Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

Public Warnings For Public Video Surveillance 37

Posted by timothy from the steve-mann-has-to-wear-a-sandwich-board dept.
pipingguy writes "The standards project aims to develop a sign which will make apparent surveillance operations using video cameras in public spaces and provide details of the body responsible for the data recorded. It is hoped to produce a simple, easily understood symbol, possibly using design elements already used in other standardised signs. An image (e.g. a camera) and text could be combined, and agreement will have to be reached on the typeface, size and colour of the wording to be used, as well as on its contents."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Public Warnings For Public Video Surveillance More

Public Warnings For Public Video Surveillance

Comments Filter:
  • "Video Surveillance in use" or "Smile! You're on candid camera!"

  • These warnings appear to only apply to Germany (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lightspawn ( 155347 ) on Monday June 23, 2003 @09:52PM (#6280695) Homepage
    Maybe something like warchalking would be in order for the rest of the world?

    • exactly. I put together a few glyphs here [karchner.com].
      • The "Private Surveillance" Icon might be a bit more difficult to see without fill-in. There are also several other things that could be noted, such as (including yours) whether the surveillance is:

        Public (gov't) or Private (business/personal)

        Monitored or Recorded

        Publically available (can you check the records)

        Constant or only within certain hours
        Also including ownership information would be nice, such as who's recording and how can they be contacted. Gov't surveillance can be done by third-parties

  • Proposed Symbol . . . (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dausha ( 546002 ) on Monday June 23, 2003 @09:53PM (#6280705) Homepage

    How about a triangle, similar to the one used as warning markers for US farm equipment, and a pair of circles looking like binoculars perhaps resembling the infinity symbol (Slashdot is afraid to let me use "& infin;"). The triangle gives warning, the binoculars suggests you're being watched, the infinity symbol resemblance to say "we're always watching you."

    If you're really concerned, in one of the circles, put the sillhouette of a woman--you peeping Tom, you.

  • cam chalking? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheRoss ( 28211 ) * on Monday June 23, 2003 @09:55PM (#6280717) Homepage
    I propose that we don't leave a task this important to the powers that be- we need to put together a set of simple symbols that can be marked with chalk or spray paint, in the spirit of (but a bit more subversive than) War chalking [warchalking.org].

    It'd be best not to let the cam-chalking and warchalking symbols overlap, otherwise you would have confusion. The government would have hours of video tape of people walking around with laptops trying to find a WiFi signal.

    http://www.karchner.com/update/archives/000192.h tm l

  • False sense of privacy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cloudless.net ( 629916 ) on Monday June 23, 2003 @09:57PM (#6280730) Homepage
    When the sign gets implemented, I think we will be surprised by how we are being closely watched. But when we don't see a warning sign, can we really assume there is no camera?

    • Re:False sense of privacy (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      A group called the Surveillance Camera Players has been mapping [notbored.org] cameras in New York City, and has instructions [notbored.org] for making your own such maps. They found that the number of surveillance cameras in Times Square [notbored.org] grew from 75 in 1998 to 258 in 2002.
  • We use the Eye in the Pyramid or maybe a swastika

    Both are fairly creepy.

  • Not Enough. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bellings ( 137948 ) on Monday June 23, 2003 @10:14PM (#6280854)
    It's not enough to ask, "is this location being watched by a public agency." The question that must be answered is, "how can I get a copy of the recording."

    If these are public cameras, being paid for by public funds, with the justification that they are recording public space, then only one conclusion is possible. Every person must be allowed complete and uncensored access to these cameras. There can be no argument that anything recorded by these cameras should not be available to the public. Any argument to that effect would imply immediately that these cameras are not recording public information, but are recording something else entirely.

    If these cameras are not, in fact, public cameras recording public actions in public places, freely available to any and all members of the public, then they simply should not exist.

    • Re:Not Enough. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by qqtortqq ( 521284 )
      So if you are standing in the middle of a street, with a camera on you, and your pants accidentally fall down. You would prefer your friends be able to order a copy of the incident on VHS, instead of this accident only being seen by the people around you and a few persons watching the camera who are used to seeing embarrasing stuff on an hourly basis? You would prefer that ANYONE can watch your public actions, rather than a few trained security guards?

      I'm all for an oversight board or something, but your

      • Re:Not Enough. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bellings ( 137948 )
        You would prefer that ANYONE can watch your public actions

        You've perfectly defined "public actions." Was this intentional?

        You're perfectly happy letting some $11 an hour security guards build their own person "america's raciest street videos" for their own wanking pleasure?

        You would have no problem with someone following you around every moment you're in public, watching you closely, and keeping notes, as long as that person has a shiney badge on. However, you want to be absolutely certain that no-one

        • Or mimes. It could be worse. You could be followed around the park by a bunch of mimes.

