Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

Record the Surveillance Cams 33

Posted by timothy from the say-cheese-please dept.
GruffGoat writes "Have you noticed all the video cams watching your every movement? Perhaps we are becoming accustomed to always being watched. University of Toronto Associate Professor Deibert has an excellent idea of setting aside a day in which we take notice of being watched. Here's a Wired article about taking pictures of the surveillance camers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Record the Surveillance Cams More

Record the Surveillance Cams

Comments Filter:
  • Now this is an idea I like. It'll prove a point and just happens to be violence-free. Unfortunately, pulling such a stunt in Tokyo would have me permanently under SURveillance, and that's something I wish to avoid.

    This is a stunt best avoided in a police state.
  • they have a problem with you taking photographs of security cameras with a laser pointer, followed by a nice digital camera..

    This shouldnt be against the law, heck its taking a picture. This should be fun to do on Christmas Eve, it's not like I ever need to get back into the mall..

    I never go there anyways.
  • What happens when they start installing cameras to monitor the people who are monitoring the cameras?
    • Oh mercy. The recursive Irony. Deibert would love that.

      I'm actually one of his students. I was a participant this summer in a reality TV show he did this summer for public television in Ontario, Into America [citizenlab.org], about Canadian students traveling around the US. The previous year there was one about students trying to fight for recognition of neglected diseases. Both were organised through his lab [citizenlab.org]. Interestingly enough, one of the other things going on in his lab is work on the monitoring of the Chinese governmental firewall, and the companies that provide the technology for it. This seems to be a hot topic what with the Amnesty report that came out a couple days ago and was posted here [slashdot.org].

      Always interesting to see the Professor in the news. He seems to have a knack for it. I thought Slashdot would be my last refuge... apparently not.

  • Of Course .. (Score:3, Funny)

    by McCarrum ( 446375 ) <mark.limburg@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Thursday November 28, 2002 @08:19PM (#4777666)
    Who watches the watchers who watch the watchers watching the watchmen.

    Err ... my brain hurts ..

  • Why not take pictures of everyone on the street as well? After all they're all watching you; maybe not as overtly as the cameras but they do notice and they have longer memories than the cameras. The majority of crimes are solved, not by the police watching a grainy, out-of-focus security video but by interviewing witnesses.

    If you're bothered about being watched, then don't go out. It isn't worth complaining about a few cameras, they're harmless.

  • cameras everywhere (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MacAndrew ( 463832 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @08:30PM (#4777685) Homepage
    The number of cameras is staggering. In addition to those familiar weatherproof housings around city buildings, some of which pivot and zoom, there are the ATM cameras (which can see surprisingly far, I recall a carjacking solved with one), store surveillance (Timothy McVeigh was taped at a McDonald's), traffic enforcement cameras (the DC snipers were photographed by one during their spree, running a red light -- but this was not discovered in time), etc. Many patrol cars now carry cameras; I don't know whether they turn them on outside of stops, where they are useful to deflect charges of police civil rights abuses or, in one case I saw, to tape an officer being murdered.

    Note that I'm not a nutty civil libertarian (cut out the nutty part): the parenthetical examples above illustrate desirable uses of these cameras. But I also wonder, when the technology is developed to read license plates and recognize faces, if there won't be a temptation to track someone everywhere they go, without warrant or even any particular suspicion. I don't think this would violate the Fourth Amendment as currently interpreted. Imagine how use it would be for some civil actions, say to prove adultery.

    Interesting that security guards would be upset at your taking pictures of cameras. Granted you might be casing the joint, but I also feel that if they can film you because you're in public, the reverse should be true.

    Some group (applied autonomy) designed software to help the camera-shy navigate Manhattan's 2400 or so cameras -- a controversial project [appliedautonomy.com].

    • Re:cameras everywhere (Score:3, Informative)

      by jon787 ( 512497 )
      but I also feel that if they can film you because you're in public, the reverse should be true.

      The problem is that a mall is private property, not public property.

      • Oh, I know. This is just quid pro quo. (And by "in [the] public" I meant as opposed to "in your home.")

        In some cases, taping you without your consent, private property or not, can be problematic as an invasion of privacy -- e.g., in the dressing room, in the bathroom. Your entry on the property doesn't mean all privacy bets are off.

    • Re:cameras everywhere (Score:3, Interesting)

      by YDdraig ( 302234 )
      I like the idea but rather suspect the Powers that Be would be not happy with people photographing cameras.

      Out of interest I totted up how many I passed on my walking route to work this week. It was 23.

      I live in Swansea,a not particuarly large city in Wales. I live near the city centre and work on the outskirts which probably affects the number of cameras I pass. I also pass the police station en route which definately bumps up the figures.

