I don't understand your privacy issue. You are happy to be seen walking down the street (because others can see you anyway). Whilst shopping, you are seen by other shoppers, who may or may not know you. Why would you be unhappy to be seen by one other totally anonymous person possibly in another country through a camera? It strikes me that this is a brilliant way of putting to use the many cameras that are not really being used properly for reducing crime. It isn't being portrayed as a game by the company (that's just bad journalists doing that), and they don't get a 'prize' - it's merely an incentive to be vigilant.

When you think of these issues in terms of scenarios, it can be easier to understand. A few issues-

One is that people behave differently when they're in positions of authority or power. So, the person viewing all of this footage is now in charge of determining whether or not your behavior is acceptable. If not, a record is generated - does the individual who was recorded know that a record was generated? What happens with the record? Do you bring the person in to ask questions, or do you investigate and see if there are suspicous connections, etc.? OK, now you're gathering information based on one person's perception of an individual's behavior. Can you see where I'm going with this?

Two: The person watching the camera is looking for things that are wrong, and when we look for things, we find them. Again, we go back to generating a file, and how do we handle a file?

Monitoring the public is iffy. I can rationalize it to have a recording in case a crime is committed and reported by a victim, there is potential clarity that can be provided by recorded footage of the area. Recordings can be deleted unviewed after some amount of time, access can be controlled, etc. However, to have someone *looking* for potential crime, where no victim has come forward is entirely, 100% unacceptable.

One thing I tell parents when they come to me asking for something to be criminalized: how would you want this law to affect your own child? Imagine the potential for mis-use, for exploitation.

Anyway, my take on it.

Hey Jerry, thanks for taking the time to comment.

Let me address the Internet Eyes service itself here, and I will write another post on the greater concerns for privacy as I feel that deserves a more considered response.

Whilst I'd agree that the service is not being "portrayed as a game" by Internet Eyes be sure they are using league tables and incentives (they call them rewards) for those fulfilling their voyeuristic fantasies. This is not bad journalism just straight forward fact as detailed on their own website.

As for it "brilliant way of putting to use the many cameras that are not really being used properly for reducing crime" there are a couple of simple points here;

There are a number of reports in the open that quite clearly show the usage of CCTV in the UK does not reduce crime. In a recent Daily Telegraph call for data under Freedom of Information Act figures show a 71 per cent fall in the number of crimes "in which CCTV was involved" in the Metropolitan Police area, from 416,000 in 2003/4 to 121,770 in 2008/9.
( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/68... )

The report also showed that the proportion of all crimes solved using CCTV in London also fell from half in 2003/4 to one in seven in 2008/9.

Now of course the argument could easily be that the estimated 4.2 million CCTV cameras in the UK just aren't being used properly, and this may well be the case, but I fail to see how placing untrained, most likely unskilled and unregulated citizens behind those cameras is going to make a difference.

Of course I would expect the pro-cctv argument from someone in the "security" industry, especially one directly involved in the day to day sales of such devices such as say Redhand; afterall that's just protecting one's financial busines interests.

And so I will away to compose my thoughts on just why one should be concerned about being seen walking down the street by someone remote.

Yes they do have rewards and I don't see any problem with rewarding people for working towards a common goal of reducing crime. I would like to think that observers are acting in a responsible way in this respect and I think your reference to 'voyeuristic fantasies' is totally out of place.

Yes, it is true that much of our CCTV infrastructure does not produce good results and this is mainly down to poor quality and outdated equipment. There have been huge advances in recent years including mega-pixel cameras, but the security industry is taking far too long to adopt it, mainly because the security industry is driven by installers who do not have IT skills (which is where the shift in security technology is going). Security Consultants are often too long in the tooth and they are the ones who advise towns to fit old technology expensive controllable cameras and then find they don't have sufficient people or money to operate them, which always leaves the cameras pointing the wrong way!

With regard to Internet Eyes proposal, the whole point is that people do not have to be trained to the same extent. This is only being rolled out to shops initially and the observers are effectively assisting in store security, which is being welcomed by shop owners, who maybe can't afford decent CCTV. Since the shop will get notification immediately, the accusation can be authenticated there and then. Obviously some common courtesy needs to be adopted by the shop owner towards the customer and I would hope that they will be made aware of this. Many larger shops already have full time observers in a back room, and these are just ordinary employees who are not trained or vetted either - so the precedence is already there.

As I said, most cameras are not being viewed live, and having many volunteers is bound to make a huge difference - just because of shear numbers. It is true that they will be unregulated, but because of the anonymous way in which the project is being set up I don't see that they need to be. However, the ICO might well agree with you and we must wait for their decision. The observers may well be thousands of miles away in another country so I see very little breach in privacy or personal security when compared with the huge benefits that this could bring. I have read somewhere that observers are not given cameras that are anywhere near their post code.

We are all used to being observed, stopped, searched whenever we travel and even at football matches and whilst inconvenient, we have come to accept this for the common good of making the world a safer place.

A final point, this has nothing to do with the government or any other organisation and Internet Eyes are not talking about observing people going about their daily business in streets, so terms such as 'big brother' are not appropriate. I know you haven't used this term but I see it often and jo public are being unfairly alienated against the proposition by agitated journalists. You have made your first reaction and I realise there may be an uncomfortable feel and you are right to pose questions, but put yourself in the place of an innocent shopkeeper or member of the public who has been mugged or beaten up and any misgivings should pave into insignificance.

Regards

-Jerry