoms than the current hodgepodge of manual and automated systems. The current system of law enforcement is way, way too subject to abuse by its all-too-human participants. Keeping someone off of a flight because they look "Arabic" is discrimination. Keeping someone off of the same flight because they had lunch with bin Laden's stepsister's cousin is reasonable.
Would security automation make it difficult to speed, throw your cigarette butts out of your car window, smoke marijuana, hire a prostitute, dump your car battery in the river, etc.? Yes. But if you don't like the laws, change the laws or the penalties for breaking them. There would still be a democracy to enact the laws and a system of human courts to exercise discretion.
The freedoms of nonconformists and minorities would probably be better protected under a better automated security system than under the current semi-automated system. There would be less of a tendency to "profile" people if we knew their real identities, their track record, and whether they were dangerous to us as individuals. It is anonymity that forces us to generalize about others in my opinion.
What color is the sky in your world? (Score:2)
How do you prevent abuse of the system? First ask yourself if it is easier to control a well-defined system or a pell mell system like we currently have. If the system were well defined, you would have the right, as in credit reporting, to dispute your record and to know what it is.
Have you ever actually tried to get an incorrect item removed from your credit report? I've been going back and forth with Equifax for nearly a year. I send them a registered letter, they do nothing. I send another, they do nothing. Then the next time I apply for credit I find out that yet again, I'm being asked to explain this same entry that should have been removed back in January 2001.
By law they're supposed to investigate and if they cannot verify within 30 days that the entry is accurate (meaning they discover it's incorrect or just can't make a positive determination that it's correct), they're required to remove it. Have they done so? Of course not.
Oh well, election year is coming up, might as well give my favorite elected official's office of constituent services something productive to do.
Factual Errors and Data Protection (Score:5, Informative)
"There were cameras on the backs of buses to record people who crossed into the wrong traffic lane."
Erm... no, he probably confused the British meaning 'on the backs of buses' to mean physically located on the back of the bus on the outside, then extrapolated his view on from there. Some double-decker buses do have cameras on them *inside* the bus so they can indenty vandales post event. They don't put cameras on outside of buses.
"We had a match! But no, it was a false alarm. The license plate that set off the system was 8620bmc, but the stolen car recorded in the database was 8670amc"
That is clearly made up... no British numberplate is that format, even private ones. Until last month they were like so : Y123 ABC with the Y denoting the year of registration (Feb 01), they used to be ABC 123Y until the late 70's (reversed). The new ones introduced last month are as the following : BY51 ABC, the BY denotes the registration area (Birmingham in this case) 51 means the car was registered in the second half of 2001, and the ABC is random (exluding rude words). Even going back pre-war they used to be like the following "POP 303".
8670amc or 8620bmc is simply not possible, you never find the letter '8' on any British numberplate because and the format is all wrong.
ANPR (numberplate recognition) was implemented in The City to make companies feel more comfortable after the Docklands bombing.
Facial recognition (the Mandrake system) is only currently used in Newham and is not commonly found anywhere in the country, so some of the exgurations in the article are a little unfounded, however his concerns are quite just. The Mandrake system is utterly fallable though, up until a point that it's laughalbe, there's been quite a few programmes (e.g. Mark Thomas Product) that have clearly ripped the system apart. And since the premise of CCTV lies soley upon perception, Mandrake isn't taken seriously. So I'm not really very concerned at this at all at the moment, the problems they face implementing a reliable system areinsurmountable, give it 20 years then I may take these concerns seriously.
Society itself is still very anonymous if you hang round City's that have cameras then it's pretty easy to see that the cameras have a very limited field of view, if I wanted to get away from them it would be extremely easy. I believe when criminals finally realise how fallible the cameras are they will take no notice of them and since CCTV is purely about perception and nothing else, they will become useless. You are starting to see some very overt criminals that do the crime right in front of the camera without a care, they know very well the vast majority of cameras are not actively monitored, and if they are, the operator has at least two-dozen cameras to monitor. When they show the footage of these criminals the quality is that poor it's impossible to even see who the person is, let alone whether they're male or female.
I'd be more worried about my personal private and data being looked into, ironicly, the data protection laws in the US are very weak, YOUR details can be owned by a company and therefore be sold to the highest bidder and used in various ways. In Europe, data about the person is the property of that person, you simply 'licence' a company to use it when you give up personal details, which can be revoked at any time.
The UK has intensive surveillance in the City's but very strong data protection [dataprotection.gov.uk] laws, the US has the opposite, which means if the US does get cameras it could be a lot more nasty than the UK. I'm amazed how the US seems to value its privacy but does not enshrine laws that reflect those sentiments, corporate interests I guess.
Re:Factual Errors and Data Protection (Score:2, Interesting)
Who really wants to cut crime? (Score:3, Troll)
Do you really think that the police dont know who they are? That people commit hundreds of burglaries a year but still cannot be identified?
