Tag electronic surveillance

Somewhere In East Germany, The Former Head Of The Stasi Weeps

i see it all

Proving once again that there is nothing that can’t be turned into a way to make a buck (or, in this case, a pound), a British company called Internet Eyes wants to launch a service where ordinary people are given access to the literally millions of CCTV feeds from all around the U.K. so that they can spend their time looking for people doing illegal things. The money is made by charging the people who own the closed-circuit cameras for this “service”, and the viewers are incented by a monthly £1000 prize given to the person who spots the most actual crimes being committed.

The U.K. winds hands-down for the sheer number of CCTV cameras installed all around the country, with the largest concentration being in London. You see a lot of different numbers bandied about, since there is no real accounting of them, but the consensus is that there are about 4.2 million cameras nationwide, and about 1.5 million of those in London alone. However, it turns out that the cameras do virtually nothing to prevent crime: of those 1.5 million cameras, about 10,000 are official police cameras, but a 2007 report showed that the rate of unsolved crimes in London hovered around 80% and that the cameras were not utilized in either preventing crime or solving cases.

This article in the September issue of Washington Monthly takes an in-depth look at the issue of CCTV monitoring in Britain. The author, Jamie Malanowski, found that the police look at the cameras less as a crime-fighting tool and more as yet another form of security theater — people, they say, are put at ease by the thought of the cameras watching over them, and that is more important than actually, you know, catching criminals and stuff. I think Malanowski too readily dismisses the potential for significant abuse with the argument that there’s no centralization of all these surveillance systems at the moment, because along comes this company who demonstrates EXACTLY how they can all be linked up through their business model, and even offers to “crowdsource” the necessary manpower to create a much more active and coordinated surveillance. Further, the recent revelation that CCTV cameras are being installed inside the homes of people who have been tagged with ASBOs seem to indicate a greater willingness on the part of local governments to use the threat of surveillance as a tool for manipulating behavior.

Jumping back over to our side of the pond, it turns out that the American city with the largest installation of CCTV cameras is Chicago. The Chicago Police have 1500 cameras, which is a drop in the bucket compared to London, but the linked article cites a U of I professor who says that the overall network of cameras is more like 15,000, which puts Chicago just about on par with London. Unlike Scotland Yard, however, the Chicago Police have a much more active program called (quite ominously) Operation Virtual Shield, and they claim that the network has “aided in thousands of arrests” (quote from WSJ article attributed to an unnamed, but official, Chicago Police spokesperson).

You can see where this is going. If the Internet Eyes program is the least bit successful in Britain, how long will it take for some Web 2.0 entrepreneur with a wad of VC cash to launch a similar thing in this country? And how easy would it be for a cash-strapped municipality like Chicago to turn over their surveillance system to a private enterprise? Now imagine the next phase, where the startup decides that they can take this to the next level by offering bigger and bigger cash prizes, and maybe even launching some viral marketing to promote the idea. Maybe even, say, staging bogus crimes to demonstrate the “effectiveness” of the service. Now, let’s say that really catches on big, and a year down the line a television or cable network buys in and starts producing a TV show featuring how ordinary people sitting at home are winning big money and “solving crimes”. How long do you think it would take before there was a CCTV camera in every imaginable corner of the United States, each one being watched ALL DAY by some teabagger-type self-proclaimed “vigilante” ratting out anyone and everyone he doesn’t like?

I give it about two years before that’s exactly what starts happening, just in time for the Republicans to pick it up and run with it as a “law-and-order” issue in the 2012 elections. And President Palin will be ALL OVER that shit, you betcha.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Through A Cellphone Darkly

Michael Agger has a piece on Slate this week decrying the ubiquity of camera-phones.

His chief complaint is that by putting cheap-and-easy cameras into the hands of every single yob in the world, the world is now deluged with more crap pictures than ever before. More unfortunately, he says, it also has invented a whole new realm for antisocial behavior that makes use of the simplicity of photographing the event for posterity: the nuisance assaults called “happy slapping” that turned into a bit of an issue in the U.K., the inevitable upskirt shots, and other acts of vandalism. Oh, and the inability of celebrities to go about their daily lives without being photographed (color me unsympathetic on this one).

He only hints at the broader implications of the potential presences of sometimes hundreds of cameras in public situations. The most notable one being the availability of on-the-spot photography of disasters, emergencies, crimes, and other situations that previously required the presence of the newsmedia to capture — the occasional fortuitous presence of a news photographer at a major unexpected event has allowed history to capture very few such moments as they happened, but for the most part photographic or other recorded evidence has generally been after-the-fact. He acknowledges that this is a generally good thing, resulting in better access to such events without the control mechanisms of journalistic or governmental gatekeepers.

Public officials are beginning to see this for themselves. Earlier this week, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced a new plan that will allow people to send their own digital images and even video to the city’s 311 (city services) and 911 dispatchers (link via BoingBoing). Witness a mugging? See a building catch on fire? Need to prove that your garbage isn’t being picked up on time? Send the city a picture or a video to document your issue.

Okay, that sounds good, right? But the downside is that the city is now recruiting its citizens to essentially spy on one another, using a troublesome reliance on the veracity of photography as prima facie evidence. It might not be quite as sinister as the East German Stasi requiring neighbors to report on fellow neighbors, or even former Attorney General Ashcroft’s discredited plan to institute neighborhood patrols by mailmen and utility workers, but it’s absolutely a first step in that direction. Americans decry the overabundance of CCTV security cameras in Britain, but in the “post 9-11 world” have been more than willing to rat on just about anybody that seemed even remotely out of place. Now they are being given the green light to take pictures of anything they think is wrong and send it to the police. The potential for abuse on the part of camphone wielding panic-mongers AND overly zealous law enforcement and governmental personnel is simply ENORMOUS.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

All Original Content Copyright © BrianKaneOnline
All Other Content Copyright © Its Original Authors

Built on Notes Blog Core
Powered by WordPress

Switch to our mobile site