Talking cameras

[hypertilly]

Two days ago, I heard on the news that there is to be a new role for some of the many cctv cameras we have in England.

Apparently if someone is seen dropping litter for example the camera will tell them not to do this.

Does anyone have any views on this?

[Gypsy Cake]

1) How does the camera tell them? Does a computer voice call out after them.

 

2) If their disgusting enough to drop litter then I'm sure they'll just ignore a camera....unless sirens and stuff go off...that'll just embaress them.

[hypertilly]

1) How does the camera tell them? Does a computer voice call out after them.

 

2) If their disgusting enough to drop litter then I'm sure they'll just ignore a camera....unless sirens and stuff go off...that'll just embaress them.

 

 

Not really sure. Maybe the camera is fitted with a voice sensor or in the central hub an actual human being does this chore. Big brother.

 

Aside from the actual act itself, what interested me was that would a person take this seriously, its a bit like candid camera and then I thought about how technology and authority is becomming more ominous.

[Pangloss]

John Spartan, you are fined five credits for repeated violations of the verbal morality statute.

[Klaynos]

I saw a news article on this.

 

It's a human controller that speaks.

 

And in trials people nearly always do what they're told...

 

This doesn't mean I like the idea...

[hypertilly]

Its intriguing. As ominous as it is quaint.

Would the voice work on more severe acts?

If a load of drunken yobs were fighting, would they suddenly stop and go about their business?

[Gypsy Cake]

Yes they would suddenly stop. To throw stuff at the camera.

[Gypsy Cake]

I don't think technology is at all ominous, well I can't think of any situations at the moment. Though it does have the potential and we must maintain some human aspect in important things merely for peace of mind.

 

If hooligans do actually take notice of this device then perhaps it is a good idea...I don't see how too much harm can come from it.

[Sisyphus]

It's a funny idea, but I find it hard to believe it would be effective. Obviously, I defer to practical studies.

 

I know this seems Big Brotherish, but I don't really find it that scary. It's just like having more policemen. It's not the number of eyes that takes away liberty, it's what they're watching for. In other words, don't worry about law enforcement, worry about the laws they're enforcing. Like "verbal morality statutes."

[hypertilly]

One of the Boroughs that this will be used in, is the borough which I live in.

I'm really tempted to pick a fight (with a friend) underneath one, to find out what the voice says.

[GutZ]

John Spartan, you are fined five credits for repeated violations of the verbal morality statute.

 

YOU ARE THE MAN!!!

"What you guys don't have sarcasm anymore?".

Sorry, awesome movie.

 

OT

 

It would be interesting as hell to how that develops. I'd be all for it here.

[Haezed]

This kind of technology is the least of my concerns. My concern is what we do after a dirty bomb or worse takes out a chunk of London or NYC. In a fifty year time frame, I can easily see a "minority report" future (the tech, not the ability to see the future), where we have imbedded chips as national ID cards and programs routinely monitor all movements for suspicious activity.

 

I don't fear getting to this dire point via a slippery slope. I think it will come in a rush. I watched the history channel show the other night on the Plague and how institutions and retraints crumbled in the face of the planic. While I don't imagine ever losing 33-50% of the population, it will only take a couple of spectacular super-9/11s to get to this point.

 

If the masses have a genuine fear of mass death, most citizens will take the "I have nothing to hide" approach to this kind of technology. They'd want it to turn off in their homes but they would see the public places as fair game to monitor.

[ParanoiA]

If the masses have a genuine fear of mass death, most citizens will take the "I have nothing to hide" approach to this kind of technology. They'd want it to turn off in their homes but they would see the public places as fair game to monitor.

 

I'm already there. I was there before 9/11. Only makes sense to me. Why have laws if you're not willing to enforce them? Cameras don't invade my privacy, as I have no privacy in public. Anything outside of your private space - your home, property - can be littered with cameras and chips as far as I'm concerned.

 

I'm only concerned with the laws that drive them. When I can be detained, indefinitely, under the suspicion of "terrorism", then I have a problem. I have no issues watching my behavior and questioning me if I'm acting oddly. No harm, no foul. When I can be detained solely due to odd behavior, then I have a problem.

[Sisyphus]

I'm already there. I was there before 9/11. Only makes sense to me. Why have laws if you're not willing to enforce them? Cameras don't invade my privacy, as I have no privacy in public. Anything outside of your private space - your home, property - can be littered with cameras and chips as far as I'm concerned.

 

I'm only concerned with the laws that drive them. When I can be detained, indefinitely, under the suspicion of "terrorism", then I have a problem. I have no issues watching my behavior and questioning me if I'm acting oddly. No harm, no foul. When I can be detained solely due to odd behavior, then I have a problem.

 

That's exactly my position, as well. I don't really have anything to add, it's just that I don't get to say that very often.

[Haezed]

I'm already there. I was there before 9/11. Only makes sense to me. Why have laws if you're not willing to enforce them? Cameras don't invade my privacy, as I have no privacy in public. Anything outside of your private space - your home, property - can be littered with cameras and chips as far as I'm concerned.

 

I'm only concerned with the laws that drive them. When I can be detained, indefinitely, under the suspicion of "terrorism", then I have a problem. I have no issues watching my behavior and questioning me if I'm acting oddly. No harm, no foul. When I can be detained solely due to odd behavior, then I have a problem.

 

Independent of the substantive and procedural laws, the notion of people as data points to be analyzed by exponentionally increasing computing power (if Moore's law keeps chugging away), is a very scary thought. I'm not wild about the notion of an imbedded chip that tracks when I leave my house and where I go and then sends a police car to pick me up if I spend too much time at the pub.

