Hacker News Reader

Comment by themodelplumber | Hacker News Reader

Has anyone proposed a set of "marking" standards for surveillance cameras? For example, presenting a law that government cameras be marked as such, that there is an indication of the audience type (eg some kind of "public audience symbol" for a zoo cam), and maybe some kind of RF broadcast URL, or a URL to be posted within 100 feet for more information?

If just a few localities had regulations like this covering government and private cameras, and if they were reasonably well designed regulations, I'll bet it would be a huge privacy benefit that would give people more peace of mind and improve communities.

There will always be some exceptions for whatever Black Ops are going down in the desert, or whatever, but a lot of these needlessly anxiety-making camera-human-sensor-loop systems could probably be brought to an end quickly.

View on HN

In the UK (at least, in England) all traffic speed cameras have to be bright yellow. (I feel this is caving in to the driving lobby.) There are restrictions in where they can be placed.

We have laws governing use of cameras (RIPA and DPA), a data protection regulator who requires people and companies to register if they use CCTV, and we have a surveillance commissioner who provides some scrutiny of the use of these powers.

Here's a jargon-heavy discussion about some of these powers: https://www.lateosurveillance.co.uk/idiots-guide-ripa-direct...

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-of-survei...

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/surveillance-cam...

All of this regulation doesn't seem to have stopped the proliferation of cameras. People say that London has more CCTV cameras than any other city.

>>all traffic speed cameras have to be bright yellow. (I feel this is caving in to the driving lobby.)

If we assume that the primary purpose of a speed camera is to reduce speeding where its placed, then you want it to be as visible as physically possible. A hidden camera does absolutely nothing to slow someone down - they will get a ticket in the post few weeks later, but at the time when they drove past it, it didn't do anything to slow them down.

I think the principle of non-visible cameras is that, by inducing uncertainty about when you might receive a ticket, you encourage law abiding behaviour across the road network, and not just at those sites where you locate cameras. In principle this method can be more cost-effective than using visible cameras, because you need fewer cameras.

Of course, these cost savings are predicated on the relative effectiveness of non-visible cameras. The fact that they are used in some countries is evidence that they might be effective. This also seems to me to lend credence to the idea that having visible cameras is a concession to some other interest group, because, although I can understand why the "driving lobby" would want cameras to be visible (so they know when to obey the law), I am having trouble thinking of an interest group who would want cameras to be non-visible for some non safety-related objective - I am of course open to suggestions.

>>I am having trouble thinking of an interest group who would want cameras to be non-visible for some non safety-related objective - I am of course open to suggestions.

Lived in a small town where non-visible cameras were used years ago - huge amount of fines were given, mostly to people out of town. Few years ago, all cameras had to be made visible - now the main road going through town has 3 cameras, no one speeds through the town again, but the revenue has dropped down significantly(it's probably costing the town money now).

Now the question is - which outcome is preferable to the citizens? One where people speed, but the town is getting a lot of money from the fines, or one where people don't speed, but it's actually costing the town money.

I'm sure if you ask the folks at the local council, they would say they preferred non-visible cameras - their budget back then was huge, at(obviously) expense of public safety.

I'm not sure whether I have followed your example correctly, but interpret it as being that the local population was essentially law abiding, because they knew the camera locations both when they were visible and when they were non-visible, and that the main issue was with out-of-town drivers.

There is, of course, no reason why a local council should not decide to deploy visible cameras in such a situation, alongside a national network of non-visible cameras (you obviously don't need to have both visible and non-visible cameras at the same site). The cost-effectiveness argument still holds, under the assumptions previously mentioned.

>>" I am having trouble thinking of an interest group who would want cameras to be non-visible for some non safety-related objective"

I hate to come off overly cynical, but that almost feels like lack of effort: wanting to repeatedly catch large number of unaware drivers to cause increase in ticket revenue seems like a painful obvious one?

Unless we are not considering the government an interest group in this context but that too seems erroneous...

This case only really applies in situations where speed limits aren't well established. I will admit that I was talking from the perspective of a country where you are tested on common speed limits before you are allowed to drive, and which has extensive signage indicating allowed speed limits. In such a situation people are only "unaware" in the sense that they are knowingly breaking the law, but not thinking they are going to get caught.

