Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

Traffic Cams Co-opted for Surveillance 67

Posted by michael from the eye-in-the-sky dept.
Aardpig writes "The Register has a brief piece reporting that some traffic-monitoring CCTV cameras in London are offline today, for "operational reasons so that maintenance can be performed". Coincidentally, or not, the offline cameras happen to lie along the route of today's May Day demonstrations. As The Reg points out, the same happened earlier this year, during two of the anti-war demonstrations which took place in the capital. The UK is already one of the most monitored states in the world, as far as CCTV monitoring goes. Does this bode ill for our future privacy, or is this a necessary measure to maintain safety at large protests?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Traffic Cams Co-opted for Surveillance More

Traffic Cams Co-opted for Surveillance

Comments Filter:

  • No Privacy Possible in a Public Place. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cloak42 ( 620230 ) on Thursday May 01, 2003 @08:33AM (#5851928) Homepage
    If you're in public and you're doing something, it's not a matter of privacy. It is by definition impossible to have privacy when everybody else is there, too.

    So if the government wants to preempt the use of a surveillance camera to keep tabs on a public location, I see no problem with that.

    Now, if the government turned one of those cameras toward my bedroom window, I might get a little miffed.
    • Fair enough. We're the ones that are cut off though, not the government. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/travel/jamcams/north_c entral.shtml [bbc.co.uk]

    • Re:No Privacy Possible in a Public Place. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by missing000 ( 602285 ) on Thursday May 01, 2003 @08:59AM (#5852078)
      Privacy is not the issue.

      Access to information is the issue
      The government either wants to keep the parade quiet, and / or they want the ability to beat and gas the crowd without people watching it live.

      Any government that abuses people in the name of "privacy" is really evil.

      • Re:No Privacy Possible in a Public Place. (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Or they want to keep their servers from getting /.ed by all the people who want to watch the parade without going out there themselves or live too far away.

        You people need to get over your frothing paranoia.
        • Or they want to keep their servers from getting /.ed by all the people who want to watch the parade without going out there themselves or live too far away.

          This is the government we are talking about here. Why do they care if there servers are slow? They get special rates on bandwidth that never caps, so the worst thing that could happen is that some people wouldnt be able to see anything. Still better than no one seeing anyting.

          You people need to get over your frothing paranoia.

          Again, t
      • Well, those are the government's cameras, so they presumably can turn them off when they want to.

        But, as far as I know, it's not illegal (yet) for private citizens to own cameras and use them. Where are your cameras? Why isn't there some effort to provide private camera coverage of these demonstrations?

        If the opponents of a protest are smarter and better prepared than you, then who is really to blame? I know that organizing demonstrators can be like herding cats, but somebody has to think of these things

        • Re:No Privacy Possible in a Public Place. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by missing000 ( 602285 ) on Thursday May 01, 2003 @12:29PM (#5853845)
          Well, those are the government's cameras, so they presumably can turn them off when they want to.

          I don't agree. The government pays for the cameras with money collected from the people, no? If thats the case, then the people deserve equal access when the cameras are placed for civilian use.

          But, as far as I know, it's not illegal (yet) for private citizens to own cameras and use them. Where are your cameras? Why isn't there some effort to provide private camera coverage of these demonstrations?

          There is. It's grassroots, but we are out there. For examples of what I'm talking about, I suggest you look at indymedia [indymedia.org].

          If the opponents of a protest are smarter and better prepared than you, then who is really to blame? I know that organizing demonstrators can be like herding cats, but somebody has to think of these things and get the counter-surveilance implemented.

          There are also real limits imposed by the police when people try to do this. They take your cameras, arrest you, beat you, etc. I'd like to get cameras mounted from above, where they are hard to get at, and broadcast in real time, but the costs plus the government censorship is really prohibitive here.

          I'd even bet that they would consider that kind of observation as some kind of domestic terrorisim.
          • I don't agree. The government pays for the cameras with money collected from the people, no?

            By that argument, everyone should have access to a Harrier or an aircraft carrier for a few minutes a year. Or you should be able to take a nap in the Prime Minister's bed.

            For examples of what I'm talking about, I suggest you look at indymedia

            It's already in my bookmarks. And I make the claim that relying on the cameras of the press, even the alternative press, is not the same as having your own camera.

            They t
            • Well, its certainly clear that you are intent on dissecting my comments until they appear to be weak.

