New CCTV Site In UK Pays People To Watch

pyrosine writes "Have you ever felt like being paid for watching live CCTV footage? The BBC are reporting CCTV site, 'Internet Eyes' is doing exactly that. Offering up to £1000 to people who report suspicious activity, the scheme seems an easy way to make money. Not everyone is pleased with the scheme though; the Information Commissioner's Office is worried it will lead to voyeurism or misuse, but what difference does it make when you can find said webcams with a simple Google search?"

Comments

One difference

[Chrisq]

but what difference does it make when you can find said webcams with a simple Google search?"

You could get paid £1000 for your voyeurism.

Re:One difference

[RDW]

Looks like most voyeurs will end up paying the company, not the other way around:

http://interneteyes.co.uk/community/index.html

It's £1.99/month or £12.99/year to use the site. To do marginally better than breaking even you'd need to pay annually and watch it for 2 hrs/day, which can get you back £1.50/month, but the only large payment mentioned explicity is £1000 for 'the Viewer who receives the most award points'. More like a paid-entry competition than a job.

Re:One difference

[peterprior]

By linking to their site from here you just violated their "no linking" policy found here: http://interneteyes.co.uk/terms-conditions.html

"Linking to our site
You may not link any other site to our website."

Whoops - and now I have as well

Re:One difference

[Sockatume]

This part is funnier:

You may not use our website, or material available through our website:

[...]

In a way that abuse or invade [sic] another's privacy, [...]

Re:One difference

[ewrong]

Why would you discourage people from linking to your website?

Re:One difference

[gl4ss]

well.. 1000£ for suspicious activity. there has to be a catch there, since conjuring up suspicious activity is much cheaper than 1000£. and you can't sue anyone for 1000£ for suspicious activity. even if the suspiciously acting guy is found guilty, how/why would money flow to these chaps?

Re:One difference

[Chrisq]

Why would you discourage people from linking to your website?

Its a local website for local people.

Re:One difference

[RichiH]

> Why would you discourage people from linking to your website?

Depends on if you have half a brain... Or not...

Re:One difference

[Inda]

Exactly. If you have nothing to hide, why try and hide your website?

Re:One difference

[A nonymous Coward]

What do I say? I say it looks like you dropped a close italics tag.

Re:One difference

[Tim C]

I once worked on a site that had terms and conditions that explicitly denied the right to cache the content of the site, including in caching proxies and on your hard drive. It's like they wanted to pay for as much bandwidth as they could.

Re:One difference

[Anonymous Coward]

well.. 1000£ for suspicious activity. there has to be a catch there, since conjuring up suspicious activity is much cheaper than 1000£. and you can't sue anyone for 1000£ for suspicious activity. even if the suspiciously acting guy is found guilty, how/why would money flow to these chaps?

Only the individual who has scored the highest number of "points" in a given month will receive £1000. Points are given for correctly reporting suspicious activity. That's a long way off receiving £1000 per report.

By the way, the £ (pound) sign always comes before the number, without exception, as correctly shown in the comment that you replied to, the grandparent comment, the summary, and the article.

Re:One difference

[Nursie]

One pound fifty a month for two hours a day?

Jesus H Christ. The only people who will bother with this are the folks who are already curtain-twitchers by nature, and who have really got nothing to do with their lives.

FTFAQ - "Viewers can monitor for as much or as little as they want. Extended viewing is rewarded"

A quid fifty for sixty hours. You couldn't even buy a pint with that, but then you won't have time either, and if you're the sort of person this appeals to you probably think that 'public houses' are full of filth and scoundrels anyway.

Re:One difference

[mcgrew]

Why would anybody think that a website can have a TOS? I mean, it's a websit and it's on the internet. I'll access it any way I want and do anything I want with the content. Don't like that? Then take your website off the internet.

Sometimes I marvel at how stupid the powerful can be.

Re:One difference

[Anonymous Coward]

http://interneteyes.co.uk/go-suck-a-dick.html

Re:One difference

[uglyduckling]

I don't think you can do anything you want with content just because it's published on the web. Taking it and republishing it as your own, for example, would still be plagiarism and copyright violation, and you would still me liable.

Re:One difference

[AmiMoJo]

The scam works like this: CCTV owners pay the web site to have people watching their feeds. The web site charges people to watch those feeds.

For a fraction of minimum wage you can imagine just how attentive the viewers are going to be.

Re:One difference

[gstoddart]

Why would you discourage people from linking to your website?

Usually it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how the internet works.

Re:One difference

[GameboyRMH]

The CEO of my company (who is obsessed over confidentiality, but runs an open AP on his home network!) recently asked my boss (IT manager) if there was any way to "stop his emails from being forwarded without his permission" |:-|

He held back his laughter and told the CEO it wasn't possible, adding a little talk about PGP-encrypted email to make the CEO feel like he didn't just ask a dumbass question (I would have added a little chuckling to make it clear).

The whole IT department had a good laugh over that one! XD

Re:One difference

[mcgrew]

That's not what I was referring to. I didn't think I'd have to make the disclaimer "I'll access it any way I want and do anything legal I want with the content." You don't have to have a TOS in your store with a TOS against shoplifting. Are you being purposely dense?

You don't need a TOS to stop people from illegal activity, and if it's legal your TOS isn't binding.

Re:One difference

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Britain, webcam operators pay YOU!

Re:One difference

[booch]

And exactly when did I agree to their terms and conditions?

Re:One difference

[Lucractius]

if it's legal your TOS isn't binding.

Tell that to the people writing software EULA's and website TOS.

Surveillance = False accusation

[dugeen]

I regard surveillance cameras as constituting a blanket false accusation of ill-intent against all persons who come under their purview. No-one should be spying on me unless they have a pre-existing, genuine good faith suspicion that I'm up to no good, and allowing random internet maniacs to participate in the surveillance merely increases the offence. Where possible I'll be withdrawing contact from all organisations that collaborate with this evil scheme.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[White Shade]

I don't feel threatened by surveillance cameras in public places at all, indeed, I feel safer knowing that if someone does pull some shit, there's at least a possibility that there'll be some footage of it...

Once the surveillance gets into our homes and private work spaces and whatnot, then that's a problem, and a serious one...

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have a right to be invisible wherever you go. If you're out in public, people are going to see you. If you're on business premises, people will be watching your behaviour. Doing it through a camera does not change anything, and people wanting to protect their property should not be told that they're evil for keeping a watch over it.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[somersault]

I suppose you also switch off logging on all your computers, in good faith that everything will work perfectly and you won't ever need to find out what happened in the case of a problem?

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[somersault]

mod +1,000,000 - sense in the face of knee-jerk reaction whiny bullshit attitude

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[Dunbal]

No-one should be spying on me unless they have a pre-existing, genuine good faith suspicion that I'm up to no good

      But looking at you when you are in a public place is not "spying". Heck, we all have to close our eyes because Your Highness wishes to walk down the public street? Yeah right. You know there are cameras everywhere pointed at you. Some of them are owned by the government. Some of them are privately owned. If one day video of you picking your nose in your car emerges on the internet, welcome to the modern world. But on the other hand, you will be just one of millions of nose-pickers so no one will pay any attention to you (unless of course, you draw attention to yourself and invoke the Streisand effect).

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[Anonymous Coward]

The quicker this is rolled-out, the quicker you'll be able to profile your young victims

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[somersault]

Yeah, think of the children!

This is obviously going to cause far more crime than it stops, because currently nobody can sit on a park bench and observe people passing by, and when they know there are cameras in public places they're a lot more likely to try and kidnap children!

Got any more stupid arguments you'd like to trot out as excuses so that nobody can watch you while you're shopping?

I'm a lot more likely than most people to get into trouble from CCTV, as I'm out doing Parkour several times a week, including the occasional bout of trespassing or what might be deemed by some as anti-social behaviour. However, I still think CCTV is beneficial to society as a whole. I'd rather get arrested for climbing a wall, than have a mugger or rapist go free because there is no evidence.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[obarthelemy]

Most crimes are committed in boardrooms and government. Let's put CCTV there.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[olden]

Well, unlike you [White Shade] I feel that so-called wholesale surveillance, if left unregulated, even "just" in public places, would become a threat, a violation of everyone's right to privacy and dignity.
Today we have cameras. To prevent crime we're told (but studies seem to indicate that doesn't work). UK especially. More and more, networked, centralized. With now Joe Sixpack watching too (brilliant, really). Plus license plate OCR to enforce traffic restrictions, with such info logged to some big-ass database and cross-referenced to car owners details. Software also tries to analyze and pick "suspicious" behavior. Next is facial recognition (too unreliable today, but technology only improves). All in all, logging everyone's moves relatively cheaply seems doable in a not-so-distant future.

Now would you consider a detailed list of all the places you went to (e.g. stores, bars, relatives, friends, doctor's office, lawyer...) free for anyone to look at (your spouse, your ex, your boss, your parents, the government...) or just your own damn business?
Where do we draw the line?

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[Anonymous Coward]

But there is a huge difference in using footage after a crime is committed (as evidence), and actually watching people actively, even when no crime is committed.

Even in a public place people enjoy some privacy. People don't stare at each other for minutes in a park or store. If someone did, they would likely get scolded by whoever they are observing. It's just impolite and intrusive to watch someone's EVERY moves (even in public).
So I don't mind police watching a tape on which I happen to appear if it's part of a criminal investigation. First it's police, and second there's a good reason to observe what I was doing. But I don't want people spying on me just because "you never know, that guy might commit a crime in 5 seconds. A young male shopping in a supermarket at 10am on a Wednesday? That is really suspicious!" because 1) No crime occurred and 2) they aren't even from the police.

