Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×
United Kingdom Crime Privacy Technology

Scotland Yard Chief: Put CCTV In Every Home To Help Solve Crimes 282

schwit1 writes Homeowners should consider fitting CCTV to trap burglars, the country's most senior police officer declared yesterday. Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said police forces needed more crime scene footage to match against their 12 million images of suspects and offenders. And he called on families and businesses to install cameras at eye level – to exploit advances in facial recognition technology.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scotland Yard Chief: Put CCTV In Every Home To Help Solve Crimes

Comments Filter:
  • Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 09, 2015 @04:57PM (#49218831)

    Then again, Orwell did write that tyranny in UK would come in the guise of nationalism and security

    • RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 09, 2015 @05:15PM (#49219097)

      The entire article was about putting the camera you have in the proper position to get a face shot, which they can match to mug shots. They get too many videos of the top of the head, and that doesn't solve the crime. He was not asking that everyone provide a live feed from their house.

      • Re:RTFA (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 09, 2015 @05:19PM (#49219159)

        Hook. Line. Sinker.

      • Re:RTFA (Score:5, Funny)

        by TheCarp ( 96830 ) <sjcNO@SPAMcarpanet.net> on Monday March 09, 2015 @05:27PM (#49219235) Homepage

        There was a hilarious local robbery that my wife and I watched the video footage of. I don't know if they actually got caught but, 3 men came in to steal a safe. They, of course, wear hoodies and visored caps. They look down.

        One of them deftly moves directly under the camera and starts trying to smash it from below...fails....and turns to get a better look....giving his face right up straight on to the camera, after which he smashes it good.

      • Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)

        by SeaFox ( 739806 ) on Monday March 09, 2015 @05:31PM (#49219287)

        He was not asking that everyone provide a live feed from their house.

        No, we'll just install those cameras (that today are IP-based) and tie them in to the in-home recording device over our router -- which is connected to the Internet.
        But that's okay. There's no way to get into the router from outside -- certainly not through a government-mandated backdoor.

        • Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)

          by BarbaraHudson ( 3785311 ) <barbarahudsononline AT gmail DOT com> on Monday March 09, 2015 @05:57PM (#49219589) Journal

          Maybe the good Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe should be "encouraged" to volunteer his home as the test bed. And use lots of cameras - those Brits just love their security cameras, you know. "A camera on every corner." So, put them in the corner in the bedroom, the bathroom, the living room, the kitchen (so we can all watch them ruin a good piece of meat by boiling it to death and then some), the kids rooms, the garage, etc.

          You know - practice what you preach or stop preaching.

          • Re:RTFA (Score:5, Informative)

            by jez9999 ( 618189 ) on Monday March 09, 2015 @06:52PM (#49220113) Homepage Journal

            Maybe the good Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe should be "encouraged" to volunteer his home as the test bed. And use lots of cameras - those Brits just love their security cameras, you know.

            I'm British. I swear to god we're not all like this. Some of us absolutely do not want to live in a surveillence state and assholes like ACPO and "the head of Scotland Yard" are terribly unrepresentative of public opinion, in general. There are, however, a core of authoritarians who see no problem with removal of privacy. Just not most of us.

            • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

              Let me fix this "authoritarians who see no problem with removal of privacy", with authoritarians who see no problem with removal of other people's privacy but are hugely resistance with even the slightest hint of the slightest infringement of their own privacy and are forever demanding more secrecy in their own actions.

        • Re:RTFA (Score:4, Insightful)

          by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2015 @04:50AM (#49223043)
          Talk about paranoid. The guy just wants people to install cameras that actually get clear enough shots to ID a perp. It isn't about mass surveillance in the slightest.
      • Re:RTFA (Score:4, Funny)

        by sycodon ( 149926 ) on Monday March 09, 2015 @06:04PM (#49219649)
    • Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Albanach ( 527650 ) on Monday March 09, 2015 @05:20PM (#49219171) Homepage

      Then again, Orwell did write that tyranny in UK would come in the guise of nationalism and security

      Well, he isn't apparently suggesting the police or state should be able to place a camera in every home, just that it's a smart idea for a homeowner. Personally, I'd have thought that for anyone willing to pay for a home security system this would be a no brainer today. There's countless wireless enabled camera systems that are obviously going to be useful in the event of a burglary.

