The everyone show

[sobrique]

So, here in the UK we have an insanely large proportion of the world's CCTV cameras. Something like 25% if my source is correct.

And we also have such TV gems as Big Brother, You've been Framed, and assorted 'fly on the wall' documentaries.

Surely that's just plain inefficient? I propose we create a new form of viewing, called 'the everyone show'.
What we do, is hook up our CCTV grid to the net, and make it public access. And allow people to tag and rate clips, on a 'you tube' style portal. A collection of the weeks finest moments is then formatted into a round up show, and presented on national TV. Maybe there's even enough for multiple?

I mean, we're already paying for those cameras anyway, we may as well use them. And it's not like it's invasion of privacy, because that privacy was already gone anyway.

Comments

[elrohana.livejournal.com]

Doesn't that sound vaguely like The Truman Show? Scary...

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Oh it's better than that. I mean, that was just one person.

[fishrgreat.livejournal.com]

There was a local council I think who trialed putting the feeds on the net to watch. Loads of people got arrested, cos people kept ringing in to tell the police what they we're watching...

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

There we go. Another benefit of this excellent plan - better crime detection rates.

[syntheticbrain.livejournal.com]

Slight problem with that is that laws are designed with a certain detection method in mind. Head down the panopticon route and suddenly it's not just flagrant, disruptive or dangerous breaches that are punished, but also those who - unless surveiled - would cause nobody any problems.

Sound much like speed cameras?

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Not really - the cameras are already doing that. It's just increasing the number of watchers in the panopticon prison.

[syntheticbrain.livejournal.com]

Not meaning to get into philosophical mumbo-jumbo (trees falling without observers etc) a recorded but unobserved camera feed is one thing - eg a camera going straight to VHS, but a camera feed studied for signs of breaking the law is another thing entirely. Hence the increase in detected crime fishrgrat mentioned.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Are you assuming that all the cameras in the uk currently _aren't_ being observed?

[syntheticbrain.livejournal.com]

The masses of cameras that make up the vast majority of that hideous number aren't - they are only checked for evidence when a crime is reported. Do you honestly think that all those cheap little cameras on buses, over ATMs etc are monitored?

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

No, but they could be. Which I thought was rather the point of the panopticon concept - that the gaoler could be watching at any time.

[syntheticbrain.livejournal.com]

maybe it depends on how much you know - if you think all CCTV camera's go to some huge control centre somewhere for monitoring you believe yourself to be permanently observed; if however you think it's a 3MP webcam only recording the last 24 hours for evidence gathering you are more free (freeer?) in your actions.

In the latter case the "everyone show" is a game changer.

[malal.livejournal.com]

but also those who - unless surveiled - would cause nobody any problems.

Then surely it's the underlying law that's at fault, not if the camera is watched?

[syntheticbrain.livejournal.com]

It seems to be a common problem that when assumptions prove to be inaccurate as conditions change the law isn't reconsidered.

Equally, the assumptions aren't considered in enforcement - in terms of speeding, the dratted cameras were rolled over the country and ended up criminalising people who were driving fast but safely, when the law was there to bludgeon people who either drove like idiots or caused accidents through not being able to handle their speed.

To get back to the cameras - the law is slower to change than cameras can be rolled out. Until the law is changed to reflect increased likelihood of detection cameras should be used with care.

[jorune.livejournal.com]

What is your security clearance, Friend Citizen?

[cbr-paul.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't: if you view an image of a police officer (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/feb/12/photographers-anti-terror-laws) on one of these cameras you will probably be breaking the law...!

[malal.livejournal.com]

I believe it's the person taking the picture, not anyone viewing it.

Which would mean all the CCTV camera operators.....