Scenic / nature photographers in national forests - big brother may be watching you!

CannedHeat wrote in post #9987459
Sorry, disagree. Apples and oranges. Not even close. Comparing hidden cameras in a hotel room to a campsite in the wide open is like comparing, well, canons to nikons.

To illustrate, an example: if you had an open campsite in a public park, and a person stood in the road watching you, not in your campsite, but with open view of your campsite, would that be an illegal act?

If you understand that example, you understand that the person can stand there and watch you if they wanted to. He might be a creep, yes. You might want to pop him in the nose, yes. But it would not be illegal for somebody who has the same access to the same park as you to stand there and watch you. You cannot expect any privacy in an open campsite in an open public park.

agreed. This thread could be derailed in so many ways, and that is not my intent.

I am a firm beleiver that trying to enforce any law regarding the recording of public photons is like trying to enforce laws regarding how much sun you can soak up at the beach, or how much wind you can use to turn your windmill or how much water you can use to float your boat. Or in this case, laws regarding your ability to control who can record the photons you reflect while standing outside your tent in your undies in the middle of nowhere.

Even with unenforcable laws in place, think twice about how much you can rely on 'implied privacy' any where, any time.

Sorry, I wish you could stand outside your tent however you want to, and that you didn't have to worry about big brother catching you at it, but reality is what it is and the gov. gets to peak in on you if they can justify the need, wich they can in certain places.

hawkeye60 wrote in post #9986841
I think the difference is that the cameras are hidden, and that people have an expectation of privacy at a camp site.

Simply posting a sign to say that you may be photographed would be a good idea IMHO, then you could decide on that basis if you wanted to camp there or not. Posting signs would likely also act as crime deterent.

'hidden' is not much different from being photographed from hundreds of yards away by a photographer with a long lens and teleconvertor...both are not apparent to the subject.

Privacy inside your tent you should expect. OUTSIDE your tent you could be arrested for indecent exposure or for lewd acts.

Standing behind the camera is OK, but in front of the camera is not?!

jemanner wrote in post #9983676
Possibly I don't pay enough attention to the news, but have never in my fairly lengthy lifetime heard of a park ranger encountering a trip wire and explosives during his/her duties. Not saying they don't have to deal with some unusual situations, but this is a bit "out there."

You're right, you don't pay enough attention. Booby traps are a common hazard in areas where drugs are being grown, stored or processed. Try googling "booby trap marijuana" and see all the hits that come back.

CannedHeat wrote in post #9987459
Sorry, disagree. Apples and oranges. Not even close. Comparing hidden cameras in a hotel room to a campsite in the wide open is like comparing, well, canons to nikons.

To illustrate, an example: if you had an open campsite in a public park, and a person stood in the road watching you, not in your campsite, but with open view of your campsite, would that be an illegal act?

If you understand that example, you understand that the person can stand there and watch you if they wanted to. He might be a creep, yes. You might want to pop him in the nose, yes. But it would not be illegal for somebody who has the same access to the same park as you to stand there and watch you. You cannot expect any privacy in an open campsite in an open public park.

No, I think you're comparing apples and oranges, unposted video surveillance was the issue, not people lurking behind trees or staring at you from the middle of a road. Two entirely different things.

But I guess we'll just have to disagree. I think it is reasonable to expect some privacy from unposted video surveillence in a campsite, you don't. So be it.

hawkeye60 wrote in post #9987385
It's called a reasonable expectation. It would be reasonable to have an expectation of privacy when you enter a hotel room regardless of the fact there could be a illegal hidden camera in the room, or someone could be lurking outside the window, or hiding in the closet.

Yes, exactly.

These surveillance devices can be disabled by the pros too. So who are they really intended for?

How do you disable them? Ha-ha, a EMP device to clear a small area or a RBG laser(s) with a omnidirectional beam(s) spreader to blind any cameras present. The latter isn't that hard to build... a couple would provide adequate shielding so as to mask the perk's ID.
They can harden the cams against EMP, but the tri-color laser light jammers will blind the best by over-saturating the sensors across the entire visible spectrum. Throw in a short wave IR laser just for giggles to make sure any infrared capabilities are nulled too.

blackhawk wrote in post #9988885
How do you disable them? Ha-ha, a EMP device to clear a small area or a RBG laser(s) with a omnidirectional beam(s) spreader to blind any cameras present. The latter isn't that hard to build... a couple would provide adequate shielding so as to mask the perk's ID.
They can harden the cams against EMP, but the tri-color laser light jammers will blind the best by over-saturating the sensors across the entire visible spectrum. Throw in a short wave IR laser just for giggles to make sure any infrared capabilities are nulled too.

yeah. I'll be sure to pick up a couple of those next time I stop at a 7-11...

krb wrote in post #9988947
yeah. I'll be sure to pick up a couple of those next time I stop at a 7-11...

The laser cam jammers are not manufactured by anyone I'm aware of, but it's not a hard device to build once the fundamental idea of operation is understood.

The US military also has devices that can spot eyeballs and camera lens in order to neutralize them... pick that up too while you're there. They keep 'em behind the counter.

blackhawk wrote in post #9988885
a EMP device to clear a small area or a RBG laser(s) with a omnidirectional beam(s) spreader to blind any cameras present. The latter isn't that hard to build... a couple would provide adequate shielding so as to mask the perk's ID.
They can harden the cams against EMP, but the tri-color laser light jammers will blind the best by over-saturating the sensors across the entire visible spectrum. Throw in a short wave IR laser just for giggles to make sure any infrared capabilities are nulled too.

Huh? By any chance, is your last Mulder? (I was abducted once, too. Unfortunately, my experience was more like that of Eric Cartman's )

Actually, if you can build me a device that will brew me a really delicious cup of coffee, I'll be a happy camper!

(Something tells me this thread has slightly deviated away from the subject of photography, but what do I know? )

CannedHeat wrote in post #9989791
Huh? By any chance, is your last Mulder? (I was abducted once, too. Unfortunately, my experience was more like that of Eric Cartman's )

Actually, if you can build me a device that will brew me a really delicious cup of coffee, I'll be a happy camper!

(Something tells me this thread has slightly deviated away from the subject of photography, but what do I know? )

Wasn't my idea. It's been around for at least a few years.
Newer surveillance cams used in better banks and such are design so a single color laser can't be used to easily "wash out" the image. They can use the other two color channels to reconstructed it.

Perks have used this method which is why the cams were modified. This latest revision however targets all the color channels (maybe add a yellow too?) and should make forensic data reconstruction much harder.
All you need are the separate laser modules, and a mechanical method to spread the beams evenly in the desired directions. The beams can be scanned as a constant beam isn't required to blind cams.

This would work very well against photographers too... oh my.
I can protect the stars... but the rest can go to pot.

blackhawk wrote in post #9990022
Wasn't my idea. It's been around for at least a few years.
Newer surveillance cams used in better banks and such are design so a single color laser can't be used to easily "wash out" the image. They can use the other two color channels to reconstructed it.

Perks have used this method which is why the cams were modified. This latest revision however targets all the color channels (maybe add a yellow too?) and should make forensic data reconstruction much harder.
All you need are the separate laser modules, and a mechanical method to spread the beams evenly in the desired directions. The beams can be scanned as a constant beam isn't required to blind cams.

This would work very well against photographers too... oh my.
I can protect the stars... but the rest can go to pot.

Who the hell are you! SETI? CIA? NSA? KBG? Mosad? Bilderberg?

I've had to remove at least one post as overly politicized. Please be careful folks, least this thread get closed.

Someone already said it. Legally (and morally IMO) it comes down to whether the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy. At a large, packed car/RV campground I would agree that you can't reasonably expect privacy outside of your tent. But in the backcountry? When you've hiked a few miles with 30 pounds on your back and you haven't seen another person in hours? I think at that point your campsite is in limbo, halfway between a hotel room and a city park. Yes, it's public land. Yes, you can reasonably expect some privacy.

Furthermore, while there are many very legitimate reasons to surveil public spaces, I would argue that there is no legitimate purpose for surveiling campgrounds. Nobody intent on commiting a crime in a national park is going to do it in a campground. They're going to take their marijuana and AK-47s far far away where they have even less chance of being found. I think the resources would be better spent observing parts of the park more prone to crime. Perhaps watch rivers to catch the boats that transport the drugs in and out? Look at topo maps for likely growing regions (flat, access to water). Put the cameras there.

I'll keep camping as I always have. I don't wander around naked outside of my tent and I don't really care if Uncle Sam sees my briefs. I'm not terribly upset about this, which is surprising given my usual anti-big-brother tendencies. I mostly think their choice of surveillance location could be more appropriately chosen.

czeglin wrote in post #9995153
Look at topo maps for likely growing regions (flat, access to water). Put the cameras there.

The bad guys know that the obvious places are just that: Obvious.

The "smart" ones will attempt to "hide in plain sight" blending in as much as possible with the regular folk. Unfortunately, the regular folk get watched as well.

we could theorise all kinds of scenarios that would justify surveillance in a campground, Personally, I would be glad to know that some of the events i have seen in and around established campgrounds were being recorded as evidence against some of the elbows I have had to camp near. I have actually heard hundreds of people applaud as certain campers left an area.
within the past year I have heard of two different cases of stranger vs. stranger MURDERS in Oregon in public campgrounds, one was a drunk guy with a rifle defending his 'property', another was just an argument that escalated to someone driving through someone elses camp in a 4x4 and pinning someone to a tree.
Sad days indeed. If I see a camera, I am gonna camp right in front of it.

As an alternative, go ahead and parade nude in front of BB's surveillance cameras in the deep dark woods. Like they really care! That's not the problem they are there to solve.

And, if you have a body like mine, you have the advantage of blinding not the camera, but the watcher behind the camera. There's not enough brain bleach made....