an inventory and evaluation of cctv internet crowd - pact project

An Inventory andEvaluation of CCTVInternetCrowd-sourcing

The Privacy & SecurityResearch Paper Series

issue #4

The Privacy & Security - Research Paper Series

Edited by Centre for Science, Society & Citizenship Co-edited by Uppsala University - Department of Informatics and Media ISSN 2279-7467

An Inventory and Evaluation of CCTV Internet Crowd-sourcing Author: Daniel Trottier Research Paper Number # 4 Date of Publication: 15 December, 2012 Acknowledgement: The research presented in this paper was conducted in the project “PACT – Public Perception of Security and Privacy: Assessing Knowledge, Collecting Evidence, Translating Research into Action”, funded by EU FP7 SECURITY, grant agreement no. 285635

This paper is an output of PACT’s Work Package 1 “Root and Branch Review” All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing from the Centre for Science, Society and Citizenship. Download and print of the electronic edition for non commercial teaching or research use is permitted on fair use grounds. Each copy should include the notice of copyright. Source should be acknowledged. © 2013 PACT

http://www. projectpact.eu

The Privacy & Security Research Paper Series, Issue # 4 1

An Inventory and Evaluation of CCTV Internet Crowd-sourcing

Daniel Trottier

Abstract:Thispaperintroducesthephenomenonofcrowd‐sourcedsurveillanceofCCTVfootagethroughonlineplatforms.Whilecamera‐basedsurveillanceinpublicandprivatespacesisalongstandingconcernforacademics,policymakersandthepublic,themigrationofCCTV footageonlineraises furtherethicalandsociologicalconcerns, inaddition toamplifyingexistingconcerns.Afterconsidering theconceptualoriginsof the termcrowd‐sourcing, thispaperexplores fourexamplesofcrowd‐sourcingCCTV footagethroughonlineplatforms.Followingthis,thispaperevaluatesthesecurity,privacy,andpoliticaleconomicimpactoftheseschemes,drawingfromexistingliteratureonCCTVsurveillance.

Keywords:Surveillance,CCTV,Internet,Privacy,Crowd‐sourcing,DigitalMedia

Shortbiographyoftheauthor:DanielTrottier isapostdoctoral fellow intheDepartmentof Infor‐maticsandMediaatUppsalaUniversity,Sweden,whereheisinvolvedintwoEuropeanUnionprojectsonsecurityandsocialmedia.HepreviouslyheldapostdoctoralfellowshipintheDepartmentofSoci‐ologyattheUniversityofAlberta,andobtainedhisPhDinSociologyatQueen'sUniversity,Canada.Heis theauthorof thebook “SocialMediaas Surveillance,”publishedbyAshgate, aswellasnumerousarticlesonthesociologyofdigitalandsocialmedia.


1. Introduction

ThispaperintroducesCCTVInternetcrowd‐sourcing,explainingtherelevanceandimportanceof thistopic inthebroadercontextofprivacyandInternetsurveillance.Surveillance is typically a top down process: someone with a special designationoversees a broader and comparatively powerless population. The guard tower orBenthamianpanopticonisanoft‐usedimageryforinstitutionalsurveillanceandcon‐trol(Foucault1977),yettheCCTVcameraisamorepervasiveinstrumentforwatch‐ing.ResearchonCCTVinparticularsuggeststhatthiskindofsurveillancehasdamag‐ingeffectsforbothindividualsandcivicsociety(NorrisandArmstrong1999).Othertypesofsurveillancesuggestapotentiallevelling,orbalancingofpower.The

concept of participatory surveillance refers to the way mobile and domesticatedtechnologies enable greater control over visibility and exposure (Albrechtslund2008).Sousveillancesuggeststhatcitizenscanevenreversethegazebackonthoseinpower (Mann et al. 2003). Both models argue that there is a democratization ofwatching,inthattoolsforwatchingaremorefreelyavailable.Theclaimisthatmak‐ingsurveillancetechnologyavailabletothepublichasthepotentialof levellingvisi‐bilityandpromotinggoodcitizenship.Astechnologybecomesfreelyavailable,itcanbeusedtoshedlightonstateandinstitutionalinjustice.Likeconventional,top‐downsurveillance,itcanalsobesubjecttoabuse.Butathemethatunderliesconceptsandapproaches that stress the domestication of surveillance technologies is that thiscouldpresentacounter‐forcetostate‐sanctionederosionsofprivacy.Yet theseeffortsdonotdisplaceabusiveaspectsofstateandothertotalizingsur‐

veillance.Thelatterareremarkablyeffectiveatcapitalizingontheformer(GallowayandThacker2007).Thisfollowsabroadertrendof“crowd‐sourcing”,whereasinglecompany can harness the effort of collective, scattered individuals. In surveillance,thiscanmostclearlybeseenwiththeriseofcompaniesthattakeadvantageofcrowd‐sourcingfortheanalysisofCCTVfootageovertheInternet.ByreleasingCCTVfeedstoalargecrowdofusers,companiesthatmanagethesesystemscanmanageagreatersurveillanceofsociallife,ataminimalcost.Further,crowd‐sourcingposesanumberofprivacyandsecurityissues,inthatvideoinformationaboutindividualsisleakedonanever‐expandingnetworkofservers,homecomputers,andmobiledevices.

2. Crowd-sourcing

This section draws on industry literature to explain crowd‐sourcing. It also pro‐videsconcreteexamplesof crowd‐sourcingbeyond therealmofCCTV Internetsur‐veillance.Indoingso,ithighlightskeyfeaturesofthissystem,andpointstotheriseofcrime‐basedandfor‐profitbasedcrowd‐sourcingontheInternet.Crowd‐sourcing is a processwhere non‐professionals (hobbyists, or those other‐

wisemotivatedbyintrinsicmeasures)engageinacollaborativeprojectforlittletonofinancial compensation. Large crowds of non‐specialized individuals now performactivitiesthatwouldotherwisebereservedtoaskilledfewwithprofessionaldesigna‐tion.Havingsomuchproductivityfromsomanypeopleatanaffordablecostmakes


the loss inexpertise aminor setback.Thisdefinition involves three factors, orpre‐conditions:

First,apoolofmotivatedandquasi‐skilledlabourers. Second,technologiesthatallowcollaboration.ThisoftenincludestheInternet,asitoffersan inexpensiveway for largeamountsofpeople toaccessandshare infor‐mation.

