Sousveillance
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Video ends when police officer asks me to stop filming because of a rule about not filming in meat wagons that he just invented, and I agree. Later outside of the meat wagon he told me to delete a video. I asked him if I understood correctly that my recording was illegal action and he wanted me to destroy an evidence of that illegal action. Immediately four other policemen lifted me up and carried in their hands to the police station, put me in separate room, confiscated my phone and documents, and then he punched me in the kidneys.
That room apparently was the only one in a police station without surveillance cameras.
I spend the rest of the day in a special unventilated cage covered with lists of acrylic glass together with a guy who later was carried away by an ambulance because there was not enough air for two people in the cage.
Police hard reset my phone but probably because they were idiots and I use Windows Phone a microSD card with all my video was left intact.
I was fined by 1000₽ by Russian court which watched the video I recorded and found not enough evidence of me being innocent on the base of the reports written by completely different police officers instead of these I filmed detaining me. The court refused to call witnesses. The same happened during appellation.
But why is it creepy?...because I don't know what he'll do with that video and it just establishes a weird dynamic to the situation.
But then why am I okay with a camera in the ceiling?
I suppose the alternative would be actual eyes, say if a convenience store had the budget for that, an equivalent to their ceiling-cams would be a security guys watching you and everyone else as they shop.
My favorite so far on that list "surbooker"--"to overbook"
The “sous” prefix is the logical opposite, usually translating to “below” or “under” or “beneath”, though it can be used to mean “within”.
So I'm pretty sure there is a pun intended here.
About "surbooker", funny thing is that "booker" is literally the english verb converted to french verb (hence the -er suffix). Even if it is well used in modern french, it still is an anglicism.
French, in particular, is full of nuances like this.
Just want something that takes picture every 20 min's or so. So that i can review/analyze some of my daily behaviors in hindsight.
Similarly, would it be possible to reduce the fidelity or persistence of the recording device to the point where it wouldn't violate any ethical or social conventions? Some sort of "bad camera" that deliberately produces abstract representations of what is photographed or downsamples in such a way that forging the images becomes so easy that nobody would accept this sort of evidence in a court of law or even in more casual circumstances?
The overlap between the “people” who don’t like Google to record their lives and the “people” who don’t care if the police do it is quite small...
But in any case the police in a democracy are at least nominally accountable to the populace, and can be checked via elections and other mechanisms. The mission of police is ostensibly for public benefit and includes criminal investigation, which surveillance could arguably help with. Google is a multinational corporation accountable primarily to itself which wants the data to help with its advertising business.
Look how long it took for bodycams on police to be used and even then, they get conveniently broken, battery dies, or just blatently turned off.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? and all that.
It is for my own consumption. So while I don't think it is unethical I am sure that some people will react negatively. Which is why is has to be discrete, also I don't want to think about the camera at all, that would negate it's purpose.
Its purpose is to give me objective information about my own life. Something that my brain can't serve me, it only gives subjective info.
There is also a diffrerance between video and audio and a snapshot every 20 minutes.
There could be other issues to mention such as someone being topless behind a fence is expecting a certain amount of privacy, even if it's easy for you to see because you are on the second floor nearby, and things like that.
There are other sensitive areas that are posted prohibited as well.
Some of these things have not been to court in various areas or circumstances to really see how "right to photograph" applies in various places / different people.
Certainly one might expect that people on public payroll in a public place should expect certain transparency in actions, however upskirt filming marilyn manson in line at a burger king may lend to some issues (civil and criminal in some juristictions).
I think some also have 'rights to their likeness" in various ways and copyright issues as well. Paparazzi may have lawyers who are willing to make it expensive to debate some issues, however filming a phish concert or other performance from a hill and sharing the video on social media is likely to raise a different team of lawyers who would be happy to have such a debate in courts.
So, there may be certain established freedoms to record many things in the US in many places, with some case law to back it up, I don't think it's good advice to say "you can record anything you want in public" and have people not be aware of a multitude of issues that could arise.
I believe private property owners can even sue if you use their barn in a photo in some cases.
However I must admit it's been more than a decade since I really looked into these things, and have only skimmed some articles relating to this issue in the past few years, mostly to do with filming public employees, so definitely not legal advice or anything, etc.
If you are in public, you have no right to privacy.
Relatedly, in Austria there was a court case several years ago where somebody sued a photographer for taking his picture in public, arguing that it was making fun of his character (Belustigung) and to everyone's surprise, he won the case.
do you realize that your statement also implies it's "rude" and "unethical" to take a photo in a public place if there's anyone in the frame you didn't ask permission of?
Modern society has very much accepted that recording people unobtrusively without their consent is 100% ok. Not only does no-one refuse to go into an establishment that may record them without their consent, no-one gets upset when you take a selfie in public and capture the people behind you, or when you take a picture in a public park (or whatever) with many people in it.
The problem, and I speak from experience here, is when you actually make people actively aware of the fact that a person they know is taking pictures that include them when they're not paying attention to the camera.
Most people do not care that faceless entities are taking their photos and video of them without their consent. If they did, they wouldn't keep allowing their legislators to pass laws allowing this practice.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130913190505/http://www.wired....
