
All cameras are police cameras - alandarev
http://shorttermmemoryloss.com/nor/2014/11/07/all-cameras-are-police-cameras/
======
cones688
It's interesting as the only involvement I have had with CCTV was positive.

On a night out in a city, myself and my friend were walking home from a club
about 3.30am. We were joking about me being from the North and him being
southern (a common UK joke), this was unfortunately overheard by someone
nearby who took it personally and started punching my friend in the head, I
managed to break it up and the other chaps mates pulled him away as his was
rather inebriated. A girl nearby ran over after seeing this and called the
police and within a minute a police officer had arrived - the most interesting
and relevant part was that the officer had been dispatached by CCTV operators
who had seen the whole incident. The policeman was being relayed that the
perpetrator had been already arrested by a colleague down the street (after
CCTV identified him), the officer with us knew it was an unprovoked attack as
the CCTV operator saw at no point did we interact with the assailant, so
treated us with respect and started explaining the options for prosecution.

I appreciate the flip side of the coin but personally now feel much safer when
in an area with CCTV.

~~~
tomp
I would prefer to live in a society that was 100% supervised, if the laws of
the society were sensible.

Unfortunately, our society, where people can be denied tourist visas or
arrested because of twitter jokes, where pregnant women can be charged with
attempted murder (of the unborn baby) for falling down the stairs, where
police can enter homes to remove "illegal" advertisement on your window or to
arrest your 12 year old daughter who was downloading movies, is not sensible.

~~~
Avitas
Be careful what you wish for. I don't think you intended to push the
boundaries, but I'll do that for you.

Again, I consider this quite a stretch of your vision. But, imagine having
supervision include things such as:

\- ...Vehicle sensors. Exceeding the speed limit, making an illegal turn,
failure to maintain safe distance, littering or any other violation
automatically relays infraction details to relevant government agency and
ticket is automatically issued

\- Direct supervision of every trade (whether monetary or barter) for taxation
and violation purposes

\- Supervision of normally private / personal (i.e., at home) things for
medical, safety and potential criminal behavior

I am not sure where the line should be drawn, but I would not feel comfortable
with pervasive, unlimited supervision.

~~~
WildUtah
"Vehicle sensors. Exceeding the speed limit, making an illegal turn, failure
to maintain safe distance, littering or any other violation automatically
relays infraction details to relevant government agency and ticket is
automatically issued"

35,000 people die every year on our streets because of careless driving.
There's no right to privacy in what you do in public that endangers the lives
everyone around you.

Killing a cityfull of innocent people every year is not some kind of civil
right.

People who can't drive safely and within the law don't have to drive at all.
Those who do have a responsibility to comply with public safety measures,
including traffic laws and enforcement tracking. It makes little difference if
that means cops or electronic tracking, except that electronic tracking can do
a better job keeping us safe.

\-- "supervision of every trade (whether monetary or barter) for taxation"

I don't know why you're shilling for tax evasion, either. And I'm a
libertarian: I don't like the taxes, but that's no excuse to cheat while
they're still the law.

~~~
runamok
Laws can't satisfy every single edge case. I have to sometimes run red
protected left turn lights (very carefully) on my motorcycle because they
don't sense it. Sometimes you have to swerve out of your lane due to an
emergency, etc.

We have judgement for a reason. I also feel like the current fines associated
with various law breaking have the expectation that not all of the behavior
will be captured and thus it's rather high. If I got an automatic $5 fine
every time I went 10 mph over the limit I might be more amendable to it than
if it was $300 each time (as it is now). Again, if I am speeding 15 over in
the middle of a deserted highway it's different than doing so in a residential
area.

Also per
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year)
I would not say ALL of those deaths are caused by "careless driving". In fact
the majority is probably due to alcohol, falling asleep, etc. although I
suppose you could consider being drunk while driving "careless".

~~~
prawn
Driving while tired (including driving for too long without a break) is
careless. If you are tired enough, I believe the impact on your reactions can
approach that of you being tipsy.

I have driven after working 30ish hours straight and think it's something best
avoided.

