Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Whose Cameras Are Watching New York Roads?

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the hope-it's-the-model-un dept.

Government 376

NormalVisual writes "License-plate reading cameras are popping up on utility poles all over St. Lawrence County in upstate New York, but no one is willing to say who they belong to. One camera was found by a utility crew, removed from the pole, and given to the local police. 'Massena Police Chief Timmy Currier said he returned it to the owner, but wouldn't say how he knew who the owner was, nor would he say who he gave it to....(Andrew) McMahon, the superintendent at Massena Electric Department, said one of his crews found a box on one of their poles and took it down because "it was in the electric space," the top tier of wires on the pole above the telephone and cable TV wires, and whoever put it there had taken a chance with electrocution. He said they had never received a request or been informed about its placement.'"

cancel ×

376 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FIrst Post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40196633)

Hahahaha NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER! Yeah. Go wet your bed now you liberal assholes.

Re:FIrst Post (-1, Troll)

chilvence (1210312) | more than 2 years ago | (#40197205)

DERPA DERRRRRRRRRP STINKY POO POO SMELLY WEE WEE AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ps dear slashdot post filter, here are some lowercase c's: ccccccc cccccccccc cccccccc ccccccccccccccccc ccccccccccc ccccccccccc ccccccccccc ccccccccccccccc ccccccccccccccc cc cccccccc cccccccccc cccccccccc ccccccc ccccc ccccc cccccccccc cccccccccccc ccccccccccccccc cccccccccccunt.

Re:FIrst Post (3, Interesting)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#40197241)

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

-- Mark Twain

Re:FIrst Post (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40197477)

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool ....

-- Mark Twain

Which you failed to do.

Re:FIrst Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40197509)

How convincing. I believe in light of these erudite remarks, I'll be voting Republican henceforth.

Treaspassing (4, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#40196649)

If they didn't have authorization from the city/etc then not only were they doing something a bit on the dangerous side, but its also illegal.

If they did, then its part of the city network anyway and not a huge deal.

Re:Treaspassing (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40196687)

Not a huge deal that the city won't acknowledge their existence?

Re:Treaspassing (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40197053)

Your supreme court agrees you have no expectation of privacy on a public road, now shut the hell up and enjoy your "freedom".

Re:Treaspassing (4, Insightful)

donaggie03 (769758) | more than 2 years ago | (#40196709)

What is the point of having these cameras, if not to catch speeders and red-light runners? If those two ARE the point of having these cameras, then people would be receiving citations based on photos from these cameras. So the immediate question that comes to my mind is: are people getting these citations, or not?

Re:Treaspassing (5, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 2 years ago | (#40196927)

What is the point of having these cameras, if not to catch speeders and red-light runners? If those two ARE the point of having these cameras, then people would be receiving citations based on photos from these cameras.

My guess would be a three-letter-agency, in the "war on (terror|drugs|communism|whatever)"

Re:Treaspassing (2)

donaggie03 (769758) | more than 2 years ago | (#40197011)

Well that's my guess too. I just thought it would be less tin-foil-hatty to rule out the possibility that they are being used for less nefarious purposes. The implication being that three-letter-agencies are nefarious.

Re:Treaspassing (4, Interesting)

skids (119237) | more than 2 years ago | (#40197013)

My guess would be a three-letter-agency, in the "war on (terror|drugs|communism|whatever)"

My guess is that it is more commodity than that. What PI wouldn't find the answer to the question "did this car go down this road between these dates" unworthy of a small disbursement from their client's expense account fairly frequently?

Re:Treaspassing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40197117)

To monitor your coming and going. You don't even have to have them on every street why not keep an eye on people, makes sense after all its a new world we are moving in the next two decades.

Re:Treaspassing (5, Insightful)

demachina (71715) | more than 2 years ago | (#40197137)

DEA has had license plate reading cameras on U.S. highways for a while. In particular they record every car on some routes in California, Texas, Arizona and recently Utah [msn.com] using ELSAG cameras though they usually make no attempt to hide them [checkpointusa.org] .

They analyze the data looking for people transporting drugs from the Mexican border among other things. Maybe they are just expanding the program to watch the traffic along the northern border too.

So, yea welcome to the big brother police state, we've been in it a while now. Say cheese!!

Re:Treaspassing (2, Informative)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#40197345)

None of this is a problem. There is a paint available [schnaz.com] that makes it very hard to photograph your license plate and as far as I can tell, this is a great thing.

Re:Treaspassing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40197299)

Given that St. Lawrence County is along the Canadian Border, these are probably for Border Patrol or DHS use.

Re:Treaspassing (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40196809)

Code dictates 40 inches distance from the bottom of the electric facilities. Telephone and cable wires need to be attached to the pole below that space. Code compliance is a major pain, but something like this probably sticks out like a sore thumb, so it was easily spotted by utility crews.

This is such a big box that doesn't look very covert to me. In southern AZ, we have different federal agencies and their cameras. Usually, they're really discreet and don't look like much at all. This seems like overkill, so it's probably some local police force trying to get away with something. Probably using it to notify when certain license plates are entering the area, and gather evidence of relationships and meetings. BTW, I learned everything about surveillance from The Wire.

Re:Treaspassing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40197061)

I'm in Tucson. That's southern AZ in my book.

The only agency putting up cameras is ATS ("American Traffic Solutions") (solving problems nobody identified).

The V-For-Vendetta mask and a baseball cap seem to stop them.
HOWEVER, Pima County judges refuse to find it a perjury for sworn testimony that "masked man #1" is allegedly me.

Problem #1: Cameras to observe the populace.
Problem #2: Judges allowing sworn testimony from Officer ATS, Badge 0000.
Problem #3: No oversight of the process.

I'm glad the utility crews took down the cameras. It makes no difference if they are in the "safe" zone or not.
The electric-zone CAN BE USED by non-electric companies -- they just have to pay a LOT more. See the
discussion re google fiber in Kansas City.

Regards,

Anonymous Coward

Re:Treaspassing (2)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40196911)

Pretty sure this calls for more tinfoil than that.

Re:Treaspassing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40197077)

St Lawrence County is 350-400 miles from NYC.

Re:Treaspassing (4, Insightful)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 2 years ago | (#40197295)

You're assuming that they weren't clandestinely placed by a clandestine three-alphabet-letter government agency.

If this sort of shit keeps up, I wouldn't be surprised if certain people start destroying ALL public cameras on general principles -- and I wouldn't blame anyone who did. George Orwell must be spinning in his grave about now and/or laughing riotously, wherever he might be, because He Told Us So and we apparently didn't listen.

Re:Treaspassing (1)

bpsbr_ernie (1121681) | more than 2 years ago | (#40197371)

It probably was homeland security... ;-)

Whatever happened to transparency? (4, Insightful)

JustShootMe (122551) | more than 2 years ago | (#40196657)

I'm not as worried about the existence of the cameras as I am that lots of people seem to know whose they are and no one's telling. That's kind of the antithesis of government transparency. I hope someone sues under FOIA.

Re:Whatever happened to transparency? (1)

donaggie03 (769758) | more than 2 years ago | (#40196791)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, FOIA is a federal law that provides for the exposure of federal information. I don't think anyone can file a FOIA request with the state of New York or any of its counties or cities.

Re:Whatever happened to transparency? (5, Informative)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40196817)

Most states have their own versions of FOIA, including New York. See http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/New_York_FOIA_procedures [sunshinereview.org] .

Re:Whatever happened to transparency? (1)

donaggie03 (769758) | more than 2 years ago | (#40196923)

Thanks for the input. It got me curious, so I checked to see if Texas has a FOIA as well. It turns out we do: The Texas Public Information Act. According to at least one website the TPIA is even stronger than the FOIA.

Re:Whatever happened to transparency? (1)

gnapster (1401889) | more than 2 years ago | (#40197303)

I like how that is an anagram of PITA. I wonder if that was brought about by some dissenting member of the original Texan committee that came up with the TPIA.

Re:Whatever happened to transparency? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40196811)

Transparency? What's that? Oh, that's right. Obama was talking it up... just wait to see how flexible [savejersey.com] he'll become if he gets re-elected. Not that Mitt is going to be any better but Obama had our freedoms in his sights long before he ever took office.

