Slashdot Mirror


Real-LIfe Distributed-Snooping Web Game To Launch In Britain

corerunner writes "A new internet game is about to be launched which allows 'super snooper' players to plug into the nation's CCTV cameras and report on members of the public committing crimes. The 'Internet Eyes' service involves players scouring thousands of CCTV cameras installed in shops, businesses and town centres across Britain looking for law-breakers. Players who help catch the most criminals each month will win cash prizes up to £1,000."

13 of 419 comments (clear)

  1. So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers... by lbalbalba · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But we *can* afford prizes up to £1,000 for public citizens that are effectively doing police work ? This world is getting way too weird for me... Or perhaps im just getting old :)

  2. Demand to see them by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You Brits should demand to have unfettered access to these cameras. It might have been possible to claim that this was not technologically feasible before, but not any longer. You paid for those cameras. You paid for that information to be gathered. You should be able to access it.

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    1. Re:Demand to see them by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can request footage of yourself from private cameras using data protection laws.

      Anyway, no need to worry for two reasons:

      1. This is a story in the Daily Fail. So it's practically guaranteed to be wrong, made up, exaggurated etc.
      2. Despite that the story makes it quite clear that the system doesn't have any cameras today. The dude is trying to sign up businesses to his plan. Obviously you can't just plug into random CCTV cameras, that'd be insane - the owners have to opt them in. Good luck with that!
  3. Open surveillance by ZackSchil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If someone is going to be snooping, it's only fair to have everyone snooping. The only oppressive element of CCTV is the idea that only a select few people get to snoop and thereby gain some sort of advantage over everyone else. If everyone gets access, you still lose privacy but at least no one gains power.

  4. Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, this is dangerous. Very Stasi-like. This is a disturbing trend in official and informal law-enforcement because it encourages things like community-based harassment. People will band together and participate in government-sanctioned stalking of atheists, commies, homosexuals, or whomever else they just don't like.

    It is simply turning the people against each other to distract them from their discontent with their government.

  5. Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. by radtea · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Any ideas what happens to reports on cops committing crimes?

    I'd say they disappear down the memory hole, but users will be able to capture the video they are using locally, and repost on YouTube for fun and profit.

    Ergo, this program will be shut down within weeks as it reveals cops committing crimes. Either that, or the feeds will be scrubbed of all police presence "for the protection of our hardworking constables on the street" prior to distributing them.

    --
    Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  6. Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This must be a stalker's wet dream.

    --
    I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  7. Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. by xaxa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, no, no, that's too American. You don't have enough bureaucracy or scapegoating.

    In Britain, the police would deny that any officers have broken the law. Then the video footage would go on YouTube, and some newspapers would get the story. The IPCC (Independent Police Complains Commisson) would open an investigation, and the police would deny any wrongdoing again, even when shown the video.

    Some time later, the IPCC will say there's a systematic problem and the blame lies with the police managers. A junior police officer will be sacked, and the manager will be promoted.

    Later, another police officer will claim he should have been promoted instead, and claim he was discriminated against. After an investigation into police prejudice, he will eventually get the job, with his predecessor getting a large pay-off.

    This all costs lots of money, so four police officers will be replaced with part-time community support officers. They don't know what they're doing, so they'll arrest someone for photographing a train -- hopefully captured on CCTV.

  8. Blackmail, casing future robberies, cyber-stalking by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is that the CCTV cameras have proven to be very ineffective in deterring crime.

    The MOST effective has been cops patrolling - either walking the beat, on bikes, horse, or patrol car.

    This is going to increase crime:

    1. Blackmail, David Letterman - style - "I saw what you did and I have a video. Either give me $$$ or I tell the cops which camera, and the timestamp";
    2. Recruiting kids for crime - "Hey, I see you guys are always hanging around here - want to make some $$$ selling drugs?"
    3. Casing future "jobs" - "Hey look - they close shop at 9pm, and then there's the last person to leave at 10pm, and on Thursdays they then go and make the night deposit - let's relieve them of that burden."
    4. Cyber-stalking.

    This is just taking a bad idea and making it worse.

  9. Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think he was using typical US-centric boogeymen. If it was Cultural Revolution China your list would be the one to consider.

    I think the interesting bias here is that his original comment didn't say anything about "moralists", but you added them in to the hit list. I guess that means communists, homosexuals, and atheists are immoralists in your Book?

  10. Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. by dstech · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In 1984, citizens were encouraged to spy on each other and report possible dissidents to the authorities. So yes, this is very Orwellian.

    RTFN

  11. Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. by noundi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In 1984, citizens were encouraged to spy on each other and report possible dissidents to the authorities. So yes, this is very Orwellian.

    RTFN

    I did read the novel, but there's a big difference. The citizens in 1984 were never allowed to view surveillance, so they were never on an equal scale as the government. And fundamentally this is what frightens people, that someone with an upper hand controlls you. When that upper hand is given to everyone the concept isn't the same, and you taking things out of context doesn't make it so.

    --
    I am the lawn!
  12. Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. by Lundse · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The citizens in 1984 did view the surveillance. Winston himself was part of perpetuating the system he hated and which oppressed him - this was more or les the entire point.
    Same thing today, the guy manning a CCTV system (or who just one a prize through this scheme) will also be watched on his way home.

    There does not have to be an evil group of 12 men in a smoke-filled room on the 13th floor in order for you to be oppressed (this is the erroneous thinking which leads to conspiracy theories). The system can be oppressive, and this one is. Or rather, it is a way to make the invasion of privacy (a clear oppression and one which paves the way for a lot of future oppression) more efficient - or at least that is the idea.

    I also think it is more like 1984, exactly because it distributes the oppression-task to the larger citizen-ship, like it was in the novel... When the first participant of this game/scheme is sentenced as an accessory for not calling the cops, this is made even clearer.

    --
    IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV