×

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!

The Coming War Against Personal Photography and Video

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the funded-by-cloud-service-providers dept.

Privacy 221

Lauren Weinstein writes "Are you ready for the imagery war — the war against personal photography and capturing of video? You'd better be. 'In some cities, like New York, the surveillance-industrial complex has its fangs deeply into government for the big bucks. It's there we heard the Police Commissioner — just hours ago, really — claim that "privacy is off the table." And of course, there's the rise of wearable cameras and microphones by law enforcement, generally bringing praise from people who assume they will reduce police misconduct, but also dangerously ignoring a host of critical questions. Will officers be able to choose when the video is running? How will the video be protected from tampering? How long will it be archived? Can it be demanded by courts? ... All of this and more is the gung-ho, government surveillance side of the equation. But what about the personal photography and video side? What of individual or corporate use of these technologies in public and private spaces? Will the same politicians promoting government surveillance in all its glory take a similar stance toward nongovernmental applications? Writing already on the wall suggests not. Inklings of the battles to come are already visible, if you know where to look."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

221 comments

Points at Lauren Weinstein (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43570215)

Hideki!

Re:Points at Lauren Weinstein (5, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43570249)

so many questions and not any answers - the article serves just as a flamewar starter and has little point in it.

Points at gl4ss (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43570283)

Hideki!

Re: Points at gl4ss (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43570681)

I've noticed a trend. STfU I'm off topic but the crap speaking tons. It's overpowering the good voices that have something to say.

Re:Points at Lauren Weinstein (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43570437)

so many questions and not any answers - the article serves just as a flamewar starter and has little point in it.

Which drives traffic and ad revenue. Do all of us have ad block? And what about the Slashvertisments that are immune to ad-block?

Do we really want to read this stuff? Or stay?

Does anyone really know?

Do you?

Is this one of the most idiotic posts that you have ever seen on Slashdot?

If not what?

Re:Points at Lauren Weinstein (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43570517)

Are you ready for the imagery war

Shouldn't that be Are you ready for the imaginary war?

Just because the police (or the lamp post) will be video taping things doesn't mean we can't. In fact, the proliferation of cameras actually removes the police's position that they don't think they should be recorded doing their jobs. If they have cameras on every street corner the police will be watched on every street corner.

It won't take much to get the feeds from all those cameras. The "lowest bidder" approach is rampant in municipal money wasting and security is an extra cost that the vendors aren't going to pay for. When the feeds get compromised they'll just throw up their hands and claim it was Anonymous.

Re:Points at Lauren Weinstein (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43570629)

It won't take much to get the feeds from all those cameras.

It doesn't work that way. Take for instance the "terrorist" in the UK a few years ago that got run down and shot in the back of the head repeatedly. Mysteriously all of the cameras (that the uk is known for) in the area were "not working" that day. It took someone weeks of soul searching (probably hoping to collect one last paycheck) for someone to come forward and admit that the cops were lying.

Are you really going to pin your hopes and dreams on the idea that someone in your local government is going to be as honest when its your life on the line?

Re:Points at Lauren Weinstein (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43570659)

Are you really going to pin your hopes and dreams on the idea that someone in your local government is going to be as honest when its your life on the line?

This is America. We have enough hackers and anarchists (hacknarchists?) in every city that the video feeds will be hacked long before the police sacrifice their next victim for the sake of public education.

Re:Points at Lauren Weinstein (3, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43570963)

It doesn't work that way. Take for instance the "terrorist" in the UK a few years ago that got run down and shot in the back of the head repeatedly. Mysteriously all of the cameras (that the uk is known for) in the area were "not working" that day.

Are you really going to pin your hopes and dreams on the idea that someone in your local government is going to be as honest when its your life on the line?

Boston Marathon.

Not only was every fixed security cam in range scoured for images, but private images were also solicited, and soon high res shots appeared via public submission of random grab shots.

At the first sign of something odd going on, in any American city, you will see every second bystander whip out a cell phone and start shooting pictures. Its everywhere. Even fender benders are photographed by uninvolved bystanders.

The cat is out of the bag, the Supreme Court has spoken [abajournal.com], and nobody is putting down their cameras any time soon in the US.

That's not to say that all police reports are immediately to be trusted, simply that there is no place the police can hide either.

Re:Points at Lauren Weinstein (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43570591)

Yes. The point is that people aren't thinking about some of the laws/rules/implementations where the police use recording extensively, and harass others using recording. The practices deserve greater scrutiny, and starting flame wars about it spreads awareness.

Welcome to the USSA (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43570759)

Welcome to the USSA: United Surveilance States of America. Any name similarity to another totalitarian empire claiming to be a federation of democratic states is purely coincidental.

maybe EVERYBODY should be wearing cams & mics (2)

FudRucker (866063) | about a year ago | (#43570239)

then there will never be a short supply of witnesses to any potential police misconduct, nowadays cameras and microphones can be hidden in clothing so nobody knows its there, maybe even networked so it is recorded and watched live on the internet in realtime continuously

Re:maybe EVERYBODY should be wearing cams & mi (1)

guttentag (313541) | about a year ago | (#43570293)

then there will never be a short supply of witnesses to any potential police misconduct

Like in Russia, where misconduct by the authorities has been eliminated due to the fact that everyone has a dashcam?

