Sousveillance in Seattle - Watching the Watchers 489
Eh-Wire writes "At the recent ACM Conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy, Steve Mann - cyborg numero uno - led a troop of conference attendees on a surveillance camera hunt and digital capture. Their antics confounded rent-a-cops in a downtown Seattle shopping mall who had difficulty with the concept of having their surveillance cameras surveilled."
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does this make sense to anyone?
Taking pictures of cameras taking pictures of you is not keeping a record of your own actions.
Further, unless he's alleging that video will be doctored, the record that is kept of him, privacy issues aside, is just that. How is taking pictures of the devices recording YOU going to prevent them from improperly keeping an accurate photographic record of your own actions. Again, whether they SHOULD be keeping record of your actions is beside the point for this specific question.
All these are - wallets that require someone else to swipe their ID to see your ID, etc. - are just publicity stunts to get people thinking about privacy. Great. People should be thinking about it. But then they jump from the likes of the GAP in a mall to government (???), and apparently liken a lowly employee in the mechanics of either someone who should themselves have to give up personal information for simply asking for identification for whatever purpose (again, the extent that it is appropriate is beside the point).
Seems a little wrongheaded to me.
To say nothing of the fact that almost all malls are private property.
Mann asked the guard why, if the Mont Blanc cameras were recording him, he couldn't, in turn, record the cameras.
Why should a random private mall employee have a philosophical privacy and surveillance discussion with some self-righteous, cynical privacy advocate. Who, by the way, expects exactly what happened, i.e., worthless responses, to happen?
But sure to please and amuse countless slashdotters, I'm sure. (Yeah. Because confusing near-minimum wage mall security is really hard.)
You take a rathter dim view... (Score:5, Insightful)
More then a few of them were quite effective, ex-military and reservists that enjoyed providing protection, whether it was to people, goods or property. They weren't morons incapable of rational or deep philosophical conversations. They just ended up where they ended up and felt comfortable where they were.
Re:You take a rathter dim view... (Score:5, Funny)
You've just described my two cats.
I wouldn't put them in charge of anything, let alone security.
Re:You take a rathter dim view... (Score:2)
Re:You take a rather dim view... (Score:5, Funny)
Just saying, you find all types...
Re:You take a rathter dim view... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, effective or intelligent as they may be, none are inclined to have a gentle philosophical chat about the nature of privacy and security--they're paid
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:You take a rathter dim view... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You take a rathter dim view... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
CLAUDE: I'd like to point out that this tape has not been tampered with or edited in any way. It even has a timecode on it, and those are very hard to fake.
JUDGE: For the benefit of the court, would you please explain "timecode"?
CLAUDE: Just because I don't know what it is
(Ah, the wisdom of Strange Brew.)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Interesting)
In part I feel for what Mann is doing but I have to agree his attempt to throw light on the issue is infantile and silly.
Is there a better way to make the point? Or does the point need more sharpening/definition?
I'm at a loss...
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
But the more I thought about it, the more clever it becomes. It forces people to think about the actions of the cameras based on an action that, in and of itself, is harmless and non-threatening. The fact that people were *threatened* by such a non-threatening, even pointless action should cause them to think long and hard about how they should feel about the impact of the actual surveillance.
So, after futher reflection, I would have to say that their actions are brilliant. Will most people think that deeply about it? Maybe not immediately. But I think that at least *some* people will reflect upon this.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Which brings up a point which is both off-topic and unrelated to this story, you, or your post (so please don't take this as a personal attack):
Consider the set of people who think it is clever or just "not wrong" to, as stated, force someone to think about something. Now consider the set of people who get upset and/or offended when someone "forces" them to think about a religious faith. (The reason I use th
Pledge of allegiance [OT] (Score:5, Interesting)
However, that has little to do with the pledge of allegiance issue which you raise. The issue there is that the pledge is something that is supposed to be shared by all US citizens, and even more pertinently, said by children under the direction of teachers in public schools. In that situation, significant coercion is being applied, on multiple levels, to children to have them say "under god", no matter what their beliefs on the matter, or, for that matter, the beliefs of their parents. Their only alternative, to refuse to say it, is likely to be a socially costly exercise -- the sort of thing that is going to raise people to have strong, even radical feelings on the matter.
