
The DEA and ICE are hiding surveillance cameras in streetlights - singularity2001
https://qz.com/1458475/the-dea-and-ice-are-hiding-surveillance-cameras-in-streetlights/
======
0xcde4c3db
> It doesn’t matter if you’re driving down the street or visiting a friend, if
> government or law enforcement has a reason to set up surveillance, there’s
> great technology out there to do it.

I think most people understand this concept at some level. This describes the
same fundamental pattern as undercover officers and informants: a suspect is
identified and assets allocated to the project of going after that person or
organization. The scary thing isn't so much that surveillance tech _exists_ ,
but rather the prospect of law enforcement (or others who can obtain access to
their systems by various means) being able to select targets after-the-fact at
little additional cost because of indiscriminate surveillance.

~~~
DenisM
>being able to select targets after-the-fact at little additional cost

Is it a bad thing though? Imagine that everything on all streets is recorded,
and when an incident happens a cop goes to the judge and asks for a warrant to
view the footage for "Pike St, between 1st and 2nd ave, between 13:00 and
13:35, on Jan 3rd 2019".

Technology changes the balance of power in different directions. The police
used to be able to tap phones, but now whatsapp is pretty much out of reach,
this hampers one of the venues. To keep up the police would need new methods,
and it does not have to be phone intercept, maybe post-factum external
surveillance would suffice.

~~~
clubm8
>Is it a bad thing though? Imagine that everything on all streets is recorded,
and when an incident happens a cop goes to the judge and asks for a warrant to
view the footage for "Pike St, between 1st and 2nd ave, between 13:00 and
13:35, on Jan 3rd 2019".

The laws were written assuming that they wouldn't be perfectly enforced. We'd
never have consented to many of them if we knew they'd be 100% enforced.

Increasing surveillance is a back-door in democracy that grants the government
new powers w/o going through the legislature.

~~~
godelski
> Increasing surveillance is a back-door in democracy that grants the
> government new powers w/o going through the legislature.

I think a lot of people forget what this means.

It isn't just domestic influence. It is foreign influence too. I'm sure (close
to) everyone on HN realizes there is nothing that isn't hackable.

Domestic influence also includes malicious people, not just governments.
You're telling me that this system isn't going to be exploited? That stalkers
aren't going to use it? That syndicates aren't going to use it to track
adversaries?

You're going to have a hard time convincing me that these perform more good
than bad. That's even without the overhead for abuse by people that have
legitimate access to these streams.

I don't like talking about our own government abusing its powers. Though it
has, people seem to be complacent with this. But there is also just as serious
of a threat from foreign powers and domestic criminals. Why isn't this also
talked about?

~~~
oldandtired
After having talked to the office of my local federal representative this
morning about another matter, the conversation got around to talking about
surveillance, encryption and privacy. The attitude portrayed was ignorance of
foreign government, foreign company or criminal organisation being able to use
such systems for their purposes against the normal citizens of the country.

It almost seems like that since it is not discussed, it is not important and
as such it is not relevant enough to be discussed. Sort of Catch 22, I
suppose.

~~~
godelski
> It almost seems like that since it is not discussed, it is not important and
> as such it is not relevant enough to be discussed. Sort of Catch 22, I
> suppose.

I just don't think they think about it. At least from my experience talking to
people in different agencies. There job is to catch people. So encryption is a
barrier to them in that respect, so that's how they frame it. But they don't
connect all the benefits that they themselves get from it because it isn't
obvious. Most people don't realize when things are encrypted because a lot of
times it is the norm.

Similarly I think people don't think about privacy in general because how it
is framed. We are coming from a world where privacy was the norm. It is all
about how the discussion is framed. We constantly talk about how encryption is
a hindrance to police. About how more surveillance can help us catch
criminals. And all this is true! But few people talk about the drawbacks
(except specifically government overreach, but we're in a country where people
trust the government). But you can't make informed decisions that way. You
need to know both sides. Benefits AND detriments.

------
jokedontlaugh
Here's a dirty secret that doesn't get talked about much: the officers looking
at the streaming images we spy from your home end up seeing you and treating
you in the same way people see and treat Internet streamers or reality show
celebs.

