Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
The right to privacy in public places
Posts
DAS STATUE OF LIBERTY IS KAPUT
Drez wins, but East Germany wasn't communist. It was totalitarian-hiding-behind-thin-veneer-of-rhetoric...ist.
SoogaGames Blog
"OI! MICKEY JARVIS, KNOCK IT OFF OR I'M GONNA NICK YA!"
Let's say I go to the bars, have a few drinks, and end up heading out into the street and acting dumb. Somebody makes a video of me on their cellphone, and then this video -- let's just go out on a limb and say it's an embarrassing video -- gets circulated around the internet. Do I have no recourse whatsoever because I'm in a public place? Where do you draw the line for fair use of public recordings?
Though if that would work, I don't think the Paparazii would be as successful as they are.
Honestly, no, I don't think you should have any recourse. If they are making a profit from your "work", I believe you should be able to sue for compensation, but if you go and do some dumb shit, and people catch it on film, that's just, imo, a risk you have to take when you do dumb shit.
That's the point. A cell-phone is a private recording of a public place whereas a government cctv is a public recording. Unless there is an overiding public interest, the recording should be kept confidential (with FOI exemptions) and should not be used for anything other than enforcing the law.
The enforcement of those little laws could very well be contradictory to the design of the criminal justice system, however, if the cameras recieve the kind of recognition-software needed to make them operate essentially like red-light cameras except for every crime in view. A guy and a girl sneak off into an alley to tongue-wrestle and cop a feel off eachother and they get tickets in the mail, as opposed to a cop seeing them and telling them to get a room. Police discretion is intended to be an important part of the criminal justice system. That software doesn't exist yet, but given how law enforcement tends to respond to new technology I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to hear about upgrading cameras to use a half-functional version of such software. By half-functional I mean it may ID my brother as me, or ID me as Tom Cruise, or some other absurdity.
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
There is little distinction, if any, between government surveillance and government abuse of surveillance. This is not a case of what people might do, it is a case of what will be done, anyone familiar with history knows that governments will eventually (but not necessarily constantly) run rampant with whatever power they are given. Observation of some kind is inevitable in a public place; that in no way makes it safe to allow a government to put blanket surveillance systems in all public places.
Honestly, while the particulars of such software is a fuzzier issue, I'd disagree that using public cameras to identify and fine people for crimes would be a bad idea.
The closer we get to perfect and accurate enforcement of laws, the better, imo.
Think about our speed limit laws, and how loosely they are enforced. I'd love to see things change such that speeding vehicles could automatically be detected by sensors in the road and fines sent to homes.
I tried to address the issue of littering once. "Mind picking that up and putting it in a garbage can?" I said. "Fuck off, make me!" his response was. What am I going to do, beat the shit out of him and risk an assault charge? See there's a law I'd like to see pass where I could actually do just that, but I'd be just as happy having an omnipresent voice call him an idiot from a PA system.
On a side note, during that pilot project, no citations were given. People complied with the simple request. So that just goes to show you that the system works as a deterrent.
I live in a very nice, very expensive neighborhood. Unfortunately, several blocks away, there are a lot of old rent-controlled properties full of the lowest classes; bums, winos, drug-dealers, etc. Every day those assholes wander through my neighborhood, drinking malt liquor out of paper bags, dropping chicken bones, and pissing in alleys and on garbage cans. Sometimes they get caught—but usually the don’t. But having an omnipresent voice yelling at them wouldn’t stop them, because they’re still just worthless parasites, and the punishments for these misdemeanors aren’t harsh enough to deter the crimes.
What I would much rather have is a mayor like Giuliani; a man willing to stand up to the lowest class and have the cops bust them and throw the book at them for everything. I would love to see panhandlers forced to spend nights in prison, litterbugs forced to perform lengthy public service, and the people who piss in my alley shot in the knees and left to drown in the Potomac. If we really want to use law enforcement to deter crime, being able to simply catch people isn’t the solution, but making sure that they suffer horribly once caught might.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
That sounds a little extreme.
And by "a little", I mean, "you're fucking insane."
...
What the hell?
that's why I don't want cameras everywhere.
Click here for a horrible H/A thread with details.
The argument too often gets framed this way. If you aren't doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about. I would have to ask, though, if I'm not doing anything wrong, what right do you have to record my actions? That's the basic foundation of the 4th amendment and presumption of innocence. Curtailing the power of the government over individual liberty. Omnipresent CCTV seems like a backslide to the writ of assistance being imposed on people who are outside and/or left their blinds open.
Well, it's important to denote that we are talking about public areas.
That said, as far as I'm concerned, the vehicle of observation is irrelevant. Whether it be a camera that records to be observed or mined later, or it be a camera that simply feeds live data to an observer that watches it live, or both, or if we have a billion policemen on the street covering every square inch of this country...or any other method. Observation in public is not illegal. I see nothing in the 4th amendment or bill of rights or anything about being "recorded," and being observed in public obviously isn't illegal, so I see no difference.