              That's unfortunate, because you seem to have well thought out opinions. You are perfectly entitled to them, but I'd suggest a more objective stance if you wish to convince anyone of anything in the future.
            • He specifically said, "when the cameras are placed for civilian use". As in, "if the cops are going to be using tools on a widespread basis against the very people that paid for them, we're damned well going to get more oversight and accountability than your average piece of military hardware."
              • Well, if those cameras are his, then they must not be turned off then? He doesn't have anything to worry about from the police then?

                WAKE UP. I'm trying to help you. Obviously his opponents are smarter/sneaker/more willing to break laws than he is. If he wants to make a difference in the world he needs to make sure that he's effective. That means paying attention to the world as it IS, not as he imagines that it should be.
      • anyone can have access to that information anyways, because it's PUBLIC.

        that is, ANYONE can go there and film the whole parade if they want..

        at least in Finland, and i suppose in every other european country too, you don't need permission (or notification) for filming in public.

    • That is a simplistic argument (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Legal interpretation will need to be modified to take into better account the simplistic and inaccurate nature of this old canard. There is a qualifiable difference between someone observing you briefly in a public place with their eyes or their other senses, and a camera recording your image for posterity, or encapsulating the salient features of your visage and comparing it with a database of others so as to identify you. The only expectation I have in public is that I will be observed by other HUMANS,
    • I couldn't have said it better myself. Nice statement.
    • Recently the RCMP was admonished for this same type of behaviour. A camera in a clock tower in kelona, BC pointing towards a public park. Canada's Privacy Commissioner investigated and found was in voilation of Part 4 of our Privacy Act ..."Personal information is defined in the Privacy Act as any "information about an identifiable individual that is recorded in any form". An individual caught within the visual range of a video surveillance camera can, in theory, be identified. The captured image reveals in
  • They'll be used for the new hit sexy movie, The Real London Mayday Parade.
  • FOr good or bad, whatever. THe interesting bit is, every time they have a parade/demonstration in the us, they get their pictures taken by chinese guys i vans with high quality camera.

    THey just had one of their members, a U.S. CITIZEN arrested in china, getting off the plane to visit his family. Basically he was arrested for something he did in this country. THE Skylarov case comes to mind. I like how the us and uk are emulating china in their policies.

  • seems logical... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jeffy124 ( 453342 ) on Thursday May 01, 2003 @09:03AM (#5852104) Homepage Journal
    police in many cities worldwide do video surviellence of major demonstrations/protests/etc - but as part of their own defense. Some protest groups, for whatever reason, are quick to say there was undue police force involved if they get arrested, deny things like resisting arrest, etc. The tapes are used to counter those arguments.

    Think I'm off my rocker? Guess what - protest groups bring their own cameras to do their own surveillence of the police. It's used both ways to keep everyone (protesters and police) in check.

    • Re:seems logical... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by andyt ( 149701 ) on Thursday May 01, 2003 @09:25AM (#5852246)
      police in many cities worldwide do video surviellence of major demonstrations/protests/etc - but as part of their own defense. Some protest groups, for whatever reason, are quick to say there was undue police force involved if they get arrested, deny things like resisting arrest, etc. The tapes are used to counter those arguments.

      Think I'm off my rocker? Guess what - protest groups bring their own cameras to do their own surveillence of the police. It's used both ways to keep everyone (protesters and police) in check.

      Seems to me that the difference is that the police can make those cameras "go away" fairly easily.

      Thud! Splat! No more pesky camera.....
      • Yeah, police are truly evil. They exist only to keep the people who gave them their jobs in power. The government loves turning its thugs lose to beat down the working man.
      • Or, sometimes they even take the camera for "evidence". The arguement from the police department is typicialy that you were "interfering" whatever that means.
        You get arrested, released, your camera gets returned empty, and you are never charged.

        What a police state.
      • The obligitory Simpsons reference:

        "As long as everyone is videotaping everyone else... justice will be done." -Marge Simpson
      • I've videotaped public demonstrations here in Los Angeles (on both the pro and anti-war side) and had no problems with the police or others[*]. The police will film protesters for exactly the reasons cited previously.

        It is a fact that even when the police are just doing their job, they look like the heavies. I've seen many cases of protesters deliberately trying to provoke the police, relying on the fact that the cops automatically look like villains.

        D

        [*] I have been mildly assaulted (hit with no injur

    • Re:seems logical... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by skaffen42 ( 579313 )
      The problem is that they are removing the ability of the public to use what is normally a freely available online resource. These 'jamcams' are used by the public to view traffic conditions in London. Go here [bbc.co.uk] for an example.

      Why are they removing access if they don't have anything to hide?

