12 ms·
The DEA and ICE are hiding surveillance cameras in streetlights
- olivermarks 8y agoIt's very unclear to me what the legality of these hidden cameras is and what our recourse can be. https://fee.org/articles/thanks-to-wiretapping-laws-your-cell-phone-is-a-felony-machine/ https://fee.org/articles/thanks-to-wiretapping-laws-your-cel... Individual US citizens are tightly restricted in what they can record and how they declare those recordings to targets, surely the state (without judicial wire tap authorization warrants about specific targets) should be in the same boat?
- cronix 8y agoThere is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in public view, ie a public street. They are just images, which anybody can legally take with a camera (as long as it's not pointing up and looking up skirts!). We've got it going on here in Oregon, too, courtesy of Amazon and our largest populated County. There is a city in Florida using the same Amazon tech, but I don't remember which one. https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2018/05/22/amazon-sold-powerful-facial-recognition-software-to-the-washington-county-sheriff-and-gresham-police/ https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2018/05/22/amazon-sold-pow...
- DenisM 8y agoAFAIK this only applies to audio, not video recording. In Seattle area there was a story recently where police accidentally recorded audio along with video during a prostitution sting operation and had to drop the charges against the affected suspects. My guess is that they thought they only needed the video to convict, so they decided to not get the wiretap warrant
- pdkl95 8y agoLegality isn't a concern to groups that use the despicable, fraudulent practice of "parallel construction"[1] (aka "evidence laundering"). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
- 0xcde4c3db 8y ago> It doesn’t matter if you’re driving down the street or visiting a friend, if government or law enforcement has a reason to set up surveillance, there’s great technology out there to do it. I think most people understand this concept at some level. This describes the same fundamental pattern as undercover officers and informants: a suspect is identified and assets allocated to the project of going after that person or organization. The scary thing isn't so much that surveillance tech exists, but rather the prospect of law enforcement (or others who can obtain access to their systems by various means) being able to select targets after-the-fact at little additional cost because of indiscriminate surveillance.
- DenisM 8y ago>being able to select targets after-the-fact at little additional cost Is it a bad thing though? Imagine that everything on all streets is recorded, and when an incident happens a cop goes to the judge and asks for a warrant to view the footage for "Pike St, between 1st and 2nd ave, between 13:00 and 13:35, on Jan 3rd 2019". Technology changes the balance of power in different directions. The police used to be able to tap phones, but now whatsapp is pretty much out of reach, this hampers one of the venues. To keep up the police would need new methods, and it does not have to be phone intercept, maybe post-factum external surveillance would suffice.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> when an incident happens a cop goes to the judge and asks for a warrant to view the footage for "Pike St, between 1st and 2nd ave, between 13:00 and 13:35, on Jan 3rd 2019" I don’t think these cameras require a warrant prior to “collection”. That’s the problem.
- 0xcde4c3db 8y agoMaybe, if they actually had to get a warrant. My understanding is that they don't need to do this for street cameras because there's no expectation of privacy in public spaces. But before massive camera deployments there was also an unstated expectation that there was some kind of cost to collect information on any particular person. Still, one of the things to keep in mind about mass surveillance (or mass censorship) is that once the apparatus is built, policy can be changed relatively cheaply. And it's highly unlikely that law enforcement agencies are buying equipment that requires configuration changes to be signed by a court's or legislature's private key.
- nickodell 8y ago>have hidden an undisclosed number of covert surveillance cameras inside streetlights It's not impossible to figure out, though, is it? The article talks about a total of $50,000 of cameras. It mentions that these are pan-tilt-zoom cameras. Pricing this on Amazon, they seem to cost about $250 each. Assume the government pays twice as much. This tells you that they bought about 100 cameras.
- late2part 8y agoagree with your back of the envelope math.
- dannypgh 8y agoIt's $50,000 worth of cameras from one supplier - a supplier with a name that presumably made it easy to identify what they're selling. There could be other suppliers. And presumably large orders get bulk discounts.
- empath75 8y agoTwice is a severe underestimate.
- drvdevd 8y agoGuarantee you most legitimate targets of this “surveillance” are quite a few steps ahead. Do drug cartels even care if the DEA has installed cameras everywhere? Doubtful. Being able to do this kind of math is a great example of the simple reasoning it takes to start analysis of systems like this once in place. What are the cartels thinking? Probably that they’ll just have to pay informats more money as the system becomes more complex. They’ll have to pay their tech people more for increased counter surveillance. And so forth. I’m picking on the DEA but of course similar equations must exist for ICE. IMO What’s so dystopian about all this is not so much that the tech exists but that our tax dollars pay for these projects and we really don’t have much say.