~~~
taejo
Driving while tired can well surpass tipsy. [http://www.discovery.com/tv-
shows/mythbusters/about-this-sho...](http://www.discovery.com/tv-
shows/mythbusters/about-this-show/tired-vs-drunk-driving.htm)

------
davb
While the article itself was interesting (if not at all surprising), one thing
that really caught my eye was the reference to 1 Bessborough Gardens.

There are few references to it online, other than a planning permission
application [1] mentioning five roof-mounted satellite dishes and an oil
fuelled generator, and a mention [2] that the property was bought by investors
in 2006 for £45m and leased to the government.

I wonder what it's used for and why it's such a secret.

[1]
[http://transact.westminster.gov.uk/CSU/Planning%20Applicatio...](http://transact.westminster.gov.uk/CSU/Planning%20Applications%20Committees/Pre%202008/Planning_Applications_Sub-
Committee/2005/12%20-%2021%20April%202005/ITEM%2004%20-%201%20Bessborough%20Gardens,%20SW1.pdf)

[2]
[http://csbgroup.co.uk/index.php?page=history3](http://csbgroup.co.uk/index.php?page=history3)

~~~
DanBC
See also the comments here: [http://londonist.com/2011/11/top-10-spy-sites-in-
london.php](http://londonist.com/2011/11/top-10-spy-sites-in-london.php)

------
4ndr3vv
A lot of the comments here are about the benefits of CCTV generally and not
addressing the meat of the article (imo) regarding to the system wide
automated recording and storage of personal data by government organisations
without any justification.

Quoting the article: "Surveillance images attain the status of evidence for
unknown crimes the moment they are created, and merely await the
identification of the moment they were created for."

Ofcourse a plod watching a CCTV camera is a good thing. A network of cameras
that tracks my car as it passes down every street, and stores that data in
police database forever without any suspicion against me? That is a totally
different thing.

~~~
LLWM
As your quote implies, just because no justification exists now doesn't mean
none will exist in the future. And when that happens, you will often wish you
had historical data rather than having to start recording going forward. For
example, if someone stole your car from the airport parking lot while you were
away on a trip, and you returned 4 days later, it would be too late to help
you if you start watching for your car on local cameras immediately. If you
can go back in time and look at what happened, not just in your town, but when
your car turned up in the big city 50 miles away, your chances of recovering
your property are much better.

~~~
jeangenie
So whole societies should sacrifice their privacy so someone can have a
hypothetical chance at recovering a stolen car more quickly?

~~~
res0nat0r
You don't have a right to privacy in a public space.

~~~
silentOpen
You do have a right not to be followed everywhere you go. Ubiquitous ANPR is
essentially a police officer/power broker tailing every car without suspicion.
This is more than a violation of visible privacy.

~~~
res0nat0r
Why is tracking if done by the police in a "slow" way (ie: cops sitting at
major intersections or keeping an eye out for a flagged vehicle) OK, but if it
is done automatically somehow bad?

Should all of your server logs be manually reviewed by hand for intrusion
detection vs. allowing software to do it? You are both trying to track down
and also stop criminals...

~~~
silentOpen
It isn't _tracking_ that is bad but _suspicionless_ , _ubiquitous_ tracking.

Your server analogy is badly flawed because it is analogous to your
cop/intersection example. A more appropriate analogy would be universal
connection/request logging at the ISP level. It's not OK to have all of your
society's unencrypted Web requests recorded and correlated by your government.
Do you think it's OK? Why? What benefit does it confer to the people?

~~~
res0nat0r
So is universal tracking of everyone who walks in/out of a gas station / store
also bad?

