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!

Cameras To Watch Cameras In Maryland

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the watching-the-watchers dept.

Privacy 297

Cornwallis writes in with a story reminding cameras everywhere that just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't watching you. "Many people find speed cameras frustrating, and some in the region are taking their rage out on the cameras themselves. But now there's a new solution: cameras to watch the cameras. One is already in place, and Prince George's County Police Maj. Robert V. Liberati hopes to have up to a dozen more before the end of the year. 'It's not worth going to jail over a $40 ticket or an arson or destruction of property charge,' says Liberati."

cancel ×

297 comments

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

um... (5, Funny)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#41335541)

That's a race condition if I ever saw one...

Re:um... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335681)

More like a switch statement. Destroy A, you're on B. Destroy B, you're on A.

That is... until the ticketed start using guided rockets with air burst munitions to reach out and hit those cameras. Or, you know, go to their town hall meetings to protest them. Happened here and the village shut the cameras down. Worst. Expenditure. Ever.

Re:um... (2, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about 2 years ago | (#41335815)

Sadly, knowing people, they'll move to a longer range mechanism of destruction, that will be much less feasible to observe with a detection net.

And of course, some of these people will miss. Some of these misses will damage property of innocent 3rd parties, possibly harm innocent bystanders, and possibly even kill innocent bystanders. The sad part is, these people, will pass blame for their actions onto the government, rather than taking responsibility for what they've done, and feel completely justified in doing so. The response to this will be the government putting up more cameras...

Not saying that a I approve of the cameras, either, but two wrongs don't make a right, especially when the second is done to an innocent bystander. This escalation is also scaring me.

Re:um... (4, Insightful)

MitchDev (2526834) | about 2 years ago | (#41336133)

Or wear masks. Dith the camera, we're sick of Big Brother. We're disgusted with the Police State America is descending in to. The terrorists won. There hasn't been a major terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. Because of DHS and/or the TSA? No. The terrorists achieved their goal on 9/11, for the past 11 years they've been laughing as America destroys itself over that one day of attacks...

Double negative (2)

Aethedor (973725) | about 2 years ago | (#41336165)

but two wrongs don't make a right

But I was told that double negative is positive...

Re:Double negative (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41336345)

"You can't not say that." =/= "You can say that."

The difference being "You can't not say that." implies that is must be said. Compared to "You can say that." which that you don't need to say it, but you can if you want. Double negatives in language do not equal not having any negatives.

Re:um... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41336381)

I don't doubt that somebody will break out the anti-materiel rifle that they normally use for hunting armored moose; but the more plausible response would seem to involve paintball gear.

It's cheap, it's close to silent, BATF doesn't give a damn about it, so its relatively anonymous, and it coats visible light optics just fine, freeing you to come closer and give your target a dose of tire-iron surprise.

Re:um... (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about 2 years ago | (#41336313)

Another options is to wear a mask.

Re:um... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335849)

I was thinking military tactics: Never fortify a more secure position with a less secure position. They'll just knock out the less secure one first...

Re:um... (3, Funny)

Blue Stone (582566) | about 2 years ago | (#41336231)

One possible future: two giant cameras watching each other.

(While everybody goes goes about their lives, unhindered).

But... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335545)

Who watches the cameras that watches cameras?

Re:But... (2)

Dave Whiteside (2055370) | about 2 years ago | (#41335569)

they'll just have more camera to watch those .. ad infinitum ....

Re:But... (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | about 2 years ago | (#41335691)

I'm not sure why it is inconceivable that both cameras are in each others' field of view, so that they watch *each other*...

Not that it is necessarily the case, nor do I think this is a good idea... I'm just sayin...

Re:But... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41335891)

Which will mean higher power longer range attacks will be used. Thus endangering more people. I am not saying people should do that, but they will.

Re:But... (1)

AwesomeMcgee (2437070) | about 2 years ago | (#41335985)

I somehow doubt people are using hunting rifles on speed traps, I further doubt that they would do that in america, but maybe I put too much faith in my fellow americans.. Now I would *not* be surprised to hear about this happening in the types of country where everyone walks around carrying high powered rifles all the time, but those countries have much larger troubles than speed traps anyways.

