The tl;dr of sousveillance is that yes, there are cameras located publicly, but unlike surveillance cameras, these cameras can be accessed by the public. It's democratic surveillance that makes it very difficult for one small group to have a disproportionate amount of information on others. It would have the kind of social control and order that people would want from a well-ordered society, but without the deception and concentration of power that characterizes all governments. This would lead, IMO, to less policing and at the same time less crime, since the people would police each other.
I can see plenty of ways to abuse a system like that. The only thing worse than only allowing government employees with proper screening to access the data is to just let everyone see it.
I think the abuses that are made possible by public access are much smaller than the abuses made possible by privileged access.
They're bigger by definition; any abuse that's possible with priviliged access is still possible. You just add in more chances of abuse happening, especially since it's impossible to monitor who is watching what when you open up the stream.
Quote...since the people would police each other.
Have you met the people? I have. I sure as fuck don't want to be policed by "the people". Those people are crazy...
Fine, they're crazy individually, but it's rare for them to be able to agree on the kind of crazy they want to enforce.
I would be worried about the prosecution of doppelgangers. If someone couldn't account for every minute of their day, with witnesses, then they might be held liable for things others did.
I do like the idea of police wearing audio/video recording devices. And it would be great if private citizens could wear them and turn them on whenever they felt the need to. They might even be able to broadcast to a central receiving area, such as a private security firm. If the central receiving people noticed something off, they would contact the police and be able to describe to them what is happening. Some people might even wear cheap fake ones, just to help ward off crime.
But, just stationary cameras where people can just watch them, well the abuse of the system would probably far out weigh the good the system would do. For instance, suppose I'm a stalker, I'm not because I'm too lazy, but suppose I was. I could learn someone's schedule and figure out how to kidnap them in the best manner. If you suspected your wife of cheating on you, you could watch to see if she showed up at the Motel 6. Seeing someone wearing the same type of coat she has hanging in the closet at the moment, you go crazy with jealously, go to the Motel 6 and hit some poor slob with a baseball bat thinking it is your wife's lover. In the mean time, your wife is at home grumbling about you not being there to help her put away the groceries.
I can see the attractiveness of the system though. And it might be a good idea to install these systems in every government office in the country. But, I don't see the government allowing the people see what they do though.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"This would lead, IMO, to less policing and at the same time less crime, since the people would police each other.
People policing each other? How would that work exactly in terms of these cameras that you speak of?
I mean right now its not uncommon for people to commit crimes in plain view others while they stand by and do nothing. So if people who are standing right there just watch and do nothing, what is a human sloth sitting on his couch half way round the world watching some live camera feed on his laptop going to do to 'police' the situation?
As for cameras on the street? Meh, I don't really care either way. They're already in use and I expect them to become more wide spread as time goes on. If they want to give the public access to those feeds, so be it but it wouldn't make me feel any better or worse about the situation.
I think the experience we recently had with the Boston Marathon bombers is the best example. Many people got picked out as perpetrators and received undue attention from law enforcement, because of sites like Reddit and 4chan. You have everybody monitoring everybody and it amounts to a vigilante mindset, which is dangerous. I don't like the idea of being monitored personally, but in a public setting it serves a valuable purpose; not necessarily one open to every set of eyes, but to be used by trained operators.
Scenario. Your neighbor hates you and wishes there was a way to get you to move away. A nearby store is robbed, but no one can describe the robber. Your neighbor calls the police and tells them that he was watching the camera down the block from the store, and saw you running out of the store at the time it was robbed.
I doubt that they'll keep recordings of tens of thousands of cameras, so do we accept your neighbor's word as useful data or not?
QuoteI do like the idea of police wearing audio/video recording devices. And it would be great if private citizens could wear them and turn them on whenever they felt the need to.
Still sounds like google glass.
Quote from: "Colanth"Scenario. Your neighbor hates you and wishes there was a way to get you to move away. A nearby store is robbed, but no one can describe the robber. Your neighbor calls the police and tells them that he was watching the camera down the block from the store, and saw you running out of the store at the time it was robbed.
I doubt that they'll keep recordings of tens of thousands of cameras, so do we accept your neighbor's word as useful data or not?
The thing that's of use is the camera and not the man. So no.
Plus, all the scenarios you describe are so... improbable.
Those scenario's also sound improbable because you probaly don't deal much with dumbasses, but they make up a large part of the population. I don't consider them unlikely, I consider them the first thing that'll happen.
Although the camera images will probably be stored for a while, so this specific scenario probably won't work. But various kinds of stalking issues, people using the cameras to find people they can mug, along with a bunch of other bad scenario's make it a pretty bad idea.