And the popular argument of "If you have done nothing illegal then you have nothing to hide" is just a disgusting way to violate people's privacy (even in public places). There are good reasons not to want to be observed even if you did nothing wrong.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[Rogerborg]

You know that when you step outside your door, other people can actually see you, right? Your Mak'tar stealth haze isn't working.

If you want to protect your privacy from prying eyes, you can wear a hoodie, burqa or that tiresome de rigueur V mask that all the cool paranoid kids are sporting, anywhere you like in public, without let or hindrance. The UK isn't France.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you hiding your email address and your real name?

What are you, paranoid or something?

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[duguk]

You know that when you step outside your door, other people can actually see you, right? Your Mak'tar stealth haze isn't working.

If you want to protect your privacy from prying eyes, you can wear a hoodie, burqa or that tiresome de rigueur V mask that all the cool paranoid kids are sporting, anywhere you like in public, without let or hindrance. The UK isn't France.

I think you're forgetting that CCTV is used as evidence, and since it's "unbiased", it must be admissible, and 100% accurate evidence.

Of course, Judges and Police don't often realise that mistakes are often made with CCTV, nor that it's bloody expensive to keep it running, and would be cheaper to employ police instead.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[duguk]

Got any more stupid arguments you'd like to trot out as excuses so that nobody can watch you while you're shopping?

Sure, I'll bite.

I think you're forgetting that CCTV is used as evidence, and since it's "unbiased", it must be admissible, and 100% accurate evidence.

Of course, Judges and Police don't often realise that mistakes are often made with CCTV, nor that it's bloody expensive to keep it running, and would be cheaper to employ police instead.

I'd rather get arrested for climbing a wall, than have a mugger or rapist go free because there is no evidence.

That is, until they lock you up thinking you are a mugger/rapist?
That's not just your problem. Then we've got an innocent person in jail, and a mugger/rapist that the police has stopped looking for.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[somersault]

That is, until they lock you up thinking you are a mugger/rapist?
That's not just your problem. Then we've got an innocent person in jail, and a mugger/rapist that the police has stopped looking for.

That seems to be a bit of a strawman considering mistakes are made all the time without CCTV too. With really crappy quality CCTV it isn't that much use as evidence (I should know our CCTV system completely sucks here at work, wish they'd get a decent system), but with high quality stuff it's a lot more useful. A lot of businesses around here run their own CCTV, it isn't costing the government anything. The Police occasionally request some footage of certain times if there's been dodgy goings on on our street (which there often are as we live next to one of the roughest areas in the city).

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[RichiH]

Except that it has been shown time and time again that CCTV does nothing to _prevent_ crime and only a bit to _solve cases_. Hint: The police have perfected being good at working without CCTV over the last few hundred years. I can create more work, though.

If you want to _prevent_ crime you need street lights and more police on the streets. Oh, and a fast, efficient justice system that deals swift and just justice so there is no mental disconnect between "I broke $law" and "I get punished". Again, this has been shown again and again.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[Rogerborg]

You must be lost - this is a thread about the privacy implications, not the effectiveness or cost. Perhaps you meant to piggyback your opinion somewhere else?

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

However, I still think CCTV is beneficial to society as a whole. I'd rather get arrested for climbing a wall, than have a mugger or rapist go free because there is no evidence.

Would you rather have a reformer politician blackmailed into silence because the entrenched powers acquired a clip of him entering a motel with a hooker? Even if he she just happened to be walking in the lobby door at the same time as him?

Then there's that funny thing - CCTV footage getting "lost" when it would have contained official misconduct.

The pantopticon is a tool of the powerful for the powerful sold to the citizens by convincing them that they are weak.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[somersault]

There are good reasons not to want to be observed even if you did nothing wrong.

Such as?

Most of these guys are complaining that these cameras even exist. I agree it's pretty pointless to just sit there watching all day unless you're actually a security guard, but I definitely think having the cameras in place and recording is positive.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[Anonymous Coward]

It is possible to have privacy in public places. That's a hugely different statement to saying that we should all expect the right to privacy in all public places.

There's no reason why you should expect to be invisible in public, and just because that makes you feel uncomfortable is no reason for others to sacrifice reasonable security measures.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[nOw2]

Agree on both points.

I live on a town centre street with no cameras. A parallel street has two cameras 400 yards apart.

Guess which street is used as a toilet at 3am? Guess which street is targeted by arsonists?

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[duguk]

That is, until they lock you up thinking you are a mugger/rapist? That's not just your problem. Then we've got an innocent person in jail, and a mugger/rapist that the police has stopped looking for.

That seems to be a bit of a strawman considering mistakes are made all the time without CCTV too. With really crappy quality CCTV it isn't that much use as evidence (I should know our CCTV system completely sucks here at work, wish they'd get a decent system), but with high quality stuff it's a lot more useful. A lot of businesses around here run their own CCTV, it isn't costing the government anything. The Police occasionally request some footage of certain times if there's been dodgy goings on on our street (which there often are as we live next to one of the roughest areas in the city).

Of course mistakes are made with other systems, but they don't cost £200 million to solve 10 crimes over ten years.

CCTV was originally called a PREVENTATIVE measure. It hasn't worked. So what happens now? The Government push for more, and more.

I'd prefer that £200 million to pay for the 666 new police officers we could've had for the last ten years, not some childs' plaything.

You don't best stop crime by constantly monitoring people. You best stop crime by trust and education.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[duguk]

You must be lost - this is a thread about the privacy implications, not the effectiveness or cost. Perhaps you meant to piggyback your opinion somewhere else?

I'll put my opinions where I like. Until the Freedoms of Speech are further restricted, I'll say what I want.

I realise it's out of context, but YOU said the only reason the public dislike CCTV is because they're being watched in public. That is such a horrific and uneducated mistake, that it needed correcting.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[duguk]

Except that it has been shown time and time again that CCTV does nothing to _prevent_ crime and only a bit to _solve cases_. Hint: The police have perfected being good at working without CCTV over the last few hundred years. I can create more work, though.

If you want to _prevent_ crime you need street lights and more police on the streets. Oh, and a fast, efficient justice system that deals swift and just justice so there is no mental disconnect between "I broke $law" and "I get punished". Again, this has been shown again and again.

Spot on.

CCTV solves 1 in 1000 crimes, cost £2000 per camera, per year.
Street lamps stop around 20% of crimes.

I don't suppose they cost that much do they?

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[duguk]

I suppose you also switch off logging on all your computers, in good faith that everything will work perfectly and you won't ever need to find out what happened in the case of a problem?

If it cost me £2,000 per year per log file, meaning I've spent £200 million over ten years to solve 1/1000 problems - yeah, I'd do without log files.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[SenseiLeNoir]

Although I do agree with most of what you have said, there is one thing.

A LOT of the CCTVs in councils in the UK, are currently being used by their operators to spot parking/bus lane offenses (which earn revenue in fines). Now, I dont mind this in essensce, but when ever I go to some council areas (Such as Harrow and Hounslow) all I see is the CCTV cameras pointing to the bus lanes trying to fine motorists, than actually trying to survey the whole area.

One day (if it hasnt happend already) a crime is going to be missed, because the operators where trying to capture fines.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[malkavian]

Because I used to have my email address in the public domain in the pre-spam days of the Internet. Once spam came about, that address got completely swamped to the point of being unusable.
I don't mind random people having my email address, if they just want to send me questions, or have a decent chat.. I do object to having it harvested by spammers and used to deluge me with random irritations.
If I found that appearing on a CCTV camera caused me to have a deluge of spam mails through my letterbox, you can bet that I'd be up in arms about their misuse, and start to disguise/obfuscate my appearance in public.. When it's analogous to simply having a pair of eyes watching the crowd, as you could have anyone just sitting, watching the crowd go by and reporting to the Police if they saw anything worth reporting, I've no problem. If they abuse it, expect me to raise a complaint.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[lxs]

If someone does pull shit, that camera isn't going to stop them, and there is no police around to do so, because the cameras proved to be much cheaper than having actual people walking around interacting with the citizens.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[somersault]

Considering this is a government project, the equivalent cost for personal use would be more like £1 per year for all of your log files. Especially in a business environment you're going to want logging enabled because so many other people are relying on things working properly and being fixed quickly. Likewise for a government project, £200 million over 10 years is hardly anything, and if it helps to keep crime rates down or put more criminals behind bars when they're stupid enough to start something, it's a bargain.

Personally I'm not really worried about being mugged seeing as I'm a 6'1" young adult male, but I'm happy for my taxes to go towards increasing the safety of higher risk groups.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[Hatta]

I feel safer knowing that if someone does pull some shit, there's at least a possibility that there'll be some footage of it...

Unless it was a cop that did it, in which case the tape will be "lost".

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[duguk]

and if it helps to keep crime rates down or put more criminals behind bars when they're stupid enough to start something, it's a bargain.

It's not bringing the crime rates down though, that was my point. Read the damn article.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[somersault]

Where in that article does it say they only solved 10 crimes? It's saying crime has dropped by around 20% in each area. I'm happy with things like putting in better lighting rather than cameras if it's shown to better cut crime levels (though both is ideal because then you still have a record of the remaining 80% of crimes still happening in the streets).

My main issue with people's arguments here is not about the effectiveness of CCTV anyway, it's frustration at the attitude that they shouldn't be filmed while out in public. I think it's a great thing to be doing, especially considering for example some of the abuses of Police power going on that we're only able to see now with the popularity of YouTube. The more people are aware that they are accountable, the better behaved they are. Then again a lot of crimes will be committed by druggies who are completely fried so it would be nice to cut down on the influx of drugs too. Education might help these people, and trust is good within reason, but I wouldn't trust your average druggy further than I can throw my car.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[somersault]

I wouldn't be surprised if the footage really was lost. Never assign malice to that which can be explained by stupidity and all that. With the experience I've had with our own CCTV system, which is shit, I can really believe them when they say they got nothing useful. With modern tech though, HD cameras and massive hard drives, we should be able to do a lot better than the crap that we've been trying to use for the last however many years. The company I work for isn't willing to pay to improve the system though, so it will stay shit until they actually end up losing something more expensive than a reel of copper wiring..

