Real-LIfe Distributed-Snooping Web Game To Launch In Britain 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."
So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree.
But I don't think we're going back. The best solution is to "watch the watchers", so anyone can go back and see who was viewing any particular cam at any particular time.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If there's a scandal, the Prime Minister is removed by his party and a new one brought in. The new one does not remove the system because that would just be a concession that he was going to behave similarly. What would happen (and it doesn't need to be anyone as dramatic as a Prime Minister) is that exceptions will be made for a vaguely defined class
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"What do you think will happen with a system like this in the hands of Anonymous or some group like them."
Lulz?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually in this case it is rather easy and clear-cut: the organizers and promoters of this "contest" are quite deserving of this sort of attention indeed. Anonymous should simply turn these would-be Gestapo members' self-righteous shit on them. See how they like the taste of their own medicine, the feeling of their own petards u
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Anonymous' idea of a "deserving target" is not something usually lines up with any rational persons' idea, rescuing abused felines aside.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think he was using typical US-centric boogeymen. If it was Cultural Revolution China your list would be the one to consider.
I think the interesting bias here is that his original comment didn't say anything about "moralists", but you added them in to the hit list. I guess that means communists, homosexuals, and atheists are immoralists in your Book?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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,"
It's not about "bad behavior". Christians, conservatives, and moralists have a long history of committing harassment, stalking, and blackmail against minority groups in order to make the minority behavior conform to their views. Ath
Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. (Score:5, Interesting)
In Ireland of old, possibly still today, one of the great insults was to be called an "informer". This derived from the old rule under the English where informants were very real and the information they passed on to authorities was a very central element of British rule over the country. When discovered, actual informers could face very serious repercussions from the local population, and there was really no worse sin, particularly in the days before independence. Even during the Troubles in the north well into the 90's, informers, and even suspected informers faced summary execution at the hands of the IRA.
While the English have long gone in the Republic, the taboo lingers on in a fashion. As in most former colonies, people tend to report crimes less, and respect for those that do is not very forthcoming.
Looking on the bright side, perhaps after they have been subjected to this system, the British may finally get an idea of why the government (or anyone else), knowing too much is actually a bad thing. Recent developments in their country suggests that they haven't yet grasped this, but may actually be capable [bbc.co.uk] of doing so. Americans on the other hand... .
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's all too easy to get people riled up against a common enemy - as an example, my (conservative) hometown newspaper recently tried to convince everybody, via editorial, that the enemy were fellow Californians who were collecting unemployment checks, in a county with a 24.7% unemployment rate in a state with a unemployment rate which is 12+% and rising!
The target audience are
Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. (Score:5, Interesting)
£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: (Score:3, Insightful)
or: ... for 1000 pounds sterling a month, you get the same crime reported 5000 times, then you need to employ 300 secretaries to sort through the reports
Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 gir
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.blueservo.net/ [blueservo.net] lets you watch the Texas border for illegal activity. I don't think you can win prizes, though.
Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Blackmail, casing future robberies, cyber-stalking (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that the CCTV cameras have proven to be very ineffective in deterring crime.
The MOST effective has been cops patrolling - either walking the beat, on bikes, horse, or patrol car.
This is going to increase crime:
This is just taking a bad idea and making it worse.
Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.. (Score:5, Insightful)
In 1984, citizens were encouraged to spy on each other and report possible dissidents to the authorities. So yes, this is very Orwellian.
RTFN
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apart from the fact that long before the novel was written, there were governments, and governments in those days did the same thing.
So it's about as Orwellian as horsedrawn chariots are Chryslerical.
Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. (Score:5, Insightful)
In 1984, citizens were encouraged to spy on each other and report possible dissidents to the authorities. So yes, this is very Orwellian.
RTFN
I did read the novel, but there's a big difference. The citizens in 1984 were never allowed to view surveillance, so they were never on an equal scale as the government. And fundamentally this is what frightens people, that someone with an upper hand controlls you. When that upper hand is given to everyone the concept isn't the same, and you taking things out of context doesn't make it so.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You did get *who* big brother was in the end?
"Big Brother" was not some guy or dictator, "Big Brother is watching you" was about the PEOPLE spying on itself!
If you have a system where some government agency is formed from the people (like the Stasi) or if you create an atmosphere of fear and make people spy on each other and to report "bad behaviour" seems to become a quite minor difference.
But to be honest... this is nothing but web 2.0... no one said only Wikipedia can "benefit" from a group effort, we se
Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. (Score:4, Insightful)
The citizens in 1984 did view the surveillance. Winston himself was part of perpetuating the system he hated and which oppressed him - this was more or les the entire point.
Same thing today, the guy manning a CCTV system (or who just one a prize through this scheme) will also be watched on his way home.
There does not have to be an evil group of 12 men in a smoke-filled room on the 13th floor in order for you to be oppressed (this is the erroneous thinking which leads to conspiracy theories). The system can be oppressive, and this one is. Or rather, it is a way to make the invasion of privacy (a clear oppression and one which paves the way for a lot of future oppression) more efficient - or at least that is the idea.
