7 ms·

New cameras to watch cameras that watch you

29 points by vectorbunny 14y ago

DocFeind 14y ago
Oh great, now our spycams have spycams, rather Inception-esque.
sneak 14y ago
Old process: 1. Destroy speed camera 2. Profit New process: 1. Shoot out surveillance camera 2. Destroy speed camera 3. Profit
- Firehed 14y ago
  My thoughts exactly. Once again, poorly-considered reactive security measures waste money and accomplish absolutely nothing useful. And we all know that as soon as this starts happening, they'll install security cameras to watch the security cameras. Or, you know, vandals will just wear a $5 ski mask. No sense reinventing the wheel on that one.
- recoiledsnake 14y ago
  4. Response from the cops: Install cameras that watch the cameras that watch the cameras that watch you.
  - vadman 14y ago
    Real response from the cops: install a chip in everyone's brain. When a citizen happens to be within 10 ft of a "forbidden" object without authorization, his/her body experiences violent seizures. Should be possible within 10 years, no?
  - danielweber 14y ago
    Seriously, having security cameras with interlocking fields of view is very common. They watch both whatever their target is as well as each other.
- mc32 14y ago
  Why can't they just amend the law so that the camera stations can be equipped with cameras which can take footage of saboteurs?
  - knowaveragejoe 14y ago
    The saboteurs wouldn't care - they likely are not exposing any identifiable features to the cameras either way.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  Seriously, what kind of goofball decided this would possibly be a good idea? "Yo dawg we heard you like.." is an overplayed meme, not a legitimate strategy for surveillance.
lifeisstillgood 14y ago
It costs us $30,000 to $100,000 to replace a camera. What?! At those sort of prices, Big Brother will be Bankrupt Brother before 2012 becomes 1984.
- jeza 14y ago
  They have to measure vehicle speed accurately and in such a way that will stand up to scrutiny in court. So not just your run of the mill consumer type camera. I like your joke nonetheless. :)
  - lifeisstillgood 14y ago
    Really? I would think that you could have three cheap cameras running - the frame rates for each would be comparable and self-verifying. Lenses might be the most expensive component but as they shoot Hollywood movies on cameras you can buy in Jessops I suspect this is really a case of dividing the whole cost of a government dept by the (small) number of cameras. Bad accounting most likely if not - well an opportunity to disrupt ! Edit: to be fair it is probably expensive to dig a hole in a road, stick power lights and cable to it then put up a pole. But 100k? Prefer my bad accountancy or over priced theories
    - revelation 14y ago
      Price, of course, is not a function of the material or technology. From what I hear, these things quickly pay for themselves when placed "strategically" [1]. [1]: http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/a-788204.html http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/a-788204.html - from German: Traffistar S330 cost 200k€ and earned that much in just 10 days.
  - makmanalp 14y ago
    http://www.thehighspeedcamerastore.com/high-speed-products http://www.thehighspeedcamerastore.com/high-speed-products
    - lifeisstillgood 14y ago
swalsh 14y ago
How do these cameras work? If it is wireless, i'm sure someone could discretely hide a jammer near them?
- gknoy 14y ago
  I would imagine that it uses a wired data connection. Otherwise, imagine the mayhem that could result if some enterprising hacker were to inject fake data into the stream... such as copies of the mayor or chief of police's cars.
- gsibble 14y ago
  Let's assume it is using the cell network.....isn't jamming the cell network a much bigger felony than just destroying the camera?
jeza 14y ago
Only a $40 fine... that's a bargain! It does make it seem silly that people would respond by recking the cameras. I wonder if it's more a case that some people will vandalise anything they can. (Here in Australia we pay at least $200 for a speeding fine).
- llimllib 14y ago
  In the US a speeding fine is likely to be $200 or more if issued by a police officer. Fines from automated cameras are much cheaper and carry less severe penalties both in cost and in consequences to your driving record.
- normalfaults 14y ago
  The price point is carefully thought out. Its high enough to make a profit but low enough that most people won't go out of their way to fight the ticket in court etc.
bediger4000 14y ago
Liberati says the cameras aren't a case of Big Brother nor a cash grab, police are simply trying to keep the public safe from reckless drivers. Ha ha, very funny! If that were the case, for red light cameras at least, then they would just increase the length of the yellow light. That's cheaper than a camera, for sure, and has been proven empirically. As far as speeding cameras, I might buy it except that in Denver they only show up in swanky neighborhoods that have a high-traffic street through them. Like on 1st Ave in front of the Denver Country Club. Or University by the gated "Polo Club" neighborhood. Never seen one on S. Federal, or Santa Fe Boulevard. on the whole, I don't believe that an honest citizen can treat pronouncements about traffic cams with anything other than utter suspicion.
- colonel_panic 14y ago
  But what happens once people get used to the new duration of the yellow light? Do they approach it based on what they're used to from all the other yellow lights they've ever seen? Then the longest yellow light in the country is the safest one, until all the other lights are lengthened to match it.
  - normalfaults 14y ago
    This is actually a problem in the area this article is from. In maryland the yellow light is much shorter then in virginia, therefore maryland drivers tend to stop at yellow lights in virginia which causes lots of close stopping of drivers behind . If safety was really a concern then there would be a more narrower range of allowed yellow light duration between counties and states. As far as the speed cameras are concerned they only reduce speed for a very short distance once everyone knows where they are, its a pure profit motive.
    - Evbn 14y ago
      Seems like VA drivers should stop racing yellow lights, and should maintain safe following distance. Even if the driver ahead chooses to roll into a stop at a green light, drivers behind should be able to stop safely.
waterlesscloud 14y ago
Google cars will make this all obsolete anyway. ;-)
eswangren 14y ago
But who watches the watchers... watchers?
lifeisstillgood 14y ago
On a seperate note, would anyone actually visit a website that had a private non fine generating camera over the freeway you take to work, and would pop up the speed and time you passed when u enter a license plate just thought it might be a fun thing to learn opencv on - thoughts?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
pmorici 14y ago
The really insidious thing about these cameras in many if not most cities is that they are owned and operated by a private corporation and then the government splits the profits. In some cases the private company is paid per ticket issued which doesn't take much thought to realize how to maximize profit. http://washingtonexaminer.com/court-md.-drivers-cant-get-speed-camera-fines-back/article/2505967#.UFOLvUJvQqY http://washingtonexaminer.com/court-md.-drivers-cant-get-spe... I've gotten tickets from these things before simply because my car was the only license plate visible in the frame even though the little yellow triangle designating the vehicle speeding marked a car on the opposite side of the road traveling in the other direction. The highway guard rail was obscuring the speeders plate though so they just sent it to me instead. Speed cameras are akin to a lottery tax system where by motorists are randomly chosen to pay an extra tax and it's justified by the fact that some of them may have been speeding.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  >The highway guard rail was obscuring the speeders plate though so they just sent it to me instead. Speed cameras are akin to a lottery tax system where by motorists are randomly chosen to pay an extra tax and it's justified by the fact that some of them may have been speeding. Sounds more like an implementation problem than a problem with enforcement cameras as a concept. A software patch would correct this.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    You are assuming the system isn't functioning as performed. They send out a ticket, act like a bureaucracy when questioned about it, and eventually get paid. ("They" being both the government entity and the private camera operator.) Why would they bother changing it? Traffic courts are a laugh, since it's recognized that driving is a privilege and not a right.
wahsd 14y ago
'The cameras work to slow people down' is the most annoying, nonsensical BS. If the cameras were supposed to slow people down they would not be cameras that capture information that leads to a citation; nor would the money go into local government coffers. I f-ing hate pathetic liars.

