FBI Says Utility Pole Surveillance Cam Locations Must Be Kept Secret (arstechnica.com) 224
An anonymous reader writes from a report via Ars Technica: A federal judge has been convinced by the FBI to block the disclosure of where the bureau has attached surveillance cams on Seattle utility poles. Ars Technica writes about how such a privacy dispute is highlighting a powerful tool the authorities are employing across the country to spy on the public with or without warrants. Ars Technica reports: "The deployment of such video cameras appears to be widespread. What's more, the Seattle authorities aren't saying whether they have obtained court warrants to install the surveillance cams. And the law on the matter is murky at best. In an e-mail to Ars, Seattle city attorney spokeswoman Kimberly Mills declined to say whether the FBI obtained warrants to install surveillance cams on Seattle City Light utility poles. 'The City is in litigation and will have no further comment,' she said. Mills suggested [Ars] speak with the FBI office in Seattle, and they did. Peter Winn [assistant U.S. attorney in Seattle] wrote to Judge Jones that the location information about the disguised surveillance cams should be withheld because the public might think they are an 'invasion of privacy.' Winn also said that revealing the cameras' locations could threaten the safety of FBI agents. And if the cameras become 'publicly identifiable,' Winn said, 'subjects of the criminal investigation and national security adversaries of the United States will know what to look for to discern whether the FBI is conducting surveillance in a particular location.'"
I can't wait for Bush to be out of office! (Score:5, Funny)
Once we get a President who respects our rights, things will get so much better.
I can't wait for an actual transparent administration!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.merriam-webster.com... [merriam-webster.com]
Re:I can't wait for Bush to be out of office! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually this election would be ideal for a third party. With both other candidates being obvious psychopaths and close to globally hated a third party could get the majority of votes.
No. The US is made up of mostly true believers who will continue to vote for their one true party as it continues to screw their interests in favor of the elite, even when their party offers them psychopaths.
Re: (Score:2)
And will vindicate their choice by saying they had to do it because the other party winning because they supported a third is an even worse option. Too bad we don't have RCV; I will always vote for a third party first, but see Hillary as a slightly lesser evil to Donald based on racism and misogyny/
As far as ignorant stupidity goes, they both win. We've heard tons about Trump, but Hillary saying "People Under FBI Investigation Should Lose Constitutional Rights." Um, Hillary, innocent until proven guilty? Or
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the public thinks they're an invasion of privacy, they are, by definition (since that indicates a public expectation of privacy), whether their location is disclosed or not. Big Brother Peter Winn is watching you.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Peter Winn is arguing the latter.
Re:Well, yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the public thinks they're an invasion of privacy, they are, by definition (since that indicates a public expectation of privacy), whether their location is disclosed or not.
Maybe, maybe not. The principle that there is no expectation of privacy in public places is pretty firmly established in the law. The fact that some members of the public don't think so doesn't change that. If, in fact, a large majority of the public feels like they should have an expectation of privacy on a public street then perhaps you have an argument, but it's probably one that should be made via the relevant lawmaking bodies, not something that courts should take it upon themselves to change.
I do think that this is an aspect of the law that we should think seriously about changing. The approach that has been established over the last century or so was eminently reasonable in the past because there were natural obstacles that limited the amount of surveillance that could be done. It had to be restricted only to high-value targets because it was very expensive, requiring lots of people to do the watching and recording.
Technology has changed that. Today it's feasible to establish comprehensive 24x7 surveillance of large areas, and to record all of it for on-demand analysis. In the near future it will be possible to build AI search systems that can quickly scan huge masses of stored surveillance data to search for specific people, or highlight particular actions. This means that a quantitative difference in the amount of surveillance that can realistically be done created a qualitative difference in the sort of surveillance that can be done, and how it can be used and abused. A qualitative difference that arguably means that actions in a public place *should* carry some expectation of privacy, even if it's just that the expectation is that only people who are present will observe them. Well, plus those who happen to be there and record them for some specific purpose, and maybe those with whom they share those recordings.
That last sentence highlights that this is a really sticky question. If I happen to be doing something in a public street, and someone else is taking video of their kid riding their bike for the first time, and they happen to include me in the frame, and they post that video on YouTube, have they invaded my privacy? I don't think so. Saying that they have basically eliminates the notion of a "public place" entirely.
But clearly there is a difference when some large entity records all actions in a large area at all times and archives them all for later use. What, exactly is the difference? How, exactly, do we draw the line?