Re:maybe EVERYBODY should be wearing cams & mi (5, Informative)

fionbio (799217) | about a year ago | (#43570401)

FYI, in Russia even buying anything resembling *hidden* camera may easily get you into jail. There were several cases of guys buying stuff like a camera hidden inside pen and getting several years of jailtime for it. As of dashcams, which are legal because they don't qualify as hidden cameras, while far from eliminating police corruption, they DO help in some cases against corrupt policement, and that's one of the reasons why they're so popular.

Re:maybe EVERYBODY should be wearing cams & mi (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#43570551)

From what I've read, the Russian police are corrupt to the point that even if you managed to reveal one to be corrupt, his friends would just arrest you on false charges for something else. The court system is little more than a rubber 'guilty' stamp.

Re:maybe EVERYBODY should be wearing cams & mi (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43570685)

How is the US any different. Take something simple like a traffic ticket. You were going 53 in a 55 and get pulled over and a ticket for 65 in a 55. The cop goes to court and claims that you were going 65 in a 55. You will be convicted. Short of video proof demonstrating your innocence, you will be convicted on nothing but the word of a cop. Sure, murder is harder to prove on the word of a single cop, but 10 cops could get a conviction if the accused didn't have proof they didn't do it (O.J. Simpson excluded).

Re:maybe EVERYBODY should be wearing cams & mi (4, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#43570757)

I don't know about where you live but around here it is extremely rare, like almost unheard of, for anyone to get stopped for doing less than 10mph over the limit. I've blown through speed traps at 15 or so over many times. The only places they are really strict on is construction sites and school zones. The local sheriff is very popular and remains so by providing excellent protection while basically ignoring traffic violators unless they just get stupid. His deputies are busy patrolling businesses and residential areas to prevent burglaries and he's been doing that for over 40 years. No one bothers to even run against him.

Re:maybe EVERYBODY should be wearing cams & mi (2)

mbone (558574) | about a year ago | (#43571163)

Here in Northern Virginia, the police will rarely stop you (for speeding) if you are not going over the limit; the problem is the limits, which can vary rapidly and arbitrarily. The worst example around here is Dulles Airport, where the access road speed limit goes from 55 to 30 in a very short distance just before a bend, perfect for disguising a radar trap.

Also, coming from the South, I have to wonder if the strictness of your Sheriff varies by the way you look...

Re:maybe EVERYBODY should be wearing cams & mi (3, Interesting)

black6host (469985) | about a year ago | (#43570851)

How is the US any different. Take something simple like a traffic ticket. You were going 53 in a 55 and get pulled over and a ticket for 65 in a 55. The cop goes to court and claims that you were going 65 in a 55. You will be convicted. Short of video proof demonstrating your innocence, you will be convicted on nothing but the word of a cop. Sure, murder is harder to prove on the word of a single cop, but 10 cops could get a conviction if the accused didn't have proof they didn't do it (O.J. Simpson excluded).

Not necessarily. My son, a notorious speeder in his early twenties, racked up so many tickets he was very likely to lose his license, if not go to jail (the last was for drag racing.) He must have had 8 or more tickets, all way over the speed limit, in a relatively short period of time. What did he do? Go to court for each one, made whatever argument made sense to him at the time, and ended up with only 1 ticket sticking. A few times the police didn't bother showing up in court and that's an automatic off the hook kind of thing. This wasn't but a few years ago either so you can fight city hall if you want to. And some do succeed.

Re:maybe EVERYBODY should be wearing cams & mi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571277)

I've driven well over a million miles in 35 years, a great deal of it within the UK when my job covered the whole country (and a great deal of it, above the 'speed limit'). I've never, ever heard of anyone being pulled over for being only 10mph over the limit. In fact 80mph (on the speedo) was my 'normal' motorway speed for that very reason. I've also never, ever heard of anybody being convicted of speeding on the word of a cop (i.e. without supporting evidence such as a speed gun, camera or video).

Why am I wasting my time... You're talking shite.

Re:maybe EVERYBODY should be wearing cams & mi (4, Informative)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year ago | (#43570763)

Dash cams are popular in Russia because insurance is cheaper if you have one, their popularity has nothing to do with cops.

Re:maybe EVERYBODY should be wearing cams & mi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571203)

Snitchbox policy a la Progressive Insurance. Does the insurance company offload the footage?

Re:maybe EVERYBODY should be wearing cams & mi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43570413)

Cars are not as nearly as ubiquitious and portable as people, by definition.

Re:maybe EVERYBODY should be wearing cams & mi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43570453)

Where does everyone think all this footage is going? or who is it exactly that is going to give a shit about it. You can already spend 2-3 nights watching youtube videos that would have caused an armed rebellion 200 years ago. Getting footage of the state putting its boot on your face (forever) is going to mean precisely squat. The people that care that this stuff is happening already know about it, and the people that don't care, aren't going to care tomorrow either. No matter what footage they see.

Re:maybe EVERYBODY should be wearing cams & mi (4, Interesting)

0111 1110 (518466) | about a year ago | (#43570607)

A jury might give a shit about it. Video evidence is some of the most convincing evidence there is. Ubiquitous cameras won't stop an angry cop from stomping your face in, but a hidden camera that he doesn't know about might help you sue the city for hundreds of thousands afterword and prevent you from rotting in prison for years on trumped up "cover charges" afterward.

