A Law to Spy Back on Government Surveillance Cameras? 229
mattnyc99 writes "As the Senate begins debate today on wider new surveillance legislation, Instapundit blogger and University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds has an interesting op-ed as part of Popular Mechanics' cover story on the looming power of spy cameras in America. He cites numerous court cases to argue that our privacy concerns may be backwards, and that there should be a new law for citizen rights — that if Big Brother can keep an eye on us in public spaces, we ought to be able to look back. From the accompanying podcast: 'Realistically I don't think we're going to get much in the way of limits on government and business surveillance. So I think we should be focusing more on making it safe, on making it a double-edged sword.'"
Don't worry (Score:5, Funny)
Meta-Surveillance is ONe Answer (Score:3, Interesting)
Granted, the latter point creates a problem, in that a negative response to one's meta-surveillance inquiry, if one were a criminal, would be a tip-off. Thus, there would always be some "loose play" in the system,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree.....we don't need "Big Brother" watching us, to protect us from the "terrorists or the criminals or the boo
terrosrists (Score:2)
If I was in charge of the most economically powerful, and previously untouchable country in the world, and all of a sudden 9/11 happened how would I react? I have no idea. I might start implementing ultra paranoid and reactionary national security policies too...
The thing is is the US helped create and motivate the terrorists. The US aided and supported the terrorists who got their training in Afghanistan. More recently, shortly after taking office Pres Bush gave the Taliban, who were supporting and sh
Re:Don't worry (Score:4, Informative)
It makes good fiscal sense, but doesn't make cultural sense. In the USA, personal freedoms trump collective freedoms every time. So even though paying more for inner-city schools helps society as a whole, it doesn't happen in the USA because it goes against their individualist grain. Ditto spending money on programs instead of prisons. Goes against the national culture.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Any money "given" to "poor people" must first be taken from people who produce. "Guaranteed" income destroys an economy and a culture by removing the concept of "zero" so money has no value and by removing incentive to achieve.
If it worked, the "war on poverty" in the United States would have ended long ago and highly Socialist countries would have the most advanced infrastructures and most productive people. Historically, soc
Re: (Score:2)
If it worked, the "war on poverty" in the United States would have ended long ago
While I support a war on poverty, the US isn't fighting one. The way the welfare system is set up in the US, it's designed to keep people dependent. If a person on welfare is able to get a job that pays a wage they then can loose what aid they're getting. I recall years ago I was working full tyme while attending college part tyme. My employer didn't offer health insurance so I looked into getting some for myself. The c
freedom in the US (Score:2)
In the USA, personal freedoms trump collective freedoms every time.
As TFA and others point out many Americans want to feel safe and don't care about privacy.
So even though paying more for inner-city schools helps society as a whole, it doesn't happen in the USA because it goes against their individualist grain.
Ah, I bet inner city school don't get more money per student than suburban schools, except maybe for charter or magnet schools.
Ditto spending money on programs instead of prisons.
To cut
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Reverse Surveillance (Score:5, Informative)
From the "open government" part of the plan:
There's more, as summarized by Ars [arstechnica.com]:
* Put government data online for citizen access, analysis, commentary, and action. The document cites environmental data on pollution as one type that could be made available.
* Effectively "crowd-sourcing" (though that term isn't used) some amount of agency decision-making by tapping the public's distributed expertise.
* Build an online database that enables citizens to track federal grants, contracts, earmarks, and lobbyist contacts with government officials.
* Give "the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House web site for five days before signing any non-emergency legislation."
Employee supervision (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Employee supervision (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Employee supervision (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're slacking, watching porn, fapping, NOT working, I have a right no know.
It's not that I'm going to sit there and watch you 24/7, but I should have the option. If my boss and my IT department can watch where I go on the internet and walk into my cube at anytime, why is it unreasonable to think that the person who pays your paycheck can do the same?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If my boss and my IT department can watch where I go on the internet and walk into my cube at anytime, why is it unreasonable to think that the person who pays your paycheck can do the same?
A moderately good point, and not one I have a ready answer to. However, the IT dept. at University and one's professors (who are the equivalent of your boss) and co-workers can also walk in at any time. Still, even at a federal job, a right to privacy should be respected.
One advocatus diaboli argument would also be that much of graduate research involves labwork and teaching duties. Do we also need cameras (infrared or other frequencies for darkened labs) to watch labs and classroo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If I want to setup a webcam on my local road and a webcam in my (future) childrens' classrooms and I pay
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now making them wear a RFID chip when garbage men are on the clock to ensure they don't have to take any 'side routes', not a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Although we all may be paying a government worker's salary, that doesn't mean that we are all, collectively, that person's boss. The only time that I don't believe this is whe
Re: (Score:2)
I keep seeing a common theme of "well they're going to catch me slacking." The summary has nothing to do with catching people slacking off. It has everything to do with catching people abusing power.