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[duguk]

Where in that article does it say they only solved 10 crimes?

That's per year. It's simple mathematics. Says in the article there are 10,000 cameras, It also says that 1 in 1000 crimes are solved by CCTV per year.

It's saying crime has dropped by around 20% in each area.

Where does it say that? It says the clear-up rate for crimes is around 22% - but it generally has always been around that figure - 78% of crimes are unsolved.

It does say underneath "the money spent on cameras would be better used on street lighting, which has been shown to cut crime by up to 20 per cent." - that seems a far better choice to spend money on.

I'm happy with things like putting in better lighting rather than cameras if it's shown to better cut crime levels

Agreed.

(though both is ideal because then you still have a record of the remaining 80% of crimes still happening in the streets).

Doesn't work like that. Installing street lighting would decrease it by 20%. Installing CCTV would decrease it by 0.1%, and probably not further. The two are quite exclusive!

Also, the cost of CCTV (£2000/year) has got to be far greater than installing street lighting.

My main issue with people's arguments here is not about the effectiveness of CCTV anyway, it's frustration at the attitude that they shouldn't be filmed while out in public.

I haven't a problem with being filmed in public, so long as it is used properly. Being checked on occasionally is fine. Being followed around by a CCTV operator with a stalking obsession; or using it to blackmail my non-existent wife - isn't. We don't even know what the controls on CCTV are - but I know someone who is a CCTV operator, and knowing the kind of guy he is, really worried me.

I think it's a great thing to be doing, especially considering for example some of the abuses of Police power going on that we're only able to see now with the popularity of YouTube.

I'd agree if it wasn't for things like the attack on a 50 year old man, coming home from work, recorded on camera, beaten by police from behind; and the police being let off. More details here. It's certainly not the first time CCTV has been ignored - or as others have mentioned, damming evidence on CCTV completely disappearing.

The more people are aware that they are accountable, the better behaved they are.

I've worked for a number of years in schools, and have met a number of drugs users. In schools at least, the less you trust the students, the more trouble they cause. We had a unusual trick of those students being caught 'hacking' (sic), were given more access, and not punished. It worked unbelievably well. It's not necessarily accountability that makes people better behaved, but often is down to education, or a feeling of unfairness in life.

Being constantly watched only helps to promote paranoia to all people, you can see this by the number of people scared of CCTV! I'm sure that common criminals and drug users are far less caring about being caught.

Not only that, but CCTV is crap anyway. Have you ever tried it yourself? Imagine quite how bad it is.

You've seen yourself, the crime figures seem to indicate that CCTV doesn't help anyway, and certainly is costing a lot more money and stopping crime less than it would just to install street lighting.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[aunt edna]

"Such as?"

Mod me up for not replying to this defective question please.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[somersault]

That's per year. It's simple mathematics. Says in the article there are 10,000 cameras, It also says that 1 in 1000 crimes are solved by CCTV per year.

One thing I think should be clarified: are all those cameras government funded ones? I think this may be talking about all the cameras in the UK, including privately owned ones. It's difficult to tell exactly how well these are working as a preventive measure too, seeing as we'd have to get rid of all the cameras to find that out.

Thanks, that post wasn't quite so condescending, and I do pretty much agree with you. I definitely agree about trust, I hated it when one of our managers clearly didn't trust anyone in the building, made me consider leaving the company. Thankfully we got rid of her first. Trusting the general public is in my mind a slightly different matter to trusting a bunch of well educated engineers, but I agree that people are more likely to behave well if you treat them like adults rather than kids.

Yes CCTV sucks. Our live stream at work is okay, but the actual recordings are done at a really low resolution. It's next to useless. I could probably build a better system myself pretty cheaply.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[hedwards]

I don't think people realize how often the cameras are broken or pointed in the wrong direction. Somebody up to no good, or with other experience with cameras can usually figure out where they're pointed within a fraction of a second, and definitely without staring.

It's not surprising to me that they wouldn't be able to find the footage. Keeping cameras maintained is expensive, and there's that window where everybody knows you haven't got anything to record with.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[somersault]

Why not just mod someone up for implying that there are good reasons for something when the only good reason is that everyone likes overreacting and complaining about stuff? There are no good reasons for not being "observed" when you are in public. If you are bothered about being observed by people, wear a gigantic cardboard box over yourself, or simply don't go outside.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[duguk]

One thing I think should be clarified: are all those cameras government funded ones?

Yes, from the last line in the article: "The true number, once privately run units and CCTV at rail and London Underground stations are taken into account, will be significantly higher."

I definitely agree about trust, I hated it when one of our managers clearly didn't trust anyone in the building, made me consider leaving the company.

It just makes you want to steal things doesn't it? :)

I agree that people are more likely to behave well if you treat them like adults rather than kids.

That's an eloquently way of putting it - I couldn't agree more.

CCTV doesn't bother me that much. Wasting money does though, especially this kind of money, especially when the statistics are so glaringly obvious.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[Anonymous Coward]

And how many major crimes have been solved by the UK's CCTV state?

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[somersault]

It just makes you want to steal things doesn't it? :)

Indeed. Most of the engineers have access to a printer that's located in a room full of paper, spare IT equipment etc. This manager wanted to restrict access to only managers in case people stole things, and her example was some mice lying out on a shelf, which cost £5 each. We're paying our engineers £40k a year and she was worried about £5 mice and buying cheaper coffee for the coffee machines.

I hate that attitude, being so ready to make work a living hell for people, for the sake of saving a couple of pennies.

Again I agree about saving money where it clearly is providing no real benefit though. I just get so frustrated at the groupthink here sometimes and can't help arguing for the sake of it, even when I know I'm going to get flamed to hell.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[skgrey]

If you are bothered about being observed by people, wear a gigantic cardboard box over yourself , or simply don't go outside.

Snake? Is that you?

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[umghhh]

we do not draw line anywhere - the gov does it for us. The problem with this is that even if there are only good guys in the given gov that we have then still the possibility exists that evil guys get 'accidentally' elected and decide to stay. fighting the enemy that knows all is extremely difficult. This of course is not an argument against surveillance in general but something that should be considered on regular basis by citizens. We can already see that citizens are put under pressure, their views are not considered and friendly remonstrants are beaten up by the police and this not in NK but places like Italy (Genua 2001) or recently in Germany (Stuttgart 2010). How do you fight a state that has everything under control? Well you do not as it is too pointless.

As said - not an argument against CCTV but there is a problem there and not only there that the technology opened up and that should be resolved somehow. I do not know how but recognizing t hat there is a problem is the first step.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[duguk]

and can't help arguing for the sake of it, even when I know I'm going to get flamed to hell

Don't worry. I'm the same. Is mostly the reason I posted in such a sensational way.

Some of the groupthink here does have a valid reason behind it though - it's not all conspiracies.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[Joe Snipe]

That's per year. It's simple mathematics. Says in the article there are 10,000 cameras, It also says that 1 in 1000 crimes are solved by CCTV per year.

except you need to divide by total crimes, not total cameras. There were 33463 robberies alone last year, that makes 33 crimes per year solved by cameras right there.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[duguk]

That's per year. It's simple mathematics. Says in the article there are 10,000 cameras, It also says that 1 in 1000 crimes are solved by CCTV per year.

except you need to divide by total crimes, not total cameras. There were 33463 robberies alone last year, that makes 33 crimes per year solved by cameras right there.

No. I've explained this badly. It took 1,000 cameras to solve just one crime. There are 10,000 cameras. That's 10 crimes used as evidence per camera.

What you've presumed is that all robberies are seen by cameras. That's not what the statistic says. To quote: (It takes) "1000 CCTV cameras to solve just one crime, Met Police admits".

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[somersault]

!

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[aunt edna]

For heaven's sake, think.

Fortuitously, here's a relevant news item, from the Guardian newspaper:
"Police lied to persuade CCTV staff to monitor drink-drive suspects"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/06/devon-police-cctv-drink-driving

"Devon police admitted inventing information to induce CCTV operators to monitor drink-drive suspects.

Police were criticised today for inventing intelligence to persuade civilian CCTV operators to snoop on suspected drink-drivers outside pubs.

Officers in Devon were said to have regularly asked operators to watch for people who might be over the drink-drive limit by making up false information about them.

Campaign group Liberty said the disclosure was a reminder that there was scope for CCTV cameras to be abused. Adrian Sanders, the Liberal Democrat MP for Torbay, said the practice was unacceptable. "There are strict guidelines between the sharing of intelligence between police and other agencies and similar controls with what happens as a result of sharing that intelligence," he said.

The practice was revealed by the case of John Joseph, 54, of Torbay, after he parked his car outside a pub in 2007. A police officer asked CCTV operators to watch Joseph, also known as calypso, reggae and soca singer and performance poet Antigua Joe, who was later arrested on suspicion of drink-driving and put in handcuffs and leg restraints. A breath test proved negative.

Joseph was awarded £17,500 compensation after complaining about his arrest. A police standards investigation rejected Joseph's allegation that he was targeted because of his race. But a report into the case flagged up an admission by one officer involved that he invented intelligence about Joseph to get the CCTV operators to watch him.

"To get the council CCTV control room personnel to watch the vehicle he [the police officer] would have to give them a good reason for doing so. In order to do this he had told them he knew the occupant very well and knew he would be drinking," the report said.

"[The officer] admitted this was invented by him and a lie. He went on to say that he and his colleagues targeted vehicles outside public houses and regularly persuaded CCTV operators to watch vehicles by inventing intelligence."

