[HN Gopher] NYC wants you to stop taking traffic cam selfies, bu...
___________________________________________________________________
NYC wants you to stop taking traffic cam selfies, but here's how to
do it anyway
Author : gnabgib
Score : 384 points
Date : 2024-12-13 02:49 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.pcmag.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.pcmag.com)
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| This reminds me of an old sci-fi story, whose name I forgot,
| which had a world building aside that the government had 1person
| moviebooths stren throughout the cities where people could pay a
| quarter to see a 1 minute snippet of the surveillance feeds of
| every public place. The goal was to see yourself, or at least
| someone you recognized.
| Something1234 wrote:
| That sounds incredibly interesting anymore details on where to
| go see it?
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| Another comment identified it as Triton by Samuel Delaney.
| smelendez wrote:
| That may be Triton by Samuel Delany. As I recall, people would
| go to see a collection of footage of themselves to better
| understand their personality.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| I believe that's it--Thanks!
| dave78 wrote:
| Isn't the most likely outcome here that the city will simply stop
| allowing public access to the camera feeds?
|
| This feels like it has the potential to be a "this is why we
| can't have nice things" outcome even though I don't think the app
| author is doing anything wrong.
| euniceee3 wrote:
| That is what happened to the local feed for the city I live in.
| Their mapping data was trash. I went through fixed the GPS,
| found the typical focalized center of frame, built a basic
| frontend, and then they shut it all down.
|
| I found the dude that ran it and emailed back and forth with
| him for a few years. They made excuses about how it is an IT
| issue.
| 7speter wrote:
| > They made excuses about how it is an IT issue.
|
| An ego issue
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| Why does NYC even care? This tendency to govern in a
| controlling way is not just weird but plain unethical. I hope
| this goes viral and embarrasses them.
| dave78 wrote:
| Agree in spirit, though again if it does go viral and they
| become embarrassed the most likely thing is they'd shut down
| public access to the cameras - which would be a lousy outcome
| for everyone.
|
| My county has traffic cameras available online, though it's
| only static images updated once a minute or so. It's not that
| great but I still appreciate it, especially during winter
| weather. Every now and then if the weather seems bad I check
| the cameras to see what the roads look like before I head
| out. It's not a big deal, but I'd be a little annoyed if they
| took away public access because someone was trying to make
| some sort of statement or game out of them.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| NYC government is peculiar, in that its size and scope is
| like a US state, but it also subsumes the functions of US
| cities and counties. The closest comparison in the US is
| probably LA County.
|
| Thinking about it in terms of technology -- during the
| pandemic the schools bought a million iPads. They also run a
| giant hospital system, the largest police and fire
| departments in the country, etc.
|
| The net result is administration of a vast, sprawling (both
| horizontal and vertical) bureaucracy is complex, and the cogs
| in the wheel of that bureaucracy are simultaneously in your
| face and detached from reality. So you have a group of
| attorneys who see a threat in people posing in front of a
| camera.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| You first paragraph raises some interesting points. It
| makes wonder if NYC police and fire is larger than that of
| some smaller countries in Europe, like Belgium or
| Netherlands. My guess: Yes!
| ericbarrett wrote:
| Indeed, the NYPD has 33,000 officers and Belgium's armed
| forces have 24,000 serving plus 6000 reserve. They also
| have very similar budgets: $6b vs. EUR7b.
| noprocrasted wrote:
| This is an opportunity for bullshitters (in a "bullshit jobs"
| sense) to be seen as "doing something" and get pats on the
| back without significant effort - at least less effort than
| doing other, actually valuable things.
| highcountess wrote:
| The response to that should be filing lawsuits to force the
| government to make public resources like that publicly
| accessible.
| lostlogin wrote:
| A you request footage of yourself at a specified place and
| time?
|
| Having a semi automated way of doing that would be far more
| irritating for them.
| autoexec wrote:
| What's the point of making a thing avilable to the public
| online if you're only going to pull it offline as soon as
| regular people start using it? I'm sure there are corporations
| and data brokers quietly collecting info on us using every
| scrap of publicly avilable data including traffic cams, but the
| moment regular folks start getting in on the fun and they post
| a pic of themselves being surveilled on twitter suddenly it's
| time to shut everything down?
|
| If it's a problem as soon as the average American starts using
| something, it's probably better if those resources stop being
| made available period.
| gruez wrote:
| >but the moment regular folks start getting in on the fun and
| they post a pic of themselves being surveilled on twitter
| suddenly it's time to shut everything down?
|
| There's a pretty big difference between using it for its
| intended purpose (ie. monitoring traffic), and the alleged
| behavior that the department of transportation was opposed
| to.
|
| >Office of Legal Affairs recently sent a cease-and-desist
| letter to Morry Kolman, the artist behind the project,
| charging that the TCP "encourages pedestrians to violate NYC
| traffic rules and engage in dangerous behavior."
| autoexec wrote:
| > There's a pretty big difference between using it for its
| intended purpose (ie. monitoring traffic), and the alleged
| behavior that the department of transportation was opposed
| to.
|
| What's the point of having it public then? The department
| of transportation is already using that data for monitoring
| traffic so there's zero need for anyone else to replicate
| their work. The value in making that data public isn't so
| that Joe Average can track traffic volume over time just
| like the DoT is already doing. It's for transparency and so
| that the public can find new and innovative uses for the
| information our tax money is already being spent on
| gathering.
|
| There's no point if we're not allowed to use that data in
| new ways and we don't need the kind of "transparency" that
| only applies as long as the public isn't looking.
|
| If a specific use is actually dangerous then that can be
| dealt with on a case by case basis, and it's arguable that
| they were right to send a cease and desist letter to this
| website, but making the data itself unavailable over it
| would be an overreaction
| ryandrake wrote:
| This seems to happen every time some stuffy SeriousAgency
| or SeriousCompany opens something up to the public. The
| public decides to use it in a way that they didn't think
| of, and they respond by clutching their pearls, panicking
| and shutting it down, instead of just going with it.
|
| SeriousCompany: "Look how cool and in tune we are with
| the public, here's this resource that you can all use.
| High five! [...] Oh, wait, no, what you're doing is bad
| for our image... No, stop, we didn't mean for you to
| do... No, don't enjoy it that way... Wait, stop, we
| didn't think of that at all! Oh, god no you're using it
| to post Amogus Porn! SHUT IT DOWN!!!"