Imagine if the cops do catch them, crime drops dramatically, and a year down the line some suit in an office wonders why there are so many policemen when crime is so low and cuts their workforce. Potentially policemen dont want to catch the criminals because they are taking themselves out of a job, just as many corporate departments force themselves to spend their yearly budget - they know if they dont it will be cut.
Re:Who really wants to cut crime? (Score:2)
Like the guys at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who determined worst case for a terrorist attack was a small plane filled with explosives. Who estimated a 0% chance of a terrorist attack on a nuclear plant just months ago. Who make a lot of money by reducing the industry's security costs with optimistic estimates.
People like Hannsen and Ames who worked right inside the FBI and CIA and sold American lives.
Like the congresspeople who believed the airline lobbyists about security being too expensive and are now scrambling for expensive and unworkable systems that make business happy -- like armed but ammoless national guard being stationed around airports at taxpayer expense and face recognition systems that won't work.
I have a proposal. Let's start by requiring all privacy, including financial information, to be surrendered upon taking any position within the government. Then after a few years, when we're pretty sure there aren't any crooks left in government, we'll let them watch us too.
Re:Who really wants to cut crime? (Score:2)
the system we have is the best one so far in the history of the world. Who cares if some dumb texas oil billionaire can get elected by having his brother rig the vote? At least the trains run on time....
Cameras in Canada - Illegal? (Score:5, Informative)
Trickster Coyote writes: Canada's Privacy Commissioner [privcom.gc.ca] has ruled that constant videotaping from police surveillance cameras violates the Privacy Act and that even just monitoring the cameras without taping violates the spirit of the law if not the letter. Says the commish: "...monitoring and recording the activities of vast numbers of law-abiding citizens as they go about their day-to-day lives" is not a legitimate part of police activities. Read the official report [privcom.gc.ca] or news articles from canada.com [canada.com] or The Globe and Mail [globeandmail.com].
Trickster Coyote
"Reality leaves a lot to the imagination." -- John Lennon
Re:Cameras in Canada - Illegal? (Score:2)
Not likely. Their sensibility usually caves in to the current thinking of the US government pretty quickly. If some law is a problem, it will be amended so that it won't be a problem any longer.
cameras in love? (Score:3, Funny)
I hope they didn't mean that literally. I'd hate to think what would happen if the camera saw a pop-under ad for the X10 spycam.
John Cleese's show (Score:2)
I think they're actually talking about Cleese's four-episode series about faces [discovery.com], which did not concentrate on CCTV. There was a short segment in which Cleese tried to fool a surveillance camera by cross-dressing and then by covering most of his face with a tilted hat and large sunglasses. The camera recognized him the first time but not the second.
A solution to the problem... (Score:4, Interesting)
Steve Mann, the father and inventor of the wearable computer has covered this extensively, at wearcam.org there are several papers and perspectives on this. We are under camer all the time. In the UK the police have just added their group of cameras, In the USA there is the same amount of watching being done. Many times you will see traffic monitoring cameras pointing into neighborhoods instead on the highway, in a department store you are visible on at a minimum of 3 cameras at all time. Any US resident that thinks that they are not on camera is nuts. My house has 5 cameras covering the back yar, front yard, driveway, and front and back doors. If you watch the cameras you can also watch my neighors. (Sorry, I'm not gonna have my webserver demolished by slashdot
Steve Mann has every year, the day before Christmas an event called shooting-back day. Very few people have the balls to participate, I did once. You go to stores in a pair, one person videotapes the other person who starts taking photos of the store's and or mall's security cameras. why? to document the person taking photos of cameras being accousted by the store security/management/etc.. They get scared when you watch them watching you.
Only someone with some serious guts and isn't a whiney baby will participate... and it is a helluva rush!
Watch the watchers!
http://wearcam.org/mcluhan-keynote.htm
Candid Cameras: new art forms and dangers (Score:2, Informative)
I agree with Brad Templeton's email essay [interesting-people.org] on why this type of surveillance is dangerous:
"...Mr. Barrett is not alone in wondering why some people are so concerned about their privacy. While many are aware of the tremendous prices that some have paid in oppressive (and even non-oppresive) states due to lack of privacy and surveilance, most people pragmatically feel that these oppressive regimes are either in the past, or not an issue for those in the free world, not when compared to safety from crime.
"There is a great hidden cost to surveilance, however, and it is a cost paid by everyone. When we feel we are being watched we, feel less free. We censor ourselves, and refrain from otherwise perfectly legal activities, when we feel that our activities might be being watched, or worse, recorded either for the government or for the general public, or worst of all, our mothers.
"I include our mothers because I expect all of us understand the freedom one feels away from even our own families. Not that we're doing anything wrong. Just that when we're watched we want to meet other's expectations.
"In other words, we're all a bit shy.
