Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

cancel ×

38 comments

away around it all (5, Informative)

Stinson (564450) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533008)

A group called the 'Institute for Applied Autonomy' [appliedautonomy.com] didn't like all the cameras in NYC, so they went around marking locations, and they have an online service called 'iSee' [appliedautonomy.com] What it does is allow you to click on a start point and a destination, and it will draw you a route that follows the least amount of cameras in new york city. It would be very useful if someone did the same for London

Re:away around it all (1)

reinard (105934) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533554)

Until someone decides that's a help to terrorists and a National Security Concern. Why is it again that cameras in public places are an issue? They wouldn't interfere with benign things I'd imaginge(because there'd be 1000s of incidents every hour - much more than any agency could or would want to handle). And if they WANT to watch you, they don't need public cameras... soo?
I guess the only bad part would be if they could automate the monitoring and build huge databases. But it's a long way (and an expensive one at that) down the road where the average traffic camera can do face recognition in cars driving by at 25 MPH...

Re:away around it all (2, Insightful)

Stinson (564450) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533622)

traffic camera can do face recognition in cars driving by at 25 MPH... Well around my area, they do have cameras that are high enough quality and quick enough for taking pictures of license plates and faces in the car for running red lights, so it wouldn't be too hard to use that input for some of the new face recognition systems (like the one that uses a 3d face 'fingerprint')

Re:away around it all (2, Interesting)

reinard (105934) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533855)

Actually the pictures taken by cameras for running red lights are oftentimes so bad that you cannot tell who's driving the car. Think about it: reflections from the window, the upper portion of the window is tinted more often than not, the window isn't straight so the distortians aren't symmetric, people usually look at the road, not the cameras overhead, headlights, weather etc. What they can usually see is the license plate, and that because it has a special coating that makes it highly reflective, and there are laws requiring you to illuminate it on your car. The rest of the picture is more of a: oh-yeah-it's-the-right-make-and-model-and-that-som ewhat-looks-like-a-middle-aged-man-driving. Also the 3d face fingerprint needs special equipment that takes pictures from more than one angle at the same time, ie something that will virtually never happen with traffic cameras.

Re:away around it all (2, Informative)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 11 years ago | (#5541654)

Actually the pictures taken by cameras for running red lights are oftentimes so bad that you cannot tell who's driving the car.

Unfortunately, this is no longer necessarily the case. People in the UK were using the lack of personal identification as a defence to speeding charges. There are now a new breed of cameras found on our roads that face towards the driver rather than away precisely so that a clear facial image can be captured. If you think they can't clearly see you, try a web search for some of the driving sites, and check out some of the sample photos. But sit down first. :-)

Trafic cameras (2, Informative)

chrestomanci (558400) | more than 11 years ago | (#5536266)

When I was driving to the office this moring, I was passing through a small village with a 50mph speed limit. The cops had setup a device with an iluminated sign that read as I passed "A123BCD - 47mph"

I am assuming that it was only there as a deterent, and that the cops would not be sending out speeding tickets to those that where, but it sill bothers me that my licene plate was recorded when I was not speeding.

I live in the UK BTW.

* Not my real licence plate.

Why is it an issue? (4, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533675)

Because its none of their damned business where I'm walking. Private citizens should not be under constant investigation.

And no, the argument ' if you aren't doing anything wrong' is not acceptable. Its my life, they can goto hell they don't need to be watching me buy a damned burger or walk to my car.

Basic privacy is part of the rights of all people. This violates it.. but you people allow it in the name of 'safety'.. its not the governments job to take care of you , its YOURS.. get it straight and do it. This all has to stop.

Re:Why is it an issue? (3, Interesting)

reinard (105934) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533897)

I think you're forgetting that when you walk out in PUBLIC (it's called that for a reason) you are no longer PRIVATE. Anybody walking around, driving by etc, can see you, identify you, take pictures of you - whatever. Just because a technical device that produces images of you to protect you from thieves or idiots running red lights sees you, does not mean you're being investigated. In fact I bet you there are a lot of women out there who don't mind being watched by a camera in a parking lot just 'walking to their car'. Sure who want's to constantly be under surveillance, but then again remember, we ALL have those little things that we do but aren't supposed to. If they witness them on everyone, they still can't do anything about it. If you have a problem with being seen in public, don't go there. Basic privacy is and should be a right. In your home, in your car, in your clothes. And you should have the freedom to express yourself any way you want. That doesn't mean you have the right to remain anonymous at all times. You've never had it, and you'll never get it.

