Canadian Judge Says No To Cameras In The Courtroom... But Okays Twitter

from the connecting-to-the-outside-world dept

It seems like a popular topic in 2009 is how modern technology is opening up public access to courtrooms... if only judges would allow it. We've had numerous stories about things like Twitter and webcasting from a courtroom. To date, most stories are about judges banning as much as possible, but Michael Geist points out that in a case up in Canada a judge has barred television cameras, but allowed Twitter. Of course, since the specifics of the ruling do allow mobile devices to gather and disseminate news... what about someone using the camera on their mobile phone to stream the proceedings? That's not the same as a full sized TV camera that the judge rejected...

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

How To Make CCTV Cameras Even More Awesome: Put 'Em On Wheels

from the we're-watching-you dept

The UK has taken great strides towards being one of the most surveilled societies on Earth, and cops in Manchester are doing their part by attaching CCTV cameras to Smart cars (via Boing Boing). They deploy the vehicles at intersections to catch distracted drivers, they claim, filming cars as they pass by, then reviewing the footage later to determine if drivers are talking on mobile phones, putting on makeup, or performing other distracting activities. Offending drivers then get a letter in the mail, usually with a fine. Police say the measures "are reasonable, proportionate and fair in light of the fact that we are trying to save lives." Is it that likely the cameras will actually save lives? The safety argument when applied to traffic cameras generally seems suspect, and so if that goal's out of reach, how reasonable is the surveillance?

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Patent Lawsuit So Bogus That The Judge Ordered Sanctions And Attorney's Fees Paid

from the about-time dept

There are an awful lot of bogus patent lawsuits out there, but even when the lawsuits are tossed out it's very, very rare for a judge to order the plaintiffs to pay the legal fees of the defendants. However, in Illinois it just happened. Joe Mullin has the story of a patent that was quite clearly limited to an infrared camera linked to a GPS system. The patent examiner required the inventor to include the word "infrared" before declaring the patent acceptable and non-obvious. Yet, that didn't stop the patent holder from suing LG, Pantech and Disney for the Disney mobile phone service that let parents track where their kids were. The product was a huge commercial failure, but those are three big companies worth suing for infringement.

However, the judge noted, sternly, that the patent holder and the law firm that was handling the case (which had also worked on the patent) clearly decided to ignore what the patent actually said about it being for infrared cameras. This practice is more common than it should be. Even when claims are written to be narrowly focused, there's always some wiggle room, and many patent holders bring lawsuits on technologies that are pretty far from what's in the claims -- usually hoping that the accused will settle rather than take the issue to court. In this case, though, the judge pointed out that it was clearly a frivolous lawsuit, and ordered the defendants get reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. If this happened more often, maybe we'd see fewer ridiculous patent lawsuits.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Toronto Removes Surveillance Cameras Due To Human Respect... Plans To Disrespect Humans Somewhere Else

from the r-e-s-p-e-c-t dept

These days, it's become quite common to see surveillance cameras pretty much all over in any major downtown metropolitan area. There have been plenty of protests against such cameras, but it hasn't done much to stop them from spreading. However, Rob Hyndman points us to the news that Toronto has agreed to remove some controversial surveillance cameras that were placed at an intersection with a high crime rate. People protested over the potential for their privacy to be violated, and worried that all it would do is shift crime to neighboring streets. Six months of such protests have convinced the police to remove the cameras, noting that the decision was partly due to "human respect." Of course, that doesn't explain the next statement: "The supervisor also indicated that the cameras will be used elsewhere in the city." So, apparently, they feel perfectly fine disrespecting humans elsewhere.

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Traffic Camera Companies Looking To Give Gov't More Ways To Spy On You As You Drive

from the you-have-no-privacy-anywhere dept

There's been plenty of backlash against red light cameras (which often increase the number of accidents) and speed cameras (which seem to have problems with accuracy). However, that's not stopping the manufacturers of those cameras from trying to get governments to buy even more of them for other purposes. A few folks have sent in a story from TheNewspaper (a site that actively fights against the spread of traffic-related cameras), noting that the two big firms in the space are pitching the cameras to governments for surveillance purposes, to keep records and data on motorists. They talk about using it to recognize license plates on stolen cars, but you can imagine it's only a matter of time until it also puts together a nice database on where you traveled when. It's yet another step towards proving the saying that you no longer have any privacy anywhere. At least not from the government. Maybe next up, they'll look to just put cameras directly in your cars, like some taxis have these days. That way they can track what you're saying as well.

34 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Does The Public Have A Right To Know Where Surveillance Cameras Are Located?

from the rights-and-privacy dept

These days, people are beginning to recognize that surveillance cameras can be found all over -- especially in major cities. There have even been semi-mocking "tours" held by civil liberties supporters who will walk around a city and point out all the surveillance cameras there are. But there is an open question: are cities that install such cameras required to tell people where they are? The NY Civil Liberties Union is now suing the NY Police Department for not revealing where it's installing surveillance cameras, claiming that the public has a right to know this kind of information. Of course, the whole thing is a bit odd, as one of the major points of these surveillance cameras is deterring crime -- and what better way to deter crime than to let people know they're being watched. As the article notes, it sounds like the NYPD may be holding back this info just because it doesn't like the NYCLU. Alternatively, there's some thought that the info on the cameras will show that they're not particularly effective.