I wouldn't. The spirit of the law is to prevent a dangerous condition. If I'm going 5 to 10 mph over the limit in a modern car in good working order, I'm not creating a dangerous condition. If I'm pulled over at all, I'll likely only get a warning. This is part of the function of police discretion, to make sure that the law is enforced in such a manner as to maintain and promote public safety, rather than to rule with an iron fist.
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
The intent of the observation is a rather large difference in my mind. Seeing how I'd have a rather large problem with cops on every street corner I have just as big a problem with cameras being there. We are not an occupied land, so the government shouldn't treat us as one.
Also, cops can look inside your house without a warrant so long as they have probable cause, or reasonable suspicion to suspect that a crime is being committed. If the camera just 'happens' to be panning to your non-opaque window and 'happens' to see something that the police feels is suspicious they don't need to worry about the public/private area distinction.
No, the there is nothing in the US constitution about the state using technology to track every action of its citizens. It would be totally legal for ubiquitous cameras to track the motions of all vehicular or individuals. Nor would it be illegal for the state to use this information to profile people who exhibit ideas they do not agree with, or to see the information they gather to market research firms, employers or anyone else with an intrest.
That doesn't mean that I, as a citizen, want that kind of shit to happen. Those are... less good case scenarios for how such a system could be abused. Not the worst case scenario. That involves more jackboots. Add in systems like rfid, which exists now for passports, and the brits were going to include in normal IDs, and it gets even less optimistic. Even easier to abuse.
I'm not really a nutter. I don't think this stuff is around the corner or anything. But 'they' are developing all the technology required for just such a system and installing the necessary infrastructure. If such a system is in place, and computers get quick enough(they will) it would be very easy to establish the kind of controls I'm talking about. That worries me, because I don't trust the folks would would be in charge of making those decisions.
IRT TheMarshal: Putting your faith in computing power not getting exponentially faster doesn't exactly strike me as a wise choice.
Click here for a horrible H/A thread with details.
Because they're not going to use highly trained CSI's to lift your fucking DNA off a candy wrapper and have a detective question witnesses so you can get a fine. Because they're not going to give people fines if I haphazardly see you dropping something on the ground and go ask an officer to fine you. Because the 4th amendment has nothing to do with people watching you on a camera.
I guess we get a different take on that.
In any event, what is the biggest gain we get from omnipresent CCTV surveillance, because I can think of a few negatives? I certainly hope it's better than less litter.
Well, littering is a bad example. Where I live, Mayor Fuckburg took away a lot of our public garbage cans. If you're walking around, there's literally (forgive the word choice) no place to throw shit away in a legitimate manner. I litter on purpose, because THAT was a goddamn annoying decision. There has to be some balance. But, really, if you don't have that problem where you live, I see nothing wrong with enforcing littering on this scale. In fact, I'd rather there be cameras here so I could protest the fact that there are no cans more directly.
Uhm, that has to do with illegal search and seizure, as in a cop stopping you, out of the blue and getting you to empty your pockets. That's where the barrier itself begins and ends.
The speed cameras don't record people going just over the speed limit, I think its about 10-15% they let you get away with (which is usually about 5-10 MPH) There is the obvious one like being able to catch criminals and provide more evidence against them (whilst decreasing the chance you've got the wrong person seeing as you are going to have an easier job showing intent). With slightly less than omnipresent CCTV coverage you also have some limited control over where a lot of crime occurs, you can keep a lot of it away from the more public used areas (shopping centres, near schools etc).
The shouting at people thing is more just a litter part, other than reducing alcohol fueled violence on the weekend - not seen how well it did at that though, only the litter part is the thing I've seen quoted around the place. But whilst we on that sort of thing, CCTV is going to help in cases like this where you can't really rely on the eye-witnesses.
Hell, even without cameras, if we could just develop a way to punch people in the face every time they toss a cigarette butt out the window of their vehicles, I'd be satisfied.
Actually I never bought into that whole "Let the punishment fit the crime" deal. In reality if it was an even trade off, there'd be no deterent (which for some people there isn't), which is why you get some of my people coming over from the motherland realizing that you'll only get a limited span of time in prison on average, and then get out. Hell, you don't even have to stop your illegal activities on the inside either. It's a bonus. Free Room and Board, a little primer on business management, and then hit the ground running. It's almost like finishing school to the career criminal.
I think the punishment should be so horrifying it makes the crime look like a friggan stern talking to. That would, you know, Deter people.
Ubiquitous omnipresent cameras controled by the government, that's what I think is extreme, and largely unnecessary, and if you think about it, too prone to mistake, or tamper.
There's that mad sherrif in florida somewhere who made all the inmates wear pink and do hard labour, which ended up raising the crime rate, not that anyone cares about little details like that.
I thought that was in AZ, and he's severely dropped violence inside his prison. I don't remember any Crime statistics in AZ before or after him though.