This is precisely one of the reasons behind the principle of separation of church and state. You don't want to apply coercion to your own citizens on matters of deep personal belief -- it's only going to get you in trouble.
For 62 years from the time it was written, the pledge was something which could be shared by all citizens, until Congress stepped in and hijacked it in the name of religion. In so doing, they expressly violated the Constitutional clause which reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Congress could get away with that because it happened during the McCarthy era, when religion was seen as a bastion against communism, which was associated with atheism.
Today, there's no excuse for it, and even those of religious faith should recognize that it's not in their own interests to impose such a thing on their fellow citizens. If they refuse to acknowledge that, they are merely setting up an "us against them" situation, and relying on their majority status to be able to have their way. Such people should be ashamed of themselves, especially considering that most of them are Christians, since they are certainly not following the spirit of Jesus Christ on this matter.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd argue the opposite. When someone says the word 'God', I'm never quite sure what they mean. This is true even if the person qualifies it by saying 'the Christian God.' I say this coming from a largely self-taught background in comparative religion.
I find that most people have only the most vague notions concerning this 'God.'
In all seriousness, would you care to say what you mean by the word 'God?'
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Redundant)
These guys are just morons pulling a stupid stunt and wasting people's time.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does this make sense to anyone?
Hell yah it does.
What part is hard to get?
You: Want to hold me accountable for my actions.
Me: Okay. Then, let me keep a perfect record of them.
You: Oh, no- we're going to be watching you, and we're going to control all watching of you.
Me: What if you doctor up some photos of me? How do I defend myself?
You: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. And, further, you never said it.
Me: Wha?
You: See, here's the complete audio recording of our whole conversation.
Me: You cut out everything after-
You: I said that this recording was complete.
Me: But-
You: None of this is happening right now. Move along, citizen.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
>>Taking pictures of cameras taking pictures of you is not keeping a record of your own actions.
People take pictures of places they have been even if *gasp* they arn't in the photos. Our environments are key to our experience. Recording those environments is closely akin to recording your actions even if the camera isn't focused on you.
>>How is taking pictures of the devices recording YOU going to prevent them from improperly keeping an accurate photographic record of your own actions.
Knowing that a record exists is the first step to knowing how it might be used against you. Weather it ever *is* doesn't matter. Just as survelliance prevents crime out of the fear of being caught, counter survelliance deters data manipulation, "accidental loss", or misinterpretation by providing a secondary record.
>>almost all malls are private property
I dislike this statement because it gives rise to a false dichotomy where you only possess rights on public land.
>>Why should a random private mall employee have a
1. For attention as you noted
2. Because even mall security guards are people, with brains, and might be convinced to ignore stupid rules like "No Photographing the Cameras."
-----------
Finally I must remark, while you call Mann a cynic you are utterly wrong. He is the most outrageous kind of idealist. To think that a mall guard could care about privacy rights. Or that normal people can be rallied around works like "Panopticon" or "Kafkaesque." That is brilliant and praiseworthy optimism.
What is truly offensive is an atitude which says that people who work in malls are dumb, corperations can do whatever they want, and ultimately any fight centered on philosophy is stupid and untenable.
That is cynacism of the worst kind.
-Ian
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why shouldn't a lowly clerk who asks for my license need to swipe their own to see it?
My license serves exactly three tasks - It lets me legally drive on public roads; the edge works really well for smoothing the bubbles out from under CD stick-on labels
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Case in point: I'm British, but live in the US. Until very recently I didn't have a US drivers license. That made buying alcohol problematic at times. I'm 29, and look at least 25, and in most places I wasn't carded. But some places have policies, which employees are obliged to follo
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
In NJ, retailers are required by law to card [state.nj.us] (link is to pdf couldn't find html with information). However, retailers only need to card individuals appearing under the age of 35.
Now the part I've never completely understood is that a 16 year old can sell cigarettes, and an 18 year old can transport alcohol, but n
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
In california, for example, they may get hit with:
#
Sale to minors: maximum penalty of $250 and/or 24-32 hours Community Service
#
Sale to minors - 2nd offense: maximum penalty of $500 and/or 36-48 hours of Community Service
So they need to check your id to protect themselves.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, what he was doing didn't have much to do with recording himself. Yeah, it was a pretty pointless excercise. Yeah, it was hypocritical even.