No one cares or looks at the tape of you walking around the store unless there
is a reason to do so. Should all passive recording cams also be stopped?

~~~
silentOpen
You're still not paying attention to the words I have written. The word you
are missing is _ubiquitous_. It's not about a _single_ location -- it's about
_all_ locations.

------
simoncarter
Photographers being detained seems to be an unfortunately frequent occurrence
in London (anecdotal belief rather than based on any numbers). There are a
number of videos on youtube of people having filmed themselves being detained
for the same or similar reasons. It is tricky issue; you want to prevent
terrorists gaining information on the security measures of certain
buildings/areas, while allowing non violent citizens to go about their day.
However I fear if terrorists were to do this, they would be more subtle, using
hidden cameras, or working off memory and multiple trips, so seems like the
current approach only impacts genuine photographers and concerned citizens.
Usually, looking at the videos on youtube, the most unsettling part is the
behaviour of the security guards and police officers, though I do seem to
remember one video where the police officer/PCSO was reasonable.

~~~
jimktrains2
> prevent terrorists gaining information on the security measures

I've gotten into arguments about this before, but I still fully believe that
any long-term security measure requiring secrecy is bound to fail and/or be
ineffective.

It's another step of security theatre; they need to look like they're doing
something otherwise if something happens they're afraid of looking like idiots
(despite their measures being completely and utterly useless).

~~~
simoncarter
> I've gotten into arguments about this before, but I still fully believe that
> any long-term security measure requiring secrecy is bound to fail and/or be
> ineffective.

Agree with the sentiment, especially when applied to computers, though i'm not
sure how it applies to non-IT based security, because I just don't know enough
about the subject.

> It's another step of security theatre; they need to look like they're doing
> something otherwise if something happens they're afraid of looking like
> idiots (despite their measures being completely and utterly useless).

Agreed. On a slight tangent, base jumpers are more than able to gain illegal
access to tall buildings in the city, with all their secretive security
measures. There are a couple of documentaries out there on this, one I'm
confident was shot post 9/11.

My greatest concern when reading about or watching these incidents is the poor
treatment of those non-violent citizens taking the photos. Ok, you have to do
your job and check their photos, but why not crack a joke, apologise for the
inconvenience, and check the photos quickly as possible.

~~~
mnw21cam
> Ok, you have to do your job and check their photos

Why do they have to check their photos? That's private property.

In the UK and US at least, you do not need to show your photos to a person
that tries to detain you, and you do not need to delete any photos. If you are
arrested _and_ charged with a crime, then they can inspect the photos as
evidence, but not before. They still are not permitted to delete any.

Also, in the UK if someone who is not a police office tries to detain you (and
this includes security guards and PCSOs), then they must be relying on the law
of citizen's arrest, which means that they must have seen you in the act of
committing an offense that could be tried at a crown court - in other words,
something worthy of half a year or more in prison. If they have not, then they
are liable to prosecution for false imprisonment and may have to compensate
you.

Not a lawyer, by the way.

~~~
simoncarter
> In the UK and US at least, you do not need to show your photos to a person
> that tries to detain you, and you do not need to delete any photos. If you
> are arrested and charged with a crime, then they can inspect the photos as
> evidence, but not before. They still are not permitted to delete any.

My understanding is different for the UK. If you refuse to show a police
officer the photos, they have the right to take you to a station, where they
will examine the photos. Like you, i'm not a lawyer.

>Also, in the UK if someone who is not a police office tries to detain you
(and this includes security guards and PCSOs), then they must be relying on
the law of citizen's arrest, which means that they must have seen you in the
act of committing an offense that could be tried at a crown court - in other
words, something worthy of half a year or more in prison.

What you say is true about the citizens arrest, but as was mentioned in the
article, my understanding was that they are able to call the police because
you've been acting suspiciously, and that they have that 'right' to call the
police if you are seen taking photos. They can't hold you, but then most
people stay, because leaving is seen as an admission of guilt/being a
terrorist. Would be nice if this was tested in a court of law, or to hear from
someone who knows if it has. Even then i'm not convinced a Judge won't just
say "Well, in this post 9/11 time, people should be expected to be stopped if
they take photos of high value targets."

EDIT: Taking photos of a building == Acting suspiciously. Not what I believe,
just what I understand is argued, often, when security guards call the police
because you've been seen taking photos of their building.

