San Diego's Police Are Using Video from 'Smart' Streetlights (ieee.org) 100
Slashdot reader Tekla Perry is also senior editor at IEEE Spectrum, and brings a story about San Diego's 3,300 "smart streetlights," each one equipped with "an Intel Atom processor, half a terabyte of storage, Bluetooth and Wi-Fi radios, two 1080p video cameras, two acoustical sensors, and environmental sensors that monitor temperature, pressure, humidity, vibration, and magnetic fields."
San Diego's smart streetlights were supposed to save money and inspire entrepreneurs to use streetlight sensor data to develop apps that would make the city a better place. The money savings didn't add up and the apps never emerged. Instead, the San Diego police realized the video data, intended to be processed at the edge by AI algorithms [and deleted after 5 days], could be tapped directly for law enforcement. Now consumer groups are looking to the city to pass legislation governing the use of data, and other cities are opting to avoid such issues by leaving cameras out of future intelligent lighting systems.
The first video accessed by police exonerated a person they'd arrested for murder in August of 2018. But over the next 10 months they'd accessed 99 more videos to investigate what they called "serious" crimes, a number climbing to up to 175 videos by early 2020. "The list included murders, sexual assaults, and kidnappings — but it also included vandalism and illegal dumping, which caused activists to question the city's definition of 'serious'..." according to IEEE Spectrum. "To date, San Diego police have tapped streetlight video data nearly 400 times, including this past June, during investigations of incidents of felony vandalism and looting during Black Lives Matter protests."
Morgan Currie, a lecturer in data and society at the University of Edinburgh, tells the site it's "a classic example of how data collection systems are easily retooled as surveillance systems, of how the capacities of the smart city to do good things can also increase state and police control."
San Diego's smart streetlights were supposed to save money and inspire entrepreneurs to use streetlight sensor data to develop apps that would make the city a better place. The money savings didn't add up and the apps never emerged. Instead, the San Diego police realized the video data, intended to be processed at the edge by AI algorithms [and deleted after 5 days], could be tapped directly for law enforcement. Now consumer groups are looking to the city to pass legislation governing the use of data, and other cities are opting to avoid such issues by leaving cameras out of future intelligent lighting systems.
The first video accessed by police exonerated a person they'd arrested for murder in August of 2018. But over the next 10 months they'd accessed 99 more videos to investigate what they called "serious" crimes, a number climbing to up to 175 videos by early 2020. "The list included murders, sexual assaults, and kidnappings — but it also included vandalism and illegal dumping, which caused activists to question the city's definition of 'serious'..." according to IEEE Spectrum. "To date, San Diego police have tapped streetlight video data nearly 400 times, including this past June, during investigations of incidents of felony vandalism and looting during Black Lives Matter protests."
Morgan Currie, a lecturer in data and society at the University of Edinburgh, tells the site it's "a classic example of how data collection systems are easily retooled as surveillance systems, of how the capacities of the smart city to do good things can also increase state and police control."
It's still a crime (Score:3, Insightful)
but it also included vandalism and illegal dumping, which caused activists to question the city's definition of 'serious'.
I'm guessing store owners wouldn't care if their store was vandalized or someone illegally dumped their trash on the street in front of the store.
In the past I would have asked the question, "Are people really this stupid?", but reality has shown the futility of such asking.
Re:It's still a crime (Score:4, Insightful)
but it also included vandalism and illegal dumping, which caused activists to question the city's definition of 'serious'.
I'm guessing store owners wouldn't care if their store was vandalized or someone illegally dumped their trash on the street in front of the store.
In the past I would have asked the question, "Are people really this stupid?", but reality has shown the futility of such asking.
People like you will celebrate the construction of this kind of dystopian police surveillance state where every single move you make is monitored, right up until the moment it is you who are adversely affected by it. I know this because I have several relatives who rejoiced when communists, socialists, gays, catholics and jews were being disappeared during the Third Reich. They revelled in this right up until they themselves were fingered to the Gestapo by informers for doing what is still pretty mundane crap in modern western democracies but qualified as treason in the dystopian police surveillance state they used to like so much. Enjoy the schadenfreude while it lasts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
he cameras are a neutral entity in that they help everyone, not just the state.
What is important is that everyone has access to the feeds.
Eggzactly! Public oversight is the elephant in the room. I wish the idea would get a bit more attention. It's always interesting to hear people argue against it. It's always sad when the naysayers are given credence and support by our elected councils.
Re: (Score:1)
..the cameras are a neutral entity in that they help everyone, not just the state
AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *guffaw* you actually believe that bullshit that just came out of your mouth!? REALLY!? HAHAHAHAHA!!!
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
you actually believe
Unlike you, I do not act on faith.
What I KNOW is that as the story said, the very first case it was used on it caused the police to realize someone was innocent they thought was guilty, and they were let go.
In your world, that innocent person would be in jail. Do you realize what monumental asshole you are being by trying to block technology that can be used by people to prove innocence when there is no other proof to be had?
In your world you would have to go out in groups of three at
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cameras are technically neutral in the same way drain cleaner is. If you have small children in the house, it should be kept out of reach.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Put them all on the web, make no effort to keep people from recording the feed. Anyone can be watching, anyone can be recording. No more video that just disappears if the local government doesn't like what it proves. No more bald assertions about what is on the video without releasing it.
As a bonus, it frees up police resources. Let citizens watch out of curiosity and report any crimes they see.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Technology doesn't make a police state, the police do. For example, see low tech police states.
Dumping and vandalism, someone will report those, and the police will investigate. It's what we all expect them to do. If they use streetlight cameras, or lower tech ways to do that, it doesn't change the situation. There's nothing generally wrong with cameras in public places or routine police work in and of themselves. I'm not saying camera placement or "routine" police work can't ever be wrong, just that t
Re: (Score:2)
People like you will celebrate the construction of this kind of dystopian police surveillance state where every single move you make is monitored, right up until the moment it is you who are adversely affected by it.
The dystopian police state isn't dystopian providing police uphold the law and the law serves the interests of the public. The USA has a massive problem with both of those conditions.
Your Third Reich example falls flat on it's face as it's not the police state which brought them down, but the laws the police were enforcing not being in the interest of the people. Killing Jews is quite different to say a universal littering law with automatic fines through a surveillance system. Both of them fit the definiti
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
What you have, my friend, is Hyperbolic Hysteria. You are a paranoid lunatic, and your blather is distracting and stupid.
No one listens to kooks like you.
Re: (Score:2)
..because I said so! NYAAAAH!
Fuck off
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It's still a crime (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It's still a crime (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Some municipalities have arbitrary bylaws that are rarely enforced, such as bans on items of clothing with particular properties such as color.
The rejection of such continuous surveillance is not based upon concrete and immediate consequences. It is rather due to the potential for consequences. It may seem efficient to prosecute thought-crime proactively upon identifying a risk for criminal beh
The Patriot Act was used against US Citizens (Score:3)
You're right that it stands to reason that surveillance tech and laws will not be used only for things the public by and large wants them to be. But I think the point deserves to be driven home without emphasizing the crime in question. Doing that makes the use of this tech seem justified, though I'm not sure if you intended that or not.
Re:It's still a crime (Score:4, Interesting)
Nobody said that vandalism and illegal dumping were not crimes. But they are not _serious_ crimes. Looking at the videos is invading the privacy of other people caught in the camera at the same time (even if the street is a public place, there is still an expectation of reasonable privacy. This expectation is why the police is not allowed to put a GPS tracker in a car without a warrant for instance, even though the car will be on the public streets pretty much all the time).
And worse, giving permissions to access the data for lesser crimes also increases the chances of rubber stamping the warrants, which then increases the chances of abuses (who is going to check if an officer is really using the warrant to track a petty pickpocket and not some pretty blonde person?)
How are they not serious (Score:1)
Nobody said that vandalism and illegal dumping were not crimes. But they are not _serious_ crimes.
The summary itself talks abut *felony* vandalism. We aren't talking abut some spray paint on a wall; we are talking about windows smashed and extensive internal damage to a store. Yes that is serious.
For dumping, it's very easy for dumping to be pretty serious as it doesn't take much to create a biohazard that is pretty harmful to humans, or to have chemicals that are incredibly harmful to any nearby streams
Re: (Score:1)
Then maybe dumping should be considered "crime against humanity" because there is a potential to be that serious too?
You were being sarcastic but what is your argument against this.
If I dump oil a few times on some ground, that ground won't even be able to grow weeds.
How is that not a crime against humanity, to render useless for a long period of time actual land?
Seriously, there is such a thing as proportionate responses.
Ok, what is the "proportionate" response to poising a stream and killing, say, 100 ani
How are they not serious (Score:2)
As someone who's had to deal with the consequences of other people's illegal dumping it's both a crime and a real problem. Sorry that those not touched by this problem don't think it's worthy of attention. And in the vein of a surveillance state yeah I've thought to put up cameras. Sorry that it violates people's right to be dicks. Gotta preserve what's important.
Re: (Score:3)
(even if the street is a public place, there is still an expectation of reasonable privacy.
No, there is not. If you are on the street everything you wear and do is visible to everyone around you. If someone is near you, anything you say is probably being overheard by them. There is no expectation of privacy in a public place. Your example of a GPS tracker on a car is a complete non-starter. You have not only moved the goalposts, but failed in that anyone driving a car is visible to anyone who is out. An
Re: (Score:2)
even if the street is a public place, there is still an expectation of reasonable privacy
Not sure what kind of weird leap of logic you have there.
This expectation is why the police is not allowed to put a GPS tracker in a car without a warrant for instance
Errr no. The public street has nothing to do with that. *YOUR CAR* is the deciding factor there. And e.g. the police are very much allowed to follow you around with a camera and tracking device as much as they want. They just can't mount it on *YOUR CAR*, the one thing in this equation which is most definitely not a public area.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody said that vandalism and illegal dumping were not crimes. But they are not _serious_ crimes.
A serious crime is a crime that happens to you. If you don't believe it, check out how people respond to porch pirates.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Vandalism includes stuff like graffiti. Obviously it can be serious if someone spray paints a swastika on your shop but most of it is low level non-serious crime.
This is what they always do. Reassure you it will only be used for the worst people, the most serious crime, and then redefine everything to be in that category.
but, but, but IoT!?!?! (Score:2)
no sh!t.
The simple solution is transparent oversight (Score:2)
But it won't happen until people demand it.
So, it's up to us. Easy peasy!
But who watches the watchers? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
which is why this sort of surveillance shit should not be allowed to exist in the first place
The best that can be done, your only option, is to take away the advantage. Good luck
Oh, and try not to bury yourself in the part, you know, a bit more subtlety will make the act more plausible
Really? (Score:2, Troll)
"including this past June, during investigations of incidents of felony vandalism and looting during Black Lives Matter protests."
So looters might get shot on site but their crime is not serious enough to check the CCTV?
Re: (Score:1)
No one HAS been shooting looters on sight, more's the pity. They certainly aught to be.
Sounds like ripe pickings (Score:2)
for hobbyists looking for a good source of "free" parts.
"...each one equipped with "an Intel Atom processor, half a terabyte of storage, Bluetooth and Wi-Fi radios, two 1080p video cameras, two acoustical sensors, and environmental sensors that monitor temperature, pressure, humidity, vibration, and magnetic fields."
Re: (Score:3)
Those specs look a bit suspicious to me. That's seriously over-speced for the intended purpose - you don't need all that for monitoring sensors. And why were cameras included at all?
I wonder if CCTV was the plan all along. The public might get upset about mass-deployment of city-controlled surveilance, but a smart streetlight system seems safe enough, and once the cameras have been installed it only makes sense to exploit an existing resource for law enforcement.
Re: (Score:2)
Those specs look a bit suspicious to me. That's seriously over-speced for the intended purpose - you don't need all that for monitoring sensors. And why were cameras included at all?
Because that hardware is dirt cheap compared to the cost of installing it. We're probably not talking about some sort of exotic cutting edge camera technology. They're probably just standard off the shelf sensors and lenses that added fraction of a percent to the overall cost of the project once you take into account design, planning, project management, installation and ongoing support.
Re: (Score:2)
Violent crime (Score:5, Insightful)
They should always require a warrant to look at surveillance videos and even then it should be for specific heinous crimes and under supervision of a rotating civilian body chosen randomly.
The video should be encrypted on camera with the key split up and held by an independent citizen group.
Any violation of this should be a serious felony.
I don't think that'll work (Score:4, Insightful)
It's easy enough to pressure those citizens into giving up their key. Just point to some statistic that shows people who commit minor crimes are likely to commit major ones, and make sure the keys are unevenly distributed in well to do districts where people are seldom the victims of crime but are inexplicable terrified of the stuff. e.g. so that they're likely to let the cops have the video but unlikely to suffer any consequences from doing so. Finally pack the courts with "Tough on Crime" judges and you'll be having them rubber stamp all your warrants.
