I documented every surveillance camera on my way to work in New York City
businessinsider.com
businessinsider.com
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 irregularity and even the manager thought that the guard was being over zealous, but I was left wondering if other people are not uncomfortable around so many cameras. That this journalist seems surprised makes me think that maybe other people aren't even aware of them.
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.
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?
Here it is obviously used to fit into the rhythmic context to make the instructions easier to remember.
As constables they're entitled to ask who you are, and what you're up to. They can write it up and it goes into the enormous pile of puzzle pieces for intelligence analysis.
"Taking photos of cameras at major train station" + "Purchased a truck full of fertilizer" + "Attended talk by nutjob entitled 'War to save the white race'" is three completely legal things that add up to let's authorize detailed surveillance because this is a possible terrorist.
Whereas "Taking photos of cameras at major train station" + "Attended Extinction Rebellion March holding banners that said Eat The Rich" + "Wrote angry letter to local politician saying that they'd be judged in their next life for refusing permission for a new vegan bakery" is three other legal things that add up to this is probably just a hippy and we should keep paying attention but there's no immediate threat.
Others have mentioned some meanings, but you could also say something like 'yeah, she's sorted' (meaning, she's a good friend).
Or generically something like "That's sorted, that is", meaning good.
Well sorted, innit m8.
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.)
http://www.glasgowprestwick.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/S...
Trains are the best. Imagine an announcement.
If you see something that doesn't look right, SEE IT, SAY IT, SORTED.
If you see something that doesn't look right, SEE IT, SAY IT, SORTED.
If you see something that doesn't look right, SEE IT, SAY IT, SORTED.
If you see something that doesn't look right, SEE IT, SAY IT, SORTED.
If you see something that doesn't look right, SEE IT, SAY IT, SORTED.
If you see something that doesn't look right, SEE IT, SAY IT, SORTED.
If you see something that doesn't look right, SEE IT, SAY IT, SORTED.
If you see something that doesn't look right, SEE IT, SAY IT, SORTED.
If you see something that doesn't look right, SEE IT, SAY IT, SORTED.
If you see something that doesn't look right, SEE IT, SAY IT, SORTED.
If you see something that doesn't look right, SEE IT, SAY IT, SORTED.
And people say Londoners are antisocial. You're bloody forced to have your headphones on to avoid going insane.
It still gives me the chill.
I used to cycle or drive quite a lot because the public transport system is full of shit like advertising, silly announcements, etc.
Just announce relevant information like departures and stop acting like you're my Mum.
It was quite a simple process - you fill in a form, and send it along with a full length photo of yourself and a rough time, and in a few weeks they send you a passworded DVD.
They also emailed me and told me that:
"In the letter I have confirmed that the cause of the spillage was as a result of a female who had exited a train prior to yours, becoming ill and vomiting on the floor, where you fell.
This was reported via a Passenger Help Point. In fact the customer and her male colleague remained in position directing people away from the vomit initially. They left the area shortly before the arrival of your train. "
:-(
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.
Try taking a picture of police officers/cars or of a security camera. It's 100% legal but they'll act like it's not.
I have bulky medium format analog camera, a tripod and mostly do long exposure, maybe they don't like that, idk.
The answer is the test participants forget that there are cameras once they start on a task.
I guess same thing is true in our daily life, once we are focused on task at hand (grocery shopping, catching bus, or driving safe...) we would stop being aware of things which doesn't come in the way of that task.
They will be 100% aware of the cameras then, all-of-the-time.
Why?
dont wait for others to do the right thing, get your own house in order, then help the rest of the world.
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.
Government or not.
For the both the situation my camera is squarely 'pointed at' the center of my backyard.
Hypocrites who seek to make the government do better things even when they're doing similar bad things are still seeking to make the government do better things.
The morality of an act of activism does not change based on the personal failings of the person engaging in it. (It can change based on the intentions of that person—eg, if the thing they're trying to get the government to do would also make it easier for them to get away with currently-illegal/immoral acts, but that's a separate issue from mere hypocrisy.)
https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/issues/87
edit: the issue also contains a link to Where Are The Eyes, another camera registration app: https://eyes.daylightingsociety.org/
Basically, anyone with a fixed camera could participate. They'd have their video uploaded to a system that would use facial recognition on regional lawmakers to produce an incredibly creepy database of all the public activity of the targets. I would think this would be creepy enough to bring a national conversation about the topic front and center.
It's a bit of a false-flag/scorched-earth operation, but the end goal being legislation that makes such invasive surveillance illegal.
I'm leaving this comment mostly for people downvoting OP.
“We live in a special time: there are cameras everywhere, and we can see them. In the past, they were not everywhere. In the future, we will not be able to see them.”
https://www.homedepot.com/b/Electrical-Home-Security-Video-S...
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...