EFF Adds Street Surveillance Hub So Americans Can Check Who's Checking On Them (theregister.com) 56
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Register: For a country that prides itself on being free, America does seem to have an awful lot of spying going on, as the new Street Surveillance Hub from the Electronic Frontier Foundation shows. The Hub contains detailed breakdowns of the type of surveillance systems used, from bodycams to biometrics, predictive policing software to gunshot detection microphones and drone-equipped law enforcement. It also has a full news feed so that concerned citizens can keep up with the latest US surveillance news; they can also contribute to the Atlas of Surveillance on the site.
The Atlas, started in 2019, allows anyone to check what law enforcement is being used in their local area -- be it license plate readers, drones, or gunshot detection microphones. It can also let you know if local law enforcement is collaborating with third parties like home security vendor Ring to get extra information. EFF policy analyst Matthew Guariglia told The Register that once people look into what's being deployed using their tax dollars, a lot of red flags are raised. Over the last few years America's thin blue line have not only been harvesting huge amounts of data themselves, but also buying it in from commercial operators. The result is a perfect storm on privacy -- with police, homeowners, and our personal technology proving to be a goldmine of intrusive information that's often misused.
The Atlas, started in 2019, allows anyone to check what law enforcement is being used in their local area -- be it license plate readers, drones, or gunshot detection microphones. It can also let you know if local law enforcement is collaborating with third parties like home security vendor Ring to get extra information. EFF policy analyst Matthew Guariglia told The Register that once people look into what's being deployed using their tax dollars, a lot of red flags are raised. Over the last few years America's thin blue line have not only been harvesting huge amounts of data themselves, but also buying it in from commercial operators. The result is a perfect storm on privacy -- with police, homeowners, and our personal technology proving to be a goldmine of intrusive information that's often misused.
Does it Identify Corporate surveillance as well? (Score:3)
Not only is it inherently dangerous itself, it can also be another vector utilized by bad government actors.
Re:Does it Identify Corporate surveillance as well (Score:5, Interesting)
As a teacher, I added it to my "interesting links" page for my students.
Re: Does it Identify Corporate surveillance as wel (Score:1)
Ironic how private encryption will make services like these impossible.
Re: (Score:3)
The system is provided by a vendor, which shares data with law enforcement.
This is becoming more and more common. Soon, every business in the country will have cameras recording license plates as you drive by them and all stored in the cloud with the data being given to the government.
Doorbell cams (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Doorbell cams (Score:5, Informative)
In the US there is no legal expectation of privacy when you are in a public place. Anyone can record anything in a public place. It's one of the consequences of living in a free country.
Re: Doorbell cams (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no expectation of privacy when you are in public spaces. If you restrict recording in public spaces, that would likely result in an inability to record law enforcement doing their job poorly and keeping them accountable. How do you suggest to resolve issues like that? How can you both record in public and not record in public when there is no expectation of privacy in public? What are these "free countries" who also do not allow recording in public spaces?
Re: (Score:1)
There's always opposing freedoms -- freedom to record, and freedom from being recorded. Freedom from being recorded is universally considered to be vastly more important in bathrooms, for example, even a public bathroom. Similarly you probably don't want people to have the freedom to walk into the house you claim as yours, and set up recording in your bedroom, and eat from the fridge you claim as yours. All rights you have imply preventing conflicting rights.
Remember that being under surveillance is a huge
Re: (Score:2)
>Privacy is one of the most fundamental rights, and there's simply no way to have free speech without it /. has fallen.
Of course the correct take was modded down. Oh how
Re: (Score:3)
So you think photojournalism should be illegal?
Re: Doorbell cams (Score:2)
Name a free country.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah yeah, we've heard it all before. You tremolulously stand there, virtue signalling, "First Amendment? We don't need no stinking First Amendment!" (Most likely said from a country that lost freedom in living memory.)
Hint: It's about stopping those in powed from censoring. Demagogue blowhards getting 51% or better votes is their forte, and you have zero confidence democracy can wield such a power. And that ignores the principle of not building tyrant powers to begin with, as prophylactic.
Re: Doorbell cams (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the US there is no legal expectation of privacy when you are in a public place. Anyone can record anything in a public place. It's one of the consequences of living in a free country.
Most countries are the same, however there are nuances and limits.
Just because you can record me on the street, doesn't mean you have open license to use that footage as you please. In fact outside of very few exceptions (like news media and then there are limits) you're not permitted to publish footage of me at all without express permission from me (as in a signed contract, commonly called a model release).
