Ultra-Orwellian or just a good idea?

[streaker69]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/24-7/11...eras29.article

Hill has become the first private homeowner to take the city up on its unprecedented offer to connect privately owned exterior surveillance cameras to Chicago's 911 emergency center.

Since the cameras are privately owned, and on private property this really isn't an intrusion by the government. It's on a voluntary basis, and there's probably some agreement that any video received by the 911 center can be used in whatever manner they see fit.

Myself, I really don't see an issue with this, if private citizens choose to pipe their video feed to a 911 center, is anyone's privacy being invaded? Does this move us closer to a total Orwellian state?

Myself, I do have external video surveillance, and I've had issues with neighbors almost to the point of calling the cops already. Something like this could be a legal record of activity since a defense attorney in a case could argue that any video I have of my own could be tampered with but a copy stored at a 911 center could be viewed as un-tampered.

I guess I'm kind of torn as to is this a good thing or not.

The public-private Internet hookup will transmit fully encrypted video that cannot be compromised by computer hackers.

Of course with such assurances as this, it's gotta be a good idea. We've built unsinkable ships, I'm sure this is the worlds first un-hackable network.

[luyus]

Re: Ultra-Orwellian or just a good idea?

As long as the majority of the people think this is a good idea, and the government decides "that doing this to everyone is in the best interest of society as a whole," I don't really see any reason as to why this would be bad. Its by choice.

[streaker69]

Re: Ultra-Orwellian or just a good idea?

I guess what question would be from neighbor's property that could possible also being viewed as well as the person that gave permission. When I set up my cameras I was careful to aim them so that they generally only had a view of my own property. There are some areas where neighbor property can be seen on the camera, but looking at it, the intent is clear that it was meant to view my own land.

Other's may not be as cautious, and I guess that's where some oversight needs to come into play. I would hope that the 911 centers that are offering this type of service are also consulting on what is allowed and what isn't in regards to viewing another's private property.

[YenTheFirst]

Re: Ultra-Orwellian or just a good idea?

I'm torn as well. It's a good idea for now, but only as long as 'it's by choice'.

I expect that, if this becomes more popular:
Insurance companies will encourage people to volunteer, with lower premiums for those who do.
Security/Alarm companies will offer it, along with regular services.
speculatively:
Builders will start including it as a standard feature in homes. Those wishing not to participate will have to opt-out, instead of opting in.
so on and so forth

This won't necessarily become the case, it really depends on what the culture does.

Oh, and hacking the system will be a criminally punishable offense, either way.

More Orwellian-style paranoia:
The article also mentions that large companies around the city are opting-in. Corporations have no need for their own privacy, so it makes sense for them. However, with enough buildings around town, all with surveillance hooked into a centrally managed source, a privacy issue might arise.
Currently, the legal doctrine is that in public, there's no expectation of privacy. That said, I think this is a bit different, in that the same set of cameras can view a person everywhere.

A typical person might not mind being seen, while in public. If someone else started following that person everywhere, though, while they were in public, that person might get a bit uncomfortable, understandably.

edit:
As for unhackable encryption, I expect it's not quantum encrypted nor one-time-pad encrypted, so it is therefore probably breakable with some amount of effort. At the same time, I'm kind of tempted to say that anything the police dept. can see is a matter of public record.

[streaker69]

Re: Ultra-Orwellian or just a good idea?

To fuel the Orwellian fire even more, what's to stop the 911 center from doing some post processing on the incoming stream. Hooking it up to facial recognition software and looking for wanted people.

What is the retention time frame for video sent in from private sources.

[YenTheFirst]

Re: Ultra-Orwellian or just a good idea?

Who says it would have to be post-processing? Eventually it could be real-time.
ebil hackers looking for a fun prank could pick random people, or political targets, and insert them into the facial recognition DB (which I expect would probably be linked to, but not the same as, other DBs), and get them accosted by police every time they walk in public.

[streaker69]

Re: Ultra-Orwellian or just a good idea?

Another question is, who is going to be watching these streams? Do they only get watched or reviewed when there is a reported problem? Is someone at 911 just going to be randomly looking at them for giggles?

Let's look at a scenario.

You go away, your kids decide to have a party, but forget that your cameras are hooked up to 911. The party spills outside in the backyard, but still within view. Some random 911 operator sees it, and thinks that there could be underage drinking going on and dispatches the police. Should they be able to do that?

My view, if you're going to volunteer the stream, it should only be reviewable in the case of a reported incident. Maybe have the stream system tied into the dispatchers actual terminal. That when someone calls in and gives an address, when the dispatcher pulls up that address a video stream window appears as well. From there it can be viewed live or reviewed for past activity.

[Thorn]

Re: Ultra-Orwellian or just a good idea?

Ten years ago, Neal Stephenson came up with the idea of the "Global Neighborhood Watch." It's somewhat similar to this.

http://www.wired.com/wired/scenarios/global.html

[YenTheFirst]

Re: Ultra-Orwellian or just a good idea?

Another question is, who is going to be watching these streams? Do they only get watched or reviewed when there is a reported problem? Is someone at 911 just going to be randomly looking at them for giggles?

Let's look at a scenario.

You go away, your kids decide to have a party, but forget that your cameras are hooked up to 911. The party spills outside in the backyard, but still within view. Some random 911 operator sees it, and thinks that there could be underage drinking going on and dispatches the police. Should they be able to do that?

My view, if you're going to volunteer the stream, it should only be reviewable in the case of a reported incident. Maybe have the stream system tied into the dispatchers actual terminal. That when someone calls in and gives an address, when the dispatcher pulls up that address a video stream window appears as well. From there it can be viewed live or reviewed for past activity.

In that scenario, how many of today's parents would like the police to be dispatched in that case, regardless of whether they should have actually have the ability.


I prefer your idea about when video could be watched. In practice, though, questions might come up, such as:
Should those on probation be required to have this surveillance?
Would those with medical conditions, or the especially elderly, want to volunteer to be under constant watching?

[xor]

Re: Ultra-Orwellian or just a good idea?

http://www.suntimes.com/news/24-7/11...eras29.articleMyself, I do have external video surveillance, and I've had issues with neighbors almost to the point of calling the cops already. .

Those who's horse pooped where disputes must get heated

xor

[xor]

Re: Ultra-Orwellian or just a good idea?

Technically I believe there is already precedence on this. An EFF case where web camera footage of a persons face had to be blurred. They could legally show the surroundings but not the persons face. I heard this at the EFF talk or Steven Rambam's talk.

xor

[streaker69]

Re: Ultra-Orwellian or just a good idea?

Technically I believe there is already precedence on this. An EFF case where web camera footage of a persons face had to be blurred. They could legally show the surroundings but not the persons face. I heard this at the EFF talk or Steven Rambam's talk.

xor

Maybe it will come down to, that if you want to have privacy in public, you should just walk around with a piece of frosted glass over your face. Could do the same thing as electronically blurring ones features.

If you're really brave, use a fresnel lens.

[streaker69]

Re: Ultra-Orwellian or just a good idea?

In that scenario, how many of today's parents would like the police to be dispatched in that case, regardless of whether they should have actually have the ability.

I know I said kids, but that does not imply underage when you're talking as a parent. No matter how old my kids get, they'll still be my kids.

My point is, that it should not be up to a remote viewer to determine if police should be dispatched. Someone should actually need to open a call with the center, and they should not be viewing the remotes unless it's asked for.

But you can see how this could quickly be abused on both sides. Parents could potentially see this as a baby sitter service in such cases as leaving their kids at home.

People who suspect their spouses of cheating could potentially abuse the system as well.

[xor]

Re: Ultra-Orwellian or just a good idea?

Maybe it will come down to, that if you want to have privacy in public, you should just walk around with a piece of frosted glass over your face. Could do the same thing as electronically blurring ones features.

If you're really brave, use a fresnel lens.

No, I have a Burka(no disrespect to our Muslin friends) for that.

xor

[goathead]

Re: Ultra-Orwellian or just a good idea?

I was pulled over last summer for driving at 5am with my ski-mask on. It was cold and the jeep was topless and the doors were off... summer or not... cold in the early am.

I was told by the deputy that hiding my face is suspicious and that is what prompted him to take the time to stop me. He did tell me that covering myself only would bring trouble.

It appears in many places, hiding one's features begs LE attention. I wasn't wearing a hajab, burka, or Dick Cheney mask... and I don't think that my Defcon bumper sticker got their attention.

I'm not a big fan of the climate of circular logic: If you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide {... now spread em}. It is in line with the ends justifying the means.

After all, I live in Vantucky where FIRE BAD.