Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
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.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
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.
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?
... 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?
... 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.
Wow - the ultimate reality tv: really watch reality, on tv! I don't know if this is funny or just sad.
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".
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
Supply and demand.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.