Re:Whatever happened to transparency? (5, Insightful)

JustShootMe (122551) | more than 2 years ago | (#40196885)

Not agreeing or disagreeing with your point, but since Mitt isn't going to be any better, according to you, why are you focusing on Obama? Agreed that he is president, but implicit in your statement is an admission that the problem is bigger than Obama.

Re:Whatever happened to transparency? (-1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#40197359)

Not agreeing or disagreeing with your point, but since Mitt isn't going to be any better, according to you, why are you focusing on Obama? Agreed that he is president, but implicit in your statement is an admission that the problem is bigger than Obama.

Well, at this point, I'd vote for anything....a small soap dish, over Obama.

If nothing else, we know he's a failure, and what is that saying?

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result"

Voting for Obama again, and expecting any better (I actually would fear worse from him if he's re-elected with no worries of further re-election hanging over him)....would be insanity. by that definition.

Re:Whatever happened to transparency? (2)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 2 years ago | (#40197425)

And voting for Romney with the expectation that he wouldn't be any better, i.e. worse, would be what?

Re:Whatever happened to transparency? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40197541)

Romney hasn't been president, but we sure do know how fucked up a president Obama has been. So Obama can be safely crossed of the list of presidential candidates. Just need to consider other candidate(s) now.

Re:Whatever happened to transparency? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#40196915)

Politics suck. We either get the known failure of Obama, or the guy promising to be a bigger failure. Sadly, I think people will vote for the candidate promising to be a failure. At least there's a chance he'll fail at that and accidentally do something good.

Re:Whatever happened to transparency? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40197083)

I don't agree, Obama has failed in some areas, yes. But, he did manage to get Osama, pass Obamacare, ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell and get some banking reform passed.

There are some pretty appalling failures like his failure to stop using the unconstitutional powers he'd inherited, but I don't think ignoring the good because of the bad is good for the country. We need to look at all he's done rather than just focusing on the bad.

Re:Whatever happened to transparency? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40197539)

Obamacare is stupid. It's basically free money for the insurance companies. It's an attack on the middle class too by forcing them to purchase health insurance that they can't afford. I would have supported if it was a publicly-ran thing that didn't result in higher cost for the working class.

Ending DADT is laudable, but it's a really minor issue in the big scheme. Obama's banking reforms? What banking reforms? Letting Goldman-Sachs cronies into his inner circle?

Re:Whatever happened to transparency? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40197583)

Both the efforts to get Osama and the banking reform passed were in the works before Obama was even nominated. Keep your eye on the ball. No administration starts from scratch.

As for ObamaCare? Seriously? ObamaCare is nothing more than a bailout for "big pharma" in the guise of a social program for Joe Sixpack. I know this, I work for big pharma and the CEO of my little slice of the healthcare pie didn't even try to hide how pleased he was with the outcome of the legislation. Oh, our stock is also at an all time high as well as cash flow. If ObamaCare was going to be putting things right for The Little Man(tm) than why is it that the healthcare field is booming right now and they're only ramping up for even more business as the costs of healthcare to the individual continued to rise at a record pace? I know this for a fact. I'm in the middle of it.

Re:Whatever happened to transparency? (4, Insightful)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 2 years ago | (#40197089)

dont worry, the new boss will be just as shitty as the old boss, at this point in US Politics i do not think voting will fix that corrupted den of vipers in Wash.D.C.

Re:Whatever happened to transparency? (1)

Lakitu (136170) | more than 2 years ago | (#40196967)

You shouldn't get all worked up about Obama being "flexible" after the elections. The Russians are upset about the missile shield (not really, they're just using it as leverage as a bargaining chip) and are trying to pressure the USA about it. Obama deflected this by saying "I agree, but these crazy republicans! I need their votes! It will be different after I get their votes."

ie, he was using the Republicans pressuring him as leverage to pressure the Russians. He's not actually flexible on the idea, and if he were, he wouldn't tell the Russians he was.

welcome to fucking politics 101.

Re:Whatever happened to transparency? (4, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 2 years ago | (#40197091)

um what? neither party cares about our freedoms.

Re:Whatever happened to transparency? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40196825)

Harry Bushtter and the prisoners of askabamo bay.

Re:Whatever happened to transparency? (2)

pitchpipe (708843) | more than 2 years ago | (#40196877)

I'm not as worried about the existence of the cameras as I am that lots of people seem to know whose they are and no one's telling.

Don't you worry your little head Citizen. They are only there to catch the Drug-Pushing-Pedophile-Terrorist-Atheists. Just Think Of The Children. Do you Hate 'Merica?!

You and your nasty freedom hating FOIA requests. You probably stick your dick in Mom's Apple Pie!

Re:Whatever happened to transparency? (2)

JustShootMe (122551) | more than 2 years ago | (#40196941)

What do you have against mom's apple pie? It's warm and squishy and... and...

I'll be in my bunk.

Re:Whatever happened to transparency? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#40197079)

I hope someone sues under FOIA.

And they will receive a heavily (if not completely) redacted document and be told that it was edited in the name of "national security". It's the new way around the FOIA.

Re:Whatever happened to transparency? (1)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#40197333)

More important your name will be added to a list of names of people to watch very closely and now that you have gained nearly no information, they will be spending their learning a whole lot about you.

Re:Whatever happened to transparency? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40197195)

Dream on your going to be able to sue and as soon as the masses of sheep get use to it who are you going to sue then, it will just be policy.

This isn't the Black Chamber (1)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40196659)

My first thought was that the Black Chamber might be implementing their own version of SCORPION STARE, but then it occurred to me that they wouldn't be this incompetent about it. So maybe there's some other party involved- it is still possible that these are loaded with basilisk technology.

Re:This isn't the Black Chamber (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 2 years ago | (#40196969)

Could be that someone wants us to think that Black Chamber is implementing SCORPION STARE. Or it could just be trials. Regardless, someone is apparently worried about CASE NIGHTMARE GREEN [pjmedia.com] .

Get a bat (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40196677)

And start smashing. See who comes calling.

Re:Get a bat (3, Interesting)

stevegee58 (1179505) | more than 2 years ago | (#40196731)

Even better: find one, dismount it and take it home to have a look at it.
Much more interesting.

Re:Get a bat (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40197319)

A word to the wise:
Take the camera down, put it in a Faraday cage immediately, then take it somewhere to dismantle and analyze it -- inside another Faraday cage. If it belongs to a three-letter government agency, then it may well have a GPS receiver in it and if you don't take precautions it'll lead them right to your doorstep.

Mount it in your bathroom (5, Funny)

swb (14022) | more than 2 years ago | (#40197433)

And let them watch you shit.

Re:Mount it in your bathroom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40197473)

Best slashdot comment ever.

Re:Get a bat (2)

donaggie03 (769758) | more than 2 years ago | (#40196733)

Destruction of public property, vandalism, etc. These are the charges I WOULD have been concerned about 15 years ago. Now, I'd have to worry that following your suggestion would lead to some type of retarded terrorism charges. I'd hate to start smashing and see that the people that come calling are the NSA or Homeland Security.

Re:Get a bat (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40196777)

Or put grease on the lens. They will need to send someone out to clean it, and probably will end up being a smaller fine. Record them as they fix it and see who their plates are licensed to.

Re:Get a bat (2)

donaggie03 (769758) | more than 2 years ago | (#40196835)

Another idea: Either these things are network connected, or they aren't. If they aren't they must be storing the pictures and someone has to come around frequently to download the information. If they are connected to a network, I'm sure some leet haxor wouldn't mind wasting a few hours trying to track some IP addresses and whatnot (not that I'm recommending it or anything).

Re:Get a bat (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#40197115)

And if they are network connected via wireless (encrypted 4.9MHz, possibly illegal for you to listen to enough to track down the HQ)?

Re:Get a bat (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40196987)

Paintball guns work better than grease. Especially when it's dangerous to get physically close to the camera.

Re:Get a bat (3, Informative)

jamesh (87723) | more than 2 years ago | (#40197033)

Real guns work even better than paintball guns... just sayin.

Re:Get a bat (3, Interesting)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#40197377)

Real guns work even better than paintball guns... just sayin.

