NEW YORK |Privacy in the city - thing of the past?

[NYguy]

I've been back and forth on the pros and cons. But either way, we had better get used to it.



http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.1296103

'We're going to have more visibility and less privacy': Mayor Bloomberg admits soon NYPD surveillance cameras will be on nearly every corner and in the air

'You wait, in five years, the technology is getting better, they’ll be cameras everyplace . . . whether you like it or not,' Bloomberg said Friday.
'The argument against using automation is just this craziness that 'Oh, it’s Big Brother.' Get used to it!'




Police surveillance camera at 59th St. and Fifth Ave. Mayor Bloomberg said he envisions a day when it will be nearly impossible for New Yorkers to escape the eye of Big Brother in the Big Apple.



By Tina Moore
March 22, 2013

Big Brother is watching. Now get used to it!

Envisioning a future where privacy is a thing of the past, Mayor Bloomberg said Friday it will soon be impossible to escape the watchful eyes of surveillance cameras and even drones in the city.

He acknowledged privacy concerns, but said “you can’t keep the tides from coming in.”

“You wait, in five years, the technology is getting better, they’ll be cameras everyplace . . . whether you like it or not,” Bloomberg said.

The security measures have drawn scorn from some civil libertarians — but Bloomberg scoffed at privacy concerns on his Friday morning program on WOR-AM.

“The argument against using automation is just this craziness that 'Oh, it’s Big Brother,’” Bloomberg said. “Get used to it!”

The New York Civil Liberties Union has documented nearly 2,400 surveillance cameras fixed on public spaces in Manhattan alone. Many are operated by the police, others by poroperty owners.

In Lower Manhattan, an initiative developed after 9/11 known as the “Ring of Steel” integrates the NYPD’s cameras with those of banks and other institutions.

But in the future, the cameras won't just be planted on buildings and utility poles. Some of them will be able to fly, the mayor pointed out.

“It’s scary,” Bloomberg said. “But what’s the difference whether the drone is up in the air or on the building? I mean intellectually I have trouble making a distinction. And you know you're gonna have face recognition software. People are working on that.”

Bloomberg warned that drones would be able to peep into private residences - but that Peeping Tom legislation could help maintain some privacy.

[SD_Phil]

Who knew burqas would become the next hot fashion item in NY? I'm willing to bet something that makes you harder to detect will become fashionable...unless it becomes illegal.

[Derek]

I honestly don't understand this "privacy" crap. If you're out in public, and you're not doing anything wrong, then why the hell should you care if you have nothing to hide?



Drones looking into residences is a bit much though, obviously.....

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Derek

I honestly don't understand this "privacy" crap. If you're out in public, and you're not doing anything wrong, then why the hell should you care if you have nothing to hide?

This is the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" myth: http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/...ou-have-n.html

[Derek]

There's already cameras all over the place. Our IDs are checked every time we fly or take a train (oh yeah, and we're recorded too). There's cameras in banks, grocery stores, 7-Elevens, gas stations, schools, DMV offices, etc. Out of the examples listed on that page, and with a global population pushing 7 billion, I'd say those events are EXTREMELY isolated. Cameras are a fact of life, and I'm with Bloomberg on this one, we just need to get used to it.

[hunser]

London calling.

[llamaorama]

I don't think its just "privacy" as we know it, but the newfound ability to profile people.

If you had a good picture of everyone's personal life, from what they do and where they go to whom they are friends with down to personal tastes and opinions, inevitably someone gets the idea to compare your "life stats" with those of criminals, deviants, etc.

Western civilization has really become enamored with the precautionary prinicipal since the mid-20th century. "Will a new chemical harm the environment? We don't really know but we should ban it anyways." Now this might be a good thing when applied to the environmental sciences, but what about people? FWIW, this started around the time sciences and academic institutions got more robust and we could really examine all the consequences of a certain action. Sound familiar?

Assuming a person is innocent until proven guilty is a prinicipal from a different time. How will the availability of data that forecasts if a person has a chance of being a murderer or pedophile influence public opinion and politicians? And the public is so very bad at risk assessment, people become very emotional about certain things that are extremely uncommon like plane crashes, nuclear meltdowns and kidnappings and then don't want to take precautions with things that are common like auto accidents because its inconvenient.

