4 ms·

this is creepy, while stopping at a gas station I have noticed a camera scanning customers and their cars in a very robotic way - possibility being scanning fac

this is creepy, while stopping at a gas station I have noticed a camera scanning customers and their cars in a very robotic way - possibility being scanning faces and car plates. Where does it end, when and how? Is it a felony to destroy devices that spy on me for which I didn't authorize the gathering of intelligence on me? I am sorry but all this is really gets under my skin. my 2c.

coldtea 13y ago
>Where does it end, when and how? It doesn't end. Or it "ends" in a police state, with a-level people living in protected communities and b-level people suffering all kinds of abuse. And if you feel like it's OK now, sitting in some suburban home, wait until the middle class is not longer sustainable and the majority falls on the "black guy on the street" level. You know, Detroit like. It might be done incrementally (same way as the middle class is shrinking for decades) or it might be boosted after 1-2 jolts. Could be a war, a major financial hit, an ecologic disaster etc. Historically, the only way to end such things, is with people participating in politics. Like the unions of the past brough the 8-hour work-week, child-labour laws, and the like.
- amagumori 13y ago
  i think one of our biggest problems in american politics today is that the critical mass of popular support needed to affect policy change is untenably high compared to how easily people are split into partisan factions (or convinced to act against their own interests).
icantthinkofone 13y ago
I own some restaurants. We have cameras, too. No, they don't scan customers and cars in any way. You're implying those cameras are owned by the police. You're making stuff up.
- bediger4000 13y ago
  I've seen steerable cameras in shopping mall parking lots follow shapely, fashionably dressed young women. Also, some cities have deals where the police (or "Public Safety") department monitors cameras that private sector entities buy and install. I believe that person, in short.
  - icantthinkofone 13y ago
    And, despite that (if it were true), most do not. Crossing the line of using police in private sector situations is possible because the private company asked them to, such as in large shopping malls. In any case, it still does not mean it's every camera system throughout the world which would, again, be a false statement.
- perlpimp 13y ago
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6DsPea_p6M&feature=share&list=UUdjS44fSCPnLjgxedIEcDTw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6DsPea_p6M&feature=share&lis...
  - icantthinkofone 13y ago
    What does that prove? The post I replied to was an answer to the implication that all cameras everywhere I used by the police (NSA and any government org). I never said there are no cameras.
    - silentOpen 13y ago
      And the post you replied to never stated nor implied what you claim. Straw troll is made of straw.
- aedocw 13y ago
  Your cameras might not be part of the pool of cameras monitored by civilian volunteers, but there are a great many other cameras that are. My family visited the local station for a tour when they were having a sort of community day. Our young boys wanted to see what a police station was like. Part of the tour included a visit to their video surveillance room. There were at least a dozen LCDs each with 4 camera feeds displayed, and two volunteers watching the cameras. The majority of the cameras were security cameras installed by business owners and home owners, and they shared the feed (and often pan/tilt control) with the police. There might not be automated scanning yet, but everything they did was recorded. Automating this in a central location (county, or state) would be relatively trivial within the next few years. To say the police own the cameras is incorrect, but it is absolutely true to say the police HAVE ACCESS TO the cameras, and often DO CONTROL them.
gnerd 13y ago
I think the line is usually defined as you have no expectation of privacy in public, at least that was the justification for the CCTV in the UK (and other English Common Law jurisdictions). I don't think you should destroy anything, there are other ways to go about expressing disdain that don't lead to laws being broken. It might be cultural but I wouldn't be freaked out by the petrol station camera. If they are scanning faces, then it is only to locate the head of a moving subject, there is no facial DB consisting of every citizen for them to draw from and if they are scanning license plates then there is obviously enough people pulling a runner to justify investment in newer, more expensive tools for an old problem, sounds fair enough to me. Isn't that the point of having a license number? A publicly visible identification number for a specific vehicle? For me there is a difference in picking information up (in an automatic fashion) that people throw away willy nilly and getting information that is protected.
- silentOpen 13y ago
  > there is no facial DB consisting of every citizen for them to draw from Yet. > if they are scanning license plates then there is obviously enough people pulling a runner to justify investment in newer, more expensive tools for an old problem, sounds fair enough to me. Isn't that the point of having a license number? A publicly visible identification number for a specific vehicle? Not specific. Every vehicle. All the vehicles in this place at any time without regard to if they were "pulling a runner". There is a database.
  - EGreg 13y ago
    There are already ways to track every car and person in a city: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/new-surveillance-technology-can-track-everyone-in-an-area-for-several-hours-at-a-time/2014/02/05/82f1556e-876f-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/new-survei... It will only become better and more accessible to organizations. Deal with it... by starting your own companies and making sure things go in a good direction. Maybe educate lawmakers on the potential dangers. But banning technology isnt going to work.
  - gnerd 13y ago

