CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Citizen media vs surveillance culture

(33 posts)

No tags yet.


12

  1. Dave
    Member

    gembo (in another thread) wrote:

    For example, did I mention that some sociologists I know think that cyclists filming their route is contributing to surveillance culture.

    This is an interesting observation that I thought was worth picking up on - especially as those who currently ride with cameras are very much at the crest of a growing wave.

    On the face of it the statement that 'the more people who have capture devices (still or moving), the more capturing is going on' is pretty uncontroversial.

    Also I don't think it's really arguable that 'citizen surveillance', if such it be, is coming along as a response to 'authority surveillance' as opposed to driving it (for example, Rosyth railway station has about 100 feet of platform and around 15 cameras. I doubt this is because they spotted my headcam when I was waiting for the train.)

    Cheap good quality cameras combined with pervasive broadband have really made it possible for 'citizen media' to impact society and we are seeing a growing number of cases where this has been very significant (the critical mass rider in NY who was attacked by a policeman, and the chap in London who was killed by riot police being two recent examples).

    I'm always interested in what people think about this, as someone who rides (and occasionally drives, or jogs) with a headcam. Personally I have found it to be nothing but a positive, although evidently that isn't everyone's view.

    Perhaps I should be writing a submission for citycycling? ;-)

    Posted 14 years ago #

  2. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Hey, if you get something together before midnight on Wednesday I'll call your bluff... ;)

    Posted 14 years ago #

  3. SRD
    Moderator

    If anyone pursues this, you should talk to my colleague who is a Spokes member and does research on surveillance and privacy at very high levels (including advising the govt). PM me if you want name/more details (had put more in about what he's actually written/researched, but didn't want to breach his privacy....).

    Posted 14 years ago #

  4. Dave
    Member

    That would have been ironic, SRD.

    I don't know whether I have time to do justice to such an article (and certainly not before Wednesday). Let's see how much of an interest the topic raises here, for a start.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  5. chdot
    Admin

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/surveillance

    "a watch kept over a person, group, etc., esp. over a suspect, prisoner, or the like: The suspects were under police surveillance."

    Not suggesting that that is the only/definitive definition - but I think "surveillance" is generally (seen as) institutional/covert and would not include 'people able to record things more easily'.

    Maybe the definition/perception needs to alter to reflect the changes(?)

    If (say) you go out looking for dog fouling, that's probably surveillance. If you catch it on your bikecam in passing (literally) is that surveillance?

    Does it become surveillance if you do anything with the footage?

    "(Information Commissioner) Richard Thomas told The Times that “creeping surveillance” in the public and private sectors had gone “too far, too fast” and risked undermining democracy."

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5812076.ece

    Posted 14 years ago #

  6. Min
    Member

    "Not suggesting that that is the only/definitive definition - but I think "surveillance" is generally (seen as) institutional/covert and would not include 'people able to record things more easily'."

    Well that is how I see it and I don't really see anything different with having a camera while on your bike to having one while walking around. In fact, getting paranoid about this seems to me to be similar to the occasional "bans" on taking photographs of your own children at the school play etc you sometimes read about.

    And I disagree with the increasing use of CCTV for everything so I am not a fan of surveillance in any way.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  7. Dave
    Member

    It's interesting that in general, use of imaging by 'the authorities' has increased while, where possible, its use by the individual has been restricted.

    For example, it's fine to have CCTV in leisure centres but you can't take photos (we used to use a camera with a waterproof case while instructing kayaking, to help people master the eskimo roll - I wouldn't like to try that now!)

    It's interesting to ask what people object to about being observed. Anyone could see you driving through the street, you have no expectation of privacy when you jump on the bus. Yet it's generally felt that the government knowing where you go on the bus would be a bad thing. Is it a spectrum or is there something in particular that makes it bad (such as cross-referenceability?)

    Posted 14 years ago #

  8. Min
    Member

    "Yet it's generally felt that the government knowing where you go on the bus would be a bad thing. "

    Of course it is a bad thing. Do you really trust this government never to misuse information? What about all future governments?

    There is a difference between being observed and being stalked everywhere you go. Imagine I caught you a few times on a helmet webcam because you happened to be there. Fine? What if I followed you everywhere and filmed everything you do. Not fine. With so many CCTV camera's everywhere, the government or whichever authority that controls it could watch your every move if they were so inclined. Which they might be if they didn't like your friends. Or they just took a shine to you. There have already been many cases of abuse of CCTV by its operators.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  9. Dave
    Member

    The thing is, it is already possible to do much of this without an actual camera. Every time you use a card from your wallet you tell not only the banks, but everybody involved in the transaction chain precisely where you are (as well as what you like to buy).