How many innocent people do we have to cast out to save one life exactly?

Also the emotion, individualism and belief in free will present in our culture ensures that the benefits to targeted persons that could come from predicting personal behavior may go unrealized. Ironically despite being able to predict actions probably won't dispel notions that value personal accountability. Tracking and modifying harmful behavior whether its consuming unhealthy food or not disciplining your child will be harshly criticized as an intrusion of the "nanny state". Yet no doubt we'll shame people for things, after leading them into that trap. Will we use what we know to try reforming people who run the risk of becoming criminals starting in childhood or help drug users kick the habit, or will doing those things be considered "socialism"? At the end of the day, I fear that a lack of privacy will only mean people being judged without committing any crime. People will be shamed on the assumption of doing something, and treated in a punitive fashion because its convenient.

TLDR; living under the all-knowing sheeple mob sousvalliance state will be like having an abusive parent that is always absent and never helped you or taught you anything, but beats you when you do something wrong. But who cares, its social darwinism at its finest I guess.

I honestly don't understand this "privacy" crap. If you're out in public, and you're not doing anything wrong, then why the hell should you care if you have nothing to hide?

Define "doing something wrong".

Privacy is self-defense against prejudice, that's one benefit.

The other is information asymettry. In any given circumstance where people are interacting or making a transaction(like buying a item at the store or applying for a job) both parties want to profit from it(like buying something on sale). Ordinary people will be at a disadvantage to corporations and the government. Not just because they lack the information(everyone could see everything), but because one side has the education and resources to analyze all those choices and you won't.

Google works on this principal, people are willing to trade superficial privacy(age, name, location, petty consumer tastes, you know phone book material we've actually been sharing all along) for nice internet services.

But what about the government? You didn't choose to exchange anything, its taken from you. In the very best case, will our government be the well-meaning if frequently irritating "nanny state" that wants to cultivate its human resource? Or will it just be the exploiter? Of course that depends on who you are. Some smart, gifted person whose got a good job and a big house and car and votes Republican might be the intended beneficiary, then us "47%" are the potential criminals, the parasites, the ones they need to be protected from?

IMO before we give up more privacy we need the ones taking it to earn trust and display their legitimacy. Or demand it. That's my solution to the supposed "inevitability". If we know everything about everyone lets be less judgemental in ways when its non-constructive. You could use this to rehabilitate rather than incarcarate, legalize drugs then keep abusers and kids away from sellers, etc. Alcoholics could be banned from drinking and the rest of us still could by giving out biometric IDs and scanners in bars. Children could be free to play outside because they won't be dissappearing. People who might be sexual deviants could be treated as psychiatric cases, because they know they won't get away with it, and we know its not their fault. And most of all, if the all seeing eye can pick out who has a gun and who doesn't, wow suddenly gun control works. Just for gods sake, keep this out of the hands of retarded "tough on crime" politicians.

[J. Will]

Better to have security cameras watching you so you can be harassed by police only if they see you doing something wrong than to have police "stop and frisk" you because of the colour of your skin.

Drones looking into residences is a bit much though, obviously.....

Agree with you there. If drones start flying low over private property, I hope the property owners start shooting them out of the sky.

[llamaorama]

Agree with you there. If drones start flying low over private property, I hope the property owners start shooting them out of the sky.

Yeah, but easier said than done. Won't work in an urban setting because either you'll have a falling drone or a flying bullet over a populated area. Farmers will do this, won't work with anyone else. I'm sure there will be military-grade laser drone killers eventually that only the likes of the NYPD or Israel can afford, the rest of us will have to live with it.

I like the idea of tracking interloping drones and knowing who they belong to and then pursuing legal action against their operator for tresspassing.

[J. Will]

Does anyone know how much airspace over your property is considered yours in most places? Of course I'm sure that won't stop them from using drones anyways.

[suburbanite]

Airspace rights disputes are very complicated and are usually dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I read that theoretically you can build a massive building on your property and all aircraft would be forced to navigate around you.

[pdxtex]

bloomberg seems like white knighty we know whats good for you kind of politician. lets ban sugary drinks, uhhh ok. now lets wire the entire city up to automated cctv...yeah, lets not.....

