Internet + Wireless Cameras = Homeland Security

NumberField writes "According to an article by Steven Levy posted on MSNBC, Jay Walker of PriceLine fame is talking about a system he calls US HomeGuard. His plan is to hire large numbers of unsophisticated users to monitor Internet-connected security cameras looking for suspicious activity. Although many security details (i.e., DOS attacks, cryptography, privacy) need to be handled carefully, it's a weird enough idea that it might actually work..."

Comments

It's not 1984...

[Richardsonke1]

I don't know where everyone is getting these crazy fears that it's 1984 playing out in real life. These cameras are protecting the private or secure public areas. We're talking about power plants and dams here. No one that wants their privacy needs to be in these places. I mean, its not like they're going to put one up in the middle of town square. That would defeat the purpose entirely. The picture would change every five seconds, so someone would have to LOOK at it every five seconds, much less find someone on there who might be a terroist.

I agree with the poster that it is so crazy that it might work. The only thing that i doubt is that they're going to pay $10/hour for people to watch this. That's a very good salary, and i wouldn't mind doing it for that much.

Re:oh boy

[glesga_kiss]

"There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live -- did live, from habit that became instinct -- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized. "

1984, George Orwell. (on-line version)

What are the odds on them starting to recruit children from the schools first...?

Short-term good, long-term evil (RANT)

[Crash Culligan]

Yes, it's another casting of that "slippery slope" problem. Whoop-de-frigging-doo.

Yes, the article specifically mentioned pointing those cameras at places where nobody is supposed to be.

For now.

For years, the government has gotten around the Constitution by outsourcing its atrocities. They can't really abridge the rights of people by interrogating them here, so they let their allies do it. They're prevented from infringing the privacy of the people (but in many cases still do it), but they're fine with letting companies collect the data and then rifling through their records.

They've made a science of preserving the illusion of freedom while making it scarcer and scarcer in real life. That's because the government's primary goal is to protect itself. The consumers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hitizens come a distant second.

If by some miracle the webcam idea works (and I really don't think it will, except as a psychological deterrent to attacks on soft targets), someone will suggest it gets "spread" to other places. The citizens of the nation will manage to keep themselves under tight scrutiny at the behest of the government. Can you say "worst case scenario," boys and girls?