By: Cameron Ghazzagh
In October, a newly formed U.K. company came out with a novel and practical idea for commercial surveillance: Take the live feeds from store security cameras around London and stream them online, then pay people from anywhere in the world to monitor the live video for shoplifting. The site is interneteyes.co.uk, and they are attempting to address the following issue that faces most UK storeowners: Although nearly all retail stores have security cameras to record theft, too often the footage is seen after the crime has been committed, and the chances of apprehending the thief drop dramatically.
For a monthly fee, Internet Eyes hosts and transmits the video feed from store cameras to individuals around the world who have applied to become an auditor with the site. An auditor works as a kind of contract police, monitoring four different video streams at once, and, at first sign of suspicious behavior, clicks a “report” button on his or her screen. This immediately alerts the storeowner to the possible theft via text message, and even includes a snapshot of the suspect. Storeowners in the United States face similar issues with store theft, apprehension, and surveillance. Given this, I have several reasons for why this type of global, internet-based contract policing would be very effective in the context of the U.S. laws and types of surveillance we’ve discussed in class.
Based in Common Law, storeowners in the U.S. have the right to engage in merchant’s privilege if they suspect someone of shoplifting. The benefits of using Internet Eyes to apprehend shoplifters are twofold: Fewer losses for the storeowner due to theft, and less time and resources spent by law enforcement pursuing the thief post-incident. Over time, this type of surveillance would even act as deterrence for potential shoplifters, who would be under the constant possibility of being caught.
Another benefit for storeowners comes from the global scale of Internet Eyes. By allowing anyone in the world to become an auditor, and by simultaneously giving them four different video streams to audit, the price for labor is driven down, which creates affordable contract policing for smaller shops. This innovative new form of commercial policing would offer storeowners in the U.S. an extremely effective tool in assisting with shoplifting, and also serves local law enforcement in catching shoplifters pre-theft.
That's an interesting concept. Thanks for sharing! When I was reading your second to last paragraph about merchant's privilege, I couldn't help but think back to the panopticon image where people would act in accordance to societal norms - not shoplifting - because of the chance that they are being watched. The prisoners cannot see the guard, much like the shoplifters are not able to see the auditor, so it would probably deter people from shoplifting as you can never be sure.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like the extent of surveillance in modern times simply knows no limit. For good or for bad, this new surveillance procedure allows for greater possibility to catch and prosecute shoplifters. It reverses the age-old standby that security doesn't sit around day after day watching store footage to check for shoplifters. Now there are countless internet users who could be given the potential authority that had originally been awarded to the invisible guards in Bentham's panopticon. This new system would alleviate the responsibilities given to law enforcement in areas that are backlogged with other serious crimes. It would also, in my opinion, augment the culture of fear that has taken over not only the civilians and participants of this network of surveillance, but over the entire system itself. Is it right for us to be treading more and more carefully each day while we see the traditional notions of privacy being broken down in a systematic yet violating fashion?
ReplyDeleteChristine Sun
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWow! In terms of the US, I believe corporations such as Target already engage in this type of surveillance because they definitely have the money and resources to hire people to work for their security and surveillance unit (thanks to the field trip). Given the amount of times you're recorded in the UK because of security cameras, I can see Internet Eyes possibly profiting off their business.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I am wondering how well new business concept of surveillance will do in the long run in the US and in the UK. Who is the target buyer of this new business concept of surveillance? I am assuming that corporations already invest some of their money into surveillance, and they would hire outside contract security if it were cheaper for them to do so. Based off this, I would guess that the company may be marketing their business to smaller businesses, but how beneficial will it be for them?
Big corporations such as Target are the ones who see patterns in thefts and use their data to catch career shoplifters. However, I think smaller businesses using a company such as Internet Eyes will produce mixed results. Small business storeowners encounter one-time shoplifters more often than criminal shoplifters, so despite helping them to save money on shoplifted items, will it criminalize more people for petty crimes than necessary? Also, because storeowners of smaller businesses incur heavier loses for shoplifted items, would this cost for paying for shoplifted items be less than paying for the cost of the actual surveillance?
(I just realized my comment may be more from a economic standpoint.....but still worthy of thought yes? :D)
Edwina Yuan
This was a very interesting topic. I never knew that this sort of thing happened. What I'm wondering is if there are a certain number of hours that the auditor has to fulfill? Also when they are viewing the video streams are they not allowed to leave their computers, for fear that shoplifting might occur? Are the customers aware that they are under surveillance from abroad? Some stores have a sign that includes a message like " smile, you're on camera," so it would be interesting to know if shop owners would tell their customers they are being watched by foreign people. The model of the panopticon has never been more alive and well; customers will doubt if they are being watched or not and this will somehow affect their behavior in the store.
ReplyDelete- Jacqueline Galeno-Escobedo
It was nice to hear a discussion on this topic because I remember hearing about this in the past year. I thing it is a great idea that benefits a lot of people at the same time. Store owners don't have to feel like they need to constantly watch people, while the people responsible for the surveillance are getting paid. The fear criminals feel when knowing there may be surveillance in retail stores is enough to stop some, but others believe they can still get away with stealing because they won't get caught in the moment. This service has proven to change that by catching those criminals in the act, its a great thing. I believe the US could strongly benefit from a service similar to this. If surveillance is going to constantly be apart of our society then we should get those who want to help in the community involved.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting read. I didn't know that there was something like this that exist. I wonder how much it cost and if this service is more suitable for small or large companies. I wonder if this is the cheaper version of security compare to Target's corporation security. Thinking about this, i am guessing this service is mainly use for smaller business or business that don't have the money to hire many security guards. Thank you for writing this wonderful article.