          As for the "raciest street videos", there was an affair in (Michigan? Minnesota? Wisconsin?) a few years back where highway patrolmen were using the drivers license database to help each other stalk girls they liked.

          And where do you think the recorded material for all the COPS clone TV shows comes from? World's stupidest drivers, crooked employees, whatever. The material is already all over TV-land (especially h

      • Re:Not Enough. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by hether ( 101201 )
        Who said anything about allowing copies? I think the post is referring to something like the open records law that gives us access to public documents. You could go to the courthouse and ask to watch a copy of the tape if you so choose, not make copies and distribute it to your friends. He/she is perfectly on target with the comment that if we as taxpayers are expected to finance this, then this must be a provision.
        • Who said anything about allowing copies?

          That would be bellings (137948)

          He/she is perfectly on target with the comment that if we as taxpayers are expected to finance this, then this must be a provision.

          While a few people have focused entirely on the government doing it, as I understand it, they want those signs to be visible where anyone is doing it, including businesses or individuals. I'm not convinced that copies should be made available to the general public regardless of who did the filming.

          • Who said anything about allowing copies?
            That would be bellings (137948)

            You're right. My mistake. I mistakenly assumed he meant somthing similar to what I was talking about when it looks like he meant anyone and everyone having copies. I don't agree with the idea that the video tape should be handled in this way. In fact, I really believe that the government really has no business doing this kind of stuff anyway. I was thinking though that if they did though that we certainly want a way to have access to

    • Re:Not Enough. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by violent.ed ( 656912 )
      Well you could allways put up a TV screen near the bottom of the pole in clear view showing the actual video that is currently being recorded. Sorta like in conveniece stores where you can see your (and my) ugly mug on cam.

      Of course the TV would have to be encased in some sort of plexiglass box or sumthin to prevent vandals from smashing the screen with rocks... and sum non-stick stuff that they make those neat shirts out of (the ones where the milk just rolls off the sleeve) so they cant spray paint ov
    • This is a subset of a proposal I first heard several years ago: make all data collected about citizens by the government (exempting perhaps ongoing criminal investigations) public. The theory is, if people know that the information from their annual tax return, for example, will be available on demand, they won't let the government collect the information. Of course, this idea completely misses the voluminous information collected by private entities. Big Brother is more likely to be a corporation than
    • If we were to use your logic, then ANYTHING paid for by the public should be publicly available (including your SIN/SSN, Criminal/Traffic records, education history, tax hisory, etc.. these are ALL paid for by tax payers). There's a thin line between parania and idiocy. If cameras are being used to monitor PUBLIC areas for PUBLIC safty, then what's the problem? Why should you or anyone else who is not working for the group that is monitoring public safy see the tapes? Mabe your looking for your g/f chea

    • Re:Not Enough. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by JuggleGeek ( 665620 )
      There can be no argument that anything recorded by these cameras should not be available to the public and If these cameras are not, in fact, public cameras recording public actions in public places, freely available to any and all members of the public, then they simply should not exist.

      That is complete nonsense.

      Eventually, I think cameras can help with a lot of the problems we have today. The snipers in Maryland would have been caught faster if every person had a camera on their car. Someone in the

  • The preferred method of marking is... (Score:5, Funny)

    by TheSHAD0W ( 258774 ) on Monday June 23, 2003 @10:44PM (#6281080) Homepage
    A bunch of wires hanging down, and smashed electronics and lenses lying on the ground beneath them.
  • Considering the amount of cameras around nowadays, perhaps it might be cheaper to only have the symbol where there is no surveillance?

  • I cant beleive I'm the first one to suggest this

    Surely it should be a poster of a large black-moustachio'd man with the slogan "Big Brother Is Watching You" undreneath. A poster so constructed that the eyes follow you whearever you walked...

    (1984 anyone?)

  • Signs (Score:3, Funny)

    by Ratbert42 ( 452340 ) on Tuesday June 24, 2003 @08:35AM (#6283543)
    When I was in college, a certain vending machine area had signs that said "AREA UNDER VIDEO SURVEILLANCE". We never could see a camera anywhere. So we stole the sign.
  • These cameras are already placed everywhere. Since they have great deterrent and follow-up trial value for crimes such as shoplifting, etc., and really very little for things such as one-time major events (bank robberies, terrorism) will CamChalking be a crime? If it isn't marked by the sign they're talking about, it must belong to some secret organisation (i.e. CIA, FBI, RIAA) and wouldn't they want to make public disclosure of their location an illegal act?

    I think that the sigil should include an indic

  • I think most people in the UK (any maybe elsewhere) would understand this logo [channel4.com] straight away.

Slashdot Top Deals

As the trials of life continue to take their toll, remember that there is always a future in Computer Maintenance. -- National Lampoon, "Deteriorata"

Close