Yeah, but you can get in trouble for shooting guns in public....how about some of those extremely high powered lasers you can buy off the internet...I'd have to guess a blast of one of those would burn out any sensors on the cameras beyond repair.

Re:Get a bat (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 2 years ago | (#40197435)

Real guns work even better than paintball guns... just sayin.

Yeah, but you can get in trouble for shooting guns in public....how about some of those extremely high powered lasers you can buy off the internet...I'd have to guess a blast of one of those would burn out any sensors on the cameras beyond repair.

I'm Australian so I don't have first hand experience with the laws in America, but was under the assumption that firing a gun in a public place wasn't really a big deal, but shining a laser at something was an act of terrorism and you'd be in big trouble.

Re:Get a bat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40197577)

Depends on the jurisdiction. In small towns and rural country you can get away with shooting guns (as long as it's not destroying property). It's frowned upon (by law) in big cities.

You can shine a laser at anything but aircraft and other people's eyeballs.

Re:Get a bat (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | more than 2 years ago | (#40197641)

Depends on the jurisdiction. In small towns and rural country you can get away with shooting guns

Even in rural areas it is usually illegal to shoot a gun near a paved public road.

Re:Get a bat (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#40197105)

Much more likely you would just disappear. Charges are too much bother.

open records request (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40196685)

File an official request demanding that they release any pertinent information related to the owner/operator of those cameras. There is no legal basis for them to deny you that information (operational security or an active investigation).

they're all over main roads in England (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40196701)

Basically everyone driving a car in England non-locally is tracked as they move around the country.

It's yet another reason I refuse to drive.

But if there is genuinely no knowledge of who they belong to in the US, someone should destroy one (on the basis of reasonable belief that it is a dangerous unauthorised addition to utility poles). The resulting court case would either reveal the owner or confirm that it is something thoroughly extra-legal.

They have to possess some sort of information... (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40196747)

These camera units have to have some sort of clue about their owner(unless they are configured in the not-so-terribly-useful 'record only to local storage, somebody climbs up when it is time to collect" mode). Are they connected to fixed wiring? Do they have a data radio of some flavor? WiFi? Cellular? Any SIM card to be pulled? Serial numbers, vendor information, dates of manufacture, etc, etc.

Unless somebody went to considerable trouble to do this in some deep-black-ops kind of way, they should leak clues like a sieve once somebody just gives the cops the finger and takes one apart...

Re:They have to possess some sort of information.. (2)

RenderSeven (938535) | more than 2 years ago | (#40196893)

Looks like a standard cellular antenna on top in the photo, so very likely a SIM card. Serial number on the camera and processor. And very likely a sticker in the cabinet that says "If found please Return to DHS. And keep your mouth shut Or Else". Although wouldnt surprise me if the phone was already ringing on the Captains desk when the box showed up.

Re:They have to possess some sort of information.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40196983)

It probably says "Property of the FBI" on it. That's how they know who to return it to and also why they won't say.

Obvious (3, Interesting)

stevegee58 (1179505) | more than 2 years ago | (#40196757)

It's DHS. Canadian border right?

Re:Obvious (0)

questionsaddict (1277150) | more than 2 years ago | (#40196827)

Nope, just got off the phone with them and they told me it's al qaeda again... Oh you, Al Qaeda

Re:Obvious (2)

donaggie03 (769758) | more than 2 years ago | (#40196855)

I agree. Fed involvement would also explain why the police chief is being so hush hush about the owner and why the data isn't being used in traffic court.

Re:Obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40197097)

Well, considering that the Canadian federal government quadrupled duty-free exemptions for visits of 48h or more, if the DHS wanted to track foreign cars in St-Lawrence Country, they could just put one camera up at BJ's, another at the mall, another at the Walmart Supercentre, another at Home Depot, and another (though not technically in St-Lawrence Country) at the Akwesasne Casino. Oh what the hell, include one at the Harte Haven Mall for the cheapskates who shop at Big Lots.

I'm going camping in the Adirondacks next weekend, I'll put a smiley face sticker on my trailer's licence plate so the guy monitoring the cameras can have a nice day.

Re:Obvious (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40196871)

St Lawrence is indeed on the Canadian border. [wikipedia.org]

Alternatively, set up your own hidden camera to monitor an existing one 24/7.
Take the existing camera offline. [warnlaser.com]
Record who comes to repair it.
Post video to YouTube.

Re:Obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40196907)

I would guess DEA. the War On Drugs(tm) has not ceased one bit with even the changing of the guard. if anything, they are digging in even more, even in spite of the states' wanting to legalize and stop the 'war'.

DEA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40196785)

DEA

Nobody's telling and it's obvious why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40196793)

If those cameras were installed without permission on poles owned by the utility company then it's trespassing. If they were installing unauthorized equipment which could have been malicious or caused damage to the power grid or other utilities, then it's a matter of national security.

Either way, they do have the power to retain information pertaining to a criminal investigation (which at this point is certainly warranted considering the above reasons).

Means for the Ends (0)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | more than 2 years ago | (#40196801)

It could be part of a scientific study. I could see benefits in trying to observe driver behavior without the drivers knowing.

But it's all speculation at this point, we should refrain from jumping to conclusions.

Re:Means for the Ends (1)

Apuleius (6901) | more than 2 years ago | (#40196903)

This is why scientists have to get their studied approved by institutional review boards: to make sure the study subjects don't have their rights violated.

So I doubt this is being done for science.

Re:Means for the Ends (1)

donaggie03 (769758) | more than 2 years ago | (#40196973)

To be fair, if the data is being collected by scientists conducting a study, I find it diffictult to determine whose rights are being violated. If the data is not being used by law enforcement, then I would say that scientists have a right to take pictures of passing cars (if they have permission to install the cameras of course).

Higher powered lasers... (4, Informative)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#40196819)

...can burn out some CCDs, or at least temporarily "blind" them.

And now I'm expecting a visit from DHS for disseminating easily available info. It's been nice not knowing you.

Re:Higher powered lasers... (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#40197165)

A pinhole in a non-obvious device could conceal a laser until the kill, and a conventional laser weapon sight could be boresighted beforehand to assist aiming. Put a camera behind the laser sight, and you could aim it remotely....

Re:Higher powered lasers... (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#40197401)

A pinhole in a non-obvious device could conceal a laser until the kill, and a conventional laser weapon sight could be boresighted beforehand to assist aiming. Put a camera behind the laser sight, and you could aim it remotely....

You know..if you could rig this up with some auto tracking and aiming gear....I'd be VERY interested in this...to blow out all traffic cameras in the area around here....

For educational purposes only, of course.

Re:Higher powered lasers... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40197605)

There was mention a while back about theatres using a device to detect the reflections from smuggled-in cameras, and automatically aim a low-power NIR laser to blind it.
With a laser of respectable power level, that could be useful in this context.

DEA (5, Interesting)

Sensi (64510) | more than 2 years ago | (#40196821)

It's the DEA. Doing the same thing outside of California. Logging traffic to find patterns of drug runners across the border.

Re:DEA (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40196889)

I live in Watertown, which is in the county south of St. Lawrence. Our local online newswank (newzjunky.com) has a few stories confirming this--federal grants funding license plate readers used by law enforcement for various and sundry tracking tasks, including mapping drug runners and catching local burglars.

Re:DEA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40197143)

As someone who spent the last 6 years up in Pdam this was my first thought as well...

Re:DEA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40197567)

Quote: "It's the DEA. Doing the same thing outside of California. Logging traffic to find patterns of drug runners across the border."

One more intolerable price of prohibition. Add it to the list.

Since the camera are trespassing . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40196929)

Geeks can gather them all up and do IP sniffing on them and such then publish the results in the NYT and see how deep it goes by if the article gets published or not . . .

Re:Since the camera are trespassing . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40197071)

It's like one of those movies where the set or the simulation starts to fray at the edges. The surveillance state is so pervasive in so many ways, the stuxnet escapes Iran because of a faulty update, surveillance cameras being discovered on "civilian roads" surveilling ALL civilians. What's next, the RPV's that HAVE been already deployed over cities augmented by a vast array of censors, doing zero tolerance convictions of all crimes by everyone with no need for a trial because all evidence is collected all the time? This isn't fiction. It's reality.