      That said, it's a short term fix. As burglars become more aware of the presence of cameras, they'll start wearing a mask just like folk robbing stores and banks where CCTV is expected already do. Once outdoor cameras become more prevalent, they won't use your driveway to park. There might be a small deterrence factor that would encourage an opportunistic thief to go next door if they can see cameras outside your house, but equally you might just be advertising that you have stuff worth stealing.

      • Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Firethorn ( 177587 ) on Monday March 09, 2015 @05:38PM (#49219353) Homepage Journal

        That said, it's a short term fix. As burglars become more aware of the presence of cameras, they'll start wearing a mask just like folk robbing stores and banks where CCTV is expected already do. Once outdoor cameras become more prevalent, they won't use your driveway to park.

        Both increase the 'costs' of burglary though. A mask is generally hot, a pain in the but, and outside the home signals that you're up to no good. Having to park elsewhere increases the distance you have to carry your loot, not necessarily a big deal for jewelry, but if you're trying to steal big screen TVs and other heavy or bulky goods, decreases your haul capability significantly. Plus, well, hauling stuff a longer ways increases the chances of the neighbors calling you in. You look less like a moving/delivery company.

        Increased expense, lower haul, should reduce the amount of robbery,

        (Note, I like playing opposing force in exercises)

        • by ubrgeek ( 679399 ) on Monday March 09, 2015 @06:34PM (#49219943)
          > A mask is generally hot, a pain in the but

          You do know the mask goes on your other head, right?
      • by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *

        that are obviously going to be useful in the event of a burglary.

        Yes that way more people can be caught, tried, and then told that they have received a suspended sentence/slap on the wrist because the jails are full.

      • Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) * <mojo@worl d 3 . net> on Monday March 09, 2015 @06:01PM (#49219623) Homepage

        This isn't about making your home more secure. For that you just need reasonable locks and the remember to use them when you go out. Most burglary is opportunistic, doors or windows left open.

        This is about two things.

        1. Make the facial recognition database more acceptable to the public. Hay, it might solve that crime you were a victim of but we couldn't be bothered to investigate! Don't worry, it's only bad people on there... Well, a few million innocent people too, but if you have nothing to hide and don't go around robbing houses...

        2. Make the police's life easier. Investigating domestic crime is a hassle and takes officers away from revenue generating speed traps and more interesting work. The police are also fairly shit at solving this kind of crime, especially things like domestic violence. Cameras, paid for by victims, would really help improve their stats.

      • Then again, Orwell did write that tyranny in UK would come in the guise of nationalism and security

        Well, he isn't apparently suggesting the police or state should be able to place a camera in every home, just that it's a smart idea for a homeowner. Personally, I'd have thought that for anyone willing to pay for a home security system this would be a no brainer today. There's countless wireless enabled camera systems that are obviously going to be useful in the event of a burglary.

        That said, it's a short term fix. As burglars become more aware of the presence of cameras, they'll start wearing a mask just like folk robbing stores and banks where CCTV is expected already do. Once outdoor cameras become more prevalent, they won't use your driveway to park. There might be a small deterrence factor that would encourage an opportunistic thief to go next door if they can see cameras outside your house, but equally you might just be advertising that you have stuff worth stealing.

        I'd recommend a Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe mask.

      • Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anne Thwacks ( 531696 ) on Monday March 09, 2015 @06:27PM (#49219873)
        Well, he isn't apparently suggesting the police or state should be able to place a camera in every home

        No. Install it yourself, and let them use the backdoor. Saves the state a lot of money. He is not as stupid as he looks.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by N1AK ( 864906 )

        Personally, I'd have thought that for anyone willing to pay for a home security system this would be a no brainer today. There's countless wireless enabled camera systems that are obviously going to be useful in the event of a burglary.

        Why? By the time someone has broken into your house the only benefit of security systems for the owner (deterrence) is gone. Sure I could get loads of head-height cameras set up in my house, maybe even get the burglar caught (not that the police in the UK give a fuck about ca

      • Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by WeeBit ( 961530 ) on Monday March 09, 2015 @08:38PM (#49221011) Homepage
        "That said, it's a short term fix. As burglars become more aware of the presence of cameras, they'll start wearing a mask just like folk robbing stores and banks where CCTV is expected already do."