coldtea 13y ago

>Where does it end, when and how? It doesn't end. Or it "ends" in a police state, with a-level people living in protected communities and b-level people suffering all kinds of abuse. And if you feel like it's OK now, sitting in some suburban home, wait until the middle class is not longer sustainable and the majority falls on the "black guy on the street" level. You know, Detroit like. It might be done incrementally (same way as the middle class is shrinking for decades) or it might be boosted after 1-2 jolts. Could be a war, a major financial hit, an ecologic disaster etc. Historically, the only way to end such things, is with people participating in politics. Like the unions of the past brough the 8-hour work-week, child-labour laws, and the like.

amagumori 13y ago
i think one of our biggest problems in american politics today is that the critical mass of popular support needed to affect policy change is untenably high compared to how easily people are split into partisan factions (or convinced to act against their own interests).

icantthinkofone 13y ago

I own some restaurants. We have cameras, too. No, they don't scan customers and cars in any way. You're implying those cameras are owned by the police. You're making stuff up.

bediger4000 13y ago
I've seen steerable cameras in shopping mall parking lots follow shapely, fashionably dressed young women. Also, some cities have deals where the police (or "Public Safety") department monitors cameras that private sector entities buy and install. I believe that person, in short.
- icantthinkofone 13y ago
  And, despite that (if it were true), most do not. Crossing the line of using police in private sector situations is possible because the private company asked them to, such as in large shopping malls. In any case, it still does not mean it's every camera system throughout the world which would, again, be a false statement.
perlpimp 13y ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6DsPea_p6M&feature=share&list=UUdjS44fSCPnLjgxedIEcDTw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6DsPea_p6M&feature=share&lis...
- icantthinkofone 13y ago
  What does that prove? The post I replied to was an answer to the implication that all cameras everywhere I used by the police (NSA and any government org). I never said there are no cameras.
  - silentOpen 13y ago
    And the post you replied to never stated nor implied what you claim. Straw troll is made of straw.
aedocw 13y ago
Your cameras might not be part of the pool of cameras monitored by civilian volunteers, but there are a great many other cameras that are. My family visited the local station for a tour when they were having a sort of community day. Our young boys wanted to see what a police station was like. Part of the tour included a visit to their video surveillance room. There were at least a dozen LCDs each with 4 camera feeds displayed, and two volunteers watching the cameras. The majority of the cameras were security cameras installed by business owners and home owners, and they shared the feed (and often pan/tilt control) with the police. There might not be automated scanning yet, but everything they did was recorded. Automating this in a central location (county, or state) would be relatively trivial within the next few years. To say the police own the cameras is incorrect, but it is absolutely true to say the police HAVE ACCESS TO the cameras, and often DO CONTROL them.

gnerd 13y ago

I think the line is usually defined as you have no expectation of privacy in public, at least that was the justification for the CCTV in the UK (and other English Common Law jurisdictions). I don't think you should destroy anything, there are other ways to go about expressing disdain that don't lead to laws being broken. It might be cultural but I wouldn't be freaked out by the petrol station camera. If they are scanning faces, then it is only to locate the head of a moving subject, there is no facial DB consisting of every citizen for them to draw from and if they are scanning license plates then there is obviously enough people pulling a runner to justify investment in newer, more expensive tools for an old problem, sounds fair enough to me. Isn't that the point of having a license number? A publicly visible identification number for a specific vehicle? For me there is a difference in picking information up (in an automatic fashion) that people throw away willy nilly and getting information that is protected.

silentOpen 13y ago
> there is no facial DB consisting of every citizen for them to draw from Yet. > if they are scanning license plates then there is obviously enough people pulling a runner to justify investment in newer, more expensive tools for an old problem, sounds fair enough to me. Isn't that the point of having a license number? A publicly visible identification number for a specific vehicle? Not specific. Every vehicle. All the vehicles in this place at any time without regard to if they were "pulling a runner". There is a database.
- EGreg 13y ago
  There are already ways to track every car and person in a city: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/new-surveillance-technology-can-track-everyone-in-an-area-for-several-hours-at-a-time/2014/02/05/82f1556e-876f-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/new-survei... It will only become better and more accessible to organizations. Deal with it... by starting your own companies and making sure things go in a good direction. Maybe educate lawmakers on the potential dangers. But banning technology isnt going to work.
- gnerd 13y ago