I wouldn't have an "assault and battery against a police officer" on my record now if I had had a recording of the event that showed how the cop just made everything up in his story. It's hard to prove that you didn't do something while the camera was turned off but a video that shows an entirely different sequence of events from those in the official police report is simply gold and will tend to sway a jury away from their natural where-there-is-smoke-there-is-fire prejudice against you and in favor of the cop.

I think requiring the police to have video evidence of their probable cause/reasonable suspicion or of the alleged crime itself before they can even legally make an arrest would do a great deal to control police violence against the public. Basically it should be assumed that anything a cop says is a lie until/unless proven otherwise on video. Currently we have the reverse situation where police are assumed to be 100% perfect law-abiding angels until/unless a video demonstrates otherwise. This is why most cops hate video.

Soon, video of everything will be ubiquitous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43570253)

Google Glass will mean all data gets uploaded to Google servers for ease of download by law enforcement and forced wipes where police officers are in the wrong.

Re:Soon, video of everything will be ubiquitous (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43570721)

Just set it to record to SD card, not Cloud, and your fake problem disappears. Try to find real problems next time.

Pre-teen crap (1)

oldhack (1037484) | about a year ago | (#43570269)

Guess slashdot is "thinking of the children".

PedoGlass.com (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43570683)

That sounds like a great strategy to kill Google Glass: register the domain PedoGlass.com and post fully legal videos of children taken in public places: the beach, on the way to school, making out etc. complete with time and exact location they were recorded. There's no expectation of privacy in public places, right ? Add a bunch of degenerate-looking comments complementing the kids on their looks, offers to meet up, but nothing illegal. Claim videos are recorded using Google Glass. You are on Oprah in less than a week.

It pretty much guarantees anyone caught wearing a pair of Pedo Glasses around children (i.e. everywhere) will have them beaten off their face. I love how it turns "thinking of the children" working against the police state, for a change.

Re:PedoGlass.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571125)

Won't work because - nobody will register and operate "PedoGlass.com". Even if it might work. Nobody at all.

Re:PedoGlass.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571323)

You're not paying attention to the state of dialogue in America; the site doesn't need to actually exist for that plan to work exactly as he says. Just say it exists, again and again.

hypothetical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43570273)

A police officer's testimony is all that is needed for most convictions. Adding a microphone and camera is sort of redundant. Police have eyes, ears, and memory. I think privacy supporters would be better served by highlighting abuse of surveillance cameras. Forget hypothetical and talk about real things.

Re:hypothetical (4, Insightful)

Wookact (2804191) | about a year ago | (#43570709)

His/her eyes ears and memory cannot be trusted.

All police officers should be forced to wear a camera and microphone at all times. These devices should be sealed with no on or off button. Green light means on, no light means off. They should have to pick this camera up at the beginning of their shift, and return them at the end of their shift. These devices will then have the data transfered by an authorized person, that is audited frequently. Any signs of tampering, or a failure of the officer to return and have a not operational camera replaced should result in immediate dismissal. The data should be shared with any defendants immediately. Failure to supply video of the arrest should result in a dismissal of charges against the accused.

Re:hypothetical (1)

Flentil (765056) | about a year ago | (#43571287)

I like this idea, but one problem - what about when the officer has to go to the bathroom? Should officers be forced to record that? What if they could radio in and request a five minute bathroom break to disable recording?

Re:hypothetical (1)

mcrbids (148650) | about a year ago | (#43571337)

That's easy. Turn the camera off and he's off duty. Remember, it's not that every waking moment is recorded, it's that every moment of him/her acting as an officer is recorded.

And look at the other side.... (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about a year ago | (#43570279)

Will police still be let off the hook for confiscating the cameras of citizens that film them, even though it is 100% legal in nearly every state?

Good luck with that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43570291)

The ubiquity of smartphones has made it impossible.

Re:Good luck with that. (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#43570585)

The problem with smartphones is that you still need to get them from your pocket, so you can't film someone without their knowledge. That makes them of limited use in revealing corruption or abuse of power: Either the subject acts on best behavior while the phone is out, or he simply confiscates it, by threat or by force.

This can be solved by wearable computing and immediate uploading to a remote server*. Even if all you get is a continuous audio recording, that's still plenty of evidence to catch anyone trying to threaten or blackmail you. You don't need video for that.

I think that in twenty years, television shows will have to use 'my goggle battery was flat' as a cliche to explain why characters can't just report every threat to the police in the same way horror movies now need to use the 'no signal' excuse to explain why characters can't just call for rescue.

*I refuse to call it the C word. A server doesn't magically become wet and fluffy just because someone in marketing said so.

Re:Good luck with that. (2)

dougmc (70836) | about a year ago | (#43570679)

The problem with smartphones is that you still need to get them from your pocket, so you can't film someone without their knowledge.

Well, that's one problem.

Another is that they aren't recording all the time -- and if you try, their batteries die quickly. Many things happen fast and are over before you even have time to pull out a camera and start recording. If you really want to protect yourself, you need something recording all the time.