  • Eh, could just be common sense. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Paddyish ( 612430 ) on Thursday May 01, 2003 @10:51AM (#5852958)
    It may not be a coincidence, but that still doesn't make it a big deal. Since there may be a lack of traffic along the parade route, it seems to me that it would be a good time to take the system down for maintenance. There probably won't be a big need for it.

  • If the citizens want to protest CCTV cameras.... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...then let them go out en-mass armed with vaseline and ski masks. Smear the vaseline over the lenses (or paint-ball) and they will become useless. As long as you don't damage the camera, you haven't really hurt anything irreparably.

  • Paranoia? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by BigNumber ( 457893 )
    Isn't it possible that they picked this day for the maintenance because they knew there wouldn't be any traffic to monitor? I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case but it's just as good an explanation as the government taking control for surveillance purposes. Let's not get too paranoid when there are obvious injustices right out in the open.

  • Remember Tiananmen? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    During that peaceful pro-democracy protest, Chinese officials that _weren't_ beating and murdering uncooperative students were setting up video cameras to record the rest. Those faces were broadcast on state television, and almost ALL the protesters were turned in by "loyal patriots".

    In the USA we have freedom of speech and freedom to assemble. When you get down to it, most of our rights exist only because somebody hasn't figured out how to take them away yet. A good example of this was the key escrow sch

  • Their point? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @04:23AM (#5860579) Homepage
    As The Reg has already pointed out, the traffic cameras used for the administration of Central London traffic access dues they are are talking about do not have an appropriate license for surveillance. The upshot of this is that the pictures gathered by the cameras can only be used for the intended purpose of billing drivers who take their cars into Central London The Reg has stated. I take that to mean that even if there was a major incident photographed by one of the cameras it would not be admissable in court anyway.

    So, we have a bunch of roads which are full of marching people instead of essentially stationary cars. What admin worth his pay check *isn't* going to seize the chance to take the system off line and perform any routine maintenance and upgrades that this allows. Plus of course, if there had been a serious incident, you could have simply refused any requests for pictures you can't provide with "sorry, the system was off" and avoid any potential legal/PR quagmire of having the data altogether.

    Seriously, if the security forces in the UK wanted more up to date photos of the more militant members of the crowds, do you think they'd need to co-opt traffic cameras?

    • As The Reg has already pointed out, the traffic cameras used for the administration of Central London traffic access dues they are are talking about do not have an appropriate license for surveillance. The upshot of this is that the pictures gathered by the cameras can only be used for the intended purpose of billing drivers who take their cars into Central London The Reg has stated.

      No. They are traffic monitoring cameras, not the cameras used to enforce Congestion Charging. They are not used for "billin
  • If, as in the past, some (not all) of the mayday protesters took to criminal damage, I'd want to know about it as a taxpayer.

    So the UK has a few cameras that note what you do IN PUBLIC. They help catch CRIMINALS you know. When there's a camera in my house then I'll worry.

    I'm tired of Slashdot YRO advocates painting the UK as a police state.

    • But you don't get to know about it. That's the whole point!
      • I'm confused. Are we complaining that the intrusive, privacy-busting cameras are being taken offline to allow protesters to do what they like without being monitored? Maybe I'm just being a bit thick.

        Sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence.

        • They are still (probably) being monitored. They're only being monitored by the authorities. We don't get to monitor them ourselves, or to see whether the police are behaving themselves.

          But really the problem is that the government (or London Transport at any rate) are acting very suspiciously, and we want to know what they're up to. They are quite clearly disabling those camera because of the demonstration. They had similar "maintanance" for the "stop the war" demonstrations, and the only cameras that
  • Well, if they habitually take down the cameras along a protest route for "maintence" before each protest then actual terrorists just need to wait for the next planned protest and move stuff into place when those cameras shut down. Chuckle.

    -
  • It took me a long time to realize the game of the anti-activist squad. There is a certain cost in time and possible bad publicity (the latter turning into internal pressure on the person responsible inside the organization) for 'taking out' an activist.

    So, the goal is to find those who are organisers, who get other people to attend and generally make things happen- but who do not have the economic or political resources to defend themselves effectively.

    This is ultimately the danger of modern surveil
  • ...this sort of problem. If a govt official takes action that is deemed to be clearly against the interests of public, or if he takes some action found to be clearly illegal, we should publicly execute him, after a fair trial in a recognized court of law.

    Public service as a politician or high appointed official is supposed to be public service, and just like those who serve in the armed forces are sometimes required to give up their lives, so too should other govt workers such as politicians be forced to g

Slashdot Top Deals

It is better to travel hopefully than to fly Continental.

Close