Third,akindofrewardsystemthatdrivesthelabourpool.Thismaysimplybein‐trinsic, as people choose to collaborate in crowd‐sourced projects that interestthem.Butextrinsicmonetaryrewardsmayalsobeinvolved,evenifthesearemi‐nortothepointofbeingtokenistic.Crowd‐sourcingasatermemergedinaculturalcontextthatcelebratedthesocial

virtuesof freelyavailable technologies. It is associatedwith the riseofWeb2.0, anInternet based movement that celebrates user‐generated content. Crowd‐sourcingprojects have beenwell received in themainstreammedia and industry literature.This is for two reasons. First, it allows non‐professionals to engage in the kind ofwork they purportedly enjoy, as well as gain some degree of recognition for thiswork.Amateurhobbyistsare leaving theirbasements, and loggingon to their com‐puterstocollaboratewithlike‐mindedpeers.Second,crowd‐sourcingallowscompa‐nies to receive a free – or very cheap – pool of labour. Business literature (Howe2008,Surowiecki2004)hasextolledthevirtuesoftheseschemes,makingitclearthatit is ‘the next big thing’ for companies. In his book TheWisdom of Crowds, JamesSurowieckiclaims,“undertherightcircumstances,groupsareremarkablyintelligent,and are often smarter than the smartest people in them” (2004, xiii). Likewise JeffHowe,acontributingeditoratWiredmagazine,describescrowd‐sourcingasasocialphenomenoninhisbookCrowd‐sourcing:“Overthepastseveralyearspeoplefromaroundtheworldhavebegunexhibitinganalmost totallyunprecedented socialbehavior: theyare coming together toperformtasks,usually for littleornomoney, thatwereonce thesoleprovinceofemployees”(2008,8).

Basedontheseaccounts,crowd‐sourcingwillpotentially impacteveryindustryandsocialsector.Crowd‐sourcingoriginatesintheopensourceandfreesoftwaremovement(ibid.).

TheoperatingsystemLinuxandtheOpenOfficesoftwaresuite(that framesitselfasanalternativetoMicrosoft’sOfficesoftware)areboththeproductofalargegroupofworkers.Theyarebothfreelyavailableforthisreason,andthisfactcontributestothecelebrationofcrowd‐sourcing,evenamongfor‐profitbusinesses.Wikipediaisanoth‐erprominentexampleofcrowd‐sourcedfreeworktoproduceafreeservice, inthiscase, a universal encyclopaedia. The transition to for‐profit crowd‐sourcing camewithschemeslikeAmazon’sMechanicalTurk.Itdescribesitselfasa“marketplaceforwork” (AmazonMechanical Turk. https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome). It al‐lows“workers”tobecompensatedforperformingsimpletasksattheircomputerthat


cannotbeautomated.The labour conditionsare framedasa flexible, and thereforedesirable for workers. Yet on the same page it markets its services (in this case,crowd‐sourced human cognition) to businesses, claiming “access to a global, on‐demand,24x7workforce”(ibid.).Inalabourcontext,thisissituatedasaresponsetooutsourcing.Ratherthansendjobstoanothercountry,thesetasksare“virtualized”.Insteadofonepaidworker, the labour isdividedamongan innumerableamountoffreeornear‐freeworkers.ThedifferencebetweenAmazonMechanicalTurkandWik‐ipedia,OpenOfficeandLinuxisthattheformerisafor‐profitcrowd‐sourcing.Crowd‐sourcing tookona criminal justicenaturewith the riseofBlueservo.This

projectwasfirstproposedin2006withtheintentionofcrowd‐sourcingthepolicingoftheTexasregionoftheUS‐Mexicoborder.Itisdescribedas“designedtoempowerthe public to proactively participate in fighting border crime” (BlueServo.http://www.blueservo.net/).Theyalsoemphasize the fact that this isa freeserviceforusers.Thisspecificcrowd‐sourcingeffort ispresentedasnotonlyaresponsetothedemandsofthebroaderpublic,butonethatisadditionallyattractivetothemastheydonothave topay towatchoverCCTV feeds.Here, crowd‐sourcing intersectswiththemediacultureofcrime‐basedrealityshowslikeCrimewatchandAmerica’sMostWanted,whichmadeappealstotheiraudiencesforpersonalinformationaboutsuspects.

3. CCTV Crowd-sourcing

CCTVCrowd‐sourcingreferstoascheme,whereusers,whoaregeographicallydis‐persed,monitorCCTVfootagefromtheirrespectivecomputers.Theseschemesusual‐lyhaveakindofrewardsystemasincentive.ThissectionconsidersfourexamplesofCCTVcrowd‐sourcinginEurope.Theseex‐

amplesarelargelybasedintheUK.GiventhatCCTVhasacomparativelylengthyhis‐toryandisextensivelyusedintheUK(NorrisandArmstrong1999),thisfocusisrea‐sonable.TheriseofInternetcrowd‐sourcingasawaytomanageCCTVfootagegivesindicationoftrendsarisingintherestofEurope.Eachofthefourexamplesissituatedinadistinctcontext.

CrimeStoppersUKfollowsfromatraditionofpoliceandrelatedorganizationsmak‐ingappealstothepublicforinformation,forinstance,oncrime‐basedrealitytele‐vision(FishmanandCanvender1998).

Facewatchalsosolicitsinformationaboutcriminalevents,butisframedmoreasaserviceforbusinesses,andalsofosteringapartnershipbetweenkeystakeholders.

Internet Eyes also emphasizes a partnership between crowd‐sourced users andbusinesses.Italsoextendssurveillancefurtherbybroadcastingfeeds,andrelyingonuserstoidentifycriminalevents.

Finally,ShoreditchDigitalBridgetreatsCCTVlikea“fifthutility”(Graham2002)bycrowd‐sourcingneighbourhoodCCTVtoresident’sbroadbandTV.


3.1. CrimeStoppers UK

Figure1:CrimeStopperswantedpage(DataSource:http://wanted.crimestoppers‐

uk.org/detail.aspx?ID=44717)

The first example of crowd‐sourced CCTV surveillance on the Internet is

CrimeStoppers UK (http://www.crimestoppers‐uk.org). This site first emerged in2005.Thisisnotasitethatisexclusivelydedicatedtocrowd‐sourcedCCTVsurveil‐lance.However,itmakespublicappealsthatincludeCCTVfootage.Thisisawebsitewhere individuals can provide information about known suspects. CrimeStoppersprovides informationaboutsuspectsontheirwebsite,andthis includesstill imagesfromCCTV. Footage is therefore transformed into images,which highlight relevantmomentsandareeasiertodistribute.Theconversionfromvideofootagetostillim‐ageswould appear necessary in themid‐2000s, as high‐speed andmobile Internetwerenotasprevalent.Uponviewingthiscontent,individualscanlogintoanonlineforumwheretheycansubmitinformation.Aswiththeexamplesbelow,theInternetisnotonlyalocationwherefootageislocated,butthewebsiteisalsothelocationthatdrawsattentionbyintroducinguserstotheservice.TheInternetisboththelocationwhere CrimeStoppers make appeals to citizens over CCTV footage, and where thecrowdprovidesvaluableinformationaboutsuspectedcriminals.CrimeStoppersUKisanindependentcharity.Itacceptsanonymoustips,andoffers

rewardsofupto£1,000ifasuspectisarrestedandcharged.Atthispoint,theanony‐mous user has to provide personal information, including their name and bankinginformation.CrimeStoppersalsosolicitsdonationsfromcorporationsandindividuals,ostensibly to their operation costs. CrimeStoppers UK justifies the crowd‐sourced


surveillanceofCCTVfootagethroughtheclaimthatthiskindofsurveillancereducescrime:“Webelievethatpeopleandtheircommunitieshavetherighttolivewithoutcrimeandwithoutthefearofcrime.Whencrimedoestakeplace,webelievethatanybodywhoknowsthoseresponsibleshouldgotothepolice.However,manypeoplewhowanttotakeactionareclosetothecriminalandfearretribution.CrimeStoppersof‐fersthesecuremeansforthemtogetthatinformationtothepolice,makingtheirfamiliesandcommunitiessafer.”(CrimeStoppers,HowWeHelp.http://www.crimestoppers‐uk.org/how‐we‐help)

