Does Chicago have too many cameras?

[verytwistedmind.livejournal.com]

CHICAGO — A vast network of high-tech surveillance cameras that allows Chicago police to zoom in on a crime in progress and track suspects across the city is raising privacy concerns.

Chicago's path to becoming the most-watched US city began in 2003 when police began installing cameras with flashing blue lights at high-crime intersections.

The city has now linked more than 10,000 public and privately owned surveillance cameras in a system dubbed Operation Virtual Shield, according to a report published Tuesday by the American Civil Liberties Union.

At least 1,250 of them are powerful enough to zoom in and read the text of a book.

But the ACLU said the $60 million spent on the system would be better spent filling the 1,000 vacancies in the Chicago police force.

It urged the city to impose a moratorium on new cameras and implement new policies to prevent the misuse of cameras, such as prohibiting filming of private areas like the inside of a home and limiting the dissemination of recorded images.

"Our city needs to change course, before we awake to find that we cannot walk into a book store or a doctor's office free from the government's watchful eye," the ACLU said


http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jkAV4zcy6Cesjf7a2CGtFm32t-qA?docId=CNG.ca75d68733ba56c6dff1582ac6bf480a.651


 

This is one of those stories where I usually wait for someone else who actually has an opinion on the subject to post it (Like net neutrality), and then carefully read all of the opinions and comments. However I'm afraid this one will get missed.

Questions:
1) Is high-tech surveillance just part of our lives now?
2) Is the ACLU doing the right thing?
3) Are there any ways to prevent yourself from being recorded?
3 - a) I'm thinking technological solutions not legal.
4) Does the average citizen own their image?
5) Chicago style pizza vs. New York Style pizza?

 

Comments

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I don't see how one can object on the grounds of number 4. The principle expressed in number 4 would prohibit any surveillance cameras in any stores whatsoever... so no, people don't own a chemical reaction based in film generating a fuzzy likeness of their general form.

Oh wait, kids these days are all digital. Do people own the binary code associated with their graphical representation? I don't know. Kids these days.

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

Me, I really think all these acrobatics associated with allowing people to "own" patterns of information is eventually more trouble than it's worth.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Courts have ruled when you go on the street, anyone can take your photo. You're making it "public domain" so to speak ;)

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Stop looking at me or I'll sue!

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Do people own the binary code associated with their graphical representation?

All text, sounds, and images can be translated to and from binary code (including classified information, Hollywood movies, your medical history, pictures of you taken by you in your own home, ...) so this argument has zero merit.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I think all of those cameras are too much Big Brother. So kudos to the ACLU. In an old episode of Penn and Teller's "Bullshit," they staged an experiment showing what can happen with surveillance-- they hired some guys under the guise the Dept of Homeland Security was subcontracting some work. The guys they hired, completely overstepped the limits within a few hours.

As for pizza:



New York style! :-D Nothing beats it.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

New York style pizza == bah, humbug. :)

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Of course, Chicago style is also bah, humbug. :)

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Why does it have shifting images of mold all over it?

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

1) Is high-tech surveillance just part of our lives now?

It is, but shouldn't be.

2) Is the ACLU doing the right thing?

Absolutely. Of course, I am an actual card-carrying member....

3) Are there any ways to prevent yourself from being recorded?

Sadly, nothing that won't possibly land you in legal trouble (witness the ways people try to defeat red light cameras). You can't shoot/cover up/blind/otherwise interfere with the cameras without bringing the rath of the Nascent Police State down on you. There are countless instances of people getting in trouble for filming the police, etc. Frankly, the Fourth Amendment has become so much toilet paper.

3 - a) I'm thinking technological solutions not legal.

See above.

4) Does the average citizen own their image?

Not sure, but they should.

5) Chicago style pizza vs. New York Style pizza?

New York. Sorry guys, but the best pizza on earth is in the little family-run joints on the Jersey Shore. Bow down and worship it! (http://www.mackandmancos.com/)

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I'll agree with most of this.

Technological solutions are theoretical at this point. Light is electromagnetic, therefore it can be interfered with. How to do it is left as an exercise for the reader. As for legal, I believe you only have to legally identify yourself when you are confronted by a physical police officer. Therefore, wearing a disguise at all times is not illegal. Until everyone does it and the government catches on.

No, you don't own your image as that's just EM radiation bouncing around. Just like you don't own that piece of skin you just shed on the ground that has your DNA in it. It's only when you take steps to contain things coming off your body that you can make a claim to own them after they are separate and distinct from you.

Pizza is a wholly subjective experience and cannot be objectively compared.

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

If you're in public everyone can see you anyway so I don't see the problem. Hell, it's been pretty helpful to the London crime rate as I understand it.

Also, Chicago style is the best. Do you really want people from Brooklyn touching your food?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Depends, on what part of Brooklyn :P

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

1) More than people tend to think about. If you think about it, people with cell phone cameras could take candid images, put them on the Internet, and someone might cause a viral sensation without even being aware of it.

2) Yes.

3) Not really, given the diffusion of photography and the kind of ease with which pictures can get all over the Internet.

4) Not any more than people ever did, the thing is that now the consequences of such are graphically illustrated in real time.

5) Neither.

[caerfrli.livejournal.com]

If you're doing something in public, having it photographed is not a big difference. New York style pizza, of course.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

If you're doing something in public, having it photographed is not a big difference.

Tell that to people who lost their jobs or quit over embarrassment b/c of photos taken in public and then posted on the internet for their bosses and coworkers to discover. Not a big difference at all.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Chicago pizza is a casserole.

