Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

massprivatei.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 292 posts

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#101

Post by drawnwren »

HashThis wrote: post #98
panic wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sort of defeatism isn't helpful. Surveillance technology doesn't sprout up from nothingness; it's built on a culture and a political/economic environment which can be changed.

US Congress doesn't represent US citizens. 84% of the time, the congress person that wins in that district raised the most money. Corporations and the wealthy provide that money to get congress people who represent THEM, not US citizens. US Congress doesn't represent US citizens. So nothing changes if moneyed interests want US citizens to live under surveillance.

Your logic doesn't leave room for the possibility that there is a correlation between electability and ability to raise funds. I.e. the candidate most likely to win raises more funds and not vice versa.

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#102

Post by lamarpye »

unstatusthequo wrote: post #34
shittyadmin wrote: post #33

Maybe this will be viewed as too anti-social, but has anyone considered doing laser based attacks on these? Lasers seem to be able to damage camera sensors fairly easily and permanently and as they operate in the visible light range should be hard to block. Could make a system like this prohibitively expensive to operate.

Until they arrest and fine you for damaging government property... The way to fight this is with votes or in courts, which may not be effective in short term but doesn’t land you in jail.

Jussie Smollett would be an excellent spokesman for this issue. A cautionary tale about Government overreach.

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#103

Post by _underfl0w_ »

mark212 wrote: post #85
lysium wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has an impact on your behavior in public no matter if the camera is on or off, because you cannot be sure.

Not to sound moralistic but if yiu wouldn’t do it while being recorded, why would you do it in public at all?

I like having the ability to speak openly about my feelings towards the government without being put on a watchlist regardless of where I am.

The government != moral authority.

It's very possible to do things the government wouldn't like without doing something that would be considered "amoral".

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#104

Post by _underfl0w_ »

blackflame7000 wrote: post #26
decebalus1 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I call bullshit. Pneumatic road tubes have been around for a while to gather data about traffic flows.

Cameras can be at every intersection all the time and can adapt in real-time to emerging traffic patterns (ie a ballgame ending and a stadium of people hitting the road at once) as well as traffic changes over time from environmental changes

...which would required correlating what they're seeing with outside data. That's not something /inherent/ to the device.

If you're going to correlate datasets, you could just as easily do it with your sports/weather data and pneumatic tube data.

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#105

Post by lvs »

pugworthy wrote: post #36
unstatusthequo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until they arrest and fine you for damaging government property... The way to fight this is with votes or in courts, which may not be effective in short term but doesn’t land you in jail.

Neither votes nor courts enabled this - governments just did it, and will just do things like this without asking (nor sometimes checking). The challenge in a way is how can we ever vote for or fight against (in court) things we don't even know exist sometimes?

Courts and legislatures could stop it or regulate its use. The heart of the legal question is what aspects of domestic surveillance might be seen to violate 4th amendment protections. Thus far, "the right of people to be secure in their persons" has not been interpreted by courts in a manner that would constrain or limit surveillance in public places or the use of catch-all checkpoints. That could change with the right test cases, particularly if harms can be established.

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#106

Post by blackflame7000 »

mindslight wrote: post #45
shittyadmin wrote: post #33

Maybe this will be viewed as too anti-social, but has anyone considered doing laser based attacks on these? Lasers seem to be able to damage camera sensors fairly easily and permanently and as they operate in the visible light range should be hard to block. Could make a system like this prohibitively expensive to operate.

This could work great mounted to a drone, to operate without being tracked by the remaining surveillance cameras. The problem is that the stakes are quite high, and a gradually creeping occupation doesn't lend itself to a flashpoint of popular opinion saying enough is enough. This might be a great nonmurder application for an assassination-market style thing though.

Soon it will be surveillance drones chased by anti-surveillance drones..chased by anti-anti-surveillance drones..etc

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#107

Post by _underfl0w_ »

blackflame7000 wrote: post #16

I live in San Diego and frankly, I hate the new lights because they simply aren't as bright and there are fewer of them. I can't run outside after work during the winter because the streets are dark now.

Good news: Even though it would now be easier to mug you in the dark, it'll be recorded in camera with that assailant's face analyzed in realtime.

...assuming no ski mask.

/s

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#108

Post by bilbo0s »

pugworthy wrote: post #36
unstatusthequo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until they arrest and fine you for damaging government property... The way to fight this is with votes or in courts, which may not be effective in short term but doesn’t land you in jail.

Neither votes nor courts enabled this - governments just did it, and will just do things like this without asking (nor sometimes checking). The challenge in a way is how can we ever vote for or fight against (in court) things we don't even know exist sometimes?

To be fair, the people of San Diego voted their government in. So in my view, they got what they deserved.

I'm not sitting on a high horse or anything. I mean hey, I'm from Wisconsin. We're literally the nation's corruption measuring stick. But we voted our politicians in, so we deserve what's happening to us.

I'm just holding San Diego to the same standard. If you hadn't voted them in, this wouldn't be happening to you. Best advice I can give you? Vote in some new guys who will pass new measures to get rid of the cameras.

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#109

Post by chiefalchemist »

rhokstar wrote: post #10

Since the introduction of cameras used at intersections to penalize stop light violators (made famous by a former mayor who ran a red light while getting a blow job from his mistress), San Diego has always been experimenting with surveillance technology especially thereafter. Those intersection cameras have been minimized from county wide implementation at its height. Being a border city and a major military hub for…

> "Those intersection cameras..."

Fun fact: Intersection cameras have been proven to cause more accidents, as more people slam on their brakes to avoid a ticket then coast through the light.

Re: San Diego Implemented City-Wide Streetlight Surveillance

#110

Post by nosuchthing »

50656E6973 wrote: post #90
nosuchthing wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you're not interested or motivated in changing something, doesn't mean it can't be changed. City and state level political change is very malleable.

Federal power trumps state and local

Marijuana legalization is proof of the contrary
Post reply on HN