Dosent make it right. (2, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 11 years ago | (#5535553)

Just beacuse its public, and we have never had true privacy doesnt make it right to invade it.

Its no one's business. Peroid.

There is a difference between being seen by a person on the other side of the street and recording your activites. Think about it really hard and you will also understand.

If you dont see it as being investigated, then you are part of the problem, for allowing it to happen.

Re:Dosent make it right. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537466)

Public property is a "commons". Remember the treatise about the tragedy of the commons? I forget who wrote it (sad) but the point is that there is no motivation to keep up the common ground.

So what do we do? We create a superclass to watch us, the government. It governs us, by definition. We asked them to keep up our public properties. They are responding the best way they know how. We want them to catch criminals, and they are responding. If all we really wanted (As a society) was privacy and protection from invasion in our homes, we could get that by building homes like fortresses.

I think there's a fairly clear-cut line between public surveillance cameras, which the majority of the public asks for, and a wire tap, which is clearly wrong without some reason to install one, and depending on your stance, you might think is wrong even when one has a hope of getting some useful information out of it. (I don't, I just want them to be harder to get approved.)

Watching your activities in public is not an invasion of privacy in and of itself, because anyone can track that, and soon enough the technologies may exist to where you don't even have to track it, you can see where someone has been by collecting all the spare dust off their skin and analyzing it to determine where it comes from. In the mean time, there's cameras, which collect less information on more people, but when coupled with biometrics are pretty much still the state of the art in people tracking over wide areas.

Re:Not quite right. (2, Insightful)

symbolic (11752) | more than 11 years ago | (#5539092)

I think you're forgetting that when you walk out in PUBLIC (it's called that for a reason) you are no longer PRIVATE.

You are taking a situation of necessity, and turning it into a justification for something that isn't correct, ethical, or warranted. If I want to get from my home to another location, I have no other reasonable alternative than to use the public roadways, walkways, and other areas. I believe these are often referred to as the commons - that is, resources available for the benefit and enjoyment of everyone. One of many problems that exist with modern-day surveillance it that government agencies have engaged in a massive usurpation of the commons, turning them into their own, private, often unsupervised, playground for spying and profiling, and all, I'd argue, in violation of the 4th Amendment.

On another note, just because I am in public does not mean that I relinquish any and all rights to conduct my life without intrusion or interference. It does not bestow upon anyone any more right to know who I am, what I am doing, or why I am there - the only difference is that when I am in public, I am at a location that is equally accessible by everyone. That's ALL. Nothing more.

Why is it an issue? It's the unseen eye. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5539575)

Anybody walking around, driving by etc, can see you, identify you, take pictures of you - whatever.

I don't mind people seeing me because I can see them too. There's a tit-for-tat privacy issue that isn't addressed when dealing with remote surveillance by cameras. Joe has no objection to being seen by Steve on 42nd Street because he can also see Steve on 42nd Street. But if Joe doesn't know Steve can see him because Steve is somewhere else observing him remotely through a camera, then Joe has lost privacy without an equivalent loss of privacy given up by Steve to Joe's eyes.

When the observer can be observed by the observed, there's parity in the privacy invasion, and it's accepted. But when the observer is unseeable, there is no parity. The observer is altering the public playing field to allow him to invade privacy of others without risking his own.

Privacy is not an all-or-none proposition. Being exhibitionistic briefly on a street in New Orleans doesn't mean your intended your wanted to be an exhibitionist to the whole world. Technology should not be used to expand your loss of privacy beyond its natural scope, and certainly not against your will.

Re:Why is it an issue? (1)

ChristTrekker (91442) | more than 11 years ago | (#5539810)

I think you're forgetting that when you walk out in PUBLIC (it's called that for a reason) you are no longer PRIVATE.

So? Don't I have the right to not be treated like a criminal, or a rat in a cage? I am a free man, and deserve a certain amount of respect due simply to that fact alone. "Stay out of my business, and I'll stay out of yours." This basic precept is part of what allows society to function.

You're right that we've never had complete anonymity. But neither did we waive all right to privacy, to have our lives recorded and possibly analyzed and dissected for eternity, by going out in public.

