Art | November 26, 2008 | Comment on this video (41)

Respectful Cameras

ThomasGreen
The increase in public video surveillance is changing the way that young Americans view their right to privacy. From the surveillance cameras on public streets, to the boom in camera phones and point and shoot video cameras to the technology of Google Earth, cameras are everywhere these days. Some people see them as a great tool that could lead to a safer world while others are reluctant to give away their personal freedoms and rights that Americans have cherished for so many years. Sounds like something has to give right? Perhaps not. Ken Goldberg, a Professor of Engineering and Information at Berkeley, just might have a solution for everyone. Inspired from the artwork of John Baldessari, Ken has created what he calls "respectful cameras" that can blot out an individuals face with the few lines of code. Is this the answer to this dilemma? Where do you see this technology going in the future?
  1. groups:
    Art,   On Current TV,   Facebook,   Big Brother,   2 more
  2. tags:
    Art On Current TV Facebook Big Brother 11 more
  3. credits:
    ThomasGreen Starring, ThomasGreen Editor, ThomasGreen Producer, more
  4.     
    |
    Embed video:
    |

41 comments // Respectful Cameras // Video

  • nickmoyer
  • jttracy
    • 0
      jttracy  
    • I think this completely is against the point of what a security camera is. If you are gonna block out identities and not know who has committed the crime you may as well not have cameras at all. Security camera footage is used to watch for and review crimes; if you aren't doing anything wrong who cares if you're on camera.

    • 2 years ago
  • HereticHero
    • 0
      HereticHero  
    • All our parents had privacy why cant we!?
      I want privacy and some damn respect. Why don't they just leave us alone? turn the cameras off.

    • 3 years ago
  • Denica_Cassandra
    • 0
      Denica_Cassandra  
    • i think anything that records me without my permission is taking away my privacy. invading everyone's privacy all the time for the chance that the footage might help in solving a "crime" seems like too big of a price to pay.

      ~google earth is cool but creepy as well. the thought of anyone who has your info being able to look at your house and your cars is weird.

    • 3 years ago
  • kennymotown
  • chemicalbros
    • 0
      chemicalbros  
    • All we have to do here in the United States is to look at our friends across the pond in England. There was a clothing company coming about that created clothing that would hide your face and build by design. I could see this catching on if the privacy issue continues. The clothing company had a pod on current at one point in time.

      A thought to the marker. If I purchase this item, you could eventually tag that with GPS, or just a number and I will be associated with that number and tracked. Next you are going to want to put a chip in me so you cannot see my face, but always know where I am at and what I am doing.

      Technology our friend. Technology our enemy.

    • 3 years ago
  • Nancyf
  • jjeziorski
    • 0
      jjeziorski  
    • Very interesting pod - but their research seems largely pointless.

      All this does is remove some of the immediacy of privacy invasion. Sure, it blocks faces from the guard monitoring the live feeds - but the dots are ADDED to the image... The cameras & computers still see / record your face at some point in the signal flow...

      All it comes down to is this: If you've got something to hide, you're not going to hide it in public, where surveillance continues to increase.

      Either we establish firm boundaries in privacy, or we don't.

      Eventually, I bet someone will start marketing latex prosthetics you can wear to alter your face just enough to the point that recognition software is thrown off.

    • 3 years ago
  • BLAMM_O
  • Jereth
    • 0
      Jereth  
    • I think that as this tech progresses the ability that many digital cameras have right now, face recognition, will come into play. Instead of putting a dot on the people that are wearing a particular color of hat, it will simply recognize when a face is on the screen and dot it out.

      The dots stay on during normal operation, but if someone snatches a purse, the police can collect the video, remove the dot from the culprit and then go and get them.

    • 3 years ago
  • Commentor
    • 0
      Commentor  
    • this solution does't work .. the blotted out video is more than likely to stored unblotted out as well ---

      "A scanner darkly"
      "1984"
      "Running man" ->see that cop he butchered all those people

      I suppose some people like to be tracked all the time ... their personal locater devices (er um cell phones) do a good job anyway and with video to go with it

      besides that will make it easier to CGI someone else's face doing the crime or staged crime

    • 3 years ago
  • bedeboop
    • 0
      bedeboop  
    • I don't like the public cameras, period. I also don't see the point of blotting out the faces...why put the cameras out in public places in the first place, aren't they being used to catch thieves, robbers, etc...? Hard to catch robbers if their faces are blotted out.