Joseph was charged with resisting arrest and a public order offence but cleared on both counts. He was held for nine hours after his arrest in 2007. The report said Joseph's detention was unlawful.

A complaint against the officer of "falsehood and prevarication by making a false report to CCTV operators" was upheld.

A spokesman for Devon and Cornwall police's professional standards department said: "Mr Joseph did make a complaint against police following his arrest. Elements of his complaints were found to be proven and a number of officers received a range of sanctions as a result."

The force refused to comment on the use of CCTV."

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[somersault]

So? The real story there is not about CCTV, it's about Police abuse of power. It happened to me the other day that an officer was trying to tell me not to do something, when he couldn't actually tell me what law I was breaking. The fact he didn't like it and he had a uniform and a Police car seemed to him to be enough reason to try and tell me what to do.

Stories like this don't mean we should stop making use of technology, they show that we should place better safeguards against abuse of power, and educate people better on how to protect themselves against Police etc. I usually just cave in even if I feel I'm in the right, because the Police are used to getting their own way and I don't know if they'd start getting physical/arrest me for insulting them etc.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[Joe Snipe]

Even this doesn't equal 10 crimes total. Met police say 1000 cameras to solve one crime, but they don't state over what amount of time. Per day? Per year? Per lifetime?

This does make more sense then what I had first thought, thank you for the clarification

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[duguk]

Even this doesn't equal 10 crimes total. Met police say 1000 cameras to solve one crime, but they don't state over what amount of time. Per day? Per year? Per lifetime?

This does make more sense then what I had first thought, thank you for the clarification

Yeah it does. Read the article, it even says so:
It says, quite clearly, right at the top: "For every 1,000 cameras in London, less than one crime is solved per year.".

Again, the article is here. Or here. I know it's unusual to read an article and easier just to reply with your opinions, but it does answer all your questions.

The only complaint you could have is over whether this works out to £20,000 per crime solved, or £2,000,000.

I've calculated it as 10,000 cameras, £200 million cost, that's £2,000 per camera per year. We know 1/1000 crimes are solved by cameras, so 1000*2000=£2m. There is another way to calculate it, I'll let you figure out why the police calculated it as £20,000.

Whether its £20,000 or £2,000,000 to solve one crime; it's still too high - and considering that crime is reduced by 20% just by having street lighting, it just doesn't make any sense.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[Joe Snipe]

Alright, no need to be snarky. I was merely questioning the math based on your statements.

If I were to question you based on the articles you provide, I would use this quote: "In one month CCTV helped capture just eight out of 269 suspected robbers." Or this quote: "The internal police report found the million-plus cameras in London rarely help catch criminals."

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[duguk]

Alright, no need to be snarky. I was merely questioning the math based on your statements.

If I were to question you based on the articles you provide, I would use this quote: "In one month CCTV helped capture just eight out of 269 suspected robbers." Or this quote: "The internal police report found the million-plus cameras in London rarely help catch criminals."

Feel free to use that quote, but it questions nothing. You realise that just reinforces what I've already said?

Those figures you cite almost certainly include private cameras, in pubs, shops, etc. That's not the discussion point here; we're discussing the expense to the tax-payer, and the privacy implications. They aren't the same implications that exist inside private establishments owned by private people.

I'm presuming this is the case, since it's well documented that "Britain has a staggering 4.2 million CCTV cameras - one for every 14 people in the country - and 20 per cent of cameras globally. It has been calculated that each person is caught on camera an average of 300 times daily.". There are 10,000 tax-payer-funded CCTV cameras. It's probably obvious, but tax payers do not directly fund private CCTV.

Feel free to question the figures, it's not an easy one to calculate. But take into account all the statistics - even if CCTV was a hundred times more successful; (or I was two orders of magnitude out on my calculations) - statistically, street lamps would still prevent more crime.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[Joe Snipe]

statistically, street lamps would still prevent more crime.

Very true, and personally I feel the inherent risk to privacy and liberty that are associated with cctv more than negate any perceived safeties associated with them.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[Anonymous Coward]

... with such info logged to some big-ass database and cross-referenced to car owners details...

I say old chap! Didn't you know that we in Brrrrrrrrrrriton have big arse databases?

Tut tut.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation

[Anonymous Coward]

They caught the paki's that blew up the trains and busses.

Full reward list

[Thanshin]

Suspicious activity: $1000
Actual crime: $1500
Violence: +$500
Murder: +$1000
For each aditional victim over the first: +$500
Nude man: $0.25
Nude woman: $50
Performing sexual activities: *5
Celebrities: (See annex)
Special prices: (See "I found Wally!" annex)

Re:Full reward list

[Anonymous Coward]

So, a necrophiliac lesbian gang-bang is the jackpot.

I guess that's one way to get videos of your fetish: pay people to find them for you.

Re:Full reward list

[obarthelemy]

Great, you just need a friend with fast legs, willing to work for a 20% cut.

Re:Full reward list

[Anonymous Coward]

better is if the corpse is Wally and the lesbians are celebrities.

Re:Full reward list

[Chrisq]

Nude man: $0.25 Nude woman: $50

Isn't that gender discrimination

Re:Full reward list

[Chris Mattern]

Catching the politician who sponsored this going into a hotel with a prostitute: Priceless

Re:Full reward list

[duguk]

10,524 CCTV Cameras - £200 million over 10 years.
Crimes Solved: 10 per year
Cost to solve once crime with CCTV: £2 million per crime.

Crimes per year: 4.4 million
Crimes solved by police: 22%
Police: 136,000
Crimes solved per year: 968,000
Crimes solved per officer per year: 7
Average Police wage: £30,000
Cost to solve one crime: less than £5,000.

I don't see how this is workable. Either I've got my figures wrong, or some CCTV company is making way too much money.

Re:Full reward list

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how this is workable.

corruption > statistics

Re:Full reward list

[SenseiLeNoir]

You missed one statistic. In areas of CCTV, how many crimes has it PREVENTED by just the aspect of them being there.

Unfortunately this is a statistic that is not easy to calculate, unless we employ mind reading.

Re:Full reward list

[laederkeps]

Supply and demand.

Re:Full reward list

[duguk]

You missed one statistic. In areas of CCTV, how many crimes has it PREVENTED by just the aspect of them being there.

Unfortunately this is a statistic that is not easy to calculate, unless we employ mind reading.

Well, the numbers of crimes haven't gone down* significantly - so, essentially, none.

Also, if you look at the percentage of crimes solved, from the link I posted originally, you'll see that the crime-clear-up figures are below average, and haven't increased - and are worse in the areas with more CCTV cameras.

Oh, and the police are saying it too.

Does this make me a mind-reader now?


* specifically: "of 24 studies carried out in city centres, only 13 showed crime had fallen since CCTV cameras were installed. Crime rates rose significantly in four other cities."

Re:Full reward list

[operagost]

But capitalism is TEH EVEL.

Re:Full reward list

[Hognoxious]

Well, the numbers of crimes haven't [bbc.co.uk] gone [bbc.co.uk] down [bbc.co.uk]* significantly - so, essentially, none.

By the same logic my unicorn repellent is 100% effective, since I haven't seen one since I bought it.

I take it the "studies" used an equivalent UK (except without the cameras) as a control?

Re:Full reward list

[duguk]

Well, the numbers of crimes haven't [bbc.co.uk] gone [bbc.co.uk] down [bbc.co.uk]* significantly - so, essentially, none.

By the same logic my unicorn repellent is 100% effective, since I haven't seen one since I bought it.

That's a logical fallacy. If you'd bought unicorn attractor spray for £200 million, and not seen any unicorns; then you'd be right.

By the way, I'm selling some Unicorn Attractor Spray for £200 million - interested?

Nothing to see here

[Wowsers]

Cue the stupid people in the UK who will say the tired out line "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear." Strangely the phrase does not apply when people like politicians, footballers and the film / record industry have something to hide, who run to the courts for crooked "Super Injunctions" to protect their criminal behaviour / scandals from being made public.

Re:Nothing to see here

[JohnFluxx]

What useless rhetoric. Next up, there are some people who are in favor of taxes but still do tax evasion. And some people are in favor of police, but still commit crimes.

Re:Nothing to see here

[nmg196]

> Cue the stupid people in the UK who will say the tired out line "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear."

It's still said, because nobody ever seems to have a counter-argument for it, so it still stands. At the end of the day, if you don't commit a crime, the presence of a camera will not affect you.

Re:Nothing to see here

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing wrong with photography in public places although that doesn't stop Police from harrassing photographers. Perhaps people looking for "suspicious activity" are going to have an expectation bias when viewing innocent activity? Afterall, you could be a terrorist.

As to the OP's theory, what evidence do you need?

Re:Nothing to see here

[HungryHobo]

I think I know what he was refering to when he was talking about secret gag orders.
Google the "Minton report"
http://mirror.wikileaks.info/wiki/Guardian_still_under_secret_toxic_waste_gag/

The newspapers were gagged from even reporting that a report about toxic waste dumping existed at all, they were aslo gagged from talking about the gag order.
It's not all conspiracy theory crap.

Re:Nothing to see here

[digitig]

"If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" is only valid if those collecting and handling the data are competent and benign. Whether that's a counter-argument depends on your view of those collecting and handling the data, but there are very few organisations I would consider to be competent and benign.

Re:Nothing to see here

[olden]

At the end of the day, if you don't commit a crime, the presence of a camera will not affect you.