I also think it is more like 1984, exactly because it distributes the oppression-task to the larger citizen-ship, like it was in the novel... When the first participant of this game/scheme is sentenced as an accessory for not calling the cops, this is made even clearer.
Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I hope you get modded up. I think it is an important distinction. But the privacy-at-all cost people on here may want to suppress your post because it doesn't agree with their freaking out.
I didn't want to say it, but you took the words out of my mouth. Truth is, no matter how many books we've read or how many movies we've seen we're never going to be able to foresee a scenario at such a large scale. There are just too many factors in play. What people do know is their fear, and their fear will unfortunately play on many of their decisions in life causing irrational behaviour.
Maybe we will have a surveyed society, and maybe it will turn out ok, I know I don't suffer from hubris, thus I cannot tell either way. I can speculate, but I will never throw myself to the ground screaming "my god can you not see what awaits ahead!?", such as many here do. Fundamentally we humans are curious creatures, and we will always try to snoop on our neighbours, but there's a difference between invading privacy and monitoring public domain. I agree the thought of Orwells world is frightening, but he was no god, and his books are not prophecies. They are merely the product of a curious human playing with the thought of what could be. I believe that if a government becomes the way that Orwell describes in 1984, then there's a good chance the effects will also be as described. However this is not the only outcome of a surveyed society. We are already surveyed, just at different levels. That cell phone you carry: it is used to track your location to prove your guilt or innocence. Those keycards you use: same thing. Internet: need I continue? And apart from this there's already a series of cameras on public locations.
Every person should have the right to privacy, that is given. My property is not public domain, thus I should have all the rights to decide if I want a camera in my house, or even aimed at my property, or not. However the streets are not mine, they are ours. And fundamentally it is a choice we make. If you truly feel that you want to fight something, then do it. The further you take it, the more people will listen to you. Ultimately it's up to you. If you believe that politics is all corrupted business then fine, but it doesn't mean that there's no room for honest opinions -- look at all the pirate parties merging around the world. There's a swedish pirate in the european parliament, who's actually one of 14 members in charge of developing the new telecom package! That is change my friends. Or you could just waste your time speculating, in fear, about what horrors the future may hold you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom is hard fought for and easily lost. Those that try and take rights and freedoms away try and do so under the radar. For instance who would have thought that RIPA would be used to spy on half a million uk citizens a year [itpro.co.uk]. Most uk citizens I speak to don't know about the eborders scheme [bbc.co.uk], where everyone is catalogued each time they enter or leave the country (with up to 2.5 billion journeys stored at any one time).
The vast amount of information being gathered, as you say via your phone, cards, internet
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Fixed!
And yes, I've read 1984 but just in case anyone doubts, this can/did happen in real life also.
Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Alright, I'll make sure to remember that. On a side note I'd love to rat on those leaving their dogs turds on the street. I'm serious, there is no easier way to ruin someones day than to leave dog shit behind for him to step on. When I see someone leaving dog shit on the street I always lecture their ignorant asses, and if they don't listen I walk behind them screaming "hey everybody, you know that dog shit you try to dodge everyday, forcing you to stare down at the street with every step you take, the shit you occasionally step on, this guy is the reason for that, he refuses to take his responsibility", and repeat. I'll be honest -- I don't even care that it's against the law, but if your actions affect me, then I'll make sure that my actions affect you. Fair and square. I just hope there were less pussies in the world and more people like me, at least in that sense.
Oh and by the way I've worked both at kindergardens and elderly homes when I was younger, and I've had to clean up more shit than you'd even imagine -- asshole. And there's your paragraph.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, by having access to the CCTV content, people might even catch particularly clumsy police committing
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You clearly have no idea what kind of people are going to be watching this like a hawk.
Old home bound busybodies with nothing to do focusing particularly on calling the cops on the hippie degenerates and their maryjawana cigarettes and their long hair commie music while keeping a stern eye on any 'Negros' and the darned hooligans in their communities.
People with lives and more sensible moral character will be out doing better things than watching CCTV cameras and tattling on their peers, while major crimes
Re:So we can't afford Patrolling Police Officers.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Here in Florida we took our dog out on the beach once and within 20 minutes a local police officer had showed up after receiving "numerous complaints from residents". Basically, the shore is bordered with miles of condos with bored elders who have nothing better to do with their time than call the PD when they see something they don't like.
My dad has been an officer here for almost 30 years and once worked a homicide case where a guy was killed on this same section of the beach ... and nobody reported a dead body in the sand until the next day. As my dad used to say, "if only the guy had a dog with him when he died."