~~~
late2part
Correct. Every once in a while a story surfaces about Law Enforcement
circulating official photos of someone attractive with inappropriate comments.
We all know someone who worked in "loss prevention" that would virtually stock
someone in the store; and the stories of TSA 'randomly' selecting attractive
people for pat downs are legendary. Is this anecdotal, yes. Is this true, yes.

~~~
fjsolwmv
Or law enforcement using these tools to stalk and harass or murder their ex-
girlfriends.

~~~
StudentStuff
Police are serial domestic abusers, its a very serious issue:
[https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-...](https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-
officers-who-hit-their-wives-or-girlfriends/380329/)

~~~
squarefoot
Pretty sure most of them take anabolic steroids, whose effects can lead to
-guess what- delusion, aggressiveness and violence (not unlike cocaine). I
wounldn't be surprised at all if random drug tests on cops confirmed this.

~~~
mrgreenfur
This isn't true. Do you have a source?

~~~
HarryHirsch
The Department of Justice is concerned enough to have a presentation:
[https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/pubs/brochures/steroids/l...](https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/pubs/brochures/steroids/lawenforcement/)

Also this: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128028254/anabolic-
st...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128028254/anabolic-steroid-
abuse-in-public-safety-personnel)

Chapter 3 has a lovely abstract: _The anabolic steroid abuse problem within
law enforcement is straightforward. Police culture embraces images of
aggression and masculinity, serving up both institutional and social rewards
for those that conform. Denying this reality is not reasonable. Anabolic
steroids help provide an easy path to those short-term rewards. However, these
rewards are temporary, high risk, and illegal. Additionally, as with any form
of illegal drug use, it doesn’t occur in a vacuum. Anabolic steroid abuse
requires committing any number of crimes and direct association with other
criminals — including those who deal other illegal drugs.

Law enforcement has a professional obligation to public safety that includes
employing and deploying only those officers that are fit for duty. It is not
possible to use anabolic steroids and also maintain psychological or
character-related fitness for duty. However, because of related performance-
and image-enhancing benefits, in combination with ignorance of the law,
anabolic steroid abuse is tolerated by some public safety agencies and many in
the legal community. This short-sighted approach, which amounts to the burying
of heads in the sand, ensures that harm will be caused and that legal
liability will be incurred._

~~~
jrockway
> Anabolic steroid abuse requires committing any number of crimes and direct
> association with other criminals — including those who deal other illegal
> drugs.

Is that actually true? I was under the impression that you could find a doctor
that would prescribe them to you. Not the case with, say, cocaine.

~~~
HarryHirsch
I was under the impression that you buy them from your friend at the gym. In
the US, the whole class of anabolic steroids are Schedule III controlled
substances. There are many compounds that went through clinical and animal
trials, steroid chemistry was big in the 1950s and 1960s, the story of Syntex
is one of treachery and villainy, but not many are available at market these
days. The only use case is cachexia in the very elderly or in cancer patients.
A physician who prescribes them too frequently would attract attention, unless
of course he has a special relationship with law enforcement.

~~~
King-Aaron
> The only use case is cachexia in the very elderly or in cancer patients

Uveitis, Grave’s disease, gout, alopecia, systemic vasculitis & giant cell
arteritis are some other viable reasons for being prescribed steroids.

~~~
Scoundreller
Corticosteroids like Prednisone aren’t anabolic steroids.

------
jstanley
I wonder what would be the legality of creating a guerrilla surveillance
network of our own cameras hidden in public places, with publicly accessible
live streams and maybe 30 days of recordings?

If there's "no expectation of privacy", surely nobody has any right to
complain about it?

~~~
twblalock
> If there's "no expectation of privacy", surely nobody has any right to
> complain about it?

Whose property will the cameras be attached to? They will certainly have a
right to remove them if they did not give permission.

~~~
acct1771
Rotating volunteers of drones.

~~~
test6554
Current FAA rules require the drone pilot to be within visible range of their
drones. So why not just have rotating volunteers of pedestrians?

~~~
ric2b
Something like Google Glass, maybe?

------
throw2016
This is not surprising. Most people here are already neck deep in implementing
surveillance technology. They are the last ones to find it creepy or
disturbing, if anything its in their interest to brush it off and pretend its
the most normal thing as this thread has done.

That's why discussions about privacy, surveillance and ethics are best had in
a context where their significance is not diluted by conflicting personal
interests. Posting about these issues is tech communities is like asking
individuals rushing to the gold rush with dreams of riches to inquire about
their thoughts on democracy. Pointless.

------
olivermarks
It's very unclear to me what the legality of these hidden cameras is and what
our recourse can be.

[https://fee.org/articles/thanks-to-wiretapping-laws-your-
cel...](https://fee.org/articles/thanks-to-wiretapping-laws-your-cell-phone-
is-a-felony-machine/) Individual US citizens are tightly restricted in what
they can record and how they declare those recordings to targets, surely the
state (without judicial wire tap authorization warrants about specific
targets) should be in the same boat?

~~~
cronix
There is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in _public_ view, ie a public
street. They are just images, which anybody can legally take with a camera (as
long as it's not pointing up and looking up skirts!). We've got it going on
here in Oregon, too, courtesy of Amazon and our largest populated County.
There is a city in Florida using the same Amazon tech, but I don't remember
which one. [https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2018/05/22/amazon-sold-
pow...](https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2018/05/22/amazon-sold-powerful-
facial-recognition-software-to-the-washington-county-sheriff-and-gresham-
police/)

------
pishpash
> _Chad Marlow, a senior advocacy and policy counsel for the American Civil
> Liberties Union, says efforts to put cameras in street lights have been
> proposed before by local law enforcement, typically as part of a “smart” LED
> street light system.

> “It basically has the ability to turn every streetlight into a surveillance
> device, which is very Orwellian to say the least,” Marlow told Quartz. “In
> most jurisdictions, the local police or department of public works are
> authorized to make these decisions unilaterally and in secret. There’s no
> public debate or oversight.”_

Well there goes down the toilet all the sanctimony over Chinese street
surveillance, when you realize they are merely more open and unapologetic
about it.

------
nickodell
>have hidden an undisclosed number of covert surveillance cameras inside
streetlights

It's not impossible to figure out, though, is it?

The article talks about a total of $50,000 of cameras. It mentions that these
are pan-tilt-zoom cameras. Pricing this on Amazon, they seem to cost about
$250 each. Assume the government pays twice as much. This tells you that they
bought about 100 cameras.

~~~
drvdevd
Guarantee you _most_ legitimate targets of this “surveillance” are quite a few
steps ahead. Do drug cartels even care if the DEA has installed cameras
everywhere? Doubtful. Being able to do this kind of math is a great example of
the simple reasoning it takes to start analysis of systems like this once in
place.

What are the cartels thinking? Probably that they’ll just have to pay
informats more money as the system becomes more complex. They’ll have to pay
their tech people more for increased counter surveillance. And so forth.

I’m picking on the DEA but of course similar equations must exist for ICE.

IMO What’s so dystopian about all this is not so much that the tech exists but
that our tax dollars pay for these projects and we really don’t have much say.

~~~
nickodell
>Do drug cartels even care if the DEA has installed cameras everywhere?

Back of the envelope math shows that they can't be installed everywhere; not
on that kind of budget. The only thing that one could do with 10-1000 cameras
is install them at specific, targeted places where the DEA already has some
reason to suspect that they'll find something.

>IMO What’s so dystopian about all this is not so much that the tech exists
but that our tax dollars pay for these projects and we really don’t have much
say.

I don't agree. Spending is controlled by Congress. If you and enough people
who agreed with you combined your efforts, you could alter the law so that the
purchase of this sort of technology was illegal. Perhaps you hold an opinion
that only a minority of America agrees with.

------
ct520
DEA has so many cameras within 60 miles of my home its not even funny. Gotta
love the ones they put up at eye level with facial recognition. :-/ __edit
__for those wondering, Tucson, AZ

~~~
smegger001
Eye level? Sounds like you need to put on some makeup (CV Dazzel) and sharpie
the lenses

~~~
xkcd-sucks
DEET bug spray does terrible things to most plastics

------
badrabbit
What if civilians used surveilance tech against politicians and prominent law
enforcers? I think the best way to regulate this is to turn the table against
them.