Wrong. It affects everyone, in a lot more ways than you think. Simple example: visiting any "embarrassing" place (medical facility, sex-shop, late movie, badly rated restaurant or bar...) is perfectly legal, yet I bet most people would behave differently if the footage of a camera at such places entrance was publicly available and/or archived forever, instead of only kept by the owner and for a short time.
More arguments against that stupid "If you have nothing to hide..." line

Re:Nothing to see here

[HungryHobo]

What?
there's never any shortage of good counter arguments.
educate yourself.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565

You might be also interested in why it's good that people have a right to remain silent even though obviously (in your world) if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear from telling the truth freely.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865#

Re:Nothing to see here

[somersault]

Damn. Okay, seems I'll have to take it easy on the seemingly crazy folks today! Maybe I'll even join in.

Re:Nothing to see here

[duguk]

It's only "tired out" because you refuse to listen to it. What is wrong with cameras in a public place? As I said above, would you prefer to switch off all logging on a server until after you start having problems? I doubt it. Seriously, what's your problem with having cameras in already very public places?

Would you also pay £200 million for your server logging, when it fails 999/1000 times?
Or if it logs the wrong thing or perhaps happens to murder the wrong person?

Look at the first link. It's costing TWO MILLION POUNDS to solve ONE CRIME. It costs about £5,000 for the Fuzz to solve a crime. And half of them move around less than a CCTV camera.

It isn't so much the CCTV, but what it is being used for, that the real crimes it records are being ignored, and that it is constantly misused due to a lack of controls.

Hope that helps you to understand.

Re:Nothing to see here

[Anonymous Coward]

You really are a nasty little fucker, or are seriously fucking naive and are insisting on forcing your child-like views on others. A quick look through some of your other comments highlights you as a Slashdot Nigel Tuffnell, who just likes to do the equivalent of "this one goes to 11" when faced with stories on privacy: You just parrot what you have been told, and add nothing at all, because the concepts presented (or not) by the story go over your head.

Maybe you just don't give a shit about privacy, but when you don't give a shit about your privacy, you are also not giving a shit about other people's privacy. And that isn't your privacy to give away.

If you want to walk around naked, that's up to you. But don't force everyone else to do so. Levels of privacy vary from person to person. Take celebrities: they either genuinely don't give a shit about their privacy, or they are so fucking insecure that they let anyone and everyone into their lives just to give them a sense of self worth. Whereas I, like many people, don't use shit like Facebook due to the privacy issues of corporations spying on users and second guessing their desires just to stick adverts in people's faces.

I fully expect a Daily Mail style cry about victim's rights, or some veiled racism or similar prejudice to justify ever increasing levels of CCTV. The floor is yours, but I don't expect enlightenment.

Re:Nothing to see here

[somersault]

Thanks for trying to help, but I don't get this figure you keep throwing around:

Look at the first link. It's costing TWO MILLION POUNDS to solve ONE CRIME.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I don't see that in the article, and I hope nobody else believes what you are saying without checking up your facts too.

Re:Nothing to see here

[duguk]

Thanks for trying to help, but I don't get this figure you keep throwing around:

Look at the first link. It's costing TWO MILLION POUNDS to solve ONE CRIME.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I don't see that in the article, and I hope nobody else believes what you are saying without checking up your facts too.

I'll get out the crayons and explain this to you. All these figures come from this article, and this one.

From the first line of the first article: "London has 10,000 crime-fighting CCTV cameras which cost £200 million" (over the last ten years).
From the second article: "For every 1,000 cameras in London, less than one crime is solved per year"

Now here's the maths bit:
If there are 10,000 cameras (which there are), and 1/1000 crimes are solved with CCTV; that is 10 crimes per year solved by CCTV. With me so far?
Those 10,000 cameras cost £200 million over ten years. That is £20 million a year for 10,000 cameras.
Remember, 10,000 CCTV cameras solved 10 crimes per year. £20 million divided by 10 is £2 million.

So it cost £2 million to solve one crime. That's £2 million per crime solved.

Bit more expensive than employing a £30,000 Bobbie; and way more than a PCSO. I'd hope that it wouldn't take more than 50 rozzers to solve one crime per year.

Re:Nothing to see here

[somersault]

I'll get out the crayons and explain this to you.

Okay, I'm not sure if I can be bothered talking to you if that's the attitude you're going to have. Why bother to provide references at all if you were only going to link half of them and then speak about data from the missing link as if it was in the article you linked to? To then be so condescending about me asking where your figures are coming from is downright .. well I can't quite figure out what it is right now, somewhere between being immature, arrogant, and an arsehole, but you're it.

Re:Nothing to see here

[hedwards]

People know those things exist, but the suspicious bit is that it isn't generally available to people without high powered lawyers. A person can have their life completely ruined by accusations which the court ultimately finds them not guilty of, but in the public's mind the individual is still very much guilty. Just look at both OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson, they were acquitted in court, but the public still regards them as guilty. It's possible that they both were guilty, but both were acquitted by a jury of their peers.

Re:Nothing to see here

[duguk]

I'll get out the crayons and explain this to you.

Okay, I'm not sure if I can be bothered talking to you if that's the attitude you're going to have. Why bother to provide references at all if you were only going to link half of them and then speak about data from the missing link as if it was in the article you linked to? To then be so condescending about me asking where your figures are coming from is downright .. well I can't quite figure out what it is right now, somewhere between being immature, arrogant, and an arsehole, but you're it.

All the figures are there. I'm a little annoyed that you clearly haven't read the article, but feel you have the ability to criticise it.

As I've said, all the figures and references are there - there's only two sources, and I've explained all the calculations.

If you want to blissfully ignore them and base your opinions on your own thoughts, rather than real statistics, you're falling under exactly the same problem that the UK Government have.

P.S. Saying "I'll get out the crayons" to explain something that you've asked me to isn't quite as insulting as calling me an arsehole. Call me what you want, it doesn't bother me; I'm simply trying to educate you.

Re:Nothing to see here

[somersault]

The figures I was referring to were in the telegraph article yes, but you hadn't posted that one up before, which is why I was asking where the "TWO MILLION POUNDS to solve ONE CRIME" stuff was coming from.

I appreciate attempts to educate me, I know I'm ignorant on many topics, but saying "I'll get out the crayons" when you hadn't actually linked all the articles you were getting your figures from felt very insulting to me.

Re:Nothing to see here

[duguk]

The figures I was referring to were in the telegraph article yes, but you hadn't posted that one up before, which is why I was asking where the "TWO MILLION POUNDS to solve ONE CRIME" stuff was coming from.

I appreciate attempts to educate me, I know I'm ignorant on many topics, but saying "I'll get out the crayons" when you hadn't actually linked all the articles you were getting your figures from felt very insulting to me.

I guessed you missed the bit about only 1/1000 crimes being caught by cameras. I had mentioned that statistic - I didn't realise that negating to put a link caused you to call me an arsehole.

Especially when I then explain WHERE the stat came from; and you say "Why bother to provide references at all if you were only going to link half of them" - all the info was there in the post you replied to.

Anyway, that statistic is fairly widely available.

I'll try and remember to cite every single source next time.

Still, I'm a little offended at being called a 'conspiracy theorist' for giving real-world statistics. In reality it's more like the other way around.

Re:Nothing to see here

[somersault]

Think I only said conspiracy theory to the original poster. I made such a big deal of it, because I looked through the article several times trying to find where you figured the the "only 10 crimes solved" thing from, but couldn't find it. I don't generally read news outside of slashdot because I'm sick of hearing of murders, rape, corrupt politicians, etc..

Re:Nothing to see here

[nmg196]

And you post as AC! The irony! What an idiot.

Re:Nothing to see here

[nmg196]

Huh? Those places are all public places where people can see you anyway. Again, another non-argument...

> would behave differently if the footage of a camera at such places entrance
> was publicly available

RTFA - this is about CCTV not public broadcast television! The C in CCTV means "Closed" and not even YOU (the one on camera) can see it.

Re:Nothing to see here

[HungryHobo]

The word "irony" does not mean what you think it does.

The CC in CCTV?

[peterprior]

I always thought the CC in CCTV stood for 'Closed Circuit', meaning the pictures are not being broadcast.

I know they're not being broadcast over RF but shouldn't making them available to anyone via a website be classed as 'broadcasting' therefore making it Open Circuit TV or just 'TV' ?

Re:The CC in CCTV?

[bigjb]

I am pretty sure that this is going to end up with some interesting court appearances just from looking at the Information Commissioner's Office own guidelines for viewing CCTV;

Viewing of live images on monitors should usually be restricted to the operator unless the monitor displays a scene which is also in plain sight from the monitor location.

and as an example:

Example: Monitors in a hotel reception area show guests in the corridors and lifts, i.e. out of sight of the reception area. They should be turned so that they are only visible to staff, and members of the public should not be allowed access to the area where staff can view them.

and also the following on the release of footage:

Any other requests for images should be approached with care, as a wide disclosure of these may be unfair to the individuals concerned. In some limited circumstances it may be appropriate to release images to a third party, where their needs outweigh those of the individuals whose images are recorded. Example: A member of the public requests CCTV footage of a car park, which shows their car being damaged. They say they need it so that they or their insurance company can take legal action. You should consider whether their request is genuine and whether there is any risk to the safety of other people involved.

and even better on the next page concerning responsibilities and the display of signs:

Signs should: be clearly visible and readable; contain details of the organisation operating the system, the purpose for using CCTV and who to contact about the scheme (where these things are not obvious to those being monitored); and be an appropriate size depending on context, for example, whether they are viewed by pedestrians or car drivers.

Typically the one thing you do see in any public area in the UK with CCTV, is an indication that CCTV is in operation, hopefully if the guidelines are followed and the signs go up in shops and they will see some drop in customer numbers because people are not willing to accept that level of invasion of privacy.

Re:The CC in CCTV?

[ewrong]

'A circuit is considered to be closed when electricity flows from an energy source to the desired endpoint of the circuit.'

from here

Re:The CC in CCTV?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. Most irritating acronym misuse by supposedly switched on IT types at the moment.

They're called "cameras".

Re:The CC in CCTV?

