20 ms·

All cameras are police cameras

383 points by alandarev 12y ago

simoncarter 12y ago
Photographers being detained seems to be an unfortunately frequent occurrence in London (anecdotal belief rather than based on any numbers). There are a number of videos on youtube of people having filmed themselves being detained for the same or similar reasons. It is tricky issue; you want to prevent terrorists gaining information on the security measures of certain buildings/areas, while allowing non violent citizens to go about their day. However I fear if terrorists were to do this, they would be more subtle, using hidden cameras, or working off memory and multiple trips, so seems like the current approach only impacts genuine photographers and concerned citizens. Usually, looking at the videos on youtube, the most unsettling part is the behaviour of the security guards and police officers, though I do seem to remember one video where the police officer/PCSO was reasonable.
- SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago
  > if terrorists were to do this There's the thing. We're really inconveniencing and harassing actual people based on a unproven, half-baked "what-if".
  - lsaferite 12y ago
    Which turns our police forces into proxy terrorists.
- jimktrains2 12y ago
  > prevent terrorists gaining information on the security measures I've gotten into arguments about this before, but I still fully believe that any long-term security measure requiring secrecy is bound to fail and/or be ineffective. It's another step of security theatre; they need to look like they're doing something otherwise if something happens they're afraid of looking like idiots (despite their measures being completely and utterly useless).
  - corin_ 12y ago
    > any long-term security measure requiring secrecy is bound to fail and/or be ineffective Well especially when the secrets are revealed to anyone stood on the street looking / taking photos...
  - simoncarter 12y ago
    > I've gotten into arguments about this before, but I still fully believe that any long-term security measure requiring secrecy is bound to fail and/or be ineffective. Agree with the sentiment, especially when applied to computers, though i'm not sure how it applies to non-IT based security, because I just don't know enough about the subject. > It's another step of security theatre; they need to look like they're doing something otherwise if something happens they're afraid of looking like idiots (despite their measures being completely and utterly useless). Agreed. On a slight tangent, base jumpers are more than able to gain illegal access to tall buildings in the city, with all their secretive security measures. There are a couple of documentaries out there on this, one I'm confident was shot post 9/11. My greatest concern when reading about or watching these incidents is the poor treatment of those non-violent citizens taking the photos. Ok, you have to do your job and check their photos, but why not crack a joke, apologise for the inconvenience, and check the photos quickly as possible.
    - mnw21cam 12y ago
      > Ok, you have to do your job and check their photos Why do they have to check their photos? That's private property. In the UK and US at least, you do not need to show your photos to a person that tries to detain you, and you do not need to delete any photos. If you are arrested and charged with a crime, then they can inspect the photos as evidence, but not before. They still are not permitted to delete any. Also, in the UK if someone who is not a police office tries to detain you (and this includes security guards and PCSOs), then they must be relying on the law of citizen's arrest, which means that they must have seen you in the act of committing an offense that could be tried at a crown court - in other words, something worthy of half a year or more in prison. If they have not, then they are liable to prosecution for false imprisonment and may have to compensate you. Not a lawyer, by the way.
- spydum 12y ago
  Agree, though I dont inherently disagree for being approached if you are taking pictures, the fact that there are quite a large number of anecdotal stories about law enforcement officers detaining or trying to prohibit people is just wrong.
  - simoncarter 12y ago
    I agree with that. As I mentioned in another comment, the behaviour of the security guards and the police officers is often the most unsettling part of the experience. To quote myself in another comment: "Ok, you have to do your job and check their photos, but why not crack a joke, apologise for the inconvenience, and check the photos quickly as possible."
- Already__Taken 12y ago
  If terrorists were to do that they would just become cleaning staff for the buildings.
- kyboren 12y ago
  > ... so seems like the current approach only impacts genuine photographers and concerned citizens. I suspect this is also true for the FVEY dragnet surveillance. Those terrorists who are vulnerable to such surveillance are unfit and will quickly be removed from the population, perhaps before having the opportunity to reproduce their broken tradecraft. The population of terrorists who remain adapts to evade the surveillance measures (for anecdotal data, see [1]). The result is the dragnet primarily entraps average, everyday citizens, and not terrorists. [1]: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/26/us-reconnaissance-fliights-syria-iraq-islamic-state-isis http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/26/us-reconnaissan... EDIT: I'd like to clarify that this is purely speculation. Also, even assuming my thesis is correct, this does not mean these surveillance measures are useless; on the contrary, such surveillance can push their communications to other surveillable channels (e.g. tactical radio that can be picked up by NRO sats), or simply deny terrorists the "cyber"/electromagentic domain, which impedes their reaction speed and effectiveness.