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _public decides to use it in a way that they didn 't
| think of, and they respond by clutching their pearls,
| panicking and shutting it down, instead of just going
| with it_
|
| Because it prompts a serious question: why are taxpayers
| paying for this?
| spaceribs wrote:
| Why are taxpayers paying to enjoy the thing they paid
| for?
| pests wrote:
| You just quoted that the public is using it - isn't that
| why we pay for it?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _the public is using it - isn 't that why we pay for
| it?_
|
| For entertainment. I'm not saying it's a good reason. But
| I could _absolutely_ see "why are we paying millions of
| dollars to fund someone's Tik Tok" play well in an
| election.
| autoexec wrote:
| While you'll always find some people who don't think
| taxes should pay for anything ever in this case I think
| there's clear value in the DoT monitoring traffic volumes
| so the cameras already exist. It's not as if there's some
| huge cost for those camera feeds to be put online where
| the public can easily access them. The footage that those
| cameras capture already belongs to the taxpayers. They
| are a public record (although short lived since it
| doesn't look like the government is saving the footage).
| The taxpayers should have easy access to their own
| records and they should have the freedom to make use of
| those records.
| try_the_bass wrote:
| But sometimes SeriousCompany says "we'll provide this
| public resource so people can do X, Y, and Z", and then
| someone does A and gets a cease and desist?
|
| It's an open resource, sure, but the provider of the
| resource can still set limits on its use, even after it's
| been available for some time. Often that includes things
| like "don't use our free resource to make yourself
| money".
|
| That seems like an entirely reasonable request to me?
|
| Something being freely available does not inherently
| grant you the right to use it however you'd like. It's
| pretty unhelpful to conflate the two things.
| StockHuman wrote:
| You're conflating a license to use something granted
| without charge and something actually free to the public.
| Licenses come with terms, public resources only come with
| social pressures of fair use.
|
| It is unfair for SeriousCompany to pretend that resources
| it releases to the public (usually as a PR move or to
| advertise a paid product) must flatter their motives and
| the narrow confines of what they envisioned the public
| might use them for. That is wishing a free resource had a
| license when it only has a social contract. If the
| provider could set limits, it would no longer be free.
| try_the_bass wrote:
| I mean, a license to use something for free can still
| apply to something that is freely given? There's no
| conflation, since they're just different aspects of the
| same thing
|
| And no, that's not unfair, that's absolutely within their
| rights, as the provider of said thing. What's unfair is
| willfully taking advantage of a free resource in ways
| that are explicitly against the reasons the provider is
| providing the thing in the first place. That's just place
| malice at that point.
|
| After all, a license is just a social contact that can
| actually be enforced. I would argue the world would be a
| far better place if people didn't abuse the unenforceable
| nature of what you're calling "just a social contract".
| macNchz wrote:
| > What's the point of having it public then? The
| department of transportation is already using that data
| for monitoring traffic so there's zero need for anyone
| else to replicate their work.
|
| Personally I do find it useful to be able to glance at
| the NYC traffic cams as a supplement to traffic maps, not
| only because having an actual visual on the traffic can
| help me decide on a driving route better than red or
| green map lines or a routing algorithm I know will take
| me on an inferior path to "avoid" perceived traffic, but
| also because the cameras pick up other nearby stuff. I
| like to go on runs over the Brooklyn Bridge, but it's so
| swarmed with tourists most of the time that I'll check
| the DOT cameras so I can see if the pedestrian path is
| clear enough to run on without being clotheslined by a
| selfie stick.
|
| I also spend a lot of time north of the city, and the
| state highway traffic cams are great for checking the
| plowing status during/after winter storms before setting
| off for a trip.
| try_the_bass wrote:
| > What's the point of making a thing avilable to the public
| online if you're only going to pull it offline as soon as
| regular people start using it?
|
| Regular people have been using it for decades, though?
| Scrolling through the comments here are plenty of people who
| have discovered and put these cameras to use in their daily
| lives.
|
| Something being freely provided does not inherently grant
| consumers the right to do with it whatever they please. The
| producers, being the one freely providing the things, seem
| well within their rights to set limits on its usage, no?
| Sure, sometimes things are freely produced with the express
| point being that they _can_ be used without limitations, but
| this isn 't an inherent property of the thing being freely
| available.
|
| I mean, why else do we have so many different open source
| licensing models?
| zmgsabst wrote:
| Government generally can't on a public resource.
| try_the_bass wrote:
| That seems like a problem that should be remedied, not an
| excuse to behave badly and blame it on lack of
| enforceability?
| academia_hack wrote:
| The data collection isn't even quiet. There's an entire
| cottage industry of companies that scrape these traffic cam
| feeds, store everything for x numbers of months in low-cost
| cloud vaults (e.g. glacier) and then offer lawyers/clients in
| traffic disputes access to footage that may have captured an
| accident for exorbitant rates. It's a remarkable little
| ecosystem of privatized mass surveillance.
| pierrefermat1 wrote:
| Actually curious what the minimum bitrate/resolution they
| could store with to be still usable in court
| potato3732842 wrote:
| Probably damn near zero if you have time stamps. A couple
| one pixel blobs would do if all you're trying to prove is
| that some idiot got dead because they cut a garbage truck
| off and that the garbage truck didn't rear end them or,
| or some other simple "he said she said" situation like
| that
| cinjon wrote:
| What are the companies you know of here?
| academia_hack wrote:
| Check out: https://trafficcamarchive.com/ for an example.
| cinjon wrote:
| Right, that's one. And it's the only one that comes up
| when I search. Are there others you know of?
| dahart wrote:
| You're framing this like it's a bad thing, but a video of
| an accident is pretty valuable to someone falsely accused
| of causing an accident, and in that case the people with
| the video aren't the bad guy, the person lying about
| causing the accident is. Storing 50 million videos isn't
| cheap. The rates seem reasonable considering the volume of
| data they store, most of which is useless, and the small
| number of customers in their target market - I see 1 hour
| blocks of video in NYC cost $250. That's like 10 minutes of
| lawyer time, if you're lucky, and totally reasonable and
| worth it to settle an accident dispute if the alternative
| is paying the other guy thousands. I might even speculate
| that the intended customer here is insurance companies and
| maybe not individual drivers. If so, insurance companies
| are well prepared to do their own cost/benefit price
| analysis. So... why do you think this is bad? And what
| surveillance uses are you worried about outside of car
| accidents? The cost of the videos means nobody is doing any
| "mass surveillance" here, that the vast majority of the
| video gets deleted unanalyzed and unwatched.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _If it 's a problem as soon as the average American starts
| using something, it's probably better if those resources stop
| being made available period._
|
| Average American probably won't be using it.
|
| This seems to be _the_ hole in Kant 's categorical
| imperative[0] - plenty of useful things fail the test of
| universality, because there isn't one class, or two classes,
| but _three classes of people_ : those who find some use for a
| thing, those who don't and thus don't care, and then those
| who have no use for the thing _but don 't like it anyway_.
| And in the past century or so, thanks to the role of mass
| media, _that third class is ruling the world_.
|
| And so...
|
| > _but the moment regular folks start getting in on the fun
| and they post a pic of themselves being surveilled on twitter
| suddenly it 's time to shut everything down?_
|
| Yes, it is. It's how this has been playing out time and again
| - once the attention seekers, and people with overactive
| imagination wrt. dystopias, and maybe the few with some
| actually reasonable objections join forces, it's better to
| shut the thing down as soon as possible, to minimize the
| amount of time your name can be found on the front pages of
| major newspapers. At that point, there's little hope to talk
| things out and perhaps rescue the project in some form -
| outraged public does not do calm or rational, and if you
| somehow survive the first couple days and the public still
| cares, you're destined to become a new ball in the political
| pinball machine. With your name or life on the line, it's
| usually much easier to cut your losses than to stand on
| principle, especially for something that's inconsequential in
| the grander scheme of things.
|
| One by one, we're losing nice things - not as much because
| they're abused, but mostly because there's always some
| performative complainers ready to make a scene. We won't be
| getting nice things back until our cultural immunity catches
| up, until we inoculate ourselves against the whining.
|
| See also, [1] and [2].