~~~
semanticist
In the UK, the police have the power to stop and search, including viewing
images, only someone 'reasonably suspect to be a terrorist'.
[http://content.met.police.uk/Site/photographyadvice](http://content.met.police.uk/Site/photographyadvice)

It doesn't say so there, but other advice I've seen the Met. issue explicitly
states that taking pictures of a building in and of itself isn't sufficient
for a police officer to 'reasonably suspect' a person to be a terrorist, and
taking pictures of the police definitely isn't.

The Met. keep publishing advice telling their army of goons to leave
photographers alone, while at the same time winding up said army to catch
terrorists. It's a farce.

~~~
vidarh
Note that this advice was revised after the UK once again was slapped down
thoroughly by the European Court of Human Rights, who in January 2010 ruled
that the much wider stop-and-search powers granted under section 44 of the
Terrorist Act 2000 were illegal.

Notice the weasel words on the page you linked, which states "The power to
stop and search someone under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 no longer
exists" \- not mentioning that it was not merely repealed, but found to be an
illegal violation of human rights.

------
hobs
What a great article.

The sad thing about all of this is that the dinguses on the police state side
are not evil monsters, they think this is the only way to protect us from some
undefined attack, and if a few rights are trampled on the way, well you are
going to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

It practically encourages bullies in the police force to take their will out
on the people, and there is no real mechanism for justice for the citizens
affected. The constant excuse "but it will make you safer!" or "think of the
children!" is chanted while more and more of your privacy is eroded.

Any terrorist could simply use non-human intelligence to gather information on
most structures of import, or if needed, would have a much better plan to deal
with the problem of being identified as someone casing the place.

~~~
LLWM
Well, that's the fundamental disagreement, really. Do you have a right to not
be seen when out in public? I don't think you do, and continuing to insist on
that when technology in general and recording technology in particular are
only going to get better over time is a futile effort.

~~~
izacus
It's futile only if you do not regulate and control it properly.

In socialist times the citizens of my country said the same for secret police
which was doing the same - and history has proven that resistance there was
neither futile nor ineffective.

~~~
LLWM
That's a circular argument. What constitutes "proper" regulation and control
is the thing in question here.

------
un5l1
OpenStreetMap is a great tool for visualising the surveillance state. This
site is just one example: [http://osmcamera.tk](http://osmcamera.tk)

Tens of thousands of cameras have been mapped already, I would urge anyone who
studies surveillance like the author to put their findings in a public
database so efforts will be collaborative.

More info on how to add cameras to OSM here:
[https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsurveilla...](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsurveillance)

------
polynomial
The main problem isn't the presence of surveillance cameras. The problem is
who has privileged access to them.

Currently it tends toward the Platonic 'Polis' model with a distinct class of
people (The "po-lice") given sole responsibility for enforcement and access to
the omni-panopticon(while being themselves above the law.)

However if we apply Linus' Law (with many eyes, all bugs are shallow) it makes
_much_ more sense to give access to surveillance back to the people being
surveilled.

~~~
thizzbuzz
Could not agree more. Any eventuality where access to surveillance data and
systems is limited to a select few, I think will turn out very badly.

------
Shivetya
Just wait till all police officers are cameras, we will come to the day where
they will be able to record the entire shift, whether they are on patrol, on
break, or actually in the process of arrest.

Considering how heavily license plate scanners are deployed with inconsistent
protection of privacy there should be work done at a national level to
regulate the gathering and retention of the data.

~~~
nl
This is slowly (finally!) happening in a few places. It has had a hugely
beneficial effect on reducing police violence[1].

[1] [https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/police-body-
moun...](https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/police-body-mounted-
cameras-right-policies-place-win-all)

~~~
throwawayaway
don't get too excited, eventually they will figure out how to turn them off
and lose the footage.