CrimeStopperspromotestheefficacyofthiskindofsurveillancewithanarrayoffig‐uresontheirwebsite,includingthefactthattwenty‐threepeoplearearrestedeveryday as a result of their service (CrimeStoppers, Facts and Figures,http://www.crimestoppers‐uk.org/how‐we‐help/our‐achievements/facts‐and‐figures).ThepressisgenerallysupportiveofCrimeStoppers,especiallybecauseofitsfocusonhighprofileincidents.Ithasrecentlybeenusedinconjunctionwiththemur‐der of a 77‐year oldwoman inBewdley (BirminghamMail.net, Crimestoppers offer£10,000 reward in hunt for killer of Betty Yates. January 24, 2012.http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top‐stories/2012/01/24/crimestoppers‐offer‐10‐000‐reward‐in‐hunt‐for‐killer‐of‐betty‐yates‐97319‐30184915/), aswell asthemurderofapoliceofficer’sparentsinBirmingham(TheExpress,£10,000tocatchkiller of policeman’s parents. January 14, 2012.http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/295567). CrimeStoppers is presented in thepressasanadditionalresourcetobeusedwhenpolicearepresentedwithadifficultcase.Withclosedcases,itispresentedasaservicethatwashelpfulintheinvestiga‐tion.


Figure2.SubmissionformonCrimeStopperswebsite(Datasource:https://secure.crimestoppers‐

uk.org/ams.form.anonymous.asp)


3.2. Facewatch

Figure3:Facewatchdiagram(Datasource:http://facewatch.co.uk/cms/how‐does‐it‐work/) Thetrendtoidentifycriminalsinanetworkedonlineenvironmentcontinueswith

Facewatch(http://facewatch.co.uk).Foundedin2010,FacewatchispresentedasafreeservicebasedintheUKdesignedforbusinessestocombatlow‐levelcrime.ItwaslaunchedbySimonGordon,whowantedtouseCCTVtolowertheamountoftheftsinhisLondonwinebar.Whilethisisapublicservicethatsolicitsmemberships,itspecif‐icallytargetsbusinesses,groupsandthepolice.Itseekstoformanetworkamongthesesocialactorsinordertoquicklyshareinformationaboutcriminalsamongthem.Assuch,Facewatchhasmoreofaninstitutionalfocus,ratherthanenrollingpublicindividualsascrowd‐sourcedagents.Yetindividualsmayberegisteredasemployedbyabusinessorasamemberofagroup.Facewatchisbuiltonthepremiseofsharinginformationwithabroader,dispersedpublicinordertoidentifysuspects.Thereisnorewardforlabour.Facewatchismarketedasafreeserviceforbusi‐

nesses,crimewatchgroupsandpolice.Yettheyalsosellmembershipsonafixedpric‐ingplan(Facewatch,JoinToday.http://facewatch.co.uk/cms/join‐today/),andsolicitsponsorshipstocoveroperatingcosts.Onceabusinessisregisteredonasite,theyareabletosubmitcontent.Followingacriminalevent,memberssubmitinformation,in‐cludingCCTVvideofootageandstills,tothesite’sservers.Atthispoint,thiscontentissharedwithbusinesses,groupsandpolice.


Facewatchpresentsitselfasreducingcrimeandalsoenablingbusinessestomakeapublicstatementthattheywillnottoleratecrime.Italsoclaimstobenefitthepolicebyprovidinginformationaswellascloserrelationswithbusinessesandthepublic:

“Ourvisionistocreatesafercommunitieswherecrimeisnottolerated.Wewillachievethisbyunitingbusiness,thepublicandthepoliceinpartnershipsusingtech‐nologyandwewilltacklethecausesofcrimebyworkingandinvestinginpeopleandprojectsdesignedtoeducate,trainandmentorthosewhohavelimitedopportunities”(Facewatch,OurVision.http://facewatch.co.uk/cms/our‐vision/).

Here, the idea of crowd‐sourcing/networking is a “uniting” move, which suggestsgreaterandmoretargetedexchangeof informationbyconvergingformerlydiscretesocialactors.AswithCrimeStoppers,Facewatch’scrowd‐sourcingofCCTVcontentontheInter‐

net is exclusively framedas fighting crime.This representation is also found in themedia.MostmediacoveragefocusesonGordon’sentrepreneurialinitiative,aswellasthefactthatFacewatchhasadirectimpactonhandbagtheftsinbars:“MoreaccustomedtosourcingagoodcaseofMerlotthanfightingcrime,theownerofthe establishment that claims to be London's oldestwine bar startedworking onFacewatchtwoyearsagoafterbecoming frustratedat findingthesamebagthievesappearing repeatedly on his CCTV cameras” (The Times, Bar owner leads digitaldrivetofoilbagsnatchers.June25,2011).Facewatch has received favourable press coverage, claiming it is expanding be‐

causeofsuccess.Gordonisquotedasclaimingthat“[t]he systemmeans a huge reduction in police time.At present police have to goroundtobusinessesandpickuptheCCTVandthenspendhourstrawlingthroughittogettherelevantclip.ThisbridgesthegapbetweenCCTVoperatedbybusinessesandthepolice. It isahugesaving in time for thepoliceandus”(TheEveningStandard,Online CCTV system goes nationwide after slashing thefts in city. September 23,2011. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article‐23990346‐online‐cctv‐system‐goes‐nationwide‐after‐slashing‐thefts‐in‐city.do).

Thus,GordonclaimsthatthemonotonoustaskofsortingthroughhoursofCCTVfoot‐ageiscrowd‐sourced,leavingthepolicetoconcentrateonotherefforts.ThepresspresentFacewatchasanefficientwaytotargetlow‐levelcrimeincom‐

mercialcentres.Thereis littleconcernoverprivacyassociatedwithit.Interestingly,even privacy advocacy groups endorse Gordon’s initiative. UK‐based Big BrotherWatchoffersthefollowing:

“FromBigBrotherWatch'spointofview,oneofthemostattractiveelementsofthesystemwasthatitremovestheneedforCCTVoperatorstohandovereithervastreelsofvideotapeorCDstothePolicewhichareultimately lostduetoofficererror. In‐deed,theproblemofaccidentaldatalossbypoliceforcehasbeenhighlightedonthisblogtwiceinthelastweek.Similarly,wewerecomfortedbythepledgesmadebythedevelopertoworkcloselywiththeInformationCommissionerinordertoensuredata


protectionconcernsaretakenintoconsiderationasitisrolledoutacrossthecountry.AtBigBrotherWatch,wealwayscautiousabouttheways inwhichCCTV footage isused,yetitcertainlyseemsthatFacewatchistakingastepintherightdirectionwhenitcomes tousing technology to secureconvictionswhileat the same timeensuringthattheprivacyofinnocentmembersofthepublicisprotected”(BigBrotherWatch,Facewatch.http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home/2011/02/facewatch.html).

WhileCCTVfootageandstillimagesareonlysharedbetweenagreedbusinessgroupsandpolice,itisstill inasemi‐publicnetwork,whichheightenstheriskofthisinfor‐mationleakingbeyondintendedrecipients.

Bymaking a pledge to secure data, Big BrotherWatch presents Facewatch as amoresecurealternativetotherelianceonCCTVoperators.MuchlikeCrimewatchUK,thefocusoncrimefacilitatestheexpansionofcrowd‐sourcedCCTVsurveillanceovertheInternet.

3.3. Internet Eyes

Figure4:InternetEyeshomepage(Datasource:http://Interneteyes.co.uk/)

Other surveillance schemes extend from anti‐crime rhetoric, but incorporate a

points system as incentive for watchers. Internet Eyes (http://interneteyes.co.uk/)actsasanintermediarybetweenbusinessesthatneedpersonneltosortthroughtheirCCTVfootage,andindividualswhowanttoworkinthisarea.Quotingthesite:“Inter‐netEyes isanonlinemonitoringsolution,allowingourregisteredmemberstoviewliveCCTVcamerafeedsfromourBusinessCustomers,andnotifythemtheinstantacrimeisobserved”(InternetEyes.http://interneteyes.co.uk/).Thisserviceismoreexplicitaboutbeingabusiness.Customersarebusinesseslike

shop‐ownerswhosignup tohavea crowdof individualswatchover their shopvia


CCTV footage that is live‐streamedover the Internet.This costsbusinesses£75permonth.IndividualsincludeanycitizenfromEU/EEAcountries,aswellanycountrieswithadatasharingagreementwiththeEU. Individualsarerequiredtopayamem‐bership fee for legal reasons.Membership feesstartsat£1.99permonth,but therearediscountsforquarterlyandannualsubscriptions.Viewersarefinanciallycompen‐satedforviewing,especiallyiftheydetectcrime.Thereisapointsystem,whereusersreceivepointsdirectlyfrombusinesses.Individualsreceive10pointsiftheyalertthebusiness toa crime,1point if theyactongood faith,butnocrime isdetected, andthey lose2points if thebusinessbelieves that individualsprovideda falseormali‐ciousalert.Whilethepointsystemisawayofmanagingrelationsbetweenbusinessesand individuals, InternetEyesoffersa£1000 rewardeverymonth to theuserwiththehighestamountofpoints.Italsooffersmonthlypaymentsbasedontheamountofhours a viewer is engaged. For every thirty hours of viewing, the user gets £0.50(http://interneteyes.co.uk//community/), which amounts to an hourly ‘wage’ of£0.017. This amount goes up to £1.00 for 45 hours, and £1.50 for 60 hours. CCTVfeedsaretransferredfromthestore’scamerastothesite’sservers,atwhichpointitisencryptedand thenaccessedby theuser.Feeds fromall clientsare combined, ran‐domizedandanonymised.Usershave four feeds at once,which they can refreshatanypointtoobtainnewfeeds.Otherwise,newfeedswillbeselectedafteraperiodoftime.InternetEyesisdirectedagainstshoplifting.Basedonhowitpresentsitself,aswell

ashowitsusersdescribeit,InternetEyesislessaboutfightingcrimeasasocialprob‐lem,andmoreaboutlosspreventionasanuisance.Thisshiftinfocusmarksabanali‐zationofCCTV footage, as it is associatedwith lessviolent crimes.Moreover,usersarenotlookingatexceptionalstillsorfootage,butrathercontinuouslylookingovermundane footage in real‐time, with the hope of identifying something of concern.Thus, the task of identifying keymoments from the vastmajority of uninterestingcontentiscrowd‐sourcedtousers.


Figure5:InternetEyesdiagram(DataSource:http://interneteyes.co.uk/business/)

InternetEyesalsomaintainsaFacebookgroup,wherethecompanypromotesnew

features and publicity, and users discuss the company and occasionally raise com‐plaints (Facebook, Internet Eyes. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Internet‐Eyes/108455634071). User complaints include technical issues like cameras notloading,aswellasproblemswithnegativefeedbackfromshopkeepers.Oneuserre‐ports:“Abitdissapointedgotmyfirstnegativefeedback:(Isawanincedentwithagentelmanoncrutchesatthedooroftheshop;heseemedtohaveproblemesandno‐bodywas takinganynotice so I alerted . Later I saw therewasanambulancemantherewithhim,sosomethinghadhappend.Wellthealertturnedoutnegative.Sniff”(Facebook,InternetEyes,messagepostedFebruary7,2012).Thisforumalsocontainscommentsaboutshoppers’behaviourandappearance.Oneusercommentsonpoorshopperetiquette:“wouldn'tyouthinkthatifyouknocksomethingoffashelfwhendoingyourshopping,youmightpickitup?Grrrr”(InternetEyesFacebook,messageposted on February 6, 2012). This same user polices how shoppers are dressed:“Brrrr.......someoneshoppingwearingshorts!Everyoneelseinbootsandcoats!”(Fa‐cebook, Internet Eyes, message posted on February 6, 2012). The combination ofcrowd‐sourcedCCTVand socialmedia givesusers a venue to observepeople (whoareunawarethattheyareunderwatch),andreporttheirbehaviourtoalargecrowd.Even if theydonot identify thesepeoplebyname, their personaldetails leak frombeingcapturedoncamera,tohavingthatfootagesenttoanInternetEyesuser,whothentalksabouttheirbehaviourorappearanceonapublicforum.