|
| --
|
| [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
|
| [1] - Cardinal Richelieu's "Give me six lines", though the
| (apparently) more accurate version from
| https://history.stackexchange.com/a/28484 is _even better_ :
| "with two lines of a man's handwriting, an accusation could
| be made against the most innocent, because the business can
| be interpreted in such a way, that one can easily find what
| one wishes." More boring than malevolent, and thus that much
| more real; it reads like a HN comment.
|
| [2] - Disney's _Tomorrowland_ is, in a way, a commentary on
| this phenomenon;
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42405210 is, in a way, a
| commentary on that.
| kayo_20211030 wrote:
| > "this is why we can't have nice things"
|
| Of course, it'll be used, but that's just a bad, bad argument
| at any level.
| try_the_bass wrote:
| It really isn't, though? The Tragedy of the Commons is a real
| thing that affects real resources every day?
| kayo_20211030 wrote:
| I think we're in agreement. The "that's why we can't have
| nice things" argument happens at the end when traffic cams'
| public access is taken away because some clever soul found
| a novel use for the publicly available information (i.e.
| taking selfies), and the authorities were put out by it.
| So, public information gets locked down on spurious
| grounds, and the same clever soul is wrongly blamed for it.
| That's not fair, but someone _will_ say ".. and that's why
| we can't have nice things", and others will say "yeah. that
| guy ruined it for everyone".
|
| It's a bad argument as it ends up putting the blame on the
| wrong party.
| try_the_bass wrote:
| But in these cases, it is the "clever soul" who's to
| blame, especially if they cannot be legally restricted
| from being "clever".
|
| Like I said in another part of this thread: we should not
| be confounding "freely available" with "free to use
| without limitation". The various forms of open source
| licensing are testament to this concept: some things are
| indeed freely offered; others stipulate that you can't
| use them to make money without also offering your source
| code freely, etc. In both cases, the code is offered
| freely, but in the latter case, you're not legally
| allowed to use it without limitation.
|
| Public information is often taken down because it can't
| be limited in such ways, and it relies on an honor system
| of sorts. Once people stop being honorable, there is no
| other choice but to take the resource away. The fault
| there absolutely rests with the individuals that have
| violated the implicit honor system.
| alufers wrote:
| A bit tangential, but in Poland we also had such traffic
| cameras with public access (it wasn't a live feed, but a
| snapshot updated every minute or so). It was provided by a
| company which won a lot of tenders for IT infrastructure around
| roads (https://www.traxelektronik.pl/pogoda/kamery/).
|
| What is interesting to me is that the public access to the
| cameras has been blocked a few months after the war in Ukraine
| started. For a few months I could watch the large convoys of
| equipment going towards Ukraine, and my personal theory is that
| so did the MoD of Russia. I haven't seen any reports about
| that, just my personal observation.
| avh02 wrote:
| Would have been a good opportunity to inject misinformation
| after they noticed (assuming it's what happened)... Convoy
| passing by? Quick, splice in alternative footage that has
| equivalent traffic/weather conditions. (Or an infinite convoy
| to scare them)
|
| Or just block it i guess.
| zulban wrote:
| If you cannot harmlessly use it publicly then it never was a
| "nice thing we had".
| rKarpinski wrote:
| The referenced project is open source
| https://github.com/wttdotm/traffic_cam_photobooth
|
| TIL NYC traffic cams have a live feed on the web
|
| "NYC DOT traffic cameras only provide live feeds and do not
| record any footage. There are 919 cameras available via the
| NYCTMC.org website."[1]
|
| random traffic camera
| https://webcams.nyctmc.org/api/cameras/a8f2d065-c266-4378-ac...
|
| [1] https://webcams.nyctmc.org/about
| 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
| What is their use if they don't record anything? Just to
| measure current traffic levels? I assumed they were all used as
| ALPRs. I've seen some cameras sprouting up in my small town and
| it worries me.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Yes, and they predate the internet.
|
| They are essentially a public live traffic report so that the
| news agencies are not running helicopters amok to get the
| same footage; and many of the cameras are in tight locations
| where it would be hard to fly helicopters or drones without
| irritating neighbors or being a danger to public safety.
| rcpt wrote:
| Sounds like great technology
| soulofmischief wrote:
| The government of NYC has a long history of abusing the
| rights of its people and engaging in overreaching and
| unwarranted surveillance. They have not shown that they
| can be trusted with even traffic cameras. They scan
| license plates all through the city and use this
| technology to create a chilling effect which allows their
| authoritarian regime to remain unchallenged.
| mikeweiss wrote:
| License plates are constantly scanned everywhere in the
| United States by public and private entities. What is the
| chilling effect you're referring to?
| LinuxBender wrote:
| I've been curious about this. Are there leaked LPR
| databases that can be integrated with NVR's like
| Zoneminder, Shinobi, Blue Iris, Frigate and such? I know
| that some of them can read license plates but that's not
| entirely useful without an actual database of plates
| behind it. _i.e. DMV, associated NCIC data, etc..._ As
| many times DMV 's in many states have leaked data I would
| assume this must be a thing.
| soulofmischief wrote:
| Yes, and it's actually pretty rampant in my own current
| city, it's been a huge sore point for years with
| activists. The chilling effect is that resistance becomes
| that much harder as the authoritarian ratchet tightens.
| When the movements of people can be tracked en masse via
| some panopticon, it is very easy to prevent them from
| organizing into any real threat against the incumbent.
|
| Here's an example from just last month in my city:
| https://www.wbrz.com/news/license-plate-readers-popping-
| up-a...
|
| Crime, etc. are always the reason given. But my city has
| repeatedly shown they cannot be trusted with these kinds
| of powers.
|
| Here's more information from the ACLU on this exact
| topic: https://www.aclu.org/news/national-
| security/chilling-effects...
|
| > Knowing or suspecting that we're being watched can stop
| us from engaging in certain kinds of behavior, even when
| it's perfectly lawful. For example, it might affect our
| decision to go to a certain barber (what would my other
| barber say?), meet up with a friend (what would my mom
| say?), eat at a restaurant (what would my trainer say?),
| or take the scenic route (is it suspicious that I'm not
| using my normal route?)
|
| Keep in mind that just a few decades ago we had the Red
| Scare. We harassed and ruined the lives of people over
| thoughtcrime, for simply supporting the notion of
| alternate economies or just accepting those who did.
| Imagine the scope of that if we'd had the surveillance
| network that we do today. And there is no indication that
| we won't have a similar event in the near future.
|
| Lastly, I know your question is in good faith and thank
| you for asking for clarification. That said, it's
| important to consider that manufactured normality isn't a
| valid reason to not question authority. It's quite easy
| for Corpgov to do anything at scale long enough that new
| generations are born into it and wholly accept it without
| question.
|
| All expressions of governmental authority must be
| constantly challenged and defended, and any possibility
| of chilling effects should be investigated thoroughly,
| time and again. This is our duty as The People, the
| fourth branch of the government. This is the critical
| check and balance which keeps things from becoming
| irrecoverably fucked.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| People need to understand the danger of the current
| surveillance infrastructure.
|
| Turnkey totalitarianism.
|
| Totalitarian control is turnkey in America if the "wrong
| guy" gets in. It's funny because the voters aren't
| demanding limits, and yet each election cycle is life or
| death not just because of the he escalating propaganda...
|
| I think voters know that we are close to total
| oppression, on a subconscious fear level.
|
| Whether in the next four or forty years, someone will do
| it.
