
Gazing Back at the Surveillance Cameras That Watch Us - mattbierner
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/lens/surveillance-camera-photography.html
======
themodelplumber
Has anyone proposed a set of "marking" standards for surveillance cameras? For
example, presenting a law that government cameras be marked as such, that
there is an indication of the audience type (eg some kind of "public audience
symbol" for a zoo cam), and maybe some kind of RF broadcast URL, or a URL to
be posted within 100 feet for more information?

If just a few localities had regulations like this covering government and
private cameras, and if they were reasonably well designed regulations, I'll
bet it would be a huge privacy benefit that would give people more peace of
mind and improve communities.

There will always be some exceptions for whatever Black Ops are going down in
the desert, or whatever, but a lot of these needlessly anxiety-making camera-
human-sensor-loop systems could probably be brought to an end quickly.

~~~
DanBC
In the UK (at least, in England) all traffic speed cameras have to be bright
yellow. (I feel this is caving in to the driving lobby.) There are
restrictions in where they can be placed.

We have laws governing use of cameras (RIPA and DPA), a data protection
regulator who requires people and companies to register if they use CCTV, and
we have a surveillance commissioner who provides some scrutiny of the use of
these powers.

Here's a jargon-heavy discussion about some of these powers:
[https://www.lateosurveillance.co.uk/idiots-guide-ripa-
direct...](https://www.lateosurveillance.co.uk/idiots-guide-ripa-directed-
surveillance/)

[https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-of-
survei...](https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-of-surveillance-
commissioners)

[https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/surveillance-
cam...](https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/surveillance-camera-
commissioner)

All of this regulation doesn't seem to have stopped the proliferation of
cameras. People say that London has more CCTV cameras than any other city.

~~~
gambiting
>>all traffic speed cameras have to be bright yellow. (I feel this is caving
in to the driving lobby.)

If we assume that the primary purpose of a speed camera is to reduce speeding
where its placed, then you want it to be as visible as physically possible. A
hidden camera does absolutely nothing to slow someone down - they will get a
ticket in the post few weeks later, but at the time when they drove past it,
it didn't do anything to slow them down.

~~~
mrow84
I think the principle of non-visible cameras is that, by inducing uncertainty
about when you might receive a ticket, you encourage law abiding behaviour
across the road network, and not just at those sites where you locate cameras.
In principle this method can be more cost-effective than using visible
cameras, because you need fewer cameras.

Of course, these cost savings are predicated on the relative effectiveness of
non-visible cameras. The fact that they are used in some countries is evidence
that they might be effective. This also seems to me to lend credence to the
idea that having visible cameras is a concession to some other interest group,
because, although I can understand why the "driving lobby" would want cameras
to be visible (so they know when to obey the law), I am having trouble
thinking of an interest group who would want cameras to be non-visible for
some non safety-related objective - I am of course open to suggestions.

~~~
gambiting
>>I am having trouble thinking of an interest group who would want cameras to
be non-visible for some non safety-related objective - I am of course open to
suggestions.

Lived in a small town where non-visible cameras were used years ago - huge
amount of fines were given, mostly to people out of town. Few years ago, all
cameras had to be made visible - now the main road going through town has 3
cameras, no one speeds through the town again, but the revenue has dropped
down significantly(it's probably costing the town money now).

Now the question is - which outcome is preferable to the citizens? One where
people speed, but the town is getting a lot of money from the fines, or one
where people don't speed, but it's actually costing the town money.

I'm sure if you ask the folks at the local council, they would say they
preferred non-visible cameras - their budget back then was huge, at(obviously)
expense of public safety.

~~~
mrow84
I'm not sure whether I have followed your example correctly, but interpret it
as being that the local population was essentially law abiding, because they
knew the camera locations both when they were visible and when they were non-
visible, and that the main issue was with out-of-town drivers.

There is, of course, no reason why a local council should not decide to deploy
visible cameras in such a situation, alongside a national network of non-
visible cameras (you obviously don't need to have both visible and non-visible
cameras at the same site). The cost-effectiveness argument still holds, under
the assumptions previously mentioned.

------
wpdev_63
Imagine a world where there was some sort of legal apparatus to prevent abuse
of these surveillance devices. And then even go further, let's imagine that
there's some sort of legal protection for whistle blowers who witness such
abuses of power... I can only imagine.

~~~
TomMarius
How would you enforce and maintain these?

~~~
whatshisface
We could write what we thought should happen down, and then assign an elected
official along with twelve randomly selected citizens to the task of deciding
if any breach had happened.

~~~
TomMarius
Do you think secret services don't have enough power (as in monetary, brute
force, manpower, etc) to influence that (I'm assuming that secret services
would be the interested party there)?

~~~
whatshisface
Billionaires, senators and the president all have a lot of power, and they're
still subject to the court system. If there was an insutution that became more
powerful than the law then I guess it would be a good idea to... Not have it.