InternetEyespresentsitselfasaninvaluableservicetoshopkeepers,anditsweb‐site contains testimonials fromshopkeepers.Citing the fact thathe is alreadyover‐whelmedbymaintaininghisshop,KamleshPatel isreassuredbytheservice,claim‐ing: “we know that somebody out there is looking after our shop” (Internet Eyes,Business.http://interneteyes.co.uk/business/#IET).AsofFebruary6,2012,InternetEyes had over 7000 subscribers for roughly seventy businesses (DW.de. InternetEyes: Community Surveillance – Shift, February 6, 2012.http://www.dw.de/dw/episode/9798/0,,15676531,00.html).AlthoughInternetEyeshasmanysupportersamongitsuserbaseandinthemedia,ithasalsoelicitedcontro‐versyandsanctions.TheUKInformationCommissioner’sOfficeorderedthecompanyto take better measures when footage from their site was leaked onto YouTube.“CCTVfootageshouldnotenduponYouTubewhenitshowssomeonesimplyoutdo‐ing their shopping. A person’s CCTV image is their personal data,” reports deputycommissionerDavidSmith (ITPro, CCTVService InternetEyesForced IntoPrivacyChanges. June14,2011.http://www.itpro.co.uk/634201/cctv‐service‐internet‐eyes‐forced‐into‐privacy‐changes).Notonlydoesthiscomplaintidentifyaperson’simageaspersonaldata,itmakesreferencetotheeasewithwhichinformationthatismeanttobehandledinaprofessionalmannercanleaktoothercontexts.Thesurveillanceofnon‐shoplifting individuals is also highlighted as a privacy risk. JamesWelch, legaldirectorofthecivillibertiesorganizationLibertyquestionsprofessionalismofcrowd‐sourced operators as a condition. Thoseunderwatch shouldbe assured of this: "Ifwe'regoingtohavesomanyCCTVcamerasinthiscountry,thenweneedtobereas‐suredthatthey'rebeingoperatedprofessionally”(BBCNews,WhoiswatchingyouonCCTV? November 27, 2010.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/9232158.stm).

InternetEyeshasalsoreceivedtheattentionofthecivillibertiesgroupBigBrotherWatch.Thisgroupalsoexpressesconcernsoverprivacy,describingInternetEyesas“a rather, well, creepy projectwhich allows voyeurs sitting in their living room towatch CCTV networks and report people suspected of committing crimes for cashrewards” (Big Brother Watch, New privacy concerns about Internet Eyes.http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home/2011/03/new‐privacy‐concerns‐about‐internet‐eyes.html).Theyalsoraiseconcerns thatusers,whoareoutsideof theUK,arenotboundbynationaldataprotectionlaws.Ineffect,thesewatchersare“outsideofthelaw”(ibid.)Thecomparativelynegativepublicpresshascompelledsomebusi‐nessestocanceltheirsubscription.JinxHundal,whoownsseveralBudgensfoodre‐tailers,stoppedusingitinthreestoresinNorwich,stating“Ihavespokentocustom‐ers […] there have been concerns raised,with customers saying theywere uneasyabout being viewed bymembers of the public” (EasternDailyPress, Norfolk shop‐keeper backs out of using Internet Eyes system. March 15, 2011.http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/norfolk_shopkeeper_backs_out_of_using_internet_ey


es_system_1_829654).WhileInternetEyesismeanttodetershoplifting,italsohadachillingeffectoncustomers’senseofprivacy.

3.4. Shoreditch Digital Bridge

Thefinalcasestudymarksafurthershiftawayfromcrimeandtowardablendofcivic engagement and entertainment. The Shoreditch Digital Bridge project(http://www.hildebrand.co.uk/ourwork/digitalbridge.html) was launched in 2006,and ended in 2007. It wasmanaged by Hildebrand, a technology‐based consultingfirm.ShoreditchDigitalBridgeispartofamunicipalinitiativeinEastLondon.Com‐paredtothethreeexamplesabove,itisamuchmorelocalizedinitiative.The“sourc‐ing”incrowd‐sourcingfollowsadifferenttrajectory:whileotherschemesoverseetheoutflowofpersonaldata,DigitalBridge intends to retain thisdatawithina specificcommunity.ShoreditchDigitalBridgereceivedEUStructuralFundingaswellas funding from

theOfficeoftheUK’sDeputyPrimeMinister.AnetworkofelevenCCTVcamerafeedsweretobetransmittedinreal‐timetoresidents’homes,bywayofbroadbandtelevi‐sion.Thisisonechannelamongmanyonabroadbandnetworkfor22,000residents.Thisservicewasintegratedintocitizens’utilitycosts.Theywouldstillhavetopayforthebroadbandutility,butthiswasframedaspotentiallysavingmoneyforresidentsbecause theywouldcollectivelynegotiate for thebestprice fromserviceproviders.Theservicecostsresidents£3.50aweek.ItisnoteworthythatthiswasconsideredtobeoneofthemosteconomicallydeprivedneighbourhoodsinLondon.Residentswerenot paid or rewarded for identifying criminal or otherwise relevant events on theCCTVfeeds.ShoreditchDigitalBridgewaspresentedasbenefittingresidentsbygivingthemac‐

cess toCCTV feeds,andbyenabling themtocollectivelyactonbehalfofpoliceandotheremergencyservices.Ontheonehand,thisappearstobeademocratizedformofcrowd‐sourced surveillance. Spatial barriers between those underwatch and thosedoing thewatchingare lifted, ifall individuals involvedareresidentsofShoreditch.Yet this initiative took place during the gentrification of this neighbourhood. Pressmedia looking at this initiative noted the bifurcation of twopopulations: new resi‐dents andold residents,manyofwhomwere labelled asASBOs, a reference to theAnti‐SocialBehaviouralOrderusedintheUnitedKingdom.


Figure6:Shoreditchprojectpage(Datasource:

http://www.hildebrand.co.uk/ourwork/digitalbridge.html)

CriticsofDigitalBridgeframedthisinitiativeascreatingadividebetweenoldand

newresidents.Notonlyisthispresentedasaninvasionofprivacy,butalsotriggeringa rise in vigilantism (BBC News, “Is ‘Reality CCTV’ a Step Too Far?”, May 8, 2006.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4752167.stm).Viewersareabletowatchtheirpublicspaces,andcontributetodesignationofASBOs.Becausetheypromotecloserrelationswithemergencyservices,usersareable toalertpeople tocriminalbehav‐iour.Thisbringsanoutsourcingofprofiling,asviewersmayuseheuristicmeasuresto determine anti‐social behaviour. Media coverage expressed concerns that thismakeswatchingCCTV intoa formof entertainment (“Spot theASBO”), andas suchmarksanextensionofcrime‐basedrealityTV(TheRegister, “LondonEstateBroad‐band Offers 'Spot the ASBO Suspect' TV Channel”, December 30, 2005.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/30/shoreditch_digital_bridge/).

4. Assessment of CCTV Internet Crowd-sourcing

Afterconsideringtheaboveexamplesofcrowd‐sourcedCCTVsurveillanceovertheInternet,thissectionpointstoconcernsandgeneralthemesthatemerge.Thecrowd‐sourcingofCCTVsurveillancebywayoftheInternetisauniquedevelopmentinthatit takes advantage of both ubiquitously available media technology and a quasi‐voluntaryworkforce.YetitisalsoanextensionoftheproliferationofCCTVinurban


spaces, and some connections stand out between these two developments. In bothcases,crimepreventionistheentrypointusedtojustifythesesystems.Thesectionsbelowconsidertheprivacyaswellaspoliticaleconomicrisksassociatedwithcrowd‐sourcedCCTVsurveillance.

