ARGUS... a video surveillance platform

[BridgeTroll]

Here is how I would envision this technology to be used for law enforcement...

Scenario... The ARGUS orbits above a city recording all the activities within and paying no particular attention to any one thing or person.  A crime is committed (bank robbery, assault, purse snatch, rape, etc).  Law enforcement gets a warrant... zooms in on the time and location of the crime and watches the comings and goings both pre and post crime.  They could follow the criminals activities before the crime, during the crime, and after the crime.

In other active threads we are discussing the role of technology, the replacement of human labor with technology, and the advancement of arms with regards to the right to bear them.  This technology... like many others... is simply a tool.  It is up to us to decide how it is to be used...

While the technology would indeed be useful in the way that you describe, what is lost does not justify what is gained.  And regardless of the technology being deployed there is a prohibition against unwarranted search, unwarranted surveillance and a deep legal principle of privacy.  I really do think this is apples and oranges.

If used as described above... what is lost?

The Fundamental Right To Privacy.

For whatever purpose and to whatever ends you might wish.

Imagine if this technology had been deployed when homosexual sex still carried a death penalty?

Or when mixed race marriage was a jailable offense.

Or at the height of Nancy Reagan's War on Pot?

The mind fairly boggles at what 'reasonable' use of this technology would have been justified in those circumstances.

So you are afraid of the government curtailing a basic constitutional right?  You dont seem to have much issue with government curtailing the rights of law abiding gun owners...

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I agree with you up until the 'getting the warrant' part. 

Public view is public view, IMO.

Using it as a method of compromise.  Think of it this way... in order to get a search warrent... probable cause is needed.  Regardless of whether the police wish to search a house or car etc.  The same could be said for this technology.  The recording holds the evidence... no one even knows it is there... until the police have probable cause a crime was committed.  they would need a time... a place... a suspect, etc to access the recorded data.

I think this is where our view differs.  Probable cause to view a recording of a city sidewalk?  I don't see it.  I do see a need however that it (a warrant) would be required for recordings taken on private property ie:  rooftops with no public access, backyards with privacy fences or generally anywhere that reasonable privacy would be expected.  I don't think anyone should expect privacy, reasonable or not, when sitting in a public space.

[BridgeTroll]

Here is how I would envision this technology to be used for law enforcement...

Scenario... The ARGUS orbits above a city recording all the activities within and paying no particular attention to any one thing or person.  A crime is committed (bank robbery, assault, purse snatch, rape, etc).  Law enforcement gets a warrant... zooms in on the time and location of the crime and watches the comings and goings both pre and post crime.  They could follow the criminals activities before the crime, during the crime, and after the crime.

In other active threads we are discussing the role of technology, the replacement of human labor with technology, and the advancement of arms with regards to the right to bear them.  This technology... like many others... is simply a tool.  It is up to us to decide how it is to be used...

While the technology would indeed be useful in the way that you describe, what is lost does not justify what is gained.  And regardless of the technology being deployed there is a prohibition against unwarranted search, unwarranted surveillance and a deep legal principle of privacy.  I really do think this is apples and oranges.

If used as described above... what is lost?

The Fundamental Right To Privacy.

For whatever purpose and to whatever ends you might wish.

Imagine if this technology had been deployed when homosexual sex still carried a death penalty?

Or when mixed race marriage was a jailable offense.

Or at the height of Nancy Reagan's War on Pot?

The mind fairly boggles at what 'reasonable' use of this technology would have been justified in those circumstances.

So you are afraid of the government curtailing a basic constitutional right?  You dont seem to have much issue with government curtailing the rights of law abiding gun owners...

straw man.  I have no problem restricting the trading preferences of gun manufacturers.  I certainly don't think that either the God given or Constitutional rights of law abiding gun owners should be curtailed whatsoever.

What a curious claim to make anyways.

No straw man at all.  The government is certainly working to limit those rights... especially with regards to privacy when talking about gun ownership.  Register?  background check?  Sounds like a privacy slippery slope to me...