Wtf? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43570315)

This article is about 10 years too late. The War on Photography [schneier.com] is not exactly a new thing.

I don't know why I bother to even come to this site anymore. The shit that gets posted here is pathetic. The editors aren't even worth the trouble to laugh at anymore.

They have this interview of a detective on youtube (1)

Marrow (195242) | about a year ago | (#43570319)

He interviews suspects with a tape recorder on the table. Then he writes his report. And then purposely erases the tape. So its his testimony and not the tape thats admitted into evidence. I suspect this will be used just like that.

Re:They have this interview of a detective on yout (3)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#43570521)

Any police officer halfway competent at abusing his power would use a similar trick to get rid of any 'official' recording. He'd forget to turn the camera on, or damage the memory card at the end of the shift. He could also get past any victim's recording quite easily, by either confiscating the camera or using threats and intimidation to get them to hand over the memory card, and his boss's would (and are) lobby for laws banning recording on-duty officers to avoid scandal.

To use camera to fight corruption, I think two things are required:
1. The victim must be able to record events without the knowledge of the police officer. That means no whipping out the mobile phone or camera, or even wearing glasses with an obvious camera function.
2. There must be a means to use this video against the officer, allowing for the fact that he may be backed up by the rest of his department and by court officials and politicians reluctant to cast their system in doubt. The only means I see for this would be going public: If the video of the officer clearly breaking the law is put on youtube and sent to every media outlet, the public outrage would be so great that those above the officer would have no choice but to fire him to save their own skin.

Even then you still have to deal with possible retaliation: Reveal one officer abusing his power, and his co-workers will avenge him by trashing your house in an aggressive search following an 'anonymous' tip-off about a drug dealer operating from that address.

Slashdot self-publishing? (1)

halexists (2587109) | about a year ago | (#43570355)

Is this astroturf? Who is Lauren Weinstein and why does he get to submit his own blog post to the front page of slashdot? The post reads like a mediocre comment to be found in a slashdot forum -- i wouldn't expect it to be modded more than +1.

Re:Slashdot self-publishing? (2)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | about a year ago | (#43571315)

Who is Lauren Weinstein and why does he get to submit his own blog post to the front page of slashdot?

Lauren Weinstein [pfir.org] was working on technology and privacy issues when you were in diapers. (One of my closest brushes with an Internet great was having him correct me when I thought "Lauren" was a woman's name...oops.)

You are reduced to apprentice geek.

Red Herring (5, Insightful)

meta-monkey (321000) | about a year ago | (#43570357)

I really think the google glass "OMG people are recording me!" hysteria and demand for legal policy action to govern their use is overblown.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something, and if your behavior (or potential behavior) is too creepy, society avoids or shuns you.

Since smartphones became ubiquitous, yes, you can sit down at a restaurant with someone and ignore them, instead fiddling with your phone. We call such people boors, and do not invite them to dinner again.

Bluetooth headsets are great for carrying on phone conversations when it would be difficult (or dangerous) to hold the phone up to your ear. I use mine when driving, or when I'm working and would like to be able to type while I'm talking. However, if you show up to a party wearing your bluetooth headset, people will think you are a douchebag, and will not invite you to another party.

The same thing will happen with google glass. I posted a month ago about how I'd like a pair just to display instructions/schematics while I'm working on a project, or to record myself while I disassemble something in case I can't figure out how to put it back together later. However, I don't think I would wear them at all times. I would only wear them when I have a real need for the additional display/record abilities for work or hobby.

Society will solve the problem by itself. When your friend shows up to your party wearing his stupid Glass headset, call him a douchebag and tell him to take it off. When you're out to dinner with somebody and they put on their headset, tell them, "Hey, take those off and talk to me, not look at furry porn on your stupid glasses." People generally don't want others to feel uncomfortable around them. When most people would feel uncomfortable talking to someone wearing such a headset, they will get the message and take the stupid things off when it's inappropriate to wear them.

Re:Red Herring (2)

Dan East (318230) | about a year ago | (#43570497)

This "problem" already exists. All cell phones have a microphone designed to pick up ambient sound (aka "speakerphone") and comes with included software to allow arbitrary audio recording. The storage capability of phones allow pretty much non-stop audio recording for days (and recording software designed to pause recording when the sound level is below some threshold can go for months on a single storage card). Yet how many people do you know that does such a thing? One of the reasons people don't bother is because managing the data, and making any useful sense out of it, would be incredibly tedious and time consuming.

Technically we can already do the same thing with video with our phones, and record video all the time too (I've used "security" type software that only records when motion is detected, which vastly reduces the amount of data that needs to be stored). Again, 99.99% of people don't bother. It won't be any different with hardware that is shaped like glasses. The same issues will exist when the hardware is in a different form factor. It's not an issue now, and it won't be an issue in the future.

The only exception I can think of is if Google, etc, are actively receiving and buffering the video to their servers by default. For starters that isn't possible until some major revolution in mobile bandwidth occurs, and some tiny, magical portable power source is invented that can power a transmitter non-stop as well. Someday if that is even a possibility, then anytime there is a car wreck, or someone stumbles and falls, or even hiccups, attorneys will be subpoena Google digging for media to prove or disprove the case. Google won't store video or audio data for that simple reason alone.