- nickodell 8y ago>Do drug cartels even care if the DEA has installed cameras everywhere? Back of the envelope math shows that they can't be installed everywhere; not on that kind of budget. The only thing that one could do with 10-1000 cameras is install them at specific, targeted places where the DEA already has some reason to suspect that they'll find something. >IMO What’s so dystopian about all this is not so much that the tech exists but that our tax dollars pay for these projects and we really don’t have much say. I don't agree. Spending is controlled by Congress. If you and enough people who agreed with you combined your efforts, you could alter the law so that the purchase of this sort of technology was illegal. Perhaps you hold an opinion that only a minority of America agrees with.
- jokedontlaugh 8y agoHere's a dirty secret that doesn't get talked about much: the officers looking at the streaming images we spy from your home end up seeing you and treating you in the same way people see and treat Internet streamers or reality show celebs.
- late2part 8y agoCorrect. Every once in a while a story surfaces about Law Enforcement circulating official photos of someone attractive with inappropriate comments. We all know someone who worked in "loss prevention" that would virtually stock someone in the store; and the stories of TSA 'randomly' selecting attractive people for pat downs are legendary. Is this anecdotal, yes. Is this true, yes.
- fjsolwmv 8y agoOr law enforcement using these tools to stalk and harass or murder their ex-girlfriends.
- StudentStuff 8y agoPolice are serial domestic abusers, its a very serious issue: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-officers-who-hit-their-wives-or-girlfriends/380329/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-...
- squarefoot 8y agoPretty sure most of them take anabolic steroids, whose effects can lead to -guess what- delusion, aggressiveness and violence (not unlike cocaine). I wounldn't be surprised at all if random drug tests on cops confirmed this.
- mrgreenfur 8y agoThis isn't true. Do you have a source?
- ct520 8y agoDEA has so many cameras within 60 miles of my home its not even funny. Gotta love the ones they put up at eye level with facial recognition. :-/ edit for those wondering, Tucson, AZ
- smegger001 8y agoEye level? Sounds like you need to put on some makeup (CV Dazzel) and sharpie the lenses
- xkcd-sucks 8y agoDEET bug spray does terrible things to most plastics
- culot 8y agoIsn't it a major jerk move to deface/destroy law enforcement's equipment? There has to be smarter ways to protest that.
- culot 8y agoHow can you tell they're for facial recognition?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- morpheuskafka 8y agoA streetlight by definition has public view of a street. No expectation of privacy.
- clubm8 8y ago>A streetlight by definition has public view of a street. No expectation of privacy. This norm was established when it would have required the police to station a human outside your home. Have you considered thinking critically about the impacts of surveillance technology, rather than reciting quotes from 6th grade social studies absent any introspection?
- twblalock 8y ago> Have you considered thinking critically about the impacts of surveillance technology, rather than reciting quotes from 6th grade social studies absent any introspection? Have you considered not being rude and insulting? People who think critically about surveillance have a wide range of views on the topic.
- clubm8 8y ago>Have you considered not being rude and insulting? I'm sorry you feel that way, I didn't mean for you to feel insulted. >People who think critically about surveillance have a wide range of views on the topic. Reciting the law is an act of recall, not exposition.
- DenisM 8y ago> Have you considered thinking critically ... rather than reciting quotes from 6th grade social studies absent any introspection. This is in violation of HN guideline: "Don't be snarky" [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- clubm8 8y agoI disagree. Do you have any specific feedback on the content of my post, rather than the tone?
- jstanley 8y agoI wonder what would be the legality of creating a guerrilla surveillance network of our own cameras hidden in public places, with publicly accessible live streams and maybe 30 days of recordings? If there's "no expectation of privacy", surely nobody has any right to complain about it?
- twblalock 8y ago> If there's "no expectation of privacy", surely nobody has any right to complain about it? Whose property will the cameras be attached to? They will certainly have a right to remove them if they did not give permission.
- acct1771 8y agoRotating volunteers of drones.
- test6554 8y agoAnd people can always boycott companies who voluntarily participate which causes companies to prefer not to get involved even if they supported the idea.
- BurningFrog 8y agoPeople can just put them in their house/apartment windows and cars. I'm sure some already do.
- 8y ago
- diotro 8y agoMy eyes hurt whenever I look at the new streetlights, like I was looking into the microwave or something...