Tasty, but a casserole.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

1) More and more every year.
2) Sure, I guess. They're probably trying to hold back the tide, but it's worth a shot.
3) Move to a rural area where it is still impractical to record your actions or wear a ski mask.
4) Yeah, but it probably doesn't apply here. Nobody is trying to make money from your image.
5) If it's good pizza, I won't turn my nose up to either

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

1) Is high-tech surveillance just part of our lives now?

Yup. The real issue is how it is being used. If the police can use it in court to convict me, then I should also be able to use it in court to show abuse by police. It works both ways.

2) Is the ACLU doing the right thing?

Yes, challenging the law is almost always necessary.

3) Are there any ways to prevent yourself from being recorded?
3 - a) I'm thinking technological solutions not legal.

Disguise/makeup/shades/ski-mask/burqa - low tech solutions work best.

4) Does the average citizen own their image?

Depends. Celebrities do not, but it requires a model/talent release to use an ordinary citizen's likeness commercially.

5) Chicago style pizza vs. New York Style pizza?

NY style where the grease drips down to your elbow.

I'm not a lawyer, but the general advice I've received is to never admit that the person in the video is you. It may look like you, but it isn't you.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I'm not a lawyer, but the general advice I've received is to never admit that the person in the video is you. It may look like you, but it isn't you.

I have a known doppelganger wandering around the same city I'm in, so I can say this quite honestly.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

As far as civil liberties go, I feel that if a camera is where a cop could legally be, observing what a cop legally could observe, then there isn't a privacy issue.

How the information is used is of some concern. I 'trust' a camera to accurately portray a situation more than a cop, human memory being what it is, but if access to such information is controlled, then it is power for the controllers, and they can selectively release and suppress what they will.

How about this... cameras at every intersection and sidewalk is are OK, if an only if the results from them are public domain, with a built in infrastructure to insure public accessibility?

Is the ACLU doing the right thing? I note that the objection of theirs that you quote is about efficiency... i.e. the costs of the camera network compared to costs of more police. That seems an odd argument for the ACLU to make... not in itself an illegitimate argument, but not their normal area of interest. If feels like an insincere one to me. My feeling is that they oppose the camera network on privacy grounds, but can't make the legal argument, so they try the economic one. I'd need to know more of their actual argument to firm up that judgement.

Obvious means of prevention are physical barriers (disguises) but that may open a can of worms. I would be suspicious of a guy walking down the streets of Gainesville Florida in May wearing a Ski Mask... and a cop would be suspicious as well... would that be probable cause enough to, say, search someone? Would those most assiduously attempting to protect their privacy then be most at risk to loose it?

As for #4... Marking information as 'owned' is simply a social tactic to allow certain businesses to make a profit... like patents and copyright. Its a fiction we maintain because we think it contributes to social good. If it doesn't, on balance, then why maintain it?

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Being observed by a camera is different from being observed by a cop in that the cameras can be linked together to follow a person and track their actions. This is a lot more like having the police tail you 24/7 rather than having a police standing on the corner.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

1) yes.
2) they're doing what anyone, for or against, should expect
3) wear plain clothes, never look up, the toy isle at dollar general has some pretty nifty fake mustaches
4) no.
5) I haven't had New York. Chicago is good though. I'll take Sam's Club pizza over any chain pizza, price and taste.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

1) Yes, high technology surveillance is part of out lives, with all of the benefits and drawbacks that go along with it. The challenge is providing the legal and ethical framework to ensure that it is not misused, along with the necessary training and oversight for the agencies who handle the information. But it's here, and it isn't going away.
2) The ACLU's knee jerk luddism isn't very helpful. Rather than call for moratoria, they should focus on practical issues, such as, are the cameras effective, and are they being misused?
3) By sharing information about where the cameras are located, it is probably possible to avoid them, though you might have to make some big detours.
4) No.
5) New York, I'm afraid.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

But it's here, and it isn't going away.

Why? Do you really think voters (via lawmakers) aren't capable of making it illegal?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

YAY!

House votes down key elements in Patriot Act extension !!

[verytwistedmind.livejournal.com]

We'll talk more about this later.

[headhouse.livejournal.com]

1. Yes.
2. No. Their opposition isn't based upon a mistrust of the use of cameras, it's based on the possibility of misuse. Supporting rules and procedures to prevent that misuse is one thing, but eliminating them is poorly thought-out. (Also contradictory; if they mistrust the police behind the cameras, why would they want 1,000 more of those same police on the payroll?)
3. Almost certainly. Technology can always be counteracted. Lasers, bright lights, hacking, simple sabotage, etc.
4. No, not in a public place.
5. What's the difference?

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Also contradictory; if they mistrust the police behind the cameras, why would they want 1,000 more of those same police on the payroll?

That's not contradictory. Cameras give them more power.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

1) Yes.
2) Sometimes.
3) Wear a sombrero; most cameras are placed more than head high.
3a) Wear an out-of-focus photo mask of your face. Better yet, wear a wig and an in-focus photo mask of Lindsey Lohan.
4) I do.
5) Taco Bell's Mexican Pizza

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

George Orwell predictions were a little premature, but accurate. The robots look different then he imagined and he had no mention of low-rider jeans. Otherwise spot on.

Red light cameras, speed on green cameras, and high crime area cameras are supposedly saving lives/property. I dunno. Guess we value these kinda things. The ACLU values freedom above lives and property. Not sure if we can work out a deal to value everything equally.