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

I documented every surveillance camera on my way to work in New York City

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 54 posts

Re: I documented every surveillance camera on my way to work in New York City

#11

Post by rbinv »

esotericn wrote: post #10
licebmi__at__ wrote: post #8

One thing that I always wondered is if people just ignore the cameras. Once I got called for questioning on a local retail store, since I was with enough free time and a good mood, so I just went with it. So the reason I was called was that the security guard noticed that I was looking at all security cameras which made me seem suspicious, my only answer was "well they're distracting". Anyway there was no other irreg…

In the UK there are advertisements on the public transport network that recommend reporting suspicious activity. One of them has a 'plotline' of someone who's taking a photo of a camera. "Are they checking out security" or something like that. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKU8EK5W0AA4dwH.jpg

I honestly can't tell if this is real or not. If it is: what the fuck.

Re: I documented every surveillance camera on my way to work in New York City

#12

Post by Out_of_Characte »

akie wrote: post #5
Out_of_Characte wrote: post #2

Quite ironic to post this piece of journalism on one of the worst offenders on tracking and personalised advertisements. I can see more than 20 scripts without even having anything enabled. Set your own house in order before judging the government.

> Set your own house in order before judging the government. Why?

Because its hypocritical to expect the governement to not use tools and data analytics to improve 'user experience/citizen's well being' while being guilty of the exact same behaviour.

dont wait for others to do the right thing, get your own house in order, then help the rest of the world.

Re: I documented every surveillance camera on my way to work in New York City

#13

Post by phil_folrida »

akie wrote: post #5
Out_of_Characte wrote: post #2

Quite ironic to post this piece of journalism on one of the worst offenders on tracking and personalised advertisements. I can see more than 20 scripts without even having anything enabled. Set your own house in order before judging the government.

> Set your own house in order before judging the government. Why?

You have to admit it is a bit ironic to speak about cameras surveillance on a page where ublock origin count 19 trackers.

Government or not.

Re: I documented every surveillance camera on my way to work in New York City

#14

Post by retSava »

Out_of_Characte wrote: post #12
akie wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Set your own house in order before judging the government. Why?

Because its hypocritical to expect the governement to not use tools and data analytics to improve 'user experience/citizen's well being' while being guilty of the exact same behaviour. dont wait for others to do the right thing, get your own house in order, then help the rest of the world.

While I agree with the desire to reduce tracking on that, and other, site, there is a clear difference compared to when a government does it.

For one, you could likely not avoid it if the gov did it, while you can "just" chose to not use that site.

For second, just now the post about the auctioned japanese gov disks with tax payer info on them, illustrates how such sensitive data can be lost.

And third, the risk of abuse. All it may take is an election.

So I think it's ok, although not the best, to do have a look at those in power even if the looker has a dirty house themselves. The alternative is worse.

Re: I documented every surveillance camera on my way to work in New York City

#15

Post by paganel »

rbinv wrote: post #11
esotericn wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK there are advertisements on the public transport network that recommend reporting suspicious activity. One of them has a 'plotline' of someone who's taking a photo of a camera. "Are they checking out security" or something like that. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKU8EK5W0AA4dwH.jpg

I honestly can't tell if this is real or not. If it is: what the fuck.

Looks too dystopian to not be true in this day and age.

I'm not a native English speaker though and I'm left wondering what that "Sorted" statement at the end of it all really means. "Sort" what out? Why would you need to "sort" a person who's taking photos of video-surveillance cameras? In what way are they going to "sort" those persons out?

Re: I documented every surveillance camera on my way to work in New York City

#16

Post by jrockway »

rbinv wrote: post #11
esotericn wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK there are advertisements on the public transport network that recommend reporting suspicious activity. One of them has a 'plotline' of someone who's taking a photo of a camera. "Are they checking out security" or something like that. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKU8EK5W0AA4dwH.jpg

I honestly can't tell if this is real or not. If it is: what the fuck.

It's real. People are deathly afraid of photographers. I try to remind people that they didn't crash cameras into the World Trade Center, but this argument never goes over very well.

My experience from a few years ago: https://petapixel.com/2016/08/11/dont-think-port-authority-w...

Sadly, no consequences ever came from my article. I didn't get arrested. The Port Authority didn't return our phone calls. They still put "no camera" signs all over their property.

Here's a picture of one of their "no cameras" signs being looked at by one of their cameras: https://goo.gl/maps/oMhyjBcW7LrG4jyu8 I love it.

(To be completely fair, I have to assume that the signs are directed at employees that are going inside. I do think they want to scare the general public just a little bit, because they could easily have put the sign indoors if they were only targeting employees.)

Re: I documented every surveillance camera on my way to work in New York City

#17

Post by Out_of_Characte »

superqwert wrote: post #7
Out_of_Characte wrote: post #2

Quite ironic to post this piece of journalism on one of the worst offenders on tracking and personalised advertisements. I can see more than 20 scripts without even having anything enabled. Set your own house in order before judging the government.

Government? Most of these camera owners weren't government.

Maybe I should have clarified because it seems obvious. In my country you can't point a camera at anything that isn't your property. Which means you can't point it in a way that you can see your neighbours, or on a public street. You're not being filmed or recorded at all times and if you are, you know exactly who is doing it. This is properly enforced in almost all cases exept highways, some public libraries and entrances of public/gov buildings. Tracking is still pervasive and slowly creeping up.

Re: I documented every surveillance camera on my way to work in New York City

#18

Post by mbel »

arethuza wrote: post #6
vermarish wrote: post #4

Content aside, this article is really well formatted. Going photo by photo, camera by camera puts me in the shoes of the author, and frankly gives me the same feeling I had when I first read 1984 (especially when he mentioned the sky was fittingly grey).

I'm pretty sure that in 1984 only a relatively small part of the population, the Inner Party, were constantly monitored.

Not quite, but you are close. It wasn't the whole population in 1984 that was monitored. Inner Party members were monitored, but could turn off telescreens. Outer Party members had to have them on all the time. Proles weren't monitored. The idea was to monitor middle class as it was considered to be necessary for lower class to revolt. Upper class had no reason to revolt as they were in power.

I'm leaving this comment mostly for people downvoting OP.

Re: I documented every surveillance camera on my way to work in New York City

#19

Post by rapnie »

licebmi__at__ wrote: post #8

One thing that I always wondered is if people just ignore the cameras. Once I got called for questioning on a local retail store, since I was with enough free time and a good mood, so I just went with it. So the reason I was called was that the security guard noticed that I was looking at all security cameras which made me seem suspicious, my only answer was "well they're distracting". Anyway there was no other irreg…

Some years ago I saw a documentary from a CCTV control room in Rotterdam, Netherlands monitoring busy shopping streets.

The operators deemed everyone walking aimlessly as suspicious, and would follow them from camera to camera. At one point a guy was reading from a piece of paper, and the camera zoomed in until the text was clearly readable. Creepy af.

The mentality there was, if you feel uncomfortable you probably have something to hide.

Re: I documented every surveillance camera on my way to work in New York City

#20

Post by isostatic »

One thing that really harms the utility of cameras is face coverings. Over the last 20 years the two most prolific face coverings in the UK have been attacked in society - Hoodies and Niquab/Burkas. For various reasons the UK populatino has been conditioned to see a face covering and think "Crime". The UK's equivalent of Trump has denigrate people wearing veils, the media has spent a decade attacking "hoodies" [1]

I'm sure it's a coincidence.

[0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnso... [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hoodies-lout...

Post reply on HN