- Cthulhu_ 12y ago
  Because terrorists will actually care about their privacy / secrecy while they're bombing. The main issue IMO is that full camera coverage does nothing against terrorism - in fact, it's the success of terrorism, because the people (= the lawmakers, government) are scared into placing cameras everywhere. What I'm saying is, no matter how many cameras you install, a random guy with a backpack full of explosives or poison gas or whatever won't be detected by it.
- throwawayaway 12y ago
  terrorists also breath a relation of nitrous oxide and regularly dose on a chemical, dihydrogen monoxide. quite reasonable to ban these dangerous substances on similar grounds, or at least detain those engaged in similar acts for further questioning. google maps makes a mockery of their photography paranoia.
- shawn-furyan 12y ago
  To me, it seems that any building that would have value as a target for terrorism is so thoroughly documented by tourists and official photography that it makes no sense for a terrorist to actually risk their neck ahead of time by visiting the site. All of the necessary planning is likely most easily accomplished with high quality maps, satellite and ground images that are available online. I don't see restricting photography in public as having any deterrent effect on terrorism whatsoever, and the practice strikes me as the product of a completely naive view of modern security. So I would argue that it's not really a tough choice in many cases. Don't, in the name of terrorism deterrence, harass people for doing things that don't impact the odds of a terrorist attack being carried out. All you end up doing is highlighting to the public the downside of terrorism defense, which ultimately probably lowers its approval of those defensive measures general in the long run. Terrorism is an enduring threat, and to defend against it in the long run to the extent that is even possible, authorities need the public on their side. Hurting public sentiment for terrorism defensive measures increases the odds of the success of future terrorist plots. It's important only to do so when you get enough return in terms of lowering the probability of the success of future terrorist plots to compensate for the cost. And this doesn't even take into account other factors outside of terrorism defense. Single factor cost benefit analysis should be enough to dissuade anyone who actually cares about deterring future terrorist attacks from frivolously harassing the public in the name of terrorism deterrence.
cones688 12y ago
It's interesting as the only involvement I have had with CCTV was positive. On a night out in a city, myself and my friend were walking home from a club about 3.30am. We were joking about me being from the North and him being southern (a common UK joke), this was unfortunately overheard by someone nearby who took it personally and started punching my friend in the head, I managed to break it up and the other chaps mates pulled him away as his was rather inebriated. A girl nearby ran over after seeing this and called the police and within a minute a police officer had arrived - the most interesting and relevant part was that the officer had been dispatached by CCTV operators who had seen the whole incident. The policeman was being relayed that the perpetrator had been already arrested by a colleague down the street (after CCTV identified him), the officer with us knew it was an unprovoked attack as the CCTV operator saw at no point did we interact with the assailant, so treated us with respect and started explaining the options for prosecution. I appreciate the flip side of the coin but personally now feel much safer when in an area with CCTV.
- simoncarter 12y ago
  The flip side to your flip side is that the cameras, for a number of reasons, do not always work. I remember dealing with a case of robbery, and it turned out that the camera was not working (either itself, or the transmission of the video to the center where they are monitored). This was some 7/8 years ago though, and the technology may have improved.
  - nl 12y ago
    (Genuinely curious): what do you mean that this is the flip side here? In your case the camera not working doesn't seem to have caused any further harm (which is how I'd interpret "the flip side of the flip side" in this context). It not working isn't helpful of course, and I can think of possible circumstances where it might have made things worse (removal of guards because of the camera etc), but these appear somewhat marginal (and are missing from your comment). One could equally argue that even a non-working camera provides a deterrent effect (eg, the "dummy" cameras one can buy). What am I missing?
hobs 12y ago