4.1. Privacy and Security

Research on CCTV systems raise a number of surveillance and privacy concernsabout the efficacy of these systems, aswell as unanticipated consequences. Ratherthanremedy theseproblems,crowd‐sourcing thesesystemsover the Internetexac‐erbates them.Support for implementingCCTVhashistorically come froma techno‐logically deterministic view that claims it lowers crime rates. However, numerousreportscounterthisapproach,suggestingthatCCTVisineffectiveatcombatingcrime(NoCCTV,Reports.http://www.no‐cctv.org.uk/caseagainst/reports.asp).Atthetimeofwritingthereisnoevidencethatcrowd‐sourcingsurveillanceofCCTVovertheIn‐ternet will do anything to remedy these issues. This shift advances the belief thattechnology (technological determinism) and policing (law and order politics) solvecrimes,whichobviatesdiscussionsofthesocialandsocietalcausesofcrime,especial‐lylow‐leveltheft.OneprominentcriticismofCCTVisthatitfurtherseparatespolicefromthepublic.

CCTV systems mediate a link between public spaces and official scrutiny (Norris2003). The distance is spatial, leading to delays in intervention. But there is also acontextualdistance,whichmeansthatpoliceandother investigatorsare inadisad‐vantageouspositiontointerpretwhattheyarewatchingonthescreen.Afriendlyex‐changebetween individualsmaybemisinterpretedastheprecursortoaviolentat‐tack,orviceversa.Thisleadstoafailureofinterpretation.ScholarsalsopointoutthatCCTVsystemsoftenactasbarriersbetweenpoliceandthepublic (NorrisandArm‐strong1999).Whiletheypromisetogivepolicegreateraccesstopublicspace,inef‐fecttheyaddtemporaldelaysforintervention.CCTVmonitoringsystemsareoftenfarawayfromthelocationtheyaremonitoring.Thistrendisonlyfurtheredwhenfoot‐ageisplacedontheInternetanddistributedglobally.BigBrotherWatchnotesthat“itwasconcerning tonote that ‘anyone fromtheUK,EuropeanUnion,CanadaandAr‐gentinacanregistertousethesite’andviewtheimagesofinnocentmembersofthepublicdoingtheirshopping”(BigBrotherWatch,NewPrivacyConcernsAboutInter‐net Eyes. http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home/2011/03/new‐privacy‐concerns‐about‐internet‐eyes.html).Criminalinterventiongiveswaytoremotemedi‐ation.Thisalsofurthersgapsbetweenmembersofthepublic.Thesefourcasestudiesmarkashiftawayfrompeoplebeingphysicallypresent,tosituationswherepeer‐to‐peer,orcivic,relationsaremediatedasymmetricallyintermsofvisibility.Wecanalsospeculateaboutthekindofcitizenshipandcivicengagementthatisbeingproduced.Whilethebusinessesthatdesignthesesystems–andtheindividualsthatparticipateinthem–claimtobeworkingtowardsasafercommunity,theyalsocontributetothepersecution of individuals suspected of criminal acts. Crowd‐sourcing these efforts


alsomeansthatthosebeingscrutinizedcannoteasilyaccessthisinformationtospeakontheirownbehalf.ThereisalsoanissuerelatingtothesubjectivityofthepersonwatchingtheCCTV

feeds.ThemediatednatureofCCTVscrutinymeansthattheindividualwatchingmayemploypersonalbiasestoformharmfuljudgements,andtakewrongactions.AsNor‐ris and Armstrong remark: “In the absence of any concrete information as towhotheyshouldmonitor,CCTVoperatorsselectively target thosesocialgroups theybe‐lievemostlikelytobedeviant”(NorrisandArmstrong1999,196).Thismayworktothedetrimentof apersonwho iswrongly targeted, butalso storeownerswhomayreceivelessvigilantscrutinyasaresultofpersonaldifferences.Crowd‐sourcedpolicingbearstheriskthatusersmakefalsecrimereportsforper‐

sonalreasonslikevengeance,andthatthisresults infalsesuspicions.ScholarshaveaddressedthefactthatprofessionalcameraoperatorsemploygamesandotherformsofresistanceinresponsetothemonotonyofwatchingCCTVfeeds(Smith,2004).Wehavenoreasontobelievethatcrowd‐sourcedwatcherswouldhaveahigherlevelofprofessionalism.Onepossibleoutcome is that crowd‐sourced systemsenable racialbiasesthatwouldotherwisebeillegal.Inaclimateofwidespreadnationwideorlocalxenophobia, crowd‐sourced CCTV Internet surveillance can support false crime re‐portingaboutprimarilyimmigrantsoutofpoliticalandracistreasons.Thesesystemsmaynot explicitly instruct viewers to target visibleminorities or other groups, buttheinstructionto“reportsuspiciousactivity”canbeinterpretedthuslyifvisiblemi‐noritiesare inherentlytreatedassuspect. Ineffect,crowd‐sourcingsurveillancecanalsobeavoluntaryorinvoluntaryoutsourcingofsystemicprejudices.Astheaboveindicates,privacyisanissueforCCTVdeployment.Whilepeopleun‐

derwatchareinsemi‐publicspaces,theyaresubjecttoakindofvisibilitythattheydonotanticipate.Further,thecriminologicalframingofthoseunderwatch(eitherassuspects or potential suspects)means that their privacy rights are not considered.Companiesforegroundtheneedforheightenedsecurityorshopsandurbanspaces,whichoftenpre‐emptsprivacyconcerns.Intermsofsecurity,wemayalsoconsiderthe security of Internet footage. As it is distributed on several servers, the risk forhackinganddata loss is onlyheightened (Microtask, Net Cops: Cybercrime and theCrowd,February3,2011.http://blog.microtask.com/2011/02/net‐cops‐cybercrime‐and‐the‐crowd/).Anotherriskistheemergenceofconstantandubiquitoussurveillanceofallpublic

andsemi‐publicandprivateactivitiesinpublicspaces,whichcancreateacultureofmistrust and categorical suspicion. Categorical suspicion “denotes attentionpaid toindividualsbyvirtueoftheirinclusioninasocialorbehaviouralcategory,ratherthanbecauseoftheiractualactionsorwords”(Lyon2007,198).Intheabsenceofformaltraining,crowd‐sourcedusersarelikelytoreplyonsuchcategorization(furtheringaof creating suspect communities). Further development of these systems will con‐tribute to social discomfortwhen exposed to CCTV.Many citizenswill feel uncom‐fortablebeingfilmedandwatchedbyotherswhene.g.sittinginarestaurant,buyingunderwear,flirting,enteringorexitingasexshop,jaywalking,etc.