I may raise alarm if I see two teachers getting it on in my kid's class room
Re: (Score:2)
And I don't have a problem with Slashdot or some mental breaks (such as this slow as heck week when 1/2 the office is gone). If I'm watching a government employee I'm not going to be calling their boss every time I don't see them typing.
The problem is that you are more rational than most people.
I keep seeing a common theme of "well they're going to catch me slacking." The summary has nothing to do with catching people slacking off. It has everything to do with catching people abusing power.
Right. Well most low-level government employees have almost no power. There's no point to having video cameras pointed at all of them.
The leaf that is this post came from the branch containing this one [slashdot.org], which postulated that even graduate students doing work would be watched, and this one [slashdot.org] which suggested that it was perfectly reasonable.
The entire point of my post was, if I'm paying for it (or even just part of it) I should have access to it.
I just don't think that I can agree with this in the general case.
So it may be unreasonable to go stand over the shoulder of the grad student. But if I paid for his research and as long as it's not a matter of national security. I should be able to get a PDF of what ever he worked on. I should be able to look at all the data and go "cool, I paid for this".
But this is perfectly reasonable, in my bo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now as you point out, watching a grad student is going to bore me to sleep and be useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Then, of course, there's the possibility of sensitive informat
Re: (Score:2)
Here, I'll have a go - just what influence would Joe Bloggs sitting on his backside flitting between porntube and Snoop Central have over our errant employee? Is it not the case that the IT manager is simply in a more appropriate position to take action? Y
learn Latin, tardis (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
200 Million Employers (Score:2)
The average government employee has 200 million employers watching him. They have the resources to watch him 24/7. Not only that, but many of them are opinionated and trigger-happy (mostly metaphorically speaking), and the group sends conflicting messages to the poor lowly employee. Politics is a hard game.
Re: (Score:2)
I think employers get better results when they care less about what employees are doing minute-to-minute but have some metric for tracking success at a job function. And I want the gov
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't think these people are pulling their weight, better management is the answer, not some cack-handed "reverse surveillance" scheme.
Same as your boss (Score:3, Insightful)
And your boss, who supervises your job all the time, doesn't pay your salary either.
This is one of the lamest political arguments I've ever seen. You don't pay the whole of America's military expenditure ($400 billion/year), so you shouldn't have any opinion on that matter, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) If I buy product X and it doesn't perform as expected then I can return it for a refund.
2) I buy product X by my own free will.
3) There are many products to buy, only one government to pay taxes to.
Until the day when I can choose whether to pay taxes or not, or choose to whom I will pay taxes, or demand a refund if my taxes aren't well used, I want
Re: (Score:2)
It could be also argued, that you don't know where any of your
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just a modest proposal: Every government employee - except for those working on confidential stuff - should have a 24-hour PUBLIC webcam on his desk ( The camera need not point at the desk, just at the person ) , his car, or wherever he/she works. Police / sheriff / prison employees / corrections officers, etc or anyone who may at some time have someone in custody should have two separate cameras in case one malfunctions.
What's to stop, say, the Bush Administration from declaring that everything they do has national security implications and thus everything they do is secret?
Oh, wait, they already do that ...
Re: (Score:2)
Obama's plan in better font (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If he wins, he'll go back to being that other one again.
Already done (Score:2)
In a way, a part of that has already been decreed [cnn.com] by a federal court.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice but a lot of data is already on line. Most people never use it.
"* Effectively "crowd-sourcing" (though that term isn't used) some amount of agency decision-making by tapping the public's distributed expertise."
Wonderful take a look at Digg sometime. Without some way to vet the source of the expertise you have no idea the value o
Oh, you cynical coward. (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, we should compare Obama's actual proposed plan to yet another Republican sound-byte of a policy.
Even if the plan gets neutered (you will perform your duty and call your representatives to support it won't you?), at a minimum, Senator Obama is showing initiative in his understanding of technology and our country's need to embrace it.
Ho
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Without legislative support, it is a patch with an expiration date. With legislative support, it could become a very welcomed permanent limitation on the executive branch.
Bullshit. (Score:2)
It's the job of progressives to drag the rest of country into the 21st century. If people want to make this election about race, they need to be attacked again and again on their racist, ignorant stances. Did Rosa Parks think "Golly, it's just not the time for black people to sit where they rightfully please"?