But his point above is valid. He should be able to make a record of his own actions.
Historical point: Last summer there were lots of protestors running around in New York during the Republican Convention. The NY Police effeciently rounded them up and took them away, often on charges of disruption, resisting arrest and whatever else they could think of. But the protestors were smart. They had their own people out there recording the whole thing on Tape. When the cases came to court, they played it back. The protestors were not disrupting anything. They obeyed the police. they didn't resist. 90% of the cases were dropped or thrown out. Did the police bring out their own tapes of what happened? No. The citizens made recordings of themselves (and their friends) and it was very helpfull, specifically against those that were supposed to be serveiling them "fairly".
This goes to Manns point. Those serveiling you may not necessarily use that in your best interest when it does not suite them to do so. It is up to you to do that. And who knows, if you record them, you might see them doing something they shouldn't, like false arrest.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Here is a link to the story of how the lawyers discovered the edited nature of the "evidence".
URL:http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why should a random private mall employee have a philosophical privacy and surveillance discussion with some self-righteous, cynical privacy advocate.
Leaving aside the prejudicial language that makes your remark beg the question -
1. Because that private employee is specially recognized by the state in his job, and his testimony in court is considered expert testimony? Shouldn
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
To say nothing of the fact that almost all malls are private property.
Incorrect sir. Via a famous Supreme Court case from Campbell, California involving the Pruneyard Mall a whole new type of property was created.
One can read about it on wikipedia here [wikipedia.org].
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Nice... (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh, if only world politics worked this way.
U.S: We wish to disarm Iraq.
Iraq: Bzzt. We're sorry, but in order to disarm our weapons, you must disarm your weapons too.
Mann
Confounded rent-a-cops (Score:5, Funny)
Gee, that's tough to do.
Re:Confounded rent-a-cops (Score:2, Funny)
This requires a camera? (Score:5, Interesting)
Good laugh. All they need to do it walk in and LOOK at it. Duh.
in any event, I don't think malls are the best place to start - I think public cameras, being monitored by government agencies, or cameras placed in locations where we live would be a more justified target. Malls have a right to protect their assets from shoplifters. On the other hand, I'd argue that a property manager or government agency doesn't necessarily have the right to watch me as I come and go, who I'm with, or anything else of that nature.
Re:This requires a camera? (Score:2)
Government agencies may not have a right to watch you, but owners of private property have the right to do anything they want... including monitor you in the restroom. If you don't like, don't go there! (By rights, they should have to tell you that you're being recorded. Not sure what the law says on this, but most of those cameras are there as a deterent, so "secret" cameras really don't make any sense.)
Re:This requires a camera? (Score:2, Interesting)
What do catalogs have to do with store display layouts?
Government agencies may not have a right to watch you, but owners of private property have the right to do anything they want... including monitor you in the restroom.
Actually, they don't. The mall may be privately owned but it is a public place (eg, you can't expose yourself in a mall just because it's private property). In a restroom you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" and the owner
Re:This requires a camera? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong, wrong, wrong!
Property owners are not gods! They are required by law to do many things, and are prohibited by law from doing many things. Simply owning property does not mean you can completely control what goes on on that property. Yes, it does give you broad powers over the use of the property, but you do not instantly become a dictator because you own some arbitrarily defined piece of land. This is a very common misconception that property owners love to see spread around.
Re:This requires a camera? (Score:2)
If you're on *my* property you've got exactly two choices:
a) follow my rules, or
b) get the hell off my property
There is no third option and you don't get a vote. The choice is the only thing you get to decide. Deal with it.
Max
Re:This requires a camera? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This requires a camera? (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a test for you. Declare that on your property you don't have to pay taxes. When the tax collector comes by offer him or her your two choices. Post back and let us know how it went when you get out of prison.
Re:This requires a camera? (Score:4, Informative)
"secret" cameras really don't make any sense.)
Some stores have both. Many clothing stores think they have a natural right to have cameras in the changing rooms, but want to hide them because they know many of their customers will disagree.