        In my area cameras are everywhere. Placing the camera is just as important as the camera you buy. Many try and think they out witted the camera just to find out they didn't and went to jail anyways. In my area alone which is a diverse neighborhood price wise etc, we have had many burglaries solved, and a home invasion because of a camera carefully placed.

        "encourage an opportunistic thief to go next door if they can see cameras outside your house, but equally you might just be advertising that you have stuff worth stealing."

        Not true ! Don't underestimate the stupidity of a thief. Advertise cameras regardless if you have them or not. Advertise live feed online also. It makes no difference around here. Born stupid is always stupid.

        They showed footage of a burglar looking for a ADT system pad, and what the guy should of been doing is looking for the cameras. Another came to the front door in all their glory and knocked 30 minutes before a home invasion with his buddy's. After spraying two cameras out front which were wired he never thought there may be a camera or two that was not wired.
    • by kuzb ( 724081 )

      A home CCTV system you control isn't really tyrannical. Particularly if it helps catch someone who broke in to your house.

      Since you were too lazy to read the article, it's not about giving your government unrestricted access to cameras inside your home. It's about setting up cameras properly so that if something actually does happen, the footage is actually useful in catching the crook.

    • will be on the satellite in 4D 24x7, with a round-up channel streaming the "best of bastards" on a loop.

      sauce for the goose...

  • Lead the way (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tolkienite ( 3922061 ) on Monday March 09, 2015 @04:58PM (#49218839)
    I'm certain he'll lead the way and will soon post details of the system he installed in his own home and other relatives.
    • Cameras pointed at the doors, at eye level, uploading any images to gmail.

      And if it's something like a Raspberry Pi, the average criminal won't even recognize it.

      You'd only need the camera pointing inward if you were a business.

  • sure thing.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 09, 2015 @04:58PM (#49218845)

    You first asshole...

    Adding thousands of the things has made almost no difference go crime rates in London

  • by internerdj ( 1319281 ) on Monday March 09, 2015 @04:59PM (#49218855)
    I'm sure they'd be even better at their jobs if the citizens would just let them in on a live feed of said CCTV cameras. This is of course just a stop-gap measure until everyone can be fitted with crime-detecting locator chips.
  • Life Imitating Art (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Prototerm ( 762512 ) on Monday March 09, 2015 @05:01PM (#49218875)

    Repeat after me: Orwell's 1984 is *not* an instruction manual!

    • by Idou ( 572394 )
      Correct. However, Orwell did not anticipate that the general public would be the ones to have the majority of networked cameras that they could use to keep tabs on the government. I have cameras installed at my home, but I am not just going to share with anyone unconditionally. A string of events would have to occur first before I would even consider sharing specific footage with the local police. I believe anyone else (including in the UK) shelling out their own money would be inclined to do the same (else
      • by Dunbal ( 464142 ) * on Monday March 09, 2015 @06:00PM (#49219611)

        I have cameras installed at my home, but I am not just going to share with anyone unconditionally.

        I'm willing to bet that at some point in the near future you will be compelled to share by law. It can even happen today if police think your camera has footage of something that happened in its field of view. Don't want to share? Meet Mr. Obstruction of Justice.

        • by Idou ( 572394 )
          Well, they would need to know they exist, first. . . If such a law ever passed, it would be trivial to make detecting such cameras near impossible. . .
    • by MillionthMonkey ( 240664 ) on Monday March 09, 2015 @06:10PM (#49219695)

      "Check this out, comrade, it's like I have my own exercise instructor!", announced Winston to his comrade Syme, as he turned a switch and the voice sank somewhat, though the words were still distinguishable. The instrument (the telescreen, it was called) could be dimmed, but there was no way of shutting it off completely. "You can dim it, so It saves electricity when you're asleep!"

      The instructress had called them to attention again. "And now let's see which of us can touch our toes!' she said enthusiastically. 'Right over from the hips, please, comrades. ONE-two! ONE-two!..."

