cctv surveillance cam (Was: Performance art. Prospect Street)
Neil W. Van Dyke
> 9, Channel 10 and Channel 22 Central Square cameras show the pedestrian,
> traffic and urban wildlife movements. It's an image that frames an area
> including the Northwest and NW corner crosswalks at Prospect Street and
> Massachusetts Avenue.
I live and walk in the neighborhood, and this camera has actually
annoyed me for some time -- to the extent that I take a slightly longer
(and much steeper) path around around the block on principle, rather
than submit to this particular point of public surveillance.
Yes, the live camera view of a small piece of Cambridge is a cute idea.
Not everyone wants to be on TV, though, and I think this camera is
improperly invading the public space.
In my opinion, we already have way too many surveillance cameras
covering public places in Cambridge and Boston. I'd like to see public
surveillance cameras removed, and organizations that persist in using
them pressured. I think people should reject most surveillance, not be
conditioned to accept it.
tonyp
"Neil W. Van Dyke" <ne...@neilvandyke.org> wrote
> Not everyone wants to be on TV, though, and I think this camera is
> improperly invading the public space.
What makes a camera more invasive than a person? If I, an inveterate
people-watcher with too much time on my hands, choose to camp out in
Central Square (or the beach at Walden Pond, or any other public
place) and observe the comings and goings of a mostly boring humanity,
am I "invading the public space"? I should hope you think not.
So, how am I different from a camera? Well,
1) I don't broadcast what I see.
OTOH, anybody who chooses to drop by Central Square for a few minutes
could see what I see. The broadcast merely allows him to drop by
virtually, rather than physically. That, in itself, doesn't seem like
a big deal.
2) I don't store it on videotape.
OTOH, my memory is pretty good. At least, I don't _instantly_ forget
what I see. Videotape lasts longer than my memory, for sure. But is
that really the major issue?
3) I am clearly visible.
OTOH, visible is not the same as noticeable. In a fairly crowded
place, you may not notice me any more than you notice a camera on a
lamp post. But I do grant that a small, discreetly placed camera you
may not be aware of does seem a little like a peeping tom, if not a
spy. You are less likely to notice it watching you. Is this the most
serious objection to cameras?
I'm trying to formulate my own point of view, as well as to understand
yours.
-- Tony P.
Neil W. Van Dyke
> > Not everyone wants to be on TV, though, and I think this camera is
> > improperly invading the public space.
>
> What makes a camera more invasive than a person? If I, an inveterate
> people-watcher with too much time on my hands, choose to camp out in
I think one could easily fill a book on this topic. (A hasty screed,
pounded out on the laptop in a fit of annoyance one summer afternoon,
"http://www.neilvandyke.org/photo-etiquette/", only scratches the
surface, and I haven't had time to redo it properly.)
One quick point I'd like to emphasize is that, while individual video
surveillance cameras may seem benign in isolation, unchecked use of them
is setting a troubling precedent. We already have some amazing domestic
surveillance technology accessible to governments, with more on the way.
We're also seeing the start of a consumer goods popularization of
surveillance and ubiquitous camera technologies (e.g., wireless pinhole
spycams, the new camera-equipped cellphones). These trends have
profound implications for civil liberties and what remaining privacy we
have. The technology is there; how we apply it is a societal/social
question. Blind unthinking acceptance could easily cause us
decades/centuries of unnecessary misery. Instead treating our remaining
privacy as a holy cow not for the trifling may result in much more
thoughtful technology application.
If we assume the "holy cow" standard, then one objection to the CCTV
camera is that they've not articulated a sufficient justification for
broadcasting to TV-watchers throughout the city video surveillance of me
walking down the street in my own neighborhood.
telco tech
"Neil W. Van Dyke" wrote:
> > For many hours, day and night, CCTV Cambridge Community Television's Channel
> > 9, Channel 10 and Channel 22 Central Square cameras show the pedestrian,
> > traffic and urban wildlife movements. It's an image that frames an area
> > including the Northwest and NW corner crosswalks at Prospect Street and
> > Massachusetts Avenue.
>
> I live and walk in the neighborhood, and this camera has actually
> annoyed me for some time -- to the extent that I take a slightly longer
> (and much steeper) path around around the block on principle, rather
> than submit to this particular point of public surveillance.
>
> Yes, the live camera view of a small piece of Cambridge is a cute idea.
> Not everyone wants to be on TV, though, and I think this camera is
> improperly invading the public space.
>
> In my opinion, we already have way too many surveillance cameras
> covering public places in Cambridge and Boston.
You think it's bad "here", you ought to see England, especially London.
--
" I work for the 'ILEC' .... stuff happens ! "
Aldo Pignotti
> If we assume the "holy cow" standard, then one objection to the CCTV
> camera is that they've not articulated a sufficient justification for
> broadcasting to TV-watchers throughout the city video surveillance of me
> walking down the street in my own neighborhood.
What if someone robbed you, right in front of the camera? Would you
object to a tape of the robbery being used in court?
Personally, I think there should be a camera on every street corner and
in every parking garage. I feel safer when I see cameras.
Neil W. Van Dyke
posted it. If you check your email and wouldn't mind mailing it back to
me, I'll post it here. Thanks! No big deal if not, though. :)
Aldo Pignotti
> Aldo, I accidentally emailed my response the other day, rather than
> posted it. If you check your email and wouldn't mind mailing it back to
> me, I'll post it here. Thanks! No big deal if not, though. :)
You emailed me this posting, none other.
I saw something funny about cctv on TV, I have to mention. The
police in London knocked on a guy's door and asked him about
something he had done. After they had left, he realized the
only way they could have singled him out was to watch him
on CCTV over a great distance, right up to his apartment.
This pissed him off so he went out and bought a full body
Alien costume. He carefully noted where all the CCTV cameras
were near his apartment and started making "appearances" as
the Alien. The police where not amused.