~~~
pdkl95
That's why you tie the powers granted to police to the camera. No camera, no
extra powers. Ideally, the camrea is simply a built-in part of the badge.

Edge cases and any Hollywood movie-plot contrivance can be easily solved by
cheap backup batteries and backup cameras, as this kind of technology is
inexpensive. The very-rare and unusual situation where an officer has some
legitimate reason for a camera failure, the officer can be given the benefit
of the doubt an should not be prosecuted for what was clearly not his fault...
_if-and-only-if_ the incentive to _cause8 that situation is removed as well:
we also mandate that "no camera" means no _evidence in court*

To put it another way, we simply place the court's trust in the witness less
likely to be in error: the camera. Without that recording, the officer's
testimony should be considered _hearsay_. This will, of course, make it harder
to prosecute in a few rare and unusual cases. That difficulty is the entire
goal, as an application of the principle that it better to let the guilty go
free than prosecute an innocent person.

~~~
throwawayaway
cops aren't going to agree to having the camera on at all times as a
prerequisite for their testimony having special privilege. remember the video
about why you shouldn't talk to the cops?

the situation that will emerge is as follows, if the cops cannot subvert or
work around the camera tech to their advantage the cameras will be "left
behind" and any excuse for that will be accepted.

that is unless one of the cops rats another out but the culture actively
prevents that.

~~~
pdkl95
The opinion of the cops - our _employees_ \- about the requirements of their
job is not particularly interesting.

Failure to follow means they should find a new job. If they decide to make a
habit of "forgetting" their _badge_ (aka camera), then they have no authority,
and are not doing their job. Charge them with _[attempted] murder_ if they
shoot [at] anybody.

Compare the camera requirement with any other job's requirements: retail
employees are on camera when on the job almost 100% of the time. If a an
employee at the US Postal Service decided to regularly "leave behind" mail,
they won't keep their job. If "mens rea" can be shown, they might even face
charges.

No, the opinion of the cops was not asked for. The people that we would need
buy-in from (not counting the usual politicians would need to be included to
get _anything_ passed) are the prosecutors and regulators, not the cops. The
local prosecutor needs to actually go after the nastier charges whenever they
might happen, or they are really just aiding-and-abetting original crime
(willingly choosing to not report a felony that you have direct knowledge of
is itself a felony).

The cops need to be given a choice. They can:

(1) use the cameras (and the implicit attitude changes that would require)

(2) face charges for acts that require certain additional powers while
willfully ignoring the the mandatory requirements of those powers

(3) have fun on the unemployment line and/or explain to the prosecutors why
they screwed up their evidence collection

While I would agree that getting the DA to prosecute is currently an issue,
even a usually pro-cop DA is going to be very annoyed if all the evidence is
regularly thrown out due to improper collection.

~~~
throwawayaway
They are a law unto themselves and they simply are not going to give that up!
Notionally I agree that they are your employees, but practically what your
suggestion will not be allowed happen.

Put it to you this way, if I were a cop I would resign sooner than work under
those conditions.

~~~
pdkl95
The abusive criminals resign? Awesome! That was one of the _GOALS_!

~~~
throwawayaway
I think you are blinded by your own positive attitude, I was giving that as an
example of the extreme resistance that would be put up.

~~~
pdkl95
The level of resistance the cops will put up to maintain their current status
is obvious, with the armed robbery, assault, intimidation, disregard for the
law, and general "violent gang"-like behavior. I expect strongly that at least
_some_ amount of actual shooting-war will be required to correct this
situation.

What I'm suggesting that a necessary step in the basic concept of having a
police force. The nature of the job by necessity requires us to grant some
extra powers and exceptions in law to the people we hire to enforce it.
Unfortunately, history shows that not only can we not trust that those powers
will not be abused, we also cannot trust that the usual check against abuses
of power will be implemented (or even attempted at all). Various types of
regulatory capture, institutional corruption, and far too many people choosing
to look the other way have demonstrated very clearly a list of methods that do
_not_ work.

