Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the no-room-for-abuse-there dept.

Government 419

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

cancel ×

419 comments

Send the police now! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29684577)

That pigeon just ate a worm!

MURDER! (1)

DRAGONWEEZEL (125809) | more than 4 years ago | (#29685213)

Bloddy Murder! Arrest that pigeon!

So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers... (5, Insightful)

lbalbalba (526209) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684579)

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

Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29684601)

Its just getting more Orwellian.

Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. (4, Interesting)

noundi (1044080) | more than 4 years ago | (#29685053)

In a way that's very non-Orwellian. You see the fundamental concept of the Orwellian idea is to have one instance impose on your privacy, in which case this instance uses this data against you, but if we're all imposing on eachothers privacy, what has changed? Other than the very extension of our privacy. I'll give a comparison. Say that none of us had eyes, thus no vision (no echo location isn't allowed either), our privacy would extend much further than it does today, but what if one person, or a group of people suddenly gained vision, these people could use this to receive information about you when you thought you weren't being observed. That would be Orwellian. In the case where everybody (well except the few blind people) get to have vision it no longer becomes Orwellian. It might still be frightening, mostly for those that fear getting something unwanted caught on tape, but in the end it's equal for everyone. If (when) we have a surveyed society I hope that we all get access to the footage at anytime, live or recorded. Equal makes it fair, might be right or wrong -- but still fair.

Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. (5, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684705)

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

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

Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. (1)

lbalbalba (526209) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684789)

No, this is dangerous. Very Stasi-like. This is a disturbing trend in official and informal law-enforcement because it encourages things like community-based harassment. People will band together and participate in government-sanctioned stalking of atheists, commies, homosexuals, or whomever else they just don't like. It is simply turning the people against each other to distract them from their discontent with their government.

Yeah, you're unfortunately, but probably, very right. Seems that I'm not as cynical as is required by today's world. Thanks for taking me down to earth again and clearing my head.
(I would mod the parent up if I was able to mod)

Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. (5, Interesting)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684867)


In addition to all the above legitimate concerns, add sexual harrasment and a live "hot girl at location X" Twitter feed or whatever. Not to mention filming and recording of partners, ex's, bullying victims, etc. And if you thought "happy slapping" with a phone camera was something, wait till you see what people can do when broadcast live on the Internet. If a group wants to harras you, it's going to much easier for them to do so, as you say. What do you think will happen with a system like this in the hands of Anonymous or some group like them.

Of course you might be able to use this to monitor the police, but if so, expect them to implement controls on that asap.

Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. (4, Insightful)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#29685167)

This must be a stalker's wet dream.

Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29685065)

I didnt see it as 'routing out' 'people we dont like' it could turn into that. But as a stalkers wet dream. Think about it you can stalk people even when you are at work. Im sorry but putting this in the hands of stalkers (people who just need to know where someone else is at at all times, these dudes are beyond creepy) is just ASKING for a lawsuit.

I know a couple of people who are borderline stalkers. But they are just too lazy to act on it. My current gf has had 2 of them. She is too nice to them and it encourages them but that is a different matter. One basically would sit outside of her apt for hours on end waiting for her to come home. Getting her to go out with me to dinner is hard to do sometimes, she is still afraid to bump into people the stalker knew incase they say something to him. With this sort of thing it would make a stalkers life much easier. They can wait at home and not arouse suspicion of anyone.

Or better yet what if you are a burglar. Just keep an eye on one camera and you can see when someone leaves for the day. Then you would have all day to clean a place out. You can even survey the place without even getting close to it. People were doing this with google maps. Imagine what you can do with a live feed!

I would be more worried about the existing real criminals before making up lynch mobs (which could easily happen too).

This is not a tool that should be in the hands of ordinary people. It is even questionable if it should be in the hands of the people who have it now.

The reality is it will be amazing how quickly this is turned off for 'ordinary' people once a few politicos/stars are outed doing something they shouldn't.

Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29685073)

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

What are you talking about? This is double-plus good!

Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29685173)

Seriously...did anyone else immediately think of the Youth League?

Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. (3, Interesting)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#29685155)

People will band together and participate in government-sanctioned stalking of atheists, commies, homosexuals, or whomever else they just don't like.

By "people," you apparently mean Christians, capitalists/conservatives, heterosexuals, and moralists. I guess atheists, communists, homosexuals, etc., are all peace-loving hate-hating people that have an inherent aversion to stalking or harassing or any sort of "bad behavior," whereas others - like Christians and conservatives - only profess to believe in "higher authority," God, law-biding citizens, etc....

You probably just mentioned the ones that you particularly dislike or feel are discriminated against/harassed (I could show you a lot of Christians/capitalists/conservatives/heterosexuals/moralists that are, though....), but it's an interesting bias? :)

Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. (4, Interesting)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684717)

£1,000 for the person with the MOST crimes.

Say you have 100 people wanting to try and win this prize.
1 person reports 400 crimes, but the average is around 40-50 crimes.

So for £1,000 a month, you get 5000 crimes reported.
-
It'll be interesting if 4Chan decides to start trolling this.... thousands of people reporting Pedo Bear at the Palace, or just any single crime somewhere cops aren't.

Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29684893)

or just any single crime somewhere cops aren't.

Or where cops are.

Any ideas what happens to reports on cops committing crimes? (I have one)

Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. (5, Insightful)

radtea (464814) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684945)

Any ideas what happens to reports on cops committing crimes?

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

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

Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. (4, Insightful)

xaxa (988988) | more than 4 years ago | (#29685191)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. (1)

ChefInnocent (667809) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684843)

Yes you can afford it. Assume an officer is getting paid £10/hr. That is a rather cheap cop. Now he normally works 160hr/mo (assuming a 40hr week). The combined citizenry is working well more than 160hr/mo, and only being paid 1000 which is a mere <63% of what the cop was paid. More hours and less pay? You are getting a bargain. Maybe they will shell a couple of more police for a second and third place "prize".

Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. (2, Insightful)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684981)


Yes, but people aren't stupid (okay - not in all ways). It will be pretty obvious to most people participating that they're not going to win against the strange obsessive person who has no job and no life and racks up 100 crimes a week. So cash prizes aren't going to be much of a motivation for playing this. Which means most people playing it will be doing so for other motivations.

Let's face it - the primary use of such a system would be lonely males jacking off over live feeds of unsuspecting young girls. In fact, if we want to oppose this system (and we do because we don't like living in a combined police state and mob-rule society), pointing out its wonderful desirability to peadophiles is probably the best approach to take for most.

Of course there will be those with other motivations also. Those with a particular hate-agenda will love this.

Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. (4, Interesting)

diodeus (96408) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684887)

Nothing will be able to stop my Fake Crime Street Theater gang. I'll keep those snoopers glued to their monitors for years. Crimes that never happen. Victims who don't exist. Jam the system.

They clearly didn't think this though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29684593)

What a terrible idea. The Potential of griefing people in real life from the internet is a very stupid thing.

And we thought it was bad in the US (1, Troll)

gujo-odori (473191) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684617)

Wow, and to think that we thought things were bad in the US. Even Dick Cheney never dreamed of anything like this.

I wonder who's snooping on the snoopers?

Re:And we thought it was bad in the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29684653)

Forget that! We have a fucking tax cheat in charge of writing tax law!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28099.html [politico.com]

I'm still waiting for my hope, change, and the most transparent government ever...

Re:And we thought it was bad in the US (1)

gujo-odori (473191) | more than 4 years ago | (#29685195)

I don't much like Rangel myself, but you say "tax cheat" like it's a bad thing :)

I'll get more incensed about tax cheats when the governments starts using our tax money more wisely. I consider the government itself to be by far the largest tax cheat, because we're all being ripped off in that department.

Still waiting for your hope, change, and that transparent government thing, huh? I think we all missed out on that by about, oh, 233 years. I don't expect we're going to get much of it from Obama, anyway.

Re:And we thought it was bad in the US (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684827)

I wonder who's snooping on the snoopers?

Big Brother. And not the British TV show that we Americans copied. Expect us to copy this Orwellian scheme, too.

Re:And we thought it was bad in the US (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684895)

Wow, and to think that we thought things were bad in the US.

I seem to recall this was TRIED in the US and failed miserably.

Re:And we thought it was bad in the US (1)

gujo-odori (473191) | more than 4 years ago | (#29685137)

Got any links? It doesn't ring a bell and seems like it would be harder to implement b/c we don't have all that many CCTV cameras here. I'm sure it's been thought of, of course, just less certain that it's actually been tried. Certainly, we have quite a bit of "squeal on your neighbor" mentality being pushed.

Re:And we thought it was bad in the US (1)

Remloc (1165839) | more than 4 years ago | (#29685171)

... and Texas [texasborderwatch.com] is doing it also!!

Re:And we thought it was bad in the US (1)

gujo-odori (473191) | more than 4 years ago | (#29685063)

Gee, getting modded Troll for telling the truth on Slashdot. Whodathunkit?

Re:And we thought it was bad in the US (2, Insightful)

lbalbalba (526209) | more than 4 years ago | (#29685119)

I wonder who's snooping on the snoopers?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? ["Who watches the watchmen?"]

Demand to see them (4, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684623)

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

Re:Demand to see them (4, Informative)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684769)

That depends entirely on whether they are council-run CCTV cameras (ones out on the street to spot muggings, littering, vandalism, etc) or ones in stores that are run by the companies in the store/shopping centre (ones to catch shop-lifting). In the case of the former I think we technically do have access under the Freedom of Information Act. In the case of the latter I don't think you have a foot to stand on, since it is private surveillance for a company's own protection run by the company or one of its contractors.

Re:Demand to see them (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684947)

They're private cameras. A businessman in Stratford upon Avon is selling the service to local businesses for a subscription. It's nothing to do with the government.

Re:Demand to see them (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 4 years ago | (#29685011)

I thought it was in this case (I saw it on the BBC teletext pages a couple of days ago and laughed and the innovative idea - people will love the "win money" together with "spy on people like the Big Brother house" idea) but I wasn't sure and couldn't be bothered to RTFA. Not that it'll stop people whining about how terrible Britain is as a CCTV nation.

Personally I'd rather have the CCTV that can help catch criminals by tracking their movements while police get to the scene than having any idiot who has the money carrying a gun!

Re:Demand to see them (2, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684925)

Presumably it's only a matter of time before someone reverse-engineers the back-end to do exactly that. It's not like our government has a great record on data security.

Re:Demand to see them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29685061)

On top of that, also install publicly-accessible cameras/mics in all government offices.

Game Over (0, Troll)

xdor (1218206) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684625)

all ur base are belong to us

So long? (1)

javelinco (652113) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684633)

What took so long? I don't know about ya'all, but I've been waiting for this for quite some time. Does anyone know how long this has been kicked around as an idea? It seems a natural extension of the surveillance society, when you consider the problem of actually understanding what all those cameras are seeing. After all, how else are you supposed to pay for all that manpower? Until technology can do it for us, we've got to have someone checking out all that footage.

This would be more scary if people actually got in trouble for breaking the law in the U.K. - but it's still pretty craptishous.

Zackly (1)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 4 years ago | (#29685095)

The problem with surveillance cameras is not the cameras themselves, but who watches the watchers? Cops have been shown to zoom in on bedroom windows, innocent women on the street, just being official and unpunishable peeping toms.

Now the watchers are the public. I have zero problems with this kind of full time surveillance cameras. The best thing to happen to civilian control of the police state since Rodney King and cell phone videos.

Re:So long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29685133)

This would be funny if it were a joke.

People should learn to never suggest something as a joke. There will always be someone who will think your idea is fantastic and implement it.

slippery slope? (2, Interesting)

enigma32 (128601) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684637)

Anyone who argues against the "slippery slope" argument for More Cameras == Bad should be shot. Now. So anybody can be challenged for anything now, just because somebody who's trying to win a chunk of money thinks they saw something wrong?

Re:slippery slope? (2, Interesting)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684821)

Anyone who argues against the "slippery slope" argument for More Cameras == Bad should be shot. Now. So anybody can be challenged for anything now, just because somebody who's trying to win a chunk of money thinks they saw something wrong?

If the cameras were entirely public access and you were able to search the archives, and you got charged for a criminal act, but you were able to demonstrate that more than half the population also committed this criminal act, what would happen next?

Re:slippery slope? (1)

enigma32 (128601) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684933)

+1 interesting, but ultimately unrealistic. Sifting through that much footage to demonstrate something that such a large number of people had done would be a monumental task. OTOH, it's easy for Joe Blow to have The Game up on his second flatpanel at work watching last night's footage of his favorite creepy spot to report people for troublesome behavior. I've been stopped by police because I looped around the block twice with my car in a neighborhood where there was a known drug dealer. Apparently the fact that I had $2k+ worth of camera gear for night photography (of the artistic variety, not surveillance) with me did not lessen their concern (this is after *returning* to the car having conducted said photography). Imagine the ease with which our friend Joe Blow could have reported me simply when I was in the wrong place at the wrong time trying to indulge my hobby.

Re:slippery slope? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684975)

Nothing. Look at "piracy" just about -everyone- either pirates or does something that ticks off media execs (such as watches YouTube videos with "unauthorized" music) its been proven in study after study that it has little to no affect on album sales but they still try to sue for it. Similarly marijuana has been proven safer than tobacco or alcohol in both effects and dependence but it is still outlawed in many countries.

Re:slippery slope? (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 4 years ago | (#29685181)

Nothing. Look at "piracy" just about -everyone- either pirates or does something that ticks off media execs

That's anecdotal. That's not the same as proving it. If you're a pirate who got caught and I'm a pirate who believes I got away with it, I'm not going to go protest the unfairness of your incarceration because it would make me a target too, and there would only be the two of us there. I'd end up being incarcerated by my action. But if I knew I was already a target, I would go protest the unfairness of your incarceration, because it would make me no longer a target. It changes the motives of everyone involved.

Re:slippery slope? (1)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 4 years ago | (#29685127)

So anybody can be challenged for anything now, just because somebody who's trying to win a chunk of money thinks they saw something wrong?

No. Not just "because somebody thinks they saw something". The video is the proof. Unless this is so brain dead as to rely strictly on what people say they saw and the video is not kept around.

Anything even close to properly run would screen out those who cry wolf. This isn't hearsay. This is video for everyone to see.

When (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29684655)

When can we pay to get cameras in people's homes and watch them?

Let's see.. (0, Troll)

Absolut187 (816431) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684657)

So we have (A) a new video game, (B) making tech available to everyone for free, (C) electronic surveillance, and (D) crime prevention.

Its actually hard to tell where Slashdotters will come out on this one.
I predict two groups:
(1) ZOMG its Big Brother and its EVIL!!!111one!!; and
(2) Best idea EVAR!!!!111

Re:Let's see.. (1)

clem (5683) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684881)

(3) Big Brother's best evil idea ever.

Translating to 'leet speak is left as an exercise for the reader.

Open surveillance (4, Insightful)

ZackSchil (560462) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684661)

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

Re:Open surveillance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29684745)

Even among the most equal, there are power struggles.

The Transparent Society (David Brin) (1)

kbs (70631) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684877)

Brin makes an argument that not only are we going in this direction, but that this direction is inherently reasonable. I'm not sure I agree with all of his claims about using "public shame" to help shape a more harmonious society, but it's still worth the read.

More about his book here [wikipedia.org] .

Re:The Transparent Society (David Brin) (3, Interesting)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 4 years ago | (#29685211)

He also says it is inevitable -- with cameras getting cheaper and smaller and better by the day, the time will come when everyone will be wearing several cameras for 360 recording of what's around them, sent wirelessly back to central servers, probably never to be deleted, ever, with the cost of storage dropping as fast. The time will come when any bad guy will leave traces on so many recordings, all of which will ne annotated with time and lat/lon, that it will be a trivial matter to back track thru all the cameras in the area and trace the perp back far enough for identification. Physical crime will become pretty rare. So will phoney alibis, all sorts of cheatin' hearts, the murky deeds of hypocritical politicians .... it's going to be an interesting future, this global village with no privacy. I look forward to it. It will take some time to get used to the lack of privacy, but the tradeoff -- the *inevitable* tradeoff -- will be well worth it, and those who grow up with this will have a fantasticaly different mindset from those of us living now..

Re:Open surveillance (2, Interesting)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 4 years ago | (#29685051)

It would be fair if you could snoop on politicians and the rest of the wealthy. Problem is, its extremely focused on poor and uneducated people who desperately needs help getting up from poverty, not surveillance.

Why arent the same extreme mesures taken out to challenge corporate crimes? The society value of stopping moneylandry, tax evasion and such is much much higher than to get at some idiot shoplifting or doing other petty crimes.

Its clearly people in power bashing poor and powerless people. Stasi and KGB must be pretty miffed when the people lambasting them the most in the 90s is stealing their work.

Real-LIfe Poofter Watch To Launch in Britain (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29684673)

coredumper writes

'A new internet game is about to be launched which allows 'super gay' poofters to plug into the nation's CCTV cameras and report on members of the public getting it on in public restrooms. The "Prince Charles' Eyes" service involves players scouring thousands of CCTV cameras installed in bathrooms, gay bath houses, and Buckingham Palace looking for wide-stancers. Players who help catch the most Labour Party members each month will win cash prizes up to 1,000 quid'

I wanna try! (1)

jasen666 (88727) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684675)

Is the game available to people in the US? I can imagine a horde of fat rednecks trying to make a living by watching some brits on cameras 12 hours a day.
Don't worry my Brit friends, we'll keep a close on eye on you. Just to keep you safe.

Re:I wanna try! (3, Insightful)

death_before_win7 (1646207) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684751)

Available in the US? Imagine if it becomes available in India (or elsewhere in . 1000 pounds is a lot of money for many people living there.

Re:I wanna try! (1)

Xsydon (1099321) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684759)

In Texas we have grown men that dedicate their lives to monitoring cameras set up around the border to prevent illegals from entering the country. This would be like Christmas for these guys.

false positives? (2, Insightful)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684677)

What goes to the person who reports the most false positives?

Re:false positives? (4, Informative)

professorguy (1108737) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684737)

From TFA: Three false positives and you are banned from the game.

RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29685109)

Cheater!

Re:false positives? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29684749)

They have to eat English food.

Re:false positives? (1)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684783)

What goes to the person who reports the most false positives?

A background investigation.

For all the crap we get in the USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29684683)

We may be heavy handed with the rest of the world, but we are still nowhere near as controlling of our own populace. The more I read about England lately, the less I have any desire whatsoever to go there.

What are they thinking!? (2, Interesting)

heretic108 (454817) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684691)

Giving the public access to the big brother camera network will open up unprecedented opportunities for cyber-bullying, especially for people living in dwellings whose front doors are within the frame of a camera.

You only need a few miscreants spying on some poor bugger, then sending harassing and threatening SMS messages as s/he moves about the city in the normal course of his/her day.

No. RTFA. (5, Informative)

professorguy (1108737) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684815)

You don't get to choose which camera you see each session. In fact, the location is 'secret' (though you may be able to figure it out). Single person surveillance won't work.

Re:No. RTFA. (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684989)

You don't get to choose which camera you see each session.

Dammit, and I was going to ask for the one in the womens' locker-room...

Re:No. RTFA. (3, Insightful)

heretic108 (454817) | more than 4 years ago | (#29685161)

You don't get to choose which camera you see each session. In fact, the location is 'secret' (though you may be able to figure it out). Single person surveillance won't work.

You're assuming the surveillance camera network and the 'snooper' game server components won't get pwn3d.

1984 and 3/4 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29684697)

The movie Brazil was originally to be named 1984 and a half. I think we need an update called 1984 and three quarters, one that updates to the fact that Britain has become even more ludicrous than the movie Brazil.

Global? (1)

Xsydon (1099321) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684709)

Wonder if they'll only limit this to citizens.

What about turning it around (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29684733)

Can I just sit and watch for members of Parliment to leave work and report them as peeping toms?

The whole rat on your neighbor thing (1, Insightful)

Akita24 (1080779) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684739)

is just so 80's East Berlin. You would think that somebody, somewhere would have learned a lesson. Fargin' sheeple. Just remember, when the cops come for you because somebody at a PC somewhere said that was you mugging the old lady, that it was you who sat on your lazy ass and let them do this because "only bad people have something to hide." Idiots.

Re:The whole rat on your neighbor thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29684941)

"sheeple"

To use this word is to be defined by it.

eww (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684755)

Nothing like being paid to spy on your fellow man. They should really just offer rewards for catching people having sex on cctvs. Less ethical issues to deal with, and they would probably still have a lot of crimes reported.

crowdsourcing (1)

Demiansmark (927787) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684773)

Sorta of brilliant in an evil, completely awful idea, sort of way - crowdsourcing crime enforcement. Should've just signed up for a Amazon Mechanical Turk account, might save some money.

Never, ever going to happen. (4, Interesting)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684777)

Firstly, this is the Daily Mail - a rabid right-wing tabloid newspaper that typically has headlines about how Polish immigrants are going to knock down all our schools to open up christian vegan lesbian holistic bomb-making camps, or something.

Secondly, it would be entirely illegal to do this under UK law. We have things like the Data Protection Act.

Re:Never, ever going to happen. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29685183)

Polish immigrants are going to knock down all our schools to open up christian vegan lesbian holistic bomb-making camps

Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Never, ever going to happen. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29685207)

If you'd RTFA you'd note it is happening the website already exists and is signing up people.

What they don't mention up front... (1)

jornak (1377831) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684785)

You only get three alerts per month, and you have to pay 1GBP to get another three.

Living in a "Welfare State"... (1)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684795)

Well this will give all of those Chavs, Idiots, and Baby making West Asian Immigrants in the UK who live off the government dole something to do other than sponging off the government and doing nothing. Now they can sit at home on their huge subsidized butts and play "Virtual Peeping Tom" to make sure none of the working folks jaywalk on their lunch breaks.

Maybe now they can contribute as "Jack-Booted" Government squealers from the comfort of their government housing.

I guess the next step is to start having them monitor online traffic and squeal on anyone who says something non-PC on a message board so we can throw people with a difference of opinion into jail.

Funniest Street Videos (1)

PiSkyHi (1049584) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684799)

Its like "Funniest home videos", only now its more than just break your dogs spine to get the prize, now you can break someone elses dog's spine in streetview!

What a crass, badly thought out cop out. As if schadenfreude needed more promotion!

There are... (3, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684805)

There are two types of "crimes" one is crimes that harm others and in general are a big deal, things like murder, rape (real rape, not some 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old), theft and even some forms of vandalism. Those things should be reported. Other things are still "crimes" but they harm no one except possibly the person doing the actions, things like light speeding with little to no traffic, underage drinking/smoking, some things classified under drugs, etc. However, its not the crimes that are a big deal that will be reported it is the stupid little crimes which shouldn't even be prosecuted or in some cases have laws forbidding the actions.

Looking For Help with Game Driver (2, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684807)

This game is really fun but does anyone have a driver for this peripheral [wikimedia.org] ? Can't get it to work yet and am looking forward to turret-based content next year.

Read the article (5, Informative)

Tobor the Eighth Man (13061) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684817)

This is an opt-in service where specific people can pay a fee to have their cameras monitored by the game's players. It has no connection with the CCTV network already installed by British officials. It's basically just a very stupid and sensational business venture that will probably fail, because who's going to be willing to pay 20 quid a week for random internet people to watch their CCTV?

Im lost for words. (1)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684829)

I dont know what to say, im just so damn sad. Democracy is a hollow word that has forever lost its meaning.

The one positive thing I'll say for this (1)

serutan (259622) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684837)

... is that it's a more productive use of people's time than playing the Lottery. Higher odds of actually getting any money out of it.

Wait a sec... (1)

MonsterTrimble (1205334) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684845)

Didn't Search Engine [tvo.org] cover something similar happening in China? Yes, yes they did. [tvo.org] And it didn't work out too well for people as I recall.

Re:Wait a sec... (0, Flamebait)

aicrules (819392) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684953)

The chinese one failed because they all look alike. Just kidding, I have many chinese friends who all look different than each other. Just an easy faux racist joke.

Too many varibles, too little incentive (1)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684855)

FTA:

But businessman Tony Morgan, a former restaurant owner, said it would give local businesses protection against petty criminals, and act as a deterrent once 'Internet Eyes patrol here' signs are prominently displayed... ...He said: 'This could turn out to be the best crime prevention weapon there's ever been.

Or alternately, this could turn out to be a short-lived failure. He sort of missed the proof of concept phase of his planning.

Apparently, not a police-initiated project (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29684873)

FTA:

But businessman Tony Morgan, a former restaurant owner, said it would give local businesses protection against petty criminals, and act as a deterrent once 'Internet Eyes patrol here' signs are prominently displayed.

He will charge those who use the service, which could eventually include local authorities and even police forces as well as shop owners, £20 a week per camera to have their CCTV included on the site - amounting to thousands each year.