To reveal hidden cameras, press your face against the mirror. Then press a penlight flush against the mirror to detect partially silvered "one way" mirrors.
Re:This requires a camera? (Score:2)
Beyond that - what's to stop a rival company's agent from simply purchasing the items in question, taking them back to their employer, where they can be examined thoroughly?
Re:This requires a camera? (Score:2)
Re:This requires a camera? (Score:2)
I'm sure there might be exceptions - but in many, cases, a company will install cameras so that people who can't bring themselves to better protect their own assets (their cars, for example) would be afforded an extra measure of security (if in only in theory). Unfortunately, there's a lot of baggage that goes with it - like having everyone's personal business being monitored by some unknown entity. As with any information, you have no idea where this will end up- it's completely out of your control.
Sousveillance (Score:5, Funny)
Philosophical Argument (Score:5, Insightful)
The relationship then of authority to civilian is one of dominance and subordination. The ideas presented at the conference are attempting to redefine that relationship.
Re:Philosophical Argument (Score:2, Funny)
Smoked Glass and all (Score:5, Funny)
used a smoked-glass oval guard tower to induce discipline and good behavior
Sounds an awful lot like Las Vegas casinos to me.
...
Oh wait, you say it was designed for a prision. Oh, I suppose that makes sense too.
It's things like this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's things like this... (Score:2)
I don't know. It seems to me that although his methods are little more than publicity stunts, at least they do get people talking about the issues.
I mean, when was the last time you heard Joe Sixpack considering the implications of being under near constant surveillance?
But . (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But . (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But . (Score:2)
Re:But . (Score:3, Funny)
Mall security, apparently...
And you, and I'm watching you watching them watching us... ad infinitum [penny-arcade.com].
Outrage with no answers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Outrage with no answers (Score:2)
We all know that there are cameras. But do you think the majority of people give thought to just how *many* cameras there are? Or do you think people think about how much they are giving up, versus
Re:Outrage with no answers (Score:2)
But protesting is FUN! (Score:2)
Many people want to feel like they are making a difference, so they get involved with a cause. But they only want to do
Re:But protesting is FUN! (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess I should stop sending bug reports in, then.
I think they missed their mark (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like a bunch of people who are trying to make a good point are basically just making life more difficult for the new generation of blue collar workers who staff service industries and who consider their days blessed if they can get through them uneventfully. Especially middle-layer managers of mall chains, whose job description is basically to make problems go away as quickly as possible before somebody notices.
Then again, when I was slinging burgers as a youth, somebody creating a scene would have been a welcome distraction. Still, I think their point is well-meant but poorly-executed. Most retail chains are going to disallow photography inside the retail space for a number of reasons, most of which your typical manager is utterly ignorant. So the fact that stores were ushering them out is irrelevent. If they were taking pictures of the color of the walls or the brand name of the urinal cakes, they should have expected a similar response.
A cute idea that, like most of these kinds of demonstrations, ultimately makes transparent that the people engaging in these kinds of stunts aren't that bright. I'm all in favor of privacy advocacy but this kind of stuff ... well, at best it raises awareness, at worse it paints privacy advocates as misguided loonies. I question whether or not the stunt is worth the tradeoff, especially since it doesn't really prove or demonstrate anything other than the obvious fact that private retail spaces typically disallow photography of any kind on their grounds.
Immaturity in TFA (Score:4, Insightful)
Illogically, she didn't have a problem with participants pointing their conference bag domes around the store to take photos, just with the handheld cameras.
The author needs to read his own article before calling this illogical. She was concerned with customer comfort, and people often don't like to see folks taking pictures in a place where they're trying on clothes. Her logic is perfectly consistent in that she knows that the bag domes go virtually unnoticed by the customer, whereas the handhelds don't.
Also, what does the "Baby Spice" dig contribute here, other than letting everyone know how immature the author is?
RTFA be damned, I stopped reading at this point.
Nonsensical... (Score:5, Informative)
"What I argue is that if I'm going to be held accountable for my actions that I should be allowed to record
Now actually taping your ACTIONS makes perfect sense if you are going to be doing something that is potentially dangerous or you expect to have a brush with the law. The New York Times just had an article on how a bunch of "amateur" video tapes of the Republican Convention protests have shown that the NYPD have either doctored evidence or simply lied about what protesters did when they were arrested.