Re:But... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41336043)

I did not even mean hunting rifles. These kinds of cameras are not very high resolution, so even small caliber firearms have enough reach.

Re:But... (4, Interesting)

DJRumpy (1345787) | about 2 years ago | (#41336127)

I would have to agree that you are putting way too much faith in us. I used to work at Mobile before it merged with Exxon, and it was right off the interstate. It was fairly common for bullets to hit the glass as high as the 14th floor.

People love to shoot at things that irritate them, and these cameras are nothing more than revenue machines.

"It costs us $30,000 to $100,000 to replace a camera. That's a significant loss in the program. Plus it also takes a camera off the street that operates and slows people down. So there's a loss of safety for the community," says Liberati

Considering far too many of these speed cameras and the associated street lights they monitor, have been caught shortening yellow light times beyond federal standards to 'catch' people running the light, I would question their motives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6he1M5wexic [youtube.com]

Re:But... (1)

crakbone (860662) | about 2 years ago | (#41336151)

I hear in the UK paintball guns are the norm.

Re:But... (1)

SilentStaid (1474575) | about 2 years ago | (#41336159)

I'm having trouble finding a news story for it, so this will be anecdotal and uncited, sorry.

Cameras in my town (near Philadelphia, PA) have been shot, run over and set on fire. I've heard of similar happenings in Texas so it wouldn't surprise me. And as further evidence that you either over estimate how responsible people are or under estimate how willing they are to protect their love of speeding our cousins across the pond in the UK have taken to destorying their Orwellian amount of surveilance cameras by the hundreds per week.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/28/2849.asp [thenewspaper.com]

Re:But... (1)

AwesomeMcgee (2437070) | about 2 years ago | (#41336377)

To be fair the one that ran over a speed trap was just trying a bit of performance art, he was aiming for irony and only missed slightly. Slightly.

Re:But... (2)

jeffmeden (135043) | about 2 years ago | (#41336391)

I somehow doubt people are using hunting rifles on speed traps, I further doubt that they would do that in america, but maybe I put too much faith in my fellow americans.. Now I would *not* be surprised to hear about this happening in the types of country where everyone walks around carrying high powered rifles all the time, but those countries have much larger troubles than speed traps anyways.

You mean, like Switzerland? Yes, I agree, they do have bigger problems than speedsters, leiderhosen wedgies are horrible!

Re:But... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41336399)

Given that 'bored and/or drunk hicks shooting at the fiber' is an actual cause of outages in rural runs, I'd be overwhelmingly surprised to hear that people aren't using hunting rifles on speed traps...

Re:But... (5, Interesting)

EdIII (1114411) | about 2 years ago | (#41336265)

It can more simple than that.

RC Helicopter. Just create a payload with a strong magnet. Fly by, stick it to the camera, and detonate. Small controlled explosion with no collateral damage. Even better, just design something to block the camera itself. Sticks on and is passive. No damage to anything.

What about high powered lasers? Cameras can't be watching everywhere. Set a laser up to hit the camera over a longer period of time and it will be slow damage, but ultimately very effective. Has an added bonus that anybody caught while the camera was an impaired can effectively argue against the ticket due to the damage.

I'm all for civil disobedience and the destruction of these cameras, but that's not an excuse to break out the ol' RPG.

What would be the optimal solution is actual mass protests. Have real human beings blocking cameras and sensors with their own bodies. That stops the cameras from functioning and has the added benefit of a quite visible protest.

Re:But... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335853)

Now speed cameras
Have security cams
On the side to watch 'em.

And security cams
Have security cams
And so ad infinitum.

Re:But... (0)

StikyPad (445176) | about 2 years ago | (#41335863)

But who watches the watcher's watcher's watcher's watcher's watcher's...

Re:But... (0)

Aethedor (973725) | about 2 years ago | (#41336187)

They should place two speeding camera's facing each other.

Re:But... (4, Funny)

Ambvai (1106941) | about 2 years ago | (#41336217)

It's cameras all the way down?

