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 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' ?
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.
"Common sense will be the death of us all"
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.
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.
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
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.
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, [...]
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
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.
which is totally what she said
Why would you discourage people from linking to your website?
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?
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
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
... 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.
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.
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.
Exactly. If you have nothing to hide, why try and hide your website?
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
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.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
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.
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.
Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
Supply and demand.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.