With all the anglophiles we seem to have in the present administration, one has to wonder how far away we are from something like this:
[url="http://www.nationalpost.com/news.asp?f=000330/246417"]http://www.nationalpost.com/news.asp?f=000330/246417[/url][/url]
Thursday, March 30, 2000
Britons under surveillance
A London commuter can be filmed 300 times on the journey to and from work
Carl Honore
National Post
LONDON - On a normal working day, Mandy Fisher sits in a darkened room and watches the people of Newham.
Her job is to monitor the 247 surveillance cameras that scan the streets of London's poorest borough, overseeing the activities of its citizens.
Such surveillance is now commonplace in Britain, whose people may be the most monitored in the Western world. But Newham is the first public authority anywhere to use software that enables a camera to recognize the faces of known criminals.
On a recent morning, Ms. Fisher, 33, twiddled the joystick on her keyboard, causing a camera to zoom in on a crowd of teenagers at a shopping mall two kilometres away.
"I wouldn't say we're guardian angels, but we make people more secure," she said, sizing up the youths. "We try to keep an eye on what's going on."
These days, Big Brother is watching not only Newham, but much of Britain.
There are more than one million surveillance cameras in the country recording the ebb and flow of daily life, and more are being added every week. Shopping districts, parking lots, elevators, buses, phone booths, even some public washrooms -- almost any public place is fair game for the prying eyes of the digital lens.
According to one study, the average commuter in London is now filmed 300 times on the journey to and from work. In Newham, cameras can trace every step you take from the subway station to the town hall, a distance of more than one-and-a-half kilometres.
But despite the obvious threat to personal privacy, many Britons seem not to mind living inside a version of The Truman Show. With crime rising, studies show surveillance cameras can curb law-breaking in town centres by more than 30%.
In Newham, a rough neighbourhood in east London, crime is at its lowest level in 20 years and the 12 worst criminals have moved someplace else. Rather than wringing their hands about Orwellian spying, the locals are clamouring for more cameras.
"People who talk about rights are usually on the side of the criminal," said Tracy Balwalla, a young mother. "If it's going to make the streets safer, then they can put up as many cameras as they want."
The control room for the Newham surveillance project looks like a TV production suite. Along one wall, screens ranged in rows show local people going about their business: shopping in the market, parking their cars, chatting on street corners, strolling through parks.
Around the clock, staff pan and zoom, searching for suspicious behaviour. Telephone hotlines link the centre with local police.
Every so often, an alarm sounds when the computer matches a face against its 100-strong database of known criminals. For now, though, the face-recognition software is basic and can only be linked to one camera at a time.
"You're not going to get every single crime, but you can make a difference," said Ms. Fisher.
Even the casual observer, though, can see the potential for abuse. On a whim, she could zoom in on a private yard or peer into someone's bedroom.
Unlike most Western countries, Britain has no laws on privacy, and statutory regulations for surveillance cameras are still being drawn up.
That leaves local councils to regulate themselves. In Newham, anyone caught playing Peeping Tom is fired on the spot.
"We're not trying to look over your shoulder, into your purse, into your private life -- we're just trying to look after you," said Bob Lack, a former policeman who runs the surveillance project.
"We're more your friendly uncle or aunt than we are your Big Brother."
Yet there are stirrings of unease. More Britons are asking whether enough is being done to police the people sitting behind the security cameras and whether there are too many cameras in the first place.
In much of continental Europe, where distrust of the state is more acute, the British penchant for surveillance is regarded with horror.
"The whole phenomenon is getting out of hand in Britain," said Stephen Waterman, a privacy advocate.
"If things carry on as they are, we'll lose all conception of what it feels like or what it means to walk down a street anonymously."
As face-recognition software grows more powerful, critics warn that images and data collected from surveillance cameras could be used for more than just law enforcement.
Already a supermarket in Edinburgh has been caught passing security footage to a marketing company. One local council released video images of a man preparing to commit suicide that were later screened on national TV.
"We want more debate about how much surveillance we really need and how it is to be regulated," said Liz Parratt, spokeswoman for Liberty, a human rights group. "Otherwise people may wake up in five or 10 years and wonder what kind of society they've created."
Some critics are starting to question how much crime security cameras really prevent. With so few operators monitoring so many cameras, unlawful deeds often slip through unnoticed. There is also evidence that video surveillance displaces, rather than eliminates, crime -- the smarter bad guys simply move their operations out of camera range.
Yet for British politicians and voters spooked by rising crime, the surveillance camera has become a talisman.
In Newham, the council plans to double the number of cameras on its streets to 500, and to equip 40 of them with the latest face-recognition software.
To most locals, the extra snooping seems a small price to pay for more peace of mind.
"Only people with something to hide have to worry about Big Brother," said Ross Anderton, a pensioner. "If you're an honest citizen, then you've nothing to fear, have you?"