When it comes to private security cameras there are also laws and limits. Positioning a camera
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wanted for the whole World (Score:4, Interesting)
The EFF probably has not enough volunteers and funding to expand this to the whole World. Although it would be very useful and appreciated as surveillance is not specific to the USA.
Even in Europe those tight privacy policies are under constant attack and evaporate like snow in a sunny spring day.
France's government passed laws to allow AI-assisted facial recognition to be used massively "because" of Paris Olympics. And these are likely to stay after the Olympics. See: https://www.bbc.com/news/world... [bbc.com]
Re:Wanted for the whole World (Score:4, Insightful)
The EFF probably has not enough volunteers and funding to expand this to the whole World. Although it would be very useful and appreciated as surveillance is not specific to the USA.
Even in Europe those tight privacy policies are under constant attack and evaporate like snow in a sunny spring day.
France's government passed laws to allow AI-assisted facial recognition to be used massively "because" of Paris Olympics. And these are likely to stay after the Olympics. See: https://www.bbc.com/news/world... [bbc.com]
Here in the hated land, it is pretty simple. On private property, the owner has the right to forbid recording in any form, or to record as they wish.
In public places, like the street, recording is allowed. If a person is recognizable in a photo, and the photo is published for money, you need a model release. If not, you were in public, so it is not illegal to shoot photographs in public.
Some times there is confusion about what constitutes public and private.
An example is the weird phenomenon of women recording themselves in commercial gyms dressed in rather revealing outfits, then posting it on Instagram, usually with a complaint that men are creeping on them, and simply looking at all in her direction is assumed creeping. Men have complained - often ended their membership because they would rather not be posted online with a claim of creeping.
Gyms, concerned that they are losing members, and that there appears to be a strong coincidence that when the men leave, the Instragram models go away as well - seems the creeping accusations are a critical part of their videos. Many gyms are banning videos other than their security cameras.
The women are complaining that they have the right to do this, because the gym is a public place. They are wrong. The gym is privately owned, so the owner (or the renter as their proxy) are well within their rights.
But the idea that a person has total privacy in a space that is accessible by all is interesting - that would make outside photography illegal if there was anyone in the image, even if they were doing something like stealing a vehicle, or murdering someone.
The good part is that if a person believes that no images ever be taken of them anywhere might be better served by moving to a country where no images of them anywhere are legal.
Re: Wanted for the whole World (Score:2)
I thought we wanted bodycams? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I thought we wanted bodycams? (Score:5, Insightful)
Agree 100%-- as I was reading through the list of surveillance techniques, I thought to myself "One of these things is NOT like the others". Even the staunchest privacy advocate must admit that there is no "expectation of privacy" when you are talking to a police officer.
As a resident of Chicago-- which is legendary for its police corruption and abuse-- I believe that police should always be required to wear bodycams. Any time a policeman's bodycam is absent or "not working", this should be treated as a disciplinary matter and a cause for grave suspicion. The EFF's arguments for distrusting bodycams (which you have quoted) are simply incoherent nonsense.
It's too bad, because in other respects, I greatly admire what the EFF is doing here.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that police should always be required to wear bodycams. Any time a policeman's bodycam is absent or "not working", this should be treated as a disciplinary matter and a cause for grave suspicion.
Sadly, that's not the case. They don't keep them on all the time and footage does get deleted.
NYC can't even get them to report all low-level interactions with the public:
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/U... [upi.com]
https://www.blackenterprise.co... [blackenterprise.com]
https://www.thecity.nyc/2024/0... [thecity.nyc]
The ex-cop mayor vetoed the "How Many Stops Act" (as well as a bill that would prohibit solitary confinement).
Can this be fixed? Sure, but they're actively working against fixing it, and it's still surveillance so you should know about it and
Re: (Score:3)
As a resident of Chicago-- which is legendary for its police corruption and abuse-- I believe that police should always be required to wear bodycams. Any time a policeman's bodycam is absent or "not working", this should be treated as a disciplinary matter and a cause for grave suspicion. The EFF's arguments for distrusting bodycams (which you have quoted) are simply incoherent nonsense.
It's too bad, because in other respects, I greatly admire what the EFF is doing here.
I'd take it a step further and any time body cam footage is "lost" or cameras are "forgotten" to be turned on the case should be dismissed due to lack of evidence.
Re: I thought we wanted bodycams? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Information that gives an honest view of police interactions is bad according to the EFF. People were predicting that body-cam advocates would change their tune once it became clear that a disproportionately high number of colored people (sorry, people of color) were having the police called on them for perfectly good reasons, and it happened very quickly. Good times!