[DeadboltX]

The signal is being rebroadcast. If I snip a bit of my CCTV feed and upload it to Youtube, does that make my system not CCTV anymore?

Sounds great!

[tacarat]

We need this in America, but bolt it onto our elected officials and non-elected public servants. You know, to monitor them for voyeurism and abuses.

You know theres something wrong...

[WarJolt]

...when the Brits are more innovative voyeurs than us Yanks. What happened to our innovative spirit? We were suppose to be leading the world in technology.

But seriously....I wish there was a US version.

Re:You know theres something wrong...

[VShael]

I wish there was a US version.

Give it time. There'll be a vastly inferior US remake soon enough, that will still make a lot more money and be more popular, while purists will prefer the original British version.

Re:You know theres something wrong...

[Mashiki]

But seriously....I wish there was a US version.

There is, it's called neighborhood watch and CoP(citizens on patrol). Both are used in Canada and the US. But expect it to increase as cities, towns, and counties continue to cut their police budgets these days.

Re:You know theres something wrong...

[peterprior]

On the plus side you'll be able to pay $2 to skip the ads...

Re:You know theres something wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

> But seriously....I wish there was a US version.

Fuck you. Fuck you with a rake.

That being said, it will happen.

Re:You know theres something wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm looking forward to the merchandising franchise.

Re:You know theres something wrong...

[operagost]

I'd love to watch those classic original British comedies, but I don't have the appropriate Cockney and Welsh to American English dictionaries to translate them.

Re:You know theres something wrong...

[hedwards]

There will be, except our version will involve both aimbots and firearms. And probably liquor as well. Hell, Texas has already got those components finished, I mean where else in the world would allow a person to hunt via remote control?

Why this kind of crap always comes from the UK?

[b4nd0ler0]

Seriously, very often these news related to invasion of privacy, police state, Orwellian-like developments come from the UK. They seem a society obsessed with surveillance of their own citizens. What's wrong with these guys? Haven't they got anything else to do?

Re:Why this kind of crap always comes from the UK?

[Securityemo]

Weird old class system?

Re:Why this kind of crap always comes from the UK?

[somersault]

Clearly they have or they wouldn't be asking the public to watch for them. This is not an invasion of privacy, the cameras are in public places. This is only "Orwellian" in your own head, because you have to take everything to ludicrous extremes rather than accepting that in reality, schemes like this are positive for society. The only problem would be if they started putting cameras in houses, but nobody has actually done that before, and nobody in their right mind would even try it in a democracy.

Re:Why this kind of crap always comes from the UK?

[Goffee71]

Its because we can't afford a decent police service, or at least enough bobbies on the beat (boots on the ground, whatever). So they (councils, government, private firms) just shove in more cameras hoping to deter criminals. This doesn't work (thanks to the invention of "the hoodie"), but it doesn't seem to stop the rise in cameras and ignores the fact we don't have enough people monitoring them. All a bit of a waste of time really. Of course, if someone eventually comes up with a decent "suspicious activity" algorithm, then things will work out fine in the end as we bow to our digital overlords (with no right of appeal)

Re:Why this kind of crap always comes from the UK?

[addsalt]

... in reality, schemes like this are positive for society. The only problem would be if they started putting cameras in houses, but nobody has actually done that before, and nobody in their right mind would even try it in a democracy.

Why wouldn't the rhetoric that cameras in public places help prevent and prosecute crime not easily transfer over to "private" places? I would expect that most abuse and a fare share of murders occur in private places. Think of how many murders could be solved (and prevented) if we had cameras in houses. We would completely get rid of meth labs. Obviously the only people who wouldn't want a camera in their house are the ones who want to continue doing these illegal activities. Why should I get to commit crimes just because I put up a lean-to and it is now magically a "private" place.

The concerning thing about 1984 is that it IS a "democratic" society, that is controlled by fear. If I am so scared of crime in public places, why would I not be scared of crime in private places?

Re:Why this kind of crap always comes from the UK?

[AHuxley]

Good use of the CCTV was during the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Embassy_Siege and with the IRA larger truck bombs.
The kind that enter a city, get called in and are not able to be made safe.
Now the UK likes the OCR to track any car's id from street to street or via helicopters, (drones?) ect.
Add in computer tracking at home, voice prints if you use a cell phone.. it completes the total surveillance package built on the old phone based systems via the early sat/tower 24/7 intercepts.
Further back you have Enigma, before that 1927 when Neville Chamberlain read out decyphered Soviet telegrams in Parliament,
Its generational and addictive.

Re:Why this kind of crap always comes from the UK?

[AHuxley]

Re we can't afford a decent police service, that cash went for Nimrod, Zircon and all the 'listening' stations around the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zircon_(satellite)

Re:Why this kind of crap always comes from the UK?

[somersault]

It's not about fear, it's about taking reasonable measures. You're already in public so it's fine to be recorded, it makes sense to record. You're more likely to be assaulted by someone you don't know in public, and cameras are better than nothing for identifying those people. If we had a proper network of public cameras you could establish who went into who's house and came out in a bag, or didn't come out at all, etc anyway.

Obviously most people don't want other people watching them having showers and/or sex at home, it is a private place, and I can understand that, though to be honest I don't care too much about my privacy as long as I don't get ads thrown in my face all the time.

I simply find arguments against cameras in public places ludicrous. Public place is public.

Re:Why this kind of crap always comes from the UK?

[wzzzzrd]

Clearly they have or they wouldn't be asking the public to watch for them. This is not an invasion of privacy, the cameras are in public places

I'm SO sick of this false argument about "it's already public!". Just to make it clear, so even you can understand it: when I walk in public, yes, you can see me, but in order to see me, you need to be NEAR ME. Which is OK. Now, with CCTV, you do NOT to be NEAR ME. Thus, the number of eyes that can see me walking in public explodes. Al-right? There is a difference between "public" and "tv show stage".

Re:Why this kind of crap always comes from the UK?

[somersault]

There is a difference between "public" and "tv show stage".

There's really not. Public place is public. Should we also ban e-mail and all other forms of modern communications tech except between people who are near each other?

Re:Why this kind of crap always comes from the UK?

[wzzzzrd]

Well, if you don't know the difference between a public place and a tv show stage, I'm pretty sure you don't know the difference between having sex and riding a tricycle either. Also, should we ban cotton t-shirts and all other forms of modern wear, just because there are socks made of plastic? Makes as much sense as your argument.

Re:Why this kind of crap always comes from the UK?

[Hatta]

Yes, they're in public. But there are privacy expectations even in public. Next time you're in public, pick someone out and follow them around all day. Do this day after day, every time they go out in public, there you are watching them. Any reasonable person would be creeped the fuck out, and you'd be guilty of stalking in many jurisdictions. Why is it OK when the stalker is hidden behind a network of cameras?

Re:Why this kind of crap always comes from the UK?

[b4nd0ler0]

Damn right! when walk around the streets I expect to be anonymous (except for the people that know me) I don't think it will be possible if we are surrounded by cameras recording every move.
Besides, it doesn't feel right to have a society where its citizens are constantly watching each other remotely for possible criminal behaviour. That sounds screwed up if you ask me.
On a normal situation if I do something wrong and a cop sees me, I can be stopped and confronted on the spot, face to face and have the chance to tell them to bugger off and mind their own business if I feel it's not right. But with these remote cameras business it will be some faceless entity, where is the accountability? What if I'm kissing my girlfriend or something less glamourous like scratching my ass or picking my nose and there is a bunch of freaks watching from fu**k knows where and zooming in on me?

With these kind of schemes we are giving goverment more power than ever before, shifting the balance further against the individual. The right to privacy does matter and we shouldn't give it up so easily.

Re:Why this kind of crap always comes from the UK?

[operagost]

Nobody in their right minds would try any of the following in a democracy. So please go about your business, and don't worry!

• Illegally detain drivers without probable cause ("sobriety checkpoints")
• Segregation or "Apartheid" (20th century USA and S. Africa)
• Place citizens in internment camps (FDR in WWII)
• Jail citizens for seditious speech (Wilson in WWI, Sedition Act under Adams)
• Slavery

Re:Why this kind of crap always comes from the UK?

[somersault]

Of course I do. When you're riding a tricycle it helps to be in a well lit area.

What's wrong with socks made of plastic? I like it when my clothes don't shrink in the drier.

My point was that if you're out in public, anyone could be watching. Everyone in an office building could be looking at you. You could be walking through a live news broadcast, literally on a TV show stage.

Re:Why this kind of crap always comes from the UK?

[somersault]

Probably because the person being stalked won't be getting creeped out as you say. I thought some guy was following me one night, I legged it as soon as I got round a corner. As long as someone's just looking and not touching, I don't think it should be an issue.

Re:Why this kind of crap always comes from the UK?

[hedwards]

As somebody that used to watch security monitors, I can pretty much tell you that it's not the same as having a person there. For one thing they often times don't know that there's a camera. Even with signs and the ability to see the camera, they don't realize it's there. So you end up seeing all the sorts of things people do when nobody is around.

Additionally, cameras have a memory, depending upon the site it may be as short as a few weeks, or much longer depending upon how much money the owner wants to spend. And if you're seen doing something notable, they may pull the footage for storage indefinitely.

I can also definitively say that women do all the gross things men do, it's just that they generally have the tact to try and avoid doing it in public view.

Re:Why this kind of crap always comes from the UK?

[somersault]

The thing about those is that they don't affect the whole population, so it's easier to slip them in as long as the majority agrees. And in fact if the majority of the population agrees then the government should be going along with that, even if it's seen as wrong by other nations..

Re:Why this kind of crap always comes from the UK?

[wzzzzrd]

ignorance is bliss.

Re:Why this kind of crap always comes from the UK?

[somersault]

Exactly. That sentiment could agree with my own point just as much as yours. In reality being on camera isn't going to have any negative consequences for you, as long as you haven't been breaking the law, but if you have been a victim of crime then it can help to have footage. It certainly doesn't always help, but it can.

Re:Why this kind of crap always comes from the UK?

[Hatta]

Probably because the person being stalked won't be getting creeped out as you say.

I find ubiquitous cameras to be even creepier than being constantly followed around. At least you can try to lose someone who's following you. Cameras are everywhere and they never forget. (unless you're a cop)

Re:Why this kind of crap always comes from the UK?

[misexistentialist]

Public place is public.

Are the cameras placed by majority vote of the public? Are the feeds and archives open to free public viewing? Is the recorded video deleted at public request? Your definition of "public" means that everything outside your "home", is actually the private domain of the government. And indeed "public" has never meant 100% recorded surveillance like you find in buildings owned by banks or government agencies--and even those buildings might not have full-coverage or real-time monitoring.

Re:Why this kind of crap always comes from the UK?

[somersault]

Most CCTV cameras forget in a few weeks.

Cops around here actually have cameras mounted on them too.

I guess I've just grown up with cameras around so I don't think about it. It's fun when people point them out but it doesn't change the way I act, because I rarely plan to do anything illegal in the first place.

Re:Why this kind of crap always comes from the UK?

[somersault]

When I think of cameras, I don't even think of government placed ones, the ones you see most around here are privately owned. I don't see why you're mixing the data protection act stuff about personal info in with something that is inherently public.

Public place is public. If you sit around on the bench at a train station all day, you're not going to get arrested for watching people. The only places you're going to get arrested are doing something weird like watching a school, or peeping into people's homes (though really it can be argued that if they want privacy they should close their curtains - if they're doing anything inappropriate they're really meant to do this in case someone outside happens to see them).

Re:Why this kind of crap always comes from the UK?

[misexistentialist]

Staring intensely at people or setting up a video camera in a train station is not recommended.

Re:Why this kind of crap always comes from the UK?

[somersault]

When you're looking at a security camera you're generally not looking intensely at any one person unless they're already up to no good. I wasn't talking about staring at people. You get people who just like to sit and watch the world go by when they're bored at an airport or something. I can't say I'd find it interesting myself, but one of my friends talked about how he enjoys watching people when he's waiting at airports/train stations etc - not because he's looking out for terrorists or anything, or because he's creepy, just I guess looking at all their different moods, happy reunions, sad goodbyes, all that stuff. Probably just as interesting as all that "reality TV" crap anyway.

Oh goodie

[SmallFurryCreature]

So now everyone with a webcam needs a broadcasting license? Why not demand that everyone writing on the web have a writing license and be done with free speech altogether.

Re:Oh goodie

[coolsnowmen]

slow down there buddy. The CCTV vs TV rules are there for your privacy. The idea is that CCTV isn't broadcast so what happens there, stays there (internal security...). If the CCTV, is suddenly broadcast over the internet, you getting caught scratching your ass on camera is now copied to everyone who wants a copy.

Well, that's that then

[L4t3r4lu5]

Getting the populace to constantly watch and be suspicious of each other was the last item off the checklist for our favourite Orwellian dystopia to become reality.

Excuse me. I'm off to stock up on razor blades.

Re:Well, that's that then

[hedwards]

That's what made the Stasi so feared. At it's peak the Stasi employed roughly 1/6.5 of the East German population as informants, either part or full time spying on the remaining population. Meaning that if you said something there was a really good chance that the authorities would know about it quite soon after.

I’m gonna write me a new minivan

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh the opportunities...

Im suprised they didn't think of this sooner.

[seeker_1us]

The massive CCTV system hasn't changed crime statistics in the UK.

I don't expect this will help either, but it will help the UK citizens think those cameras are there to help keep them safe from criminals.

Re:Im suprised they didn't think of this sooner.

[Sockatume]

That's because the "massive CCTV system" is largely a sprawl of private cameras owned and run by businesses to benefit themselves, rather than (even nominally) the public. Publicly owned and run CCTV systems are on a much smaller scale than you might expect.

Re:Im suprised they didn't think of this sooner.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Publicly owned and run CCTV systems are on a much smaller scale than you might expect.

But they are practically all connected to the same database which is easily accessible to nearly anyone - as this particularly story demonstrates - and thus magnifies the potential for abuse by many orders of magnitude.

FYI - here are some actual stats on the number of public CCTV cameras in the UK - it is pretty high, starting with nearly 7,500 in London:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8159141.stm

Re:Im suprised they didn't think of this sooner.

[duguk]

That's because the "massive CCTV system" is largely a sprawl of private cameras owned and run by businesses to benefit themselves, rather than (even nominally) the public. Publicly owned and run CCTV systems are on a much smaller scale than you might expect.

10,000 cameras for £200 million is a small scale operation?

Re:Im suprised they didn't think of this sooner.

[Anonymous Coward]

"But they are practically all connected to the same database which is easily accessible to nearly anyone- as this particularly story demonstrates"

So, if Slashdot posts a story about a guy who claims he sees aliens and needs $1M for an alien defense shield, your thought is "Oh wow, aliens exist. We must be prepared" rather than "This guy is nuts, what a scam" ?

Very few CCTV cameras are hooked up to anything resembling a "database" let alone your imaginary central database. Perhaps, just perhaps, if this scheme is a big success in actually preventing crime or prosecuting it, that will change. But most likely not. The people at this company probably have video from no more than a few hundred out of the many tens of thousands of cameras in the country. They've even called it a testbed. And you've spun it in your head into some near-global conspiracy.

The average CCTV camera being included when you get the scary stats about "surveillance state" is a ten year old unit in a privately run store recording 2x2 compressed to VHS tapes. There's no computer involved, much less the Internet.

Considering just "public safety" cameras, since these are the only ones ever intended to include preventing or detecting crime in their remit, they've been pretty effective and they make very little real difference to privacy.

Re:Im suprised they didn't think of this sooner.

[JasterBobaMereel]

This is not one network of cameras ...

This is a large number of independent sets of cameras - Each one is mostly one or two outside a shop going to their own recorder in store

Note this also does nt include the council run high street systems
Or the ones who did not bother with a grant from the government
Or the in store systems that do not qualify for a grant ...

Publicly owned and run camera systems are mostly run by local councils and are independent of each other and (outside London) only cover one town centre ....

Re:Im suprised they didn't think of this sooner.

[duguk]

This is not one network of cameras ...

This is a large number of independent sets of cameras - Each one is mostly one or two outside a shop going to their own recorder in store

Note this also does nt include the council run high street systems Or the ones who did not bother with a grant from the government Or the in store systems that do not qualify for a grant ...

Publicly owned and run camera systems are mostly run by local councils and are independent of each other and (outside London) only cover one town centre ....

No it's not. Those are NOT included. Read the article again. This is *PURELY* Government CCTV.

Right at the bottom of the article you didn't read: "The true number, once privately run units and CCTV at rail and London Underground stations are taken into account, will be significantly higher."

Re:Im suprised they didn't think of this sooner.

[Timmmm]

It sounds like a lot, but on average that means each camera covers an area of 500x500 m.

Also, my bike saddle was stolen recently in central London (need Goodge Street). No CCTV. :-/

Re:Im suprised they didn't think of this sooner.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, crime statistics from the Home Office, incorporating figures from the police and the British Crime Survey, show crime falling fairly steadily from its high point in 1995.

There are plenty of arguments to make against CCTV, but "crime hasn't fallen" is simply not supported by the facts. It has.

Re:Im suprised they didn't think of this sooner.

[JasterBobaMereel]

Sorry yes the article is for the Council run CCTV networks ...

The largest of these is ~1000 cameras going to one control room monitored 24hrs a day

This 1000 camera system (like most of the others) covers one London borough (Mostly town centres) public spaces only and is run by council staff, in conjunction with the police, all incidents are reported to the police and dealt with by them..

It's an aid to policing not the government spying on you, not private individuals, not external companies ...

Re:Im suprised they didn't think of this sooner.

[duguk]

Sorry yes the article is for the Council run CCTV networks ...

The largest of these is ~1000 cameras going to one control room monitored 24hrs a day

This 1000 camera system (like most of the others)...

...that cost £20 million to set up is only solving one crime a year.

FTFY.

Show me the money

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical BBC story with little or no information in the article. I expect nothing less. It doesn't even tell you who the ICO awarded the contract to...

"The private company intends to stream live footage to subscribers' home computers from CCTV cameras installed in shops and other businesses."

OK. As far as I can tell, this is a breach of the data protection act and I will be taking legal advice on if the ICO or so called private company can be prosecuted.

"Internet Eyes will pay up to £1,000 to subscribers who regularly report suspicious activity such as shoplifting."

WTF do they mean? Where has the actual news gone nowdays?

Apart from no agreement or understanding about the security aspects, or legality, the REAL story is that a lot of CCTV is useless at getting any conviction in a UK court of law. Any criminal knows exactly that as long as you don't put your fact up close and wear a hoodie top, or baseball cap, nobody can RELIABLY identify anyone (unless they have extreme features).

I guess people can save the video footage and store it, then upload to youtube? Who knows what implications this may have?

Re:Show me the money

[AHuxley]

I guess they give them a crash course in watching, request a police back ground look/clearance.
Get a bit of encryption key for Windows installed or some hardware ~ 'set top' box with hardware encryption next to the PC.
Once its all in, a set number of hours stream in and the $$$ builds up for the 'share holders'.

Better solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

Teach policing in schools and make everyone a cop.