Among other incidents, the amateur video shows defendents who were charged with resisting arrest in no way putting up a fight when arrested.
link to article http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/12/nyregion/12vide
Securing the security... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Securing the security... (Score:2)
Whenever there is a human
Re:Securing the security... (Score:5, Insightful)
I will admit that the ownder of the camers does not WANT them to be photographed. So what? So do criminals, and so do people cheating on their wife, and so do people simply trying to protect their privacy.
The question is not "is there a reason", but instead is "Is the reason you want to stop people taking pictures of your cameras BETTER than the reason you came up with to let you set up the cameras in the first place"?
Why? Because ANY reason that lets you prevent others from taking pictures of your camers can be turned around and used to prevent the store from taking your picture
If you have the right to take my picture to prevent criminal actions by me, I have the right to take YOUR picture to prevent criminal actions by you. Yes, if I were a criminal, I could analyze the pictures I took to plan a crime against you. SO WHAT. If the employees of the store are criminal, they can analyze THERE surveliance tapes to plan crimes against shoppers.
The management clearly wants the power to observe their shoppers and does not want shoppers to have a similar right against them. Shoppers want the power to observe the management and does not want the management to have similar rights against them.
But the law is not a slave to EITHER side, so gives BOTH the rights to observe and record.
I do agree that the management has the right to require the shoppers to hide their cameras, as the store has hidden their own cameras.
Re:Securing the security... (Score:2)
Take a photo of such a convenient and usually neglected things like emergency escape plan, which essentially is a map of the building, including areas you aren't allowed to visit...
Take photos in Near Infrared and see which domes are fake.
Take photos of the cameras, then look them up in catalogues, to check their field of vision, weak spots, which ones are fake...
Take several photos of places where
open-loop (Score:3, Informative)
we had some issues with security guards asking us not to tape, but mostly restricted our documentation to public areas (cameras monitoring public space), so it wasn't as much of an issue.
the surveillance camera players have some more camera maps on their site [notbored.org]
and probably my favorite application of this idea is the institute for applied autonomy's i-see [66.93.183.118] , which allows users to map a "path of least surveillance" through nyc.
The ID that requires ID (Score:3, Insightful)
So when I get my creditcard bill, I can see that Greg Pinpolowsky wanted to see my ID when I bought my last computer. However I think the shops would dislike of this, private persons "gathering" personal information is generaly disliked, since few would trust them not to misuse it.
Corporate bodies however, who are actually in a position to misuse personal information, are generaly trusted.
In Soviet Russia the system is watched over by you!
Say what you will... (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder why this hasn't gotten wider play. Are we now entirely unsurprised when cops perjure themselves? Had it not been for some paranoid kids with camcorders, a lot of people would have been unjustly imprisoned. I mean, more than they already were.
--grendel drago
Re:Say what you will... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Say what you will... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Say what you will... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes it is. We should outfit all cops with these cameras this guy wears, and secure their data. *poof* problem of corrupt cops addressed, *poof* lots of great court evidence. It's hard to see a downside, except for expense.
Unnerving? (Score:3, Insightful)
No kidding this was unnerving. Whenever anybody displays behavior ooutside the norm and tries forcing themselves upon passerbys it's always unnerving, Mann et al are not special in this case. I'm guessing the large group of pale, nerdy looking people would be unnerving enough, the plastic bubbles were merely icing on the cake.
Re:Unnerving? (Score:2)
"The Moops?"
Smells like... (Score:2)
Silly premise if you ask me. Maybe for a good cause, maybe for cheap publicity, maybe for ego gratification, maybe all and more.
I did that last week and almost got arrested... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, I could be wrong, but I think that it is a little extream to have the cops come out after you just for looking at the camera's in a store. I am also in charge of the security cameras at my college, and if someone started looking up at them, I would think "They must be interested in security cameras" and if they photographed them, I would wonder why, but for goodness sake...
I may get flaimed for this, but I think that America is turning more and more into a police state. The more we want protection, the happier we are to give up our rights and thank the person we are giving them to.