29 points by vectorbunny 14y ago

Oh great, now our spycams have spycams, rather Inception-esque.

sneak 14y ago

Old process: 1. Destroy speed camera 2. Profit New process: 1. Shoot out surveillance camera 2. Destroy speed camera 3. Profit

Firehed 14y ago
My thoughts exactly. Once again, poorly-considered reactive security measures waste money and accomplish absolutely nothing useful. And we all know that as soon as this starts happening, they'll install security cameras to watch the security cameras. Or, you know, vandals will just wear a $5 ski mask. No sense reinventing the wheel on that one.
recoiledsnake 14y ago
4. Response from the cops: Install cameras that watch the cameras that watch the cameras that watch you.
- vadman 14y ago
  Real response from the cops: install a chip in everyone's brain. When a citizen happens to be within 10 ft of a "forbidden" object without authorization, his/her body experiences violent seizures. Should be possible within 10 years, no?
- danielweber 14y ago
  Seriously, having security cameras with interlocking fields of view is very common. They watch both whatever their target is as well as each other.
mc32 14y ago
Why can't they just amend the law so that the camera stations can be equipped with cameras which can take footage of saboteurs?
- knowaveragejoe 14y ago
  The saboteurs wouldn't care - they likely are not exposing any identifiable features to the cameras either way.
Karunamon 14y ago
Seriously, what kind of goofball decided this would possibly be a good idea? "Yo dawg we heard you like.." is an overplayed meme, not a legitimate strategy for surveillance.

lifeisstillgood 14y ago

It costs us $30,000 to $100,000 to replace a camera. What?! At those sort of prices, Big Brother will be Bankrupt Brother before 2012 becomes 1984.

jeza 14y ago
They have to measure vehicle speed accurately and in such a way that will stand up to scrutiny in court. So not just your run of the mill consumer type camera. I like your joke nonetheless. :)
- lifeisstillgood 14y ago
  Really? I would think that you could have three cheap cameras running - the frame rates for each would be comparable and self-verifying. Lenses might be the most expensive component but as they shoot Hollywood movies on cameras you can buy in Jessops I suspect this is really a case of dividing the whole cost of a government dept by the (small) number of cameras. Bad accounting most likely if not - well an opportunity to disrupt ! Edit: to be fair it is probably expensive to dig a hole in a road, stick power lights and cable to it then put up a pole. But 100k? Prefer my bad accountancy or over priced theories
  - revelation 14y ago
    Price, of course, is not a function of the material or technology. From what I hear, these things quickly pay for themselves when placed "strategically" [1]. [1]: http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/a-788204.html http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/a-788204.html - from German: Traffistar S330 cost 200k€ and earned that much in just 10 days.
- makmanalp 14y ago
  http://www.thehighspeedcamerastore.com/high-speed-products http://www.thehighspeedcamerastore.com/high-speed-products
  - lifeisstillgood 14y ago

swalsh 14y ago

How do these cameras work? If it is wireless, i'm sure someone could discretely hide a jammer near them?