Re:But... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41336219)

It's cameras all the way down.

Re:But... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335723)

Haha, I was going to reply word for word (and subject) what you did. Then I saw yours... And you win sir.

Re:But... (2)

Tackhead (54550) | about 2 years ago | (#41335733)

Who watches the cameras that watches cameras?

Voyeurs and Xzibitionists.

Re:But... (2)

jeffmeden (135043) | about 2 years ago | (#41335797)

Who watches the cameras that watches cameras?

Voyeurs and Xzibitionists.

Fans of famous rapper, actor, and ride-pimper Xzibit? Wow they are nicer people than I thought! Or, are they hoping that by watching out for these speed cameras, Xzibit will grace them with a pimped out ride?

Re:But... (3, Funny)

dmacleod808 (729707) | about 2 years ago | (#41335881)

hey man, we heard you like cameras, so we put a camera on your camera.

Re:But... (4, Funny)

kilfarsnar (561956) | about 2 years ago | (#41335935)

Who watches the cameras that watches cameras?

Voyeurs and Xzibitionists.

Yo dawg! We heard you like cameras. So we put a camera on your camera, so your camera can watch your camera!

Re:But... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 years ago | (#41336367)

LOL, you beat me to it.

Of course, now they'll need a camera to monitor the camera which monitors the speed camera.

Because if you take out the one which prevents you from vandalizing the speed camera, you can then vandalize the speed camera.

It's a freakin' arms race.

Re:But... (3, Funny)

Megahard (1053072) | about 2 years ago | (#41335737)

It's cameras all the way down.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335983)

The original cameras. Set them up so each sees the other.

Re:But... (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 2 years ago | (#41336227)

class Camera
{
public:
void watch(Camera * watched)
{
Camera* c = new Camera;
watched->watch(c);
}
}

Excellent! (5, Insightful)

rastoboy29 (807168) | about 2 years ago | (#41335563)

This is obviously the right way for our society to go.

Re:Excellent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335747)

These are camaeras put in by the police/municipality to monitor for vandalism... these are not put in place to "check" cameras or "protect" citizens.

Except... (5, Insightful)

rwven (663186) | about 2 years ago | (#41335595)

There's no possible way someone would think of destroying the camera-observing-camera BEFORE the speed camera.

Then you end up with TWO broken cameras, and didn't accomplish anything.

Re:Except... (4, Insightful)

metalgamer84 (1916754) | about 2 years ago | (#41335631)

Common sense never seems to be a factor in these "bright ideas" that some panel of people came up with. Wasting money is what they do best, fixing problems is the least of their concerns.

Common sense... (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#41335735)

Common sense would say, "Put each camera in the other camera's field of view."

Re:Common sense... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335877)

Then the vandal removes their face from view.

Re:Common sense... (1)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#41335915)

Except that speed cameras are only allowed to take pictures of speeders, so they'll use TWO cameras, speed, watching the speed camera ....and one to watch the camera that watches the speed camera....they'll use THREE cameras.

And then someone will wear a jumpsuit and a ski mask just to prove they can do it.

Re:Common sense... (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about 2 years ago | (#41336233)

Or use, say, a gun, or a crossbow, or perhaps even a well-thrown rock, to destroy it from beyond its range of vision.

Re:Common sense... (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 2 years ago | (#41336259)

This can only work if you can watch 360. How many cameras will it take?

Re:Common sense... (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#41336277)

Two, in each other's field of view. If someone came from behind one camera, they would be seen on the other.

Re:Common sense... (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 2 years ago | (#41336359)

Then go sideways.

Re:Except... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335665)

The Issue is that, by law, evidence from speed cameras can not be used to prosecute anything other then speeding. To get around this they posted other cameras to catch evidence of vandalism. Sure you can destroy the other cameras but doing so without being seen is a different issue.

Re:Except... (1)

firex726 (1188453) | about 2 years ago | (#41335893)

Why can it not be used?
If I am mugged in view of a speed camera and it catches the incident, why can they not admit it?

