Surveillance Cameras Pervade Society, Leak Into Small Towns

[xer0xed]

Src: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/...6-d6ef0834170a

When vandals embarked recently on an evening of random mischief, toppling soda machines in communities up and down Maryland's Eastern Shore, this tiny farming village was the only place they left untouched.

Police Chief Merl Evans believes he knows why -- the surveillance cameras.

The town of Ridgely, population 1,600, has six, all paid for with counter-terrorism funding from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

For more than a year, the cameras have recorded every moment of life along Central Avenue, Ridgely's one-block, no-stoplight commercial district, giving police a visual record of anyone who bought groceries at Tri-Me Warehouse Foods, picked up a prescription at Ridgely Pharmacy, or stopped for pizza at Sam's Restaurant.

There are cameras on the town's water tower and water treatment centre, both deemed to be potential terror targets, and even a camera hidden inside the pavilion at a park frequented on weekend evenings by teens.

"They work real well as a deterrent," says Chief Evans, 59, police chief here since 2003. "The main street here was never touched because they know we have got cameras."

In the five years since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, the installation of surveillance cameras by police forces has exploded across the United States as authorities scrambled to improve security measures.

The proliferation has been justified, primarily, as a way to help law enforcement agencies detect potential terrorist activity in locations that cannot be constantly patrolled. According to one estimate, by the consulting firm Frost & Sullivan, surveillance cameras will be a $4-billion industry by 2010 in the U.S.

The rapid expansion of video surveillance has also triggered a national debate among privacy advocates who fear the U.S. is on the verge of becoming a surveillance society, with government and police employing Orwellian tactics in the name of the war on terror.

"9/11 has provided a great excuse to spend money in this area, but I don't think many people believe that the surveillance cameras are going to detect terrorist acts," says Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Centre, a Washington-based group that tracks government surveillance activities in the U.S.

"These surveillance networks tend to cover broad parts of the city -- rather than say just having a camera outside an ATM or in a convenience store parking lot -- so there really is a legitimate concern about a Big Brother surveillance society."

Homeland Security budgeted $2 billion for grants to state and local governments in 2006 to strengthen counter-terrorism efforts. While the department does not specify how much money went to surveillance equipment, dozens of U.S. cities have won funding by deeming cameras essential for "target hardening" of critical infrastructure.

The New York Police Department earlier this year announced an $81.5-million plan earlier to place 500 surveillance cameras in a "ring of steel" around Lower and Midtown Manhattan to monitor suspicious activity.

In Chicago, police can monitor 2,250 cameras in an ever-expanding "homeland security grid." City officials are using part of a $5.1-million Homeland Security grant to install new high-definition, motion-sensitive cameras designed to send alerts when people linger outside public buildings or leave packages unattended.

In Washington, D.C., city council recently approved plans to install 23 surveillance cameras in residential communities.

Police in Virginia Beach, Virginia, are testing surveillance systems equipped with facial-recognition technology.

But the surveillance cameras have proven most popular in communities not typically considered high on the list of potential targets.

A recent survey by Scripps Howard News Service found more than 200 towns and cities, in 37 states, now use video cameras for general surveillance, such as monitoring sidewalks, parks, schools and other community facilities.

From his second-floor office just off Central Avenue, Chief Evans can monitor pedestrian and vehicular traffic that, even on busy days, might best be described as sporadic.

He is the first to acknowledge that Ridgely, a farming community surrounded in summer by towering fields of corn, is not likely the sort of place terrorists would strike, but there are locations here, he says, that might tempt criminals -- such as fertilizer and diesel fuel depots that hold the basic ingredients of homemade explosives.

Critics say the use of surveillance cameras for counter-terrorism is both a waste of Homeland Security money and a threat to the privacy of Americans.

"Surveillance cameras have no proven track record in preventing or deterring terrorism. There are just no known cases where they have been used to that effect," says Jeffrey Rosen, a professor of law at George Washington University and author of The Unwanted Gaze: The Destruction of Privacy in America.

"Their proliferation has been driven by fear. 9/11 naturally created fear, which created a desire for a technological solution," Mr. Rosen says. "Cameras are very popular with the public as a whole, mostly because they make people feel safer."

The same push for surveillance swept Great Britain in the 1980s and 1990s as law enforcement sought ways to combat regular IRA bombings. The city of London has more than 200,000 surveillance cameras, says Mr. Rosen, but none prevented the subway bombings of 2005.

The cameras "did help determine the identity of the suicide bombers and aided the police in subsequent investigations," says EPIC's Mr. Rotenberg, "but obviously they had no deterrent effect in preventing the act, because suicide bombers are not particularly concerned about being caught in the act. Cameras are not an effective way to stop a person that is prepared to commit that kind of act."

