anil [05.15.06 06:36 AM]

Great. This means i get to see Banksy-disciples do overnight graffiti live from my sofa.

Of course the scope for illicit graffiti in the area is completely diminished by the community policing this is going to encourage.

It's easy to see this as Orwellian, but no new surveillance cameras have been added as far as i can tell. It could be seen as a shift in policing policy to a mass 'moderation' strategy, where any residential 'moderator' can at any moment pick up on anti-social activity and notify the 'admins' (police).

Just another take on the situation. I still find it kind of creepy though, and i start working in the area next week!

  Shawn [05.15.06 06:59 AM]

The previous commenter makes a good point: London, even with all of its recent creepiness, still seems like a walk in the park compared to Beijing (or any other city in China for that matter).

  John Wilger [05.15.06 10:08 AM]

The difference between this and an Orwellian nightmare is that this system allows the general public to monitor the surveilance rather than keeping it exclusive to a secret government organization. Given that camera surveilance, good or bad, is probably inevitable; I'd much rather it be something that can be viewed by everyone rather than just the government. This way, it can help prevent crime on _both_ sides of the badge.

  Simon Cozens [05.15.06 12:19 PM]

Quote from a friend in Shoreditch: "I have one of those. It's called a window."

  Londoner [05.15.06 02:35 PM]

Hmm, spy on your neighbours, sounds like Soviet London. "This way, it can help prevent crime on _both_ sides of the badge", anybody who lives in London knows police only come out to tackle hate crime(basically anything that upsets a government decided "minority" even if they are the majority in that area). Try calling them to tell them someone is being mugged, raped, etc you can expect a long wait.

"The previous commenter makes a good point: London, even with all of its recent creepiness, still seems like a walk in the park compared to Beijing (or any other city in China for that matter)."

Yep, just wait for a few more terror attacks and a couple of prime time shows about how the Allah Akbar 'put your brotherhood name here' Terror Group used the internet and radical websites and then the digital wall will be put up.

Face it the more terror that happens the more power we hand over to the government, and when the government has all our power we are in a dictatorship.

So who gains? Our governments grow stronger with each terror attack.
So why does the government want to stop terror? Well it's actually in their own interest to create terror attacks to point the finger to an outside source (the perfect tool of manipulation).

I recommend all people who value freedom(real freedom, not government rationed "freedom") read http://www.prisonplanet.com/ and watch http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6495462761605341661&q=alex%2Bjones%2Bmartial%2Blaw&pl=true
10 years ago Alex Jones was just another "conspiracy theorist" but he's no prophet and everything he has said has come to pass.

  Fantom Planet [05.15.06 04:02 PM]

I think there's a trend emerging from Web 2.0, it the role reversal of Big Brother.

It's not the CIA or others totalitarian regimes in the West you should fear, rather those with tin-foil hats. They're now building the sensor webs, the RFID tags, the location-based services, and virtual worlds. So, should common folk now be afraid of those with tin-foil on their heads?

I'm not sure.

We'll just have to see where this trend goes.

  Paul Robinson [05.16.06 02:25 AM]

This is how it starts. Orwellian visions will not become reality overnight in one great big bloody, revolutionary, leap - they will be built in small, piece by piece increments, put together over many, many decades, until eventually life feels like a boot stamping on our face over and over again.

I live about 180 miles away from London in Manchester. Within a 1-mile radius of my flat (in M1) there are over 400 police-controlled CCTV cameras, and probably over 2,000 privately operated cameras. If I go out for a walk around my neighbourhood, I'm going to be 'seen' by many of them. In the UK, the average person will be picked up on camera 300 times a day, even if they live in relatively suburban areas.

Does it cut down on crime? A little. Drink-related violent crime has dropped in Manchester on a Friday night, but theft, rape, murder, gun-related violence haven't shifted much. Britain accepts it though - shrugs it off. Why? Well, we don't care about serious crime any more because we realise it doesn't happen to us personally on a regular basis.

Our instinct to behave have like self-interested bigots means we have an obsession with 'anti-social behaviour' that is utterly insane. The Economist had an article on it this week that argues this is because Brits are unwilling to involve themselves personally in stopping a crime (requires a paid sub unfortunately): http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_GJTJTVG

This TV idea is just another way of being able to satisfy the crack-cocaine like addiction to fretting over anti-social behaviour, whilst allowing mild-mannered Britains to not have to be involved other than phoning the police every time somebody drops a piece of chewing gum. Typically British, typically Orwellian, and I for one am fed up of it. I may well consider moving to France: those guys know how to live. :-)

  Greg Zumbiel [05.18.06 02:25 PM]

With four hundred cameras to pick from, how do we know that all of them are being covered? How do you insure that everyone isn't in the can when a truely horrendous crime is committed?
How much do I get paid to watch and report on my fellows?
From 6 am to 6 pm everyone who's name begins with an odd letter (A,C,E, etc) watches the cameras. From 6 pm to 6 am, everyone whose name begins with an even letter watches the cameras.
I can think of a few things I'd rather be doing. And I don't care who watches.
Peace