I wonder what every happened to his Sousveillance project? His map still updates, but I haven't seen any of his other post feeds updated in awhile.
Was what I immediately thought of and it was conveniently also referenced in the linked Wikipedia article.
The case got thrown out[2], because the prosecution couldn't provide enough evidence that the shutters off had done any damage, which sets the stage for a second attempt...
1: https://www.wired.com/story/monkeywrenching-vandals-are-rein...
2: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/09/climate-...
They often do this kind of operations. See there recent operation about Apple not paying taxes : https://www.macg.co/aapl/2018/11/attac-redecore-lapple-store...
Attac means: Association pour la taxation des transactions financières et pour l'action citoyenne (Association for the taxation of financial transaction and for citizen/civil action)
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=jon+palais+&atb=v119-3__&iar=video...
His thinkerview video is worth watching (for french speakers)
The biggest bang for the buck for benefit to the common man would be through the inversion of "Trusted Execution" or DRM technologies to enforce privacy policies on corporations and large organizations on behalf of the public. It will never happen, because the general public, and especially the tech portion of it, are emotionally conditioned against such technology. However, there are many mechanisms like this, which show this kind of asymmetry with regards to centralized power.
Some corporations have already taken a step in this direction, by giving up access to encryption keys and the ability to read their user's data. It would just be one step further for a corporation to cede control of privacy policy implementation on behalf of its customers by running code implementing those policies on trusted execution engines. This way, users will be able to revoke access to their data from corporations and large organizations.
The public will never go for this, however, because they're already conditioned against such technologies from its application by large organizations against the interests of individuals.
Distribution of media power also seems like a mixed bag, especially if media consumers have poor media literacy. Social media (and the internet more generally) in the past few years gave pretty well any publisher the same direct-to-consumer distribution channel, and the result was many readers believing in nonsensical conspiracy theories because they couldn’t distinguish them from reputable news.
Concentration in the wrong hands is the problem.
distribution of small arms to local gangs, paramilitary mercenaries
The local gangs and paramilitaries in those situations represent local concentrations of power, not disbursement. Local warlords rule because they are armed in particular. If they didn't have an advantage over the general populace, they wouldn't be ruling it.
Distribution of media power also seems like a mixed bag, especially if media consumers have poor media literacy.
There were periods of time in the US when there were tons of hyper partisan local newspapers. History itself is a mixed bag. However, things often work out, if you give power to the public.
This claim does not seem well supported by evidence.
We can look at otherwise largely comparable places where either small arms are largely limited to police/military or where small arms are broadly distributed, and violence is generally much higher in the latter.
Giving everybody in an economically precarious place a gun increases violence, strengthens the influence and size of local gangs, amplifies ethnic tensions, etc.
Much of the violence in developing countries is worsened by US and European arms producers/merchants distributing weapons. In the past it was deliberate US policy to distribute weapons broadly in particular countries with the goal of destabilizing them via widespread violence.
There is plenty of evidence that all else equal, gun control leads to reduced violence. See e.g. https://academic.oup.com/epirev/article/38/1/140/2754868
Unfortunately in the USA a powerful arms industry resists efforts to systematically study the effects of gun policy, much less implement effective gun control, using comparable techniques to the tobacco industry of a few decades ago. The result is uniquely and shockingly high levels of gun violence compared to the rest of the industrialized world.
* * *
> There were periods of time in the US when there were tons of hyper partisan local newspapers
Yes and the propaganda was highly effective politically, leading to terrible policy outcomes.
The same can be true for highly centralized news media. That's one of the points made in Manufacturing Consent.
Arguably every smartphone in the world participates unwittingly in a global sousveillance network, they don't even have lens covers or camera-active lights, while running heaps of privileged software beyond control of the owners.
Every time I find myself in a cafe, restaurant, or other populated public space it can be rather disturbing to count the number of networked cameras and microphones within my line of sight at any given moment thanks to this development.
Do you have any links to the ads?
I know TFL are working hard to combat up-skirting and cyber-flashing.
- A GoPro Hero5 Session - which is a ~2 inch cube that shoots 4K: which I use for running, bicycling for transportation, and as a dash cam. The stabilization features works decently. ~$150.
- An iON SnapCam - https://www.amazon.com/iON-Camera-SnapCam-Wearable-Bluetooth...
If you can find a good way of attaching this to yourself, it's not too bad. Fairly* low profile - about 2 inches by half inch. It can be purchased for ~$25.
Some things I am working to overcome is really on the "cloud" and "streaming" sides, as I feel it defeats the purpose to stream or upload to policed platforms like YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitch, etc.
http://digitalurbanliving.projects.cavi.au.dk/www.digitalurb...
> Inverse surveillance is a subset of sousveillance with a particular emphasis on the "watchful vigilance from underneath...
without intent seems like it should just be called "watching" or "recording". also does it stop being called "Sousveillance" if done on a plane? or hiking above a certain altitude?
we are very interested in pulling data from "accidental" surveillance.
or if it's done with a drone it's almost terrorism as many politicians would like you to believe. The concept of sousveilance can never be implemented in any meaningful democratic way on a day to day life because individuals are always subordinate to the state.
Stay away from my cooking times and trade secrets China! These ribs are fall off the bone tender!