What a great article. The sad thing about all of this is that the dinguses on the police state side are not evil monsters, they think this is the only way to protect us from some undefined attack, and if a few rights are trampled on the way, well you are going to break a few eggs to make an omelet. It practically encourages bullies in the police force to take their will out on the people, and there is no real mechanism for justice for the citizens affected. The constant excuse "but it will make you safer!" or "think of the children!" is chanted while more and more of your privacy is eroded. Any terrorist could simply use non-human intelligence to gather information on most structures of import, or if needed, would have a much better plan to deal with the problem of being identified as someone casing the place.
- hahainternet 12y ago
  What a terrible article. It has no point whatsoever. Worse still are the comments, featuring gems such as: > The terrorists of our world must be patting themselves on the back. This sort of “mentality of fear” is precisely what they are working towards and we are playing right into their hand.
  - hobs 12y ago
    Did you want to give a bit more detail? I can simulate dozens of arguments against someone's interpretations of the article, but it doesn't seem you are giving any beyond "it is bad".
- LLWM 12y ago
  Well, that's the fundamental disagreement, really. Do you have a right to not be seen when out in public? I don't think you do, and continuing to insist on that when technology in general and recording technology in particular are only going to get better over time is a futile effort.
  - izacus 12y ago
    It's futile only if you do not regulate and control it properly. In socialist times the citizens of my country said the same for secret police which was doing the same - and history has proven that resistance there was neither futile nor ineffective.
Shivetya 12y ago
Just wait till all police officers are cameras, we will come to the day where they will be able to record the entire shift, whether they are on patrol, on break, or actually in the process of arrest. Considering how heavily license plate scanners are deployed with inconsistent protection of privacy there should be work done at a national level to regulate the gathering and retention of the data.
- nl 12y ago
  This is slowly (finally!) happening in a few places. It has had a hugely beneficial effect on reducing police violence[1]. [1] https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/police-body-mounted-cameras-right-policies-place-win-all https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/police-body-moun...
  - throwawayaway 12y ago
    don't get too excited, eventually they will figure out how to turn them off and lose the footage.
    - LLWM 12y ago
      Even if that happens, it will be no worse than the status quo of not having cameras. If anything, it will look more suspicious that the camera suddenly failed before a suspect supposedly fell down 3 flights of stairs, whereas today, you're just SOL.
      - throwawayaway 12y ago
        it's a given that footage will only be available when it's to the advantage of powers that be. in other cases it will not be available, and obviously it will be framed to look as if it wasn't sudden. it won't be thought of as suspicious in the slightest. i can see footage being faked also but that's probably further into the future than it simply being disappeared, it's all covered under tampering with evidence laws but you don't see those get used very often.
davb 12y ago
While the article itself was interesting (if not at all surprising), one thing that really caught my eye was the reference to 1 Bessborough Gardens. There are few references to it online, other than a planning permission application [1] mentioning five roof-mounted satellite dishes and an oil fuelled generator, and a mention [2] that the property was bought by investors in 2006 for £45m and leased to the government. I wonder what it's used for and why it's such a secret. [1] http://transact.westminster.gov.uk/CSU/Planning%20Applications%20Committees/Pre%202008/Planning_Applications_Sub-Committee/2005/12%20-%2021%20April%202005/ITEM%2004%20-%201%20Bessborough%20Gardens,%20SW1.pdf http://transact.westminster.gov.uk/CSU/Planning%20Applicatio... [2] http://csbgroup.co.uk/index.php?page=history3 http://csbgroup.co.uk/index.php?page=history3
- AlyssaRowan 12y ago
  Possibly on secondment between GCHQ and SIS, I understand?
- DanBC 12y ago
  See also the comments here: http://londonist.com/2011/11/top-10-spy-sites-in-london.php http://londonist.com/2011/11/top-10-spy-sites-in-london.php
badname 12y ago
Copying one of the commends: ”The poor are collectively unseizable. They are not only the majority on the planet, they are everywhere and the smallest event speaks of them. This is why the essential activity of the rich today is the building of walls — walls of concrete, of electronic surveillance, of missile barrages, minefields, frontier controls, and opaque media screens.“ — John Berger “Ten Dispatches About Endurance in the Face of Walls” (October 2004)
4ndr3vv 12y ago
A lot of the comments here are about the benefits of CCTV generally and not addressing the meat of the article (imo) regarding to the system wide automated recording and storage of personal data by government organisations without any justification. Quoting the article: "Surveillance images attain the status of evidence for unknown crimes the moment they are created, and merely await the identification of the moment they were created for." Ofcourse a plod watching a CCTV camera is a good thing. A network of cameras that tracks my car as it passes down every street, and stores that data in police database forever without any suspicion against me? That is a totally different thing.
- LLWM 12y ago
  As your quote implies, just because no justification exists now doesn't mean none will exist in the future. And when that happens, you will often wish you had historical data rather than having to start recording going forward. For example, if someone stole your car from the airport parking lot while you were away on a trip, and you returned 4 days later, it would be too late to help you if you start watching for your car on local cameras immediately. If you can go back in time and look at what happened, not just in your town, but when your car turned up in the big city 50 miles away, your chances of recovering your property are much better.
  - jeangenie 12y ago
    So whole societies should sacrifice their privacy so someone can have a hypothetical chance at recovering a stolen car more quickly?
    - res0nat0r 12y ago
      You don't have a right to privacy in a public space.
      - silentOpen 12y ago
        You do have a right not to be followed everywhere you go. Ubiquitous ANPR is essentially a police officer/power broker tailing every car without suspicion. This is more than a violation of visible privacy.
un5l1 12y ago
OpenStreetMap is a great tool for visualising the surveillance state. This site is just one example: http://osmcamera.tk http://osmcamera.tk Tens of thousands of cameras have been mapped already, I would urge anyone who studies surveillance like the author to put their findings in a public database so efforts will be collaborative. More info on how to add cameras to OSM here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsurveillance https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsurveilla...
sighsigh 12y ago
These comments disturb me more than the article. Saying more cameras prevent crime is like saying more logging reduces your attack surface. Let's just ditch firewalls and add kernel dumps everywhere instead. My rate is $150 an hour. Sometimes, HNs political naivety deeply undermines their technological contributions.
- goblin89 12y ago
  > Saying more cameras prevent crime is like saying more logging reduces your attack surface. Let's just ditch firewalls and add kernel dumps everywhere instead. What if your firewalls cost each about £30,000/yr (plus benefits), have only 40 hours weekly uptime, and you need like a bunch of them around in the city all the time for this to work at all?
  - sighsigh 12y ago
    Red herring. Price points on techniques that actually reduce your attack surface do not make techniques that don't magically gain abilities. Go ahead. Disable SSH, firewalls, and VPNs and just run loggers all day. I'm sure you'll feel super duper secure then. Heuristics never fail! My rate is $150 an hour and I will create the most perfect and secure and tiniest attack surface for your brand new logging cluster.
gambiting 12y ago
I am very curious about one thing still - with so many traffic cameras in London, how are cars still stolen there? There have been thousands of cars stolen in London just this year, and I don't understand how? As soon as the car is reported stolen, any camera scanning its licence plate anywhere in the country should sound alarm bells at the nearest police department. Why has this not been implemented yet?
- junto 12y ago
  They are stolen because cameras don't stop you stealing a car. Often, by the time the car has been reported stolen it has long since been dumped and set alight.
polynomial 12y ago
The main problem isn't the presence of surveillance cameras. The problem is who has privileged access to them. Currently it tends toward the Platonic 'Polis' model with a distinct class of people (The "po-lice") given sole responsibility for enforcement and access to the omni-panopticon(while being themselves above the law.) However if we apply Linus' Law (with many eyes, all bugs are shallow) it makes much more sense to give access to surveillance back to the people being surveilled.
- thizzbuzz 12y ago
  Could not agree more. Any eventuality where access to surveillance data and systems is limited to a select few, I think will turn out very badly.
patmcguire 12y ago
Some Google searches that will get you surveillance footage.... inurl:ViewerFrame?Mode= inurl:axis-cgi/mjpg (motion-JPEG) inurl:view/indexFrame.shtml inurl:view/index.shtml inurl:view/view.shtml liveapplet intitle:liveapplet intitle:â€i-Catcher Console – Web Monitorâ€ There are many more. What's going to stop the police, or anyone for that matter, from using those?
ha292 12y ago
There is a serious issue with cameras in countries that have less than stellar record of protecting civil liberties. That would probably me 80-90% of the countries. No, cameras aren't increasing security in those societies.
s_q_b 12y ago
If we all wore universal body cameras, but the recordings were encrypted with a key only the wearer knew, could we fight back against public surveillance with private surveillance? Interesting idea. Personally, I think CCTV does more good than harm. There's no right to privacy in public places.
sgnelson 12y ago
What I find ironic about the story of Photographing the CCTV cameras is that he obviously most of had a "real" camera (one that can be readily identified as an old fashioned cameras. However, every one and their mom has smartphone with a camera attached. Yet it's the people who've invested money in more "professional" cameras that we have to be scared of (even though they are the more conspicuous users of photography.)
simplemath 12y ago
I find the tone of general acceptance of surveillance in this discourse deeply upsetting.