*This is of course assuming it's taking video.

Re:Except... (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about 2 years ago | (#41336373)

Are the speeding cameras even talking video before their speed sensors are tripped? Even if they are, I assume the condition was put in place in order to get enough of the public to tolerate them that they could put them in place.

Re:Except... (2)

MagicM (85041) | about 2 years ago | (#41335675)

The solution is having three cameras in-line with the speed camera in the middle and the other two watching.

Why did that get dirty all of a sudden?

Re:Except... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335841)

It's like they have never heard of .... masks! Disguise!
"Hey look at that bigfoot! Hey, he's destroying the camera! Why would he do that?"

Re:Except... (1)

greg1104 (461138) | about 2 years ago | (#41335971)

Maryland speed camera pictures should show an uptick of people in Guy Fawkes masks.

Re:Except... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41336057)

It's like they have never heard of .... masks! Disguise! "Hey look at that bigfoot! Hey, he's destroying the camera! Why would he do that?"

Just lookout for teen drivers [latimes.com] eating Jacklinks beef jerky!

Re:Except... (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#41335907)

There's no possible way someone would think of destroying the camera-observing-camera BEFORE the speed camera.

Then you end up with TWO broken cameras, and didn't accomplish anything.

Except anonymity of both crimes lol.

Re:Except... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41336135)

Very clever, young man. But it's cameras ALL the way down.

Re:Except... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 2 years ago | (#41336383)

...or wear a ski mask...

Blind the camera (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41335609)

Doesn't a simple strobe light work?

Re:Blind the camera (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335693)

How you gonna trigger it?

Re:Blind the camera (1)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | about 2 years ago | (#41335727)

infrared laser pointers

Re:Blind the camera (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#41335787)

Mythbusters disproved the "blind the camera" idea. Along with everything else. They tried multiple ways to fool the speed camera and found nothing.

Re:Blind the camera (1)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#41335949)

So the solution is to trick the camera into constant triggering.

Re:Blind the camera (1)

jittles (1613415) | about 2 years ago | (#41335965)

It depends a lot on the cameras. I used to work in the digital video surveillance industry. A lot of the "Low Light" cameras do in fact use infrared light to see in the dark. Some have lights built into them, and some are so sensitive that they can see just fine in black and white without much light at all. I would find it hard to believe that you couldn't blind the camera with some sort of light. If they close the aperture of the lens to compensate for the extreme brightness of a light, it would make objects with less light on them obscured.

Re:Blind the camera (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41336063)

Not true. They found that if you drive fast enough, the camera will not catch you. Now granted it was some ridiculously high value (think 600+ MPH, although I don't think it was actually that high), but still, they proved it was possible!

Re:Blind the camera (1)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | about 2 years ago | (#41336145)

i don't think a single one will work, a group of them though... maybe try those modded blu ray laser pointers? and don't believe everything you see on mythbusters, that show needs its own mythbusting sometimes.

Re:Blind the camera (2)

SomePgmr (2021234) | about 2 years ago | (#41335743)

I think we're talking about your average dumski making a right hand turn on a rolling stop (guilty, here). Not trained foreign agents with a Q in the wings to pre-emptively develop an automatic camera blinding system for your car. ;)

The proper way to handle speed cameras (4, Informative)

jrmcferren (935335) | about 2 years ago | (#41335657)

Simply burn them. Here are burnt Gatsos in the UK: http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm [speedcam.co.uk]

Re:The proper way to handle speed cameras (1)

SecurityGuy (217807) | about 2 years ago | (#41335837)

I think you're completely missing the point. TFA is saying that they're putting up cameras to watch the cameras. You know, for when people try to do things like burn them.

Re:The proper way to handle speed cameras (1)

jittles (1613415) | about 2 years ago | (#41335995)

Or maybe he's going to burn the camera watching the camera, and then burn the camera? Or maybe he'll just wear a mask or a hat and a disguise?