      "Oh I hate this one, he whispered to Syme. "It sends shooting pains all the way from my heels to my buttocks and often ends by bringing on another coughing fit."

      "But have you installed the Newspeak translator app?", asked Syme. "It's so cool, you just speak English to it and it translates what you say into proper Newspeak!"

      "Oh, that sounds awesome!" said Winston. "Can I download it from the Ministry of Plenty's app store?"

      "Ha ha, no!" replied Syme. "It comes preinstalled as part of the operating system! You couldn't uninstall it even if you wanted to."

      "Wow!" exclaimed Winston. You mean I have it already, then? So I don't need to waste time looking for it."

      "You work at the Ministry of Truth, Winston!" laughed Syme. "I would expect you to know these things already." He paused for a moment, then asked, "Did you see the prisoners hanged yesterday?"

      "I was working," said Winston indifferently. "I shall download it and watch it later, I suppose."

      "A very inadequate substitute," said Syme. His mocking eyes roved over Winston's face. "I know you," the eyes seemed to say, "I see through you. I know very well why you didn't watch the live stream of those prisoners hanged."

      "Smith!" screamed the shrewish voice from the telescreen. "6079 Smith W.! Yes, YOU! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that. You're not trying. Lower, please! THAT'S better, comrade. Now stand at ease, the whole squad, and watch me."

      A sudden hot sweat had broken out all over Winston's body. His face remained completely inscrutable. Never show dismay! Never show resentment! A single flicker of the eyes could give you away. He stood watching while the instructress raised her arms above her head and--one could not say gracefully, but with remarkable neatness and efficiency--bent over and tucked the first joint of her fingers under her toes.

      "THERE, comrades! THAT'S how I want to see you doing it. Watch me again. I'm thirty-nine and I've had four children. Now look." She bent over again. "You see MY knees aren't bent. You can all do it if you want to,' she added as she straightened herself up. "Anyone under forty-five is perfectly capable of touching his toes. We don't all have the privilege of fighting in the front line, but at least we can all keep fit. Remember our boys on the Malabar front! And the sailors in the Floating Fortresses! Just think what THEY have to put up with. Now try again. That's better, comrade, that's MUCH better," she added encouragingly as Winston, with a violent lunge, succeeded in touching his toes with knees unbent, for the first time in several years.

      "I'm impressed, Winston," said Syme. "If you'd told me you could touch your toes before you got this thing, I would have said that's such bullocks." He then silently nodded at the screen. "You think she really has four kids? She looks kind of hot for 39."

      "I heard that!" screamed the instructress. "I'm flagging your numbers and adding you both to the Ministry of Love's follow list!"

    • There is a book described within 1984 that was something of an instruction manual, or a warning, nobody really was sure any more.

      1984 actually does come pretty close to meeting the definition of the book described within it....

  • Great idea (Score:5, Funny)

    by waynemcdougall ( 631415 ) <slashdot@codeworks.gen.nz> on Monday March 09, 2015 @05:02PM (#49218901) Homepage

    Why not just make cameras a compulsory part of every TV, and then ensure that the TV can never be switched off?

    • Ma-Ma-Max Headroom here from Network 23. You don't have to be from 20 minutes into the future to realize that this is a great idea. Imagine, my shiny, chiseled visage adorning every TV set, 24 hours a day-day. Add to that the fact the I can see my adoring public as well, M-Magic!

      Yep, this can only be good for your old pal Max.

    • Wrong author. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by hey! ( 33014 ) on Monday March 09, 2015 @06:00PM (#49219613) Homepage Journal

      You want Kafka, not Orwell.

      The problem with what he's suggesting isn't the cameras; it's the development of the biometric database based on any kind of casual contact with the police. The reason that's a problem is that we really don't know how unique our biometric id is.

      Take fingerprints. Folk science claims that everyone's fingerprint is unique; in fact we use the word "fingerprint" for cryptographic hashes of data which are vanishingly unlikely to be duplicated. And using traditional police methods, we can for practical purposes act as if they are. But if you start amassing a vast collection of fingerprints of people you have nothing particular in common (as we did after 9/11), it turns out that some people do in fact share fingerprints with identical characteristics. In the 2004 Madrid bombings, an attorney named Brandon Mayfield [wikipedia.org] was identified as a suspect because his fingerprint was a close match one found a bag of detonators at the crime scene. That, and the fact that he was a Muslim convert, was enough for the FBI to be confident enough to arrest him, and leak his name and the potential charges against him to the media. It turns out that one of Mayfield's fingerprints was nearly identical to that of a known terrorist Algerian. The ability to match some biometric to a sufficiently large database greatly increases the probability of a false positive match.