[url="http://www.nationalpost.com/news.asp?f=000330/246417"]http://www.nationalpost.com/news.asp?f=000330/246417[/url][/url]
Thursday, March 30, 2000
Britons under surveillance
A London commuter can be filmed 300 times on the journey to and from work
Carl Honore
National Post
LONDON - On a normal working day, Mandy Fisher sits in a darkened room and watches the people of Newham.
Her job is to monitor the 247 surveillance cameras that scan the streets of London's poorest borough, overseeing the activities of its citizens.
Such surveillance is now commonplace in Britain, whose people may be the most monitored in the Western world. But Newham is the first public authority anywhere to use software that enables a camera to recognize the faces of known criminals.
On a recent morning, Ms. Fisher, 33, twiddled the joystick on her keyboard, causing a camera to zoom in on a crowd of teenagers at a shopping mall two kilometres away.
"I wouldn't say we're guardian angels, but we make people more secure," she said, sizing up the youths. "We try to keep an eye on what's going on."
These days, Big Brother is watching not only Newham, but much of Britain.
There are more than one million surveillance cameras in the country recording the ebb and flow of daily life, and more are being added every week. Shopping districts, parking lots, elevators, buses, phone booths, even some public washrooms -- almost any public place is fair game for the prying eyes of the digital lens.
According to one study, the average commuter in London is now filmed 300 times on the journey to and from work. In Newham, cameras can trace every step you take from the subway station to the town hall, a distance of more than one-and-a-half kilometres.
But despite the obvious threat to personal privacy, many Britons seem not to mind living inside a version of The Truman Show. With crime rising, studies show surveillance cameras can curb law-breaking in town centres by more than 30%.
In Newham, a rough neighbourhood in east London, crime is at its lowest level in 20 years and the 12 worst criminals have moved someplace else. Rather than wringing their hands about Orwellian spying, the locals are clamouring for more cameras.
"People who talk about rights are usually on the side of the criminal," said Tracy Balwalla, a young mother. "If it's going to make the streets safer, then they can put up as many cameras as they want."
The control room for the Newham surveillance project looks like a TV production suite. Along one wall, screens ranged in rows show local people going about their business: shopping in the market, parking their cars, chatting on street corners, strolling through parks.
Around the clock, staff pan and zoom, searching for suspicious behaviour. Telephone hotlines link the centre with local police.
Every so often, an alarm sounds when the computer matches a face against its 100-strong database of known criminals. For now, though, the face-recognition software is basic and can only be linked to one camera at a time.
"You're not going to get every single crime, but you can make a difference," said Ms. Fisher.
Even the casual observer, though, can see the potential for abuse. On a whim, she could zoom in on a private yard or peer into someone's bedroom.
Unlike most Western countries, Britain has no laws on privacy, and statutory regulations for surveillance cameras are still being drawn up.
That leaves local councils to regulate themselves. In Newham, anyone caught playing Peeping Tom is fired on the spot.
"We're not trying to look over your shoulder, into your purse, into your private life -- we're just trying to look after you," said Bob Lack, a former policeman who runs the surveillance project.
"We're more your friendly uncle or aunt than we are your Big Brother."
Yet there are stirrings of unease. More Britons are asking whether enough is being done to police the people sitting behind the security cameras and whether there are too many cameras in the first place.
In much of continental Europe, where distrust of the state is more acute, the British penchant for surveillance is regarded with horror.
"The whole phenomenon is getting out of hand in Britain," said Stephen Waterman, a privacy advocate.
"If things carry on as they are, we'll lose all conception of what it feels like or what it means to walk down a street anonymously."
As face-recognition software grows more powerful, critics warn that images and data collected from surveillance cameras could be used for more than just law enforcement.
Already a supermarket in Edinburgh has been caught passing security footage to a marketing company. One local council released video images of a man preparing to commit suicide that were later screened on national TV.
"We want more debate about how much surveillance we really need and how it is to be regulated," said Liz Parratt, spokeswoman for Liberty, a human rights group. "Otherwise people may wake up in five or 10 years and wonder what kind of society they've created."
Some critics are starting to question how much crime security cameras really prevent. With so few operators monitoring so many cameras, unlawful deeds often slip through unnoticed. There is also evidence that video surveillance displaces, rather than eliminates, crime -- the smarter bad guys simply move their operations out of camera range.
Yet for British politicians and voters spooked by rising crime, the surveillance camera has become a talisman.
In Newham, the council plans to double the number of cameras on its streets to 500, and to equip 40 of them with the latest face-recognition software.
To most locals, the extra snooping seems a small price to pay for more peace of mind.
"Only people with something to hide have to worry about Big Brother," said Ross Anderton, a pensioner. "If you're an honest citizen, then you've nothing to fear, have you?"
