IAA Operative on Sat, 8 Dec 2001 12:29:48 +0100 (CET)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> iSee: Paths of Least Surveillance


iSee (http://www.appliedautonomy.com/isee/) is a web-based application
mapping the locations of closed-circuit television (CCTV) surveillance
cameras* in urban environments. With iSee, users find routes that avoid
these cameras - paths of least surveillance - in order to walk around
their cities without fear of being "caught on tape" by unregulated
security monitors.

* The camera location data for iSee was provided by the New York
Surveillance Camera Project(http://www.mediaeater.com/cameras/)

How to use iSee

  1) Click on starting location. An icon will appear.
  2) Click on destination. iSee will generate the safest 'path of least
surveillance' between these two places.

Who should use iSee

The past several years has seen a dramatic increase in CCTV surveillance
of public space. Video cameras installed on buildings, ATM machines, and
traffic lights, capture our every move for scrutiny by police officers and
private security guards who enjoy a pronounced lack of public or
legislative oversight. While the effectiveness of these devices in
reducing crime has never been proved, documented examples of misuse by
public and private authorities raise serious concerns about the
appropriateness of video monitoring of public space. Here is a short list
of people who might legitimately want to avoid having their picture taken
by unseen observers:


A primary criticism of video surveillance is the tendency of police
officers and security guards to single out particular people for scrutiny.
It is hardly surprising that the mentality of racial profiling to combat
traffic violations has found similar expression in police officers
focusing their cameras on people of color. Indeed, a recent study of video
surveillance in the UK, the leading user of CCTV surveillance systems,
shows that "black people were between one-and-a-half and two-and-a-half
times more likely to be surveilled than one would expect from their
presence in the population." It is worth pointing out that, in this study,
40% of people that the police targeted were picked out "for no obvious
reason," other than their ethnicity or apparent involvement with various
subculture groups. In other words, individuals were singled out for how
they looked rather than what they were doing.


It appears that police monitors just can't keep it in their pants when it
comes to video surveillance. In a Hull University study, 1 out of 10 women
were targeted for "voyeuristic" reasons by male camera operators, and a
Brooklyn police sergeant blew the whistle on several of her colleagues in
1998 for "taking pictures of civilian women in the area ... from breast
shots to the backside."


Young men - particularly young black men - are routinely scrutinized by
CCTV operators. This is particularly true if they appear to belong to
subculture groups that authority figures find suspicious or threatening.
Do you wear baggy pants or shave your head? Smile - you're on candid


The Hull University study also found a tendency of CCTV operators to focus
on people whose appearance or activities marked them as being "out of
place." This includes individuals loitering near shops and homeless people
panhandling. Not surprisingly, this group includes individuals expressing
opposition to CCTV monitoring - by "flipping the bird" to the cameras, for


Experience has shown that CCTV systems are used to spy on activist groups
engaged in legal forms of dissent or discussion. Indeed, the City College
of New York was embarrassed several years ago by student activists who
found, much to their dismay, that the administration had installed
surveillance cameras in their meeting areas. This trend shows no signs of
abating: one of the more popular demonstrations of CCTV capabilities cited
by law enforcement officials and manufacturers is the ability to read the
text of fliers posted by activists on public lampposts.

Everyone else

Let's face it - we all do perfectly legal things that we may not want to
sha re with the rest of the world. Kissing a lover on the street,
interviewing for a new job without your current employer's knowledge,
visiting a psychiatrist - these are everyday activities that constitute
our personal, private lives. While there is nothing unlawful or immoral
about them, there are perfectly good reasons why we may choose to keep
them secret from coworkers, neighbors, or anyone else.

But what's the harm?

Video surveillance of public space represents a clear invasion of personal
privacy. "But so what?" argue it's advocates. "Having one's picture taken
from time to time seems a small price to pay for the security benefits
such surveillance offers. It's not like anyone ever sees the tapes, and to
be honest, being scrutinized by remote operators without one's knowledge
is not at all the same as being pulled over, intimidated, and harassed by
a live cop."

Unfortunately, these claims are largely inaccurate. The fact is, there is
very little oversight of video surveillance systems, and the question of
who owns the tapes - and who has the right to see them - is still largely

Many of the cameras monitoring public space are privately owned. Banks,
office buildings, and department stores routinely engage in continuous
video monitoring of their facilities and adjacent public space. The
recordings they make are privately owned and may be archived, broadcast,
or sold to other companies without permission, disclosure, or payment to
the people involved.

Similarly, video footage that is captured by public police departments is
part of the "public record," and as such may be available for the asking
to individuals, companies, and government agencies. At present, there is
precious little to prevent television programs like "Cops" and "America's
Funniest Home Movies" from broadcasting surveillance video without ever
securing permission from their subjects.

Sound far-fetched? Already in the UK - the country that makes the most
extensive use of CCTV systems (although the Canada and US are catching up)
- there has been one such case. In 1996, Barrie Goulding, a British
television producer, released "Caught in the Act," a compilation of CCTV
footage purchased from security firms, retailers and municipal
governments. Featuring intimate contacts including one scene of a couple
having sex in an elevator this video sensationalized footage of ordinary
people engaged in (mostly) legal but nonetheless private acts.

Similarly, there has been a proliferation of "spy cam" websites featuring
clandestine footage of women in toilets, dressing rooms, and a variety of
other locations. A lack of legislative oversight allows these sites to
operate legally. Even if new laws are passed, the nature of the Internet
makes prosecutions highly unlikely. As video surveillance systems evolve,
the opportunities for abuse are compounded. Sophisticated video systems
match video images to databases of known faces - for example, the
repository of driver's license photos maintained by the Department of
Motor Vehicles - to identify people, the objects they carry (including
reading the text on personal documents), and their activities. These
systems will store information about who you are, where you've been, when
you were there, and what you were doing in databases that are conceivably
available to employers, ex-lovers, and television producers, among others.

