Topic: Britian: Uncut!

[Sabby]

Britian to turn itself into the next big Reality Show, via the internet and 4 million cameras!

Big brother may or may not be watching, but a new form of interactive entertainment will allow participants to leverage Britain’s 4.0 million plus closed circuit cameras in a bid to catch criminals and win money.

According to the Daily Mail, Internet Eyes is scheduled to launch next month and has already drawn the ire of civil rights groups, who worry the activity could lead to civil rights abuses.  One member of the opposition, Charles Farrior, labeled it “an appalling idea,” and worried it would create a “snooper’s paradise.”

Those watching cameras—in real-time—will be able to click a button every time they witness something they deem suspicious. Then, a message will be relayed to a camera operator, along with a still image from the camera. The operator will decide whether or not to take action and will notify the “player” if a crime has taken place or not.

Those participating will be blocked out after three incorrect alerts in a month, though additional alert opportunities can be purchased. As a further safeguard, actual locations of the cameras will not be known to those watching at home.

The article notes that Britain has 4.2 million CCTV cameras—one for every 14 inhabitants.

[Revolverman]

How can anyone call Britain a free nation at this point?

[Silk]

We stopped calling it that years ago.

[GothicFires]

I don't know of any country where you are free to commit a crime. this is the equivalent of your neighbor calling the police if they see someone they think is breaking into your house or is out of place in your neighborhood. Would you want them to look the other way because they were worried about invading the criminal's privacy?

[Sabby]

You only pick up the phone and call the police when you want to report a crime. If your even using this thing, your on the internet actively searching for something to report... theres kind of a difference there. Theres plenty of people out there who think its Patriotic or whatever the Brit equivelent of it is to watch their neighbors like a hawk... and many of them use this 'cleaning up the neighborhood' mentality as a conduit for paranoia.

This is essentially taking away their binoculars, giving them 10 times the freedom in their snooping, allowing them to get comfortable and, worst of all, rewarding them... calling it a game, awarding prizes and cash to 'Players'...

All over the world, in all time periods, men and women turn against each other for no reason at all. Its simply human nature. But a Government encouraging its own citizens to take this ugly portion of themselves right up to 11? Not good.

Might as well just go all Children of Men at this point.

[Oniya]

Yup, there's a difference between the little old lady peering between the blinds looking for gossip, and the neighbor reporting an actual break-in.

[GothicFires]

It still comes to the point of if you don't commit crime then there is nothing to report. If your behavior isn't against the law then you really shouldn't care that someone sees you doing what ever you are doing, even if it is on the internet. If you want complete privacy then keep the things you don't want people to see in your home with the curtains shut.

There is no justification that if someone doesn't see me in person then I can do something wrong, that someone seeing me on the internet doesn't justify me getting caught.

the only thing I hate the cameras for are for cars that make traffic violations because they cant verify who is driving the car, only who owns the car.

[Jude]

What I really want to know is if I have to be British to play and get paid.

[Nadir]

CCTV cameras are located in public areas - it doesn't matter to me whether it is the ten dozen people on the street eyeing me or a numberless audience on the net. It isn't a private area.

[Cythieus]

Thought this was a thread about circumcision.

[Oniya]

I understood that was the norm outside the US...

[MercyfulFate]

I hate, hate, HATE the idea of public camera systems. There needs to be laws about this sort of things, instead of allowing the establishment to have more and more power and surveillance with nothing to protect the people.

Frankly this stuff is the reason I would never go to the parts of the UK containing them. I also can't stand the horrid counter-argument "Well if you're not doing anything wrong it shouldn't bother you!" well it does.

1. These systems don't reduce crime, criminals will always adapt.

2. If criminals adapt, who are they watching? You and me.

I feel they have no right to watch us. Yes public isn't private, but it doesn't mean you should have someone over your shoulder at all times. Plus, the people watching the system can easily abuse it. I worked a security job running a CCTV system for a private development firm, and you can abuse it easily. Hell there was a time a drunk girl decided to squat and urinate in the parking lot.

Just about everyone there downloaded the footage and took it home. If they wanted to, they could upload it for the world to see. Is that right?

The worst part is people are becoming more complacent with this sort of thing, I will never, ever accept it.

[Jude]

1. These systems don't reduce crime, criminals will always adapt.

That's a general statement given with no real proof.  The same argument can be applied to any criminal countermeasure.  i.e. "We don't need to hire more police; criminals will adapt."

2. If criminals adapt, who are they watching? You and me.

This is based on a false premise, but even so, who cares?