To me, this sounds like foolishness and dishonesty (Score:3, Interesting)
"Players who help catch the most criminals each month will win cash prizes up to 1,000."
should be, in my opinion, translated as this:
"CCTV cameras have so far been a huge waste of money. The reason is that it takes 1,000,000 hours of looking at cameras to find one illegal act. [I'm guessing.] Criminals are not so stupid that they perform for the cameras. So, we will try to get the work done without paying. W
Demand to see them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Demand to see them (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re:Demand to see them (Score:5, Insightful)
You can request footage of yourself from private cameras using data protection laws.
Anyway, no need to worry for two reasons:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
So long? (Score:2)
This would be more scary if peopl
Zackly (Score:2)
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.
slippery slope? (Score:2, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 unfairne
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm against this but I would think that reporting a crime will be controlled under the same laws used to handle phone calls to 911. Not all 911 calls equal a crime, but calling one and lying to them is a crime.
Brits seem to be happy to give up their freedoms left and right. It's kind of insane. This is why you see "uppity" Americans constantly deriding the size and scope of government. No amount of protection will save you from the dangers life, so what exactly are you getting in return beyond a nosy neighb
Open surveillance (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
The Transparent Society (David Brin) (Score:2)
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) (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you seriously stating that losing privacy is no oppressive element? It's actually a world where everybody can oppress everybody else, because he knows something about that person, that was meant to be private.
Privacy and even lies are an essential part of our society. Without them, social life as we know it, breaks down and becomes impossible. So much do we know on the scientific side.
I wanna try! (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Duder, in modern America 1000 pounds is a lot of money too :-)
false positives? (Score:3, Insightful)
What goes to the person who reports the most false positives?
Re:false positives? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
What goes to the person who reports the most false positives?
A background investigation.
What are they thinking!? (Score:3, Interesting)
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. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're assuming the surveillance camera network and the 'snooper' game server components won't get pwn3d.
eww (Score:2)
Never, ever going to happen. (Score:5, Interesting)
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. (Score:5, Funny)
vegan lesbian holistic bomb-making camps
Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
actually, by my calculations, "Polish immigrants" + "vegan lesbian holistic bomb-making camps" + "HD Television cameras" == Best episode of Mythbusters EVER
Re:Never, ever going to happen. (Score:5, Informative)
Firstly, this is the Daily Mail
It was also reported by the bbc http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8293784.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Secondly, it would be entirely illegal to do this under UK law. We have things like the Data Protection Act.
How exactly would this be in breach of the DPA?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It does sound like the kind of thing the Daily Fail would complain about. There doesn't have to be anything "wrong" with something (as far as, say, the law or pleasant liberal-minded people are concerned) for the Mail to hate it. I don't think they'd be bothered by the Christian-ness but stuff involving immigrants, political correctness, etc is going to set them frothing at the mouth. If it could also impact house prices and increase the number of recycling bins on our doorsteps they'd probably actually
Living in a "Welfare State"... (Score:2)
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 havin
There are... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Looking For Help with Game Driver (Score:3, Funny)
Read the article (Score:5, Informative)
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?
The one positive thing I'll say for this (Score:2)
... 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.
Too many varibles, too little incentive (Score:2)
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.
Obligatory cop-out (Score:4, Insightful)
"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...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Suspicion Breeds Loyalty... (Score:2, Insightful)
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 do
Will be used by clever crims (Score:2)
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.
Collapse of England is near (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Now I can finally find out where that pretty girl who stands on my train platform lives :)
omg.. (Score:2)
On one hand excellent we catch toe rags quicker with a lower overhead for manning the CCTV.
On the other I am terrified about the power this gives the government and I expect we will soon be living in 1930/40s Germany with the SS around every corner.
If ever there was a time for a Guy Fawkes type plot now is it, before the madness gets worse..
Obligitory (Score:2)
Yes, but does it support achievements?
Achievement unlocked : "Spot 4 graffiti artists in under a minute"
I can see the boards on GameFAQs now...
Internet Eyes charges its viewers to report crimes (Score:5, Informative)
You'd think this worked by charging monitored businesses. No. It works by charging viewers to report crimes.. Read the Terms of Service. [interneteyes.co.uk] It costs viewers £1 to report an event. The captured image is sent to the camera customer by phone. The recipient rates the report, but the viewer doesn't get credit back if the report was good. The only payoff is the the monthly prize of £1000. They're going to take in far more from the viewers than they pay out.
Viewers do get a credit of £3 per month they can use for reporting, so it's not totally pay to play.
Each viewer is shown four random cameras at a time. Every 20 minutes, or if they report something, they get a new set of cameras. So viewers never get to see the results of their reports.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
I wonder who's snooping on the snoopers?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? ["Who watches the watchmen?"]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
(3) Big Brother's best evil idea ever.
Translating to 'leet speak is left as an exercise for the reader.
MURDER! (Score:2)
Bloddy Murder! Arrest that pigeon!
Re: (Score:2)
Not even close to the same. People who make false reports will be quickly identified and ignored. The video itself doesn't disappear, so completely bogus complaints will be thrown out before anyone goes knocking on doors. This is not a he said she said contest. This is backed up by the video itself.