Re:Why is it an issue? (1)

reinard (105934) | more than 11 years ago | (#5540096)

You are not being treated like a criminal when the government puts up traffic cams to monitor intersections, and I'm not even going to respond to the 'rat in a cage' analogy - you know that's bs. You are free and and you do get PLENTY of freedoms and respect (especially in the US) simply because of that.

"Stay out of my business, and I'll stay out of yours."

Ok then, let's keep the government out of ALL your business, like maintaining roads, catching traffic offenders and criminals, providing emergency services, funding public utilties like water and phone in remote areas, etc. - yeah that'll work.
But seriously, you have to realize that we live in a society: a group. You are not and cannot be a lone individual unaffected by rules that arise out of necessity when living in a (rather large) group. Quite contrary to your perception ("This basic precent is part of what allows society to function.") is completely wrong. Society functions BECAUSE we are willing to live by rules (and are thus able to work together), MOST of which greatly benefit you, and yes SOME of which cut into your privacy.

Also, to imply that putting up cameras in public places is equivalent to "waiving all right to privacy" is a groce exaggeration. This doesn't give anybody permission to stop and search you, interrupt you in any way, or prevent you from doing anything (unless what you are doing is illegal, in which case your argument is no longer about privacy). In fact you could make the argument, that video surveilance will lessen police actions like stopping and searching innocent individuals, because they don't need to anymore. They can see you didn't do anything.

And lastly, try not to mix the issues of surveillance, and security of the accumulated data. Of course any government database that's not protected sufficiently (by laws and security measures) is somewhat of a threat to privacy, but that is IMHO not a reason to say that surveillance in public places is bad.

In general I agree with people that a certain amount of privacy must be guaranteed, such as privacy in your own home (where surveillance in the form of wiretaps etc is a completely different issue, that I am strongly against). But cameras in public places have very many useful functions ranging from security to commercial applications, while you loose virtually no privacy. But I will agree that there might not be enough legislation in this area to ensure limits on commercial applications and storage of such data by non-government entities.

Re:Why is it an issue? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 11 years ago | (#5541784)

I don't even know where to start attacking this post, so I'll just go through it piece by piece.

You are not being treated like a criminal when the government puts up traffic cams to monitor intersections,

I drive safely and, by and large, legally. And yet, I have been flashed by speed cameras on several occasions now when I wasn't going over the limit. Maybe they were the fakes with cheap sensors, maybe they were misconfigured, who knows? It was certainly very unnerving at the time, and I spent the next two weeks wondering if someone's error is going to result in a fixed penalty notice arriving on my doorstep that I'd then have to defend -- probably unsuccessfully, because the machines are all but assumed to be infallible. "Man shall not be judged by machine" is a fundamental principle that is easily forgotten, but sound nonetheless.

Ok then, let's keep the government out of ALL your business, like maintaining roads, catching traffic offenders and criminals, providing emergency services, funding public utilties like water and phone in remote areas, etc. - yeah that'll work.

Strawman. The only one of the above where cameras can be argued to be relevant is in catching criminals, and there is precious little evidence to support even that claim, since the systems go wrong so often that frequently they aren't of any use when they should be anyway. The fact that they are widely abused is beyond dispute, however.

But seriously, you have to realize that we live in a society: a group. You are not and cannot be a lone individual unaffected by rules that arise out of necessity when living in a (rather large) group.

There is nothing necessary about the cameras invading my privacy. Mankind has survived quite happily for a very long time without such devices. We live in a society that is governed by a few in a system that fundamentally encourages them not to act in the best interests of those they represent. You have only to watch the news this week to see how much several western governments care about the views of those they claim to represent.

Also, to imply that putting up cameras in public places is equivalent to "waiving all right to privacy" is a groce exaggeration. This doesn't give anybody permission to stop and search you, interrupt you in any way, or prevent you from doing anything (unless what you are doing is illegal, in which case your argument is no longer about privacy).

Ah, but in case you hadn't noticed, there are already legal bases for stop and search, arrest on suspicion and restriction of freedoms in most western countries, particularly the US and UK. Hell, we've all been merrily introducing laws in the interests of "counter-terrorism" that have eroded our civil rights more in the past few years than in the previous several decades. Just this weekend, there was a fabulous story in the news about a guy who was arrested under recent anti-terrorism legislation in the UK because he had a Muslim-sounding name and happened to have bought a book or two from Paladin Press [paladin-press.com] .