The key problem in all of that tends to center around someone being able to
abuse their powers freely while retaining a very high level of trust. Tying
police powers to the camera separates these issues, and _might_ be the _start_
of a much-larger plan to fix this mess we're in. I don't expect that the
people currently benefiting from the situation will like it. In fact, as they
are (by definition) violent criminals, I expect the people committing the
worst abuses will fight back. Hard.

I suggest we start solving that problem _now_ , regardless of the difficulty.
Power accumulates, so this will only be harder in the future. I don't have a
miracle solution for how to _enact_ these ideas - that is going to be hard
regardless..

------
simplemath
I find the tone of general acceptance of surveillance in this discourse deeply
upsetting.

------
sgnelson
What I find ironic about the story of Photographing the CCTV cameras is that
he obviously most of had a "real" camera (one that can be readily identified
as an old fashioned cameras.

However, every one and their mom has smartphone with a camera attached. Yet
it's the people who've invested money in more "professional" cameras that we
have to be scared of (even though they are the more conspicuous users of
photography.)

------
badname
Copying one of the commends:

”The poor are collectively unseizable. They are not only the majority on the
planet, they are everywhere and the smallest event speaks of them. This is why
the essential activity of the rich today is the building of walls — walls of
concrete, of electronic surveillance, of missile barrages, minefields,
frontier controls, and opaque media screens.“

— John Berger “Ten Dispatches About Endurance in the Face of Walls” (October
2004)

------
gambiting
I am very curious about one thing still - with so many traffic cameras in
London, how are cars still stolen there? There have been thousands of cars
stolen in London just this year, and I don't understand how? As soon as the
car is reported stolen, any camera scanning its licence plate anywhere in the
country should sound alarm bells at the nearest police department. Why has
this not been implemented yet?

~~~
junto
They are stolen because cameras don't stop you stealing a car. Often, by the
time the car has been reported stolen it has long since been dumped and set
alight.

------
s_q_b
If we all wore universal body cameras, but the recordings were encrypted with
a key only the wearer knew, could we fight back against public surveillance
with private surveillance?

Interesting idea. Personally, I think CCTV does more good than harm. There's
no right to privacy in public places.

------
patmcguire
Some Google searches that will get you surveillance footage....

inurl:ViewerFrame?Mode=

inurl:axis-cgi/mjpg (motion-JPEG)

inurl:view/indexFrame.shtml

inurl:view/index.shtml

inurl:view/view.shtml

liveapplet

intitle:liveapplet

intitle:â€i-Catcher Console – Web Monitorâ€

There are many more. What's going to stop the police, or anyone for that
matter, from using those?

------
ha292
There is a serious issue with cameras in countries that have less than stellar
record of protecting civil liberties. That would probably me 80-90% of the
countries.

No, cameras aren't increasing security in those societies.

------
sighsigh
These comments disturb me more than the article. Saying more cameras prevent
crime is like saying more logging reduces your attack surface. Let's just
ditch firewalls and add kernel dumps everywhere instead. My rate is $150 an
hour.

Sometimes, HNs political naivety deeply undermines their technological
contributions.

~~~
goblin89
> Saying more cameras prevent crime is like saying more logging reduces your
> attack surface. Let's just ditch firewalls and add kernel dumps everywhere
> instead.

What if your firewalls cost each about £30,000/yr (plus benefits), have only
40 hours weekly uptime, and you need like _a bunch_ of them around in the city
all the time for this to work at all?

~~~
sighsigh
Red herring. Price points on techniques that actually reduce your attack
surface do not make techniques that don't magically gain abilities.

Go ahead. Disable SSH, firewalls, and VPNs and just run loggers all day. I'm
sure you'll feel super duper secure then. Heuristics never fail!

My rate is $150 an hour and I will create the most perfect and secure and
tiniest attack surface for your brand new logging cluster.