These issues are subtle, and these questions are not easy. I think courts should not be trying to decide them, so I think the court did the right thing in just applying existing precedent that there is no expectation of privacy in a public place.
Re:Well, yes. (Score:5, Interesting)
If the government believes that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on these streets, then why do they seem quite angry when we suggest that the cameras they have installed on the streets also have no expectation of privacy?
Re:Well, yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
And people wonder why no one trusts or likes the government or LEOs anymore...
It's like they are trying to push for a revolution (that is decades off anyway as divided and polarized as politicians keep everyone these days...)
Re:Well, yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, yes. (Score:5, Interesting)
Both of these points are well taken. However, let's turn the tables.
What I'm about to suggest is something I've thought a lot about.
Let's trade tit for tat.
Let's let the cameras stay. Additionally, let's allow the public to view the cameras in public and record their presence to the public.
Spying has always been a two way street.
We see where citizens are recording police. That's fair. The police work for the public, and what they do is often in public view. Their salaries belong to the public. Their weapons, safety equipment and their actions while on duty belong to the public.
The same applies to the FBI or the CIA or the NSA or a governor or a congressperson or a mayor or a street sweeper.
Let's all spy on each other and call it even.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure about anyone else, but I like my private time.
I walk down to the pool, nobody around, and I just relax.
I'm guessing other people have similar issues. You walk alone
to gather your thoughts in the park, maybe you just want to sit
on the porch with a beer, and watch the traffic go by. I think
knowing that you are being observed reduces or removes that
bit of joy you get.
Re: (Score:3)
This will lead to a massive increase in number of cameras.
Likely scenario: Bob finds out that a camera watches him steal strawberries, so he puts up a very specific blocking thingy. Feds want to catch the strawberry thief and so put up more cameras to get around the blocking thingy. Bob finds a way to steal more strawberries. Feds install more cameras. Kodak wishes they were film cameras. Kingston gets the storage contract. Bob buys a used tank, then crafts a removable floor in it...
Re:Well, yes. (Score:4, Funny)
The cycle stops as soon as Bob thinks of getting a bear suit.
Re: (Score:3)
One reasonably expects to be able to see any watchers as well as they see them in order to make a determination of how private the situation is.
Do you really? You can attempt to determine if you're being watched, but you generally can't achieve the same level of assurance that you can in a private place. There can always be someone peering through a bush, or looking out through a window -- possibly from some distance away, with a telescope. And while it's true that if I use a telescope to look into your house through an unshaded window the law will probably view me as a peeping tom, I do not think it will do the same if you're in the middle of the
Re: (Score:2)
The question to me is how are the cameras used, and how prevalent are they?
My reasoning is that while using a camera in public would not be an invasion of privacy using a web of cameras to track my movement would be.
Re:Well, yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
That last sentence highlights that this is a really sticky question. If I happen to be doing something in a public street, and someone else is taking video of their kid riding their bike for the first time, and they happen to include me in the frame, and they post that video on YouTube, have they invaded my privacy? I don't think so. Saying that they have basically eliminates the notion of a "public place" entirely.
But clearly there is a difference when some large entity records all actions in a large area at all times and archives them all for later use. What, exactly is the difference? How, exactly, do we draw the line?
The big difference is that spread around a large enough area, government surveillance is much closer to someone following you around with a camera all day than someone who just happens to catch you while photographing or video recording something else.
If an individual did it, you would be really creeped-out, and if it happened more than once, you'd probably try to obtain a restraining order. It doesn't matter that you can't expect a particular moment in time is private - it's extremely unnerving when you feel like someone is following you.
Or, looking at it from another perspective - how would anyone feel if they saw police officers standing on every street intersection every hour of every day? Would you feel happy, safe and secure?
I can't speak for anyone else, but it would make my neighborhood start to feel more like a prison to me. I remember my last year of high school years ago, when someone decided it was a good idea to have a couple police patrolling the halls, despite having no incidents to warrant it. It was pretty alarming, and I was glad I was leaving soon.
I cannot fathom why so many people accept the current surveillance state. It puts unprecedented power in the hands of government, and there is little evidence that it has produced any meaningful benefit to doing so. Yet, it seems like every time someone brings up their discomfort at something or another, there's a chorus of people who chime in either how they should accept it because they shouldn't expect privacy or because it's really been going on for a long time, so they should be used to it by now.
Re: (Score:2)
The big difference is that spread around a large enough area, government surveillance is much closer to someone following you around with a camera all day than someone who just happens to catch you while photographing or video recording something else.
