|
Wednesday, May 02, 2007 Respectful CamerasContinued from page 1 By Brendan Borrell
The cameras have impressed civil-liberties-minded lawyers. Kevin Bankston, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in San Francisco, says, "Any technological measures that can be taken to mitigate the privacy invasion and avoid the chilling of legitimate conduct in public or private spaces that are being recorded is a good thing." The markers are a limitation, he says, but "that's not an argument against this type of research. In fact, it's an argument for this type of research." Bankston says that laws governing video surveillance in public spaces around the world offer little protection to those concerned about privacy. In a few cases, embarrassing or lewd footage recorded by security cameras has been posted on the Internet. Bankston contends that the overwhelming issue is the unease generated by knowing that someone out there may be watching you. But even if privacy-shielding camera systems were put into use, there would be great debate about how hard it should be for governments to see fully unobscured video footage. Christopher Slobogin, a law professor at the University of Florida who has written on public camera surveillance, says, "I don't think the government should have to demonstrate probable cause in order to find out the identity of some person." Suspicious behavior, he argues, should be sufficient. He cites Terry v. Ohio, a well-known U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled that law-enforcement officers do not need a warrant to stop, detain, and frisk people. Goldberg says that there may someday be "legislation where you can put up security cameras, but you have to use the p-chip, some privacy chip that encrypts the face. My hunch is that people will say that's a step in the right direction." |
Audio »
Share »
Digg this
Add to del.icio.us
Add to Reddit
Add to Facebook
Slashdot It!
Stumble It!
Add to Newsvine
Add to Connotea
Add to CiteUlike
Add to Furl
Googlize this
Add to Rojo
Add to MyWeb
Favorite
Print
E-mail
Crossover Camera
04/22/2008
Comments
zig158 on 05/02/2007 at 2:43 AM
56
nekote on 05/02/2007 at 7:30 AM
115
But only as a *POST* capture processing method.
The original actual images should be preserved - not altered from the get go, IMHO.
Potentially crucial evidence needed for bona fide cases could be obscured. Indeed, vital peripheral info unintentionally lost. Or worse, an error in blotting out relevant info, rather than a face.
michaelzimmer on 06/26/2007 at 10:43 AM
1
Tremain2004 on 05/02/2007 at 1:58 PM
3
What probelm are you 'thinking' about?
Worried about unflatering pictures?
Worried about being caught in picking your nose?
There are real problems to address.
This is not a problem
prigat2 on 05/08/2007 at 3:48 PM
3
syntheos on 05/04/2007 at 1:11 PM
2
doppelganger on 05/06/2007 at 2:28 PM
1
reyn8100 on 05/07/2007 at 5:18 PM
1