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Well actually you would be breaking Florida's rather stiff stalking laws, and most of your footage would not be usable under the circumstances you describe for the purposes of court testimony.

In no way would I approach, harass or otherwise engage you.  Stalking is off the books.

But aside from that, you are an individual and the two of us are pretty evenly matched as people.  I can take countermeasures against your surveillance, for example.  I can choose to meet where you are  not allowed to follow, I can do all kinds of things to counter act your  actions.

How does this differ from the eye in the sky?  You are completely entitled to your privacy when it's expected, ie:  where I can't follow.

You have to sleep, you have to eat, you have to use the bathroom.  I assume you occasionally have to have sex and will also need medical attention from time to time.

This is based on the assumption that I'm acting alone. 

You have limitations.  And you also have a time limit.  You can (and will eventually) die.  Your purposes will die with you.

A government does not share your limitations, and we are not evenly matched.  I do not possess the ability to fight back physically at the government.  Nor do I really have the legal ability to do so.

Im surprised that you do not see the differences.

I can clearly see the differences, but it seems you're missing my point.  That, if they wanted, the government could take the same steps using actual manpower.   They can follow, they can take notes (we'll forgo the use of recording instruments as I'm not sure of the actual legality) and they can report.   It is no different than using the camera, except, as BT pointed out, it is using new technology to replace humans.

I guess we can parse this 7 ways to Sunday, but my opinion won't change, and I don't believe yours will either.   I don't find ARGUS intrusive in it's current form.  You feel it's a violation of privacy.  I feel that, currently, it's limitations allow me the privacy that I would normally expect in the scenarios presented. 

IMO, No harm, no foul.

[BridgeTroll]

Well actually you would be breaking Florida's rather stiff stalking laws, and most of your footage would not be usable under the circumstances you describe for the purposes of court testimony.

In no way would I approach, harass or otherwise engage you.  Stalking is off the books.

But aside from that, you are an individual and the two of us are pretty evenly matched as people.  I can take countermeasures against your surveillance, for example.  I can choose to meet where you are  not allowed to follow, I can do all kinds of things to counter act your  actions.

How does this differ from the eye in the sky?  You are completely entitled to your privacy when it's expected, ie:  where I can't follow.

You have to sleep, you have to eat, you have to use the bathroom.  I assume you occasionally have to have sex and will also need medical attention from time to time.

This is based on the assumption that I'm acting alone. 

You have limitations.  And you also have a time limit.  You can (and will eventually) die.  Your purposes will die with you.

A government does not share your limitations, and we are not evenly matched.  I do not possess the ability to fight back physically at the government.  Nor do I really have the legal ability to do so.

Im surprised that you do not see the differences.

I can clearly see the differences, but it seems you're missing my point.  That, if they wanted, the government could take the same steps using actual manpower.   They can follow, they can take notes (we'll forgo the use of recording instruments as I'm not sure of the actual legality) and they can report.   It is no different than using the camera, except, as BT pointed out, it is using new technology to replace humans.

I guess we can parse this 7 ways to Sunday, but my opinion won't change, and I don't believe yours will either.   I don't find ARGUS intrusive in it's current form.  You feel it's a violation of privacy.  I feel that, currently, it's limitations allow me the privacy that I would normally expect in the scenarios presented. 

IMO, No harm, no foul.

In my scenario... I am actually adding a level of personal security by requiring a search warrant to access the data.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

In my scenario... I am actually adding a level of personal security by requiring a search warrant to access the data.

I get that. 

I wasn't suggesting or insinuating that it should be open-source technology with full public access, only accessible to LEO, military, etc....  That doesn't prevent it from being mis-used, but limited access, I thought, would be a given. 

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

1.  It doesnt matter if you engage me under the stalking laws, you are still breaking the law.  and the prohibitions in court use would still apply.

2. I can go many public places that you cannot go.  And you are limited by your own ability to keep up with me.  Unlike the 'eye in the sky' you cannot see all places simultaneously.

3.  If you arent acting alone, then your entire premise falls apart then, doesnt it, and there really isnt much point pretending that the comparison is valid anymore if you are having to change the underlying conditions.

4.  Once again, most of the activities you describe simply would not be admissable in a court of law, and I as an individual can take note of every single person of the government's agents and time my actions appropriately.

On these grounds, Im afraid that you didn't really advance your argument at all, so back to square one.

Perhaps you can formulate some other set of examples.

In conclusion,

I can clearly see the differences, but it seems you're missing my point.  That, if they wanted, the government could take the same steps using actual manpower.   They can follow, they can take notes (we'll forgo the use of recording instruments as I'm not sure of the actual legality) and they can report.   It is no different than using the camera, except, as BT pointed out, it is using new technology to replace humans.

I guess we can parse this 7 ways to Sunday, but my opinion won't change, and I don't believe yours will either.   I don't find ARGUS intrusive in it's current form.  You feel it's a violation of privacy.  I feel that, currently, it's limitations allow me the privacy that I would normally expect in the scenarios presented. 

IMO, No harm, no foul.

[Dog Walker]

Darn!  Everybody is making good points.

Let's say we are living in a town or village in 1792.  What expectation of privacy would we have that we would want protected by the Constitution?

Without convincing a judge that there was a crime that had been committed or was about to be committed a law enforcement person could not:

Secretly listen to your conversations.

Break into your house or office to read your papers.

Hide in the back of your wagon to see where you went.

What else?  How do we extend this to modern times and technologies?

In 1792 most of the people on the street would recognize you and note what direction you were walking in.  If you were outside, they would know who you were with and who you were talking to.

Does the right-to-privacy extend to the right-of-anonymity in most circumstances? 

[BridgeTroll]

Except that surveillance and power lead to things like this:

http://rt.com/usa/news/tsa-stealing-from-travelers-358/

A TSA agent convicted of stealing more than $800,000 worth of goods from travelers said this type of theft is “commonplace” among airport security. Almost 400 TSA officers have been fired for stealing from passengers since 2003.
Pythias Brown, a former Transportation Security Administration officer at Newark Liberty International Airport, spent four years stealing everything he could from luggage and security checkpoints, including clothing, laptops, cameras, Nintendo Wiis, video games and cash.

Speaking publicly for the first time after being released after three years in prison, Brown told ABC News that he used the X-ray scanners to locate the most valuable items to snatch.

“I could tell whether it was cameras or laptops or portable cameras or whatever kind of electronic was in the bag,” he said.
Brown often worked alone, screening luggage behind the ticket counters. He was frequently told the overhead surveillance cameras, installed to prevent theft, were not working.

“It was so easy,” he said. “I walked right out of the checkpoint with a Nintendo Wii in my hand. Nobody said a word.”
With more electronics than any one individual could need, Brown began to sell the stolen items on eBay. At the time of his arrest, he was selling 80 cameras, video games and computers online. Brown said the theft was comparable to an addiction.
“It was like being on drugs,” he said. “I was like, ‘What am I doing?’ but the next day I was right back at it.”

Brown was finally caught after selling a camera he stole from the luggage of a CNN producer. When he sold the camera on eBay, he forgot to remove the news networks’ logo stickers.
“I got complacent,” he said.

TSA’s culture of theft

But while Brown believes he might have been one of the worst thieves at the TSA, he imagines the agency’s culture makes it easy for others to do the same. Many officers don’t care about their work and complain about low pay and being treated badly, he claims, which prompts them to steal. To make it even easier to get away with, TSA managers also never search their employees’ bags.

The agency says it has a zero-tolerance policy for theft and terminates the contracts of all thieves within the TSA. In the past ten years, almost 400 TSA officers have been fired for stealing, 11 of which were fired this year.

ABC’s interview with Brown highlights the extent of the dilemma passengers face when traveling with valuables. Brown is just one of many officers caught in the act of stealing goods worth thousands.

In February, 2011, two TSA officers were arrested for stealing $40,000 in cash from a checked bag in New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport. Using an X-ray machine, the men found that the bag contained $170,000 and removed some of the money.