~~~
craftyguy
> and they're still subject to the court system

That's assuming someone is willing/able to prosecute them. That is not always
the case. Here's a recent example of that: [https://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2018/08/ajit-pai-must-an...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2018/08/ajit-pai-must-answer-for-fccs-lies-to-congress-about-ddos-
senators-say/)

------
gitgud
Are the concepts; security and privacy mutually exclusive? Can we have secure
and safe places to live without surveillance and invasion of privacy?

~~~
nxc18
Yes, we can have security and privacy. People drastically over estimate the
risks from things like terrorist attacks and high crime. Just think about the
number of people and hugely vulnerable systems (even existing security is a
joke - why not bomb a TSA line for example? Or accidentally carry a gun
through, which happens all the time) and how rarely things go wrong. There's
just no need for these over the top surveillance machines. Security doesn't
stop motivated attackers anyway (see all terrorist attacks since 9/11).

As far as everyday crime goes, I suspect a social safety net would take care
of most of it. Most people aren't bad, but they will do bad things when they
need help but don't get it. Once you get past that point, the cost of crime is
probably less than the cost of trying to get perfect enforcement.

~~~
King-Aaron
> Or accidentally carry a gun through

I couldn't possibly imagine a scenario where you just _forget_ that you're
carrying a gun...

~~~
dsfyu404ed
If you carry all the time (which most people who carry do, better than just
leaving it in your car or something) it becomes natural like carrying your
keys or wallet. If you're carrying your handgun in the bottom of a purse and
rarely take it out it's even easier to forget.

~~~
lambdadmitry
That sounds defeating the whole purpose of carrying though.

Also, the whole thing is just mind boggling. Forgetting a killing machine
(please don't even start the automobile/edc knife comparisons, killing people
is the sole purpose of a gun) on the bottom of a purse. There is something
deeply flawed in the whole system if that can happen

~~~
King-Aaron
> There is something deeply flawed in the whole system if that can happen

This is just it. Carrying a gun is so normalised in the US that people are
admitting that they _forget_ that they are carrying a device which has the
sole purpose of killing or injuring.

This is not ok in my opinion, but apparently everyone is ok with living in an
environment where you all believe you need a gun for protection (which, if
it's buried at the bottom of your bag, is going to be hopeless). I can't
fathom that a person could be happy with this, but there you go.

------
another-cuppa
Look up "Surveillance Camera Man" on Youtube. It's really fascinating to see
that (not surprisingly) people hate being filmed by someone with a camera. Yet
for some reason they don't care about the hundreds of other cameras being
operated remotely that line the streets.

~~~
ryandrake
People are illogical. If they are in any large city in the world, they are
likely being watched by at least 10 cameras over the course of the day, and
nobody seems concerned. But, when you have someone holding the camera, all of
a sudden they lose their minds. Which one is likely to be a bigger threat to
you? A city-wide network of always-on cameras monitored by who knows how many
people, or a single rando pointing a single camera at you?

~~~
reitanqild
Given that:

\- there are strict laws about what surveillance video can be used for

\- surveillance video is rarely abused

\- people with video cameras are a whole lot more likely to upload me to
youtube and facebook (where I'll stay forever, possibly with nasty comments
both by the uploader and commenters)

\- while surveillance video will most likely be deleted within 14 days or 3
months or something

I'll happily

\- take 10 surveillance cameras

\- over one random person pointing filming me

\- today

That said, I think there might be too much surveillance. And it might be
dangerous in the future.

The person who wants to make a funny video with me is however a more imminent
threat.

~~~
another-cuppa
That is probably why people think there is a difference. But it's completely
illogical. How do you think someone is going to "abuse" the footage? You say
uploading to Youtube but there's all kinds of potentially embarrassing CCTV
footage all over Youtube. Maybe there is some other kind of abuse possible,
but you'd never know about it, just like you'd never know if someone is
abusing the CCTV footage.

------
m0rphy99
I will let you in with a little secret that 99% of the public is not aware of
or refuse to believe. Every guest room in every hotel is equipped with
extremely sophisticated surveillance equipment. Yes, every single room!

It is okay if you refuse to believe this because I know it's very difficult to
accept. I didn't believe it myself until I saw everything in front of my own
eyes. Just keep this thought in the back of your head as a possibility, one
day you'll see the truth comes out.

~~~
mywittyname
What do you mean by, 'extremely sophisticated surveillance equipment'?

Are we talking about smoke detectors, meters for water/electricity usage, or
do you mean things like audio/video capture of your activities throughout the
room? I definitely expect there to be equipment to determine if you've been
smoking in your room (how else would they know) or doing something to destroy
the room.

Who has access to this sort of thing? I imagine there'd be leaks if the
regular security guards had access to this, so I'm guessing it must go to some
LEO HQ.

~~~
m0rphy99
I meant video/audio surveillance equipment. My comments are getting a lot of
downvotes and I fully expected it. Before Snowden revealed what he had to
say, imagine if you had mentioned exactly the same things he said, surely
people would have labeled you as crazy.

~~~
mywittyname
You never answered the question about who is watching/listening to these
feeds?

~~~
bradknowles
IMO, it's a Vashta Nerada problem (see
<[http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Vashta_Nerada>](http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Vashta_Nerada>)).

It's not that every single shadow in existence contains a Vashta Nerada, it's
that any particular shadow in existence COULD contain a Vashta Nerada.

Likewise, not every phone on the planet is silently listening to your
conversations and recording them for the benefit of the Secret Service (or
NSA, or other such organization). The problem is that ANY phone in the hotel
COULD be silently recording your conversations. And the probability that any
phone might be used for such purposes is definitely non-zero.

Many hotel rooms now have Smart TVs installed, and many smart TVs from
companies like Vizio and LG come with built-in cameras. Rinse and repeat the
above concerns.

You don't have to go far beyond the recent problems at DefCon to see what will
be happening next.