383 points by alandarev 12y ago

Photographers being detained seems to be an unfortunately frequent occurrence in London (anecdotal belief rather than based on any numbers). There are a number of videos on youtube of people having filmed themselves being detained for the same or similar reasons. It is tricky issue; you want to prevent terrorists gaining information on the security measures of certain buildings/areas, while allowing non violent citizens to go about their day. However I fear if terrorists were to do this, they would be more subtle, using hidden cameras, or working off memory and multiple trips, so seems like the current approach only impacts genuine photographers and concerned citizens. Usually, looking at the videos on youtube, the most unsettling part is the behaviour of the security guards and police officers, though I do seem to remember one video where the police officer/PCSO was reasonable.

SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago
> if terrorists were to do this There's the thing. We're really inconveniencing and harassing actual people based on a unproven, half-baked "what-if".
- lsaferite 12y ago
  Which turns our police forces into proxy terrorists.
jimktrains2 12y ago
> prevent terrorists gaining information on the security measures I've gotten into arguments about this before, but I still fully believe that any long-term security measure requiring secrecy is bound to fail and/or be ineffective. It's another step of security theatre; they need to look like they're doing something otherwise if something happens they're afraid of looking like idiots (despite their measures being completely and utterly useless).
- corin_ 12y ago
  > any long-term security measure requiring secrecy is bound to fail and/or be ineffective Well especially when the secrets are revealed to anyone stood on the street looking / taking photos...
- simoncarter 12y ago
  > I've gotten into arguments about this before, but I still fully believe that any long-term security measure requiring secrecy is bound to fail and/or be ineffective. Agree with the sentiment, especially when applied to computers, though i'm not sure how it applies to non-IT based security, because I just don't know enough about the subject. > It's another step of security theatre; they need to look like they're doing something otherwise if something happens they're afraid of looking like idiots (despite their measures being completely and utterly useless). Agreed. On a slight tangent, base jumpers are more than able to gain illegal access to tall buildings in the city, with all their secretive security measures. There are a couple of documentaries out there on this, one I'm confident was shot post 9/11. My greatest concern when reading about or watching these incidents is the poor treatment of those non-violent citizens taking the photos. Ok, you have to do your job and check their photos, but why not crack a joke, apologise for the inconvenience, and check the photos quickly as possible.
  - mnw21cam 12y ago
    > Ok, you have to do your job and check their photos Why do they have to check their photos? That's private property. In the UK and US at least, you do not need to show your photos to a person that tries to detain you, and you do not need to delete any photos. If you are arrested and charged with a crime, then they can inspect the photos as evidence, but not before. They still are not permitted to delete any. Also, in the UK if someone who is not a police office tries to detain you (and this includes security guards and PCSOs), then they must be relying on the law of citizen's arrest, which means that they must have seen you in the act of committing an offense that could be tried at a crown court - in other words, something worthy of half a year or more in prison. If they have not, then they are liable to prosecution for false imprisonment and may have to compensate you. Not a lawyer, by the way.
spydum 12y ago
Agree, though I dont inherently disagree for being approached if you are taking pictures, the fact that there are quite a large number of anecdotal stories about law enforcement officers detaining or trying to prohibit people is just wrong.
- simoncarter 12y ago
  I agree with that. As I mentioned in another comment, the behaviour of the security guards and the police officers is often the most unsettling part of the experience. To quote myself in another comment: "Ok, you have to do your job and check their photos, but why not crack a joke, apologise for the inconvenience, and check the photos quickly as possible."
Already__Taken 12y ago
If terrorists were to do that they would just become cleaning staff for the buildings.
kyboren 12y ago
> ... so seems like the current approach only impacts genuine photographers and concerned citizens. I suspect this is also true for the FVEY dragnet surveillance. Those terrorists who are vulnerable to such surveillance are unfit and will quickly be removed from the population, perhaps before having the opportunity to reproduce their broken tradecraft. The population of terrorists who remain adapts to evade the surveillance measures (for anecdotal data, see [1]). The result is the dragnet primarily entraps average, everyday citizens, and not terrorists. [1]: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/26/us-reconnaissance-fliights-syria-iraq-islamic-state-isis http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/26/us-reconnaissan... EDIT: I'd like to clarify that this is purely speculation. Also, even assuming my thesis is correct, this does not mean these surveillance measures are useless; on the contrary, such surveillance can push their communications to other surveillable channels (e.g. tactical radio that can be picked up by NRO sats), or simply deny terrorists the "cyber"/electromagentic domain, which impedes their reaction speed and effectiveness.
Cthulhu_ 12y ago
Because terrorists will actually care about their privacy / secrecy while they're bombing. The main issue IMO is that full camera coverage does nothing against terrorism - in fact, it's the success of terrorism, because the people (= the lawmakers, government) are scared into placing cameras everywhere. What I'm saying is, no matter how many cameras you install, a random guy with a backpack full of explosives or poison gas or whatever won't be detected by it.
throwawayaway 12y ago
terrorists also breath a relation of nitrous oxide and regularly dose on a chemical, dihydrogen monoxide. quite reasonable to ban these dangerous substances on similar grounds, or at least detain those engaged in similar acts for further questioning. google maps makes a mockery of their photography paranoia.
shawn-furyan 12y ago
To me, it seems that any building that would have value as a target for terrorism is so thoroughly documented by tourists and official photography that it makes no sense for a terrorist to actually risk their neck ahead of time by visiting the site. All of the necessary planning is likely most easily accomplished with high quality maps, satellite and ground images that are available online. I don't see restricting photography in public as having any deterrent effect on terrorism whatsoever, and the practice strikes me as the product of a completely naive view of modern security. So I would argue that it's not really a tough choice in many cases. Don't, in the name of terrorism deterrence, harass people for doing things that don't impact the odds of a terrorist attack being carried out. All you end up doing is highlighting to the public the downside of terrorism defense, which ultimately probably lowers its approval of those defensive measures general in the long run. Terrorism is an enduring threat, and to defend against it in the long run to the extent that is even possible, authorities need the public on their side. Hurting public sentiment for terrorism defensive measures increases the odds of the success of future terrorist plots. It's important only to do so when you get enough return in terms of lowering the probability of the success of future terrorist plots to compensate for the cost. And this doesn't even take into account other factors outside of terrorism defense. Single factor cost benefit analysis should be enough to dissuade anyone who actually cares about deterring future terrorist attacks from frivolously harassing the public in the name of terrorism deterrence.