- DenisM 8y agoLEDs are point light sources, of course they hurt - each dot is very bright in order to produce enough light overall. By comparison CFLs produce a lot less glare for the same light output, being basically light-emitting surfaces rather than dots. If an LED light is expected to be in the field of view they install diffusers over LEDs. Diffusers, however, absorb some of the light and spread the rest across wider angle, so they don't get installed unless needed. For the street light you'd want a narrow beam (facing straight down) and a maximum light output (to save energy along, which adds up quickly for long roads).
- shmerl 8y agoWhoever came up with LED lights for it didn't do enough research, since they are quite damaging to the eyes.
- Zak 8y agoLEDs are not inherently damaging to the eyes. You may be referencing "blue light hazard", for which evidence is neither rigorous or unequivocal. Assuming blue light is damaging, white LEDs need not have more blue in their spectrum than other white light sources such as incandescent, fluorescent, and gas discharge. Higher color temperate LEDs with more blue in their spectrum are commonly seen though, as their efficiency numbers are a bit better than lower color temperatures.
- shmerl 8y agoI'm talking about actual usage. Extremely bright, white LEDs. They should have used softer lights.
- 8y ago
- throw2016 8y agoThis is not surprising. Most people here are already neck deep in implementing surveillance technology. They are the last ones to find it creepy or disturbing, if anything its in their interest to brush it off and pretend its the most normal thing as this thread has done. That's why discussions about privacy, surveillance and ethics are best had in a context where their significance is not diluted by conflicting personal interests. Posting about these issues is tech communities is like asking individuals rushing to the gold rush with dreams of riches to inquire about their thoughts on democracy. Pointless.
- Spooky23 8y agoLPR and video is at the local level too. Most chokepoints in my city are captured by money-losing red light cameras that just happen to capture 30 days of video.
- gnicholas 8y agoDo red light cameras record video 24/7? I assumed they don't where I live (California) because they flash very brightly when triggered. That said, we do have a lot of "traffic cameras" mounted on poles, which presumably do record 24/7 and are archived for some period of time.
- Spooky23 8y agoI’m in New York. In my city, the police make the final determination, and the camera provides context of the situation when the camera detects a light running event. The police also use them as a time indexed source of evidence that can help stitch a timeline of events filmed on random security cameras. I know because they presented that in a case I was a juror on.
- gnicholas 8y agoAh, that makes sense. it sounds like there's one benefit to having the cameras rolling (that the police can apply judgment before red-light tickets are handed out) but another detriment (that the cameras are rolling 24/7. Seems you could obtain the same benefit by having a 2-min cache running at all times, and only store the cache permanently when a light-running event is triggered.
- pishpash 8y ago> Chad Marlow, a senior advocacy and policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, says efforts to put cameras in street lights have been proposed before by local law enforcement, typically as part of a “smart” LED street light system. > “It basically has the ability to turn every streetlight into a surveillance device, which is very Orwellian to say the least,” Marlow told Quartz. “In most jurisdictions, the local police or department of public works are authorized to make these decisions unilaterally and in secret. There’s no public debate or oversight.” Well there goes down the toilet all the sanctimony over Chinese street surveillance, when you realize they are merely more open and unapologetic about it.
- tyingq 8y agoIf this is the streetlight in question, "hidden" isn't quite right. http://dailysentinel.com/news/image_ce44ea7c-f195-11e3-8520-0019bb2963f4.html http://dailysentinel.com/news/image_ce44ea7c-f195-11e3-8520-...
- mtmail 8y ago"451: Unavailable due to legal reasons" (GDPR, from Europe). Screenshot of the webpage: https://www.webpagetest.org/results/18/11/11/6A/4838de30083b58d96d3447bf41d65250/1_screen.jpg https://www.webpagetest.org/results/18/11/11/6A/4838de30083b...
- jonstewart 8y agoHere in Washington, DC we have cameras all over the place. However, streetlights are owned by the local government, and that must apply in normal states and municipalities. So... if this happens in a given city, that means the local government must be cooperating with the feds to permit it.
- acct1771 8y agoIs this the laser signal my Valentine One is picking up at more and more intersections?
- mbrumlow 8y agoI was wondering if this article would make it to HN. First off, this has to be some sort of stir the pot article. They spent ~50k... Think about that. Beyond that I live in Houston. We have had cameras at intersections forever now. I am not sure they would need to conceal them when they already have them in plain sight in many cities.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- badrabbit 8y agoWhat if civilians used surveilance tech against politicians and prominent law enforcers? I think the best way to regulate this is to turn the table against them.