Re:I did that last week and almost got arrested... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I did that last week and almost got arrested... (Score:3, Funny)
Perfomance Art (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course some would say the real purpose of art is to provoke, and this certainly passes the test on that front. In a Post 9/11 era world it's amazing the surveillance-surveillance wasn't halted on possible terrorism suspicions.
I have a nice cell phone I can no longer bring to work because it contains a digital camera. The Gym where I work out prohibits camera cell phones as well and not just in the locker rooms, but the Gym area, which ironically is on complete view from the street with floor to ceiling windows.
I have friends who like to snap pictures of random individuals and then deride these strangers later for their looks, clothing, or activity -- "Look at this Bozo." There are people who don't like to have their pictures taken for just this reason, with digital photography costing next to nothing these days it is happening more and more. In the past such people were just being paranoid, today they are being realistic -- not that it really should mater if someone you don't know is making fun of your clothes behind your back.
I guess I'm a bit conflicted about all this. I would like to be able to take my pictures anytime anywhere I would like, but I understand why some people would have a problem with it. Storeowners don't typically like people behaving in ways that discourage patronage. Someone clicking away uninvitedly at you while you shop kind of has this feel.
I would support stores having to clearly mark possible surveillance equipment, whether real or not. I would also support public access to government surveillance equipment that monitors public areas.
As for what I can do with my camera on private property, perhaps the privacy issue lies with the storeowners and not the camera wielding performance artists.
To quote Fark... (Score:3, Funny)
Looked like Baby Spice?
This thread is useless without pictures!
Check out what Steve Mann has to say about this (Score:3, Informative)
http://epresence.tv/mediaContent/website_archived. aspx?dir=Open~Source~and~Free~Software:~Concepts,~ Controversies~and~Solutions~(May~9-11,~2004) [epresence.tv]
Scroll to the bottom of the page to find his talk in the list.
Cheers,
Richard
Not again ... (Score:2, Interesting)
no "Earth" here (Score:5, Insightful)
Mark my words - you heard it hear first, on Slashdot. The legislation will come up, and it will be passed. I give it six, seven years at most.
Max
I can understand their concern. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that many people have a rightful distrust of those in authority, because often those in power tend to abuse that power to stay in power.
For instance- Let's say that you're pulled over by the police. They have their cameras recording your every action. If you had complete 100% trust in your government, there would be no need to film the police doing their job, since they're already filming it for you. But all too often they abuse that power and selectively lose/find recordings. If an officer unlawfully beat someone, do you think the recording would ever be used in that person's favor? Not likely, since it wouldn't be in the police department's best interest to share that information.
This is about more than just videotapes. This is about keeping the balance of power in the citizens' favor, the way it should be. Remember, the US is supposed to have a government run by the people, under the citizens' supervision. The citizens control and monitor the government, it's not the other way around.
Here's a spot-on example of sousveillance - NYT (Score:4, Informative)
-Remember that all protestors of the prez are subjected to HEAVY intimidation through the use of video cameras.
From the front page of the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/12/nyregion/12vid eo
Videos Challenge Accounts of Convention Unrest
By JIM DWYER
Published: April 12, 2005
Dennis Kyne put up such a fight at a political protest last summer, the arresting officer recalled, it took four police officers to haul him down the steps of the New York Public Library and across Fifth Avenue.
"We picked him up and we carried him while he squirmed and screamed," the officer, Matthew Wohl, testified in December. "I had one of his legs because he was kicking and refusing to walk on his own."
Accused of inciting a riot and resisting arrest, Mr. Kyne was the first of the 1,806 people arrested in New York last summer during the Republican National Convention to take his case to a jury. But one day after Officer Wohl testified, and before the defense called a single witness, the prosecutor abruptly dropped all charges.
During a recess, the defense had brought new information to the prosecutor. A videotape shot by a documentary filmmaker showed Mr. Kyne agitated but plainly walking under his own power down the library steps, contradicting the vivid account of Officer Wohl, who was nowhere to be seen in the pictures. Nor was the officer seen taking part in the arrests of four other people at the library against whom he signed complaints.
A sprawling body of visual evidence, made possible by inexpensive, lightweight cameras in the hands of private citizens, volunteer observers and the police themselves, has shifted the debate over precisely what happened on the streets during the week of the convention.