| ldoughty wrote:
| Just because NYCTMC doesn't record doesn't mean NYC Police,
| or any other group doesn't... Could have been intentionally
| coordinated or not at the beginning, but it almost certainly
| is recorded by several players now
| CPLX wrote:
| Google NYPD Viper Unit
| someothherguyy wrote:
| Video Interactive Patrol Enhancement Response
|
| It sounds like they install their own cameras though.
| SturgeonsLaw wrote:
| > Interactive Patrol Enhancement Response
|
| Man they came up with a pretty clunky name in order to
| shoehorn it into the _cool acronym_ VIPER
| manquer wrote:
| At some point why bother making it an acronym that makes
| little sense .
|
| Just call it VIPER, it doesn't have ostensibly stand for
| a shoehorned acronym with no meaning
| knallfrosch wrote:
| They invent these during work time, plus it's fun.
| bravetraveler wrote:
| Avenue for getting you and your buddies funding. More
| buddies, more letters.
| rolandog wrote:
| "The real surveillance state is the friends we made along
| the way."
| phist_mcgee wrote:
| I find it odd how in the US, signature bills have a
| catchy acronym like the PATRIOT act. Is it purely a
| cynical attempt to sway the public?
|
| Where i'm from bills are given a boring name and a
| number.
| CPLX wrote:
| Americans are the world's foremost experts on branding
| things.
|
| We literally can brand anything. Obscure pharmaceuticals,
| campaigns to oppress people, one inch variations in the
| size of an airplane seat, you name it.
| chris_wot wrote:
| Nothing like a good retronym.
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| Doing away with the acronym will be the major achievement
| of some future management types. Relabel some processes,
| rename come protocols, refresh the livery. KFC so longer
| stands for Kentucky Fried Chicken, that sort of thing.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KFC
|
| _1991, the KFC name was officially adopted, although it
| had already been widely known by that initialism.[36]
| Kyle Craig, president of KFC U.S., admitted the change
| was an attempt to distance the chain from the unhealthy
| connotations of "fried"._
| DidYaWipe wrote:
| Video I'd Personally Eradicate Retroactively
| someothherguyy wrote:
| You should be able to get that information:
|
| https://www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/about/about-
| nypd/policy/post-a...
|
| Although:
|
| https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-
| opinion/nypd...
| radicality wrote:
| These traffic cams are a tiny portion of all the cams in
| NYC, and most have abysmal resolution and fps (~1 fps via
| mjpeg).
|
| The NYPD has its own much more vast network of cams, but
| unfortunately these are not accessible to the public. This
| article from 2021 puts it at 16k nypd cams, I bet it's more
| now. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/06/scale-
| new-yor...
| karaterobot wrote:
| For one thing, the people using this photobooth site are
| recording the footage, at least in part.
| ssl-3 wrote:
| The small(ish) town I grew up in started using cameras a
| dozen or more years ago.
|
| They get used with computer vision to control and coordinate
| traffic lights (sometimes with the help of inductive loops in
| the pavement, and sometimes without).
|
| In this _particular_ case: They don 't record anything, and
| their ISM 900MHz backhauls don't have enough bandwidth for
| centralized video anyway.
|
| (Sources: Background in RF, and I used to hang out with the
| city employee who took care of this system along with most
| other things relating to traffic lights there.)
| tech234a wrote:
| In 2020-2021, the NYC Mesh team ran a project called
| streetwatch.live (dead link) to archive footage from traffic
| cameras.
| bri3d wrote:
| The cameras in your small town are probably
| https://www.flocksafety.com/ , which are definitely ALPRs.
| The NYC traffic cameras are to a great extent an anomaly from
| a bygone era; cameras installed at an exact point in time
| where real-time monitoring sans analysis or recording made
| sense.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| They still do. While phones can give you real time traffic
| as well, one with good enough knowledge of the local road
| system can use the live traffic reports to actively
| navigate away, sometimes more effectively than the mapping
| apps.
| chrisdhoover wrote:
| They may or may not be. Most traffic light mounted cameras
| video presence detectors
| ashoeafoot wrote:
| Any legal four eyed entity couldvread that lifrstream and
| send it to the NSA?
| wholinator2 wrote:
| Yeah, to think that just cause the broadcaster isn't saving
| it, that it's not being saved? Nah, someone is saving it,
| they might not use it, they might not keep it, but it's
| getting scraped, even if by just regular peoples science
| projects
| mortehu wrote:
| When I'm heading to New Jersey, I often check the Holland
| Tunnel entrance camera to see whether there's a jam. The
| intersection only flows well if there's a traffic cop there,
| which factors into route decisions.
| djmips wrote:
| Surely that could be automated.
| crtasm wrote:
| The image with the camera in the mirror shows not every camera
| requires standing in traffic.
|
| The C&D letter:
| https://trafficcamphotobooth.com/assets/CeaseAndDesist.pdf
| hackernewds wrote:
| breaking the law continues to be a good form of monetization
| Spivak wrote:
| Terms & Conditions of a website, even a government website,
| aren't law.
| ioblomov wrote:
| INAL, but guessing they're technically contract law.
| fc417fc802 wrote:
| They are not. Or rather they have generally been deemed
| unenforceable as such (at least in the US). You can, of
| course, be banned by the service for violating them.
|
| This is similar to signs regulating behavior that
| businesses might put up. By and large those are not in
| any way legally binding. Generally all the proprietor can
| do is ask you to leave. But since they can and often do
| ask you to leave, people generally abide by the posted
| requests.
|
| In a similar vein "not liable for THING" signs are more
| accurately read as "we don't wish to be liable for THING
| and are going to attempt to refuse if at all able".
| jrockway wrote:
| It seems like it's not. Nobody has ever prevailed in
| court for the "you can't deep link to our website"
| clause. There is a circuit split on "you can't embed
| images from our website". In the 9th Circuit, Perfect 10
| v Google establishes precedent that you can <img
| src="someone else's site"> if you feel like it. In the
| Southern District of New York (2nd Circuit), Nicklen et
| al v. Mashable, Inc. defines precedent that you can't. As
| far as I know, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has not
| said anything about that. Either way, the next person to
| encounter this issue probably goes to the Supreme Court.
|
| I think the department of transportation is overreaching.
| You can link to the location of the traffic cams and the
| video feeds. If they want to make that information
| private, then fine, they might be allowed to do that. But
| telling people about something that's public isn't
| illegal. That people are disrupting traffic by standing
| in the street having their pictures taken is too bad.
| They can increase the refresh rate to avoid that problem,
| or they can remove public access, or they can have the
| cops write people tickets for blocking traffic. Of the
| cameras in my neighborhood that I looked at, most of them
| can take your picture on the sidewalk and all of them can
| take your picture in the crosswalk during a walk signal.
|
| Overall, I get why the DOT doesn't like this site, but I
| think it's kind of too bad for them. The DOT wants to
| maximize vehicles per hour. Residents want to take back
| their streets. Sorry, DOT. Evolve or die?
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| Without an exchange of money (or goods), there's no
| contract between the parties. Other laws may apply such
| as copyright, but not contract law.
| prmoustache wrote:
| which law is being broken here?
| gosub100 wrote:
| Tangential, but I'm a subscriber to a YouTube channel called VRF
| - virtual railfan - that shows essentially "traffic cams" of
| trains throughout North America. People do take selfies for the
| cam but always from a safe location.
|
| Over the years, the cams have caught some extraordinary events:
| maintenance equipment starting fires, trains on fire, numerous
| derailments, and, I'm not kidding, probably about 100 occurrences
| of people driving onto the tracks and getting stuck. A
| disproportionate number of them occurred at Ashland, VA. Which
| makes me think it's a bug in the traffic design.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > and, I'm not kidding, probably about 100 occurrences of
| people driving onto the tracks and getting stuck. A
| disproportionate number of them occurred at Ashland, VA. Which
| makes me think it's a bug in the traffic design.
|
| Can't speak for Ashland, but... educated guess, too steep
| elevation on the crossing, either from faulty design or bad
| road maintenance (the segment of road _outside_ the compacted
| zone surrounding the rail settles from the load of the trucks).
|
| In Germany, we solved that issue _mostly_ by demanding
| automated radar or manual visual (direct or by camera) checks
| before clearing a crossing for the passing of a train at
| intersections that carry heavy haul traffic. However, we have
| on rarely-used crossings no monitoring, sometimes even no
| signalling, and just a day ago a freight train absolutely
| demolished the shit out of a rubble hauler [1].
|
| [1]
| https://www.reddit.com/r/AbruptChaos/comments/1hdjzek/a_truc...
| gosub100 wrote:
| many of the drivers simply couldn't get back on the road. If
| there were a ramp instead of a drop-off, the could have,
| however it would have been at the extreme risk of backing
| into traffic. Probably due to coincidence, train tracks are
| the perfect height to prevent drivers from turning (to drive
| over the rail). Some very determined drivers have done it,
| but probably 1/10 of the ones who become trapped.
| toast0 wrote:
| Oh, I didn't understand what you had meant by driving onto
| the tracks.
|
| I've been at least one crossing where I almost turned left
| onto the tracks instead of left onto the street before or
| after the crossing [1]
|
| If this is happening much more often at one crossing than
| others, there's probably some feature of the crossing
| design that is encouraging this improper use. It's possible
| an inexpensive intervention could help a lot: painting lane
| lines and dashed turn indicators from the left turn lane
| could help.
|
| Otherwise, it might be possible to put a gate over the
| rails, that was down at rest, and only raised when a train
| is crossing; but I've never seen that outside of rails at a
| park of some sort.
|
| [1] https://maps.app.goo.gl/Vrz5HtB23dDV3mcg7?g_st=ac I
| think this should be a link to the street view. If not,
| Sunnvale Ave and Hendy Ave in Sunnyvale, CA. Heading south
| on Sunnyvale. I feel like this intersection has changed
| since, but I'm not sure.
| toast0 wrote:
| > A disproportionate number of them occurred at Ashland, VA.
| Which makes me think it's a bug in the traffic design.
|
| Without knowledge of the crossing, it's definitely possible.
| Some crossing designs are better than others, and changing the
| design of a crossing can be very difficult depending on the
| site details. Changing the path of rails is always difficult
| due to the constraints of trains, so a poor crossing will
| almost certainly need to have the alignment of the road
| changed, but sometimes there's not enough buildable space
| around the crossing to build an over or undercrossing (grade
| separation) and it is expensive and disruptive. Sometimes it's
| possible to close the road if the crossing is bad and the road
| is deemed unnecessary, but it's pretty rare to deem roads
| unnecessary.
| qudat wrote:
| That site is ad cancer, can't see the content at all
| varenc wrote:
| My iOS ad blocker seems to block it all since I see none
| Gunnerhead wrote:
| How do you do that?
| gwill wrote:
| i use nextdns and don't have any ads on the site.
| qwe----3 wrote:
| The page crashed on my phone
| nicce wrote:
| > We Care About Your Privacy
|
| > We and our 870 partners store and access personal data, like
| browsing data or unique identifiers, on your device
|
| They always care so much.
| airstrike wrote:
| I find it odd that we've conflated political statements with art.
|
| I'm not saying art cannot or should not be political, but rather
| that not all forms of political statements represent art _just
| because_ they are political. For some reason many people think
| they do to such an extent that my position would be borderline
| blasphemous in art circles.
| Spivak wrote:
| I mean this is kind of trivially true so I'm not really sure
| who you're arguing against-- "I think we should have lower
| taxes" is a political statement that isn't art. But for the
| most part if you believe what you're doing it art, it's art--
| this is for sure a performance piece.
|
| I know a few local galleries that would trip over themselves to
| do an exhibition with this photo set.
| airstrike wrote:
| _> I 'm not really sure who you're arguing against_
|
| I'm arguing against calling these photos art.
|
| _> But for the most part if you believe what you 're doing
| it art, it's art-- this is for sure a performance piece._
|
| I understand this is the prevalent view in the 21st century.
| I'm not convinced it is true. And similarly just because I
| rent a place, put up a sign saying "Art Gallery" and put some
| things up for display, that doesn't mean those things are
| works of art. The emperor has no clothes and all that.
| superb_dev wrote:
| If you took the time to rent a place filled it with
| something and then hung a sign that said "Art Gallery", I
| would argue that for sure is art. It may or may not be good
| art but it is art
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Submitted for your approval. MOBA:
| https://museumofbadart.org
|
| Used to be in someone's basement, but I think they now
| set it up in various semi-public places.
| superb_dev wrote:
| Yup, art!
| airstrike wrote:
| I know you and others would "for sure" argue it's art.
| That's precisely my point. I'm not convinced art is in
| the intent. Personally, it feels like Marcel Duchamp and
| others have conned everyone into believing that, though
| again I'm sure you'd disagree.
|
| But it's definitely not "for sure" anything, as in it's
| not obviously, axiomatically, intrinsically, self-
| evidently the case. Even if the art scene _today_ has
| collectively agreed on that view for the most part.
|
| I subscribe to a more formalist or conservative view of
| art, particularly Roger Scruton's. Art is based on its
| intrinsic aesthetic properties and the kind of
| contemplative experience it elicits. Meaning the
| artwork's formal or aesthetic aspects are central. It's
| those things that make it art and give it value, rather
| than whatever the artist intended to say or do.
|
| If you subscribe to this view--which to me is what the
| average person _would_ subscribe to, or the "common
| sense" view--then the photos in the article have very
| little aesthetic value and elicit no contemplative
| experience. At best, they promote discussion about state
| surveillance, which is a political but not an artistic
| endeavor. It's not just "bad art", but rather "conflating
| political statements with art", as I said at the top.
| gen220 wrote:
| I understand the semantic argument you're trying to make.
|
| I think you have more to gain from loosening your grip on
| the boundaries of the word "art", for purely selfish
| reasons. It makes the world more nuanced and interesting.
|
| For similar reasons, I'd recommending widening your lens
| of what is considered political. All art is political,
| even if it's not the artist's "intention" or within their
| awareness. Because it's the production of a political
| context. There's no such thing as an apolitical life or
| human act.
|
| You can argue against it for semantic reasons, but again
| I'd challenge what value you gain from leaning on those
| semantics, beyond sorting a gloriously continuous and
| analog universe into artificially-exclusive categories.
| airstrike wrote:
| _I should first note that I sincerely appreciate the
| thoughtful reply and how honestly you 've engaged in this
| conversation. It's why I love coming to HN, so thank
| you._
|
| I used to have very loose grips on the boundaries of the
| word "art". I've been there and done that. Then I
| realized that humanity has more to gain from holding art
| to higher standards than it does from the "anything goes"
| approach.