    • 3 years ago
  • asherp
  • wowser863
  • ColossalView
  • extracrazykiwi2008
  • sumfight
  • gnossos
    • 0
      gnossos  
    • I don't think I've ever had someone post a picture of me online without my knowledge, and even if they did I really wouldn't care much. Though I don't like the idea of constantly being watched, I'm not worried enough about it to spend a bunch of money on a hat to obscure my face from cameras.

      Could be useful in some places, though. Especially for celebrities.

    • 3 years ago
  • DeBa
    • 0
      DeBa  
    • I don't get it. If you can't even identify a petty thief then why have the camera there in the first place?

      Just imagine if we had police watching the streets instead of cameras....

    • 3 years ago
  • Jake_Leonard
  • carl0s808
  • TakeBack8
  • rickm8
    • 0
      rickm8  
    • uhmm let me think for a min, if one of these catches a crime, take a typical purse snatcher, and it blots out their faces, doesn't that kill the idea of it being there in the first place? to identify culprits?

    • 3 years ago
  • asherp
    • 0
      asherp  
    • rickm8:

      The whole idea is that you can just switch the dots off.

      But really, who is going to leave the dots switched off?

      I see them advocating RFID chips being implanted in your neck to track you and to "blot your face out" and "give you privacy."

    • 3 years ago
  • pokesmot
  • krazykizza
  • charmedkitten
    • 0
      charmedkitten  
    • yeah thats something that will end up back firing!!!!
      one say someone will be misidentified and then theirs lawyers and next the U.S governments on board. and let me say things go far south when their involved.

    • 3 years ago
  • Tayllerand
  • Tayllerand
    • 0
      Tayllerand  
    • Next thing is going to be the microchip, good bye privicy and freedom wellcome the new world order.
      There is a video clip of George Bush Senior when he said "it is a great idea a new world order" check it in youtube.

    • 3 years ago
  • natdagod
    • 0
      natdagod  
    • The world is at an uproar..security cameras can only do so much. It only deters a little bit when it comes to petty crime but on a terror attack as u can see be the attacks on the US it really didn't matter. It's just to police the public a litle more. That hat will also just make u look crazy if your not in a construction zone.

    • 3 years ago
  • tursiops
  • mal_mal
    • 0
      mal_mal  
    • love baldessari, this pod had me enthralled from beginning to end. still not sure how i feel about all the surveillance, but i really don't feel like there really is any privacy in public anyways.

    • 3 years ago
  • cmruready
    • 0
      cmruready  
    • mal_mal:

      agreed. as long as the cameras arent inside the house, you can't have total privacy in public. I like the idea of the baldessari cameras, but I personally feel either show everything or don't have the cameras at all.

    • 3 years ago
  • verlierer
    • 0
      verlierer  
    • I'm skeptical. Just like the "private parts" blocker with Backscatter X-ray, how do we know its being used??
      Plus, everyone wearing some kind of marker will lead to a bunch of Internet "mark of the beast/end of the world" stuff... and I can't take much more of that. I better idea would be. turn off the cameras.

    • 3 years ago
  • Reddi
  • asherp
    • 0
      asherp  
    • verlierer:

      yes, privacy does need to be expanded.

      By turning the cameras off.

      He talks about how young people just don't care.

      I care. Get your tendrils out of my life.

    • 3 years ago
  • thea_inthecity
    • 0
      thea_inthecity  
    • verlierer:

      I don't think it's that young people don't care, it's more along the lines of they don't know anything else. They are growing up in a time where to clock in at work you use your finger print and that is supposed to be normal.

      I agree.. I'd like to keep any privacy I can get, thank you.

    • 3 years ago
  • bedeboop
    • 0
      bedeboop  
    • verlierer:

      I agree with thea...it is not they don't care...but they are growing up with it...it is normal and they can't imagine life without it, just like at one time I could not imagine life with MORE than three channels! :)

    • 3 years ago
  • CalgarC
  • Jlarson
    • 0
      Jlarson  
    • I think this is a good idea. While this privacy technology still seems to still be in its infant stages, once it is refined and reduced (in size), it could prove to be very valuable. It's about time some of us start doing something about this, as public video surveillance is only increasing as each day passes.

    • 3 years ago
more from Art:

top videos