cones688 12y ago

It's interesting as the only involvement I have had with CCTV was positive. On a night out in a city, myself and my friend were walking home from a club about 3.30am. We were joking about me being from the North and him being southern (a common UK joke), this was unfortunately overheard by someone nearby who took it personally and started punching my friend in the head, I managed to break it up and the other chaps mates pulled him away as his was rather inebriated. A girl nearby ran over after seeing this and called the police and within a minute a police officer had arrived - the most interesting and relevant part was that the officer had been dispatached by CCTV operators who had seen the whole incident. The policeman was being relayed that the perpetrator had been already arrested by a colleague down the street (after CCTV identified him), the officer with us knew it was an unprovoked attack as the CCTV operator saw at no point did we interact with the assailant, so treated us with respect and started explaining the options for prosecution. I appreciate the flip side of the coin but personally now feel much safer when in an area with CCTV.

simoncarter 12y ago
The flip side to your flip side is that the cameras, for a number of reasons, do not always work. I remember dealing with a case of robbery, and it turned out that the camera was not working (either itself, or the transmission of the video to the center where they are monitored). This was some 7/8 years ago though, and the technology may have improved.
- nl 12y ago
  (Genuinely curious): what do you mean that this is the flip side here? In your case the camera not working doesn't seem to have caused any further harm (which is how I'd interpret "the flip side of the flip side" in this context). It not working isn't helpful of course, and I can think of possible circumstances where it might have made things worse (removal of guards because of the camera etc), but these appear somewhat marginal (and are missing from your comment). One could equally argue that even a non-working camera provides a deterrent effect (eg, the "dummy" cameras one can buy). What am I missing?

hobs 12y ago

What a great article. The sad thing about all of this is that the dinguses on the police state side are not evil monsters, they think this is the only way to protect us from some undefined attack, and if a few rights are trampled on the way, well you are going to break a few eggs to make an omelet. It practically encourages bullies in the police force to take their will out on the people, and there is no real mechanism for justice for the citizens affected. The constant excuse "but it will make you safer!" or "think of the children!" is chanted while more and more of your privacy is eroded. Any terrorist could simply use non-human intelligence to gather information on most structures of import, or if needed, would have a much better plan to deal with the problem of being identified as someone casing the place.

