Town of Antigonish - police cameras downtown
Greta Tropia
<Hal...@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote:
>
>"john" <no...@fake.email> wrote in message
>news:vnpcpvglei364e3ag...@4ax.com...
>> What do folks think of the proposal to have RCMP monitored cameras in
>> downtown Antigonish?
>
>If people are not doing anything illegal, I don't see why anyone would
>complain.
Antigonish may not be installing surveillance cameras as an
anti-terrorism measure, but the points raised in the following article
still seem relevant.
Greta.
THE FOUR PROBLEMS WITH PUBLIC VIDEO SURVEILLANCE
May 22, 2003
http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=12706&c=39
Video cameras, or closed-circuit television (CCTV), are becoming a
more and more widespread feature of American life. Fears of terrorism
and the availability of ever-cheaper cameras have accelerated the
trend even more. The use of sophisticated systems by police and other
public security officials is particularly troubling in a democratic
society. In Washington, for example, the police are in the process of
setting up a centralized surveillance center where officers can view
video from schools, neighborhoods, Metro stations, and prominent
buildings around the city.
Although the ACLU has no objection to cameras at specific,
high-profile public places that are potential terrorist targets, such
as the U.S. Capitol, the impulse to blanket our public spaces and
streets with video surveillance is a bad idea. Here are four reasons
why:
1. VIDEO SURVEILLANCE HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN EFFECTIVE
The implicit justification for the recent push to increase video
surveillance is the terrorist attacks of September 11. But it is far
from clear how the proliferation of video cameras through public
spaces in America would stop a plot like the attack on the World Trade
Center. Even supporters of CCTV like the Washington police do not
argue that it would.
The real reason cameras are deployed is to reduce much pettier crimes,
such as auto break-ins. But it has not even been demonstrated that
they can do that. In Britain, where cameras have been extensively
deployed in public places, sociologists studying the issue have found
that they have not reduced crime. "Once the crime and offence figures
were adjusted to take account of the general downward trend in crimes
and offences," criminologists found in one study, "reductions were
noted in certain categories but there was no evidence to suggest that
the cameras had reduced crime overall in the city centre."
In addition, U.S. government experts on security technology, noting
that "monitoring video screens is both boring and mesmerizing," have
found in experiments that "after only 20 minutes of watching and
evaluating monitor screens, the attention of most individuals has
degenerated to well below acceptable levels."
2. CCTV IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO ABUSE
One problem with creating such a powerful surveillance system is that
experience tells us it will inevitably be abused. There are five ways
that surveillance-camera systems are likely to be misused:
CRIMINAL ABUSE
Surveillance systems present law enforcement "bad apples" with a
tempting opportunity for criminal misuse. In 1997, for example, a
top-ranking police official in Washington, DC was caught using police
databases to gather information on patrons of a gay club. By looking
up the license plate numbers of cars parked at the club and
researching the backgrounds of the vehicles' owners, he tried to
blackmail patrons who were married. Imagine what someone like that
could do with a citywide spy-camera system.
INSTITUTIONAL ABUSE
Sometimes, bad policies are set at the top, and an entire law
enforcement agency is turned toward abusive ends. That is especially
prone to happen in periods of social turmoil and intense conflict over
government policies. During the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam
War, for example, the FBI – as well as many individual police
departments around the nation – conducted illegal operations to spy
upon and harass political activists who were challenging racial
segregation and the Vietnam War. This concern is especially justified
since we may be entering a similar period of conflict today.
ABUSE FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES
Powerful surveillance tools also create temptations to abuse them for
personal purposes. An investigation by the Detroit Free Press, for
example, showed that a database available to Michigan law enforcement
was used by officers to help their friends or themselves stalk women,
threaten motorists after traffic altercations, and track estranged
spouses.
DISCRIMINATORY TARGETING
Video camera systems are operated by humans who bring to the job all
their existing prejudices and biases. In Great Britain, camera
operators have been found to focus disproportionately on people of
color. According to a sociological study of how the systems were
operated, "Black people were between one-and-a-half and two-and-a-half
times more likely to be surveilled than one would expect from their
presence in the population."
VOYEURISM
Experts studying how the camera systems in Britain are operated have
also found that the mostly male (and probably bored) operators
frequently use the cameras to voyeuristically spy on women. Fully one
in 10 women were targeted for entirely voyeuristic reasons, the
researchers found.
3. THE LACK OF LIMITS OR CONTROLS ON CAMERAS USE
Advanced surveillance systems such as CCTV need to be subject to
checks and balances. Because the technology has evolved so quickly,
however, checks and balances to prevent the kinds of abuses outlined
above don't exist. Two elements in particular are missing:
A consensus on limits for the capability of public cctv systems.