|
| I did note that art can be political. By all means it
| _should_ be political in those situations where the
| artist has a certain objective in mind and believe art
| can be a meaningful way to make politics. I have nothing
| against that and I appreciate the historical and current
| relevance of art as as means of being and acting
| political.
|
| If you're keen to understand my position as explained by
| someone much more knowledgeable than me and much more
| studied in art and philosophy, I encourage you to watch
| this remarkably interesting video essay by Roger Scruton:
| https://vimeo.com/groups/832551/videos/549715999
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _it 's definitely not "for sure" anything, as in it's
| not obviously, axiomatically, intrinsically, self-
| evidently the case_
|
| It's self evidently art if someone goes three comments
| deep to argue it isn't.
| airstrike wrote:
| No, it's self-evidently agreed upon, but not self-
| evidently true.
|
| _" The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the
| unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to
| himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the
| unreasonable man."_ -- George Bernard Shaw
|
| Also your comment feels like a shallow dismissal... HN
| tries to be better than that, so I encourage you to
| review the guidelines:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _your comment feels like a shallow dismissal_
|
| It's not. Nobody debates whether most things are art
| because most things aren't noticed. The fact that someone
| got you to give a shit enough to protest it's not art is
| self-evidence of its influence over, at the very least,
| you.
| airstrike wrote:
| I didn't say most things are art. I say people conflate
| political expressions with artistic ones. As someone who
| loves art, I find that somewhat disheartening, so I
| thought I'd debate it. It doesn't magically make the non-
| art from TFA into art, though. Certainly not if you start
| from the premise that art must have aesthetic merit.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _not if you start from the premise that art must have
| aesthetic merit_
|
| This is a semantic punt. "Aesthetic merit" is no less
| subjective than "art."
|
| If there are grounds to debate whether something is art,
| it's almost always art. It may not be fine art. (Or art
| to your taste.) But there's a reason those are
| qualifications.
|
| Functionally, I think arguing about what is and isn't art
| broadly diminishes support for the things you probably
| consider "real" art. It makes it unnecessarily
| pretentious and gate kept.
| airstrike wrote:
| _> This is a semantic punt._
|
| I'm not even sure what a semantic punt is, but having
| "intrinsic aesthetic properties and the kind of
| contemplative experience it elicits" (my quote from
| earlier in the thread) is clearly less subjective than
| just "art" which has no inherent meaning.
|
| To be clear, my definition is a set of observable
| properties about some object. You can debate who should
| to the observing (I argue "no specific person but the
| collective"), but it's still observable. "Art", on the
| other hand, has no inherent meaning. It's an assigned
| value.
|
| _> If there are grounds to debate whether something is
| art, it 's almost always art._
|
| I'm not convinced and I honestly don't see how that holds
| logically. I appreciate the fact that people are taught
| as much these days. Doesn't make it more truthful,
| though, just more collectively agreed upon.
|
| _> Functionally, I think arguing about what is and isn't
| art broadly diminishes support for the things you
| probably consider "real" art. It makes it unnecessarily
| pretentious and gate kept._
|
| I think _not arguing_ about what is and isn 't art makes
| it so "anything is art" for which a corollary is "nothing
| is specifically art" and therefore art has diminished
| value. There's no gatekeeping, just a desire to value and
| treasure artistic beauty.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _having "intrinsic aesthetic properties and the kind of
| contemplative experience it elicits" (my quote from
| earlier in the thread) is clearly less subjective than
| just "art" which has no inherent meaning_
|
| Does it? Aesthetics and experience are as inherently
| subjective as art. We're having a contemplative
| experience in this discussion, after all.
|
| > _appreciate the fact that people are taught as much
| these days_
|
| Most people have zero art education.
|
| > _not arguing about what is and isn 't art makes it so
| "anything is art" for which a corollary is "nothing is
| specifically art" and therefore art has diminished value_
|
| I'm not convinced. One can meaningfully discuss the
| ontology of art--and its meaning, impact and value--
| without needing to precisely delineate its boundary.
|
| Some things are absolutely art. Some things are probably
| not. In between is ambiguity. That doesn't diminish the
| value of anything; hell, that ambiguity applies to almost
| everything we treasure, from literal treasure and love to
| the internal distinctions between forms of art.
| superb_dev wrote:
| Your sense of aesthetics is not objective, so I refuse to
| base any definition of art on it.
|
| The piece that this article is covering (not the
| individual photos, but the whole project) is clearly
| making people in this comment section contemplate the
| role of these cameras and the policy surrounding. It's
| also made you pretty contemplative on what qualifies as
| art.
|
| What makes this contemplation political and not artistic?
| airstrike wrote:
| _> Your sense of aesthetics is not objective, so I refuse
| to base any definition of art on it._
|
| Do _you_ find this artwork aesthetically interesting?
| Pleasing? Intriguing? Which aesthetic properties does it
| have that make it worthwhile? I 'm not arguing you should
| define "art" on my specific aesthetic sense, but rather
| on anyone's (everyone's?) collective sense.
|
| I think you'd be hard pressed to find even one person
| saying this specific artwork is aesthetically
| interesting. The bar shouldn't be that _everyone_ must
| find it interesting. We can debate what the threshold for
| "aesthetically interesting" or how prevalent that view
| must be among receivers of the art, but clearly my 3 year
| old's drawings and Vermeer's body of work are in
| different categories, so the distinction does exist
| somewhere.
|
| _> What makes this contemplation political and not
| artistic?_
|
| For starters, the fact that the contemplation is about
| "the role of these cameras and the policy surrounding"
| and not about the artwork. And what made me contemplative
| on what qualifies as art is the general insistence on
| labeling any type of creation as an artistic one these
| days, which is something that I have thought about
| frequently in the last 2 years or so.
| pests wrote:
| Why limit art to only aesthetics?
| airstrike wrote:
| I'd flip that around and say why not include aesthetics
| in the definition of art? Doing away with it entirely
| makes for a less beautiful world and our brain is wired
| to appreciate beauty.
| pests wrote:
| You can do both! :D
|
| Some art maybe only be 90% aesthetics and others could be
| only %50 or %10. How much non-aesthetics is acceptable to
| you?
|
| Where do you draw the line? Why does it matter? Why did
| you choose that number?
| krisoft wrote:
| > Art is based on its intrinsic aesthetic properties and
| the kind of contemplative experience it elicits.
|
| Would that mean that you don't recognise the existence of
| bad art? Because that seems to be the consequence of what
| you are saying.
|
| > or the "common sense" view
|
| Oh. Sorry. I didn't know you are the resident common
| sense expert this week. Next time i will make sure to ask
| you what i should think before i think.
|
| > then the photos in the article have very little
| aesthetic value
|
| What you seems to be missing is that the photos here are
| not the art. This is not photography. The whole package
| together is what is art here. The story behind the
| photos, what they did and how they did it. This is a sort
| of performance art.
|
| The photos are just an aspect of this performance art.
| Imagine that you would hear the sound recording of a
| dance performance. Shuffling feet, occasional stomping.
| Would it have an aesthetic value? It might or might not.
| But that doesn't mean the dance wasn't artistic.
| Similarly to this case the audio recording is not the art
| piece, just an imprint of it. Part of the whole package,
| but not the package itself.
|
| > and elicit no contemplative experience
|
| Lol. You are just wrong on that. I'm here contemplating
| the whole thing since half an hour at least. But you sure
| seems to like to just declare things.
| airstrike wrote:
| _> > Art is based on its intrinsic aesthetic properties
| and the kind of contemplative experience it elicits._
|
| _> Would that mean that you don't recognise the
| existence of bad art? Because that seems to be the
| consequence of what you are saying._
|
| To be honest, I can't think of anything that would
| constitute "bad art" in accordance with this view of art.
| It's an interesting question, and maybe it does exist,
| but right now I just can't think of anything that
| qualifies as such. To me, there's "art" and "not art",
| though I admit the line dividing the two is fuzzy. "Bad"
| would require some form of ranking, but it's hard to
| imagine an adequate criteria even before factoring in
| different art forms.
|
| _> > > or the "common sense" view_
|
| _> Oh. Sorry. I didn't know you are the resident common
| sense expert this week. Next time i will make sure to ask
| you what i should think before i think._
|
| I went out of my way to say that it doesn't matter what I
| personally think, but rather the aesthetic properties of
| the artwork and the contemplative experiences it evokes
| on the receivers of the art in general. And the choice of
| the words "contemplative" and "experience" are not
| accidental. This feels like a bad faith rather than a
| charitable interpretation of my position.
|
| My use of "common sense" (in quotes) was perhaps a poor
| attempt at saying that, if within a given social and
| cultural context there exists some moderately agreed upon
| view of what is and isn't "aesthetically interesting and
| a contemplative experience", then this may also be
| applied to a broad enough social and cultural group to
| arrive at a "common" view of what has artistic merit. Ask
| a million people if Vermeer is art. I can't imagine a
| significant number of them will say it isn't.
|
| _> > then the photos in the article have very little
| aesthetic value_
|
| _> What you seems to be missing is that the photos here
| are not the art. This is not photography. The whole
| package together is what is art here. The story behind
| the photos, what they did and how they did it. This is a
| sort of performance art._
|
| I'm saying it has very little artistic value even if it
| might have meaningfully political value. It can be a
| political performance. A form of protest, even. It's just
| not art, performance or otherwise, according to the model
| of artistic reality which I espouse.
|
| _> The photos are just an aspect of this performance
| art. Imagine that you would hear the sound recording of a
| dance performance. Shuffling feet, occasional stomping.
| Would it have an aesthetic value? It might or might not.
| But that doesn't mean the dance wasn't artistic.
| Similarly to this case the audio recording is not the art
| piece, just an imprint of it. Part of the whole package,
| but not the package itself._
|
| That's a strawman. My argument goes way beyond claiming
| this isn't art because the photos aren't artistic enough.
| Even with the performance, the project, the bringing the
| people together, posting, getting reactions from people,
| it's all just a cool project with a political bent. It
| still doesn't qualify as aesthetically interesting.
|
| _> Lol. You are just wrong on that. I'm here
| contemplating the whole thing since half an hour at
| least. But you sure seems to like to just declare
| things._
|
| It's quite remarkable how visceral of a reaction this
| causes on people. This whole response just reads like
| cognitive dissonance, but particularly this final bit. My
| arguments have generally been about art and aesthetics. I
| rarely used the words "you" or "your", except to point
| out what I perceived as less-than-adequate debate manners
| for the most part. It would be nice if others would
| extend me the same courtesy.
| krisoft wrote:
| > I can't think of anything that would constitute "bad
| art" in accordance with this view of art.
|
| Many can. It is everywhere. Trite poems, uninspired
| paintings, thematically muddled novels, boring photos.
| The people who made them aimed at creating something
| great and kinda missed. Either by a litle or a lot. I
| call that bad art.
|
| > I went out of my way to say that it doesn't matter what
| I personally think
|
| But you also said your view about what art is is the
| "common sense" view. In other words you are right others
| are wrong. Which is what i take an exception with.
|
| > Ask a million people if Vermeer is art. I can't imagine
| a significant number of them will say it isn't.
|
| Why would that be at dispute?
|
| > My arguments have generally been about art and
| aesthetics.
|
| You postulated that this work of art has no contemplative
| value. As if you are the final arbiter of that. If you
| would have said "folks, this doesn't do it for me", I
| wouldn't have cared. But you choose to pontificate on it
| in absolute terms. As if your analysis is going to have
| universal value.
| airstrike wrote:
| I still wouldn't call any of that "bad" art, because that
| term means more than just "failing to achieve greatness".
|
| _> you also said your view about what art is is the
| "common sense" view. In other words you are right others
| are wrong. Which is what i take an exception with._
|
| I questioned whether the general public is right while
| the art world can't see the emperor has no clothes.
|
| _> > Ask a million people if Vermeer is art. I can't
| imagine a significant number of them will say it isn't.
|
| _> Why would that be at dispute?*
|
| Great, now ask a million people if Duchamp's Fountain is
| art. That's what I mean by common sense. That's what's at
| dispute.
|
| _> You postulated that this work of art has no
| contemplative value. As if you are the final arbiter of
| that. If you would have said "folks, this doesn't do it
| for me", I wouldn't have cared. But you choose to
| pontificate on it in absolute terms. As if your analysis
| is going to have universal value._
|
| I'm really repeating myself here, but to be clear I'm not
| saying _I_ am the one who is deciding its artistic merit.
| I 'm saying works that evoke no contemplative experience
| through their aesthetic characteristics shouldn't be
| called art, even if they evoke contemplative experiences
| through other features such as political relevance.
|
| This is certainly not pontificating in absolute terms.
| It's just debating Theory of Art. My analysis doesn't
| have to have universal value to be logical and cogent.
|
| I'm aware that goes against the contemporary view of art
| in the art world, which seems to equate artistic intent
| with artistic expression (or some other long form variant
| of that statement). To me that's just a charade, a long
| con, a hack. It solves for high-browness at the expense
| of beauty. But _b e a u t y m a t t e r s_.
|
| And that's what _I_ take issue with, hence this thread.
| If you 're allowed to challenge my view, why am I not
| allowed to challenge yours?
|
| I never claimed that my analysis would have universal
| value, whatever that means. What I am trying to do is to
| arrive at a definition of art through first principles.
| But the cognitive dissonance is deafening in this thread,
| so most of my energy has been spent trying to explain why
| I'm allowed to even present an argument instead of
| actually debating the issue. Oh well.
| krisoft wrote:
| > I never claimed that my analysis would have universal
| value
|
| Let me quote your own words to you: "It still doesn't
| qualify as aesthetically interesting." and "photos in the
| article have very little aesthetic value and elicit no
| contemplative experience" These are your opinions
| masquerading as universal truths.
|
| > What I am trying to do is to arrive at a definition of
| art through first principles.
|
| And you ended up with "art is what people call art"?
| Deep.
| zanderwohl wrote:
| > I'm arguing against calling these photos art.
|
| It's not that the photos are the art, it's the whole
| project to get people to change these images, posing for
| them, etc.
| airstrike wrote:
| That still doesn't make it aesthetically interesting or
| contemplative. It's a cool project about an important
| topic! I haven't disagreed with that once. I just don't
| see how it can be art.
| prmoustache wrote:
| "- my 5y old kid could have drawn it.
|
| - yes but he didn't"
|
| You don't understand that art. This is fine. You don't
| have to understand everything.
