NYC wants you to stop taking traffic cam selfies, but here's how to do it anyway

Public access vs. “this is why we can’t have nice things”

• Many expect NYC to respond by shutting off public camera access, even if the selfie project itself is seen as harmless or clever.
• Some recount similar experiences: once citizens built useful frontends for local camera feeds, cities cited vague “IT issues” and removed access.
• Others argue public data should remain open even when used playfully or critically; otherwise transparency is illusory.

Usefulness and intended purpose

• Commenters use traffic cams for real-time driving decisions, winter road checks, and even planning runs across crowded bridges.
• Some say the public value is precisely in unanticipated uses, not just duplicating DOT’s internal monitoring.

Safety and liability

• NYC’s cease-and-desist claims the project encourages unsafe street behavior.
• Critics call this overblown: many cams can capture people from sidewalks or crosswalks; enforcement against actual lawbreaking should target individuals, not data access.
• One suggestion: add lag so people aren’t tempted to stand in active lanes watching their phones.

Law, ToS, and government constraints

• Debate over whether website terms or warnings have legal force: several note ToS typically aren’t enforceable as contracts, especially for public resources.
• Some see the DOT letter as bureaucrats seeking “to be seen doing something” rather than addressing real risk.
• Others argue that when an honor-system use is abused and can’t be restricted by license, shutdowns become the only tool.

Surveillance, ALPRs, and chilling effects

• Thread broadens into concerns about mass surveillance, license-plate readers, and “turnkey totalitarianism.”
• Civil-liberties reports and court language about chilling effects are cited; opponents counter that evidence of actual suppressed protest in NYC is unclear and many arguments stay hypothetical.
• Some distinguish low-res traffic cams (often unrecorded) from separate, denser police camera networks.

Monetization and fairness

• Questions arise about whether it’s fair to monetize art based on free public feeds.
• Defenders say the artist is selling their own creative work; marginal infrastructure cost is tiny and taxpayers already fund the cameras.

Is this art or just politics?

• Large subthread debates whether the project is art.
• One side: it’s clearly performance art/culture jamming that provokes reflection on surveillance.
• Other side: without substantive aesthetic qualities, it’s political activism labeled as art; modern “anything is art” attitudes are seen as devaluing beauty.
• Discussion touches on formalist vs. contemporary theories of art, “bad art” vs. non-art, and whether intent alone can make something art.

Technical and misc.

• Notes on low FPS, non-recording feeds, third-party archival services, and national traffic-cam GeoJSON sources.
• Complaints about the article site’s heavy ads lead to ad-blocking and DNS-filtering tips.