Re:Red Herring (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year ago | (#43571167)

This "problem" already exists. All cell phones have a microphone designed to pick up ambient sound (aka "speakerphone")

That is misleading. The entire point of google glass is to actively point a camera at whatever the wearer is looking at. Until cell phone manufacturers specifically design their products to record ambient sounds, from inside people's pockets and purses, 24x7 the comparison is not meaningful.

Someday if that is even a possibility, then anytime there is a car wreck, or someone stumbles and falls, or even hiccups, attorneys will be subpoena Google digging for media to prove or disprove the case. Google won't store video or audio data for that simple reason alone.

Just like facebook doesn't permanently store everything you delete from your account and google hasn't set up an automated interface for law enforcement to read gmail user's email with practically no human intervention on google's part. Oh wait! They did.

Re:Red Herring (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43570617)

Society will solve the problem by itself. When your friend shows up to your party wearing his stupid Glass headset, call him a douchebag and tell him to take it off.

Better yet, choose friends who are not douche bags to begin with, but obviously that concept has escaped you.

Not a new concept... (5, Interesting)

bughunter (10093) | about a year ago | (#43570373)

David Brin's settings in his novels Earth and Kiln People included ubiquitous surveillance, and it was a primary topic in his nonfiction work, The Transparent Society.

This "coming war" is just the birthing pains of the kind of society he predicts, wherein everyone wears cameras akin to Google Glass, the government records and monitors video everywhere, and privacy is a luxury available only to the wealthy and/or the criminal classes. (Not much of a distinction between the two anymore...)

The masses welcome authoratarians (1)

ThatGuyYouKnow (2884825) | about a year ago | (#43570409)

The current trend is clear. The politicians think government surveillance of people is good but not the reverse. That is why you can get tossed in jail for recording police misconduct. Notice the crack down on government whistle blowers even ones that report misconduct. Homeland security locked down a major metropolitan area to catch one criminal and the people cheered. Large numbers of people still believe that additional surveillance will make them safer. You can count on more surveillance, less privacy, and more restrictions on the use of personal recording devices. That is the trend until attitudes change.

or, you can do what I do (4, Informative)

holophrastic (221104) | about a year ago | (#43570419)

...and leave. There are many places in the world where these problems don't exist. Most of them are about a 30 minute drive east of where you live now.

you've stayed in a city that's growing -- in density. that includes people, companies, buildings, as well as laws, cameras, crime, and traffic, and pollution, and dirt, and homeless, and tax.

30 minutes east, you'll find the number of people that your city had thirty years ago. you'll find even fewer cameras. you'll find that the city's laws don't exist or aren't enforced. you'll find plenty of internet, movies, groceries, neighbours, schools, hospitals, and -- get this -- roads. you'll find much less traffic. you'll find your mortgage less than half of what it was, and your home twice as big. you'll find less competition for jobs, less expensive service for everything, and even gas will be 3% cheaper (I haven't figured out why though).

and you can still always drive back into the city in 30 minutes. oh yeah, and the train is express, and is likely faster than your current commute anyway.

enjoy sharing your city life with a few million people and those who regulate them. life's a lot better with 95% fewer humans. you get more life.

Re:or, you can do what I do (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43570531)

Unfortunately, all the single ladies live in the city. Try getting laid out in the burbs surrounded by middle aged families, kids, and mini-vans. I used to get laid like a rockstar back when I had an apartment in downtown SF. These days I live about an hour outside D.C. and I'm bored out of my mind in suburbia.

Re:or, you can do what I do (2)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#43570775)

Life being ruled by your Dick is not my idea of utopia. I've seen the urban meat markets and it makes beating off an attractive alternative.

Re:or, you can do what I do (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43570821)

Well have fun jerking off to porn on your google glass. At least its hands free now. No more sticky keyboards.

Re:or, you can do what I do (1)

NoMaster (142776) | about a year ago | (#43570939)

There are many places in the world where these problems don't exist. Most of them are about a 30 minute drive east of where you live now.

I live in Miami, you insensitive clod!

Re:or, you can do what I do (1)

mbone (558574) | about a year ago | (#43571193)

30 miles East of where I live right now would put me in salt water. Yes, salt water is tough on cameras, but...

Re:or, you can do what I do (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571335)

...and leave. There are many places in the world where these problems don't exist. Most of them are about a 30 minute drive east of where you live now.

i live in new york city, you insensitive clod...

If you're out in public (2, Insightful)

Pop69 (700500) | about a year ago | (#43570425)

Why would you think that you have some sort of right to privacy ?

Re:If you're out in public (2)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#43570785)

Exactly! Public is.....Public! Imagine that. When they stick a camera in your bedroom then bitch.

Re:If you're out in public (2)

BlueStrat (756137) | about a year ago | (#43570841)

[If you're out in public] Why would you think that you have some sort of right to privacy ?

So you'd be OK with a team of DHS agents following you and recording & archiving everything you do, everywhere you go, who you meet/talk to, and with timestamps, in a search-able government database from the moment you step outside your house until you return?

My neighbor sees me leave home. That fact does not get added to a DHS or other TLA database for analysis against all other available information. The fact that I may have gone to the gun range to target-shoot with friends the morning prior to boarding my airline flight isn't available to provide some TSA parasite an excuse to single me out for an anal-probe.