I don't know about others, but I for one find myself often at odds with speed limits now that large swathes of London are 20mph as opposed to my stock assumption of 30mph as a lower bound excluding maybe schools.

There are signposts. I should always be aware of them. I am often not, many years of habit + very infrequent city driving these days tend towards mistakes. I am slightly more aware now - but I anticipate several years before i've internalised the new rules fully

I have had similar experiences, though I rarely drive in London. However, I would hope that you would accept that, if you were caught speeding, it would be a fair cop, given the clarity of the signage, the rules, etc.?

The acceptance of the rule of law really seems to be central to this whole speed camera issue. If you accept that your actions are subject to the law then you will also accept the consequences of any transgressions you make, intentional or otherwise; the mechanism of enforcement is simply irrelevant. An individual may want to be excused from consequence for a particular law, on the basis that they disagree with them (e.g. speeding), but that isn't how the law works, and necessarily so.

The speed limit signs are the things that should be slowing down drivers.

The purpose of the camera is to enforce the law. By painting them yellow we're allowing drivers to evade the law: slow down for this bit, keep driving at our usual unlawful too fast speed everywhere else.

It's the exact opposite of what you just said. A brightly painted camera enforces the law - it makes literally everyone follow the rules within its sight. A hidden camera does not enforce the law - it just guarantees punishment, but not compliance. It might make people slow down, but only after they get a ticket - and I'd argue that's far too late. If you have a section of the road where it's absolutely critical to follow the speed limit(near a school for example) then a visible speed camera is a far far far better choice than a hidden one.

This is plain ignorant. The threat of a fine makes it safer everywhere, not just where someone can see the camera.

I'd love to hear how is it ignorant - it's not the harshness of punishment that is discouraging illegal acts, otherwise we could punish everything by death and have zero crime. The thing that actually discourages illegal activity is the inevitability of punishment - if there is some chance you won't be caught, people will continue to speed. A visible speed camera guarantees punishment - it's a massive yellow sign that says "if you speed on this road you WILL get a ticket". With hidden cameras the message is "if you speed you MIGHT get a ticket" - and that just doesn't discourage enough.

Is that why nobody speeds in the US even with speed traps? Oh wait..

>The speed limit signs are the things that should be slowing down drivers.

Unless you have Orwellian enforcement this is basically not true. People go as fast as they feel comfortable in the conditions. You can't just slap a 50 sign on a highway and expect people to go 50. If you want people to go a particular speed you need to play visual tricks or screw with the traffic flow to make them feel like the desired speed is the speed they should be going. These approaches have their trade-offs but those trade-offs are generally considered to be less bad than the trade-offs from having speed limits that are irrelevant most of the time.

The primary purpose should be detecting Shitty drivers, and allowing the courts to get them off the road permanently.

I'd dispute that driving at 38 in a 30 automatically makes someone a "shitty driver" - I've seen some absolutely disgusting driving that never would have been picked up by a camera. Tailgating, drivers using handheld phones, and dangerous overtaking are a few examples that spring to mind.

Of course getting these drivers off the road would be a case of funding police properly (so they can be around to witness these things happening) instead of the easy option of sticking speed cameras everywhere.

>driving at 38 in a 30 automatically makes someone a "shitty driver"

In the parallel universe where all speed limits were set by the highway engineers instead of the people who scream "think of the children" loudly enough you could at least make that argument.

In our universe I think claiming that doing 38 in a 30 with no consideration of context makes someone a shitty driver is pretty laughable and in the same category as "weed is bad because it's illegal."

>Of course getting these drivers off the road would be a case of funding police properly (so they can be around to witness these things happening) instead of the easy option of sticking speed cameras everywhere.

One of these costs money and is set up and administrated by the local government. One of this will be set up for the local government by a private company in exchange for a cut of the profits. Which do you think the government will do?

I disagree completely. The primary purpose should be stopping people from speeding on the road where the camera is installed - and that purpose is achieved when the camera is visible.

Lots of comments in this thread seem to assume that painting something yellow will cause the typical driver to notice it. That is not my experience. The typical driver doesn't notice anything that isn't on her phone. New businesses on her everyday commute sprout fully-formed from the earth, the day that her maps app finds out about them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com