      In the ordinary course of investigation there's a kind of implicit Bayesian process which gives us greater confidence in a fingerprint match than a fingerprint dragnet of everyone in the world would. We check the fingerprint of suspects who we have other reasons to think are involved in a crime, or who have in the past been arrested and convicted of a crime. This narrows down the pool of potential matchees from "everyone in the world" to "people who we have some shred of reason to think might be involved", and that's a much smaller pool.

      So what are the chances that there are people walking around out there with the same facial recognition biometric id as you? Very likely higher than casual testing would suggest. And what if the system tags you as a match? Does that prejudice the rest of your chances with the justice system?

      It's even possible that there are people out there who look enough like you to fool a family member. My brother once saw a man in a Philly restaurant who was a dead ringer for our father, who'd died surrounded by his family ten years earlier. It was creepy.

  • Trade your privacy for safety! We need facial recognition data on everyone to stop crooks! Add a microphone! Add more cameras! "Sir, you are not allowed to film the police or public officials. Everything the governmet does is classified. Here is a citation for not having your government camera installed in your home properly"
  • Hell, I don't even has a rocker to be off of!
  • Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Monday March 09, 2015 @05:15PM (#49219095) Homepage Journal
    Do these guys even listen to the words that come out of their pie holes when they open them? Or do they just have some mental disorder that causes them to just spew out a constant stream of consciousness? Or are they just some unread cronies of some MP? In any event, they might want to run their ideas by some better-educated underling before opening their trap in front of the press. You know, someone who can go, "Wot, like 1984? Bloody 'ell that's a terrible idea!" (For some reason my idea of a "better educated underling" is John Oliver doing a Charles Dickens parody.)
    • Keep in mind that these guys have no sense of how stupid they look. They think Monty Python's Dead Parrot is a true story, and that Mr. Bean would make a fine Minister in Her Majesty's government because they can SO relate to him.
    • You certainly didn't listen to his words that's for sure.

      If you had read what he said in the article, he's talking about when installing CCTV aimed at eye level so it captures facial features rather than having them in positions where you couldn't identify a burglar. He's not telling everyone to get CCTV, he's telling people who are going to use CCTV to make sure you're not wasting your money by capturing just the top of someone's head as they rob you.
    • If you read the article, you'll find that the article is in fact NOT about anything like 1984. Its about properly mounting EXISTING CCTV camera's so they are useful. As in, mount them in such a way to get images of the faces of the people breaking into your house, not just shots of the top of their head which are useless to everyone.

      The problem is that you think slashdot articles aren't sensationalist crap, when in fact they are by default and only become useful after people actually pay attention to the

  • Rather, he seems to be suggesting a system which records data to flash and which can then be uploaded to the police database in the event of a break-in.

    The civil liberties issues in such systems is somewhat different than the classic Orwellian scenario people are assuming. What are your expectations of privacy when you are visiting someone else's home? Is he obligated to tell you about his cameras?

    • Actually, in many states, you must get permission to record. Police have used this against homeowners before when home owners were recording police committing crimes.

      That aside, entrance into a public place or even private dwelling does not abdicate your rights to a certain amount of privacy.

      • by Luthair ( 847766 )
        I'm not american but AFAIK permission relates to audio recording not video. I think it really depends on where the cameras are placed, in Canada its based around the expectation of privacy (e.g. not a bathroom, change room, locker room, etc.)
  • the biggest crimes happen in the police department and wherever "power" happens like City Hall, etc..
    Put THOSE places full of CCTVs FIRST, since I'm PAYING for that anyways.
    I'll bet we can reduce far more crimes that way.

    Show me it works with YOU first.

    Assholes.

  • We'll look back on the halcyon days of video cameras run by the government in every room (wait, wasn't that in 1984?) once they break out the personal surveillance suppository with GPS tracking and sexual position verifier, so you don't engage in any state-prohibited hanky panky!

  • I just deployed an Insteon hub along with one of their cameras yesterday. The starter kit is around $100 and includes the hub and two dimmer outlets. The camera (0.3MP) was another $50 and includes pan/tilt along with a set of IR LEDs around the housing. Setup is straightforward, but the web and smartphone interfaces are bare bones. The camera may be connected via RJ45 or a WiFi connection.

    I've got it set to not allow remote connections, but you can control things remotely via port-forwarding on your h

  • What the fuck (Score:4, Insightful)

    by scumdamn ( 82357 ) on Monday March 09, 2015 @05:36PM (#49219343)

    is wrong with the comments section. We installed cameras around the house and ran the cables through the attic to the DVR in our closet. Houses in the neighborhood have been broken into and a car was stolen two doors down. We hope that having the cameras will deter crime and if they don't, we'll at least have footage. Our neighbor has a camera and it was very useful in catching some kids that burned down a bush in front of our house.

    What the fuck is up with the kneejerk reaction to an article that is just suggesting that you try to get the bad guy's faces rather than the top of their heads? That sounds like good advice.

    • by plover ( 150551 )

      What the fuck is up with the kneejerk reaction to an article that is just suggesting that you try to get the bad guy's faces rather than the top of their heads? That sounds like good advice.

      Too many jerks who froth at the mouth when they read a headline like this instead of reading the summary, or, god-forbid, the article itself. They remember being told something about 1984 being a totalitarian dystopia, and confusing it with their lives.

      Yes, we live in a camera state, and there are now even more hidden cameras than Orwell could have imagined would be possible. But no, not every camera is watched 24x7 by the Ministry of Truth. Not every camera's footage is available to the authorities on a wh

    • Re:What the fuck (Score:4, Interesting)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) * <mojo@worl d 3 . net> on Monday March 09, 2015 @06:11PM (#49219707) Homepage

      Two issues.

      Firstly, this scheme will only if the police are allowed to maintain their extensive facial recognition database that includes millions of innocent people. There has been some outrage over this database, that they were told to shut down, and which is unregulated. They are trying to generate some good PR for it by pointing out that people can benefit from it.

      Secondly, the police will abuse your cameras if they possibly can. If your neighbour gets robbed expect the police to demand footage from your cameras, just in case it is helpful. You might not mind the first few times, but it will get boring quickly. Worse, you will realise that they are trying to continue the build out of their extensive CCTV network, which has been resisted by the public and even politicians. Unable to install more cameras of their own, partly due to budget cuts, they do everything to get others to do their dirty work for them. For example, when granting licences to sell alcohol there is almost always a condition that the shop installs extensive CCTV monitoring of the street outside it, with views up and down the road. I know, I installed some of it.

  • Here in the US, violent crime has been falling for quite some time, and total crime as well. While every burglary is upsetting, and unfortunately few are prosecuted, is Britain so worried about it as to consider something that a lot of people would consider rather a damper on their daily lives? (A lot of people would be very self conscious doing ordinary dressing and sex with a camera in the room, even if they've taken measures to keep the data from getting out until a crime occurs.)

    I know that Americans ar

    • A lot of people would be very self conscious doing ordinary dressing and sex with a camera in the room, even if they've taken measures to keep the data from getting out until a crime occurs

      My cameras cover the downstairs living/dining/kitchen area and the upstairs hallway, and only activate during weekday work hours when I'm not at home. So unless my wife and I decide to skip work for a little Tuesday afternoon delight on the dining room table, it's not a problem. And even if we did, we could just throw a

  • by Chrisq ( 894406 ) on Monday March 09, 2015 @06:31PM (#49219911)
    SCORPION STARE
    • by garyok ( 218493 )
      So the camera's set up in the hall facing the front door and the end times have come. My sanity's being eroded by the eldritch horrors nibbling at my numinous being AND the parquet floor in my hallway's going to get scorched by my incinerating corpse when I try to see if that's the newspaper or the hand of a shambling lunatic poking through my letterbox..? Bloody typical.
  • I'll put up cameras to watch the police.
    • by mjwx ( 966435 )

      I'll put up cameras to watch the police.

