Open democratic surveillance system

See:Border Patrol example of concepts posted below.

Open democratic surveillance system
thread on Slashdot:

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/21/0425218

by macraig (621737) mark.a.craig@gmail.xxx on Saturday February 21, @07:46AM (#26941049)

The correct use of those cameras is to wire them up to the Internet, and make it so that ANY concerned citizen can monitor the cameras in a Web browser, or perhaps a dedicated app. Leave it up to concerned citizens watching a camera to call the police and report what they have observed. Best of all, give them a tool - Firefox extension? - that lets them record what they're viewing, so they have some form of evidence to give police, not just hearsay.

In the United States we have Neighborhood Watch groups, many of which would no doubt find cameras on every street invaluable: they could sit home warm in their jammies and still help keep their neighborhood safe, instead of being out roaming the streets in the harsh cold with the crooks, risking being shot-at.

That approach would incur no additional municipal cost for monitoring, and any misuse of the cameras would be the responsibility of individual citizens, not Big Brother. Would citizens actually do it? I think they would, in high-crime areas or areas where crime is rising. That approach would be democratic, rather than autocratic.

by RyoShin (610051) tukaro@gmail.xxx on Saturday February 21, @09:33AM (#26941873)

"so they have some form of evidence to give police, not just hearsay."

So the police set up a system, the people record the system, then give the police their own feed? Instead, set the system up so that it records the previous five minutes. If someone is watching and sees a crime, they can hit a button on the website (which would use either AJAX or Java) that would start extra recording for that particular camera. After it's all gone down, they hit the stop button (or it stops after X minutes automatically) and they are given a video ID and a little form to fill out to explain what they just saw.

When they submit the form, the information is sent to a rookie/veteran stuck in the office whose job it is to watch the feeds and read/respond to citizen alerts. (If it doesn't work out to have the same person behind the desk 24/7, just make it a rotating shift where each cop takes 6 hours a week at it.) If a lot of citizens suddenly flag a camera, an alert is sent to both the cop on duty, the police chief, and an SMS is sent to any cop in the immediate area of that camera. Cops hopefully have access in their vehicles to the cameras, so they have to check the feed before speeding off (to stop /b/-style raids or some gang using social engineering to move cops from another area).

But getting the citizens interested might be a bit hard... so, instead of Neighborhood Watch, make it Neighborhood Survivor, or Neighborhood Real World, or Neighborhood Big Brother. Glitz the page up, and let people create accounts that can be tied to their successful report rate. (Make sure it has the ability to automatically downgrade reports from an abusive account or IP.) Have a weekly show on local cable about various incidents and those who reported them, along with the ability for people to "vote" on which camera area should get a make-over (regular city stuff, like re-paving a road, fixing fences/house sides, etc.) which will help to boost morale in an area.

Good Surveillance

Surveillance Opt-In: A Case for Long Tail Legislation

As a citizen of the USA I would like to exercise my right to allow my government to monitor my travel, communications, and economic transactions.

Laws are written that respect those who want privacy and anonymity, and then this preference is imposed as default for all citizens. I resent the social model and social assumptions forced upon, and altering, my relationship to law enforcement.

Anonymity and privacy are no benefit to me. I do not have anything to hide from law enforcement. I would be safer with less anonymity. I would be safer if law enforcement knew who I was, and what I have been doing.

I want legislation to be worded with a deliberate clause "will not X without the consent of the citizen". X stands for many forms of surveillance. This level of granularity and choice will give the system of civil rights a better match to what each citizen wants. For those who want more privacy, the rights are in place for that. For those like me who want more surveillance, the rights are in place for that.

Using one academic conference as a sample, I want to show weaknesses in an older way of doing things. This conference has the system inquiry question:

"How can we arrive at a normatively sound conception of personal identity as a starting point for the study of the ethical aspects of the (information) technology that is shaping our lives? "

-Ethics, Technology and Identity Conference, June 18-20 of 2008

I contend that the words we and normative are indicators of a problem. These words work with society in the wrong way. First, the we means those who weigh in at the conference or in peer review dialogue afterwards. It is a small group deciding for wider society. The word normative is the most pathological. Why should laws, or interpretation of the civic will, be constructed very much like pop culture? e.g; The American public likes music by Justin Timberlake, NASCAR racing, and abhors surveillance, and consequently, we can assume you like Justin Timberlake, NASCAR racing, and abhor surveillance.

The reign of pop culture legislation can be undone, and long tail economics could be applied to our legal framework. With two-way text communication of the internet, government could ask you to fill out a survey that tailored which rights of privacy you want, and which rights you waive. This online data entry you provide would construct the relationship you want with government's criminal investigation technologies. Such an interface to government would be more empowerment for the citizen than a system of proxy representation, with its distorting normalizations.

---

Example National Opt-In Online Form:

Video surveillance: Yes No
Record my internet activity: Yes No
Record my economic transactions: Yes No

---

21st Century Public Safety

In a previous blog entry, Towards less Hate: Rise of the Bourgeoise-Technologist, I show a typing of social/economic dependence. Please see that blog entry in order to understand what follows.

Racially and religiously homogenous groups have ancient means of self-governance. They fall into my Type 1 category. Policing is performed by the familial -mothers, fathers, friends. "It takes a village" sums it up.

Type 2 stage is less coherent and efficient for public safety if policing has moved to non-local and non-familial, while the local node is still as racist, religiously sectarian, or harbors a nationalist agenda serving their race or religion. The LA riots of the 1990's, riots in Muslim neighborhoods of France, and religious compound raids such as the Waco Texas Branch Davidians are examples. In all these cases the local racist or sectarian node does not tolerate non-familial ambivalent policing.

A Bourgeoisie-Technologist class, Type 3, are a return to coherence and efficiency in the realm of public-safety. With the ancient form of familial social governance diminished almost to zero, and opposition to racist or sectarian agendas due to these being an economic suppressant; the Type 3 Bourgeoisie-Technologist class stands to gain more public-safety in an age of ambivalent technological social control.

With every surveillance camera and RFID tag the Bourgeoisie-Technologist class can expect greater safety. Of course Type 1 and 2 societies will see the same technologies as threatening their racist or sectarian strongholds, and especially threatening their use of violence on outsiders. For the more fluid individuals without strong allegiance to race or sect, but serving themselves through violence or illegal economics, the surveillance is a straightforward threat.

The Bourgeoise-Technologist class can make increased public-safety more likely by practicing a non-solidarity with Type 1 and 2 classes. The check point, query from police officers, or survey by video camera is an entirely different experience for the legal and illegal. A safe environment for the Bourgeoisie-Technologist class is one with these policing methods 24/7.

A word should be said about wealth and inclusiveness. Our standard view of the 1950's as a bourgeoise paradise, and repressive for minorities; helps foster a negative connotation of the term bourgeoise. That "bourgeoise paradise" of the 1950's was Type 2-an antithesis of the Bourgeoise-Technologist class. The cost of equipment needed for entrance in the Bourgeoisie-Technologist class is well below $500, and there is no one at the entrance door checking for specific race or religion. As far as hurdles to enter an upper class go, the < $500 is a doable one. Then there is the issue of public safety. Historically the underclass have a life threatening hurdle before they can enter a higher class, and it is called "street violence". Peaceful members of the underclass could more likely muster the $500 for upward mobility if they could safely go about their business. Every surveillance camera helps the underclass have less harassment from their own.

The poor want public safety also, for immediate peace, and for an environment conducive to entrance in the Bourgeoisie-Technologist class.

---

Supporting and related material:

---

Coplink Artificial Intelligence