I wish to have a discussion about how physical surveillance affects you in your day-to-day life; apart from Flock and (Ring) doorbell cameras (which I believe are pretty established at this point). This in context with your country of residence, and whether in a rural or densely populated area (as (“smart”) cities typically “progress” at a faster rate).
I live in a medium-sized village, in a low-density area of The Netherlands. I rarely travel long distances and visit cities, but despite that, I’m increasingly confronted with surveillance infrastructure. Maybe it’s because I know too much about it, and I no longer have the option to be unaware of it, but it eats at me on a daily basis.
Most notable is surveillance surrounding highways, especially: the increased density of radar sensors (which, on their own, might not reveal much about individuals; but could reveal one’s progression when paired to ALPR data, for instance), “focusflitsers” (a (mobile) array of thermal-imaging cameras: peering through a vehicle’s windshield, supposedly patrolling phone-usage during driving, but also featuring an ALPR (which also captures the driver, besides the license plate of course), and may also be used to record speed-indications (to identify “verkeershufters”: roughly translating to “traffic jerks”)), dedicated (mobile or stationary) ALPR cameras (supposedly only for detecting warranted vehicles or “hits”: unless published in the police’s “cameraplan”), “trajectcontroles” (average speed monitoring: essentially two sets of ALPRs, calculating the average time between readings), and (now) digital speed cameras (typically at intersections: instead of adapting road design…). But I’m glad I trust my government to only store “hits” and those in violation… /s
Other than that, I’ve spotted ALPRs (alongside an increasing number of PTZ cameras) at gas stations and above infrastructure (like bridges), but also built within boom gates before parking areas or recycling centers (behind a little square of darkened glass: in the base of the gate); and in, and surrounding retail areas (especially supermarkets) the number of cameras have risen (including the cameras at the self-checkout lanes: staring customers straight in the face; supposedly to discourage theft, but considering the “pay by face” concept, I fear it’s in preparation thereof). Buses, structurally driving through my street, also have (exterior) camera side-mirrors, and therefore frequently capture me. And finally the eyesore that is public-facing home-surveillance systems (despite legally not allowed to, but of course not actively being enforced: as the government would shoot itself in the foot if it did).
That was my little rant, please feel free to leave yours below in the comments; I’m somewhat desperate to hear it. I’m especially interested in stories from Denmark: as even my mom (despite of the “I’ve got nothing to hide” type) noticed “average speed monitoring” cameras all throughout the country, and “speed cameras” being at the entrance of villages (which I believe you aren’t allowed to be notified about in navigation programs: which is also insane to me), when she was there on a holiday. Please be very critical of every camera you’re confronted with, including those that appear to have been there for your entire life. It’s safe to assume every camera (including old “analog” cameras: through encoders) feed back into modern, digital surveillance platforms: which allow the footage to be actively monitored by AI (often to potentially trigger an alert, which an operator could respond to), possibly retained for an extended period of time (especially when considered evidence, it may be stored long-term: on a centralized server and/or cloud storage), and is shared effortlessly over the internet (instead of requiring physical transfer).
Your title has it a little bit backwards. It doesn’t affect you, until it does. That’s why privacy is so difficult. People are naturally reactive. Their phone number gets leaked, they get spam calls, they suddenly care who has their phone number.
But a license plate capture? There is no immediate affect. If the driver was given a monetary charge for every single license plate capture, there would be rioting in the streets and so many laws would be written and repealed… but there isn’t. So people don’t care because it doesn’t affect them.
I tried explaining this to my parents, and they got the concept in general, but again they are naturally reactive in their habits. They won’t discuss banking details in front of their Alexa microphone, but will happily install a driving tracker in their car at the behest of their insurance agent. When their insurance went up because of excess braking (they have those BS short yellow lights to help the red-light cameras) then suddenly they cared that they were being tracked. The surveillance didn’t affect them, until it did.
It’s so easy for people to just not think about it, or assume it won’t happen to them, because that’s the easiest method to cope with the shrinking amount of privacy we get.
I know of no way to champion privacy. No call to arms about an offense to rally behind. It’s a slow erosion that people don’t immediately notice, until it finally affects them.
The authorities don’t have to (ab)use the technology against me, in order for me to be affected by it: in the presence of camera surveillance it makes me uneasy, and thus affects me. But I agree the average person is sadly, but somewhat blissfully, unaware of modern technology eroding their rights, and only start to care when they’re in the midst of it.
If the driver was given a monetary charge for every single license plate capture, there would be rioting in the streets
I wish they were, or at least aware, of the fact that the steep increase in parking tickets, is also due to ALPR technology (at the entry of lots, or mounted to enforcement vehicles), or when they accidentally enter a pedestrian area, enforced by ALPR cameras; but the sad reality is that they don’t; and the same goes for trackers (built into modern vehicles), or some “free” navigation app they’ve installed on their smartphone (listing cheap gas stations for instance, or ironically seeks to avoid speeding tickets…). Money is indeed always the incentive, but it’s only effective if people are unaware, or ignorant enough to not be able to, or willing to, look beyond the short-term monetary gain.
All sorts of new tower cameras popping up rapidly in my area. They look errily similar to a phone tower but much smaller. Single turret style rotational camera on top of a black tower.
Interesting, in what country is this? And is it in specific areas (like retail for example), or implemented more broadly?
I will take a photo for people to see. I think we need to know how to scrub exif data and do the best we can.
In retail locations yes, along highways, even bridges. I will take the photo and repost. So we can identify. United States.
That’d be great, I’m quite interested. :)
I had to stop paying attention to physical surveillance because at one point I was unable to normally function without constant anxiety. The cameras are terrifying and so are cashless-only payments for public transport, parking, highways.
I like how the British have a tradition of destroying cameras in public spaces, but I’m too much of a coward to do the same where I live.
I wish I could, but I don’t think I’m able to now. I’ve already been through a time of pessimism, but have realized this might be exactly what they’re after: unawareness (which is the overarching majority) or ignorance (despite being aware); while exactly now is the time to act. The Dutch government typically bases related legislation on meaningless, exacerbated statistics from pseudo-studies: financed by parties having a clear conflict of interest (an insurance company’s study, on people’s use of smartphones in cars, being a prime example). I believe there need to be more, localized communities, which take care to expose such government inconsistencies: as to rob them of their excuses. Destruction of “tax payer property” will only worsen things: additional cameras might be propped up to identify the suspects, and the government is able to associate privacy-advocacy with vandalism.
I think there’s place for polite lobbying and there’s place for direct action. Just as a statistic of people using smartphones when driving can be a an indicator of increase of reckless driving or whatever, the number of destroyed cameras can be an indicator of societal dissatisfaction and pressure. It’s just a matter of how the data is presented and by whom.
BTW, I was under some financial pressure a few years ago and stopped donations to a NGO that opposes invigilation, your post served as a reminder to start it again.
I agree, but given how data is typically framed around here, it could swing either way. There’s just so many citizens that genuinely believe traffic enforcement cameras are for safety, while part of Dutch government spending directly depends on this source of income. There’s plenty of documents quite literally stating to increase probability of being caught, together with increasing fines: aiming to compensate for shortages… But I’m glad my post reminded you to start supporting the NGO once more, hats off ;)