Quote from: "Colanth"Scenario. Your neighbor hates you and wishes there was a way to get you to move away. A nearby store is robbed, but no one can describe the robber. Your neighbor calls the police and tells them that he was watching the camera down the block from the store, and saw you running out of the store at the time it was robbed.
I doubt that they'll keep recordings of tens of thousands of cameras, so do we accept your neighbor's word as useful data or not?
Imagine the same scenario except he says he saw you with his own eyes.
Quote from: "Colanth"I doubt that they'll keep recordings of tens of thousands of cameras, so do we accept your neighbor's word as useful data or not?
Cameras are useless unless the images are stored. So it is highly unlikely that this sort of scenario would ever be possible.
However on the off chance that it were to become reality, it would be likely that such a person would have done things in the past that would illustrate his feelings toward his neighbor. Once evidence and/or testimony of those things are presented at trial, the otherwise unsubstantiated claim would likely carry little weight with a jury.
Except with cameras, it'll be REALLY easy to prove that someone's stalking you, or to find out that someone's been stalking you. It'll also be really hard to get away with mugging somebody.
Then again, I'm of the view that crime generally isn't a big enough problem to motivate things like universal surveillance. But certainly we do need surveillance of government officials.
QuoteExcept with cameras, it'll be REALLY easy to prove that someone's stalking you, or to find out that someone's been stalking you.
How? Do you want to place a camera on everyone looking through another camera? You can follow people around through the camera system and know exactly where they go, what they do, who they talk to, everything, all from the privacy of your own home. And then you can go and bother them at your own leisure.
QuoteIt'll also be really hard to get away with mugging somebody.
Why? You can use the camera system to figure out every possible angle where you can't be seen on them. All you need is a good mugging spot and a nearby camera to spot victims coming into view of the blind spot.
People are seriously more afraid of this than a 1984 scenario?`
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteQuoteIt'll also be really hard to get away with mugging somebody.
Why? You can use the camera system to figure out every possible angle where you can't be seen on them. All you need is a good mugging spot and a nearby camera to spot victims coming into view of the blind spot.
And eventually the only proof accepted in court will be video of the crime (since it's such a "good" system), and the one-eyed man (the mugger who figures out the blind spots) will be king in the land of the blind.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"Then again, I'm of the view that crime generally isn't a big enough problem to motivate things like universal surveillance.
The UK government clearly does not share this opinion.
The level of video surveillance in urban areas there is quite staggering.
zarus tathra wrote:
QuotePeople are seriously more afraid of this than a 1984 scenario?`
I am afraid of just the government have the surveillance capability. Here in town about a month or so ago, a man was beaten to death by some police. The police went to a house where they noticed they were being videotaped and demanded the video as evidence. Not wanting to be beat to death as well, the people gave over the tapes. The people complained about it, which is how it got into the news, but to the best of my knowledge, the last thing done was to bury the man. Which is exactly what will happen every time if the government is the only legal entity allowed to videotape in public. Which is pretty much a 1984 scenario.
Which is why we should push for legal clarification of allowing the citizen to videotape the agents of the state. It is my understanding, that videotaping police in New York City marks you as a terrorist, and you can be treated accordingly. Unless you have special permission (License) from the city to videotape. Which is bullshit and unconstitutional. But, in our current police state, completely understandable. Remember! War is Peace. Peace is War.
It kind of already exist, if you know where to look. There are thousands of unsecure webcams, including serveillance cams, around the world. A simple Google search with the right terms can lead you to them.
A nice list of terms to use:
http://watchthiscam.com/blog/2011/08/19 ... -find-the/ (http://watchthiscam.com/blog/2011/08/19/how-to-find-random-webcams-using-inurl-to-find-the/)
Stuff I found:
A Hanger (//http://134.29.208.43/view/index.shtml)
Some kind of building, you can control the camera on this one. (//http://198.82.159.136/view/index.shtml)
Some university's computer lab (//http://cyclops.sunderland.ac.uk/view/index.shtml)
Found those three in a matter of minutes by searching inurl:"view/index.shtml" on Google.
Anyone can look at these cameras, anyone.
I'm wary of mass surveillance, but I've realized that with technology it's not going away any time soon. As long it's around I don't want the government having a monopoly on surveillance, so I guess in a way I agree with sousveillance.
Edit: Some more!
The trees are the only thing protecting you at this pool (//http://200.79.225.81:8080/view/index.shtml)
A store (//http://76.10.86.11/axis-cgi/mjpg/video.swf?resolution=4CIF&camera=3)
Looks like someone's backyard or something (//http://iozoonc5.city.miyazaki.miyazaki.jp/CgiStart?page=Single&Mode=Motion&Resolution=640x480)
Man the video is choppy as hell. We really need to light up all that dark fiber, stat.