What is your expectation of privacy in public?

[304065]

There are a couple of news articles out about the use of surveilance cameras to monitor the Democratic National Convention, and another one detailing the used of cameras by the LAPD. In both cases, the ACLU has come out and expressed their concern that the cameras would be used to deter protests, and for political rather than security ends.

My hope is that we can refrain from the hackneyed "1984" analogies: while evocative, they don't really get at the heart of the issue, which I see as the following:

Is there any substantive expectation of privacy in a public place? If you go out into the Village Square and demonstrate publicly, do you then have the right to assert that your privacy is being violated when law enforcement agencies monitor you using video cameras?

What if there were police officers present, would that be more or less of a deterrent to free expression?

What if a violence broke out? Would you want the incident recorded on tape to see who started what? Could video evidence potentially exonerate, or convict you?

Would your answer change if the cameras were located in another state-owned location, such as on the Subway? What about the airport, do you mind being videotaped at the airport?
Does your answer change if you are a business invitee of a Casino, a privately-operated business?

I suppose there will be those that automatically assume that any enhancement of the power of law enforcement is inherently an encroachment on civil liberties. Can anyone articulate WHY they think this is so?

My own view is that there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place even if you aren't accustomed to being recorded: individuals acting in public have always been open to surveilance by law enforcement: the fact that it might be more effectively or inexpensively performed using video shouldn't affect the constitutionality of that surveilance. HOWEVER, there ought to be some procedural safeguards in place to prevent individuals from using surveilance technology in an inappropriate manner, e.g. for voyeruristic purposes.

What is your opinion?

[Moses]

Originally posted by john_cramer

My own view is that there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place even if you aren't accustomed to being recorded: individuals acting in public have always been open to surveilance by law enforcement: the fact that it might be more effectively or inexpensively performed using video shouldn't affect the constitutionality of that surveilance. HOWEVER, there ought to be some procedural safeguards in place to prevent individuals from using surveilance technology in an inappropriate manner, e.g. for voyeruristic purposes.

What is your opinion?

I agree completely. There is the famous case of a business competitor who had cameras on his nemesis office door. He was able to determine who was coming and going and who his client base was.

The potential use for extortion (both legal and illegal) is frightening.

[techweenie]

Our forefathers did not concieve of the day that face recognition software would identify and catalog people's locations and activities randomly.

Generally 'fishing net' tactics (like a cop standing beside the road with radar continuously operating) have been considered inconsistent with US law -- where suspicion must be raised before action is taken. But intersection cameras seem to violate that principle.

I recommend the movie "The End of Violence" for an interesting take on this... as usual Wim Wenders was ahead of his time.

[island911]

Technology is here to stay.

Technology as an extension of law:
I think, that as law enforcement becomes easier (thru technology) that "punishments" ought to be less severe.
i.e. Traffic light cameras, for example, generate massive amounts of "punishment" for being just slightly "out of bounds" (due to technology.) Where as previously, cops would have to see overt law breakage, before likely writing a ticket.

More video means more litigation, over petty misbehavior/misconduct, and less "letting it go" and moving on with life. . . .Lawyers have got to love all that extra work, as video evidence is used to say 'SEE. . .SEE There. . . I was Wronged!"

note; people who are here posting, are likely to be less paranoid about the privacy topic (being that we will put so much info out in a puplic forum)

[mikester]

I see the benefits to it, but personally - I dont like it.

Where does it end? Who defines that?

When does it stop?

If we give an inch it's a sure bet that the mysterious THEY will take a mile.

[VaSteve]

My life is so boring, nobody would watch! It would be an honor if I was surveilled. Unless I'm at the traffic light, um "scratching" my nose.

[Don 944 LA]

I know that in reality I have ZERO privacy while in public.
If I know that, then I am not upset.

[Burnin' oil]

Originally posted by VaSteve
My life is so boring, nobody would watch! It would be an honor if I was surveilled. Unless I'm at the traffic light, um "scratching" my nose.

That was a pick!

