Beta

×

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!

New CCTV Site In UK Pays People To Watch

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the people-to-watch-people dept.

Privacy 214

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?"

cancel ×

214 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

One difference (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805634)

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 (4, Informative)

RDW (41497) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805794)

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

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

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 (4, Funny)

peterprior (319967) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805854)

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

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


Whoops - and now I have as well

Re:One difference (4, Funny)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805872)

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 (2, Interesting)

ewrong (1053160) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805922)

Why would you discourage people from linking to your website?

Re:One difference (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805972)

Why would you discourage people from linking to your website?

Its a local website for local people [the3dstudio.com] .

Re:One difference (1)

RichiH (749257) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806182)

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

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

Re:One difference (3, Funny)

Inda (580031) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806188)

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

Re:One difference (2, Interesting)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805964)

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?

Surveillance = False accusation (2, Insightful)

dugeen (1224138) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805646)

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 (3, Insightful)

White Shade (57215) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805720)

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 (1, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805788)

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

Re:Surveillance = False accusation (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33805846)

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

Re:Surveillance = False accusation (2, Interesting)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805916)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33806020)

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 (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806234)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33806276)

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.

vexatious surveillance (1)

stalkedlongtime (1630997) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806074)

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.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation (4, Informative)

duguk (589689) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806126)

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 [bigbrotherwatch.org.uk] , nor that it's bloody expensive to keep it running [thisislondon.co.uk] , 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 (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806172)

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 (4, Informative)

duguk (589689) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806292)

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 [thisislondon.co.uk] .

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 (2, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806216)

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" [wikimedia.org] 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 (4, Insightful)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805934)

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

Re:Surveillance = False accusation (2, Insightful)

olden (772043) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805978)

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 (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806068)

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 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33806114)

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

What are you, paranoid or something?

Re:Surveillance = False accusation (0, Redundant)

duguk (589689) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806116)

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 [bigbrotherwatch.org.uk] , nor that it's bloody expensive to keep it running [thisislondon.co.uk] , and would be cheaper to employ police instead.

Re:Surveillance = False accusation (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806202)

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 (1)

duguk (589689) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806304)

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 (1)

RichiH (749257) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806200)

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 (1)

nOw2 (1531357) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806282)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33805774)

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 (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805776)

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 (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805806)

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).

Full reward list (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805648)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33805686)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33805948)

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

Re:Full reward list (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805940)

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

Re:Full reward list (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805988)

Nude man: $0.25 Nude woman: $50

Isn't that gender discrimination

Re:Full reward list (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805996)

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

Re:Full reward list (1)

duguk (589689) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806164)

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

Crimes per year: 4.4 million [wikipedia.org]
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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33806210)

I don't see how this is workable.

corruption > statistics

Nothing to see here (5, Insightful)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805656)

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 (-1, Troll)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805834)

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?

The rest of your post seems a lot like a conspiracy theory that cannot be disproven because by your definition there would be no evidence. Would be nice if you could provide some evidence, although that would seem to also disprove your theory.

Re:Nothing to see here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33806016)

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. [police.uk]

As to the OP's theory, what evidence [guardian.co.uk] do you need?

Re:Nothing to see here (4, Interesting)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806062)

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/ [wikileaks.info]

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 (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806212)

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 (1)

duguk (589689) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806232)

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? [thisislondon.co.uk]
Or if it logs the wrong thing [bigbrotherwatch.org.uk] or perhaps happens to murder the wrong person [thisislondon.co.uk] ?

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 [google.co.uk] due to a lack of controls.

Hope that helps you to understand.

Re:Nothing to see here (1, Insightful)

JohnFluxx (413620) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805864)

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 (0, Troll)

nmg196 (184961) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805998)

> 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 (2, Insightful)

digitig (1056110) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806080)

"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 (3, Insightful)

olden (772043) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806134)

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 [wired.com]

Re:Nothing to see here (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806136)

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

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

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# [google.com]

NEW RULE: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33806184)

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.

The CC in CCTV? (4, Interesting)

peterprior (319967) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805692)

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' ?

Oh goodie (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805750)

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 (1)

coolsnowmen (695297) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805914)

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.

Re:The CC in CCTV? (2, Interesting)

bigjb (725336) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805890)

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 [ico.gov.uk] ;

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 [ico.gov.uk] 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? (1)

ewrong (1053160) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805962)

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

from here [energyvortex.com]

Sounds great! (2, Interesting)

tacarat (696339) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805712)

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... (1)

WarJolt (990309) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805718)

...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... (5, Funny)

VShael (62735) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805772)

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... (1)

peterprior (319967) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805936)

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

Re:You know theres something wrong... (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805780)

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33806236)

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

Fuck you. Fuck you with a rake.

That being said, it will happen.

Why this kind of crap always comes from the UK? (2, Interesting)

b4nd0ler0 (1597801) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805724)

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? (1)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805810)

Weird old class system?

Re:Why this kind of crap always comes from the UK? (2, Interesting)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805874)

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? (2, Insightful)

addsalt (985163) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806014)

... 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? (1)

Goffee71 (628501) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805994)

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? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806260)

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) [wikipedia.org]

Re:Why this kind of crap always comes from the UK? (2, Informative)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806218)

Good use of the CCTV was during the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Embassy_Siege [wikipedia.org] 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.

Sounds strangely familiar (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33805758)

Does this remind anyone else of the STASI practices in Eastern Germany of yore?

Well, that's that then (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805790)

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.

I’m gonna write me a new minivan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33805816)

Oh the opportunities... [joeindie.com]

Im suprised they didn't think of this sooner. (3, Insightful)

seeker_1us (1203072) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805856)

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. (3, Interesting)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805952)

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. (2, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806092)

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 [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Im suprised they didn't think of this sooner. (2, Informative)

duguk (589689) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806256)

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 [thisislondon.co.uk] is a small scale operation?

Speaking as an exhibitionist (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33805858)

Dear Slashdot,

I like to masturbate in a group of 3 to 4 men while we watch live CCTV footage of ourselves.

Also, I have a small penis and a Macbook Air.

Yours faithfully,

Amorous Badger

Show me the money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33805862)

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 (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806300)

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33805870)

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33806042)

Teach policing in schools and make everyone a cop.?

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

Spying on your neighbours (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33805882)

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 (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806310)

Ex Stasi and other private contractors offered their unique insights.

Trying it out (5, Informative)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805968)

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 (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806030)

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

Aren't they paying you to watch?

Re:Trying it out (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806096)

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 (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806160)

So it's like chatroulette with fewer penises?

Re:Trying it out (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806270)

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.

oh look, it's Tory time! (1, Troll)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#33805980)

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! (2, Informative)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806170)

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! (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806262)

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.

How do you define "misuse"? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806024)

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 (1)

jambox (1015589) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806040)

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... (3, Insightful)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806050)

... 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 (2, Interesting)

stalkedlongtime (1630997) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806060)

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.

Big Brother (TM)? (2, Insightful)

jandersen (462034) | more than 3 years ago | (#33806264)

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

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>