| airstrike wrote:
| Who are you quoting there? I didn't say any of that. It
| sure is easy to debate when you can just make up quotes
| for the other person. Yawn.
| wttdotm wrote:
| hey! i'm the guy in the article, thats my site and my work,
| thank you for the kind words :)
|
| I am very all ears about these galleries, where should I
| reach out to?
| try_the_bass wrote:
| Is this an attempt to monetize your work?
|
| Is it really fair to take advantage of a free, public
| resource to make yourself money?
| airstrike wrote:
| Yes and yes. Why would it not be fair? It's not like
| anyone is losing anything from it.
| try_the_bass wrote:
| Someone is paying to host these, but providing them for
| free use. You're consuming them for free and attempting
| to get paid for them.
|
| Intentionally monetizing that which is provided for free.
| Seems exploitative, to me?
| airstrike wrote:
| The artist is not consuming them for free. He spent their
| time and effort creating something. They are not
| monetizing what is provided for free, but their creation.
| If someone wants to pay him for his work, what is it to
| you?
|
| Separately, based on my life experience, this notion of
| "exploitation" is truly harmful to those who subscribe to
| it. You'll never outdo your limiting beliefs. You don't
| have to take my word for it, but I encourage you to
| explore who was it that instilled that belief in you and
| what you stand to gain from subscribing to it. I mean
| this in earnest, as advice from a stranger, for what it's
| worth. <3
| flpm wrote:
| (This is more a comment to the whole thread than this one
| comment that initiated it)
|
| There is no clear answer to what art is, but there are many
| approaches to try to answer it. That is essentially what Theory
| of Art (or Philosophy of Art) is concerned about as a field of
| study.
|
| Those approaches appear at distinct points in time and their
| ideas are rooted on the art and context of that time.
|
| If you want to look at this site like Kant looked at art, from
| a pure aesthetic form, then you will say it is not art. You may
| even be offended that the question is asked.
|
| But look at it through the lens of modern art theory, where art
| is communication, where art is experience, where art is
| interaction, where art is more about the content than the form,
| then it is definitely art.
|
| If Kant had access to the Internet and was concerned about
| privacy, he might have found it to be art too :)
| airstrike wrote:
| Thanks, I sincerely appreciate this comment. I think the
| prevalent opinion is that viewing art through aesthetic or
| formalist perspectives are "outdated" and that we've replaced
| them with a more refined, more evolved, deeper understanding
| of art.
|
| I am mostly arguing that modern/contemporary art theory is
| just one alternative - it's not "above" more traditional
| views of art, and there isn't some linear progression from
| Kant to Rosalind Krauss.
|
| I think the more modern view has dismissed beauty as some
| lower form of making and understanding art. As something
| superficial and entirely optional, perhaps even discouraged
| by some.
|
| I'd prefer to synthesize the more traditional perspectives on
| aesthetics with some of the modern insights, rather than
| assuming newer theories must supersede older ones.
| flpm wrote:
| One book in my to-read list is After the End of Art:
| Contemporary Art and the Pale of History by Arthur C.
| Danto. I hope it is going to hit this nail right in the
| head.
|
| https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691163895/a
| f...
|
| "The classic and provocative account of how art changed
| irrevocably with pop art and why traditional aesthetics
| can't make sense of contemporary art"
| airstrike wrote:
| Thank you! I've added it to my list as well. Will
| definitely pick it up.
| crabmusket wrote:
| Side note, but I find this image caption very amusing
|
| > Kolman shows the traffic cams his cease-and-desist in Brooklyn
| and Times Square.
|
| The use of "shows" feels to me like it anthropomorphises the
| cameras, as if he's sharing the joke with his traffic cam pals.
| myself248 wrote:
| This reminds me of learning the term "culture jamming", and the
| antics of a group that would perform silent plays in front of
| surveillance cameras, not knowing whether someone in a security
| booth was even watching.
|
| At the time I wondered if they might've anthropomorphized the
| camera itself as the audience, to be able to emote to it and
| not focus on the uncertainty of whether there was anyone "else"
| in attendance.
| microcow wrote:
| Makes me thing of Remi Gaillard's "Speed Cameras" from nine years
| ago:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqrJ_OY8byY
| wttdotm wrote:
| that's meeeeeeee
| escapecharacter wrote:
| I'm so proud of this man.
| wttdotm wrote:
| yooooo what's up, ty <3
| aaronbrethorst wrote:
| Pedantry alert: the Seattle-focused project referenced in the
| article is showing data about fire and ambulance emergency
| responses, not police.
|
| "Crime Cameras" certainly sounds more lurid and attention-getting
| than the reality, which is more like "People in Crisis Cameras"
|
| The data it's using can be found here:
| https://web.seattle.gov/sfd/realtime911/getRecsForDatePub.as...
|
| https://driesdepoorter.be/seattlecrimecams/
| aendruk wrote:
| Not familiar with this project but I've taken a "selfie" with
| Seattle's live traffic cameras and it didn't involve violating
| any traffic laws. The video lag was such that you could wave at
| the camera halfway through a crosswalk, get safely to the other
| side, then pull out your phone and see yourself waving back.
|
| So maybe NYC should just add some lag.
| Topgamer7 wrote:
| How the PCMag has fallen.
| radley wrote:
| Has this been used for a music video yet?
| dhx wrote:
| For anyone wanting to look at traffic cameras across the US
| states, almost all are now available in a readily consumable
| GeoJSON format (with webcam URLs as properties) at [1]. There are
| two "Intelligent Transport Systems" software providers with 50%+
| of US market share and the remainder of states generally use a
| custom developed website.
|
| [1] Type "transport" and "traffic" as search terms at
| https://www.alltheplaces.xyz/spiders
| bofh23 wrote:
| Channel 72 on Spectrum Cable in NYC cycles through the NYC DOT
| traffic cameras with realtime update speed albeit in standard
| definition.
|
| I tune in and leave it on in the background and it's like having
| a window with an interesting view. It's great ambient TV as noted
| in this article:
|
| [2012-09-18] The Inadvertent Cinema: City Drive Live | The New
| Yorker https://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/the-
| inadvert...
|
| The cameras are old, some are black & white, and often they're
| over or underexposed with all the interesting video artifacts
| that entails.
|
| Unlike the webcam access at https://webcams.nyctmc.org/ the
| cameras update at realtime rates (30 fps) though some are slower.
|
| Sadly, they don't make the realtime camera cycling available to
| live stream that I'm aware of. I wish they would for homesick
| NYers. They don't even show channel 72 in the Live TV tab of the
| Spectrum app (perhaps it works when using Spectrum Internet
| access).
| olalonde wrote:
| It seems the C&D letter caused a Streisand effect.
| thread_id wrote:
| That's exactly what it did. Which makes it even funnier!!!!
| medv wrote:
| What a self-lover guy!
| Simon_ORourke wrote:
| How come I've got to this years old and only learned today that
| there's a "school for poetic computation" that's mentioned in the
| article.
| noncanc wrote:
| And that has courses described as: the study of art, code,
| hardware, and critical theory through lenses of decolonization
| and transformative justice.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Sounds like a course description written to receive grant
| money.
| irthomasthomas wrote:
| "From the experimental School for Poetic Computation, which
| describes itself as dedicated to "the study of art, code,
| hardware, and critical theory through lenses of decolonization
| and transformative justice."
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-15 23:01 UTC)