"Internet Eyes" - Mass Surveillance from the comfort of your home
52 replies, posted
Stage 1: Get your mate to nick summat from a shop on the Internet Eyes scheme
Stage 2: Catch him in the act
Stage 3: Use the £1,000 to pay the fine
Stage 4: Split the difference
Stage 5: PROFIT
I'll monitor clothes fitting room
I don't really see the problem with this, there's no real difference either way. The people in the store will still have cameras pointing at them and a person will still be able to monitor them, just depends wether it's a member of the CCTV crew or someone at home..not suddenly a massive invasion of privacy if you're in public.
You need to be 18 to register as a viewer :(
I thought this was a joke.
Britain, you guys officially suck.
[QUOTE=lazyguy;17757120]Stage 1: Get your mate to nick summat from a shop on the Internet Eyes scheme
Stage 2: Catch him in the act
Stage 3: Use the £1,000 to pay the fine
Stage 4: Split the difference
Stage 5: PROFIT[/QUOTE]
Someone got fired from the supermarket I used to work at by reporting their friends stealing stuff for the $500 reward, and then splitting it with them.
[QUOTE=jcallan;17759658]I thought this was a joke.
Britain, you guys officially suck.[/QUOTE]
Beacuse we have police officers that shoot people and their dogs whilst playing loudly.
You also have police officers who shoot innocent tourists on the tube :eng101:
[QUOTE=Bannned;17753164]Hmm, I honestly think that the store would lose more money by paying up that £1,000 instead of just letting it go.[/QUOTE]
I would guess it's the camera company who pay up the cash.
They can afford big bonuses because people are doing jobs that need to be done (watching when there's nothing going on) for free.
Why is everyone so annoyed? This is a great idea for Un-Employed people.
I can just imagine the raids...
[QUOTE=jcallan;17760546]You also have police officers who shoot innocent tourists on the tube :eng101:[/QUOTE]
In our defense, shit hit the fan that day. Everyone was nervous.
[editline]09:54PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=3com111;17762202]I can just imagine the raids...[/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.lightsoutfilms.com/assets_c/2008/11/fromtheinternet-thumb-300x400.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=jcallan;17760546]You also have police officers who shoot innocent tourists on the tube :eng101:[/QUOTE]
The death of one man, or the potential deaths of hundreds.
Take your pick, then tell me that the police officers who shot him weren't genuinely scared of what he might do, and thought there was genuine reason to shoot him. Add in the fact that he had been tracked by the police from a block of flats where a lot of terrorist activity had occurred.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;17762463]The death of one man.[/QUOTE]
They shot him 11 times in the head.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;17762463]the [b]potential[/b] deaths of hundreds.
.[/QUOTE]
Didn't happen, wasn't going to happen, the police murdered a man.
1,000 per crime? Put these here in America and I can make millions!
[QUOTE=jcallan;17762785]They shot him 11 times in the head.
Didn't happen, wasn't going to happen, the police murdered a man.[/QUOTE]
They work on the detonator being one where it is simply one light touch of the finger.
Making sure he is dead is the best thing they could have done.
They killed a man they believed to be a threat. What do you think they should do? Go and ask if they are in fact a terrorist? Spend a couple of minutes making sure?
Yes it was a mistake, tragic, but expected.
[QUOTE=Bannned;17753164]Hmm, I honestly think that the store would lose more money by paying up that £1,000 instead of just letting it go.[/QUOTE]
The store only has to pay a £20 weekly fee to enable their service. Given it's fairly unlikely anybody will come across a great deal of "worthwhile" crime, Internet Eyes is likely to end up earning a lot of money should it take off.
It's kind of worrying just because of the gesture it makes and how it could affect UK society, more than actual security violations.
You dumbasses supporting this....
1. You've always had some kid in your class, some neighbor, etc. who always tattles? You know how he's the most annoying prick ever? Imagine said person having the power to monitor and report immediately from hundreds of cameras.
2. Stalkers. Unless the users CAN'T switch from camera to camera (which would hinder them following a potential, "Suspect"), this is ideal for anyone trying to follow somebody else around with a different agenda. You Brits being so paranoid about pedophiles, I'm surprised this hasn't come up.
3. Somebody else said this: If you can report something for a bounty, will the cops get called at all?
4. Privatization. I'd rather the govt. do this than a company with bounty hunter employees. Remember that guy who'd always snitch? How he'd always complain about [i]anything[/i]? Well if he got payed for that, then he'd also campaign for MORE WAYS of reporting somebody. If you have a whole large force of people who hang on the random chance of a spotting, then they will try to increase the spottings. Not to mention the company that makes money off of installing CCTVs everywhere.
I know there's more points to be made, but this is just BAD, okay?
I remember a news story about families in the UK being relocated if they were deemed "trouble families" and put under 24 hour CCTV monitoring. I wonder if people will be able to watch them using the in-house cameras.
[QUOTE=jcallan;17760546]You also have police officers who shoot innocent tourists on the tube :eng101:[/QUOTE]
Protip: don't run from armed police a day after a failed terrorist attack.
First the internet...
[img]http://newsgrist.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c66f153ef01157215f760970b-500wi[/img]
What the fuck is with that cover.
[editline]04:05PM[/editline]
I just have terraces on my copy.
Oh Im so fucking signing up for that pronto
Its basically like where's Wally but with shoplifters.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.