3 ms·

This may be an unpopular opinion but I'm not against more surveillance cameras in public places. As a photographer, I have the right, and should continue to hav

This may be an unpopular opinion but I'm not against more surveillance cameras in public places. As a photographer, I have the right, and should continue to have the right, to film in any public place. Private businesses and the government should do it too. Put cameras on all police officers and as many public employees as possible. As long as fair access is maintained to the footage, the more the better.

sroussey 7y ago
Police officers often go into private homes. Should the video be made public? What about freedom of information act?
- insickness 7y ago
  No. I'm referring to public property. But the police should still be wearing body cameras if they go into a private home and the video should be available to the homeowner if he/she wants to contest something.
  - sroussey 7y ago
    Sure, but it’s unlawful to keep such video from anyone who asks.
imglorp 7y ago
I feel like this is a popular misconception, a sort of strawman argument. It kind of goes like "you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public, so taking some pictures in public is okay." It could even be extended to say the footage could be reviewed later if a crime were committed, that helps public safety. But that's not what's happening here, it's not just a camera. It's a vast data aggregation network that ties together time series, high resolution photos of a large area, along with software that can follow an individual from source to destination, and then follow whoever that individual met, roll back in time and find out where they came from and went and met with, etc. Of course this can be tied to cell, wifi, credit card purchases, face rec, internet activity and thousands of other inputs. Once that's done, it's a microscopically thin line from local cops solving crimes in the past to an oppressive government rounding up dissenters for re-education. This is not sci fi, it's the road to global authoritarian surveillance state, and we're paving it here. So I support police accountability body cams and people's rights to take pictures, but not the state or corporation using it for data ingest against us.
- DanielBMarkham 7y ago
  Yes. You are correct. Taking a picture is fine. I can take pictures in public places constantly, pick out the top dozen or so every month and publish an art book. The mass collection of data assigned to individuals is not. Putting a 10TB hi-res camera in a balloon and taking constant pictures of a city, tagging each person as they walk around? That is insanity. We never had to worry about the second scenario because it was deemed impossible. It would be like a traffic cop who was able to remember every car that passed him, who was riding in it, for decades at a time. No laws had to be made for the same reason we don't outlaw flying while wearing a cape. The collection and storage of data assigned to an individual should be under the total control of that individual, on a case-by-case, line-item individual approval process. This would allow public photography to continue the way it always has.
- dTal 7y ago
  To redraw the analogy - it's fine to take pictures in a public place. It's not fine to follow someone around all day, every day, constantly taking pictures of them. That's called stalking, and automating it on a mass scale doesn't make it right.
- insickness 7y ago
  You made a jump from being able to trace every move someone makes to 'an oppressive government rounding up dissenters for re-education.' Keeping movement secret is not what keeps the government from rounding up dissenters for re-education. Governments were rounding up dissenters for re-education a long time ago. They could use passport and license photos for that if they wanted to. Should we prevent those technologies as well? No, what will keep governments from rounding up dissenters is stopping government from rounding up dissenters, not trying to turn back the time on technology.

sroussey 7y ago

Police officers often go into private homes. Should the video be made public? What about freedom of information act?

insickness 7y ago
No. I'm referring to public property. But the police should still be wearing body cameras if they go into a private home and the video should be available to the homeowner if he/she wants to contest something.
- sroussey 7y ago
  Sure, but it’s unlawful to keep such video from anyone who asks.

imglorp 7y ago

I feel like this is a popular misconception, a sort of strawman argument. It kind of goes like "you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public, so taking some pictures in public is okay." It could even be extended to say the footage could be reviewed later if a crime were committed, that helps public safety. But that's not what's happening here, it's not just a camera. It's a vast data aggregation network that ties together time series, high resolution photos of a large area, along with software that can follow an individual from source to destination, and then follow whoever that individual met, roll back in time and find out where they came from and went and met with, etc. Of course this can be tied to cell, wifi, credit card purchases, face rec, internet activity and thousands of other inputs. Once that's done, it's a microscopically thin line from local cops solving crimes in the past to an oppressive government rounding up dissenters for re-education. This is not sci fi, it's the road to global authoritarian surveillance state, and we're paving it here. So I support police accountability body cams and people's rights to take pictures, but not the state or corporation using it for data ingest against us.

DanielBMarkham 7y ago
Yes. You are correct. Taking a picture is fine. I can take pictures in public places constantly, pick out the top dozen or so every month and publish an art book. The mass collection of data assigned to individuals is not. Putting a 10TB hi-res camera in a balloon and taking constant pictures of a city, tagging each person as they walk around? That is insanity. We never had to worry about the second scenario because it was deemed impossible. It would be like a traffic cop who was able to remember every car that passed him, who was riding in it, for decades at a time. No laws had to be made for the same reason we don't outlaw flying while wearing a cape. The collection and storage of data assigned to an individual should be under the total control of that individual, on a case-by-case, line-item individual approval process. This would allow public photography to continue the way it always has.
dTal 7y ago
To redraw the analogy - it's fine to take pictures in a public place. It's not fine to follow someone around all day, every day, constantly taking pictures of them. That's called stalking, and automating it on a mass scale doesn't make it right.
insickness 7y ago
You made a jump from being able to trace every move someone makes to 'an oppressive government rounding up dissenters for re-education.' Keeping movement secret is not what keeps the government from rounding up dissenters for re-education. Governments were rounding up dissenters for re-education a long time ago. They could use passport and license photos for that if they wanted to. Should we prevent those technologies as well? No, what will keep governments from rounding up dissenters is stopping government from rounding up dissenters, not trying to turn back the time on technology.