4 ms·

Same principal we had for cameras in our school buses. Only some of them actually had cameras in them but we were scared of all of them. If the goal is to det

Same principal we had for cameras in our school buses. Only some of them actually had cameras in them but we were scared of all of them. If the goal is to deter low-level crime like vandalism, I would think they probably worked, at least temporarily. Although part of me can't imagine thinking someone is watching 4 cameras on every car on every train at all times.

DanBC 11y ago
In england you know they're really cameras because the feed displays on a screen and it flicks through all of them. (I'll take some photos tomorrow.)
- jheriko 11y ago
  really? i'm pretty sure i live there and this is the exception rather than the case. particularly on public transport i have never seen this... although i've seen it in restaurants and shops quite a few times, but certainly much less frequently than i have seen cameras, or things that look like them.
  - roywiggins 11y ago
    They seem pretty common on London buses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTHFSuPirXY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTHFSuPirXY
    - jheriko 11y ago
      never noticed it on them... at least the only one i regularly take.
- JoblessWonder 11y ago
  Yeah. I would imagine that if you had real cameras, it would make sense to publicize that fact. Partially to let people know they shouldn't expect any implication of privacy and partially to let people know the cameras aren't decoys. The cost/size requirements have come down so much in the past 20 years that it makes a lot more sense to actually install cameras and record locally to a DVR/NVR in the bus.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  It doesn't mean that they are actually recording though.
cperciva 11y ago
Although part of me can't imagine thinking someone is watching 4 cameras on every car on every train at all times. Having video footage of crimes is useful even if nobody watches it until after the fact. There are some security cameras in Vancouver which were installed with the explicit promise that footage would be deleted after 30 days without anyone having seen it unless the police get a warrant in the intervening period.
- JoblessWonder 11y ago
  Agreed. I was just thinking if their justification would be to deter graffiti they would want people to be afraid of being picked up during/right after the act, but I guess it would make sense for them to be worried about someone reviewing the footage later and their picture being passed around to the transit cops.
- jheriko 11y ago
  its kind of sad. i'd rather there was a promise that the footage was kept indefinitely, but never watched unless there was a police warrant. that sounds much more useful...
  - 0xffff2 11y ago
    That sounds like the kind of thing that no public agency has the budget for. Even at relatively low resolution, X kb/s * Y cameras * 60 * 60 * 24 adds up to a whole lot of data accumulating every day. Why store all of that data forever when it's vastly unlikely to ever be used after the first 30 days. Even 30 days is probably generous. How often are police not going to have any idea that a crime was committed in the general vicinity of a camera for an entire month, much less two or three or more?
  - wlesieutre 11y ago
    For one, if the data still exists, you can expect its entire history to eventually get datamined via facial recognition because "think of the children" or "we need to identify people's routines so we can spot outliers" or "the terrorists might have taken a train 12 years ago," and eventually used for god knows what else. Not a fan of that idea. And two, can you actually trust the transit people to keep a pile of petabytes of footage secure forever? I certainly don't. So we should assume that the person datamining all of those records will actually be an adversary. Third, who's going to pay for it? Video (or even stills) at a useful resolution take up space.
jdavis703 11y ago
That's why they have that inane message on a loop that says "Security alert, cameras are no gurantee against criminal activity in the BART system."

DanBC 11y ago

In england you know they're really cameras because the feed displays on a screen and it flicks through all of them. (I'll take some photos tomorrow.)

jheriko 11y ago
really? i'm pretty sure i live there and this is the exception rather than the case. particularly on public transport i have never seen this... although i've seen it in restaurants and shops quite a few times, but certainly much less frequently than i have seen cameras, or things that look like them.
- roywiggins 11y ago
  They seem pretty common on London buses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTHFSuPirXY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTHFSuPirXY
  - jheriko 11y ago
    never noticed it on them... at least the only one i regularly take.
JoblessWonder 11y ago
Yeah. I would imagine that if you had real cameras, it would make sense to publicize that fact. Partially to let people know they shouldn't expect any implication of privacy and partially to let people know the cameras aren't decoys. The cost/size requirements have come down so much in the past 20 years that it makes a lot more sense to actually install cameras and record locally to a DVR/NVR in the bus.
JupiterMoon 11y ago
It doesn't mean that they are actually recording though.

cperciva 11y ago

Although part of me can't imagine thinking someone is watching 4 cameras on every car on every train at all times. Having video footage of crimes is useful even if nobody watches it until after the fact. There are some security cameras in Vancouver which were installed with the explicit promise that footage would be deleted after 30 days without anyone having seen it unless the police get a warrant in the intervening period.

JoblessWonder 11y ago
Agreed. I was just thinking if their justification would be to deter graffiti they would want people to be afraid of being picked up during/right after the act, but I guess it would make sense for them to be worried about someone reviewing the footage later and their picture being passed around to the transit cops.
jheriko 11y ago
its kind of sad. i'd rather there was a promise that the footage was kept indefinitely, but never watched unless there was a police warrant. that sounds much more useful...
- 0xffff2 11y ago
  That sounds like the kind of thing that no public agency has the budget for. Even at relatively low resolution, X kb/s * Y cameras * 60 * 60 * 24 adds up to a whole lot of data accumulating every day. Why store all of that data forever when it's vastly unlikely to ever be used after the first 30 days. Even 30 days is probably generous. How often are police not going to have any idea that a crime was committed in the general vicinity of a camera for an entire month, much less two or three or more?
- wlesieutre 11y ago
  For one, if the data still exists, you can expect its entire history to eventually get datamined via facial recognition because "think of the children" or "we need to identify people's routines so we can spot outliers" or "the terrorists might have taken a train 12 years ago," and eventually used for god knows what else. Not a fan of that idea. And two, can you actually trust the transit people to keep a pile of petabytes of footage secure forever? I certainly don't. So we should assume that the person datamining all of those records will actually be an adversary. Third, who's going to pay for it? Video (or even stills) at a useful resolution take up space.

jdavis703 11y ago

That's why they have that inane message on a loop that says "Security alert, cameras are no gurantee against criminal activity in the BART system."