You just restated what I said, without actually identifying what the difference is, or where the line is.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have sources to cite the following;
but I understand that in London England,
camera's are everywhere, How does that
population deal with it? are the camera's
hidden or in plain sight?
Re: (Score:3)
The primary source of a right to privacy is the right to property. You own your house, by right you control what is acceptable there (limited to not violating the rights of others.) WalMart owns its stores, and (I presume) prohibits people from photographing people in bathrooms and dressing rooms.
A secondary source of a right to privacy has evolved from case law, which has developed alongside the "reasonable expectation" idea. The problem with "reasonable expectation" is that it's hard to quantify without a
Re: (Score:3)
I think another important factor is: who owns the cameras?
A few years ago, people were complaining a lot about how you couldn't go anywhere outside in London without being recorded by CCTV cameras. However, the catch was, the vast majority of these cameras were privately-owned by local businesses, like the 24-hour gas station example you mentioned. They weren't government owned or operated.
I think this is a useful distinction. If a crime is committed and it's likely a private camera recorded it, then the
Re: (Score:3)
That is why the burqah deserves more respect than it gets. Way ahead of its time.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because the cameras are in public places, that does NOT necessarily mean that the police are only surveilling public spaces. My city has many cameras at intersections etc.and I happen to know someone who's been in the control room for those cameras, he says they can zoom in on cars and see everything the driver and passengers are doing - the phrase he actually used was, "they can count the change in your pocket." I would submit that most people have a reasonable expectation that the little things they
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If, in fact, a large majority of the public feels like they should have an expectation of privacy on a public street
Isn't it a contradiction in terms, "privacy in a public space"? It is public exactly because it isn't private, I would have thought.
Apart from that, I doubt that a large majority of the public feels that you should have a right to be private everywhere - when you need privacy, you go to a private place, where you can reasonably expect to be private. What many feel unconfortable with is not whether we can be completely invisible wherever we go, but whether we are under constant surveillance by some faceless,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is more. What is the "expectation of privacy" for a person in their own bathroom that happens to have a window through which they can be observed from a public utility poll? Since it is visible from a public space, does that mean there is no expectation of privacy? What about using laser microphones, laser light bouncing off of windows is also visible from public spaces... Our laws are so far behind the technology it isn't funny...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"the public might think they are an 'invasion of privacy.'"
The issue could be the fact that there are over 1000 in the Seattle area alone. I suspect many people wouldn't care if they had 5 watching known terrorists. Those same people may not be as comfortable if they knew there was one on nearly every major street corner.
Re: (Score:3)
A whole bunch of three letter agencies have mod points. In fact forums across the board are full of professional trolls, likely the majority of the first 10 posts in any article to do with anything even slightly political. In forum after the forum, you see the first post go one way and than the following posts, by far the majority of posts going the other. Professional trolls waiting at their keyboards and punching up PR=B$ marketing as so as any thread starts and then it all gets shot down over the next 24
Why government software runs so slow (Score:5, Interesting)
Feds' argument:
"It should be kept secret because it's supposed to be a secret, otherwise it won't be kept secret, and then it won't be a secret any more."
If I wrote a program like that, it would no doubt take a long time to get anything done.
Easy detection (Score:5, Informative)
I bet they've got IR on them for night surveillance. Anyone with IR detection in the same wavelength range could likely spot these suckers on a utility pole at night without a problem.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Can the optical element be burned out by overexposure to, say, some intense green light? preferably at a somewhat obtuse angle?
Re: Easy detection (Score:3, Interesting)
If that fails there's always paintballs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The misspelling does blunt the impact a bit though.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly. Our ancestors were probably primarily vegetarian - just look at the other great apes for comparison. They do hunt, but the majority of their caloric intake is fruits and vegetables. Even among most modern humans, meat was generally more luxury than staple until quite recently.
Not sure how our insectivore leanings rank on the vegan scale though...
Re: (Score:2)
There can't be any 'paleo vegans', ever, though; they'd starve to death.
How do you figure?
The caloric content of fruits and nuts is quite high. No reason a person can't survive indefinitely on that.
Plenty of large mammals survive on vegan or nearly-vegan diets. Gorillas, for example, eat a diet that's about 97% plant-based. And those guys need a lot more calories than we do.
Re: (Score:2)
Calories mostly come from vegetables, even today (80% of the calories consumed in the US came originally from corn). Protein mostly comes from meat (or milk, if we go back a ways). It takes reasonable sophistication in farming to reach the point where you can be vegan without serious protein deficiencies, which is why we were originally hunter-gatherers, not just gatherers.