gknoy 14y ago
I would imagine that it uses a wired data connection. Otherwise, imagine the mayhem that could result if some enterprising hacker were to inject fake data into the stream... such as copies of the mayor or chief of police's cars.
gsibble 14y ago
Let's assume it is using the cell network.....isn't jamming the cell network a much bigger felony than just destroying the camera?

jeza 14y ago

Only a $40 fine... that's a bargain! It does make it seem silly that people would respond by recking the cameras. I wonder if it's more a case that some people will vandalise anything they can. (Here in Australia we pay at least $200 for a speeding fine).

llimllib 14y ago
In the US a speeding fine is likely to be $200 or more if issued by a police officer. Fines from automated cameras are much cheaper and carry less severe penalties both in cost and in consequences to your driving record.
normalfaults 14y ago
The price point is carefully thought out. Its high enough to make a profit but low enough that most people won't go out of their way to fight the ticket in court etc.

bediger4000 14y ago

Liberati says the cameras aren't a case of Big Brother nor a cash grab, police are simply trying to keep the public safe from reckless drivers. Ha ha, very funny! If that were the case, for red light cameras at least, then they would just increase the length of the yellow light. That's cheaper than a camera, for sure, and has been proven empirically. As far as speeding cameras, I might buy it except that in Denver they only show up in swanky neighborhoods that have a high-traffic street through them. Like on 1st Ave in front of the Denver Country Club. Or University by the gated "Polo Club" neighborhood. Never seen one on S. Federal, or Santa Fe Boulevard. on the whole, I don't believe that an honest citizen can treat pronouncements about traffic cams with anything other than utter suspicion.

colonel_panic 14y ago
But what happens once people get used to the new duration of the yellow light? Do they approach it based on what they're used to from all the other yellow lights they've ever seen? Then the longest yellow light in the country is the safest one, until all the other lights are lengthened to match it.
- normalfaults 14y ago
  This is actually a problem in the area this article is from. In maryland the yellow light is much shorter then in virginia, therefore maryland drivers tend to stop at yellow lights in virginia which causes lots of close stopping of drivers behind . If safety was really a concern then there would be a more narrower range of allowed yellow light duration between counties and states. As far as the speed cameras are concerned they only reduce speed for a very short distance once everyone knows where they are, its a pure profit motive.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    Seems like VA drivers should stop racing yellow lights, and should maintain safe following distance. Even if the driver ahead chooses to roll into a stop at a green light, drivers behind should be able to stop safely.

waterlesscloud 14y ago

Google cars will make this all obsolete anyway. ;-)

eswangren 14y ago

But who watches the watchers... watchers?

lifeisstillgood 14y ago

On a seperate note, would anyone actually visit a website that had a private non fine generating camera over the freeway you take to work, and would pop up the speed and time you passed when u enter a license plate just thought it might be a fun thing to learn opencv on - thoughts?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

pmorici 14y ago

The really insidious thing about these cameras in many if not most cities is that they are owned and operated by a private corporation and then the government splits the profits. In some cases the private company is paid per ticket issued which doesn't take much thought to realize how to maximize profit. http://washingtonexaminer.com/court-md.-drivers-cant-get-speed-camera-fines-back/article/2505967#.UFOLvUJvQqY http://washingtonexaminer.com/court-md.-drivers-cant-get-spe... I've gotten tickets from these things before simply because my car was the only license plate visible in the frame even though the little yellow triangle designating the vehicle speeding marked a car on the opposite side of the road traveling in the other direction. The highway guard rail was obscuring the speeders plate though so they just sent it to me instead. Speed cameras are akin to a lottery tax system where by motorists are randomly chosen to pay an extra tax and it's justified by the fact that some of them may have been speeding.

Karunamon 14y ago
>The highway guard rail was obscuring the speeders plate though so they just sent it to me instead. Speed cameras are akin to a lottery tax system where by motorists are randomly chosen to pay an extra tax and it's justified by the fact that some of them may have been speeding. Sounds more like an implementation problem than a problem with enforcement cameras as a concept. A software patch would correct this.
- danielweber 14y ago
  You are assuming the system isn't functioning as performed. They send out a ticket, act like a bureaucracy when questioned about it, and eventually get paid. ("They" being both the government entity and the private camera operator.) Why would they bother changing it? Traffic courts are a laugh, since it's recognized that driving is a privilege and not a right.

wahsd 14y ago

'The cameras work to slow people down' is the most annoying, nonsensical BS. If the cameras were supposed to slow people down they would not be cameras that capture information that leads to a citation; nor would the money go into local government coffers. I f-ing hate pathetic liars.