The problem is that the underlining systems your relying on to provide checks & balances are broken. It's like with what Trump is doing where he's undermining to Post Office to prevent voting for his opponent. What should be happening right now is the Senate & House pass a bill to block Trump from doing that, and possibly even impeach him for the crime of election interference. But it's not, because that balance is broken, and now it's very possible we are going to stop being a democracy in November.
But all that said Trump still couldn't do that without an Electoral College and a ton of Gerrymandering that put his people in charge of State Legislatures who in turn suppressed votes, leading to a Supreme Court that gutted the Voting Rights Act.
Again, all these systems are interconnected and the machinery of them is complex. It requires regular maintenance, but folks don't like doing that because nobody likes change.
Re: (Score:2)
That points to a more systemic problem. If you can't keep those things from happening then you good luck banning surveillance. I mean, if people are that gullible and manipulatable then whats to stop them from setting up cameras discretely and using it ONLY for privacy violation while not even helping when there's serious crimes (for fear of revealing they have total surveillance)? That's your argument right? Making something illegal doesn't stop it?
Re: (Score:3)
The patriot act had no civilian oversight built in. The patriot act didn't even require warrants that was the whole point of the patriot act was to allow warrantless stuff!
You missed the part where they stack the deck (Score:2)
In practice cops can kill black folks with impunity because they can count on there being at least 1 person on a jury who won't convict and prosecutors can put innocent folks in jail for years with the threat of life in prison from a "tough on crime" jury.
Again, t
Re: (Score:2)
Usually when police are not convicted of crimes all the jurors vote to acquit. Check it if you don't believe me. It's very very rare to have a split verdict/mistrial.
Re: (Score:1)
Regulate applications, not technology (Score:5, Insightful)
There will be an endless stream of new technologies allowing new types of surveillance. Trying to regulate that on a case by case basis (facial recognition, street light cameras, walking gait detection, voice recognition etc) is hopeless. Instead we need to regulate how surveillance data from ANY source can be used.
An age of universal surveillance where everything everyone does is monitored seems inevitable, and unregulated that can lead to some very dark scenarios.
I we regulate the use cases - eg, "when can law enforcement have access to data on a person's movements". then those restrictions remain even as the technology changes.
Re:Regulate applications, not technology (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the second amendment applies. The whole point of the 2nd amendment is that the state should not have a monopoly on pwer so if it gets too oppressive the people can overthrow the state. Surveillance is just another kind of weapon. I have no issue with these systems as long as the feed is available publicly and not just to law enforcement. we should be able to watch cops outside their homes to see if they are drinking while claiming overtime.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We already put a lot of restrictions on law enforcement. For example police are not allowed to enter your house without a warrant (in general). Police are in general also not allowed to install surveillance devices on your property without a warrant.
I think the question is what restrictions we should put on police with regard to surveillance. There is a tradeoff between the effectiveness of police at stopping crime, and giving police the ability to commit abuses.
Re: (Score:2)
The best disinfectant is sunlight. Who will watch the watchers? The public will. if you want to be a LE officer you should have to give up your privacy. Noone is forcing you to sign up. If the public could monitor LE, they would feel more comfortable about the LE monitoring them.
Re: (Score:2)
Not being able to enter houses without permission is the general rule for anyone. LE gets a special privilege to enter with a warrant. Warrantless entry is simply breaking and entering or home invasion depending on whether the house is occupied or not. Doesnt matter who commits a crime , being LE doesnt offer automatic right to commit crimes
Re: (Score:3)
That's not what the second amentment is for. That's what people much later retroactively decided the second amendment was for. It wasn't about 'the people' overthrowing the state - it was about the states maintaining a military capability independent of the federal government, serving both as a limitation on federal power and so that congress could not force compliance from a state by threatening to withhold military support That's why the amendment itself says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to
Re: (Score:2)
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"
Militia at that time applied to everything from a National Guard down to your local sheriff. Since the Constitution reserves the power to provide arms to militias to Congress, the amendment was provided to protect states' abilities to enforce laws and keep the peace. Police departments can be created and sheriffs' deputies sworn in based on the rights of their citizens to be armed. Not armed by the state on the condition of being a member of law enforcement (a militia).