All of this says nothing about the societal impact of our increasing
reliance on surveillance, and our growing willingness to put ourselves
under the microscope of law enforcement and commercial interests. Once a
cold-war caricature of Soviet-style communist regimes, the notion of the
"surveillance society" is increasingly employed to describe modern urban
life in such bastions of personal liberty and freedom as the United
States, United Kingdom, and Canada.

While the nature of such a society has been long theorized by
philosophers, critics, and sociologists, the psychological and social
effects of living under constant surveillance are not yet well understood.
However, the impacts that CCTV systems have on crime are beginning to be

Video Surveillance and Crime

CCTV has gained much popularity in recent years. Touted as a high-tech
solution to social problems of crime and disorder, manufactures claim that
CCTV will dramatically decrease criminality, and provide a measure of
security heretofore unknown to the general public. As these CCTV systems,
often costing upwards of $400,000 to install in a limited area, are often
purchased in lieu of less-oppressive and less-expensive - but nonetheless
proven effective - law-enforcement methods like community policing, the
claims of CCTV merchants should be carefully scrutinized.

CCTV is often promoted with thinly veiled references to the threat of
terrorism: hence their widespread use in the UK, which has long lived with
bombings, political assassinations, and other violent actions. Already, in
light of the September 11 attacks, video surveillance manufacturers have
stepped up efforts to court American clients - with some measure of
success, if recent gains in these companies' share prices are any

Attempting to capitalize on international tragedy to sell product in this
manner seems tastelessly opportunistic at best. Given the track record of
CCTV systems to date, this strategy seems downright cynical. According to
studies of the effectiveness of video surveillance in use throughout the
UK, there is no conclusive evidence that the presence of CCTV has any
impact on local crime rates. While there have been examples of reduced
criminality in areas where CCTV has been installed, these reductions may
also be explained by other factors, including general decreases in crime
throughout the UK. Indeed, in several areas where CCTV was installed,
crime rates actually increased.

Given the widespread use of these systems, it is surprising how
infrequently they lead to arrests. According to one report, a 22-month
long surveillance of New York's Times Square led to only 10 arrests (those
cameras have since been removed). Furthermore, the type of crime against
which CCTV is most effective seems positively mundane when compared to its
advocates' claims of stopping terrorism and kidnappings. A study of CCTV
use in the UK found that the majority of arrests in which video
surveillance played a significant role were fistfights. Even these were
relatively infrequent, and hardly justify the monetary and civil liberty
costs these systems engender.

More disturbing, however, was the finding that incidents of police
brutality and harassment captured by CCTV surveillance were routinely
ignored. The tapes of these events also had a tendency to be "lost" by

The effect of video surveillance on criminal psychology is also not well
understood. One Los Angeles study found that cameras in a retail store
were perceived by criminals as a challenge, and in fact offered became an
inducement towards shoplifting. At best, CCTV seems to not reduce crime,
but merely to divert it to other areas. According to one Boston police
official, "criminals get used to the cameras and tend to move out of

A final statement

In light of recent terrorist attacks, and ensuing public demand for
greater security, projects undermining systems for social control may seem
in poor taste to some viewers. It is the Institute for Applied Autonomy's
position that such times call out all the more strongly for precisely
these kinds of projects. Already, our politicians are railroading their
Orwellian wet-dreams of social control through the legislative body,
auctioning off our civil liberties - wrapped in the stars and stripes,
tied up tight with memorial ribbons - to spytech dealers who salivate in
anticipation of soaring profits and stock market value.  There is a vital
need for independent voices to cry out against cynical exploitation of
genuine fear and suffering for political power and monetary gain. It is in
the interest of providing such a voice that we proudly present iSee.

- Brought to you by the
Institute for Applied Autonomy
"Now more than ever."

* iSee is currently on display in the Ctrl-Space exhition at the

Recent discussion regarding iSee:






"ACLU Calls on Law Enforcement to Support Privacy Laws for Public Video
Surveillance: Statement of Barry Steinhardt, Associate Director American
Civil Liberties Union" American Civil Liberties Union (Press Release),
April 8, 1999Boal, Mark, "Spycam City: The Surveillance Society: Part
One," The Village Voice, week of Sept 30 - Oct 6, 1998.

Flaherty, David H. "Video surveillance by public bodies: a discussion
(Investigation P98-012)," Office of the Information and Privacy
Commissioner for British Columbia, March 31, 1998.

Gibson, H. "Voyeur on the Corner," Time International, Vol. 147, No. 15,
April 8, 1996.

Levine, M. Surveillance, CCTV and SIDE: developing a research programme.
In T. Postmes, R. Spears, M. Lea, & S.D Reicher (Eds.) SIDE issues centre
stage: Recent developments of de-individuation in groups. Amsterdam:
Proceedings of the Dutch Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2000.

Norris, C. and Armstrong, G. "The unforgiving Eye: CCTV surveillance in
public space" Centre for Criminology and Criminal Justice, Hull
University, 1997.

"NYPD to Try Video (Again)", Privacy Journal, April 1997

Reeder, Allan, "To See and Be Seen," The Atlantic Monthly Digital Edition,
July 1998

Sher, Scott, "Continuous Video Surveillance and its Legal Consequences
(PLRI Working Papers Series Fall 1996-01)," Public Law Research Institute,
University of California Hastings College of the Law, 1996

Scottish Office Central Research Unit, "Crime and Criminal Justice
Research Findings No 30: The Effect of closed circuit television on
recorded crime rates and public concern about crime in Glasgow," July 7,

"Video surveillance in public places,"  British Columbia Civil Liberties
Association Newsflash!, June 1999

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net