No, this is not solely due to the cameras, but the arguments you make in their favour are exactly those that are regularly used to support all the other slow-but-sure evasions of our rights to privacy and freedom that have been occurring ever faster since 911. At the risk of a terrible misquotation, for this shit to succeed, all that is necessary is for thoughtful men to stand by and do nothing.

And lastly, try not to mix the issues of surveillance, and security of the accumulated data. Of course any government database that's not protected sufficiently (by laws and security measures) is somewhat of a threat to privacy, but that is IMHO not a reason to say that surveillance in public places is bad.

Governments have no secure databases. Everything from identity theft via social security databases to blackmail and extortion based on medical records to gang violence in drug wars based on police records of "safe" addresses, to the police themselves chatting up attractive female drivers whose addresses they looked up from the licence plates on the car can and does take place. You cannot completely stop this. Abuse will occur if the data exists to be abused. Pretending this won't or "shouldn't" happen doesn't change the fact that it will, and any arguments about data collection or retention must account for this.

You can sit there and naively presume that none of this will ever come back to bite you down the line. You can say that you have nothing to hide, so your privacy doesn't matter. (You probably don't really believe that if you think about it, but it's a great sound-bite, right?) Nevertheless, historical evidence universally supports the idea that if you give this sort of power to a government then, left unchecked, it will be widely abused shortly afterwards. That is why this sort of issue stirs up such passionate responses from the civil liberties advocates, and why so many people feel it is necessary to challenge any legislation that lets you slide a little further down the slope.

Re:Why is it an issue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5535068)

I've heard this response a hundred times. And, frankly, I'm sick and tired of hearing everybody skirt the goddamn issue.

PEOPLE HIDE THINGS, AND THERE'S NOT A GODDAMN THING WRONG WITH THAT!

What do you have to hide?

Here are a few responses people might give:

  • I smoke pot
  • I'm having a sexual relationship with a priest
  • I have an unusual fetish
  • I'm gay and in the closet
  • I'm having an affair
  • I crossdress


These are all things that somebody might hide, and this doesn't even scratch the surface. No, not all of them are things that you may approve of-- but they're NONE OF YOUR GODDAMNED BUSINESS.

So there you go. People have a lot of things to hide. That's why they have a right to use crypto, to not have their telephone conversations intercepted and recorded, and to HAVE A LITTLE FUCKING PRIVACY.

And yes, I realize that this argument isn't necessarily related to video cameras on street corners. It's a general privacy argument, and I'm aware of that. But I'm sick and tired of people rationalizing privacy by marginalizing those amongst us with actual secrets.

Re:Why is it an issue? (1)

frdmfghtr (603968) | more than 11 years ago | (#5536699)

I will agree that people do need to take care of themselves more and rely less on government. It is not the government's job to raise my children--that's why they are called "parents." Likewise, it is not the government's job to protect people from themselves. If people do dumb things that affect only themselves, then fine, that's their own problem.

its not the governments job to take care of you , its YOURS.. get it straight and do it. This all has to stop.

The primary job of government is, in fact, to protect the nation's people. This is NOT the same as "taking care of you." By the same token, that also includes protecting one's privacy. It's a delicate balance, one that should err towards the protection of privacy, IMHO. And by "protection" I don't mean protect them from themselves (see above), I do mean protect people from threates out of their control. I fully expect the government to protect me from having my house robbed or my car vandalized through the police force, as these forces are largely out of my control. Sure, I can alarm my house or lock the car in the garage, but I still expect soem form of protection provided by the government.

If it were, as I understand your comment, you feel that everybody should be responsible for themselves, with no government protection from outside threats. IF that is the case, what is the purpose of government then?

Re:away around it all (2, Interesting)

Onassis (445423) | more than 11 years ago | (#5534565)

I guess the only bad part would be if they could automate the monitoring and build huge databases. But it's a long way (and an expensive one at that) down the road...

Despite automated monitoring being a long way down the road, someone should still try to prevent it. This should be fought so that it doesn't become legal because it isn't explicitly illegal.

Not that it matters, because unless there are powerfull (read: rich) people reading /., then legislation will continue along the lines of their interests...

Shooting Back (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5534945)

http://www.eyetap.org/wearcam/shootingback/
there 's a video ...shootingback/160x120compressed.avi i think it highlights the whole notion of big brother... not only is he watching you, but you can't watch back.