Strat

Politicians and civil servants ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43570433)

It seems politicians are particularly prone to being crooks. Maybe we should make that mandatory for them ? Also, civil servants, since we pay their wages ?

It is dead! (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about a year ago | (#43570439)

Wow, countless times I've mentioned how thanks to video, photography, credit cards, radio signal and etc... how we don't have privacy any more. Everytime a bunch of hard core privacy freaks looses there lids and has a tyraid about how I'm wrong and how I should shut the fuck up, well now that the NYC Police Commissioner has said the same thing how about people realize PRIVACY IS DEAD!.

IR LEDs to keep the cameras from seeing myface (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43570443)

When I see the first person with google glasses, I am going to build IR anti-photography system for my face....

this is true (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43570451)

There is two parts of this situation that the article does not mention. First is Terrorism, One problem photographers have had since 9/11 is getting branded a "terrorist" for taking pictures. This is because our government does not have a text-book way to spot a terrorist, so in order to appease the public they have said that Photography of things not "normally" photographed (Trains, Transit, Bridges & Structures) must mean the person is planning some ill against them. The real fact of the matter is any potential terrorist found to date has been found by more conventional investigation methods (open for another debate), and not by individuals expressing constitutional rights to photograph in public spaces. The Second is the police and other government officials to a lesser extent do not like being photographed in the course of duty. They would much prefer to have everything happen behind closed doors so there is no accountability, someone taking a picture, compromises this and often leads to a case where they have to become accountable for some action or situation, a position they would rather not be in. So often, #1 is used to disguise #2 and their problem is solved and "the people are safe".

You have the right - in some States (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43570465)

I strongly support having the right to record your interactions with other people. I was falsely accused of beating my ex-wife as a divorce tactic (luckily the police didn't find her credible the first time). The first time the police recording of her 911 call helped keep me out of jail when it was obvious that I wasn't beating or threatening her during the call as she claimed (this automatically gives custody btw).

The second incident involved an exchange of our son at a park where she again claimed that I beat her. When the sheriff called me up to ask me about it I was able to respond with the simple question "what's your email address?". That recording saved my ass from losing my child and going to jail. In both events she later showed up to law enforcement covered in bruises that she claimed I gave her. Needless to say when that went to family court it was me pressing the matter and not her.

I then had another incident where I had to take out an order for protection against my child's mother. When talking to the police detective for the other city the detective threatened me twice during our phone call. Once was an open threat, the other was a threat of false prosecution to the court. I proceeding the execute the order for protection even with the open threats hanging over my head, but you had better believe the recording is now locked up at my lawyers office.

This is three times where recordings that I privately made were critical for legal fights. I pissed off the GAL making the recordings, but a man falsely accused of hitting a woman is typically prosecuted and loses any kids that they have. Ironically in the first two cases it was different police departments that told me I needed to record every encounter for my own protection. The third case was a different department that was ethically challenged. Two good police departments and encounters where they did the right thing, the third was with a corrupt policewoman. You can't count on encountering good cops and have to be able to protect yourself.

We Need Story Moderation (5, Insightful)

guttentag (313541) | about a year ago | (#43570503)

-1 Flamebait Title
The coming war? The second paragraph of the article contradicts the title. Against Personal Photography and Video? The first two-thirds of the summary talks about surveillance by the authorities.

-1 Blog posting written like TV news
The author (who is also the submitter, promoting his own blog as a slashdot story) writes in a voice that mimics a TV news personality, asking lots of questions, sometimes answering them, sometimes forgetting to answer them, blusters a lot but doesn't provide any new information.

-1 Blog post makes many expansive claims but does not cite any sources
The author claims there are plans and laws and pushes and a whole lot of other things without citing any sources. It's like listening to the guy at the bar grumbling about how the government's coming for his guns.

-1 Even the author's wikipedia page is sketchy
The wikipedia page for Lauren Weinstein [wikipedia.org] points out it "includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations."

-1 Author says the sky is falling, offers no solutions
Near the end of the blog posting, he says "I don't have a 'magic wand' solution for this situation." In other words, an "OMG! Cameras are everywhere! I don't know what to do about it!" blog post is worthy of consideration by the slashdot masses?

Re:We Need Story Moderation (5, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year ago | (#43570593)

Yes, 100%. It also completely ignores recent court decisions which have ruled public photography to be a FIRST AMENDMENT right.

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers [aclu.org]

If anything I think the ubiquity of cameras carried by public citizens is having exactly the opposite effect this article claims. Actions by police trying to suppress people recording them in public are leading to court rulings clarifying the rights of citizens to photograph and record in public.

Re:We Need Story Moderation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43570643)

It also completely ignores recent court decisions which have ruled public photography to be a FIRST AMENDMENT right.

And yet despite that, the cops will still punch you in the face and take your camera. That's ok though, it's just your tax dollars being given back to you when you sue them.

Re:We Need Story Moderation (2)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#43570799)

With the rise of cloud storage it'll get harder for them to suppress any footage you take as well.