Unfortunately, history has shown that surveillance technologies put in
place for one purpose inevitably expand into other uses. And with
video technology likely to continue advancing, the lack of any clear
boundaries for what CCTV systems should be able to do poses a
significant danger.
For example, a recent ACLU visit to the Washington police department's
new central video surveillance center showed that the system currently
consists largely of long-range cameras focused on traffic and public
buildings that are not suitable for identifying individuals. But the
infrastructure for a far more sophisticated and integrated system is
being established. Now that the surveillance facility has been put in
place, the department will be in a position to increase the quality of
its technology and the number of its cameras - and will inevitably be
tempted or pressured to do so. Do we want the authorities installing
high-resolution cameras that can read a pamphlet from a mile away?
Cameras equipped to detect wavelengths outside the visible spectrum,
allowing night vision or see-through vision? Cameras equipped with
facial recognition, like those already installed in airports and even
on the streets of Tampa, Florida?
As long as there is no clear consensus about where we draw the line on
surveillance to protect American values, public CCTV is in danger of
evolving into a surveillance monster.
Legally enforceable rules for the operation of such systems.
A societal consensus about how cameras should be used is important,
but in the end we are a nation of laws and rights that have their root
in law. While the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution offers some
protection against video searches conducted by the police, there are
currently no general, legally enforceable rules to limit privacy
invasions and protect against abuse of CCTV systems. Rules are needed
to establish a clear public understanding of such issues as whether
video signals are recorded, under what conditions, and how long are
they retained; what the criteria are for access to archived video by
other government agencies, or by the public; how the rules would be
verified and enforced; and what punishments would apply to violators.
4. VIDEO SURVEILLANCE WILL HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT ON PUBLIC LIFE.
The growing presence of public cameras will bring subtle but profound
changes to the character of our public spaces. When citizens are
being watched by the authorities - or aware they might be watched at
any time - they are more self-conscious and less free-wheeling. As
syndicated columnist Jacob Sullum has pointed out, "knowing that you
are being watched by armed government agents tends to put a damper on
things. You don't want to offend them or otherwise call attention to
yourself." Eventually, he warns, "people may learn to be careful
about the books and periodicals they read in public, avoiding titles
that might alarm unseen observers. They may also put more thought into
how they dress, lest they look like terrorists, gang members, druggies
or hookers." Indeed, the studies of cameras in Britain found that
people deemed to be "out of time and place" with the surroundings were
subjected to prolonged surveillance.
The bottom line: a lack of proportion between benefits and risks
Like any intrusive technology, the benefits of deploying public video
cameras must be balanced against the costs and dangers. This
technology (a) has the potential to change the core experience of
going out in public in America because of its chilling effect on
citizens, (b) carries very real dangers of abuse and "mission creep,"
and (c) would not significantly protect us against terrorism. Given
that, its benefits - preventing at most a few street crimes, and
probably none - are disproportionately small.
(end)
Greta Tropia
wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:59:43 -0300, john <no...@fake.email> wrote:
>
>>X-No-Archive: yes On 22 Oct 2003 11:38:53 -0700, gma...@canada.com
>>(gman) wrote:
>>
>>>john <no...@fake.email> wrote in message news:<vnpcpvglei364e3ag...@4ax.com>...
>>>> What do folks think of the proposal to have RCMP monitored cameras in
>>>> downtown Antigonish? If it goes through, it will be the first police
>>>> monitored public camera in the province.
>>>>
>>>
>>>They're used wuite extensively in the UK. There are strict rules
>>>governing the use of them by the police. There was quite a scandal in
>>>the early 90's because somehow come of the photos ended up in the
>>>daily rag.
>>>
>>>The argument is basically that it would be legal for a cop to be on
>>>every corner with a camcorder filming public spaces...whatever one
>>>does in public is well in public and not private. As long as the
>>
>>There's a name for places like that. They are police states.
>>
>>>cameras aren't perring into backyards / windows..etc there's no
>>>problem. Many public spaces are already covered by cameras and
>>>recorded....no big deal.
>>
>>That depends. I happen to find privately owned cameras viewing public
>>space to be extremely offensive. Who are the goofs watching you? What
>>do they do with the information? No one knows. There's no control
>>whatsoever. It's ripe for abuse and misuse. It can easily get out of
>>control.
>
>Not when you are in public..... Why are they "goofs"?
>The information being,,,, your picture?
>
>Now waht can they possibly do with a picture of John sauntering down
>Spring Garden Road? Sell it?
SMILE, YOU'RE ON IN-STORE CAMERA
By Erik Baard
02:00 AM Aug. 08, 2002 PT
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,54078,00.html
Johnny Q. Consumer walks into a national chain store, picks up
diapers, pays in cash. He does not walk alone.
One store camera captures his face, while another network of cameras
traces his stroll through the aisles. The pressure-sensitive floor
panels note how he lingers and nervously shifts his feet while
browsing in the diaper section.
At the store's national headquarters, perhaps a thousand miles away, a
machine quietly notes in Johnny's file that he may be a new father.
That bit of data goes into an algorithm that a few days later
cross-references birth records and finds that, indeed, Johnny has just
become the proud father of twins. A card is sent out and special
discounts will be offered the next time he enters the store.
This scenario, which could be a harsh reality in the near future, will
not placate those who avoid shopping online and opt to pay in hard
currency out of fear for their privacy. If you can't shop anonymously
at your local retail giant, then privacy as we know it is dead.
The technology exists and its implementation could level the marketing
playing field, letting traditional businesses do what Web shopping
portals already do: follow their customers through the entire process.
They would know a lot about you, including where you come from, what
you linger over, what you add and remove from your shopping cart, what
you ultimately buy, even what you recommend to your friends.
"This is not new-fangled hardware," said Zoher Karu, director of
product management at Brickstream Corporation, a Virginia company that
manufactures the technology. "It's just cameras hooked up to PCs
(that) you can buy from Dell. We don't have proprietary hardware; we
have proprietary software."
Karu explained how it works.
"The algorithm looks for shapes of people and (passes) the same
individual off from camera to camera by, for example, looking for a
yellow color leaving the left side of one camera view to enter the
overlapping right side of the next. It can distinguish between
shopping cart and person, but it doesn't know a man from a woman or a
child from an adult. But certainly that's a possibility. From an
architecture standpoint, the system is capable of that."
The privacy threat posed by this kind of monitoring, as well as the
threat from databases generated by consumer loyalty card programs, is
the subject of a paper by consumer protection advocate Katherine
Albrecht that will be published in the Denver Law Review.
But the immediate goal of Brickstream's work, said Karu, isn't to
keeps tabs on Johnny Q., but rather to improve store designs by seeing
where customers like to walk, what catches their eye and how space is
being underutilized.
"How long do people wait in line? Do we need to send an alert to open
another register? What's the number of people entering the store in
the course of a day? Comment cards are not the way to measure customer
data, and you can't get that kind of data from what's coming out of
the cash register," Karu said.
Although the Brickstream system wasn't designed for security purposes,
Karu said, an algorithm could be developed to determine path choices
likely to be favored by shoplifters in a store or terrorists in an
airport, while eliminating the aspect of racial profiling.
But if Brickstream's system could be linked to facial recognition
software, conceded Karu, it could be used to zero in on specific
individuals.
"It's certainly a possibility that you could cater to a loyal
customer," Karu said. "If my high-spending customers are waiting in
this long line and I don't care as much about the other customers, I
could provide a special service."
The best-known facial recognition company, Identix (formerly
Visionics), said through a representative that it "would definitely
not support use of the technology in this way because of privacy
concerns. This (Identix) system is absolutely meant only to spot bad
guys and find missing children."
The originator of the pressure-sensitive magic carpet and Doppler
radar upper-body-movement detector, MIT Media Lab researcher Joe
Paradisso, said his inspiration had nothing to do with consumerism.
"I was thinking of music. I never thought about this for retail at
all," said Paradisso, who has designed performance spaces where
footsteps trigger bass or percussive sounds and torso, head and arm
movements elicit higher, "twinkling" notes.
But Paradisso sees how sensitive floor tiles or carpets can provide
"robust data" for retailers.
"Cameras have problems," he said. "They get confused when the light's
changing, and by people, clutter and things moving around in a space.
Just measuring impacts on the floor removes a lot of ambiguity, like
tracking aircraft with a radar blip."
Then again, having algorithms recognize people from one day to the
next using just footsteps as data is difficult, if not impossible. A
person's stride can change dramatically due to the shopper carrying
packages, wearing different shoes, walking with somebody else or even
simply operating on low blood sugar one morning and feeling peppy the
next.
"Systems have to work together because they all have their
weaknesses," Paradisso said. In other words, given help from
facial-recognition software, floor sensors would do a much better job
of discreetly building a database on a particular customer.
"I think the key is for retailers to not get caught up in the hype of
new technology and look (instead) at what benefits consumers," said
Priscilla Donegan, communications director for Cap Gemini Ernst Young.
"They have to think beyond their own strategic imperatives and
consider the consumer when assessing their IT plans. I think that's a
point often missed, based on our research."
Donegan recalled a decade ago, when retailers experimented with
jingles and audio sales pitches that came from store shelves when
motion sensors were tripped.
"The reaction among consumers was not particularly positive," Donegan
said. "It was an invasion of space and time, and we really don’t want
to be sung to in the grocery aisles."
(end)
Greta Tropia
wrote:
>"john" <no...@fake.email> wrote in message
>news:vnpcpvglei364e3ag...@4ax.com...
>> What do folks think of the proposal to have RCMP monitored cameras in
>> downtown Antigonish? If it goes through, it will be the first police
>> monitored public camera in the province.
>>
>
>As someone who works in the CCTV industry, I would like to point out that
>most of the systems sold these days are not monitored 24/7 by big brother.
>The manpower costs would be very high. In case of an "incident" the recorded
Studies in the States and the UK have also shown that after about 15
minutes, agents monitoring the cameras tend to "zonk out" and are no
longer very alert to what's happening on the screens. Even if we could
afford the manpower, it would probably be a waste of money.
However, a number of firms are currently developing software that
would automatically detect "suspicious" on-screen behavior so that an
agent's attention could be drawn to it.
See: SMART SOFTWARE LINKED TO CCTV CAN SPOT DUBIOUS BEHAVIOUR -
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993918
Excerpt: "It could be the dawn of a new era in surveillance. For the
first time, smart software will help CCTV operators spot any abnormal
behaviour."
One danger of developing a dependence on such technology is that,
should the software fail to detect behavior that truly is worthy of
suspicion, the person monitoring the screens might miss it because
they're relying on the software to point it out, or are being
distracted by the software to another (possibly harmless) activity on
another screen. On the flipside, the software could incriminate
perfectly innocent people by identifying their behaviour or appearance
as "abnormal", and hence, suspicious.
The technology to network surveillance cameras and to identify
individuals based on the way they walk and on facial recognition
techniques has been under development for a number of years.
If such projects are successful and surveillance technology continues
in this direction, it's not inconceivable that within a couple of
decades, humans will mostly be "policed" by machines controlled by
"intelligent" software. We're already seeing signs of this, what with
highway surveillance cams being automated to take pictures of the
license plates of speeding vehicles (after which a speeding ticket and
a photo of the vehicle is sent to the address of the car owner).
For further reading:
SMILE, YOU'RE ON IN-STORE CAMERA
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,54078,00.html
BIG BROTHER GETS A BRAIN - THE PENTAGON'S PLAN FOR TRACKING EVERYTHING
THAT MOVES
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0328/shachtman.php
SANDIA TEAM DEVELOPS COGNITIVE MACHINES
http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2003/comp-soft-math/cognitive.html
BIGGER MONSTER, WEAKER CHAINS: THE GROWTH OF AN AMERICAN SURVEILLANCE
SOCIETY
http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11573&amp;c=39
TOTAL INFO SYSTEM TOTALLY TOUCHY
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,56620,00.html?tw=wn_story_related
CONGRESS PUTS BRAKES ON CAPPS II
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60600,00.html
SENATORS WANT JETBLUE PROBE
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,60885,00.html
LOUDER CALL FOR ECHELON PROBE
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,44841,00.html
>data can be reviewed for information. Also, data is overwritten on a looped
>cycle, not stored in some governement vault. I think if a situation demands
>it, a CCTV system can be a good deterrent and a good tool in finding guilty
>parties. As I say, I speak from years of experience in the field. Never
>once have I seen these systems used in an "Orwellian" method. Just my .02
>
What Nova Scotia really needs are guidelines to ensure that CCTV in
public areas will only be used in an appropriate and responsible
manner. The provinces of Alberta and British Columbia have been
publishing such guidelines for years:
Guide to Using Surveillance Cameras in Public Areas (Alberta) -
http://www3.gov.ab.ca/foip/other_resources/publications_videos/surveillance_guide.cfm
Public Surveillance System Privacy Guidelines (British Columbia) -
http://www.mser.gov.bc.ca/foi_pop/main/video_security.htm
Leaflet on video surveillance by private individuals (Switzerland) -
http://www.edsb.ch/e/themen/video/index.htm
Anyone who'd like to see similar guidelines enacted in Nova Scotia
might want to consider contacting the NS Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Review Office and letting them know this is
important to you.
Contact info:
NS Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Review Office
Box 181
Halifax, N.S.
B3J 2M4
Phone: 902-424-4684
Web: http://www.foipop.ns.ca/
Email: dfa...@gov.ns.ca
Greta.
Greta Tropia
wrote:
>As someone who works in the CCTV industry, I would like to point out that
>most of the systems sold these days are not monitored 24/7 by big brother.
I like how you say "most" of the systems sold aren't monitored 24/7 by
big brother :-)
Greta.