What I absolutely cannot stand is the holier-than-thou attitude the surveillers (?), be they corporate or government, seem to acquire. That we lowly citizens are not only not allowed to see the footage from the cameras, we're not even allowed to look at the cameras with anything but the Mark 1 eyeball. I say bullshit! If you want to take pictures of me with my own tax money purportedly for my benefit, I demand to be allowed access to the results thereof. If you want to watch me, you simply do not get to claim that I am not allowed to watch you in turn.
by Leonois 1 at Tue 3 Dec 12:59amscore of 1 They are uncomfortable with who owns the footage. You could do anything with it, put it on the web. Use it against them in court, make money off of it, just like they do. The corporations and the police.
Why are the police allowed to turn the cameras in their cars off?
Why doesn't everyone put their own camera on the dash of their car? I've actually seen a few people do this.
That, plus a lawyer on speedial and you can pretty much count on no police harrassment.
by kallisti 1.5 interesting at Tue 3 Dec 2:03pmscore of 1.5 interesting While I support the particular motives of this campaign, I do think the methodology is silly.
An improvement would be to stand under or around security cameras and photograph the people who are being photographed by said camera.
When they start complaining, point to the security camera - the biggest difference between you and the person on the other end is that you are accountable for your photography because you are present.
Plus, getting their pictures taken surreptitiously would likely raise a little more "awareness" than seeing some cook get escorted off the premises, camera in hand.