[Burnin' oil]

The government should not be allowed to video/audio tape indiscriminately in public places. Even though I may not have an expectation of complete privacy in a public place, I still have an expectation that my actions and words will not be recorded. The government's legitimate interest in recording public activity is minimal. It's not for crime prevention, only crime solving, which has been done for hundreds of years without video or audio. . .

[Moneyguy1]

Fine. So there is the technology "out there" as one poster said.

It is not the technology per se that is the problem. It is the application and interpretation, depending on the "agenda" of the applier, whether that be the private survellience, the cop on the shoulder, or the federal government. Arbitrary application.

[mikester]

The more I think about it the more it bothers me. What percentage of the population are criminals?

On the one hand they are deploying these methods for investigational purposes but on the other they are doing it because they EXPECT citizens to break the law. We are innocent until proven guilty but they deploy these technologies because they expect we are guilty of something.

Privacy is a freedom, make no mistake, Privacy is a freedom.

Privacy can be defined in many ways of course. If you ware in a public park your presence is not really private unless nobody knows you or says anything to you. Then you go about your business in a public place privately. Sure you were there but so what? If you're having a conversation in that park with someone right next to you what business is it of anyone elses no matter how far they are? Well, if they can hear you and are listening does that still make it their business? Nope, not really. They can but in of course - but it still isn't their business until you make it theirs by acknowledging them back or telling them to fudge off.

Privacy is a freedom. Otherwise, so many businesses and government agencies would not have to specifically state in their email usage guidlines that there is no expectation of privacy in those systems. At any given time someone could be reading those emails. (Possibly flawed logic)

Privacy is a freedom and we as citizens need to defend it as such. Each Freedom we have is like a domino in a row, if one falls it will take with it others. Sooner or later we will not have nearly the freedom we had - already that is apparent. All in the name of law enforcement and protection but in my eyes “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Benjamin Franklin).

[Moneyguy1]

Mike..

My take is that, more and more, we are "guilty until proven innocent". Look how the press pillories people on alleged misdeeds. Call it paranoia if you like, but it is possible for someone to plant a false story about someone else, create a firestorm, and when it is found to be untrue, the retraction is on page 5 or 6. The damage is done.

This insidious part is all this can be done without the knowledge of the individual. Assume you are preparing a paper for a course on terrorism. You visit some terrorism related sites, you borrow some library books on anarchy/terrorism and guess whose $hit list you are on? Imagine Director Hoover or Sen. McCarthy with all the electronic goodies we have today...

We are edging closer and closer to a police state, and the sad thing is that some folks welcome that concept.

[mikester]

Bob, You are correct.

We aren't safe - we aren't safer and with these new technologies we may be safer from some criminals we are less safe from others.

It's all a smoke screen, we'll always be fighting for our freedoms it's when we stop fighting that we loose.

Traffic cameras are the least of our worries.

[Hugh R]

The govt says you have no expectation of privacy on a cell phone, but you do on a land line. Why is that? Because anyone with a scanner can listen in on the cell? I don't "expect" someone to be listening on my cell, regardless of whether they can do it or not. The gov't says this because its new technology making land lines obsolete and they don't want to invent new law to access a cell call. They want to just say, you have no expectation of privacy, and then tape your cell call and use it against you. Same with email. I don't "expect" anyone to hack it. How about the gov't or anyone else hacking across my fire wall and getting into my computer. Didn't that happen to some Orange County (CA) judge a year or two ago when the hacker turned over kiddie porn to the police and the D.A. used hacked evidence to prosecute the Judge. Regardless of the content of the porn, should the gov't be able to use illegially accessed evidence from a persons computer? Brother, I tell you George Orwell's 1984 has come and gone.

[mikester]

From the following link;
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/carnivore1.htm

Carnivorous Evolution
Carnivore is apparently the third generation of online-detection software used by the FBI. While information about the first version has never been disclosed, many believe that it was actually a readily available commercial program called Etherpeek.

In 1997, the FBI deployed the second generation program, Omnivore. According to information released by the FBI, Omnivore was designed to look through e-mail traffic travelling over a specific Internet service provider (ISP) and capture the e-mail from a targeted source, saving it to a tape-backup drive or printing it in real-time. Omnivore was retired in late 1999 in favor of a more comprehensive system, the DragonWare Suite, which allows the FBI to reconstruct e-mail messages, downloaded files or even Web pages.

DragonWare contains three parts:

* Carnivore - A Windows NT/2000-based system that captures the information
* Packeteer - No official information released, but presumably an application for reassembling packets into cohesive messages or Web pages
* Coolminer - No official information released, but presumably an application for extrapolating and analyzing data found in the messages

As you can see, officials have not released much information about the DragonWare Suite, nothing about Packeteer and Coolminer and very little detailed information about Carnivore. But we do know that Carnivore is basically a packet sniffer, a technology that is quite common and has been around for a while.

[djmcmath]

Originally posted by techweenie

Generally 'fishing net' tactics (like a cop standing beside the road with radar continuously operating) have been considered inconsistent with US law

FYI, any of us with a radar detector can tell you this happens routinely. Not that I mind -- makes the bugger's easier to spot.

I'm not sure I understand the illegality of it, though, seriously. If my policy is to search every bag that comes into my building, that's legal. If my policy is to conduct urinalysis for every individual that's been absent without leave for more than 24hrs, that's legal. Road blocks, while contested and inefficient, have been upheld in courts because they do not single out any particular person. I'm not sure I understand why sitting by the side of the road with a radar gun running, or monitoring faces with a camera in a public place would be illegal.

[mikester]

Originally posted by djmcmath
I'm not sure I understand why sitting by the side of the road with a radar gun running, or monitoring faces with a camera in a public place would be illegal.

[/B]

Those are two VERY different things.

[350HP930]

I read a good analogy one time that compared the monitoring of all public areas as the equivalent of being followed by a police spy whenever you are in public.

Sure, it could come in handy if you are either the perpetrator or victim of a crime but that benefit aside do you really want to be spied any time you leave your home in return for this orwellian gift?

[304065]

Let's distinguish a couple things to keep the thread on track.

First, this isn't about probable cause. Probable cause is necessary for an invasion of privacy to obtain evidence of a crime.

You do not need ANY probable cause to observe individuals acting in public. You might need a warrant to enter their home to search. You might need a lawful arrest to search their car, depending on the jurisdiction.

If you get pulled over and you have a plastic bag full of white powder sticking halfway out of the seat cushion of your car, the police will invoke what is known as the "plain view" doctrine. Matter that could be evidence of a crime (the bag, for those scoring at home) that is in "plain view" is admissible as evidence, even though it might be in your car.

Does anybody doubt that for law enforcement to do its job, officers have to be able to monitor public spaces for suspicious activity?

The way I see it, if the beat cop can do it, then LEOs can do it with a video camera. The fact that it's recorded just makes for more reliable evidence: there are people in prison whose crime was initially observed by police officers, and their word alone was sufficient for the jury. Having a video record would only seem to enhance the reliability of the evidence, assuming you have sufficient procedural safeguards in place to avoid tampering. And we have such safeguards in place for physical matter like weapons, drugs, blood, etc., so there's no reason to assume that the video is any more likely to be tampered with than blood planted or the ballistics report altered, etc.

WRT the public network, the reasonableness of your expectation of privacy depends, I suppose, on the contract with your ISP. I'm typing this right now from a computer owned by my employer, and I've implied my consent to them monitoring the bitstream (probably also acknowledged their use policy), so it's public domain. So's this forum, for that matter. Sending messages over the public internet requires many, many different hops, between potentially hundreds of carriers. The fact is, each of these is subject to the provisions of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (Oct. 25, 2001).

Again, distinguish between PUBLIC and PRIVATE behavior. I'm not trying to convince anyone but just wanted to get a sample of peoples views. Most folks seem to feel that they KNOW they don't have any privacy in public but don't LIKE the idea of LEOs watching/taping.

[pwd72s]

GEORGE ORWELL WAS AN OPTIMIST!