JJ

UR A BUNCH OF PUSSIE ROCKWELLS THE LOT OF U !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40196963)

Nobody's watching you !!

Sauce for the goose... (1)

Dutchmaan (442553) | more than 2 years ago | (#40196965)

If being constantly monitored has the aim of keeping a local populace in line, imagine what it would do for our politicians...

Follow The Rules (1)

Dripdry (1062282) | more than 2 years ago | (#40196971)

Who will watch the watchers?

Why, us of course! Why don't we just do what the government TELLS US to do and monitor everything around us, like this stuff, so that when push comes to shove we have evidence of who is doing stuff like this.

We keep digging in our heels, but why? If they want massive surveillance let us give it to them and see the shithammer that comes down sooner or later.

Re:Follow The Rules (1)

Dripdry (1062282) | more than 2 years ago | (#40197051)

replying to my own post, sorry. I sort of meant the above sarcastically, but I've said before: Giving others exactly what they want is inevitably their undoing. If we want the system to change let's just do what they *say* we're supposed to, wholeheartedly, and see the mess that's created.
Let's give DHS everything they want. Let's surveil everything, all the time, 24/7. Let's ENCOURAGE them to come in and monitor everything all the time. Have DHS at everything intersection in the whole damn U.S. and watch the system come to an immense, bureaucratic halt. Lobby Congress for huge increases in military spending, enormous social cuts that would make a Neocon's dick hard, incredible monitoring of every move made by every citizen, all the time.
Then sit on it for a little while until the entire mess implodes on itself.

I welcome some alternate points of view, because on one hand I think it could work, on the other there's the natural tendency to think it would make the situation infinitely worse and even harder to reverse course in the future.

Just by posting this... (2)

bjdevil66 (583941) | more than 2 years ago | (#40197021)

...you're risking the security of the country. Americans can't handle the truth, and the less they know about the dark side of terrorism or the drug trade flowing into the US, the better. It's easier to deal with in obscurity than with the partisan press making it hard for the security of our country to be kept up.

(I kid, but the sad part is that there are some out there that would actually agree with that sentiment 100%...)

Re:Just by posting this... (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#40197179)

Of course. It's always blame Canada.

Homeland Security! (5, Interesting)

gti_guy (875684) | more than 2 years ago | (#40197055)

Homeland Security agressively patrols that area since it borders Canada and has a international crossing at Cornwall. I've been stopped at road blocks hosted jointly by NYS Police & Homeland Security. The State Police stayed in the background while my car was singled out by Homeland Security for a walk-around sniff by their dog and an uncomfortable amount of questioning. I'm an old Unix admin who does not resemble a terrorist in the slightest. Also worth noting that that St. Regis Native American Reservation sits on both sides of the border there. Perhaps someone is trying to keep tabs on them??

Re:Homeland Security! (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#40197415)

Homeland Security agressively patrols that area since it borders Canada and has a international crossing at Cornwall. I've been stopped at road blocks hosted jointly by NYS Police & Homeland Security. The State Police stayed in the background while my car was singled out by Homeland Security for a walk-around sniff by their dog and an uncomfortable amount of questioning. I'm an old Unix admin who does not resemble a terrorist in the slightest. Also worth noting that that St. Regis Native American Reservation sits on both sides of the border there. Perhaps someone is trying to keep tabs on them??

I wonder by what authority they are stopping you? I mean...you don't have to answer their questions from what I've seen on other videos at the southern border. Can you just ask them if you're being detained...and if not...you'd like to go about your way?

an easy fix would be (2)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 2 years ago | (#40197059)

shoot em with a painball gun, just hit the lens, paintball wont cause permanent damage but it would force the owners to send out a crew to clean them, do it enough times and the cameras are no longer cost effective to the ticket happy privateers

Re:an easy fix would be (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 2 years ago | (#40197281)

The CIA would ID you using drones and satellites and send a wet team that would make it seem like you died in an masturbation mishap.

Re:an easy fix would be (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40197289)

Unless there's more than one camera monitoring the same intersection.
*shutter clicks*
Hey... guess who just got a ticket for vandalism?!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>