Police in cities such as Chicago and Baltimore, however, argue surveillance cameras have helped drive crime level downs to historic lows. In New York, police say crime in the Bronx has dropped 30 per cent in areas where cameras have been installed.

But even where they aid criminal investigations, Mr. Rosen says they are of little use in terror investigations because the U.S. lacks a data base that could match the faces of suspected terrorists against images captured by cameras.

Even the most significant surveillance technologies, which use facial-recognition software, confuse men for women and can be tricked by anyone who puts on a disguise, Mr. Rosen says.

"Cameras are considered a prestige item. They are relatively cheap because you don't have to spend much money manning them and people like to feel cutting edge and high tech," Mr. Rosen says.

"But it is a foolish diversion of resources from the stuff that actually works, like communication and information-sharing and intelligence-sharing on the ground."

Following 9/11, a bipartisan group of U.S. civil libertarians and libertarian conservatives was able to beat back the most ambitious surveillance proposals, including one in Washington that would have linked cameras on government buildings, transit systems and residential neighbourhoods into a vast network.

"The week after 9/11, I imagined America would be wired up as ubiquitously as Britain," says Mr. Rosen. "That didn't happen, because of a political culture here which is strongly suspicious of government and (was) willing to fight the proliferation of these badly designed technologies."

But Mr. Rosen believes the U.S. is on a slippery slope toward becoming a surveillance society.

"There are very serious concerns about privacy in an age when it is possible in theory to use cameras and, through ubiquitous surveillance, reconstruct all of the movements a person makes over the course of an entire day," Mr. Rosen says. "This is not science fiction."

Figured I'd share this with you folks.

[Diesel66]

I am not in favor of cameras in public, but there is no expection of privacy on the streets.

[Jeremy1]

http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=298
Ever Watching
by Dr. Steve Bonta
Constitution Party Communications Director

A few days ago, I stopped at a railroad crossing near my parents’ house to wait for a train. Rather than sit in the car and stare vacantly at the passing boxcars, I decided to take a stroll along the tracks to look at the wildflowers and the insects they attracted. The train was a long one, and another came along on the other track before the first one was finished, so I was detained longer than usual. Some five minutes after I stepped out of the car, I noticed a small truck racing along the tracks towards me. It stopped in front of my car, blocking it, and a burly railroad policeman hurried over to ask me what I was doing. I explained that I was passing the time strolling along the tracks, something I had done since childhood. He then told me that a satellite had taken a picture of me, and he had been dispatched right away to find out what I was up to.

I gaped at him. “A satellite? You’ve got to be kidding me!”

“Not at all. We watch these tracks constantly by satellite, and we’re on high alert right now. You know, someone might put a bomb on one of these trains.”

“You mean you have an eye in the sky watching this crossing all the time?”

“Oh, absolutely. In fact, the other day, we watched you walk along the tracks into town and back.”

I was stunned. Actually, it was my brother they had been watching the previous day, but the thought that, in the “New America,” satellites really ARE watching us from on high was depressing and frightening. Fortunately for me, the policeman was friendly and had no objection to my looking at wildflowers and butterflies, and I knew better than to pick an argument as he proudly ran down the ways that the railroad was under constant surveillance from satellites and a host of other new security measures........

[drjjg]

Originally Posted by Jeremy1

http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=298
Ever Watching
by Dr. Steve Bonta
Constitution Party Communications Director

A few days ago, I stopped at a railroad crossing near my parents’ house to wait for a train. Rather than sit in the car and stare vacantly at the passing boxcars, I decided to take a stroll along the tracks to look at the wildflowers and the insects they attracted. The train was a long one, and another came along on the other track before the first one was finished, so I was detained longer than usual. Some five minutes after I stepped out of the car, I noticed a small truck racing along the tracks towards me. It stopped in front of my car, blocking it, and a burly railroad policeman hurried over to ask me what I was doing. I explained that I was passing the time strolling along the tracks, something I had done since childhood. He then told me that a satellite had taken a picture of me, and he had been dispatched right away to find out what I was up to.

I gaped at him. “A satellite? You’ve got to be kidding me!”

“Not at all. We watch these tracks constantly by satellite, and we’re on high alert right now. You know, someone might put a bomb on one of these trains.”

“You mean you have an eye in the sky watching this crossing all the time?”

“Oh, absolutely. In fact, the other day, we watched you walk along the tracks into town and back.”