hahainternet 12y ago
What a terrible article. It has no point whatsoever. Worse still are the comments, featuring gems such as: > The terrorists of our world must be patting themselves on the back. This sort of “mentality of fear” is precisely what they are working towards and we are playing right into their hand.
- hobs 12y ago
  Did you want to give a bit more detail? I can simulate dozens of arguments against someone's interpretations of the article, but it doesn't seem you are giving any beyond "it is bad".
LLWM 12y ago
Well, that's the fundamental disagreement, really. Do you have a right to not be seen when out in public? I don't think you do, and continuing to insist on that when technology in general and recording technology in particular are only going to get better over time is a futile effort.
- izacus 12y ago
  It's futile only if you do not regulate and control it properly. In socialist times the citizens of my country said the same for secret police which was doing the same - and history has proven that resistance there was neither futile nor ineffective.

Shivetya 12y ago

Just wait till all police officers are cameras, we will come to the day where they will be able to record the entire shift, whether they are on patrol, on break, or actually in the process of arrest. Considering how heavily license plate scanners are deployed with inconsistent protection of privacy there should be work done at a national level to regulate the gathering and retention of the data.

nl 12y ago
This is slowly (finally!) happening in a few places. It has had a hugely beneficial effect on reducing police violence[1]. [1] https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/police-body-mounted-cameras-right-policies-place-win-all https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/police-body-moun...
- throwawayaway 12y ago
  don't get too excited, eventually they will figure out how to turn them off and lose the footage.
  - LLWM 12y ago
    Even if that happens, it will be no worse than the status quo of not having cameras. If anything, it will look more suspicious that the camera suddenly failed before a suspect supposedly fell down 3 flights of stairs, whereas today, you're just SOL.
    - throwawayaway 12y ago
      it's a given that footage will only be available when it's to the advantage of powers that be. in other cases it will not be available, and obviously it will be framed to look as if it wasn't sudden. it won't be thought of as suspicious in the slightest. i can see footage being faked also but that's probably further into the future than it simply being disappeared, it's all covered under tampering with evidence laws but you don't see those get used very often.

davb 12y ago

While the article itself was interesting (if not at all surprising), one thing that really caught my eye was the reference to 1 Bessborough Gardens. There are few references to it online, other than a planning permission application [1] mentioning five roof-mounted satellite dishes and an oil fuelled generator, and a mention [2] that the property was bought by investors in 2006 for £45m and leased to the government. I wonder what it's used for and why it's such a secret. [1] http://transact.westminster.gov.uk/CSU/Planning%20Applications%20Committees/Pre%202008/Planning_Applications_Sub-Committee/2005/12%20-%2021%20April%202005/ITEM%2004%20-%201%20Bessborough%20Gardens,%20SW1.pdf http://transact.westminster.gov.uk/CSU/Planning%20Applicatio... [2] http://csbgroup.co.uk/index.php?page=history3 http://csbgroup.co.uk/index.php?page=history3

AlyssaRowan 12y ago
Possibly on secondment between GCHQ and SIS, I understand?
DanBC 12y ago
See also the comments here: http://londonist.com/2011/11/top-10-spy-sites-in-london.php http://londonist.com/2011/11/top-10-spy-sites-in-london.php

badname 12y ago

Copying one of the commends: ”The poor are collectively unseizable. They are not only the majority on the planet, they are everywhere and the smallest event speaks of them. This is why the essential activity of the rich today is the building of walls — walls of concrete, of electronic surveillance, of missile barrages, minefields, frontier controls, and opaque media screens.“ — John Berger “Ten Dispatches About Endurance in the Face of Walls” (October 2004)

4ndr3vv 12y ago

A lot of the comments here are about the benefits of CCTV generally and not addressing the meat of the article (imo) regarding to the system wide automated recording and storage of personal data by government organisations without any justification. Quoting the article: "Surveillance images attain the status of evidence for unknown crimes the moment they are created, and merely await the identification of the moment they were created for." Ofcourse a plod watching a CCTV camera is a good thing. A network of cameras that tracks my car as it passes down every street, and stores that data in police database forever without any suspicion against me? That is a totally different thing.