Re:away around it all (1)

mrtroy (640746) | more than 11 years ago | (#5536436)

Useful for who?
Wear a hat, a fake beard and don't look up if you are that concerned!

What in the world would you be afraid of being seen by cameras for? They are 99% not monitored, they arent in any way linked so that someone could determine where you were going, and who cares where you are going anyways!

I hope people are spending time and money videotaping me, because its only going to damage their equipment :P

Re:away around it all (1)

nickname1 (621225) | more than 11 years ago | (#5539694)

There's no way all of the state operated cameras could be recorded - it's hard enough keeping track of (fixed location) speed cameras. One new development in North London (and Barnsley, but that's another story) are omnidirectional cylindrical camera packages fixed to lamp posts with small aerials to transmit pictures - by positioning multiple cameras in a very small area (eg Green Lanes alongside Finsbury Park) operators can record the faces of all pedestrians and drivers as well as vehicle licence plates. Where London leads, the USA will probably follow, unfortunately.

"Everything is deleted immediately." (1)

moonboy (2512) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533874)



"Trying to avoid provoking privacy fears, Keith Fallon, a Computer Recognition Systems project engineer, says, "we're not saving any of the information we capture. Everything is deleted immediately." But the company could change its mind and start saving the data at any time. No one on the road would know."

So, these are useful how?

Re:"Everything is deleted immediately." (1)

moonboy (2512) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533884)

DOH! I art stupid. Just re-read - "police use the information to plan emergency routes. But as the computers calculate traffic flow, they are also making a record of all cars that cross the bridge--when they do so, their average speed, and (depending on lighting and weather conditions) how many people are in each car."

Ubiquitous surveillance (4, Interesting)

Dyolf Knip (165446) | more than 11 years ago | (#5533942)

As David Brin said, the cameras are coming whether we like it or not. The only question is who gets to use them. Would you rather all the feeds went to police HQ where we can only hope they make good use of them, or should they instead be available for everyone to see?

Re:Ubiquitous surveillance (2, Interesting)

vinsci (537958) | more than 11 years ago | (#5535504)

It's not as simple as that, I'm afraid. If the public can use the cameras and they show events in real time, then someone could place a bomb and make it detonate at the "right" moment. Delaying the video has its own set of problems.

The reasons we have surveillance cameras is, I guess, that they are cost effective. I don't see them going away (politically, there will always be something more pressing to spend money on, or so it will be argued).

But in the tradition of Juvenal, how about monitoring cameras and microphones on each and every person who monitors the surveillance cameras, with public access?

"Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes."

-- Juvenal (ca 60 bis 130 n.C.), Sat. 6, 347

Re:Ubiquitous surveillance (1)

Dyolf Knip (165446) | more than 11 years ago | (#5536376)

If the public can use the cameras and they show events in real time, then someone could place a bomb and make it detonate at the "right" moment

That's the best argument against public usage you can make? Bear in mind, the act of placing the bomb is likely to be caught and stored, even if nobody realizes it at the time.

But in the tradition of Juvenal, how about monitoring cameras and microphones on each and every person who monitors the surveillance cameras, with public access?

Excellent solution. Cameras might be on every street corner, but nowhere will they be as numerous as in the police stations and City Hall. Public servants, after all...

Re:Ubiquitous surveillance (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 11 years ago | (#5536683)

That's the best argument against public usage you can make?

Sigh. People always make the mistake of going for extreeme examples. How about - my work may use it to see that I'm calling in sick or moonlighting or something. The media might use it to keep tabs on celebrities

Excellent solution. Cameras might be on every street corner, but nowhere will they be as numerous as in the police stations and City Hall. Public servants, after all...

Sounds like too much effort to me. To watch the watchers, all we need is to keep track of who's been looking at what, and when. If you want to see if someone's watching you, keep track of your movements, and see if anyone has looked at tapes of all the placews you've been.

Re:Ubiquitous surveillance (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537489)

Sounds like too much effort to me. To watch the watchers, all we need is to keep track of who's been looking at what, and when.

The problem is that logs can be tampered with. I think the real solution is ala Greg Bear's books, where they have the Oversight office. On any given case you can make two petitions to oversight and ask them to give you access to insanely detailed records kept on every person; In most cases the requests are completely denied, or if you do get information back it's spotty as hell, but sometimes oversight will throw you a bone, like when you're talking about a capital offense -- especially something particularly gruesome.