"Cameras everywhere make us feel our public lives are being documented. We've never minded the random strangers who might see us on the urban street. We do mind the idea that goverments and companies and others might be making systematic recordings. When we are watched we are not free to be ourselves.
"That doesn't shut down what everybody approves of, but it does chill the counterculture, and those ready to explore. These explorers are vital to a healthy society.
"Oddly, this happens even if the cameras aren't on, or if what they see is only available to "trusted" officials.
I find this supremely ironic... (Score:2)
I find this supremely ironic, given Kurt Vonnegut's previous use of the term "ring of steel" in Cat's Cradle.
If you don't understand, by all means, go read it.
-Kasreyn
It needs to be said... (Score:2)
This is all OLD NEWS. This wired magazine article [wired.com]covered this, and then some, over 5 years ago!
Not only can this happen, it WILL, everywhere. The only real question is: "Who watches the cameraman?".
-Ben
Re:"Excellent" article... NOT (Score:2, Interesting)
2) "biometric surveillance is being used to keep punks out of shopping malls". Has anyone seen a punk in the UK since the 80s? Didn't think so.
3) "And rather than thwarting serious crime, the cameras are being used to enforce social conformity in ways that Americans may prefer to avoid." - if it's not illegal, someone watching the camera output may see the "lack of conformity", but no-one will act - how can they? And others see these people when they're in the camera areas anyway, so what's the difference?
4) "The license plate that set off the system was 8620bmc, but the stolen car recorded in the database was 8670amc" - these aren't even in a valid UK license plate format! Good accuracy!
5) "database that would include not only terrorists but also all British citizens whose faces were registered with the national driver's license bureau" - unlike in the USA (oh my how much privacy there is there), most drivers licenses in the UK don't even have photos on them! They're not used for identity. We don't have to show ID to have a casual drink at a bar or buy cigs. Talk about lack of privacy...
6) "Ditton notes that the cameras can sometimes be useful in investigating terrorist attacks -- like the Brixton nail-bomber case in 1999 -- but there is no evidence that they prevent terrorism or other serious crime. " - so if they don't *prevent* it, they're worthless? If you catch the people that did it, you prevent them at least from doing it again and can bring them to "justice". This is what happened in the Brixton nail-bombing.
What makes you so in love with the cameras to prompt this flurry of flimsy criticisms?
7) "They are ways of putting people in their place, of deciding who gets in and who stays out, of limiting people's movement and restricting their opportunities." - so you ban vandals and troublemakers from harassing people in malls. And this is bad, how?
8) "But Britain's experience in the fight against terrorism suggests that people may give up liberties without experiencing a corresponding increase in security." - thieves and muggers are being caught by this system (and others). That certainly increases my security.
9) "transparent society -- one where neighbors can peer into each other's windows using the joysticks on their laptops. " - is ANYONE talking about this? Didn't think so! This guy needs to read his own article.
I'll grant, you do seem to love them cameras! Flimsy criticisms, though.
Re:"Excellent" article... NOT (Score:2)
No, it's not a correct format. Number plates in UK are one of:
So the cited plate of 8670amc couldn't be correct. Perhaps it was "B 670 AMC" for example.
p.s. I haven't been in UK for about 5 years. I assume they are about to run out of year letters again. What format comes next I wonder...
Re:Downward Spiral of Increased Surveillance (Score:2)
It causes an increase in known incidents of crime. I.E. more crimes are found out this way. It doesn't necessarily increase the actual crime rate.
I suppose honest people dont mind their affairs being spied on
I consider myself to be an honest person, and I'll be damned if I'm going to give up my privacy. My privacy is very important to me...do not take it away. And no, I am not a criminal. I just value certain principles, one of them being privacy. Yes, I would mind being spied on.
Big Brother (Score:2)
They were hailed as the people's technology, a friendly eye in the sky, not Big Brother at all but a kindly and watchful uncle or aunt.
The part I don't get is "not Big Brother at all". To the proles of 1984, Big Brother was not the menancing symbol of omnipresent totalitarianism it is to us. Big Brother was the helpful and benevolent figure protecting us all from the evils of thoughtcrime. Replace "thoughtcrime" with "terrorism", and I don't see a single difference between Big Brother and the British system.
"Big Brother is watching you" is scary to us only in light of 1984.
Consider "Big Brother" without its 1984 connotation. It's a fairly comforting term that conveys the image of a loving older sibling who knows what's good for you and is strong enough to protect you. Ever heard of "Big Brothers, Big Sisters"? It's a mentoring program for at-risk youths that pairs them with a "Big Brother" who's there not to spy on them, but to provide guidance and support. Orwell purposely and knowingly took this meaning and twisted it into something perverse, the way politians have always done--all the bills that are superficially designed to "protect the children" while imposing on civil liberties, for example.
"CCTV: Watching for you" should be no less frightening to us than Big Brother's comforting reminder.
Re:That's just too funny (Score:2)