Re: (Score:2)
First, If Obama is the democrat candidate, he will lose. You will be handing the country over to the republicans. Whether these are the dumb ones you talk about or not, it is who will control the presidency.
Next, it isn't about racism perse. It is about what races expect. White people will expect him to act white. Black people will expect him to act black.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't expect any of the candidates to "act white", because I don't know what in the fuck that is supposed to mean.
So please tell me, how do white people act? Do they walk and dance funny?
Re: (Score:2)
and the drive like this (all hunched over the wheel).
sonofabitch! come on!
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me, how does this make me a racist? Is it because I don't believe in the magic Negro? And yes, that is a rush reference which is actually some california journalist's label. Or is it because I see the limitations in other people? Or could it be because I think his own kind will be what holds him back?
Just because you believe doesn't make it so. I would have hopes that you k
Ugh (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, I just don't see how two wrongs can make a right here.
In the vein of reverse monitoring (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Some people think this is an unfounded line of thought. I just point them to the government setting up a corruption hot line for our area so people can anonymously report corruption to the FBI. This came after two cops where busted for dealing drugs that they obtained from busting other dealers a county away. But the county
Re: (Score:2)
Don't most already?
Indeed (Score:2)
The recent traffic jamming of intellectual property fascism in the EU and the Super-DMCA grinding to a halt in Canada, is proof that the people can still get their way. Or at least a compromise. Though defending privacy now is going to take a more radical amount of action.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, you don't know anything about Instapundit, then.
Two wrongs do make a right, so long as the "right" person gets the wrong. Which is the "right" person? Well, you'll have to as Glenn Reynolds.
It seems quite reasonable (Score:2)
a) involves them personally, and
b) the outcome of conflict resulting from the situation at hand can have big, big effects on life.
Yet it would seem that one of the requirements that will only be realized later is that you need to protect the government itself from denial-of-service attacks brought on by cunning thugs.
Two wrongs don't make a right (Score:5, Insightful)
The medicine is still nasty underneath all that sugar.
Re: (Score:2)
Having seen my fill (and then some) of governmental bureaucracy, I can tell you right now that the very thought of putting video cameras into ever gov't bureaucrat's office would make the gov't workers' union scream bloody murder, and thus if the two were tied together (gov't watching us in public only if we can eyeball our gov't workers in (in)action), neither would get off the ground.
While having 24/7 webcams of hundreds of thousands
Re:Two wrongs don't make a right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But I disagree on the necessity of openness. As long as there is trust, you don't need to check up on them. But without trust, you need transparency which is why your comment makes sense. And there is an amount of transparency that isn't fully blown like webcams on every government employee that can get the job done sufficiently. Because it can be done isn't a good enough reason sometimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, I don't believe that for a second, but stating that "monitoring the government is not wrong" will not stop those who do.
Re: (Score:2)
The horsepower required to perform facial recognition or other tracking of moving people in real
Ewww.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot be the only one that REALLY does not want to see Cheney's "intimate moments"
At least it would be over quick, not like Iraq.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
(Why is there no -1 Horrific Mental Image mod available?)
it's our government (Score:4, Interesting)
so let us look at the damn cameras too
in fact, it might even be useful for strapped law departments: scenario: "person XYZ (show mugshot) on trial for armed robbery skipped out on court today: oh great america's most wanted watching public: monitor the security camera feeds for daytona and orlando. here's 3,000 of them. find our guy"
distributed computing. distributed security. people are motivated by the search for justice. so empower them. let average citizens sift the data and report on interesting findings... like: "these 19 guys at this security gate at logan airport were taking flight school lessons just last week in florida"
all i'm saying is that 30,000 busybodies with a broadband connection around the country can do a better job than 300 trained CIA analysts at langley
Re: (Score:2)
force multiplier? (Score:2)
i could have said it better. rather than replace the 300 CIA analysts with 30,000 America's Most Wanted aficionados with broadband, why can't the 30,000 web vigilante's serve tips to the 300 CIA analysts? A lot of security is drudgework. Offsite some of the drudgework to random passionate yahoos, and the analysts can use their well-trained minds to do more wel
Re: (Score:2)
noooo (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In Soviet Russia, government spying on you spying on government spying on you spying on government...
Sousveillance (Score:5, Informative)
It just so happens that this coming Monday, December 24th is orld Sousveillance day. [wikipedia.org]
Not for me (Score:2, Insightful)
Spy Yourself (Score:3, Informative)
Spying yourself has never been easier. I've been playing with the Aviosys 9100a video serve with the after market Yoics firmware. I can pretty much install this
anywhere there is an internet connection, even if they people that own the internet connection don't know, and view it from anywhere else.