Re:Ubiquitous surveillance (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537624)

The problem is that logs can be tampered with.

That is true. Another possibility is the surveilance equipment would be tampered with to gain unauthorised and untraceable access. This leads me to the conclusion that most safguards are inadequate.

Re:Ubiquitous surveillance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5541503)

The police!? If yours is like any other country, how much can you trust them to honestly deal with anything?
If, 'the-powers-that-be' were considered honest by the population, there wouldn't be this fear of Big Brother...
The fact is, humans in general are not untrustworthy, thus peoples concern for their day to day privacy.

Just my $0.02
Scott

A double-edged sword (4, Insightful)

geekwench (644364) | more than 11 years ago | (#5535321)

Video surveillance, especially in public areas, is one of those sticky subjects that invariably provokes a strong opinion. Surveillance cameras are bad, but the footage that leads police to a serial rapist is not. If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. OTOH, do you want a record of your weekly routine filed away somewhere; and why is it anyone's business when and where you pick up your dry-cleaning?

As has been already said: like it or not, the cameras are here to stay. They serve many truly useful purposes. (The jury is still out as to whether tracking red-light scofflaws is among those useful purposes.) However, as we have seen many times, any useful technology can be abused. The only thing that will keep the Total Information Awareness project from becoming an Orwellian nightmare is the public's insistance on accountability. As an aside: Just don't ask me right now if I believe that the public is capable of insisting on any such thing. The short answer is cautiously optimistic, but not before we're slapped repeatedly in the face to make us aware again of why accountability is a Good Thing.

Re:A double-edged sword (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5536646)

If you have nothing to hide... yes, sure. I object to being treated like I'm trespassing as soon as I leave the house. A camera monitoring me as I go about my business is quite like a bunch of invisible people standing there watching me all the time. I wouldn't want that either, no matter what I'm doing.

Oh, I hate this planet. Pity it's the only one I know.

Re:A double-edged sword (1)

ChristTrekker (91442) | more than 11 years ago | (#5539728)

I object to being treated like I'm trespassing as soon as I leave the house.

You've hit the nail on the head. We are innocent until proven guilty. Every citizen has the right to not be treated like a criminal. Constant "panopticon" style surveillance is exactly that - treating every member of society like a criminal.

Forget the average citizen... (-1)

cybrpnk (94636) | more than 11 years ago | (#5536131)

It's even worse for the average worker [adt.com] ...

Laudatory desires for control? (1)

botik32 (90185) | more than 11 years ago | (#5543887)

Out of context quote from the article:

But the rise of omnipresent surveillance will be driven as much by ordinary citizens' understandable--even laudatory--desires for security, control, and comfort as by the imperatives of business and government.

Am I the only one who finds the wording offensive? grr... good ordinary citizens opting for control my arse! When stuff like this gets printed in mass media I get pissed off...

...disappears into the nearest bar, mumbling obscenely

so wear a tent insted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5545361)

like my friend yasmeen does

Ergo... (2, Funny)

4of12 (97621) | more than 11 years ago | (#5548001)


In heavily monitored London, England...the average person is filmed by more than 300 cameras each day.

News Item: Residents of London England are reported to be much more fashionable of late since they became aware of being monitored.

"Yes, I've started combing my hair over my bald spot," said Jack Sprightly, pub owner in the East End.

"I've noticed a lot my customers, too, have started to shave on a more regular basis and to change their clothes before coming over to the pub from working in the garage."

"I'm all in favor of the new surveillance measures if it means `looking smart and proper' for a change."

"Most blokes are in favor of it once they find out the benefits," said Jack. "Many of them haven't had a date in years, but were pleasantly surprised how a few minutes of personal grooming has improved their lot in life."

Not just the police... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5559431)

Advertising companies are starting to get you on tape as well.

In London, you know those plasma screens that are showing up in bars and cafes? The ones that show ads...
Well...how do you think the ad company knows which ads are doing well?

Yes, sunshine...they have a wee video camera, pointed at customers faces to monitor how long a person is looking at the screen.

I wish I could say this is mere paranoia, but it's not. And no, for the sake of my job, I won't tell you how I know this.
Check for New 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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...