      9 of those were at traffic lights and petrol stations.
      4 on or in shops.
      2 on houses.
      2 on the police station.
      4 on the side of a particuarly paranoid chinese takeaway.
      1 at the railway station.
      1 (which bothered me) on the side of a school, watching the playground.


      And then I arrived at work and was promptly checked out on the cameras before I was let in.(I'm a technician in primary schools)
      • An hour ago I was driving by the Pentagon on one of the smaller highways and saw a sign saying, "Entering Pentagon Reservation / Unauthorized Photography Prohibited." For the unfamiliar (I'm trying not to be U.S.-centric!), the Pentagon is a five-sided military HQ hit last year by a hijacked airplane -- hence their heightened concern for security. However, it seemed like a weird rule, that you could not take pictures even on the no-man's-land of the highway or adjacent grassy areas. But given the armed presence here and there around the perimeter these days, I won't be yanking their chains, thank you.

        America: Home of the (surveilled) free and land of the (cowed) brave

        (Eat that, Carnivore. :)

  • What is the point? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by iq in binary ( 305246 ) <iq_in_binary@hot ... m minus language> on Thursday November 28, 2002 @08:47PM (#4777744) Homepage
    Aside from extreme paranoia.

    Security cameras should be welcome in our consumer lives. Aside from the people who carry intent to break the law, the rest of us don't really have to worry.

    They serve as an alibi if need be, proof of our law-abiding citizenship.

    Now, as for our private lives, that is our business and our business alone.

    But that is not the focus here.
    • That's kind of the point--if the police and mall security aren't doing anything wrong, why do they object to ordinary citizens taping them? What I can't wait for is when every day becomes World Sousveillance Day. It'll be like living in a Transmetropilitan comic book! Who wouldn't love that?

    • It cuts many ways. If there is enough problems with crime that they need cameras, then I as a consumer want them to have it because crime makes the prices honest people pay for goods.

      However you need to ask yourself if you really want to be in a place with enough of a crime problem that they can justify cameras, since a store without cameras could in theory lower prices. (Which would likely amount to a penny on just one item, but the theory stands)

      If I'm a crime victom though, I would love to have someone nearby have it on videotape, and I don't care why they were taping, just so long as the police/courts get a copy.

      Then again, it all cuts into privacy. I like to be ananymous.

    • Security cameras can be useful in preventing crime and generally make people feel a lot safer. The UK is supposed to have more survellance cameras than any other country and most of the time I don't even notice them.

      But if you're on the back of an empty train trying to make out with your girlfriend they sure are damn intrusive.

      And trying to find an alley in London that's out of public view and not covered by CCTV is nigh on impossible (without resorting to tresspass).
    • Surveillance cams have many legitimate and worthwhile uses. No argument there.

      ----Aside from the people who carry intent to break the law, the rest of us don't really have to worry----
      Civil liberties exist not to protect citizens from criminal intent but to protect citizens from those with the power to enforce.

      People do however have a sense of privacy or anonymity even in a crowd. Even though some people are aware of cameras watching them, I think most people forget or ignore their presence. Taking photos of the cams is a way to focus people's attention.

      If a person is directly watching you for any extended period of time, I think you would become aware of that person and modify your behavior. With surveillance cams, you (or your beautiful wife, or your innocent children) can easiliy overlook the fact that you are being watched.

    • Everything is fine as long as they do it to "them", the law-breaking "others".

      As we should have learned in Germany 50 years ago "them" and "others" become "us" real fast if you do not watch the government closely and put a stop to their power.

  • I got kicked out of our mall for something like th (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jon787 ( 512497 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @09:29PM (#4777874) Homepage Journal
    We were doing a "video scavenger hunt" and one of the things to find was a glass elevator. The closest one is in our mall so we went in and video taped it. Needless to say we had a nice run in with your friendly neighborhood rent-a-cops.
  • Why December 24th? The malls are closed then where I live. Besides that, seems like a fun idea.

  • Wow (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by Strange Ranger ( 454494 )

    I LOVE Dilbert! I wonder if he got this idea from his garage man?

  • Sousveillance means "to view from below." (Score:3, Funny)

    by cei ( 107343 ) on Friday November 29, 2002 @03:18AM (#4778866) Homepage Journal
    So what they're really saying is, "World Up-Skirt Day"...
  • What would be interesting to see are maps produced from the data in the photographs.

    It would be useful to see a map of the local city and find out just how much is covered by CCTV.
  • But I spent a lot of time scratching various body parts in front of them (along with the occasional booger, well-aimed).

    They did away with the cameras last year.

Slashdot Top Deals

"How to make a million dollars: First, get a million dollars." -- Steve Martin

Close