This thing also supports sound! Not bad for $80.
So go ahead and spy back! Until it is against the law that is.
See the Yahoo Group http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/9100/ [yahoo.com] and the Yoics Software at http://9100.yoics.com/ [yoics.com] for this device.
-M
I agree (Score:5, Interesting)
2. It is never illegal to make a video or other recording og a clothed on-duty government employee.
3. It is illegal for any government employee to request or insist that such a device be deactivated. Attempting to do so results in a fine equal to one day's pay. If violence was used, they are too be dismissed immediately, even if it was 'justified' by other actions. I.E. If you tell them to stop filming and they hit you, then you hit them back, you get fired even though 'they started it.'
4. If a government employee takes possesion of a a recording device that is not theirs and a recording is damaged, it must be returned in 100% working condition, with a copy of any recordings on it, within 2 days. Failure results in an investigation by Police, or by Internal Affairs if they are police. If a court case finds that there is a preponderous evidence that the employee intentionally damaged the device or the recording, than that employee will be dismissed from their government position. If the court find they did it beyond a shadow of a doubt, they are to be arrested and tried for grand theft.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with the sentiment of what you're advocating, but surely some things should be kept secret.
Re:I agree (Score:5, Funny)
[Emphasis mine]
This should result in some interesting new security policies. Government employees will now be required to strip before doing anything that requires secrecy.
Re: (Score:2)
As described by the grand parent, there is no problem with removing the person doing the recording, if they would not otherwise be allowed to observe what the are recording. Additionally, the grand parent doesn't specify any restriction on moving recording devices not in the custody of some person, so feel free to remove any planted recording devices, and charge their owner
Re: (Score:2)
In the same way, you can't arrest someone for speaking, but you can arrest them not having a permit for a demonstration.
Any government employee changing the launch codes should CERTAINLY be doing it in a private area where it was illegal for citizens to trespass.
You arrest the citizend doing that recording for trespassing etc. Not for the filming itself.
Similarly, you arrest the guy filming t
Re: (Score:2)
This is a fascinating concept, and deserves further expansion.
Perhaps if public surveillance cameras of the kind used in London, England ever gain popularity in North America, the feeds should be broadcast uninterrupted on a portion of all that public bandwidth they're planning to sell off when television goes digital.
If there is no public record of an arrest on those cameras, then one must be made on a police camera that is surrendered to the arrested person's representative immediately. Otherwise, n
Re: (Score:2)
Great idea! Let's call it "The Richard Nixon Law."
Re: (Score:2)
What, oh what to do?!? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Paging David Brin (Score:5, Informative)
Do we even have a Constitution? (Score:3, Interesting)
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Support Dr. Ron Paul ($6 million yesterday).
Last link (unless Google Books caves to the gov't and drops the title):
America Deceived (book) [iuniverse.com]
Watching the Watchers (Score:2)
The same policy is needed in the many other agencies with draconian powers of search seizure and arrest. In other words, any official with opportunity and motive for abuse of power should be monitored and recorded whenever they are on duty.
There is long standing precedent that an employer has the right to
One day in New York. (Score:2)
Enjoy looking at them looking at me.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/neoliminal/544945881/in/set-72157600350750369/ [flickr.com]
Re: (Score:2)
sad drive home last night (Score:3, Insightful)
I was driving home last night (101, north scottsdale arizona) and passed by some of the new speed cameras that have been put up in that area. The speed limit on the road is normally 65 MPH but it is currently at 55 because of construction. It was very late at night, and there was literally NOBODY on the road, and no construction workers of any kind. So i was driving 65 MPH...which is a completely safe speed to drive in the conditions I was in at the time. The WHOLE TIME i was driving home i was freaked out that I was going to get popped by one of these stupid things.
That is a small example, obviously
Howabout the fact that they set up the "surprise!" speed trap vans all over the place now in tempe, and south scottsdale? Or the fact that there are red light cameras at almost all of the intersections in tempe/scottsdale?
okay thats another small example
Howabout the fact that kids are getting shocked with enough electricity to knock them to the ground and incapacitate them for a few seconds when the talk back to an angry cop?
Okay thats also a really small example.
Howabout the fact that I think twice every time i go to a chemistry website, or a website with any types of schematics/blueprints because i just MIGHT get flagged as "suspicious" because by using information from both of those sites i could cause havoc.
Yeah, thats not TOO big of a deal.
Stuff like this honestly makes me sick to my stomach.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The speed camera thing is weird. My objection isn't so much with the cameras themselves, as with the other aspects of the situation.
First, you were driving safely, but illegally. That suggests that arbitrary speed limits are not useful. You didn't do anything you'd be ashamed of. You didn't do anything wrong. So why are you worried and nervous? You're worried because you know some bully might take advantage of you, anyway. Yeah, I wonder what TJ would say about you living in fear of your government
Re: (Score:2)
I am of the opinion that people should be punished for doing things that hurt
Re: (Score:2)
219 miles an hour is not either of those. Racing off of the race track is not either. If I hit something going 75MPH? It's gonna hurt. 219 MPH? It's not going to hurt because I've been liquefied before my nerves can even depolarize.
Re: (Score:2)
My point with the jackass 219 lambo guy is that he DIDN'T get caught doing it, and he DIDN'T hurt anybody in the process. What scares me is that this guy is getting prosecuted simply because he COULD have caused damages. In my opinion, penalizing people for things that they COULD have done is simply absurd. To me, this is even worse than the concept outlined in 'Minority Report'. In t
Not a "right" (Score:2)
I find it strange that we are debating whether citizens should have the "right" to record the actions of others in public spaces. We are constantly being told we should have no expectation of privacy ourselves in public, yet we are so used to asking for permission for everything that we hesitate to do what I think is our responsibility to do: document the actions of law enforcement and shine a hard, critical light on examples of abuse.
The recent death of a Polish immigrant at Vancouv
David Brin -- Transparent Society (Score:2)
In the meantime, he suggests that all
Surely agree (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with sousveillance. In fact for me the problem is not so much the invasion of privacy, but rather the monopoly of surveillance. I don't really have much of a problem with cameras (although I am a bit unsure about microphones just above the seats in subway stations - how exactly do they protect the subway's property and the public?), but my problem is actually who has access to the recorded data and who gets the monopoly of surveillance...
For example: A supermarket here has two signs, one saying "you are on CCTV" and another saying "you can't operate recording equipment here". The first sign (CCTV) is ok. But the second sign is problematic: Suppose I want to put a camera on my head and let it record 24h and send pics over a 3G or WiFi connection to my server, in case someone attacks me and kills me on the street or on a mountain, so that the police etc can see the pics from the camera and catch the killer (this is good for society as well, not only for me, in fact sometimes I think that everyone should have such a safety device). If a supermarket tells me that operating my own personal safety camera is not ok, then it should at least accept liability in case someone kills me while inside their premises. I'm paranoid here to make a point, and in fact I don't have such a safety device on me, but I could have one if I wanted, and my question is: Why should I give up my safety to buy a banana? Why should I trust that the supermarket is a safe place and not operate my own safety camera? One could argue that I have much more important assets to protect (my life which is one-off) than the supermarket's company (their material property which can easily be repurchased in case of a criminal attack). So, why on earth should the supermarket operate cameras but not me? One could say that the supermarket is the owner of its land and can decide the rules, but my answer is whether it is reasonable to expect to give up one's safety just to buy something to eat.
To give a real example of frustation with unbalanced supermarket policies (unbalanced in the meaning that the policies are designed only with the supermarket in mind, not taking into account customer needs), it has happened to me many times to enter a supermarket to buy something to eat while being on travel, of course always carrying my laptop bag because I never get out of my home office without a laptop or subnotebook, and employees always come to me and ask me to give them my laptop bag to keep it while I shop because they are afraid of shoplifters. My reaction in all cases is either to explain my reluctance and refuse to give them my laptop and continue my shopping (I specifically say "will your manager sign me a paper accepting liability of such and such thousands euros in case you lose my laptop or you damage it?"), if they let me do so under their supervision, or if I see that they don't like this (until now in 100% of all cases, and from their part this is ok if they merely follow company policies, the problem is the company policy not the individual employees) then my reaction is to not buy anything and leave, never to buy anything from the same shop again. I can't understand this paranoia in big supermarkets. I mean, in small independent shops the owner either just discreetly supervises people as they buy stuff, and this is the proper and reasonable thing to do (someone comes to buy stuff from you, you want to protect against shoplifters, the reasonable thing is to stay near them while they buy stuff and watch them, not to demand them to give you their bags or anything). In big supermarkets and department stores they demand that you surrender all your bags to them, as if bags are now some sort of dangerous weapon or something... My answer is that they already have cameras, but if they really feel so nervous they should hire more employees to oversee customers as they buy rather than take away customer's property even temporarily. Shoplifting is a serious crime that must be tackled, but passing the cost to the consumer is not ac
yes yes yes! (Score:2)
Since we can't realistically fight the spread of cameras we should instead control
Re: (Score:2)