I feel they have no right to watch us. Yes public isn't private, but it doesn't mean you should have someone over your shoulder at all times. Plus, the people watching the system can easily abuse it. I worked a security job running a CCTV system for a private development firm, and you can abuse it easily. Hell there was a time a drunk girl decided to squat and urinate in the parking lot.

Just about everyone there downloaded the footage and took it home. If they wanted to, they could upload it for the world to see. Is that right?

Can't the world already see what's put in the public sphere?  A record of it doesn't mean anything... It'll just make people think about things they do in public more.

I think the sole source of your complaint is the possibility for abuse; yes, it's there.  But any power can be abused.  That doesn't mean the power shouldn't exist; just that it shouldn't exist unchecked.

[MercyfulFate]

That's a general statement given with no real proof.  The same argument can be applied to any criminal countermeasure.  i.e. "We don't need to hire more police; criminals will adapt."
This is based on a false premise, but even so, who cares?
Can't the world already see what's put in the public sphere?  A record of it doesn't mean anything... It'll just make people think about things they do in public more.

I think the sole source of your complaint is the possibility for abuse; yes, it's there.  But any power can be abused.  That doesn't mean the power shouldn't exist; just that it shouldn't exist unchecked.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23412867-tens-of-thousands-of-cctv-cameras-yet-80-of-crime-unsolved.do

"In fact, four out of five of the boroughs with the most cameras have a record of solving crime that is below average."

Now that's just regarding solving crimes, not even preventing it.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-16856213-cctv-does-not-stop-crime.do

"Closed circuit TV systems are of little use in the fight against crime, a surprise government report claims today.
Home Office researchers who studied 14 schemes across Britain found that only one had brought a clear fall in the local crime rate.
While there was strong public support for CCTV before it was installed, opinion began to shift when people realised the cameras made little difference."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/06/ukcrime1

 A new database of images which is expected to use technology developed by the sports advertising industry to track and identify offenders.

· Putting images of suspects in muggings, rape and robbery cases out on the internet from next month.

· Building a national CCTV database, incorporating pictures of convicted offenders as well as unidentified suspects. The plans for this have been drawn up, but are on hold while the technology required to carry out automated searches is refined."

Etc, etc. It's been shown quite a bit, hence why I said it. Just didn't feel like posting the links with the original post.

Who cares? Smart people should. If it's costing taxpayer money, is not doing what it was intended to do, and IS unchecked....yeah, you should be against it.

It's just getting worse and expanding. Furthermore, cities and police departments are basically putting the videos and pictures out there for people to see, which is wrong.

There was a news story recently in the states about a town that was posting people's mugshots on the internet for hits. People's lives are being ruined because of it, they're basically being put in digital stockades for public scrutiny. It's akin to Dateline:To Catch a Predator basically publicly humiliating people, and there being very few convictions following this.

I'm going off topic here, but yeah it's a big problem to me. It goes in line with further militarizing our police forces, people being tasered more and more often, etc.

[Jude]

Who cares? Smart people should. If it's costing taxpayer money, is not doing what it was intended to do, and IS unchecked....yeah, you should be against it.

I care now, but because you made an argument based on its ineffectiveness, not a principle.

[MercyfulFate]

I care now, but because you made an argument based on its ineffectiveness, not a principle.

The principle is that it's wrong, there's no purpose for it. It's stated reason is for crime, and says it's been shown it doesn't do that, what's the point?

[Chea]

Wow, Britain.....really? Is Britain that starved for attention that they'd stoop this low?

Well let's hope the USA doesn't do this or we'll really need the 2nd Amendment more that ever! 

[Merlyn]

Well I'd just like to point out what I see as a problem with doing something like this. 

Presumably, anyone can participate as long as they have an internet connection capable of streaming video.  Now, I'm willing to bet a good number of criminals have this.  I'm also willing to bet that since the locations of the cameras are not revealed, it will just randomly give you a camera when you log into the 'game'. 

Now even so, (theoretically at least) after enough tries you could find a camera you wanted.  Say leaving the option for any of a number of places that you would be willing to commit a criminal act against.  Not only do you now know exactly what the camera see's (and after some testing, what it doesn't see) but you can also keep an eye out for routines. 

So for instance if it had a storefront in the view of the camera, you could see when people arrived to open the store, when they left after closing, when armored cars showed up to pick up cash, when product deliveries are made, and anything else of interest as long as you don't shut off and wind up on another camera.  To me it sounds like a great tool for criminals as well as a possible one against criminals. 

Hell, If I wanted to rob a bank, I'd sure as hell spend a month even trying to get access to the cameras in front of the bank.  In any sort of military, law enforcement, or criminal activity intel is a key to success.  And the ability to actually watch what the law enforcement is watching, and see you target to gather info would be completely invaluable.  People have gone to prison just attempting to do that.  And now it's going to be handed over to them?  It doesn't make any sense to me.

