NYC wants you to stop taking traffic cam selfies, but here's how to do it anyway
New York City’s cease-and-desist letter to an artist who built a “traffic cam photobooth” using public live camera feeds has reignited debate over how civic surveillance infrastructure should be used. Commenters weigh safety concerns and the risk of encouraging risky behavior against the value of transparency, citizen creativity, and the principle that taxpayers should be free to repurpose public data. The exchange broadens into questions about mass surveillance, the privatization and archival of traffic footage, and whether projects like this count as meaningful art or merely political provocation.
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.