A states right to maintain an indepen
Re: (Score:2)
And yet still, nothing in what you say would cover an individual right to gun ownership for self-defense. However militia is interpreted, it's clearly a group of people - and a 'well regulated' one at that. Not individuals.
I think we can all agree what whoever wrote that amendment did a really terrible job with the wording. Even for someone familiar with the dialect of the time, it's ambiguous and just awkward.
Re: (Score:2)
States can't arm their militias. Either directly, or indirectly, by granting rights to possess or use arms subject to their belonging to such an organization. So yeah. A state could outlaw the possession of arms for self defense. But they would have to impose that same restriction on their police departments and other militia type groups.
Re: (Score:2)
Security of a free state includes security from tyranny. If not they would not have included the word free in there. There is a reason the US military takes a oath to protect from all enemies foreign and domestic. The forefathers had just fought a rebellion against what they felt was an unjust govt. They were paranoid about the govt becoming unjust again so the primary purpose of the second amendment was to make rebellions like the one they had just executed, possible in the future as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Surveillance i going to happen, it'll either be like the war on drugs where we stupidly blanket ban (so only the bad guys will have it) it or we can allow it in a regulated manner.
Do you support vandalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whats the author's problem with police using video to stop vandalism and street dumping?
In fact the video should be made publicly available and it can also be used for spotting and prosecuting police brutality incidents.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So apparently you enjoy being in the most monitored, watched, surveilled and recorded empire in the history of the planet
If you had any sense you would too; it protects you from false accusations and police overreach.
The notion of âoefreedomâ is farce
Cameras everywhere is the kind of thing that makes freedom easier to have, because less trust is required to maintain it.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the problem is that you get the first without out the second.
A society where everyone has access to all surveillance / tracking data might work - though it would need some social adjustments. In reality what we have now is that the data is only available to those already in positions of power.
BTW- I'm not an extremists liberal who thinks no one should have power but I am concerned when it becomes too easy for those in power to increase that power, and be immune from any consequences. I want ther
Re: (Score:2)
"In fact the video should be made publicly available and it can also be used for spotting and prosecuting police brutality incidents."
You can't possibly be stupid enough to believe that would ever actually happen.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine that any video showing police officers would be immediately restricted to 'protect the safety of officers and their families.'
Re: (Score:3)
Why are the lives of police officers more valuable? I would say they sshould have lesser protections than the general public. Noone is forcing them to sign up. They sign up, get free training and salaries so that they can risk their lives so that the public doesnt have to. If the cops were working for free we could talk about equal rights.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no doubt you're right. Not to mention the "equipment failures" that would occur at opportune times.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is watching you inside your house, they are only watching when you are in public and with a public feed you can also watch them when they are in public
Solution looking for a problem (Score:1, Troll)
Who thought this was a good idea to begin with?! (Score:1)
Police using the footage aside - what moron thought it was a good idea to put cameras in all the street lights to "make a greener city" and that that would SAVE MONEY?!
"You don't want these dumb street lights anymore councillor Kshama, y'all want... SMART street lights that'll solve climate change, yeahh... that's the ticket."
"Hey, I'm not some idiot - how will paying more money for street lights solve climate change?"
"Apps!"
"oooh... yess... appps @-@ Let's spend more on these."
Just disable them (Score:1)
Did San Diego become Beijing? Just disable them, switch them off and leave out surveillance monster in the dark.
Hey, check out her jowels! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With top-down view into tops... should be fun :)
This thing is horrifying. 3300 connected updateable computers with HD video.
My new hobby: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Rename them (Score:2)
"Now consumer groups are looking to the city to pass legislation governing the use of data, and other cities are opting to avoid such issues by leaving cameras out of future intelligent lighting systems."
Where I live _all_ surveillance cameras are fixed to lighting posts, even if a bit lower than the light itself, but anyway, just call them what they are 'surveillance cameras' and everything will be hunky dory because they won't be 'misused'.
San China-o, more like! (Score:2)
[no full comment needed]
not pitched as surveillance (Score:2)
I live in San Diego, I see these street lights with what appears to be a large wi-fi router attached around town.
It's really important to understand how this program started. It was pitched to the city government as an energy saving project. The city was upgrading old streetlights to LEDs, and GE offered to help finance further upgrades to to a new smart streetlight system they were developing, with a promise that the energy savings of the smart system would pay for the loan. (This is like the car salesma