Re:The proper way to handle speed cameras (1)

SecurityGuy (217807) | about 2 years ago | (#41336153)

That just makes it an arms race. Before long, you get a set of cameras that are mutually pointing at each other, transmitting to a remote recorder. A better solution is to just get the things taken down. A town near here just did that. It's possible, and if everybody hates the things, it shouldn't be too hard to do. I'm really in favor of people running lights getting tickets, not so much of cameras that just snap a picture and send you a ticket.

Re:The proper way to handle speed cameras (1)

jrmcferren (935335) | about 2 years ago | (#41336045)

Simply burn the cameras watching the speed cameras first. The speed cameras are only allowed to record speeding violations when they occur.

In Soviet Russia... (4, Funny)

Guano_Jim (157555) | about 2 years ago | (#41335673)

...camera watches camera!

In the United States, it's the other way around.

We're smarter than that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335683)

Magnets, laser pointers, spray paint, stolen car crashed into pole. The list goes on.

Re:We're smarter than that (1)

stevegee58 (1179505) | about 2 years ago | (#41335777)

Paintball.

Re:We're smarter than that (1)

firex726 (1188453) | about 2 years ago | (#41335909)

Someone put some super bright IR LEDs in a baseball cap. That way normal people wont see it but if hes in front of a camera the light will drown out the image around his face.

Good. (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#41335711)

The law is the law, and if the speed limit is 55 or 60 inside Baltimore City then that's what the drivers should be doing. If they find that objectionable rather than destroy the cameras, they should be lobbying to have the speed increased to 65.

Re:Good. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335789)

Silly humans. Always doing what they want, rather than what they should...

Re:Good. (1)

firex726 (1188453) | about 2 years ago | (#41335951)

The issue is the cameras are not perfect and here in my city you could not argue them in court.

So people were getting tickets for speeding or going through red lights even though it was allowed and it was the camera that was inaccurate. (Motion sensor would commonly go off when making a right hand turn which is 100% legal)

Re:Good. (2)

greg1104 (461138) | about 2 years ago | (#41336155)

The companies lobbying for speed cameras now are using the revenue from earlier speed camera income to do so. That's a fundamental flaw in how our government is structured, the ultimate cause of many problems. If you allow a company to profit from shady activities, then they can use those profits to hire lobbyists supporting even more of their shady activities, that is a sound business model. You can't expect regular people to out-lobby them; where does their money come from? Me the anti-camera guy, I have no effective lobbyist voice available to me, unless I raise money to do so. That's why companies profiting from the voters will out-lobby voters every time.

There is no solution here that doesn't make corporate funded lobbyists illegal. The concept of the paid lobbyist who influences our lawmakers makes a travesty of the idea that voters matter.

Re:Good. (3, Insightful)

kilfarsnar (561956) | about 2 years ago | (#41336201)

The law is the law, and if the speed limit is 55 or 60 inside Baltimore City then that's what the drivers should be doing. If they find that objectionable rather than destroy the cameras, they should be lobbying to have the speed increased to 65.

Except that my observation is that almost everyone wants to drive above the speed limit. If almost everyone wants to do something, should it be illegal? Perhaps yes, but I think it's a good question to ask.

Re:Good. (1)

bongey (974911) | about 2 years ago | (#41336297)

Except when enforcing the law you break the law. http://www.wtop.com/41/2802160/Md-court-of-appeals-to-hear-speed-camera-lawsuit [wtop.com] .
Glad I don't live in Maryland, in Missouri you are still entitled to due process of law and jury trial for moving violitions.
In Missouri we also have the Handcock Admenment.
Good video of lawyer getting owned by citizen , about half way through the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFwaX2QRvW4 [youtube.com]

Gee, that really increases the difficulty (3, Insightful)

oic0 (1864384) | about 2 years ago | (#41335755)

If anyone sees you destroying the thing you're going to get in trouble anyway, so we are assuming the people are doing it when no one is around. In which case, wear a mask, park where the thing cant see your car, and walk right on up to it lol.

Oblig: "Who Watches the Watchmen?" (1)

stevegee58 (1179505) | about 2 years ago | (#41335759)

...and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout "Save us!"... and I'll look down and whisper "No."