LLWM 12y ago
As your quote implies, just because no justification exists now doesn't mean none will exist in the future. And when that happens, you will often wish you had historical data rather than having to start recording going forward. For example, if someone stole your car from the airport parking lot while you were away on a trip, and you returned 4 days later, it would be too late to help you if you start watching for your car on local cameras immediately. If you can go back in time and look at what happened, not just in your town, but when your car turned up in the big city 50 miles away, your chances of recovering your property are much better.
- jeangenie 12y ago
  So whole societies should sacrifice their privacy so someone can have a hypothetical chance at recovering a stolen car more quickly?
  - res0nat0r 12y ago
    You don't have a right to privacy in a public space.
    - silentOpen 12y ago
      You do have a right not to be followed everywhere you go. Ubiquitous ANPR is essentially a police officer/power broker tailing every car without suspicion. This is more than a violation of visible privacy.

un5l1 12y ago

OpenStreetMap is a great tool for visualising the surveillance state. This site is just one example: http://osmcamera.tk http://osmcamera.tk Tens of thousands of cameras have been mapped already, I would urge anyone who studies surveillance like the author to put their findings in a public database so efforts will be collaborative. More info on how to add cameras to OSM here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsurveillance https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsurveilla...

sighsigh 12y ago

These comments disturb me more than the article. Saying more cameras prevent crime is like saying more logging reduces your attack surface. Let's just ditch firewalls and add kernel dumps everywhere instead. My rate is $150 an hour. Sometimes, HNs political naivety deeply undermines their technological contributions.

goblin89 12y ago
> Saying more cameras prevent crime is like saying more logging reduces your attack surface. Let's just ditch firewalls and add kernel dumps everywhere instead. What if your firewalls cost each about £30,000/yr (plus benefits), have only 40 hours weekly uptime, and you need like a bunch of them around in the city all the time for this to work at all?
- sighsigh 12y ago
  Red herring. Price points on techniques that actually reduce your attack surface do not make techniques that don't magically gain abilities. Go ahead. Disable SSH, firewalls, and VPNs and just run loggers all day. I'm sure you'll feel super duper secure then. Heuristics never fail! My rate is $150 an hour and I will create the most perfect and secure and tiniest attack surface for your brand new logging cluster.

gambiting 12y ago

I am very curious about one thing still - with so many traffic cameras in London, how are cars still stolen there? There have been thousands of cars stolen in London just this year, and I don't understand how? As soon as the car is reported stolen, any camera scanning its licence plate anywhere in the country should sound alarm bells at the nearest police department. Why has this not been implemented yet?

junto 12y ago
They are stolen because cameras don't stop you stealing a car. Often, by the time the car has been reported stolen it has long since been dumped and set alight.

polynomial 12y ago

The main problem isn't the presence of surveillance cameras. The problem is who has privileged access to them. Currently it tends toward the Platonic 'Polis' model with a distinct class of people (The "po-lice") given sole responsibility for enforcement and access to the omni-panopticon(while being themselves above the law.) However if we apply Linus' Law (with many eyes, all bugs are shallow) it makes much more sense to give access to surveillance back to the people being surveilled.

thizzbuzz 12y ago
Could not agree more. Any eventuality where access to surveillance data and systems is limited to a select few, I think will turn out very badly.

patmcguire 12y ago

Some Google searches that will get you surveillance footage.... inurl:ViewerFrame?Mode= inurl:axis-cgi/mjpg (motion-JPEG) inurl:view/indexFrame.shtml inurl:view/index.shtml inurl:view/view.shtml liveapplet intitle:liveapplet intitle:â€i-Catcher Console – Web Monitorâ€ There are many more. What's going to stop the police, or anyone for that matter, from using those?

ha292 12y ago

There is a serious issue with cameras in countries that have less than stellar record of protecting civil liberties. That would probably me 80-90% of the countries. No, cameras aren't increasing security in those societies.

s_q_b 12y ago

If we all wore universal body cameras, but the recordings were encrypted with a key only the wearer knew, could we fight back against public surveillance with private surveillance? Interesting idea. Personally, I think CCTV does more good than harm. There's no right to privacy in public places.

sgnelson 12y ago

What I find ironic about the story of Photographing the CCTV cameras is that he obviously most of had a "real" camera (one that can be readily identified as an old fashioned cameras. However, every one and their mom has smartphone with a camera attached. Yet it's the people who've invested money in more "professional" cameras that we have to be scared of (even though they are the more conspicuous users of photography.)

simplemath 12y ago

I find the tone of general acceptance of surveillance in this discourse deeply upsetting.