For Mr. Kyne and 400 others arrested that week, video recordings provided evidence that they had not committed a crime or that the charges against them could not be proved, according to defense lawyers and prosecutors.
Among them was Alexander Dunlop, who said he was arrested while going to pick up sushi.
Last week, he discovered that there were two versions of the same police tape: the one that was to be used as evidence in his trial had been edited at two spots, removing images that showed Mr. Dunlop behaving peacefully. When a volunteer film archivist found a more complete version of the tape and gave it to Mr. Dunlop's lawyer, prosecutors immediately dropped the charges and said that a technician had cut the material by mistake.
Seven months after the convention at Madison Square Garden, criminal charges have fallen against all but a handful of people arrested that week. Of the 1,670 cases that have run their full course, 91 percent ended with the charges dismissed or with a verdict of not guilty after trial. Many were dropped without any finding of wrongdoing, but also without any serious inquiry into the circumstances of the arrests, with the Manhattan district attorney's office agreeing that the cases should be "adjourned in contemplation of dismissal."
So far, 162 defendants have either pleaded guilty or were convicted after trial, and videotapes that bolstered the prosecution's case played a role in at least some of those cases, although prosecutors could not provide details.
Besides offering little support or actually undercutting the prosecution of most of the people arrested, the videotapes also highlight another substantial piece of the historical record: the Police Department's tactics in controlling the demonstrations, parades and rallies of hundreds of thousands of people were largely free of explicit violence.
Throughout the co
Re:Editors? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Editors? (Score:2)
Of course, if the grandparent had RTFA (but then, why break with tradition?), he'd have seen this:
The opposite of surveillance -- French for watching from above -- sousveillance refers to watching from below, essentially from beneath the eye in the sky. It's the equivalent of keeping an eye on the eye.
It a
Re:Maybe it's intentional - and clever marketing. (Score:2)
Maybe so... reverse marketing
Back to my original point though, this is a waste of time and money. I am not surprised in seeing members of academia there, wasting my hard earned dollars. Just pass out the tinfoil hats.
Lets work on issues like Inuit's security issues, improving LINUX device support, or even trying to remove the required GEEK Factor (GF-The required amount of technological knowledge to figure something out) to handle LINUX.
Re:Maybe it's intentional - and clever marketing. (Score:2)
Which Inuits' [wikipedia.org] security issues? Losing traditions? Housing? Jobs? Global warming?
Re:More government programs? (Score:5, Interesting)
Thats the best kind of professor, or would you rather he brought a bible(or accepted textbook) to class and read directly from that. So what hes doing right now is 'worthless' other then perhaps he actually did he job as a professor and caused people to think, in this case about their privacy.
This has to be proof of a low UID getting a free ride from the mods, I don't mean to attack personally. Just because you can't see the value in something doesn't mean its devoid of value.
Also the professor was a Canadian so leave your tax payers arugment out of, we canucks are used to paying the government for useless shit doesn't seem to bother us as much.
Re:More government programs? (Score:2)
That's not a low UID.
Neither is mine.
Re:More government programs? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:More government programs? (Score:3, Informative)
His idea is that if others insist on recording all your actions, it's probably best that you record all your actions as well -- that's not so bad, when you consider the way folks can and do get framed in real life.
Someone has to watch the watchers, or at the very least make sure that the watchers aren't making things up.
Re:More government programs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Being Steve Mann and being a nutjob aren't exclusive.
Yes, he's been a cyborg for a while. Yes, he's done some groundbreaking first-steps type work.
But I've seen interviews with this guy, he goes everywhere with his funky head gear and attitude. He has been having that same exact conversation with every security guard he can get to look at him -- it's always "if you can record me why can't I record you -- and BTW, you're on the web". It always ends up with the security guard sending him on his way. He does this in airports for crying out loud.
Heck, I've seen interviews with his damned parents, and as much as they've accepted what he does, they think in ways he's a bit of a nutter.
Do I think there needs to be someone who is out there pushing these boundaries? Absolutely. Do I think he's also a bit fo a nutjob? You betcha! Do I accept that he's a 'cyborg'? Only in the loosest possible terms.