Yeah, you'd think i'm joking, but i'm not. It would solve so many problems.
Of course, it would introduce a whole bunch of other problems. (such as people knowing how to get around certain things)
But if everyone was a "cop", they'd all more-or-less know how to spot any dodgy goings-on..
It might even, you know, learn people the damn law since nobody but bloody lawyers know the damn law anyway!
People might be less inclined to be dicks or wreckless if learned from an earlier age exactly How To Live In Society.

Any further thoughts, Slashdot?

Re:Better solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

Teach policing in schools and make everyone a cop.?

1984 was not meant to be a how-to manual.

Spying on your neighbours

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds nazi era to me. Where does the german queen of England get her ideas? Where does her grandson get his fancy dress ideas? You vill answer me, yes?

Re:Spying on your neighbours

[AHuxley]

Ex Stasi and other private contractors offered their unique insights.

Trying it out

[LingNoi]

It's only 2 pounds a month so I tried it out. Here's the slashdot review summary..

- You have the choice between 1 camera, 2x1 camera and 1x2 cameras.
- You don't get to choose which camera however you can click to choose another random camera.
- You get to click to watch for another 5 minutes on the same camera
- If you don't click you will switch to a different camera automatically
- You get 5 alerts a month.
- There is some kind of buffering going on here however the video footage seems to be very close to live. The camera has a clock in it which matched my desktop to the minute.
- You don't have to be in England to use it. I'm currently half way around the world so it takes a long time for video to show up

Re:Trying it out

[MichaelSmith]

It's only 2 pounds a month so I tried it out.

Aren't they paying you to watch?

Re:Trying it out

[LingNoi]

I don't think you can ever make money off this. The only reason I paid was to try it out for myself and see what they were doing. Already unsubscribed the recurred billing.

First you need to have alerted correctly more times then anyone else. Second you only get 5 alerts a month. A combination of this means you'll never get any real money.

Re:Trying it out

[Spad]

So it's like chatroulette with fewer penises?

Re:Trying it out

[LingNoi]

Yes, exactly.

All the cameras I have see are from private shop which leads me to suspect that this is an opt in thing separate from the government CCTV cameras in the streets.

Re:Trying it out

[LingNoi]

Some extra details since I posted.

The alerts seem to be going up. I have 6 now so I guess I was wrong and they go up with usage or something.

They're using RTMP (Not RTMPS) for streaming the content and JWplayer. Their site kinda sucks to be honest, a lot of it is unsecured (security by obscurity) and I'm pretty sure you could look at this content without a need to login first if someone gave you the details to do so.

The prize of 1000 pounds is for only one person a month, so if you report 10 crimes and someone else reports 11, sucks to be you.

Re:Trying it out

[c0lo]

I don't think you can ever make money off this. The only reason I paid was to try it out for myself and see what they were doing. Already unsubscribed the recurred billing.

First you need to have alerted correctly more times then anyone else. Second you only get 5 alerts a month. A combination of this means you'll never get any real money.

Being cheap, eh? Have a competition between many watchers and pay only 1000 quid

Another advantage they can derive: since one is already involved in surveillance, is less likely the one will oppose more advanced surveillance schemes. Except, probably, if disappointment for not being paid kicks in.

Re:Trying it out

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad to see you can't choose the camera.

Otherwise, pick a camera you know and have an accomplice do something "suspicious" in the area. Report. Repeat. Profit!

oh look, it's Tory time!

[FuckingNickName]

Expect policing to be farmed out to private enterprise... oh look, just announced...

Prison to be farmed out to private enterprise... and turned into compulsory labour for that enterprise... oh look, announced at the Tory conference yesterday...

Healthcare rationing to be turned into GPs buying from competing healthcare private enterprise, because goddammit the free market guarantees not just any laparoscopic cholecystectomy but the best profit-making laparoscopic cholecystectomy... oh look, announced a few weeks ago, despite manifesto commitments not to perform another wasteful NHS top-down change...

I'm going to sit back and do very little for this country until Thatcherism Part 2 fucks things up enough over the next decade that half the country hates Cameron with a similar passion.

Re:oh look, it's Tory time!

[Spad]

Yes, and then Labour can come back into power, run up a massive debt, fuck things up just as much - but more subtly than the Tories so it takes longer for people to notice - while pretending to give a shit about poor people.

Same shit, different colour.

Re:oh look, it's Tory time!

[FuckingNickName]

New Tory did it out of self-interest (and everyone who mattered, noticed the effect). Old Tory do it out of principle (and no-one who notices, matters).

When the choice is between two similar evils, always choose the man who doesn't have a queer conviction that he's doing it for your own good.

Re:oh look, it's Tory time!

[JasterBobaMereel]

They are all as bad as each other ....

Labour was ~: Nationalise everything, tax high but give a lot of services
Tory was ~ Privatise everything, tax low but give as few services as possible
New Labour was ~ Privatise some Nationalise some, tax high but give a lot of services
New Tory/Lib Dem is ~ Privatise everything, tax high ("It's Labours fault") and cut services

How do you define "misuse"?

[erroneus]

I would say it is already misuse. In this case, it is the misuse of government power. To be fair, the British have always had a problem with this. Their history is filled with stories of oppressive leaders controlling through brute force and unfair law. Now this might be a tainted view, but it's all I have to go on and it seems to fit well with what is going on in the British empire now.

Orwell-tastic

[jambox]

People always said "oh 1984, scary but of course it would be impossible to actually have enough people watching enough screens". Not any more it isn't. It's probably pretty meaningless given the current political climate but if there were ever a big political swing to extremism then here's the mechanism to very thoroughly police the behaviour of the public.

Give it a week...

[Gordonjcp]

... and they'll be shut down, just like the last bunch that pulled this scam. Loads of people will sign up and lose their money. Six months down the line, we'll see more of timmeh's hysterical squealing about how evil Britain is, as the scammers start up again.

Yes, there's a law against this sort of thing.

Problem-Reaction-Solution

[stalkedlongtime]

The brits are using a time-proven formula to make their citizens demand previously unpopular policies. It's called Problem-Reaction-Solution. Once a problem is allowed to get bad enough (say, crime) there will be a reaction from the enraged populace, and they will eagerly embrace the solution (say, snitching) offered by the people who engineered the problem to begin with. Governments do it again and again because the public falls for it every time.

Re:Problem-Reaction-Solution

[c0lo]

The brits are using a time-proven formula to make their citizens demand previously unpopular policies. It's called Problem-Reaction-Solution. Once a problem is allowed to get bad enough (say, crime) there will be a reaction from the enraged populace, and they will eagerly embrace the solution (say, snitching) offered by the people who engineered the problem to begin with. Governments do it again and again because the public falls for it every time.

Hmmm... If it turns out to be a scheme to squeeze 2 pounds a month for the "privilege of peeping" (you might get to snitch, if lucky enough to see something suspicious) and pay 1000 only for the "snitch-of-the-month-winner", I wonder if they are not actually considering the cost of running the CCTV network the actual problem and "peeping" as the kick meant to provoke the reaction??

vexatious surveillance

[stalkedlongtime]

You might see instances of vexatious surveillance. Imagine a group of people like the fine folks at 4chan with their hands on this technology, using the tech to stalk individuals the 4chan group mind has decided to go after.
Some people will be getting much more attention from this system than others, I'm guessing.

Previously reported

[Anonymous Coward]

http://games.slashdot.org/story/09/10/08/1919244/Real-LIfe-Distributed-Snooping-Web-Game-To-Launch-In-Britain

NEW RULE:

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone supporting the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" argument who hides his email address and other identifying information is a hypocrite.

Big Brother (TM)?

[jandersen]

Wow - the ultimate reality tv: really watch reality, on tv! I don't know if this is funny or just sad.

Oath of Fealty

[Shivetya]

guess we might actually get there one day, I wonder how long before someone builds a Todos Santos and how long the line for admission will be.

Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Fealty_(novel)

"The arcology dwellers have evolved a different culture, sacrificing privacy - there are cameras (not routinely monitored) even in the private apartments - in exchange for security."

New?

[imakemusic]

It's been online for at least a year and was posted by timothy almost exactly a year ago.

Also they don't pay you to watch, you pay them to watch and if you happen to see something happening, you might get paid.

Good work, editors.

I do feel threatened by cameras

[Errol backfiring]

If only for the fact that the police officer who can help me is far away in some command centre. A camera is not a substitute for human presence, yet they are usually implemented as a substitution for human presence or at least as an excuse to drastically decrease that presence.

Then there's the other side to the story

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, then there's the other web site, not so well publicised, where users are paid to identify something worth stealing or a lapse in security.

By all means put all your webcams on-line... but don't moan when you get screwed.

Police Brutality?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if you spot police brutality do you get points/pay. Or do you just get a visit from a few uniformed officers who confiscate you PC and remark that "Its not in you best interests to speak of this to anyone"

Interesting

[moeluv]

So during the cold war we condemn countries like East Germany for having people spy on their neighbors. Good thing the Berlin Wall came down now we can import the useful pieces of their ideology.

What Google Terms

[gravis777]

but what difference does it make when you can find said webcams with a simple Google search?"

A simple google search for London CCTV Webcams just brought me up a couple of streaming sites for CCTV (China), and a few London traffic cams and a couple of skyline cams. Wondering what terms the author used.

Book recommendation

[Beorytis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scanner_Darkly

Simpsons Did It

[Anonymous Coward]

Simpsons did it. The camera's were even put up by a UK firm.

Simpsons did it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't this on a Simpsons episode?

Free one way webcam

[Anonymous Coward]

Come one people. Surely this is an opportunity for people to send free webcam friends and family around the world. ;-))
Just pop down to the local CCTV and act out your web vid. I can also see an opportunity for the CCTV version of UK's got talent. Bwahahahaha.

civil obediance.

[oliverthered]

This calls for a bit of not breaking the law, but acting in a very suspicious manner in view of the cameras. So frequently that it adds too much noise to any real thought crimes that may be going on.