
FBI says utility pole surveillance cam locations must be kept secret - maxerickson
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/fbi-says-utility-pole-surveillance-cam-locations-must-be-kept-secret/
======
Dr_tldr
This is pretty shocking and should be more widely publicized. A government
agency covertly spying on the public with no warrants, no disclosures, and a
fundamental lack of accountability rarely ends well. Even worse, both parties
and most of the state and federal government bureaucracy are in fundamental
agreement about the need for a national security state, only disagreeing about
some of the implementation details.

People in tech are in the best position to create some pushback on this, be it
through lobbying as stubbornly single-issue voters, or creating some direct
(legal) technical counter-measures. It's not that hard to tell which ones are
bugged if you inspect the light poles closely, and threatening to imprison
people who take pictures of public lightpoles would almost certainly create
more backlash than they're willing to risk.

~~~
CamperBob2
They're not doing anything Google isn't doing. Public streets are fair game
for anyone with a camera, and that includes the police. It's best if that
doesn't change.

~~~
hackuser
> Public streets are fair game for anyone with a camera, and that includes the
> police

With the resources of modern IT, it renders the 4th Amendment almost useless:
It only applies in your windowless, lead-lined basement, with communication
coming in or out.

~~~
roywiggins
Infrared cameras need a warrant right now, so probably anything else that sees
through walls into a residence would also.

~~~
hackuser
There are windows, garbage, the very many commercial tracking sensors in your
home and your pocket, Internet connection, phone calls (at least metadata),
etc. Plus everything you do outside your home. Infrared sensors are only one
small possibility.

------
themartorana
"If the public knows X, we won't be able to use X without the public's
knowledge. Further, the public might demand we get a warrant to use X, making
using X without a warrant more difficult."

Well then... I guess everything the FBI does should be withheld from public
scrutiny because national security.

------
ChuckMcM
Clearly there needs to be Yellow "FBI Surveillance" stickers you can put on
utility poles. Put the stickers on all the poles and note the ones the FBI
takes off, build your geo database and add it to OpenStreetMap!

~~~
mirimir
How can they be detected? Just visually? Radio link?

~~~
Johnny555
If they look anything like the cameras in these articles, they are easy to
spot - a big white box with a glass covered lens slot on the side:

[http://www.dailytech.com/Federal+Court+Cops+Cant+Spy+on+Your...](http://www.dailytech.com/Federal+Court+Cops+Cant+Spy+on+Your+Yard+and+Home+Without+Warrant/article37002.htm)

[https://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2011/04/smile-
yo...](https://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2011/04/smile-youre-on-
candid-camera-cameras.html)

~~~
aaron695
[http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/srp-removes-mystery-
box-...](http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/srp-removes-mystery-box-from-
power-pole-after-phoenix-homeowners-complaint-8174824)

[http://www.kcbd.com/story/31589368/only-on-kcbd-lpl-lpd-
addr...](http://www.kcbd.com/story/31589368/only-on-kcbd-lpl-lpd-address-
surveillance-cameras-on-utility-poles)

For sale [http://www.covert-
systems.com/sale_items/pole_cam_VP2c_2450....](http://www.covert-
systems.com/sale_items/pole_cam_VP2c_2450.html)

[http://www.app-techs.com/video-surveillance/covertsentry.asp](http://www.app-
techs.com/video-surveillance/covertsentry.asp)

~~~
mirimir
The KCBD ones are fairly small.

And the Covert-Systems.com one is clever, but would take dangerous work to
install properly. But then, it could maybe communicate via power grid.

------
Aloha
If these cameras had a warrant attached to them, there would be no question
that the locations should remain secret - I fail to understand why its so hard
to get a warrant for this kind of surveillance - but I am at least somewhat
understanding (its kind of obvious) why the camera locations should remain a
secret.

I'd rather see my government operating above the board (even if the records
are sealed until trial) rather than casting a wide net and throwing back what
they ought not have caught later.

~~~
themartorana
This assumes they're throwing anything back. They're not.

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/30/nsa-
americans-...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/30/nsa-americans-
metadata-year-documents)

------
JadeNB
In the "boy who killed parents pleads for mercy as an orphan" department:

> Winn, meanwhile, wrote to Judge Jones that the location information about
> the disguised surveillance cams should be withheld because the public might
> think they are an "invasion of privacy."

~~~
ivanca
It's the year 2034, the FBI just killed 168 unarmed Americans. It claims that
disclosing the reason why they were killed may scare off similar targets. A
warrant to do the killings was avoided due to similar concerns.

------
a_e_k
I should think the "no expectation of privacy in a public space" principle
cuts both ways.

------
kristopolous
I'm curious if these have infrared "night vision" as many CCTVs do.

If so, looking for infrared spotlights may be a good idea

------
Roboprog
You know we've gone off the rails a bit when the authorities feel they have to
automate 24x7 surveillance to watch for things that the neighbors otherwise
don't give one rat shit about. (nobody is complaining about anything, but
we're still looking for a way to take down "those people", for a given
unpopular group of the day)

E.g. - the War on Drugs going from somehow (merely) "keeping the peace" to
Zero Tolerance and zero sense.

~~~
new_hackers
What do you expect? It's the push from the "never again" crowd. Sandy hook,
Boston marathon, San Bernardino, and Orlando to name a few. People are so
scared of the big bad terrorist that they are more than happy to be watched
24/7\. If you have nothing to hide then what's the problem?

------
matt_wulfeck
I really have no problem with this -- provided the FBI goes in front of a
judge with probable cause and gets a warrant. This is secret and that's what
really bothers me.

------
tdy721
I'm interested to see how the British handle this. There are certainly lots of
cameras in London, but I believe they are rather conspicuous. Perhaps this is
more about protecting technology than knowledge? Like, it's not about
location, it's about the method.

~~~
dingaling
> I'm interested to see how the British handle this

CCTV with a view of public areas in the UK are generally labelled with the
operating agency's name and contact details.

Per the Information Commissioner's Office:

 _You must let people know when they are in an area where a surveillance
system is in operation._

[https://ico.org.uk/media/for-
organisations/documents/1542/cc...](https://ico.org.uk/media/for-
organisations/documents/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf)

------
Houshalter
It's nothing a passerby nailed to a utility pole can't see!

------
pella
openstreetmap - tag statistics (surveillance:type=camera )

[http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/surveillance%3Atype=ca...](http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/surveillance%3Atype=camera#map)

------
carlmcqueen
From hacker news stories I've now seen that FBI has shell company planes
flying over major cities, cameras on the utility poles and wants root un-
encrypted access to our phones. Scary.

~~~
Houshalter
I actually support the surveillance planes. It seems much less invasive than
the public surveillance cameras that are becoming ubiquitous. They can't
identify faces or cars, just see where people move to after a crime.

I'd like some protections on it though. Like deleting the data after 5 days,
or requiring a warrant to look at it. No one should look at live. And the
cameras shouldn't be better than what google maps or a person in a low flying
plane could see.

It makes it possible to solve a huge number of crimes much easier. People
spend so much energy living in fear of crime. Kids aren't allowed outside
anymore, housing is segregated, etc. Irrational or not, anything that
decreases people's fear without being too invasive is a huge positive.

~~~
mattnewton
>> It seems much less invasive than the public surveillance cameras that are
becoming ubiquitous. They can't identify faces or cars

yet

>> Irrational or not, anything that decreases people's fear without being too
invasive is a huge positive.

I don't think people really live in that much fear, or should. I also don't
want their fear to dictate what my definition of invasive is.

~~~
whoopdedo
Violent crime in the U.S. may be like Lisa Simpson's "bear rock". The if-it-
bleeds-it-leads media makes crime appear to be more common than it actually
is. The public then ask for law enforcement to protect them from this threat.
When they see the low rates of violent crime around them, they assume it's a
result of the increased policing.

------
Vexs
Is it just me, or does the TV show "Person of Interest" seem to get one step
closer to reality every day, minus the all controlling AIs.

~~~
noir_lord
> minus the all controlling AIs.

Give them time.

------
Hondor
We can't ban the government from doing what private businesses and people can
already do. Otherwise they can simply buy the data off private companies who
have cameras on private buildings.

~~~
hobs
Many times with businesses they just ask nicely, and to maintain good
relationships they just hand it over (because they are not the topic of the
investigation.)

The thing is, they mostly dont keep months of footage, its too expensive to
store that much.

------
ternbot
There is one at 12th and Denny on Cap Hill (unless they took it down) -
solution - use Snapchat - ID basic form of box - pachao

~~~
freehunter
A paintball could cover the camera lens pretty nicely.

~~~
knodi123
But those cameras are FBI agents, and now you're pointing a weapon at a
federal officer. If you think courts would never declare an inanimate object
to be an FBI agent, then you'd probably also be shocked to hear there was a
court case titled "United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard
Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls".

~~~
talmand
That's not even close to the same thing.

But destruction of government property is a crime.

~~~
knodi123
of course not. it's mildly satirical. but for the record, I didn't say they
were the _same_ , I just implied that, clearly, bizarre legal theories about
the personhood of objects are not off the table.

~~~
jackhack
Absolutely. When making a "Barking" sound at a police dog can result in a
charge of "Assault on a police officer", anything is possible.

~~~
talmand
Wait, you mean insisting I was reporting a crime to a police officer is not a
defense in that case?

------
toomanythings2
I believe England still has the largest number of video surveillance cameras
in the world, owned and operated by the government.