So, if I'm reading this correctly (along with the rest of TFA):

  1. This website was started up by a businessman, not a member of the police force.
  2. The imagery comes from a whole new set of CCTV cameras, with the option to add the police-operated CCTV cameras should they decided to sign up for the "plan".

There should now be a virtual jar to insert a virtual nickel for every time concepts from 1984 are implemented in real life.

Obligatory cop-out (3, Insightful)

sherpajohn (113531) | more than 4 years ago | (#29684997)

"You have nothing to fear if you are doing nothing wrong" Yeah right... ...First they came for the communists, and I did not speak outâ"because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak outâ"because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak outâ"because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak outâ"because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for meâ"and there was no one left to speak out for me...

Suspicion Breeds Loyalty... (2, Insightful)

Xin Jing (1587107) | more than 4 years ago | (#29685007)

This idea is wrong on so many levels. I hate Hitler analogies because they tend to be polar opposite examples of the argument they attempting to counter, but this one seems to fit.

The BBC did a documentary a few years back "Nazis: A Warning From History' http://www.amazon.com/Nazis-Warning-History-Samuel-West/dp/B00097DY66/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1255030547&sr=1-1 [amazon.com] that touched on this very subject. Granted, the UK isn't the Third Reich and I'm pulling a very specific instance from that documentary, so please understand that I'm not suggesting a one-size-fits-all with regards to that regime's policy, but an accounting of state-sanctioned surveillance by civilians.

In that doc, there's a segment that reveals that the Gestapo actually didn't have very many official staffers out in the field and relied heavily on "neighborhood watch" participants to implicate other citizens in activities that fit a broadstroke definition of 'suspicious behavior'. Years later, a woman was confronted about a statement she had submitted to the Gestapo about a woman neighbor that she had reported for suspicious behavior; the 'suspicious' woman was detained by the Gestapo and never heard from again. The original documents were presented to her, showing her signature and her statements which were read back to her. She remembered the woman mentioned in the statements, recognized her handwriting and signature, but disavowed that she wrote or submitted the statement.

The documentary example is the far end of the spectrum for state-sanctioned civilian surveillance. Given that people will recieve rewards for their efforts and the program is marketed as a game, it adds more fuel to the fire that people will misuse it. Once implicated in such a program, a person's name or guilt can never be expunged.

All we need to finish off the program is a Norsefire logo http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ab/Norsefire-logo.png [wikimedia.org] and a picture of the High Chancellor Adam Sutler http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8d/250px-Sutler2.jpg [wikimedia.org] .

I call dibs on the House of Commons! (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 4 years ago | (#29685037)

Cool, so if I've called dibs on the cameras in the House of Commons, and the House of Lords, then I win - cause I've got the most criminals!

Just because your crime isn't prosecuted doesn't mean you're not a criminal.

Will be used by clever crims (1)

Black Sabbath (118110) | more than 4 years ago | (#29685041)

A clever criminal would use this as a planning tool. No need to sit outside a bank in a car doing your recon. Take your time identifying patterns of movement/behaviour. Spend some time finding out the blind-spots and how best to utilise them. Determine just how good the resolution is and how much obfuscation/masking of identifying features is required to remain anonymous.

Oh yes, what a lovely little tool.

Bo-ring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29685047)

Add remote-controlled sniper rifles and you'll get all those fucking Unreal Tournament campers to play it.

Britain: still creepy as hell then. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29685069)

Britain: still creepy as hell then.

The Gangs will love this (1)

Master Moose (1243274) | more than 4 years ago | (#29685125)

Send some young prospect to commit a crime in view of a camera
Report him to the authorities
He goes to jail (or gets a slap on the wrists) and earns "Cred" for both you and your gang
You get money
Profit!

Collapse of England is near (1)

realmolo (574068) | more than 4 years ago | (#29685151)

Seriously. This is the kind of thing that, if allowed to continue, will lead to an enormous civil war. Pervasive law enforcement, with cash rewards? Are they fucking INSANE?

I *hope* that they don't let this happen, or if they do, the public outcry is enough to make them end it.

Think of the positives (1)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 4 years ago | (#29685209)

Now I can finally find out where that pretty girl who stands on my train platform lives :)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...