In the first two months of this year, a TSA baggage screener in Orlando was arrested for stealing valuables by hiding them in a laptop-sized hidden pocket in his jacket and selling the goods on Craigslist. And, a New Jersey-based agent stole $5,000 in cash from a passenger’s jacket as he was going through security

While in April, a Texas-based TSA officer stole eight iPads from checked bags, while another officer stole a $15,000 watch from a passenger at the Los Angeles International Airport in May.

“It was very commonplace, very,” Brown said, describing the frequency of theft within the TSA.

“TSA is probably the worst personnel manager that we have in the entire federal government,” said Rep. John Mica, chairman of the House Transportation Committee. “It is an outrage to the public and, actually, to our aviation security system.”

When crminals do this, it is called 'casing'.

So criminals misuse things for nefarious purposes?  Whoda thunk it?  Same can be said for a baseball bat, telephone, camera, gun, toenail clipper... the list is literally endless.  This technology... with proper safeguards could be used for many good things... we should identify those safeguards... and implement them.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

you seem to be implying that these powers, these massive and dangerous powers of surveillance will only be used properly and for good cause.

So are you implying that the bad outweighs the good or only that it can?

[Dog Walker]

1792, Stephen, not that it makes much difference in your point.

I guess the main question is does eyes-in-the-sky and face recognition cameras on poles on the street ( another scary technology ) go beyond being recognized by neighbors in a village?  This sort of surveillance gives me a deeply disturbed feeling of uneasiness, but I can't articulate where the line should be drawn.

NRW's idea that it would take a warrant to go back and track strikes me as reasonable, but then I remember all of the warrantless break-ins and searches that the FBI did in the Hoover days.  The potential for abuse is huge.

On the other hand, the number of crimes that have been solved by the use of video camera footage has made us all safer from crooks and the suppression of bad acting that has occurred from the knowledge that cameras are around and that we may not be anonymous is great.

There has to be a reasonable place between the extremes on this issue; limits or proper safeguards of some sort that we can trust, but that would not limit the utility of the technologies.  I'm not smart enough to figure out where that place is.

[BridgeTroll]

well because the government is us.  and we are all subject to the human condition.

you seem to be implying that these powers, these massive and dangerous powers of surveillance will only be used properly and for good cause.

Yet nothing in the collected history of mankind would give this idea credence.

Yet we have always managed... We gave the government the right (with probable cause) to tap phone lines when they discovered that evidence can be gathered.  The same is true with computer technology... the same holds true with virtually every area where the government intrudes into our lives...

My conclusion from your statement above leads me to believe you do not trust government very much...

Luuuke... come over to the daaark side Luuuuke...

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

NRW's idea that it would take a warrant to go back and track strikes me as reasonable, but then I remember all of the warrantless break-ins and searches that the FBI did in the Hoover days.  The potential for abuse is huge.

Actually, that was BT.  I don't have any issue with it in it's current form.  My idea for the warrants is to review data that was collected outside of the realm of reasonable privacy.

[Dog Walker]

" and Wikileaks announced today that it hacked into the computers of Homeland Security and has released 100 terabites of surveillance footage of Jacksonville Florida.  Stephan Dare was tracked and has been seen doing....."

Scary indeed!

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

While NRW may not mind people seeing his drunken antics

,

856.011 Disorderly intoxication.

his occasional body functions,

More than likely.... 856.011 Disorderly intoxication.

and his indiscreet moments,

800.02 Unnatural and lascivious act.  And quite possibly another count of 856.011 Disorderly intoxication.

he is certainly free to make a video recording of himself and mail it off to the department of justice as often as he like.

Since in each case, a law was broken, I suppose I should expect a ticket or a notice to appear - especially knowing that I'm not in an 18th century village and that the government is monitoring the entire city through a video feed.

Had any or all of these 'acts' been done in the privacy of my own home, or anywhere that I would expect the level of privacy to do such things, then I technically wouldn't be breaking any laws and have nothing to fear. 

This is where we seem to differ greatly in our perceptions of the ARGUS.