From: Heather Schneider <hms2103@columbia.edu>
  To  : <cpc@emoglen.law.columbia.edu>
  Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:58:03 -0500

RE: video cameras

Camden - 

I feel that even if I'm not breaking the law, that doesn't mean I want a
video camera recording my every move. It's just a gut feeling I have; it
bothers me. I'll see if I can articulate why...

I think that to me the problems with cameras are (1) the one-sidedness
of the transaction and (2) the ability to permanently store the data.

What do I mean by one-sided? This is the same problem I see in the GPS
location cases. The court says that placing a GPS on a car is just like
following the car on the street. But I disagree. The GPS allows a party
who isn't present to track my movements without me seeing him. In the
old days, a police car would have to follow me. There is a chance I
might see him in my rearview mirror and I could try to lose him. But
with the GPS that's impossible. 

It's the same with the cameras. It allows someone who I can't see to
watch my movements. Yes, when I walk down the street I'm "in public".
But generally the people who can see me are the same people I can see.
There is a _mutual_ lack of privacy. With the video camera I've lost
_my_ privacy, but the person with the camera hasn't lost _his_ (or
hers).

Plus, I don't like the fact that the data can be stored indefinitely.
When I walk down the street people see me. But after a moment all record
of that transaction is gone, except in our memories. In a few weeks, I
probably won't even remember where I was at 2:15 on a Monday afternoon
walking down Broadway, but the record of the camera will still be there.
In that sense, the person who owns the camera will know and remember
more about me than I do.

So, you ask, why should I care if I'm not breaking the law? Well, there
are a lot of things I might do that aren't illegal, but I still don't
want a 3rd party who I never saw to have a permanent record of. I might
go to an abortion clinic, a gay bar, a gun show, whatever. Hell, I go to
_yoga_ class several times a week. There's nothing wrong with that, it's
not something I'm ashamed to admit. But I wouldn't want the owner of the
school watching our classes on video tape. That would just be plain
embarrassing.

So, if you don't have the same gut reaction, there is probably nothing I
can say to convince you. But maybe you can at least see why it bothers
me.

-Heather

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-cpc@emoglen.law.columbia.edu
[mailto:owner-cpc@emoglen.law.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Camden
Hutchison
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 9:34 AM
To: cpc@emoglen.law.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: video cameras


Ok, there are tons of video cameras everywhere.  Could someone
explain to me why I should care about this?  "You're constantly
being recorded" is not, in and of itself, a reason to care.

Most of the cameras that Steve identified on his walk to class were
security cameras.  The purpose of the these cameras is to deter
crime ex ante and to help in the apprehension of criminals ex post.
 Since I am not a criminal, I don't know why I should think that
security cameras are bad.

-Camden

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list