I was stunned. Actually, it was my brother they had been watching the previous day, but the thought that, in the “New America,” satellites really ARE watching us from on high was depressing and frightening. Fortunately for me, the policeman was friendly and had no objection to my looking at wildflowers and butterflies, and I knew better than to pick an argument as he proudly ran down the ways that the railroad was under constant surveillance from satellites and a host of other new security measures........

That is sickening.

[frankenstein]

Originally Posted by Jeremy1

http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=298
Ever Watching
by Dr. Steve Bonta
Constitution Party Communications Director

A few days ago, I stopped at a railroad crossing near my parents’ house to wait for a train. Rather than sit in the car and stare vacantly at the passing boxcars, I decided to take a stroll along the tracks to look at the wildflowers and the insects they attracted. The train was a long one, and another came along on the other track before the first one was finished, so I was detained longer than usual. Some five minutes after I stepped out of the car, I noticed a small truck racing along the tracks towards me. It stopped in front of my car, blocking it, and a burly railroad policeman hurried over to ask me what I was doing. I explained that I was passing the time strolling along the tracks, something I had done since childhood. He then told me that a satellite had taken a picture of me, and he had been dispatched right away to find out what I was up to.

I gaped at him. “A satellite? You’ve got to be kidding me!”

“Not at all. We watch these tracks constantly by satellite, and we’re on high alert right now. You know, someone might put a bomb on one of these trains.”

“You mean you have an eye in the sky watching this crossing all the time?”

“Oh, absolutely. In fact, the other day, we watched you walk along the tracks into town and back.”

I was stunned. Actually, it was my brother they had been watching the previous day, but the thought that, in the “New America,” satellites really ARE watching us from on high was depressing and frightening. Fortunately for me, the policeman was friendly and had no objection to my looking at wildflowers and butterflies, and I knew better than to pick an argument as he proudly ran down the ways that the railroad was under constant surveillance from satellites and a host of other new security measures........

Yep. We'll all be secure and without any privacy. You know there's a trend I've noticed about security. The people who are the most insecure, and I mean on a psychological level, as in poor self-esteem, are the ones who want to push all this security on others. That or they are the ones who want to become cops, security officers, other types of securtiy personel. The people who have the most personal security in themselves aren't scared of the boogeyman or of Bin Laden, etc. Those fear filled, scared of everything individuals would rather invade the lives of others than actually live a life of their own that isn't full of fear.

Now comrades, let's all see if we can manage to write into our diaries while avoiding the telescreen so it can't see that we are illegally writing our thoughts. So who here's wearing the requisite blue overalls???

[nutsy54]

Originally Posted by drjjg

That is sickening.

And completely impossible. No satellite can sit and stare at a specific location. (If you really think they can, please step out of the movie theater and into any Orbital Mechanics 101 class).

- Could there be "normal" cameras watching the track - of course.
- Might Mr. Police Dude be confused about how that video signal gets back to someone's office (transmitted "via satellite")? Probably.

It's stories like these that cause wild hysteria and over-reaction in the first place. And nobody even questions that "someone said" a multi-million dollar satellite, positioned in geosynchronous orbit (~22,000 miles above the equator) is employed purely to watch a section of railroad track.

Back to reality - Why wouldn't you expect regular cameras to be monitoring the railroad system? That's a great place to cause major shipping/transit disruption with very little effort.

[frankenstein]

Originally Posted by nutsy54

And completely impossible. No satellite can sit and stare at a specific location. (If you really think they can, please step out of the movie theater and into any Orbital Mechanics 101 class).

- Could there be "normal" cameras watching the track - of course.
- Might Mr. Police Dude be confused about how that video signal gets back to someone's office (transmitted "via satellite")? Probably.

It's stories like these that cause wild hysteria and over-reaction in the first place. And nobody even questions that "someone said" a multi-million dollar satellite, positioned in geosynchronous orbit (~22,000 miles above the equator) is employed purely to watch a section of railroad track.

Back to reality - Why wouldn't you expect regular cameras to be monitoring the railroad system? That's a great place to cause major shipping/transit disruption with very little effort.

He sure was causing a big problem by walking over to look over at some flowers, wasn't he??? If you read the first thread, I find that scarier.

[xer0xed]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

I am not in favor of cameras in public, but there is no expection of privacy on the streets.

So would it be alright for me to set up a camera on the busy streets of some major city and leave it there, as I got all the images from the camera sent back to my house?

I have a feeling it would be taken down.

[nutsy54]

Originally Posted by frankenstein

He sure was causing a big problem by walking over to look over at some flowers, wasn't he??? If you read the first thread, I find that scarier.

And the system worked perfectly - suspicious activity was identified, investigated, and promptly determined to be OK. Nobody's ID was handed over for a police check, nobody was fingerprinted or hauled off to jail. A potential problem was determined to be nothing. Would you rather they ignore such things - until the train system is attacked and then everyone rants about why nothing was done to prevent it?

Why's it so hard to believe that someone slowly wandering around railroad tracks, frequently stopping & bending over, could maybe be planting explosives, or getting information needed to plan such an operation? The good guys have to be right 100% of the time, the bad guys only have to be right once. . .

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by nutsy54

And completely impossible. No satellite can sit and stare at a specific location. (If you really think they can, please step out of the movie theater and into any Orbital Mechanics 101 class).

Yes they can it is called geo-sych orbiting. But it would be a major waste for a railroad track.

Originally Posted by xer0xed

So would it be alright for me to set up a camera on the busy streets of some major city and leave it there, as I got all the images from the camera sent back to my house?

I have a feeling it would be taken down.

Of course you can, as long as you own the property the camera is on.

[CrazyTall]

I dont like this one bit..

[xer0xed]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Of course you can, as long as you own the property the camera is on.

Ah... so only anonymous government security agents/bureaucrats can film/examine people without a warrant, probable cause, or their direct consent... interesting.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by xer0xed

Ah... so only anonymous government security agents/bureaucrats can film/examine people without a warrant, probable cause, or their direct consent... interesting.

?
Anyone can film public life. The basic rule is if you can see it, you can film it. You can even be breaking the law by trespassing and still have the legal right to film something, unless they went out of their way to gain privacy. ie Large trees, blinds etc... and there was no expectation that the average person could see into their building.



Audio is protected in many states unless the person allows you to record.

[nutsy54]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Yes they can it is called geo-sych orbiting. But it would be a major waste for a railroad track.

As I noted in the original post (for others who aren't aware of such details) - geosynch is ~22,000 miles above the equator, which makes straight-line significantly longer to "view" any area in North America. Cameras & optics just don't do that, which is why surveillance satellites operate at a much lower orbit. That means they're moving fast, with worldwide coverage, and very limited time to view any specific area.

For one commercial example: SPOT-4 uses an orbit roughly 500 miles up, takes approx 100 minutes to circle the earth, passes over the same area every 26 days, and provides 2.5 meter resolution - totally unusable for real-time surveillance.

Other systems are out there, but these numbers clearly show the myth of fixed satellite surveillance. Comparing SPOT to a Geosynch, you'd need optics and imaging systems that could see at least 60 times further away, with at least 15x more "zoom", to effectively identify that a person is walking somewhere and provide real-time monitoring.

Not to mention how you get that much data back to the ground. . .

[nutsy54]

Originally Posted by xer0xed

Ah... so only anonymous government security agents/bureaucrats can film/examine people without a warrant, probable cause, or their direct consent... interesting.

You are totally missing the difference between "public" and "private".

Anybody can view/monitor/record a public street. You can set up a camera on your property to view that street, and do whatever you want with the video. You CAN'T just put that camera on someone's else's property (public or private).

Anyone in the government needs clear authority to conduct surveillance against someone's private property. But they can certainly conduct surveillance on public (or government) property, where people have no expectation of privacy.

[xer0xed]

Alright, hypothetical situation; asking for some differentiation.

What would be legally wrong with putting surveillance cameras directly above public toilets?

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by xer0xed

Alright, hypothetical situation; asking for some differentiation.

What would be legally wrong with putting surveillance cameras directly above public toilets?

Never seen a public toilet in the open before, usually they are in buildings. If you are talking about a business putting video cameras in their own toilet/changing rooms it is perfectly legal as long as the person watching the film is the same sex. Usually this is only done in retail stores afraid of theft

[nutsy54]

Originally Posted by xer0xed

What would be legally wrong with putting surveillance cameras directly above public toilets?

Toilets meet the criteria for "expectation of privacy" (from government observation).

[MonsterG8r]

Originally Posted by nutsy54

Toilets meet the criteria for "expectation of privacy" (from government observation).

Until they use the excuse that most drug deals and sexual liasons with prostitutes go down in stalls, then they'll say it's necessary.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by MonsterG8r

Until they use the excuse that most drug deals and sexual liasons with prostitutes go down in stalls, then they'll say it's necessary.

WTF ? Govt has no right putting cameras INSIDE privately owned buildings. They and everyone else have the right to record video of public life as long as you own the land the camera is on or have permission to put it there.

He was talking about how the average person would expect to have privacy in a bathroom, so it is generally illegal to record in there.

[xer0xed]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

WTF ? Govt has no right putting cameras INSIDE privately owned buildings. They and everyone else have the right to record video of public life as long as you own the land the camera is on or have permission to put it there.