Another privacy concern is the lack of transparencyof companypractices.Whilethese initiatives place citizens and public life under heightened scrutiny, their ownendeavoursaretypicallynottransparent.Thiscontributestoa lackofawarenessofhowcitizens’personaldata isbeingused.Moreover, thefactthat individualsareanextensionofthissurveillancesystemmeansthatthepeoplewhoareconductingthewatchingarenotatallknowntothosewhoarebeingwatched.Thisspecificsurveil‐lancediagramishighlyasymmetricalintermsofvisibility.1ThepersonunderwatchbytheCCTVcameralikelydoesnotknowthatInternetEyes,oranyothercompany,isdistributingthisfeed.Andevenifthosewhoareunderwatchknowthis,theywillcer‐tainlynot knowwho is actuallywatching them. It isworthnoting thatBigBrotherWatchcommendsFacewatchfortherelativeefficiencywithwhichtheyhandleCCTVfootage,notingthattheyensurethat“dataprotectionconcernsaretakenintoconsid‐eration” (Big Brother Watch, Facewatch.http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home/2011/02/facewatch.html#.T9yH7OItgzE). Another risk is that crowd‐sourced CCTV systems on the Internet may “creep”(Lyon2007,198)whentheyareadoptedfornewfunctionsinnewcontexts.For in‐stance,anInternetEyesusercouldpossiblystartaweblogwithembarrassingCCTVstills of shoppers in compromised situations and unflattering angles. Alternatively,thedatathatiscollectedcouldbecombinedwithfacialrecognitionsoftwaretopro‐ducealistofidentifiedknownsuspects.

4.2. Political Economy

Crowd‐sourcedwatchersareanextensionofsurveillancesystems.Buttheyareinaunique position. While the work conditions and general exploitation of low‐levelcamera operators is a longstanding concern (Smith 2004), yet the move towardscrowd‐sourcingnotonlymarksafurtherexploitationoftheirlabour,butthisexploi‐tationcanbeobfuscatedbyrhetoricthatcelebratesandextolsthevirtuesofthiscon‐figuration.Businessguruspresent crowd‐sourcingas thebestofbothworlds: com‐panieshavevalueaddedtotheirproductasaresultofindividualswhowanttosharetheirinputandeffort.Butitremainsthatusereffortispartoftheiroverallbusinessplan.Inmanycases,usershavetopayaserviceoraccessfeeinordertoaccessthisser‐

vice.Of course, theyalsohave topay for their electronicdevicesandworkspace inwhichtheyoperate.Butthesecostsareneveraddressed,astheirworkisnot‘profes‐sional’. This speaks tohowplay and labour are increasinglymixed. Crowd‐sourcedsurveillance is amix of entertainment and a service. Companies are able to chargeusers for the entertainment aspect, and also charge businesses for the service thatentertainedusers renderunto them. Somecrowd‐sourcingbusinesseshave rewardsystems,butthesearenominal.Evenanindividual‘working’fortyhoursperweekon

1Cf.asimilarargumentregardingbiometricsinMordini,EmilioandAndrewP.Rebera.2012.“NoIden‐tificationWithoutRepresentation:ConstraintsontheUseofBiometricIdentificationSystems,ReviewofPolicyResearch,Vol.29,No.1,pp.5‐20.


InternetEyeswillnotmakealivingwage.Theirwagewillalmostcertainlybeafrac‐tionofwhat aprofessionalCCTVoperatorwouldearn.Amemberof InternetEyes’Facebookgroupremarks: “Youspentnearly tenhours in frontofyourcomputer toearn 5.90€?? At that rate, you’re better off working at McDonald’s.2 Of course, itwouldappearthatmostusersandownersofthesesystemsdonottreatthemlikefulltimework.Butthefactthatthisisthecasespeakstounderlyingconcernsofexploit‐ingtheirefforts.Arelatedissue isthe“gamification”ofsurveillance‐based labour.Gamificationre‐

ferstotheintroductionofpoints‐basedincentivesintoeverydaylife(Deterdingetal.2011).Thisispresentedasawaytomotivatepeopletoperformandbehaveinmoreoptimalways.Notonlyisthisasoftformofcoercion,buttherelationbetweenthesealsopointsandmonetarycompensationneedstobescrutinized.InthecaseofInter‐netEyes,oneuserwillreceive£1000everymonth.Allotheruserswillsimplyaccu‐mulatepoints.Whilethevastmajoritywillenjoyextrinsicrewardsfromthesepoints,itwillalsoserveasawaytoenhancetheirperformance.

5. Assessment of CCTV Internet Crowd-sourcing

CCTVInternetcrowd‐sourcingraisesnumeroussocietalconcerns.

Vigilantism:Itcanfosterasenseofvigilantismamongitsusers,andmayattractmemberswhohavesuchtendencies.

Falsereportsforpersonalretaliation:Usersmaytakeadvantageofthesesys‐temstofilefalsereportsasaformofpersonalretaliationagainstothers.

Falsereportsduetoracialbiasorotherprejudices:Usersmayalsoissuefalsereportsbasedonracialbiasesorotherprejudices.

Categoricalsuspicion:Itcancontributetoacultureofsuspicionandubiquitoussurveillancebyencouragingcitizenstowatchovereachother.

Itcontributestoalossofprivacy,notablyinpublicandsemi‐publicspaces. Socialsorting:Itcanfacilitatesocialsorting. Deterministicviewofcrimeandsurveillancetechnologies:Itcanreinforceatechnologicallydeterministicviewofcrimeandsurveillancewhichcouldbedis‐puted.Astrongfocusonfightingcrimebytheuseofsurveillancetechnologycandistractfromaddressingsocietalcausesofcrimeandothersocialproblems.

Law‐and‐orderpolitics:Itcanpromotealaw‐and‐orderapproachtopolitics,totheexclusionofothervalidapproaches.

Distanciation:Itcanfurtherdistancethepoliceandthepublicbyplacinganin‐termediarybetweenthem.Membersofthepublicwatchthepubliconamediatedplatform.Thesewatchersthencommunicatetoacompany,onamediatedplat‐form,andthiscompanymayrelaytheirinformationtothepolice,againonamedi‐atedplatform.

2Tuaspasséprèsde10hdevanttonpcpourgagner5.90€??AcetariflàilvautmieuxbosserchezMcdo‐nald...”.(Facebook,InternetEyes,messagepostedonJanuary18,2012).


Lackoftransparency:Crowd‐sourcingislinkedtoalackoftransparency,asthefactthatcrowd‐sourcedsurveillancetakesplaceusuallyistypicallynotknowntothosebeingwatched.Eveniftheyareawarethattheyarewatched,theydonotknowwhoisdoingthiswatching,andknowverylittleaboutthecompaniesthatoverseetheseprocesses.

Surveillancecreep:Itraisesthepossibilityofsurveillancecreep,asthesesystemscanbeadoptedfornewpurposesinnewcontexts.

Digitallabour:Itisbasedondigitallabour,asusersperformvitaldutiesforlittletonocompensation.

