SURVEILLANCE REACTION

I am flattered that Boston blogger Brian Kane took a close interest in my Washington Monthly article on surveillance in the UK. He wasn’t entirely pleased–“I think Malanowski too readily dismisses the potential for significant abuse with the argument that there’s no centralization of all these surveillance systems at the moment,” he writes, and who am I to say he’s wrong? I certainly hope that people don’t let down their guard on the basis of my recommendation. But Kane adds to the discussion by citing new developments. First, “British company called Internet Eyes wants to launch a service where ordinary people are given access to the literally millions of CCTV feeds from all around the U.K. so that they can spend their time looking for people doing illegal things. The money is made by charging the people who own the closed-circuit cameras for this “service”, and the viewers are incented by a monthly £1000 prize given to the person who spots the most actual crimes being committed.” As Brian points out, here is a company that “demonstrates EXACTLY how they can all be linked up through their business model, and even offers to “crowdsource” the necessary manpower to create a much more active and coordinated surveillance.” Second, Brian cites a report that appeared in The Telegraph last week “that CCTV cameras are being fitted inside family homes by council ‘snoopers’ to spy on neighbours in the street outside, it was revealed today. The £1,000 security cameras have been placed inside properties but are trained on the streets to gather evidence of anti-social behaviour. Each device is linked to a laptop computer and accessible online by police and council officials 24 hours a day.” Good points, Brian, thanks, and thanks also to Bennett Gordon, who cited my article in a piece he wrote for The Utne Reader.