Re: (Score:2)
Nitpick: corn is a grain, not a vegetable.
Re: (Score:2)
Nitpick: corn is a
Vegetable
Angiosperm
Monocot
Commelinid
Poale
Poacea
Panicoidea
Andropogonea
Zea
Z. mays
All are equally valid, if we're nitpicking.
Re: (Score:2)
Touché, sir.
Re: (Score:2)
Nitpick: corn is a grain, not a vegetable.
Not really, it depends on your context. If you're going by the old "animal - vegetable - mineral" classification scheme, then it's a vegetable, since it's obviously neither a mineral nor an animal.
Furthermore, the term "vegetation" is used to describe any kind of plant life. There's nothing incorrect about calling a corn stalk "vegetation". Therefore, corn has to be a vegetable.
It seems to me that this "grain not vegetable" thing comes from nutritionists or botan
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That wouldn't work very well with newer LED light poles. Anyone with half a brain would spot the IR LED in them (being the only ones not visibly lit up.)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope.
Living creatures do not emit near IR. They emit far IR, because of their heat signature.
Regular cameras cannot see thermal IR; you need a special kind of camera for that, and those things are really expensive. (I think they need to be actively cooled too.) Worse, you can't see much with them, except the actual heat signature. They're really great for spotting a criminal hiding in some bushes, but you'll never be able to identify his face or anything close to the level of detail; all you'll see is s
No expectation of privacy on public streets (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No Expectation of privacy? really?
So if a group of people followed you around all day, every day while in public, cataloged where you went, what you bought, and who you associated with you are fine with that?
Tie facial recognition in, and it becomes fairly easily to profile all of the above.
From there it's a short step towards curtailing dissent or unpopular opinions simply by association....
Re: (Score:2)
Then it would be like owning an Android phone with the Google location services turned on (and I'll say that I am in this group).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No expectation of privacy on public streets (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet the cops *hate* being on cam....
Hypocrisy, thy name is government (Score:2)
Yet the government doesn't want people on the street to see the cameras, because while I am not permitted to have an expectation of not being filmed while walking on a public street, the government has an expectation of privacy for their cameras they've installed on that same public street.
I wonder what will happen when someone publishes a series of artistic photographs showing off Seattle street life and architecture, each one carefully
Re: (Score:2)
Yet the government doesn't want people on the street to see the cameras
In exactly the same way that law enforcement agencies don't want you to see unmarked cars, or under cover cops. Because if they're obvious, they lose why they're useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Um...cross referenced with the cell-phone location and call records they receive sans-warrant from all the major cellular providers?
That said, you technically have no right to privacy in a public space, even before the "Patriot Act" stepped in. Unreasonable? Yes. Perfectly legal? Also yes.
Answer (Score:4, Insightful)
The FBI's concerns are legitimate, but should not be the end of the story.
The answer to this is to do a case-by-case redaction where an active investigation is threatened, but to produce the total number and identify those that do not threaten an investigation, and to identify for each camera (redacted or not) whether a warrant was obtained for a specific camera and investigation (as opposed to a general warrant for thirty cameras, etc...). You can't have freedom unless your security has some measure of transparency and meaningful, critical oversight.
Re: (Score:2)
No if you know what something looks like and how to spot it you have basic right under the first amendment to tell others howto as well. If you see something in a public location you have a similar right to talk about where and what it is. Just like its perfectly legal to report speed traps.
That should be the end of the story. If our expectation of privacy cannot include not being photographed in public or to bar others from reporting sightings of us in any particular place the FBI cannot expect to keep
Two Word Solution (Score:2)
Paint balls.
Or alternatively, if paint balls prove ineffective, 4 digits.
30.06
Of course, depending on the degree of hardening of the cameras' enclosures, it's possible that two digits and two letters may suffice.
12GA
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Paint balls.
Or alternatively, if paint balls prove ineffective, 4 digits.
30.06
Of course, depending on the degree of hardening of the cameras' enclosures, it's possible that two digits and two letters may suffice.
12GA
Strat
Yes. Firing a high-power rifle round or a shotgun blast in the air, with no backstop, is a fantastic idea. Especially in an urban environment.
That's the third thing they teach you not to do with guns. Right after "don't put your finger on the trigger if you don't want to fire the gun" and "don't look down the barrel."