Summary misleading - and so is TFA (4, Insightful)

DerekLyons (302214) | about a year ago | (#43570527)

While the author has some good points, she also has his tinfoil adjusted just a bit to tightly... because while he rails against the [big, bad, ebil] gub'ment, and the [equally big, bad, and ebil] survelliance-industrial "complex" (he really hits all the buzzwords and hot buttons nicely I must admit)... Pretty much nowhere does he actually address or provide much (if anything) of support to the nominal thesis of the piece.

So this pretty much seems to be a chance for him to get hits and 'net cred by namechecking the Boston bombings, and since it's a slow news day and nothing else has come along... for Slashdot to get it's daily Two Minute Hate.

Re:Summary misleading - and so is TFA (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43570611)

While the author has some good points, she also has his tinfoil adjusted just a bit to tightly...

Also, you seem a bit confused ...

Re:Summary misleading - and so is TFA (2)

guttentag (313541) | about a year ago | (#43570635)

(For anyone who doesn't get the Two Minute Hate bit, it's from Orwell's 1984 [wikipedia.org]. It's sort of a televised daily propaganda broadcast that gets the audience worked up and involves chanting, screaming and throwing things at the screen.)

Re:Summary misleading - and so is TFA (2)

snspdaarf (1314399) | about a year ago | (#43571191)

. It's sort of a televised daily propaganda broadcast that gets the audience worked up and involves chanting, screaming and throwing things at the screen.)

Like Monday Night Football when Cosell was still in the booth.

This is the agenda all along. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43570619)

I wouldn't be suprised if the gov't was somehow behind the attacks in boston, or allowed them to happen,
so that they could further their agenda of this unconstitutional surveillance.
Whats a few lives lost, just collateral, in their war against privacy.
Its a tiny percentage of the population. From a business perpective, thats an incredible return on investment.
Lose a few citizens, to secure ur control over millions.
They want all ur information. They want to steal ur ideas, insight into your patterns, so that they can make more intelligent decisions to keep you in chains.
Again, i wouldnt be suprised, if the gov't was somehow behind 9/11 or let it happen, to further their global,
and domestic agendas.
Corporations support this, and wouldnt be suprised if they are the source. Since Corporations are the puppet masters.
Dont let corps/gov't take ur privacy and information.
They will only use it against you.
Assuming (falsely) that this is to be used for anti-terror purposes only (which it obviously isn't); there is only a very limited benefit.
Mostly in catching the alleged perpetrators after an incident, but not beforehand.
So you are giving up privacy, not for security, but for "justice".
Security would remain the same or get even worse.
Footage in gov't or corporate possession can be manipulated, and then it would be up to the defendant to prove that its not.
A war on terror, is an excuse to allow the government todo watever it wants.
And if there really is a problem with terrorists, than they have won.
They have effectively reduced your freedoms, by setting off a few bombs.
There is no benefit to the average person, but a false sense of confidence.
Ppl need to fight this.

HasHie @ trypnet.net

The Invisible Enemy (3, Insightful)

rbrander (73222) | about a year ago | (#43570627)

The Rodney King beating was taped with a video camera you could not have fit in a shoebox [nydailynews.com]. Now, of course, you can do decent video with a camera you can hide in your hand.

There are certain minima to the light-collecting-spot enforced by the laws of optics, of course, but it seems clear that the police will soon not be able to tell whether they are being video'd or just watched. Glasses? They'll look like shirt buttons. And folks who know in advance the location of the police action (say, protestors) will be able to carpet an area with cameras that are very hard to spot.

A lot of cameras will just be running all the time, pointing in four directions from every bicycle helmet and car, for use in accident investigations. Anything that happens in front of any place of business will be on the private anti-theft video cameras of the business - this is all already true, but in a decade or so, it won't be a few businesses, a few cars, a few cyclists, it'll routinely be everybody.

A certain amount of the "war on photography" is about police pushing back against people *visibly* trying to intimidate them by sticking cameras in their faces; police do NOT like to be in any position but domineering control of a volatile situation - a big part of their training - so they push back hard when pushed, challenged, mocked in any way. Obeying the law is secondary to Controlling The Situation. (I have some sympathy there; it's basic human psychology that this keeps them safer; never back down before a crowd.) But people invisibly photographing them - well, what are they going to do, arrest everybody in sight of any stop-and-frisk and demand they all be subjected to some kind of wanding that will find all six cameras about their person? Police routinely get away with high-handed, illegal behaviour with one or two people who get in their face, but there are limits.

Nope, I think its a lost cause. Anything that happens in public sight will presumably be recorded, multiple times, more or less *automatically*, in a matter of years.

As a photographer... (5, Informative)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about a year ago | (#43570689)

I follow these stories closely and can tell you that this war is already being waged ... and not just in the US.

Some nitwit in Vermont wants to make it illegal to photograph anyone without explicit consent [petapixel.com] (except for government surveillence, obviously)

It's illegal and severely punishable to photograph a police officer in the UK if that officer thinks it could be used for terrorism [wikipedia.org] (guess who gets to make the decision on that one...)

Just a few weeks ago, a California man was brutalliy beaten by thugs-in-uniform claming that his phone was a "weapon" [petapixel.com] (because it said so on teh intarnetz!!)