------
tyingq
If this is the streetlight in question, "hidden" isn't quite right.
[http://dailysentinel.com/news/image_ce44ea7c-f195-11e3-8520-...](http://dailysentinel.com/news/image_ce44ea7c-f195-11e3-8520-0019bb2963f4.html)

~~~
mtmail
"451: Unavailable due to legal reasons" (GDPR, from Europe). Screenshot of the
webpage:
[https://www.webpagetest.org/results/18/11/11/6A/4838de30083b...](https://www.webpagetest.org/results/18/11/11/6A/4838de30083b58d96d3447bf41d65250/1_screen.jpg)

------
jonstewart
Here in Washington, DC we have cameras all over the place. However,
streetlights are owned by the local government, and that must apply in normal
states and municipalities. So... if this happens in a given city, that means
the local government must be cooperating with the feds to permit it.

------
morpheuskafka
A streetlight by definition has public view of a street. No expectation of
privacy.

~~~
monocasa
It's way more complicated than that. The courts have repeatedly struck down
constant automated surveillance from public views.

For instance:

[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/cops-
illegally-n...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/cops-illegally-
nailed-webcam-to-utility-pole-for-6-weeks-to-spy-on-house/)

------
mbrumlow
I was wondering if this article would make it to HN.

First off, this has to be some sort of stir the pot article. They spent
~50k... Think about that.

Beyond that I live in Houston. We have had cameras at intersections forever
now. I am not sure they would need to conceal them when they already have them
in plain sight in many cities.

------
acct1771
Is this the laser signal my Valentine One is picking up at more and more
intersections?

------
Spooky23
LPR and video is at the local level too. Most chokepoints in my city are
captured by money-losing red light cameras that just happen to capture 30 days
of video.

~~~
gnicholas
Do red light cameras record video 24/7? I assumed they don't where I live
(California) because they flash very brightly when triggered.

That said, we do have a lot of "traffic cameras" mounted on poles, which
presumably do record 24/7 and are archived for some period of time.

~~~
Spooky23
I’m in New York. In my city, the police make the final determination, and the
camera provides context of the situation when the camera detects a light
running event.

The police also use them as a time indexed source of evidence that can help
stitch a timeline of events filmed on random security cameras. I know because
they presented that in a case I was a juror on.

~~~
gnicholas
Ah, that makes sense. it sounds like there's one benefit to having the cameras
rolling (that the police can apply judgment before red-light tickets are
handed out) but another detriment (that the cameras are rolling 24/7\. Seems
you could obtain the same benefit by having a 2-min cache running at all
times, and only store the cache permanently when a light-running event is
triggered.

------
diotro
My eyes hurt whenever I look at the new streetlights, like I was looking into
the microwave or something...

~~~
DenisM
LEDs are point light sources, of course they hurt - each dot is very bright in
order to produce enough light overall. By comparison CFLs produce a lot less
glare for the same light output, being basically light-emitting surfaces
rather than dots.

If an LED light is expected to be in the field of view they install diffusers
over LEDs. Diffusers, however, absorb some of the light and spread the rest
across wider angle, so they don't get installed unless needed. For the street
light you'd want a narrow beam (facing straight down) and a maximum light
output (to save energy along, which adds up quickly for long roads).

~~~
shmerl
Whoever came up with LED lights for it didn't do enough research, since they
are quite damaging to the eyes.

~~~
Zak
LEDs are not inherently damaging to the eyes. You may be referencing "blue
light hazard", for which evidence is neither rigorous or unequivocal.

Assuming blue light is damaging, white LEDs need not have more blue in their
spectrum than other white light sources such as incandescent, fluorescent, and
gas discharge. Higher color temperate LEDs with more blue in their spectrum
are commonly seen though, as their efficiency numbers are a bit better than
lower color temperatures.

~~~
shmerl
I'm talking about actual usage. Extremely bright, white LEDs. They should have
used softer lights.

~~~
Zak
I'm not sure what "softer" means. You could mean a lower color temperature
(less blue, more yellow), lower output, or a diffuser over the emitters. All
of those are commonly used in real LED-based lighting installations.

~~~
shmerl
I don't find it common. There was a recent comparison of photos from the past
and current street lights. Current ones are way more white.

~~~
ghusbands
Which doesn't at all support your claim that they are damaging.

~~~
shmerl
I didn't say I need to support anything. I said I don't find it common. If you
do - good for you.