    If your mobile phone is on, the phone company and a large number of its employees, as well as anybody with sufficient interest, can tell where you are (in the case of modern phones, down to a very fine resolution).

    All the calls you make, emails you send and sites you visit are recorded.

    Is it perhaps more worrying that it takes a physical camera, to make people think about their illusions of privacy, when in fact most of the effects they fear are already in place (and have been for some while, in a few cases).

    Myself I think that the sheer amount of information gathered is so high, that it's almost as good as none at all. After all, people who do wish to be anonymous can wear a hat, and use cash & internet cafes (I know this doesn't address the real point, but still).

    Posted 14 years ago #

  10. Min
    Member

    Hmm, I don't think the fact that our privacy is already invaded to a massive degree is really a good excuse to invade it even more! Especially when it is a physical invasion.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  11. SRD
    Moderator

    Isn't the point Dave is trying to make that our privacy is already so invaded that it makes little point to attack/worry about the incremental effect of cycle-camming? More importantly, as he says 'it's almost as good as none at all' i.e. it would be impossible for anyone to actually use the amount of data recovered to actually watch anyone? Dunno. I'm pretty agnostic on this myself. I can see the reasons why people are upset, but it doesn't actually worry me too much. I do find it funny when people think my helmet light is a camera though...

    Posted 14 years ago #

  12. Min
    Member

    I think we're still talking about CCTV (well I was) but I could be wrong. Though the point about wearing a hat to remain anonymous sums up what is so pointless about CCTV anyway. Most people intent on committing a crime just hide their face anyway. That's why hoodies are so popular.

    I saw a guy with a helmet cam on the Innocent last week. Though it may have just been a really big light...

    Posted 14 years ago #

  13. gembo
    Member

    Obviously, the sociologists I know are always trying to turn things upside down. Personally, I dig the short movies of whomsoever's cycle ride, ending with a conversation about poor driving. What the sociologist's I know are saying (I think?) is that the individual carrying out the citizen's media filming is mimicing (presumably unconsciously) the surveillance present in wider society. A kind of Little Brother Is Watching You. They are not positive about this.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  14. Min
    Member

    Well the obvious solution to all of this is to stop hanging around with sociologists. Or at least stop talking to them. They'll soon get the message. ;-)

    Posted 14 years ago #

  15. Smudge
    Member

    Hmmm too much sociology and not enough being cut up by incompetent drivers!
    I don't mimic cctv, my recordings are done with a camera strapped to my helmet in plain view not hidden in the roof somewhere(!), and I film for two reasons, one to embarrass the incompetents who invariably deny point blank any wrong doing when confronted and two, to illustrate directions etc to friends.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  16. chdot
    Admin

    "sleepwalking into surveillance"

    If you're even slightly bothered

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qx4vy

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/virtualrevolution/index.shtml

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/digitalrevolution/2010/02/virtual-revolution-episode-thr.shtml

    Posted 14 years ago #

  17. Dave
    Member

    What the sociologist's I know are saying (I think?) is that the individual carrying out the citizen's media filming is mimicing (presumably unconsciously) the surveillance present in wider society. A kind of Little Brother Is Watching You. They are not positive about this.

    I can only speak for myself here, but I made a concious decision to film my riding after two incidents where the lack of having one frustrated 'justice' (YMMV defining that!).

    A couple of summers ago I was driven at by a bus coming out of the Candlemaker row junction, who tried to force me to stop when I was proceeding quite happily along the main road.

    I made him wait, with much blaring of the horn, and naturally he was only going 50' to the next bus stop, so I decided to hop on and tell the driver (with my usual extreme politeness) that next time I expected him to obey the law. He told me point blank that he would drive his bus as he wished and cyclists could go hop (the exact expression was slightly more choice).

    With many cyclists dying down south under large vehicles, I thought this attitude was an excellent candidate for a retraining by Lothian buses. But of course, despite having a dozen cameras on every bus they denied any knowledge of the incident.

    Later that summer, and more seriously, I was taken out by an oncoming driver who turned right up Chambers St as I was riding down from the Festival Theatre. Luckily he only hit the back of the bike and didn't t-bone me directly, but either way he roared off without so much as a by-your-leave. Despite having two witness statements nothing came of it, half because there was no positive ID of the car (conflicting reports of reg) and half because there was "no way of proving his driving was at fault".

    As I wanted a camera for other sports anyway, this spurred me to buy one and I've never regretted it. I fall somewhat to the other side of the spectrum in that I think you have no right to privacy when out in public, especially if you're operating heavy machinery at speed around vulnerable people. I can understand why people don't like to feel their mistakes are being recorded, but tough.

    Naturally this leaves me somewhat conflicted as regards other forms of 'surveillance'! But in general I think the good outweighs the bad (referring to the bike again here).

    I was reading recently about a woman crushed in London by an HGV driver who couldn't even pass the eye test the police gave him. Despite all the evidence that he came up from behind, hit and crushed the cyclist to death, the coroner gave a verdict of accidental death, suggesting the cyclist was responsible for her own demise.

    However morbid, it consoles me that if someone does ever kill me, they won't be able to rely on 'survivor's justice' and suggest that I "came out of nowhere" and dived under their bonnet!

    Posted 14 years ago #

  18. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Hang on! That would be quite enough for a citycycling opinion piece! :D

    What your saying does strike a chord with me as well - and riding without a camera now feels a bit 'wrong'. I'm always waiting for something to happen, with Sod's Law coming into operation to take me out the moment I'm not filming it.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  19. Dave
    Member

    How about next month, Anth? I'm out this evening and won't have time to do it justice!

    It's bizarre how when I do ride without the camera, I too magically get into sticky situations.

    For a while when I switched to my new job, I didn't bother with the cam and quite enjoyed it. But a spate of near misses changed my mind (the best/worst was someone in the left-turn lane at the King's Buildings junction going straight on, and almost pushing me into oncoming traffic).

    Posted 14 years ago #

  20. gembo
    Member

    If I drew the Venn diagram of Opinions of Sociologists of Surveillance and Opinions of Cyclists who film their routes, the circles would not overlap. I can live with that. Also if I filmed my route and a sociologist told me I was contributing to surveillance culture I would say Yes I Am.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  21. chdot
    Admin

    Where's the culture in surveillance ?

    Posted 14 years ago #

  22. Smudge
    Member

    You could survey some nice artworks or cultural icons?? ;-)

    Posted 14 years ago #

  23. chdot
    Admin

    Citizen surveillance...

    Posted 14 years ago #

  24. Kim
    Member

    A friend of mine who records his commutes in Glasgow was challenged about his use of helmet cam and so made lengthy enquires with the Information Commission for Scotland (or some such body) as to the legality of his usage. He was told that what he was doing was completely legal. It also has it uses when collecting evidence of near misses...

    Posted 14 years ago #

  25. gembo
    Member

    What would be illegal about it? There might be possible issues if every ride is put on Youtube. But then youtube is full of stuff that might benefit from editing. For me, the people filming their routes merely have to accept that they are Little Brother/Sister watching the other citizens with Citizen Media Surveillance. By this I mean that our actions, no matter how noble we imagine them to be can be construed by others as less noble. As the active participant in the filming, the cyclist has to accept that they are contributing to the increasing footage of citizens going about their business (a sort of Mass Observation Technique). There are of course other justifications for filming, just that we shouldn't deny the surveillance aspect of it.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  26. Dave
    Member

    our actions, no matter how noble we imagine them to be can be construed by others as less noble

    Believe me, when you point out to someone who's just caused you to swerve for your life that their awesome talents are headed for YouTube, they leave you in no doubt about how noble they feel that is... :-)

    Posted 14 years ago #

  27. Kim
    Member

    @ gembo, it is not, he was challenged by a number of people when he first posting up videos, and so being an upstanding member of the community, he checked it out to make sure what he was doing was legal.

    His latest video is now the subject of a police enquiry (not his cycling, the drivers behaviour). I would post the video here, but Chris wouldn't like the swearing, if you watch it you will see why.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  28. chdot
    Admin

    "His latest video" -

    "
    "20cm from Death"
    This video has been removed by the user.
    "

    Interesting...

    Posted 14 years ago #

  29. Dave
    Member

    I understand the driver has been charged, so the video will be sub-judice (or some other legalese).

    For those who didn't see it, basically magnatom was riding around a roundabout when an articulated tanker blows through a give way line and comes within a hair of taking him out.

    It will be interesting to see what happens, as I'm not sure there have been criminal headcam proceedings before (only civil ones).

    Posted 14 years ago #

  30. Kim
    Member

    I get the distinct feeling that the police wouldn't have taken any action if magnatom hadn't had a video of the incident. There was little other traffic about, there was no one he could have called on as a witness, with out the video the police would have taken no further action. Worst, had he not be able to stop then the tanker cut across in front of him and had been hit (and probably killed), the incident would, probably, have been put down to cyclist error (which it wasn't).

    I know of one other case where such video evidence was used in a prosecution. In that case, the cyclist was travelling at a reasonable speed alone a suburban road, a driver coming from the opposite direction then makes a right turn across the cyclist path, resulting in a collision. The drivers insurance company refused to pay the cyclist damages, he then took the video to the police and the driver was charged with driving without due care and attention.

    It is sad a reflection on our society that cyclists feel the need to use headcams in this way.

    Posted 14 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin