Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Smile! Urine Candid Camera!

Posted by samzenpus on Sat May 23, 2009 01:02 AM
from the let's-see-what-you-got dept.
thumbnail
Anon E. Muss writes "Just because you can put a camera somewhere doesn't mean you should. Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security doesn't grasp this concept. They've installed video cameras in urinals at Houston's Hobby Airport. At least they weren't sneaky about it — they posted a notice saying 'Automatic infrared flush sensors also provide video monitoring for security purposes.' (Insert bad joke about bashful bladder syndrome here)."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Simple solution (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Z00L00K (682162) on Saturday May 23 2009, @01:05AM (#28064021) Homepage

    Bring some post-it stickers to cover the lens while doing the business - remove&flush afterwards.

  • Well... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2009, @01:05AM (#28064025)

    Well, that just takes the piss...

  • by Brian Gordon (987471) on Saturday May 23 2009, @01:07AM (#28064033)
    If there had to be a camera somewhere in a men's restroom, the safest place would probably be right on the urinal facing straight out, where it apparently is. And if you're blanketing a building with security cameras, how much sense does it make to leave out prominently labelled rooms where any illicit activity can occur under the radar?

    Don't get me wrong, video surveillance is absurd, but cameras in bathrooms isn't any worse than cameras on every street corner.
    • Except that most people don't walk around on the street corner with their wang out.

      • by EdIII (1114411) * on Saturday May 23 2009, @01:51AM (#28064313)

        slashdot females

        They exist?

        • by KatAngel (1454415) on Saturday May 23 2009, @05:00AM (#28065111)

          *raises hand*

          Of course, slashdot law requires that at least five people now show up to prove me wrong, since there are "no women on the internet." It's ok. However wrong you may be, I am prepared to acknowledge that you are only following cliches, jumping on bandwagons, and repeating someone else's jokes for perhaps the hundredth time in your life in an attempt to sound funny, witty, or intelligent. I know you're only 'doing your duty,' par se. Fulfilling your obligation to slashdot society.

          Don't worry. There are people who can help you.

      • "...the airport is the one place where I am willing to give up some privacy and convenience to gain more security."

        Why?

        Do you think it's easier to hurt you in an airport?
        Or did you mean on the plane? Where there should be a solid impenetrable door to the cockpit and an absolute no negotiate policy.
        That would actually protect you on the plane.

        But you said the airport. Are you more afraid that they would hurt you there rather than on a bus? Or perhaps the train or subway?
        Why not the mall? Why not a school? That'd make a point from a terrorist point of view.

        If you are willing to give up your privacy in an airport simply because someone used that as a point of terrorism in the past, you're pretty narrow minded.
        Just because something has happened in the past does not make it right to fear it more than other things that are just as likely and obviously much less guarded in the future. If you thik the terrorists are a one note band then you'll be just as surprised on the next news flash as you were on the last one. Learn that the only way to make things secure is to actually make them secure, not play security theatre.

        Do you think that they will be able to monitor every camera, in every bathroom, all the time and that no one will figure out to go into a stall since the camera is visible?

        Really?

        Then you shouldn't worry about those terrorists, you should worry about what they are "trying to destroy"... Your freedoms, your feelings of safety and security, since there will be more stupid stunts to gain attention in the future and it's inevitable. Since they can buy a gun and walk into a mall or onto a bus or into a church and do whatever they want without time for a response, you're doomed if you let go of youor freedoms. They're the only thing that can sway those kinds of people away from those acts. To get them to stop doing what they "think they must do to get attention to their plights" and instead help fix the world of the consistant removal of those things that make us different. That make us not want to commit those acts because we have the freedoms to live and prosper as we see fit. To be in america. The things you are willing to give up to feel a little safer are the things that have been keeping you safe in your own country from domestic terrorists. Look to the middle east and count the bodies of those who did not have the freedom to think otherwise and then tell me you would give it up to feel safer and be a little more like them.

  • by KneelBeforeZod (1527235) on Saturday May 23 2009, @01:13AM (#28064081)
    "When did we put on yellow lens filters on the cameras?" "We didn't"
  • by cfryback (870729) on Saturday May 23 2009, @01:13AM (#28064083)
    Hmmm...Interesting - but why only on Urinals? Why not in the stalls in BOTH sexes of restrooms? Either way, this confirms that I don't really want to make the US as a destination when I make trips from Australia to Canada...
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Have you read ANY of the stories on proposed security measures in the last five years? Only reason they don't run lie detectors on everyone is because it'd take too much time.

  • Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)

    by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Saturday May 23 2009, @01:14AM (#28064085) Homepage Journal

    Well, just to get this out of the way.. this is bullshit. And dear god when did Slashdot become Digg?

    Anyway, I think the comments are more interesting, especially this one:

    From Inner Loop Realtor:

    Y'know about 3 years ago I was mugged in the Hobby Airport parking garage. I told them at the time that they needed cameras in the garage. This is typical of bureaucratic idiocy. Meanwhile, watch your back.

    1. I thought Houston was in Texas.. why weren't you packing? Defend yourself asshole.
    2. Ya know that security cameras are completely useless for identifying people, right? I mean, if *you* couldn't identify the guy, then how is a security camera gunna help? You don't actually believe that "we zoomed in and cleaned it up a bit" shit that you see on 24, right?
    3. Has anyone ever done a study (a real study) of the effectiveness of security cameras at preventing crime? Any sort of crime.
    4. It's this kind of knee jerk "we need more surveillance" reaction that the DHS contractors are banking on. You are the problem.

    • Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

      by guyminuslife (1349809) on Saturday May 23 2009, @02:27AM (#28064467)

      "I thought Houston was in Texas.. why weren't you packing? Defend yourself asshole."

      AIRPORT.

      He wasn't packing because he hadn't unpacked yet. You have to check those, you know.

      Or maybe---since he had just flown in---he wasn't from around here. ;-)

    • Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2009, @02:52AM (#28064579)

      >> 1. I thought Houston was in Texas.. why weren't you packing? Defend yourself asshole.

      Please carry a firearm into the Houston airport terminal and let us know how that works out for you. kthanksbye.

    • Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)

      by cheros (223479) on Saturday May 23 2009, @03:09AM (#28064651)

      3. Has anyone ever done a study (a real study) of the effectiveness of security cameras at preventing crime? Any sort of crime.

      Here you go [schneier.com], that's web economy for you (two answers in one link).

      Have a nice day.

  • by YesIAmAScript (886271) on Saturday May 23 2009, @01:16AM (#28064109)

    I'm actually bit jealous of whomever came up with that gag. He sure got a lot of mileage out of it.

    It's clearly just a riff on the "naked X-ray" controversy going around.

  • Illegal (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Renraku (518261) on Saturday May 23 2009, @01:19AM (#28064125) Homepage

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this illegal?

    I remember some stores had the pants sued off of them (no pun intended) when people found out the dressing rooms were being monitored by cameras, to prevent theft.

    Lots of high end places have bathroom attendants. Their job is two-fold. I'm not quite sure of the first one, but I know the second one is to make sure people know that it isn't a place where they can go and shit in the sink or assemble guns from the parts they have hidden in their underwear.

  • by Cyberllama (113628) on Saturday May 23 2009, @01:24AM (#28064155)

    Am I the only one who thinks this is just some prank pulled by some kid with an inkjet printer and some label paper? It would take 2 minutes to make that sticker and just slap it on a few urinals for giggles.

    Like, I realize some ridiculous crap has happened in the past few years, but are we all so jaded we just automatically assume that this sort of thing is real?

  • by MindlessAutomata (1282944) on Saturday May 23 2009, @01:25AM (#28064161)

    Source is just blogspam and image could easily have been faked in photoshop. The government is stupid and paranoid and not deserving of our love but this is might be just a wee bit over the top at this point in time...

  • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Saturday May 23 2009, @01:26AM (#28064173)
    turn into "criminal? I think this is over the line.

    If businesses in the United States cannot put video cameras in their bathrooms (and they can't), then neither can Homeland Security. They can't have it both ways.

    If I found such a camera I would put duct-tape over it. That's just too damned far.
  • I had this idea once for a short youtube feature.

    It would show the normal black squares found on automatic toilets and urinals. But it would move into the wall to show employees sitting behind those squares, and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of being a unionized toilet flusher.

    Think of it done in the style of the BBC's remarkable Look Around You series.

    I have found people surprisingly creeped out by this idea.

  • by Phat_Tony (661117) * on Saturday May 23 2009, @01:48AM (#28064297) Homepage
    I'm sure this is a prank. Since this is generating bad publicity for the DHS, they will probably catch the person who put these stickers on the urinals after reviewing the video from the real, covert hidden cameras they have covering the urinals.
  • by mcrbids (148650) on Saturday May 23 2009, @02:26AM (#28064451) Journal

    The guy that printed/posted these is sitting somewhere laughing his fool arse off. Srsly - it's obviously a fake, and it made /. front page!

    Ever wonder about the dark red glass on the I/R sensor? It's ridiculous to think there's a camera in there...

    chuckle chuckle...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      The cameras are mounted on the wall above the urinal; they're not staring at you out of the disinfectant cake. The only people with anything to be embarrassed about are the douchebags who lean forward and put their hand on the back wall and roll their head back and make weird facial expressions, and I don't feel sorry for them at all.
    • by physicsphairy (720718) on Saturday May 23 2009, @01:19AM (#28064131) Homepage
      It is a joke. Note how half the lettering is bleeding out? Printed on an inkjet. Also, the suggested idea of combining flush sensors and cameras is absurd in every way. *is thinking about putting up some similar placards at his own airport*