Cheer The Boston Cameras, But Do You Want Big Brother Watching All?

[Purveyor]

"It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself — anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called."

— George Orwell, "1984"

I begin with this disturbing snippet from Orwell because it is the flip side of the relief we all feel that a department store security camera caught the Tsarnaev brothers apparently planting bombs at the Boston Marathon. Without those images of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev not reacting to the first explosion and other incriminating details, it could have taken weeks to make arrests, if ever.

But I worry — as the use of the Orwell quote suggests — that our surveillance society is moving ahead without thoughtful taps on the brakes. Threats like Boston cloud our judgment. We lose perspective on the downside risks of technologies that put us in a fishbowl.

"We need more cameras" was the predictable response to the bombings by Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., a member of the House Homeland Security and Intelligence committees. He told MSNBC that cameras are "a great law enforcement method and device" and should not be objectionable because in the street you have no "expectation of privacy."

Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn used the bombings to support his controversial decision to continue using the 119 cameras deployed around downtown Tampa during the Republican National Convention in August. "I would say, 'Go talk to the families and then tell me you don't think those cameras work,' " Buckhorn told WFTS.

MORE...

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/column-cheer-the-boston-cameras-but-do-you-want-big-brother-watching-all/2117805

[graham4anything]

1. Yes, the more cameras the less abuse. And its 2013 now.It's the Age of Obama, not Reagan

[NightWatcher]

2. I hate to agree with King, but there is no expectation of privacy in public

In your residence you expect privacy, but you cannot expect the same on the subway or while standing in line at Starbucks.

If you do it in public, expect others to see it and now you can expect others to document it on camera.

[eissa]

3. I have no problem with it at all

They're in public places, not like you expect privacy when you're walking public streets. Everyone has a camera in their hands these days anyway, so you could be recorded without your knowledge anytime you're out. Unless you're jacking off in front of a Victoria's Secret display window, I don't see why anyone should be too concerned.

[justiceischeap]

4. I dabble in street photography

and one of the most asked questions of new street photogs is it it legal to take photos on the street. If you are in a public space, you have no expectation of privacy, therefore, I can get right in your face (I wouldn't) and snap your pic. If I want to use that in some way to profit, I don't even need a model release (most likely a publisher or gallery would be reticent but it wouldn't be illegal). Videotaping in public spaces is the exact some thing. Doesn't mean we have to like it but it is what it is.

[Purveyor]

5. Here is a question I heard on a law show and the attorney didn't have an answer. This guys

neighbor, who lived across the street, put up a surveillance camera and had it pointed right at
his house.

The guy wanted to know what could be done to stop his every comings and goings.

What say you all?

[randome]

8. That's a no-brainer. It's spying.

Different from monitoring public spaces.

[Fumesucker]

13. Someone has been vandalizing your neighbor's mailbox across the street

He puts up a video camera to ID the vandals if they come back, it happens to also catch the front of your house with its wide angle lens.

You have no expectation of privacy anywhere that can be seen from off your property.

[randome]

26. That's still different from deliberately spying on someone. And a temporary use.

I would hope, being neighborly and all, the two neighbors would discuss this before putting up a camera.

[Fumesucker]

29. Police helicopter hovers over your property with an infrared camera, checking for hot spots

That happens every day in the land of the free, indeed it happens right here at least once a year and often several times. They check out every building on every piece of property whether or not it can be seen from outside the property at ground level, I've watched it happen probably a dozen or so times now.

Better hope you aren't keeping a room or two warmer for an invalid with an electric space heater, there's an excellent chance you'll get raided for it, that happened to someone I know.

[Purveyor]

14. So if the guy says he is just monitoring the street (public place), even though it does captures

his neighbors house in the field of view, it is ok?

[randome]

24. I would say not.

Clever explanations aside, he is still spying on someone's home, deliberately or not.

[Purveyor]

28. That was the attorney's dilemma when presented with the question. eom

[former9thward]

15. It is no different than a police car sitting outside your house watching it.

No court order is required for that. A camera, off your property, would be just the same. No law against it.

[randome]

25. Police have law enforcement powers granted to them.

I would say there is a BIG difference between LE doing their jobs and a private citizen spying on you. In fact, I'd say it would not be difficult to get that police car ordered away, absent any compelling reason for it to be there.

