Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by hubie on Monday June 20 2022, @01:39AM   Printer-friendly
from the I-spy-with-my-little-camera dept.

Marseille's battle against the surveillance state

Across the world, video cameras have become an accepted feature of urban life. Many cities in China now have dense networks of them. London and New Delhi aren't far behind.

Now France is playing catch-up. Since 2015, the year of the Bataclan terrorist attacks, the number of cameras in Paris has increased fourfold. The police have used such cameras to enforce pandemic lockdown measures and monitor protests like those of the Gilets Jaunes. And a new nationwide security law, adopted last year, allows for video surveillance by police drones during events like protests and marches.

[...] Concerns have been raised throughout the country. But the surveillance rollout has met special resistance in Marseille, France's second-biggest city. The boisterous, rebellious Mediterranean town sits on some of the fault lines that run through modern France. Known for hip bars, artist studios, and startup hubs, it is also notorious for drugs, poverty, and criminal activity. It has one of the most ethnically diverse populations in Europe but is stranded in Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, a region that leans far right. The city pushes back. Its attitude could be summed up by graffiti you might pass as you drive in on the A7 motorway: "La vie est (re)belle."

Big brother is watching you. The cameras are there for your protection. To prevent crime. But apparently they are only used in about 1-2% of investigations according to reviews. So what is the other 98-99% for? Security theater? Politicians being hard on crime, or having a hard on for crime. Panopticon for the masses that are not involved in crime? It's very hard to measure the effect of prevention in that regard.

But I guess people are starting to get a tad tired of being watched all the time like we are there for the entertainment of some big brother peeping Tom.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by dalek on Monday June 20 2022, @06:08AM (9 children)

    by dalek (15489) on Monday June 20 2022, @06:08AM (#1254531)

    Not so fast.

    The story says that camera footage is only used in 1-2% of investigations. It doesn't say that only 1-2% of cameras in operation get used in an investigation. That's comparing apples and oranges. How do we know that the police don't cast too wide of a net when seeking information?

    While most surveillance cameras almost certainly aren't monitored 24/7, many do detect motion and alert their operator when it occurs. One need not sit in front of a monitor nonstop to track who the camera records. Amazon runs a neighborhood watch app called Neighbors for their Ring and Blink cameras. This allows users to share footage with others who are nearby to alert them of crimes, safety issues, and any other activity they deem suspicious or noteworthy. This increases the potential that innocent people will be reported to their neighbors and potentially to the police because someone thought they were suspicious. This isn't about privately operated cameras, but my point is that cameras can easily implicate innocent people.

    If police are investigating a crime, they could request footage from cameras in the area to try to determine who was present around the time of the crime. This could lead to the police investigating and potentially arresting innocent people on the basis of cameras showing they were in the area, whether they're guilty or not. This is similar to the concerns about stingray tracking the location of phones within an area. Even without facial recognition, your picture may be shown to others so the police can identify you. This may lead other people to suspect that you may be guilty of a crime, and may lead to the police thinking you're guilty when you're not. But, as you say, it's up to the people operating the cameras.

    The unique problem here is that the government operates the cameras. Investigations aren't conducted by people who are elected through the political process. They're conducted by career officials who recognize that cameras are a useful tool to solve some crimes. The people you're electing aren't the people running the cameras, so your comment about electing more trustworthy officials doesn't work. The situations you're describing involve the police requesting access to camera footage when they're aware a crime has been committed. It's a very different scenario when the police control the cameras and monitor people regardless of whether a crime has been committed. There's a fundamental difference between the police seeking evidence when a crime is brought to their attention versus deploying cameras that can be monitored to detect when they think a crime has been committed.

    There's a similar situation in the US with red light cameras being used to detect traffic violations. One article makes a compelling case that red light cameras undermine the rule of law [thehill.com]. Just as there's scant evidence that red light cameras actually improve traffic safety, you've failed to demonstrate that the police operating cameras is either necessary or sufficient to solve serious crimes. Even if they did, what would the cost be? How many innocent people would have their rights violated because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

    --
    THIS ACCOUNT IS PERMANENTLY CLOSED
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20 2022, @06:31AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20 2022, @06:31AM (#1254533)

    Not so fast.

    The story says that camera footage is only used in 1-2% of investigations. It doesn't say that only 1-2% of cameras in operation get used in an investigation.

    Did it crossed your mind that this can also mean the French criminals (by the virtue of being chic) don't do their crimes in the view of public cameras?
    Maybe the cameras work as intended, albeit at a quite high a cost for it?

    Extra info:
    Marseille has higher crime index than Paris [numbeo.com]

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by janrinok on Monday June 20 2022, @07:14AM (6 children)

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20 2022, @07:14AM (#1254537) Journal

    If police are investigating a crime, they could request footage from cameras in the area to try to determine who was present around the time of the crime. This could lead to the police investigating and potentially arresting innocent people on the basis of cameras showing they were in the area, whether they're guilty or not

    Being questioned, being arrested and being found guilty are 3 very different things. I have been questioned - an arrest was not necessary and was never even considered - regarding a dog attack on a person near my home. It wasn't my dog. I was a witness to the attack. But I was identified by video as well as stepping forward with information - the video was used to confirm that I was a genuine witness because I knew the person being attacked and could have been biased in my claims. I was asked quite politely to visit the local police station and to make a voluntary statement. Without additional evidence the police cannot even bring a case to court - at least here where I live. Just being in the area is not sufficient. If they can do that where you live then that and the legal system that allows it is the problem, not the fact that a camera exists. Once again you are letting technology take the blame for human abuses - something which I specifically wrote about in my original comment.

    I have also seen people being stopped from committing a crime by the prompt arrival of the police after receiving direction from the surveillance camera operator - the potential offence never took place and the individual concerned was let off with a warning. That sort of thing will not feature in any statistics.

    Certainly around here if the police request that they view video taken by privately owned individuals they are usually only too happy to assist. We all want crime under control. But if I try to point my camera into next door's home than I am committing an offence and would expect to be punished for it.

    you've failed to demonstrate that the police operating cameras is either necessary or sufficient to solve serious crimes

    I don't have to prove or demonstrate anything. I am giving my opinion. I have not said that anything that has been written is wrong. I am saying that the effectiveness of the cameras can be interpreted in many different ways. You yourself brought up red light cameras. If there is video evidence of a vehicle going through a red light then that vehicle was committing an offence. There may be extenuating circumstances but that is for the police on the scene or subsequently a court to decide. And without extenuating circumstances then that crime could be prosecuted. You cannot pick and choose which laws you want to obey and which you think are trivial and therefore do not apply to you. However, installing cameras as money-making schemes is definitely wrong - but that isn't the camera's fault either. They did not install themselves and they do not receive the money from fines. It is the people responsible for them that are at fault.

    How many innocent people would have their rights violated because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

    This has nothing to do with cameras. It is an abuse of power by those who are supposed to enforce the law and protect the community. That is the problem that needs sorting out. But cases such as speeding, using false registration plates, abduction, drug dealing, locating the bodies of murder victims, and many other offences are all being countered from time to time by the use of surveillance cameras. If 'proof' is necessary, then I will use these examples.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20 2022, @09:46AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20 2022, @09:46AM (#1254559)

      Being questioned, being arrested and being found guilty are 3 very different things.

      Not everywhere and not forever.
      In the present-day Russia, they are one and the same for the most part, and Russia transitioned into that in a mere decade.
      Remember that fascism rises quickly; Hitler's Germany went the entire way near twice faster, in mere six years (1933-1939).

      Every power "you the people" grant to your government, need be abuse-proofed above all else. Otherwise, your naivety is liable to kill a lot of people one day.

    • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday June 21 2022, @03:00AM

      by Reziac (2489) on Tuesday June 21 2022, @03:00AM (#1254811) Homepage

      Trouble is, if you provide the power, someone will find a way to abuse it. You can sort out one malefactor and another will take their place. It's as if abusable power is an attractive nuisance.

      --
      And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
    • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday June 21 2022, @11:55PM (1 child)

      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Tuesday June 21 2022, @11:55PM (#1255134) Journal

      > the legal system that allows it is the problem

      You underestimate the extent of that problem. Ironically, video surveillance has helped expose how large it is, busting bigoted and fascist policing over and over. Operators of red light and speed cameras have been repeatedly caught programming the systems to be abusive, and lying about it, to extract revenue, and safety be damned. The biggest reason to abolish the death penalty is much the same. Justice and law enforcement have often shown more interest in appearances, in looking tough, and society at large more interested in harsh punishment of people deemed undesirable, regardless of their actual guilt or innocence, for purposes of scaring and cowing everyone who is not well connected.

      As to riding dirty, that can be a consequence of abusive and excessive legal requirements that don't serve to enhance public safety however much the proponents of it claim otherwise, but instead just push people into breaking more rules. An example of that was the Texas Driver Responsibility program which placed additional costs on license renewal fees for those Texas drivers who had something bad on their driving record. It was pretty obviously a form of sin tax, to raise more revenue on the backs of those accused of traffic infractions. The program was a failure, and Texas ended it in 2019. What it really did was push a lot more people-- about 600,000-- into riding dirty.

      A number of large cities zealously enforce parking rules, for the revenue they can extract from car owners. For instance, if you were to drive to Washington D.C. for a visit, I recommend you use a park and ride facility in a distant suburb, and take the subway to the center. That way, you entirely avoid their parking enforcement regime. Chicago is another city notorious for unfair parking enforcement.

      To sum up, not only is the law far from perfect, it is way too often a mere tool in the hands of greedy special interests seeking to abuse it for rent seeking purposes. More examples are the tax prep industry's efforts to keep US income tax dreadfully complicated, to drive citizens to buy their products, and Big Media's insane copyright extremism coupled with the likes of Big Pharma and Big Tech jumping on the IP bandwagon. Heck, even agribusiness is on board that one-- Monsanto is very aggressive against farmers, and the Right to Repair has its origin in the practice of farmers repairing their tractors themselves. Have to keep constant watch that the power of anything, technology or the law, is not abused.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22 2022, @05:10AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22 2022, @05:10AM (#1255229)

        For instance, if you were to drive to Washington D.C. for a visit, I recommend you use a park and ride facility in a distant suburb, and take the subway to the center. That way, you entirely avoid their parking enforcement regime.

        That may be useful anyway, but I wonder what your major malfunction is in understanding parking in DC. Whenever I went there, I always found copious, free parking around the Mall.

  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20 2022, @11:35PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20 2022, @11:35PM (#1254784)

    Dalek no YOU not so fast in you losing to APK as always https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=49835&page=1&cid=1254772#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] with solid proof he is right hosts files block symbiote C2 servers which is all you really need to do to nullify their communication. Exfiltration isn't possible without orders either. Orders come from C2 servers!