Re: I thought we wanted bodycams? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When I talk to a responding officer to report a crime where I live, he or she will inform me at the outset that our conversation is being recorded by a body cam. I've sometimes wondered what would happen if I said, "I object to you doing that. You're violating my privacy!" It's not as if the officer can turn off the camera - they'd be disciplined for doing it.
The police
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Human curator (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
My front porch camera (a local-only NVR) has saved me from a significant lawsuit based on false-allegations. Once the accusers found out the whole incident was recorded, they shut up and went away.
Incidentally, the camera system was setup the day before the incident occurred.
Re: (Score:3)
Amazing that there are accounts here defending surveillance. A lot different from 1998 slashdot. But that WAS before the right wing lost its mind.
Has nothing to do with being right wing - who yes, they've lost their mind.
I have cameras up around the house. The ones in back of the house are there mostly to watch the wildlife. The one in front of the house is there to check on deliveries. or let us know when we get visitors. Being deaf, I don't hear doorbells, so that's an added feature.
Now if my cams were to catch someone in a criminal act, yes, I would submit that to law enforcement. Don't like that? Don't key my car. On my property, my rules. I
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
Excuse me? Living in a very red state myself, there are cameras everywhere - on the roads and highways, around businesses, around homes, you name it. Not to mention the multitude of people who pull out their cell phones to record and repost everything on social media.
It's the same wherever you go - people may pay lip service to being anti-surveillance, right up to the point where someone steals the package from their front porch, and then they buy a Ring camera. I've seen some extremely ardent anti-camera types suddenly have a change of heart when their own property is stolen and the police can do nothing.
Many people are anti-surveillance, until they decide that they can be the exception to the rule with their own cameras.
Re: (Score:2)
Many people are anti-surveillance, until they decide that they can be the exception to the rule with their own cameras.
I'm not anti-camera. I'm anti cameras everywhere uploading constantly to a cloud service that opens its records to every request from the police. If someone wants to install closed circuit cameras on their property and record to a local tape or hard drive, more power to them. But make the cops go door to door and ask for recording and get a warrant. If the crime is serious enough to warrant grabbing records of who was where when, then it warrants a warrant. There should be some friction to police survei
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah people are sick of petty crime and now technology is cheap enough to keep an eye on whomever might be stealing from your porch or back yard.
I'm not saying this sarcastically, it must be nice having to never deal with criminal neighbours or ineffective policing. It is a luxury and privilege to live somewhere so nice that nobody needs or wants surveillance equipment.
My neighbour has had shit stolen from him by another neighbour almost certainly (there were literally tracks in the ground from the stolen i
license plate readers (Score:2)
"So if communities or homeowners associations are putting up license plate reader, police often can very easily get access to that data as well."
Anybody can set up a license plate reader on their property including an HOA, but it certainly doesn't mean the police will know about it or have access to it.
There can be good reasons to have one installed. Where I live there are occasional instances where a vehicle slowly cruises through the neighborhood at 3am while the passengers get out and look for unlocked c
Re: (Score:3)
What the EFF refuses to come to terms with is the proliferation of surveillance technology that has absolutely nothing to do with the police, e.g. privately owned LPR cameras. To them, everything revolves around "How can the police abuse this?" when in fact the technology has grown far beyond that.
Right now you can buy a Wyze OG Telephoto camera that
Re: (Score:3)
"whenever suspicious activity is detected"
I do machine vision projects as a hobby, and real time image recognition of dozens of items is already widely available that will run on edge devices such as a Raspberry Pi with a camera. You can even generate your own recognition models if you have enough example images. 'Suspicious activity' could be something as simple as a person in a hoodie at 2am, or someone reaching for a car door handle. Or even a person in the vicinity of a car.
I can understand how EFF woul
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is not that individual people or organizations set up surveillance gear. The problem is that most of that gear now talks to a few well known companies' cloud services. So all this data is aggregated in a very few places that are for the most part very amicable if not downright eager to cooperate with cops. This makes it way too easy for cops to do virtual dragnets.
Reminds me of the cocaine-on-money test (Score:3)
Years ago, some researchers thought it would be a boon for police, if they could quickly and cheaply test money for cocaine residue. When they tested some random bills they borrowed from staffers, they found cocaine...on all of them.
Just assume that you are always on camera, everywhere you go. If you step into your back yard, or front yard, or drive somewhere, or walk into a store or business or other person's home...guess what, you're on camera.
But it's for YOUR safety and security (Score:1)