On 18 November 2010 Mike Palij wrote: >Even in NYC I think people forget how often they are under >surveillance. A situation like initially seems shocking until >one realizes, oh yeah, there's someone watching us >most of the time.
Purely on the accuracy of this statement (with no intention to start a discussion on the over-use of surveillance cameras :-) ), is it true that "there's someone watching us most of the time"? I know that, if we take the case of surveillance cameras in certain areas of London streets or shopping districts (as elsewhere in Britain), no one is actually looking at what the cameras are filming from moment-to-moment. What the cameras do is to produce a record that is available should there be a street/shopping mall incident or crime. Then that particular part of the record is checked to see what information can be gleaned about the incident. No one is watching what is going on most of the time. This was especially useful in the post-event tracking of the activities of the four perpetrators of the 7 July 2005 suicide bombings in the London Underground that killed 52 people and maimed several more, and played a major role in confirming their identities for the police (and at the inquest for the people killed). But no one was viewing those several cameras at the time. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org ---------------------------------------- From: Mike Palij <m...@nyu.edu> Subject: Re: NYU Faculty First In "Backward Looking" Technology! Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:35:39 -0500 On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 13:28:19 -0800,, John Serafin wrote: >Hmmm...I'm not sure why the camera needs to be surgically >implanted, so maybe there's more behind this than is indicated >in the story. He's not feeding these images into any bigger >database, is he? The Toronto Sun article appears to have been based on an article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) which can be accessed here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703670004575617083483970398.html?mod=WSJ_hp_us_mostpop_read A commentary piece on Cnet is available here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20023077-71.html The camera will stream images to a museum in Qatar as part of an exhibition. Professor Bilal, who will be wearing the camera, declined to comment to WSJ, so it is unclear why it has to be surgically implanted. It is also unclear whether the images will be saved or deleted. >Also, I'm not sure about Fred Ritchin's response that "Obviously you don¹t >want students to be under the burden of constant surveillance." Well, ok, >maybe Bilal ought to turn the camera off when he goes to the rest room. The WSJ reports that he agreed to put a cap on the lens while on university property. >And not visit dorm rooms or other private areas with the camera on. >But if we think about all of the surveillance cameras out there in public >places, this just does not seem to me to be a big deal. Even in NYC I think people forget how often they are under surveillance. A situation like initially seems shocking until one realizes, oh yeah, there's someone watching us most of the time. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6592 or send a blank email to leave-6592-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
