From: Asma Chandani <asc2106@columbia.edu>
  To  : <cpc@emoglen.law.columbia.edu>
  Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 22:05:39 -0400

RE: article on video cameras in Las Vegas taxis

The key consumer "privacy" interest arising from the camera-in-cab
phenomena or the camera-in-intersection phenomena, and so on, from my
perspective, is transparency in the chain of custody of the video feed.
I would love to see the day when the public's property-like interests or
due process rights in recordings of themselves are strong enough to
counter the more well-rooted cab driver or intersection provider's
property interests in the product of their recording infrastructure and
toil. I don't know the specific nature of the cab industry given as how
heavily its regulated (medallion system in NY), but assuming both
examples represent quasi-public entities, then wouldn't it be a
beautiful thing if the feed could be used to allay everyone's concerns?
Civil society signs a social contract with all the manifestations of the
private interest in videotaping external phenomena to record deviant
behavior. We grant our broad consent in exchange for intelligible
access, or at least knowledge of how long anyone has intelligible access
to such feed. I'd be less opposed to surveillance if I knew I could call
on it to prove the identity of a thief that recently perpetrated a crime
on me, verify an assailant, or establish my defense should I ever be
accused of a crime I did not commit. Above all else, the governments and
the laws should be working to protect the citizen's fundamental dignity
and rights, and fundamentally doesn't everyone just want to be safe? 

Another issue raised by this discussion that's worth taking note of is
the capacity for storage that entities generating video feed have. The
local stores on the street will surely have less storage capacity than
the neighborhood Wal-Mart. Power to retain video feed for longer lengths
of time varies with the resources and will to store it. At the moment we
may have no pressing sense of urgency because even digital feeds take up
lots of space and are more likely than not recorded over or disposed at
relatively short intervals. When data storage gets cheaper and more
feasibly parsed at more reasonable prices, there's no telling how long
everyone will store their feed. In this environment, private entities
would have to be either compelled (i.e. businesses must store financial
records for audit for x amount of years) or given incentives to store
their feed and make it accessible to the public. This process could come
about by market change- businesses could have dual profit generating
functions: selling groceries and selling access to video feed should the
need arise. The government avails itself of all this footage by
subpoena, no sweat. Isn't it a good idea to create a system of access to
such surveillance for all? The benefits from a social good, efficiency,
and productivity standpoint seem numerous. I wonder though, what
underlying perverse consequences lurk behind the surface of such a
system? 

Ultimately I think it could be a net social good, and gauging from the
information super-highway we're already heading down full speed on, we
need something like this to put the whole system IN CHECK. Why don't we
see such a system in the market now? It's not necessarily a
money-machine is it? Guessing that someone will need video feed off the
corner of 116 and Amsterdam from Friday morning at 4:20 am? Why aren't
more people willing to pay the price to establish such a system? Aren't
the stakes in the criminal justice system significant enough to call for
it? Judicial dockets would decrease if crimes could be proved with
greater certainty. If such a system is a true social good, why aren't we
working harder to create it?

~Asma

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-cpc@emoglen.law.columbia.edu
[mailto:owner-cpc@emoglen.law.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Camden
Hutchison
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 9:30 PM
To: cpc@emoglen.law.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: article on video cameras in Las Vegas taxis


...I don't ride around in taxis much.

-Camden

>
> I can tell you that when i came to NYC in may 2003 they were
> already
> there.
> A
>
> On Apr 21, 2005, at 9:23 PM, Camden Hutchison wrote:
>
> >
> > When did the "you will be photographed" signs start appearing
> in New
> > York City taxis?  I just noticed them.
> >
> > -Camden
> >
> >>
> >> New legislation would require video surveillance in cabs.
> 'What
> >> happens in
> >> Vegas, stays in Vegas, unless you get in a cab.'
> >>
> >>
> >
> <http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Apr-21-Thu-2005/news/
> > 26338175.html>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list
> >>
> >
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list
> >
> Alexander Rosemberg-Holcblat
> LL.M. Candidate, Columbia University School of Law. '05
> ar2308@columbia.edu/ 212-853-0526
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list
>



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


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