When you miss and that round kills someone a mile away in their apartment, or all the little shotgun pellets ricochet back and blind you and other, the FBI will use that as an excuse to inst
Re: (Score:2)
In an urban area, discharging a firearm in public is likely to be illegal, because of the danger to others. You're probably having a camera record an illegal act that people are going to notice. Firing a paintball is likely to be safer legally.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Firing a high-power rifle round or a shotgun blast in the air, with no backstop, is a fantastic idea. Especially in an urban environment.
I never made any statement in my post which advocates for a particular method/tool/location for any or every situation.
I agree that being unsafe with a gun is being unsafe with a gun or any type of tool, for that matter. Those were just the first few methods/tools that came to mind that had a very high likelihood of disabling even a hardened unit.
As a long time builder in construction, mechanical/automation, and radio and navigation/guidance electronics-related fields and disciplines, among many others, "Th
Finders keepers (Score:2)
There's already plenty of law about what is done when one person's property is intentionally abandoned without permission on another person's property, or in public.
Re: (Score:2)
So a car parked on a public street is fair game? I don't think so. There are still property rights even when something is found in a public space. That is why it is the law that found things are turned into the police and if not claimed they are then returned to the finder.
Crowd Source (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This. Definitely a worthy crowdsourcing project.
What do they look like? (Score:2)
Huh. I wonder what they look like? I'll have to start eyeing up utility poles. Anyone got a (non locating!) picture? If you're in Seattle have you seen any unusual equipment on the poles?
Re: (Score:2)
The Seattle utility poles I see are invariably covered with paper fliers - at least at lower levels. Maybe we should just start papering them all the way to the top?
I think it'd be funny if Random FBI Agent went to check one of the cameras but could only see "Guitar 4 Sale, Bob 555-1212".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Guess the case load needed hardware to be in place not long term well thought out quality.
Or so many are now been placed that funding for hidden quality nationally was not an option per year.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently putting "DANGER: HIGH VOLTAGE" on them is common practice.
Here's a story where the utility company put one on their own pole: Mysterious Camera in The Neighborhood [youtube.com]
And does the picture on this page look like it's anything "High Voltage"? Covert Video Surveillance System [app-techs.com]
It seems reckless to start putting "Danger: High Voltage" on things that aren't really dangerous (physically anyway) or high voltage. Some people will stop believing signs like that and just start investigating anything wit
weasel words: National Security Adverseries (Score:2)
-I'm just sayin'
New Geocache Style Game (Score:3)
What (Score:2)
if the cameras become 'publicly identifiable,' Winn said, 'subjects of the criminal investigation and national security adversaries of the United States will know what to look for to discern whether the FBI is conducting surveillance in a particular location.'"
What kind of 'national security adversaries' are they hoping to catch with these cameras anyway? Are the North Korean infiltrating our Seattle Coast, and the only way to stop them is with cameras? Do those spies who managed to enter the country undetected not know that you can be filmed in public??
Re: (Score:2)
Way to cherry pick an argument. You dropped the "subjects of the criminal investigation". That can mean anything from drug traffickers to car thieves.
Re: (Score:2)
Not about privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
The chief complaint here isn't about simply being recorded out in public. Plenty of stores, banks, train stations, and other public locations run CCTV without public outcry. As best as I can tell, there are two main differences.
One is the subterfuge involved with these cameras. By not disclosing their location, and further by disguising the devices, people can never be sure whether or not someone is watching. If a bank is keeping tabs on me while I'm on their premises, fine. The cameras are easy to spot, there are probably signs posted telling me that I'm on camera. I fundamentally understand that I'm on camera and why. But the entire nebulous entity of the FBI keeping general tabs on an entire city for no clearly defined reason is most certainly not fine
Secondly is the intent and scope. When BestBuy installs security cameras, it's to make sure that no one is damaging or stealing their merchandise. Protecting your own property is a very real and tangible reason. We can relate to that. And that reason begins and ends at their front door. BestBuy isn't going to come knocking because they saw me browsing, but I ended up buying from Walmart instead. They're not trying to keep tabs on the people specifically, just their gear. I'm only tangential to them keeping tabs on their stuff.
People don't really mind being recorded, if we understand the specifics. Tell me exactly where I'm being recorded, and why. With that information withheld, I assume the worst. Especially when that info was explicitly acknowledged. "People want to know this, and we're not telling."
Not exactly confidence inspiring stuff there.
Re: (Score:2)
No expectation of privacy in public? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the FBI's argument for these cams is that there's no expectation of privacy in public, then I suppose the FBI wouldn't mind if a group of citizens go together and published a map of all of these cameras? If they can be seen by the public, then that's fine, right?
And likewise, if I choose to park outside of an FBI field office every day and publish license plates, and video of everyone going in and out, that wouldn't be a problem either, would it? It's a public street, so no one should expect any privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
It is OK for the FBI to have these cameras, because people do not have an expectation of privacy in the locations where these cameras are recording.
However, the FBI cannot reveal the specific locations of these cameras because the majority of people would then consider them an invasion of privacy.
If people would consider these to be an invasion of privacy, then they have an expectation of privacy in
Re: (Score:2)
They might mind, but there isn't a thing they could do to prevent it.
However, I suspect these cameras might harder to spot and identify than you might think.
And regarding your latter part - again, they might mind, but as long as you were legally parked, in a public parking lot and weren't interfering with or disturbing anyone else's legal activity, then they can't stop you doing that either. Mind you, "legally parked" would of course include having YOUR car properly registered and plated.
Sounds like it's time.... (Score:2)
Sounds like it's time for a new website: fbi-camera-directory.com
Lol, no, really? (Score:2)
"Peter Winn [assistant U.S. attorney in Seattle] wrote to Judge Jones that the location information about the disguised surveillance cams should be withheld because the public might think they are an 'invasion of privacy.'"
Really? Why would anyone think a camera deployed to target you and pointed specifically at your home or place of business would be an "invasion of privacy"? Golly gee, I can't imagine...
There is an answer... (Score:3)
Everyone go out and take high res photos of utility poles and their GPS coordinates, upload to a site where crowdsourcing can investigate them and identify the cameras and create a public database of the locations.
Fuck you FBI.
Well this question is easy to answer... (Score:2)
will know what to look for to discern whether the FBI is conducting surveillance in a particular location
That's easy:THEY ARE.
Are these cameras (Score:2)
recording only events that are visible IN PUBLIC? Because you don't need a warrant for that.
ANYone can legally observe and/or record anything that is visible IN PUBLIC.
Its part of "freedom of the press". No, they can't require you to "register" to be recognize as the press, its called citizen journalism.
Again, IN PUBLIC.
Where are the poles located? (Score:2)
Most utility / telephone poles are located on easements of private property, and those easements have restrictions and limitations. Is the ability for the federal /state/ local government written into the easement? Most of them are very specific about what can and cannot be placed in the easement, and to change them most often requires the approval of the governing authority that placed the easement. Ma Bell fought for a long time to keep other peoples wires off their poles and used those very easement r
They aren't searching for terrorists or crims (Score:2)
This is why FBI HQ is still named after that tyrant Hoover.
Regsiter all cameras, put owner info on the camera (Score:2)
See a camera with no owner info, KILL IT!
Won't take long for FBI/CIA/NSA/Gov't 'fake' registrants to become known, then we can kill those too.
So what's the SOA on EMP guns?
Could it be any more clear? (Score:2)
That the FBI is now public enemy number 1?
Creepy (Score:2)
Re:The FBI couldn't find their ass if it had a hol (Score:5, Informative)
Registrant Organization: Symantec Corporation
Registrant Street: 350 Ellis Street
Registrant City: Mountain View
Registrant State/Province: CA
Yeah...I doubt Symantec is competent enough to be a threat. Or to protect against threats either, for that matter. Maybe before being paranoid, you should learn how the Internet works, and that when visiting an SSL-protected web site, your browser might compare the certificate against CRLs to make sure it's still valid.
Re: (Score:2)
nslookup crl.geotrust.com
crl.geotrust.com canonical name = crl-ds.ws.symantec.com.edgekey.net.
crl-ds.ws.symantec.com.edgekey.net canonical name = e6845.dscb1.akamaiedge.net.
Name: e6845.dscb1.akamaiedge.net
Address: 23.65.5.163
There's your proof that Symantec is involved in the distributed CRL system GeoTrust uses. Your results will vary slightly based on your geographic location, but it should be close enough.
Re: (Score:2)
'Resources are scare' was intended to be one of the brakes on pervasive surveillance -- it was historically hard to do, and required a good reason to follow someone around. Slapping up a camera requires far fewer resources so the bar naturally drops, and probably lower than it should.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I've read about the CCTV cameras in England, the vast majority of them are owned and operated by private businesses. That's not the same. The government doesn't have easy access to that data, and needs to get a proper warrant for it in case they have a valid suspicion that it recorded a crime.