Recursive Security

January 31st, 2007

Cameras Protecting Other Cameras

There is a proposal in Scotland to protect automatic speed-trap cameras from vandals by monitoring them with other cameras.

Then, I suppose we need still other cameras to protect the camera-watching cameras.

I am reminded of a certain building corner in York. Centuries ago it was getting banged up by carts and whatnot, so the owners stuck a post in the ground a couple of feet away from the corner to protect it. Time passed, and the post itself became historically significant. So now there is another post a couple of feet away from the first one to protect it.

When will it end?


Snarfed from Bruce Schneier’s Blog

It will end Bruce, when everyone reflexively smashes any ‘security’ camera that is operated by the state.

What people do in their own property is their own business, i.e. in Marks & Spencer they can have cameras wherever they like because it is a PRIVATE space. It is your choice not to shop there if they make you feel uncomfortable. Believe me, they will remove them in an instant if their profit margin is hurt by cameras.

Cameras that are in the public, operated by the state are a different thing entirely. The streets and the public spaces are precisely that, PUBLIC, belonging to EVERYONE and no authority has the right to surveil you while you are in public. You have the right to go about your business without being filmed, especially by the police.

All of these cameras should be smashed as a matter of civic duty. I have said this before, and so has Jultra, and so have many others. The fact that they have to put cameras on the cameras means that…its starting.

What would be excellent is if some geek put together a portable microwave gun that destroyed the circuits / CCD in a CCTV / Congestion Charge camera, so that you could kill any camera from a distance discreetly and effectively.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.