He was talking about how the average person would expect to have privacy in a bathroom, so it is generally illegal to record in there.

...we were talking about public buildings... such as public schools, etc...





And, apparently what the "average person expects" doesn't really get much attention anyway.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by xer0xed

...we were talking about public buildings... such as public schools, etc...





And, apparently what the "average person expects" doesn't really get much attention anyway.

Public is not public buildings. Public is outdoors. I can not film in a school without permission, but I can stand across the street and film what I can see legally.

If I get a cherry picker go up 50' and find the weird angle that lets me see into the showers, it would be illlegal because the people have an expected level of privacy.

[xer0xed]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Public is not public buildings. Public is outdoors. I can not film in a school without permission, but I can stand across the street and film what I can see legally.

If I get a cherry picker go up 50' and find the weird angle that lets me see into the showers, it would be illlegal because the people have an expected level of privacy.

Right... I know the difference between public and private. I was referring to public as you, in your last post, were talking about private property vs. public. The hypothetical in this situation is public. (i.e. public streets and buildings.) I don't know why you keep equivocating on this point.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by xer0xed

Right... I know the difference between public and private. I was referring to public as you, in your last post, were talking about private property vs. public. The hypothetical in this situation is public. (i.e. public streets and buildings.) I don't know why you keep equivocating on this point.

Problem is I was talking about public as in the outdoors, not who happens to own the property you are standing on. Outside, if you can see it you can film it.

[xer0xed]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Problem is I was talking about public as in the outdoors, not who happens to own the property you are standing on. Outside, if you can see it you can film it.

So I should be able to film it too.

[Jeremy1]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&type=business
A computer virus has been discovered that doesn't settle for invading PCs -- it invades computer users' homes, too.

The virus, named the Rbot-GR worm, follows a fairly traditional route of exploiting Microsoft Corp. security flaws and installing a Trojan horse virus on infected machines. However, the worm also spies on users by taking control of a Web camera and microphone when available and then sending images and soundtracks back to the hackers, according to British antivirus firm Sophos

PLC.

As well as getting an insight into homes and businesses across the world, the worm allows a hacker to take a look at information on the infected machine's hard drive, steal passwords and launch denial-of-service attacks.

Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant at Sophos, said the virus could be used for industrial espionage -- or simply by a nosey hacker to take a look into people's bedrooms.

"Whether this worm is the work of professional snoopers or lusty teenagers -- it's hard to say for certain," Cluley said. "What we do know is that there have been a few hundred different versions of the Rbot worm, all of which have been designed to gain some kind of remote access to innocent users' data.

"This one goes further by also specifically collecting Webcam footage. It seems more and more hackers are building a cocktail of different functionality into their creations."

Those who have the virus may be unaware that remote hackers could be tracking their every move. An infected Webcam may show an active light when it's being used, but Webcams without such light would offer no clue the hacker is watching.

There is, however, one simple way to dodge the prying eyes of hackers: Unplug or switch the Webcam off when it's not in use.

[coontang]

Originally Posted by Jeremy1

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&type=business
A computer virus has been discovered that doesn't settle for invading PCs -- it invades computer users' homes, too.

The virus, named the Rbot-GR worm, follows a fairly traditional route of exploiting Microsoft Corp. security flaws and installing a Trojan horse virus on infected machines. However, the worm also spies on users by taking control of a Web camera and microphone when available and then sending images and soundtracks back to the hackers, according to British antivirus firm Sophos

PLC.

As well as getting an insight into homes and businesses across the world, the worm allows a hacker to take a look at information on the infected machine's hard drive, steal passwords and launch denial-of-service attacks.

Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant at Sophos, said the virus could be used for industrial espionage -- or simply by a nosey hacker to take a look into people's bedrooms.

"Whether this worm is the work of professional snoopers or lusty teenagers -- it's hard to say for certain," Cluley said. "What we do know is that there have been a few hundred different versions of the Rbot worm, all of which have been designed to gain some kind of remote access to innocent users' data.

"This one goes further by also specifically collecting Webcam footage. It seems more and more hackers are building a cocktail of different functionality into their creations."

Those who have the virus may be unaware that remote hackers could be tracking their every move. An infected Webcam may show an active light when it's being used, but Webcams without such light would offer no clue the hacker is watching.

There is, however, one simple way to dodge the prying eyes of hackers: Unplug or switch the Webcam off when it's not in use.

That's nothing new. There are tons of programs like that. You can access people's C drives, webcams, mics, and even see what they see on their monitor. Always know what you're downloading and don't open suspicious .exe files.

[xer0xed]

Are you one of those advertisers that just randomly googles phrases saved in the cache and posts on any board that comes up with your string?