      Where I live, that's 100% legal.

      I have a dash cam in my car and security cams at home (none are network accessible). I can record an officer who has pulled me over, entered my home or is in public (same rules as recording a private citizen). The only time it gets a little grey is when a private citizen has a reasonable expectation to privacy (I.E. in the bedroom, you cant record you two going at it without consent from both parties).

  • by BoRegardless ( 721219 ) on Monday March 09, 2015 @06:39PM (#49220007)

    Sounds a lot better to me.

  • For some reason the telescreen in the living-room was in an unusual position. Instead of being placed, as was normal, in the end wall, where it could command the whole room, it was in the longer wall, opposite the window. To one side of it there was a shallow alcove in which Winston was now sitting, and which, when the flats were built, had probably been intended to hold bookshelves. By sitting in the alcove, and keeping well back, Winston was able to remain outside the range of the telescreen, so far as si

  • And the reaction to it.

    Let's recap, shall we? There's a police spokes person who makes a suggestion to how to sensibly mount CCTV cams to actually provide usable footage of perpetrators. That's the core story here. But, well, let's face it, that's no story. So the story gets blown up to make it a story of an overzealous 1984-esque police state proponent that wants to put CCTVs in all our homes.

    So far, still no story. Let's imagine this was 1990. People would immediately go "fuck what? No, can't be, lemme se

  • Personal experience (Score:4, Interesting)

    by goodmanj ( 234846 ) on Monday March 09, 2015 @10:14PM (#49221617)

    So here's my story. My next-door neighbor is in prison, and is renting his house out to ex-con buddies so he can pay the property tax. This is not good for the neighborhood. Anyway, last year our house got robbed. Lost a Macbook and a bunch of other pawnable electronics. In response, I bought a couple of wireless webcams, and set them up to detect motion and stream images to a fileserver which was hidden way in the back of the TV cabinet. Behind the old Gamecube, I figured nobody's gonna dig that deep.

    Six months later, my house got broken into again. TV was stolen, an iPad, and the downstairs security camera. The thief stole the camera, but he didn't find the fileserver, which had some entertaining shots of him poking around the living room, spotting the camera, and rushing to unplug it. I printed off the frame that showed his face most clearly and gave it to the cops. The next day, the "Find My iPad" feature activated, pinpointing the iPad in my neighbor's house. I called the cops, they didn't really understand the tech and showed up three hours later and didn't find anything. But they did pass the security cam picture around the station, one of them recognized the guy (low-tech facial recognition), they hauled him in, and he had the iPad on him. He confessed to robbing our house twice, plus a half-dozen other houses around town. And he told the cops about the upstairs window high above the back stairs that we didn't notice was unlocked.

    So to those of you who say that in-home surveillance won't work because criminals are too stupid to show their faces, you're underestimating just how stupid criminals can be when heroin withdrawal is making their decisions for them. And to those of you who say that this is one step from Big Brother, the big difference is that it's *my* security camera, I can choose what to show the cops. And yes, I erase the images periodically just in case someone seizes or steals the file server.

  • by seoras ( 147590 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2015 @12:04AM (#49222179)

    I installed an IP Webcam in my mothers family home which is in the remote Scottish Hebrides.
    A local "entrepreneur" with "links" had been damaging boundary walls to try and get a through road to land he wanted to develop on.
    I set the camera up, inside the house looking out over our property, for security and as a deterrent.
    We had the police come round and demand that it be removed.
    We refused and luckily their timing was unfortunate for them as my uncle was present in the house when they turned up.
    He happened to be a court judge who, after identifying his profession, ended their demands with "Officer, I don't think so...".
    Some time later someone, in the night, painted the window in front of the camera.
    We also had a council notice served on us for re-errecting our wall.
    Apparently we needed planning to repair it even though the wall had been there for a few hundred years.
    That too got chucked out of court.
    I've seen and experienced too much of corruption at government level to trust a single thing that comes out that claims to be in our interests.
    Orwell was right and, sadly, will be proven so.
    "I've got nothing to hide" is sticking your head in the sand.
    "Security" is only being used to subvert us for the benefit of the hierarchy.

"We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company."

Working...