In Montreal, a woman was recently arrested for taking a photo of graffiti, the claim being that it's publication on Instagram was tantamount to harrassment [www.cbc.ca] (note that she was not the vandal, she only took a photo ... mind you that's in Quebec, we already know they're a pretty odd bunch)

After being told to stop over a loudspeaker (in super-creepy Orwellian fasion), a photographer was forcefully arrested for taking pictures on a Metro rail in Miami [petapixel.com]

You need only browse Photography is Not a Crime [photograph...acrime.com] for 2 minutes before you realize that this war is already happening. There's a metric shit-ton of this stuff going on, with video evidence to back it up.

As for your rhetorical questions...

Will officers be able to choose when the video is running?

Yes. Obviously.

How will the video be protected from tampering?

It won't.

How long will it be archived?

Not long enough.

Can it be demanded by courts?

Well sure, but you'll find that every time it does, the video stream is "conveniently" missing or corrupted.

Stop asking questions citizen, you're not supposed to be creative, just shut up and watch the Dumb Bimbos of Retard Valley.

privacy (1)

alienzed (732782) | about a year ago | (#43570707)

With population growth and security issues... privacy will someday be a thing of the past, and the concept of 'hiding' things will be taboo. For those who would defend privacy to the death, what do you have to hide?

Re:privacy (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year ago | (#43570911)

With population growth and security issues... privacy will someday be a thing of the past

In the past we had less privacy than we do now, a fancy camera system is no match for gossip in a small town. In the past, if you wanted privacy you looked for it out of town.

The war is already here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43570747)

I suggest you see what is happening and has happened for the last few years by visiting http://photographyisnotacrime.com/. It's amazing what police try to, and get away with.

paraphrazing myself (2)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about a year ago | (#43570753)

Do unto them what they do to you.

The important thing doing so is: on and off the job, i.e. 24/7.
Police and politicians will not have private lives anymore if you don't.
And publish publish publish soon and often -- even the most dull and
humdrum.

Don't allow them to hang you -- hang together.

A modest proposal. (1)

Dputiger (561114) | about a year ago | (#43570861)

I'd like to propose two changes to how we talk about pretty much everything.

1) No more use of the phrase XXX-industrial complex.
2) No more attaching the "gate" suffix to scandals.

We can talk about the growth in surveillance technology and *all* of its associated problems without resorting to a term that was originally coined to discuss the complex relationship between Congress, the military, and the industrial base that supported both. According to Wikipedia, the industry covered by the "military industrial complex" was worth some $600 billion in 2009. Surveillance, while no doubt a booming business, isn't exactly in this league.

As for the --gate thing, it's just plain stupid.

I'll answer his questions. (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year ago | (#43570905)

He has a "host of critical questions" and I will answer them.

Will officers be able to choose when the video is running?

Yes and no. When they are on duty and not in a private situation (eg using the washroom) the camera will be on. They may choose to turn it on if off duty and in a relevant circumstance

How will the video be protected from tampering?

Video tampering is quite easy to spot forensically .

How long will it be archived?

With backups, probably forever and I do not see a problem with that.

Can it be demanded by courts?

Yes and a good thing.

Divorce lawyers?

Yes as a prevention of fraud against a spouse.

Insurance companies?

Yes as a prevention of fraud against an insurance company thereby keeping insurance costs down.

Can it be enhanced and used to trigger prosecutions of new crimes, perhaps based on items in private homes captured on video when officers enter?

Maybe as it may fall under the standard of "plain sight" the same as the officers seeing it with their own eyes This one will probably have to go to court for a ruling.

What will be the penalties when clips of these videos, often involving people in personal situations of high drama and embarrassment, often through no fault of their own, leak onto video sharing sites?

This is the only really hard question. I say it is something we have to live with. Perhaps when enough people are "exposed", society will realize that everyone is occasionally embarrassed in public and the tables will turn on the bullies that victimize these already embarrassed people.

PS. Eight questions is far from a host.

Have fun (1)

mvar (1386987) | about a year ago | (#43570917)

Reading the summary I' say it's a good time to live outside the US... ...but then again history has shown that most western countries sooner or later copy the US laws, so damn, we're all fucked

Nice handwave at the end there (2)

Improv (2467) | about a year ago | (#43570979)

Article amounts to trolling, but it goes all conspiracy theory at the end. "if you know where to look" indeed. Suuuuure, I'll keep all that under my hat.

Grade: D+
Try harder next time.

OMG People don't want their neighbors spying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571021)

on them for 3rd parties. I'm glad their's a war on idiots recording my every move and uploading it the web.

I don't want people who join the Google Borg to tell Google where I am every minuet of every day. I am against state surveillance as well. I'm all about fighting the surveillance society.

hurrah for Cams (3, Interesting)

b4upoo (166390) | about a year ago | (#43571117)

It is my understanding that private videos helped identify the Boston terror strikers. The public has a very big stake in wanting lots and lots of private and business cams being in action.

Contaminate the footage with "active" language (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571227)

This means people need to be wearing T-shirts with language like "INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE", "JURY NULLIFICATION", "SPARF DOCTRINE", etc. This will force the prosecution to tamper with the footage lest the footage tamper with the jury.

Liberals. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43571275)

This is what happens when you elect liberals and leftists and statists.

Ron Paul 2016. Take back America.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...