[Saryctos]

Independent of the substantive and procedural laws, the notion of people as data points to be analyzed by exponentionally increasing computing power (if Moore's law keeps chugging away), is a very scary thought. I'm not wild about the notion of an imbedded chip that tracks when I leave my house and where I go and then sends a police car to pick me up if I spend too much time at the pub.

 

That's exactly the poitn he made. The survailance* tech will exist where you will have to deal with the fact that you can be monitored 24/7. It's what is done to protect this informaiton, and what is done with it that is important. I think once people are being monitored 24/7(looong way off) you'll see a lapse in the restrictiveness of laws. Knowing what someone is doing all the time makes it easier to justify what they've done. You won't need witnesses, big brother can take the heat.

[ParanoiA]

I'm not wild about the notion of an imbedded chip that tracks when I leave my house and where I go and then sends a police car to pick me up if I spend too much time at the pub.

 

yeah me neither. To me that falls under the laws that drive them. That's not a law now, so why would it suddenly become a law when we get all techy with cameras?

 

If you're saying that with this technology, the human psyche and the politics that follow will be more oppressive and invasive, I'd like to see the connection.

 

Knowing what someone is doing all the time makes it easier to justify what they've done. You won't need witnesses, big brother can take the heat.

 

You know, I hadn't thought of that. Good point. Might be nice to have all of that tracking going on when you have no alibi yourself.

 

I will, however, entertain Haezed's hesitation in that I worry about faulty technology as well. Fact is, computers can do funny things sometimes - things we told them to do - and we can't figure out why. I could easily see a computer gliche causing false imprisonment and so forth, and no one considering it plausible since "computers don't make mistakes". Arrogant computer techs could perpetuate that as well.

[Sisyphus]

No system is foolproof, of course, and computers DO make mistakes. They just make fewer mistakes than people. And they can't be corrupt...

[Haezed]

That's exactly the poitn he made.

 

No, his point was:

 

I'm only concerned with the laws that drive them. When I can be detained, indefinitely, under the suspicion of "terrorism", then I have a problem. I have no issues watching my behavior and questioning me if I'm acting oddly

 

The survailance* tech will exist where you will have to deal with the fact that you can be monitored 24/7. It's what is done to protect this informaiton, and what is done with it that is important.

 

The first question is whether we are going to allow 24/7 "public" monitoring. THe second question is what this will mean exactly, e.g. what is "public" and what data is going to be gathered, e.g. heart rate, bio data, in addition to location?

 

The third question is what will be done with the information. The final question will be what is done to safeguard the information.

 

All of these are important questions and I'm not ready to leap past #1 and #2.

 

I think once people are being monitored 24/7(looong way off) you'll see a lapse in the restrictiveness of laws. Knowing what someone is doing all the time makes it easier to justify what they've done. You won't need witnesses, big brother can take the heat.

 

How far off would it be from a tech POV to put a GPS device on everyone and have a computer program monitor locations and look for patterns? I don't see why that presents a huge technical problem given that the NSA can already shift through massive amounts of financial and other data and companies like Axiom. As far back as 1999, Axiom "has a database combining public and consumer information that covers 95% of American households."

[Haezed]

yeah me neither. To me that falls under the laws that drive them. That's not a law now, so why would it suddenly become a law when we get all techy with cameras?

 

I wasn't saying we shouldn't use the cameras or that their was an inevitable slippery slope in play. At least in America, it's going to take a massive 9/11 type blow or worse to get acceptance of genuinely invasive monitoring.

 

If you're saying that with this technology, the human psyche and the politics that follow will be more oppressive and invasive, I'd like to see the connection.

 

No, not with the cameras. That was never my point.

 

I will, however, entertain Haezed's hesitation in that I worry about faulty technology as well. Fact is, computers can do funny things sometimes - things we told them to do - and we can't figure out why. I could easily see a computer gliche causing false imprisonment and so forth, and no one considering it plausible since "computers don't make mistakes". Arrogant computer techs could perpetuate that as well.

 

The technology gives me the willies but I would like to have it available when my daughter becomes a teenager.

[Saryctos]

How far off would it be from a tech POV to put a GPS device on everyone and have a computer program monitor locations and look for patterns? I don't see why that presents a huge technical problem given that the NSA can already shift through massive amounts of financial and other data and companies like Axiom.

 

Fisrt, sorry about the blanket misrepresentation* of what you were meaning towards Paranoia's comments(I guess I misread you).

 

Secondly, in reply to the quote; Technology wise it is already here, infact it's my field of work(data fusion). The far off comment was one of law making and politics.

 

I would imagine that the same kinds of restrictions on information would still apply. Like say, needing a warrant before investigating someone. The information is there, but the courts won't let you look at it, for legal reasons. How long would that kind of restriction hold? If there was a murder with no suspects, would you be allowed to scan through the data on everyone looking for the murderer, or would that be an invasion of everyone else's privacy? What if you found a new murder that hadn't been discovered yet in the data while looking for another case? Would you be allowed to use that data in court to convict said 'new murder'? Or would he go scott free because all the data required to convict him had to been thrown out due to accessing it without a warrent?

These sorts of questions aren't old, however most legislation is. The stigmas towards new technology of the older generations, I think, are holding back real questions that could use some looking into before the relavent* technology arrives on the scene(tech is here, just not implemented due to legal restrictions). An example would be of one of these servailance networks in a city. The supreme court won't hear hypothetical cases, so you'd have to get the thing approved, funded, and built before they'd be able to that you can't build one due to privacy violations and then tear down the whole expensive thing.