And, of course, even if people know where the official surveillance cameras are located, it might not matter, since New York City's Mayor Bloomberg has actively encouraged NYC citizens to be their own security cameras -- videotaping and photographing anything suspicious and sending it to officials. One would assume that the NYPD wouldn't be able to publish where every person with a camera is located as well.

47 Comments | Leave a Comment..

In Trying To Capture The Moment, Do We Risk Missing It Altogether?

from the watch-the-moment,-not-the-screen-of-your-camera dept

Earlier this year, in writing about a musician complaining about fans with mobile phones in the audience, we noted that he seemed to be overreacting, but did raise some interesting points about whether people get so focused on documenting an event that they miss experiencing it. Now a columnist at the Toronto Globe & Mail, Ivor Tossell, makes a similar point in worrying about the effort he goes through to capture "events" like beautiful sunsets, when he's not even sure what to do with the photos afterwards. While much of the column focuses on the question of whether or not these digital momentos will last at all, an equally reasonable question is how many special moments are "lost" in the effort of trying to capture them with recording equipment.

34 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Singer At New Media Conference Turns Off Audience Member Cameras

from the new-media,-huh? dept

You would think that someone who had "embraced" new media would understand the value of viral content, but that's not always the case. Derek Coward writes in to let us know of a bizarre incident involving a cover song singer who goes by the name Richard Cheese, who apparently sings "cheesy" loungey versions of hard rock songs. There's a podcast called Coverville that (not surprisingly) focuses on cover versions of songs. For his 500th episode, the host, Brian Ibbott, put together a concert at a new media trade show. He found some musicians who specifically allow their music to be used in podcasts without royalties (i.e., those who recognize the value of free promotion) and had them play a concert -- and Cheese was one of the headliners.

At a new media trade show full of podcasters and bloggers, one thing you should expect is that they'll have cameras, and they'll be taking photos and video. That's what they do. But, apparently this upset Cheese greatly, and he started walking around, grabbing people's cameras and turning them off. He later spit on someone who continued to film his concert, and yelled at the guy to turn his camera off. Considering that this guy's entire act is based on building on the works of others, and he understands the promotional benefits of having his music in podcasts, it does seem rather odd that he would be so upset about some folks videotaping him that he would then take their cameras, turn them off and even spit on people. Compare this to the other musician (who actually does write his own music) we mentioned recently who was taking fan made videos of his performances and stitching them together into a virtual concert.

38 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Comcast Tests DVR That Watches You... Literally

from the some-things-don't-need-cameras dept

Broadband Reports points us to the news that Comcast has been experimenting (internally only) with putting cameras into DVRs in order to determine who and how many people are watching. Comcast lays out the reasons why this might be useful -- such as recognizing if a child is watching, so that child content filters are automatically turned on, or merely recognizing certain preferences based on who's watching. However, the creepiness factor of such an offering is quite high, and I doubt many people would be comfortable with such a camera -- especially coming from a company like Comcast that's been getting blasted for its traffic shaping efforts. Besides, it will be too tempting for marketers to avoid misusing such a technology. Nielsen, for example, has been trying to come up with all sorts of ways to figure out if people are really watching commercials or TV shows, or if they just leave the TV on and are doing something else. Think how tempting it would be to "spy" on people to get a sense of what they're really doing. If such a system was going to work, the homeowner would need to have full control over the camera. If it acted just like a computer webcam, with the individual having full control over how it was used and how it could be accessed, then people might be more comfortable with it (plus, conceivably it could open up the ability for people to do video chat via their TVs). But if it's sending any info back to Comast, it's going to make people exceptionally uncomfortable.

57 Comments | Leave a Comment..

San Francisco's Surveillance Cameras Have Horrific Frame Rates

from the just-commit-your-crime-quickly dept

There's plenty of reasonable concern over the increasing use of surveillance cameras -- but if you're going to install them, you'd think that you'd want cameras that were actually useful. Not so in San Francisco. As Engadget points out, the cameras in San Francisco have ridiculously bad frame rates, making them more like still cameras than video cameras. In some cases, there are 10 seconds between frames, meaning that the "footage" is often not particularly useful in solving crimes. San Francisco still insists that the cameras are useful for deterrent purposes. Somehow we doubt that it's a "feature" of these cameras to protect privacy by being horrifically bad. It does make you wonder, though, who makes security cameras that only take a photo every 10 seconds -- and, even more importantly, why would anyone buy such a security camera?

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Surveillance Society: How Different Is The US From China?

from the some-similarities-here... dept

Over the weekend, the NY Times had an article that's stirring some discussion online, about China's new high-tech surveillance campaign, involving a ton of surveillance cameras combined with ID cards that include a ton of personal data about each individual. Much of the discussion is focused on the fact that US companies are often the suppliers providing the technology to make this possible -- the type of thing that gets Congress all riled up to start grandstanding. However, as you read through the details, you have to wonder how different things really are in the US. Admittedly, the Chinese plan goes further than what's being done elsewhere, but the Boston Globe (owned by the NY Times, incidentally) has a totally different article on how much money the Department of Homeland Security is spending on surveillance cameras for state and local governments around the US -- as well as an article on the push for the Real ID Act that would require a national ID card. Now, the easy defense for that is that it's to help defend against crime and terrorism -- but that's almost exactly the same claim the Chinese government is making. So unless we're willing to look at the same issues in the US, it seems rather hypocritical to complain about US firms supplying the technology for China to do something quite similar to what we're doing at home.

35 Comments | Leave a Comment..