First of all (4, Insightful)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 2 years ago | (#41335765)

The camera watching cameras are an easy target, and I don't think people really buy the safety crap anymore. Its a money making teacher and we all know it

Re:First of all (1)

MitchDev (2526834) | about 2 years ago | (#41336213)

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!

Ski mask (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335769)

Take a tip from the Aussies. They know how properly sabotage these illegitimate revenue stealers.

Hang a old tire on the offending big brother's eye, add a little accelerate like gasoline, kerosene, or cyclohexane(charcoal lighter fluid). The shape of the tire provides a channel to hold the liquid. Add a match and walk away. Once the rubber ignites nothing will put it out, and the heat is intense enough to cook those nice expensive speed cameras and permanently foul the equally expensive enclosures that keep the cameras from being stolen. (Or from less effective means of sabotage)

Like any truly effective means of civil disobedience, it's cheap and easy and done with things readily found laying around. Everyone has something flammable laying around in their garage and you can't walk 100 yards on a country road without finding a an abandoned tire or two.

Now, you just have to put something over your face to hide you from the eyes that watch the eyes.

get rid of all the cameras (4, Insightful)

Dan667 (564390) | about 2 years ago | (#41335771)

getting rid of revenue cameras would be easier instead of watching Americans like paranoid communists.

Who watches the watchers? (2)

Darth Snowshoe (1434515) | about 2 years ago | (#41335821)

While I can't say I'm a fan of speed cameras, and in fact the thought of vandalizing them has crossed my mind on occasion, the two I encounter routinely in Baltimore County are right out in front of elementary schools with lots of cute little pedestrians around them. So, it's hard for me to be entirely critical of the effort - at least because it does what it's supposed to - it reminds me to slow down before I run over some kid. If instead they were everywhere, I would be much more in opposition to them.

Sold! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41335833)

Speeding tickets are only $40 in Maryland? Sounds like a great deal!

Re:Sold! (1)

SecurityGuy (217807) | about 2 years ago | (#41336211)

Speeding tickets here are as low as $15.

"Court costs" are a total BS $130 or so, though. As if the cost of disposing of my case in 2 minutes actually costs that.

May 8th is National DISRUPT A CAMERA day. (1)

cellurl (906920) | about 2 years ago | (#41335859)

May 8th is National DISRUPT A CAMERA day.
Hey slashdot, lets make this happen.
The internet is about joint-effort.
Who is with me?
I am dead serious.

I propose May 8th when the first patent was issued.
Patent link [google.com]

Brought to you by... (1)

dywolf (2673597) | about 2 years ago | (#41335883)

The Department of Redundancy Department.

A tool for every job (1)

macraig (621737) | about 2 years ago | (#41335941)

This is why they make sniper rifles, high power lasers, and explosives with remote detonators. I would have added artillery and other sundry indirect-fire ordnance, but I'm not a big fan of collateral damage, meatsack or otherwise.

Vote with your ballot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41336055)

How about voting for representatives that work to take down such surveillance?

But then they'll come up with cameras watching you in the voting booth :-(

second camera not needed (1)

cellocgw (617879) | about 2 years ago | (#41336097)

Just mount a mirror so each camera sees itself. Then it will know when it's about to get smacked.
Or even better, a real-time monitor so it can see itself seeing itself....

Department should have been... (1)

majesticmerc (1353125) | about 2 years ago | (#41336119)

from the "UK-would-be-proud" department.

Disguises? (1)

kwiqsilver (585008) | about 2 years ago | (#41336129)

It's September. I'm sure the local REI has ski-masks in stock. Or better yet, the Halloween store for some Obama, Guy Fawkes, Joe Stalin, etc. masks.
But then the spy-camera sales rep probably didn't bring that up when he and the town council went to that luxury resort for the weekend to discuss the camera contract.

New tools to combat Tyrany (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41336173)

Ultra Silent firearms, so they cannot be detected from the sounds.

Energy Weapons, to destroy the CCD

Electronic Warfare, to disrupt communications, and storing of the images.

mod 2dowN (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41336333)

a`re a fEw good
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>