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Derek

Out of the examples listed on that page, and with a global population pushing 7 billion, I'd say those events are EXTREMELY isolated.

Here in Canada, a government agency recently lost a hard drive containing details on student loan accounts covering just under 2% of the entire country's population (~600,000).

[Derek]

What's that have to do with security cameras?

[simms3_redux]

Torn on the issue. I "feel" safer with cameras, but then again I don't necessarily trust bureacracies in general. Derek, to someone123's point, government agencies lose data or screw up all the friggin time to the point where it's just not even news anymore.

The other questions that have to be raised:

Do cameras take cops off the streets? In that case is Bloomberg going for a "reactionary" policing system rather than a "preventative" system?

If you're going to keep the same force on the streets, do you then pay for a separate huge bureacracy to manage and monitor all of the new CCTV surveillance systems? How would you pay for such bloated bureaucracy...would you have to make cuts elsewhere or raise taxes?

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

Torn on the issue. I "feel" safer with cameras, but then again I don't necessarily trust bureacracies in general. Derek, to someone123's point, government agencies lose data or screw up all the friggin time to the point where it's just not even news anymore.

The other questions that have to be raised:

Do cameras take cops off the streets? In that case is Bloomberg going for a "reactionary" policing system rather than a "preventative" system?

If you're going to keep the same force on the streets, do you then pay for a separate huge bureacracy to manage and monitor all of the new CCTV surveillance systems? How would you pay for such bloated bureaucracy...would you have to make cuts elsewhere or raise taxes?

Cameras can't take cops off the streets because they don't prevent crime. I cringe everytime someone mentions this. Again....cameras do not replace cops!

They are meant to resolve cases of crime after they have been committed, either to ID a criminal for arrest, and prove in court that this person committed the crime. Pay for a huge bureaucracy to monitor cameras? Look this up. The answer is No. The city installed cameras typically rotate on pre-programmed cycles away from private property, which is why police cameras in Chicago can't pick up on break-in a private residence because people don't want them aimed at their homes. When a person walks beneath these cameras in a public area they can be programmed to zoom and follow that individual, just to be certain a high-res image of that person is captured in the event they commit a crime. However that data is saved over in time if no crime occurs. It happens all with processors and hard drives. No computer screens and humans behind that, unless someone calls 911 to that area......or if the cameras pick up gunshots or intense shouting.

Because of all the cameras in my neighborhood I was able to to get my stolen bike recovered. I personally want more them.

[MayDay]

I can understand the notion of better/more surveillance making people feel more secure but at the same time, we can't forget that Skynet became self-aware 16 years ago:

[Kurtz]

"Person of Interest"

[tech_bonus]

Originally Posted by Hayward

Cameras can't take cops off the streets because they don't prevent crime. I cringe everytime someone mentions this. Again....cameras do not replace cops!

They are meant to resolve cases of crime after they have been committed, either to ID a criminal for arrest, and prove in court that this person committed the crime. Pay for a huge bureaucracy to monitor cameras? Look this up. The answer is No. The city installed cameras typically rotate on pre-programmed cycles away from private property, which is why police cameras in Chicago can't pick up on break-in a private residence because people don't want them aimed at their homes. When a person walks beneath these cameras in a public area they can be programmed to zoom and follow that individual, just to be certain a high-res image of that person is captured in the event they commit a crime. However that data is saved over in time if no crime occurs. It happens all with processors and hard drives. No computer screens and humans behind that, unless someone calls 911 to that area......or if the cameras pick up gunshots or intense shouting.

Because of all the cameras in my neighborhood I was able to to get my stolen bike recovered. I personally want more them.

But from what it sounds like, the smart cameras that are about to be put in to service will possibly be the new detectives of societies.

How about a camera that will (on the fly) lock-on to your face from blocks away - apply a mathematical grid to your face, highlighting all of your unique facial features and contours (thus creating a sort of digital plaster-cast) - the camera will then take that digital plaster-cast and match it within (seconds, minutes(?) to a large database of faces.

That camera just positively I.D.'d you out of a crowd of many and found you in a database of...millions(?)

This is what Bloomberg was referring to I believe.

• Video Link

Camera stuff starts around 5:00

[tech_bonus]

Just realized that the camera portion of the docudrama was across 2 videos.

Part 5

• Video Link