[Sycamore]

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"
"If you have nothing to hide, they have no right to snoop"

Britain is getting closer and closer to a Stasi state. Big brother is always watching us. I'm not against CCTV completely, but we have so many cameras and they do so little. Certainly any effect they had left long ago due to overuse. They aren't cheap and they don't stop crime. When I'm being stabbed/mugged/butchered/shot/raped/assaulted I'm sure I'll feel very comfortable knowing that the CCTV camera watching me might help catch the criminal, if I'm lucky. I might have been rescued by police, alas they will be too late because the nearest officer was about two kilometres away. Why is that? Because all our money is being funneled into CCTV.

Not so long ago (I may be fairly foggy on the specifics) the minister in charge of protecting children suggested we put CCTV cameras into up to 20 000  homes, for families that are "high risk". If the suspicion is that high, I'm sorry but the child should be taken away. The fact that the idea was even suggested tells me I should be worrying.

(This may go off topic in which case I apologise deeply in advance).
It's ironic because a lot of dictators do something just like this.We have all these ridiculous laws being based to combat terrorism. A database being built which will log exactly what we download, all our e-mails will be recorded, all our phone calls listened into, and all our privacy stolen from beneath our very feet.Why do we combat terrorism? So that we can secure our freedom and civil rights. So what does the government do? It takes away our freedom and civil rights.

Heck the government can't even keep the records it currently has now. There have been times where they write the passwords to encrypted CDs, on the CD case. social security details, military personnel details. The government has lost more data than I care to remember, and now they want to take in more?


I am a perfectly law abiding citizen and I feel more intimidated by the government than I do the people who are meant to be committing the crimes.

[kylie]

So for instance if it had a storefront in the view of the camera, you could see when people arrived to open the store, when they left after closing, when armored cars showed up to pick up cash, when product deliveries are made, and anything else of interest as long as you don't shut off and wind up on another camera.  To me it sounds like a great tool for criminals as well as a possible one against criminals. 

Hell, If I wanted to rob a bank, I'd sure as hell spend a month even trying to get access to the cameras in front of the bank.  In any sort of military, law enforcement, or criminal activity intel is a key to success.  And the ability to actually watch what the law enforcement is watching, and see you target to gather info would be completely invaluable.  People have gone to prison just attempting to do that.  And now it's going to be handed over to them?  It doesn't make any sense to me.

     I'm really just speculating...  Could they set the web connection so they only link to a particular connection for a certain time and then it's off to a different one?  Also, would they be likely to track the addresses of who is logging into the system?  A lot of hits or time on a particular camera might be apparent.

     If they don't control how often or how long one person can watch a site and/or "alert" the security people, the game might turn into more, how much can the public harass the security units with constant input.  That is, unless they're willing to arrest hundreds of people for false alarms...  "But don't you see that other window on my browser.  I thought I was finally okaying that Ebay order I'd been hesitating over all afternoon, yes I remember now it was all in between reading my emails!" 

[Neroon]

The argument HM government uses is that the cameras are there to help protect us in the fight against terror, that the increased intrusion into our lives is here to make us safer and that the restriction of our liberties is there to protect our freedom.

In my professional life, I have been asked to make a decision authorising the positioning of CCTV cameras in my faculties classrooms.  I have, so far resisted this.  The fact that the request is being made is symptomatic of an authoritarian system that believes that increased supervision equates to increased safety.  It does not, if you are talking of the safety of the people.  If, however, you  are talking of the safety of those in power, then it might.  The general tone of what I hear coming from Westminster is reminiscent not of a democracy but of a dictatorship, especially if you factor in the scapegoating of elements in our society that is occurring.

It is a bad time to live in Britain.

[Ramster]

This is just one reason that makes me enjoy being an expat. They want to put cameras in classrooms now?! Carry on fighting the good fight Neroon, sounds like things are worse back there than even I'd thought!

[Nadir]

Whatever happened to that plan of putting microphones in lampposts?

[RubySlippers]

Oddly the terrorists are winning anyway. How much money and liberties are we giving up in the US and U.K. over some minor threat that terror attacks really pose?

After 9/11 we became safer airlines fortified their cockpits, no passenger will ever assume a terrorist will not destroy the plane they are on making terror hijackings less likely and routine screenings were improved. Now we have gone far over what as I see are reasonable measures to ones akin to Big Brother in the novel 1984 or a Brave New World.

[MercyfulFate]

Whatever happened to that plan of putting microphones in lampposts?

I remember seeing an article about hooking up speakers to the lamposts, so when they see someone misbehaving they can yell at them.

Talk about 1984 becoming reality.