CCTVInternetcrowd‐sourcingsignifiesadiffusionofthemonitoringaspectofsur‐

veillance intosociety. Itbroadensthenumberofpeople involved inthemonitoring,whichalsomeansthatitbroadensthenumberof individualshavingaccesstoCCTVfootage.Theidentifiedriskscanhavequiteseriouseffects.Thepolicyquestionthatisthereforeraisediswhatlegalmeasuresareneededforlimitingandavoidingthepo‐tentialnegativeconsequences.CitizensarestillcopingwiththepresenceofCCTVInternetcrowd‐sourcing,bothas

potentialtargetsandusersofthesetechnologies.Itispossiblethatitcanbeappliedinawaythatminimizesprivacyrisksandensurespublicacceptance.Yetanethicalim‐pactassessmentisfirstrequiredinordertounderstandwhatrisksarethemostsali‐ent, and thereforemost in need of intervention.However, a potential for improve‐mentisthewaycrowd‐sourcedusersaretrained.Inmostcases,usersreceivelittletono formal training,most notablywith regards to how they are expected to handlesensitivepersonalinformation.IfsuchtrainingwasmandatoryforusersofCCTVIn‐ternetcrowd‐sourcingsites,thiscouldensureaminimallevelofprofessionalism,andpossiblyimpactthepublicacceptanceofthistechnology.


References

Albrechtslund,Anders.2008.Onlinesocialnetworkingasparticipatorysurveillance.FirstMonday13(3).http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2142/1949/

Deterding,Sebastian,MiguelSicart,LennartNacke,KentonO’HaraandDanDixon.2011.Gamification.Usinggame‐designelementsinnon‐gamingcontexts.Proceed‐ingsofthe2011annualconferenceextendedabstractsonHumanfactorsincompu‐tingsystems.May7‐12.

Fishman,MarkandGrayCavender,ed.1998.Entertainingcrime:Televisionrealityprograms.Hawthorne,NY:AldinedeGruyter.

Foucault,Michel.1977.Disciplineandpunish:Thebirthoftheprison.NewYork:Vin‐tageBooks.

Galloway,AlexanderandEugeneThacker.2007.TheExploit:ATheoryofNetworks.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

Graham,Stephen.2002.CCTV:Thestealthyemergenceofafifthutility?PlanningThe‐ory&Practice3(2):237‐241.

Howe,Jeff.2008.Crowd‐sourcing:Whythepowerofthecrowisdrivingthefutureofbusiness.NewYork:ThreeRiversPress.

Lyon,David.2007.SurveillanceStudies:Anoverview.Cambridge:PolityPress.

Mann,Steve,JasonNolanandBarryWellman.2003.Sousveillance:InventingandUs‐ingWearableComputingDevicesforDataCollectioninSurveillanceEnvironments.Surveillance&Society,1(3):331‐355.

Mordini,EmilioandAndrewP.Rebera.2012.NoIdentificationWithoutRepresenta‐tion:ConstraintsontheUseofBiometricIdentificationSystems.ReviewofPolicyResearch29(1):5‐20.

Norris,Clive.2003.Frompersonaltodigital:CCTV,thepanopticon,andthetechno‐logicalmediationofsuspicionandsocialcontrol.InSurveillanceassocialsorting:privacy,risk,anddigitaldiscrimination,ed.DavidLyon,249‐281.London:Routledge.

Norris,CliveandGaryArmstrong.1999.Themaximumsurveillancesociety:TheRiseofCCTV.NewYork:BergPublishers.

Smith,Gavin.2004.Behindthescreens:Examiningconstructionsofdevianceandin‐formalpracticesamongCCTVcontrolroomoperatorsintheUK.Surveillance&So‐ciety2(2/3):376‐395.http://www.surveillance‐and‐society.org/articles2(2)/screens.pdf

Surowiecki,James.2004.Thewisdomofcrowds.NewYork:AnchorBooks.

Reports,Interviews,NewsArticlesandotherDocuments


AmazonMechanicalTurk.https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome

BBCNews,WhoiswatchingyouonCCTV?November27,2010.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/9232158.stm

BBCNews,Is‘realityCCTV’asteptoofar?May8,2006.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4752167.stm

BlueServo.http://www.blueservo.net/

BigBrotherWatch,Facewatch.http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home/2011/02/facewatch.html

BigBrotherWatch,NewprivacyconcernsaboutInternetEyes.http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home/2011/03/new‐privacy‐concerns‐about‐internet‐eyes.html

BirminghamMail.net,Crimestoppersoffer£10,000rewardinhuntforkillerofBettyYates.January24,2012.http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top‐stories/2012/01/24/crimestoppers‐offer‐10‐000‐reward‐in‐hunt‐for‐killer‐of‐betty‐yates‐97319‐30184915/

CrimeStoppers,FactsandFigures.http://www.crimestoppers‐uk.org/how‐we‐help/our‐achievements/facts‐and‐figures

CrimeStoppers,HowWeHelp.http://www.crimestoppers‐uk.org/how‐we‐help

DW.de.InternetEyes:CommunitySurveillance–Shift,February6,2012.http://www.dw.de/dw/episode/9798/0,,15676531,00.html

EasternDailyPress,NorfolkshopkeeperbacksoutofusingInternetEyessystem.March15,2011.http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/norfolk_shopkeeper_backs_out_of_using_internet_eyes_system_1_829654

EveningTimesOnline,Copshuntkillerafterstabbing.February22,2012.http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/cops‐hunt‐killer‐after‐stabbing‐1.1149130

Facebook,InternetEyes.https://www.facebook.com/pages/Internet‐Eyes/108455634071

Facewatch,JoinToday.http://facewatch.co.uk/cms/join‐today/

Facewatch,OurVision.http://facewatch.co.uk/cms/our‐vision/

HildebrandInteractive,Aboutus.http://www.hildebrandinteractive.com/aboutus.html

HidebrandInitiative,Eliminatingdigitalexclusion.http://www.hildebrand.co.uk/ourwork/digitalbridge.html

InternetEyes,http://interneteyes.co.uk/

InternetEyes,Business.http://interneteyes.co.uk/business/#IET


ITPro,CCTVserviceInternetEyesforcedintoprivacychanges.June14,2011.http://www.itpro.co.uk/634201/cctv‐service‐internet‐eyes‐forced‐into‐privacy‐changes

Microtask.Netcops:cybercrimeandthecrowd.February3,2011.http://blog.microtask.com/2011/02/net‐cops‐cybercrime‐and‐the‐crowd/

NoCCTV,Reports.http://www.no‐cctv.org.uk/caseagainst/reports.asp

TheExpress,£10,000tocatchkillerofpoliceman’sparents.January14,2012.http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/295567

TheTimes,Barownerleadsdigitaldrivetofoilbagsnatchers.June25,2011.

TheEveningStandard,OnlineCCTVsystemgoesnationwideafterslashingtheftsincity.September23,2011.http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article‐23990346‐online‐cctv‐system‐goes‐nationwide‐after‐slashing‐thefts‐in‐city.do

TheRegister,Londonestatebroadbandoffers'spottheASBOsuspect'TVchannel.December30,2005.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/30/shoreditch_digital_bridge/