[former9thward]

30. I would like to see a specific law which prevents the spying.

I know of none. If someone had posted a camera at my house I would get a strobe type light and aim at the camera blinding it.

[pipi_k]

22. I'm thinking

that I would return the favor by training a surveillance camera on the other guy's house.

[HappyMe]

23. Or really give the

camera people something to look at!

[Bluenorthwest]

6. The Mayor of Tampa and others gloss over the part about the cameras being useless for prevention of

terrorism the value is in investigation after the fact. In Boston, the pictures were all from private sources, not some organized system of cameras. London is filled with cameras that help solve, but so far have not prevented attacks.
I'd say people need to be clear on that when waving 'the families' around as rhetorical fodder. Cameras don't stop much, they just help put the story together after all the death and carnage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/weekinreview/08landler.html?_r=0

[randome]

9. If you raise pubic awareness of those cameras, you can make things more difficult...

...for would-be mass murderers. If they know they need to go an extra step or two to avoid getting captured on camera, that's one or two more steps that they might be noticed and stopped.

There is no full-proof method to stop anyone from going on a killing spree. It's always a cat and mouse game of making it more difficult.

[HappyMe]

7. I don't have a problem with this.

Most people on the street don't expect privacy anyway. Besides, almost everyone can take video or pictures with their phone.

[Life Long Dem]

11. Arresting someone for placing a bomb

is a little more than arresting them over a facial expression. We already have cameras in public. I wouldn't mind having cops monitoring these cameras instead of some store. The cops standing alongside the Marathon have eyes watching for back packs and all, but they do miss things while on the streets. If there was a cop monitoring cameras, much like a Vegas casino does, I think catching something like a back pack being dropped would be spotted easier.

[Progressive dog]

12. No problem with cameras in public places

They aren't intended to deter terror acts.
I hate to agree with Peter King, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[DCBob]

16. All public places? yes.

It reduces crime.

[Fumesucker]

17. That's pretty much how it is in North Korea now

If you didn't show sufficient grief when the Big Cheese kicked the bucket recently you were disciplined, sometimes remarkably harshly.

[Robb]

18. I'll do less nose-picking in public spaces.

That's an upside.

[MineralMan]

19. Since it's impossible to monitor all those cameras in real

time, I have no real problem with them in public places. When something happens, it's recorded and can be reviewed. It's not a matter of people watching you all the time. Except in Casinos, that just doesn't happen. Nobody cares.

[Apophis]

20. Cameras don't keep us safe.

Last edited Mon Apr 29, 2013, 03:33 PM - Edit history (1)

They won't prevent terrorist attacks like bombings. If people want to bomb, they'll do it regardless.

I remember after 9/11 that everyone hated the idea that cameras were going to be everywhere. Now everyone supports them?

Do they make us safe? Absolutely not.

[zipplewrath]

21. Orwell wasn't really about the cameras

There is a tendency to focus too much on the technology when considering Orwell. I don't really think that was Orwell's point, that technology would make totalitarianism possible. His point was much more about extreme attitudes towards conformity, especially when the power of government gets involved. It is what is the point of the idea of "thought crime". Conformity of thought was his point, not just actions.

There is a reality that we are being filmed/photographed alot. At this point, much if not most of it is from cameras that aren't owned or operated by the government at any level. And it should be instructive that several severe dictatorships such as China, Iran, and North Korea don't make significant use of their video systems for anything approaching Orwell's "thought crimes" much less "face crimes". Iran has roving bands of people that handle such things as inappropriate dress or behavior and cameras aren't particularly necessary. And the truth is, technology is changing so fast right now it is difficult for the government to "keep up" with the use. They had terrabytes of data from Boston and it was overwhelming in many ways. It also took a tremendous amount of effort to correlate because there were so many different formats, not to mention resolutions. It's not that it can't be done, it's that it needs updating of capability roughly every 6-9 months too keep up and on any "global" scale that's just beyond most governments capabilities.

There are things I worry about, because of the ability of the government to use them in ways that could hurt innocent people. Accessing large amounts of privately generated video data isn't really one of them.

[msongs]

27. u are more likely to be shot to death by a young child than killed by a bomber nt