ReplyDelete- Tonny Leao
I wonder what checks are in place, if any, to ensure that these contracted police are actually doing their job by watching the live video feeds for the time they are being compensated for. The contracting out of surveillance work to remote observers in itself is a very clever idea. One would have to imagine, though, that in this scenario, surveillance might also have to be directed towards the very ones responsible for conducting surveillance on behalf of the stores.
ReplyDelete-Anton Kienast
This is really interesting. I wonder if people are aware that they are being watched and if their behaviors would be different if they knew that they are on live camera as opposed to being watched at a later time. I agree that it is also connected to the panopticon model of surveillance, where you do not know if someone is watching. -Maria Campos
ReplyDeleteThis is very interesting. I think that this would be much more affective if people knew they were being watched, much like the panopticon model stated in earlier comments. I wonder how Internet Eyes picks their auditors. I believe that this could be a very affective way of surveillance, however I am curious about how they pick their auditors, and how they make sure they are actually watching the live streams.
ReplyDeleteTHis blog posts interests me very much. I had no idea this type of surveillance was being issued to the public, allowing them to help with policing. This type of surveillance will become more beneficial as years go on. It will put the fact into potential shoplifters minds that they are being watched at all times, but cannot see exactly who is doing so. They should also raise the severity of the consequences for shoplifting so potential shoplifters will have the consequences in their mind along with notion similar to "big brother" that someone is watching gat all times.
ReplyDelete-Derek Campbell
It's cool that they can do this sort of thing, it definitely might reduce the work load for police. This is is like outsourcing work, so it could help other people find work. I'm not sure how I would feel about random people watching these feeds though. I'm comfortable with private police looking through the feeds, because that is what they are trained to do. With that comes some level of trust you would have for them. But if it is just some random person, then I don't see how they can be trustworthy. Like target security, they work for target, and I know who they are, so I can give them some trust. But a random person that gets a job looking at these feeds, could be a criminal themselves. Very cool article.
ReplyDelete-Alexander Juha
Many times people are aware that they are being filmed, but are not sure if anyone is actually behind the camera. With this new interesting take on surveillance utilizing internet users as the ones who do the policing, the effectiveness of surveillance may rise. As the world adapt to new technologies and ideas, the way we do policing is changing constantly. What an interesting concept! This reminds me of nannycams or puppycams on the internet for others to watch for fun. This idea is combining practicality with human's nature to patrol and peek.
ReplyDeleteJackie Ji Park
Internet Eyes looks like it could be pretty successful for the UK Company. I took a quick look at the site and the sample videos are actually pretty good quality! You saying that it could create affordable contract policing for smaller shops definitely makes a lot of sense and actually makes me wonder if it would raise our awareness of private policing. If an increasing number of businesses - large and small - would let it be known that we are being monitored, would we look more towards critiquing and regulating it? However, if this is contract policing, I recall us having said that there are already a fair amount of regulations for them (compared to internal private police), so I wonder if our laws would work well with this system.
ReplyDelete-Anita Wu
I think this is a very interesting look at yet another sophistication in the field of surveillance. In class we learned that closed circuit cameras are mostly inaffective in preventing crime, and is much more useful in assisting in investigations. However, with the knowledge that a third party may be monitoring for real-time theft, potentially even when the store is closed, potential thiefs would be much less likely to engage in criminal activity. Furthermore, if the theft is reported in time there could be an arrest on the spot. Now, it appears that the real time monitoring of stores, shown in the Target documentary, can be used by any business big or small. I do wonder how often these "reports" result in apprehension, however, and also whether or not there is a tendency for these "internet eyes" to report false or unfounded suspicions of theft.
ReplyDelete-Michael Bergin
I wonder what kind of oversights are involved in this process. The auditors seem to have a lot of power with few restrictions. I also feel the intended deterrence effect will only occur if the businesses make it clear that the feeds are being watched live. Deterrence relies on people being able to make rational decisions, which is dependent on having accurate information.
ReplyDeleteCarly Wasserman
This strategy seems to presume that most store theft occurs through shoplifting when we know that it does not.... Good to know the utility of this strategy ... including its deterrent effect. But, what about issues of privacy and the right to shop "freely" .... will people always want others to know where they are shopping and what might a person's shopping reveal about them that they assume a private matter?
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't think that a majority of shoppers will be significantly affected by random citizens watching them through store surveillance cameras for security purposes (or shoplifting prevention as the case may be). Most people probably don't even know they're being monitored by various individuals; but even if they did, it seems like something so insignificant--especially if you're not planning to steal.
ReplyDeleteThis passive stance is problematic in itself for entirely separate reasons. But how popular/widespread do you think that this "outsourced" surveillance will become? While society probably won't devolve to a point where everyone's watching the person next to them like a hawk, at which point will it become "too much" or has it already reached that point?
- Donald Chan
This surveillance model initially seems harmless. What is the problem? Only shoplifters and criminals will be affected by this technology. Wrong. This surveillance is not simply used as a way to find and report crime. There is a financial incentive for average citizens to act as informants, undermining the trust citizens may share with one another. Furthermore, these individuals do not receive training, and crime can be defined in multiple ways. Is race a crime? Is a congregation of young teenagers considered gang activity? What exactly is shoplifting? There must be more rules and regulations added to this program before it can take effect. Otherwise, individual biases and prejudices may affect one's judgment.
ReplyDeleteI really like this idea for all of the aforementioned reasons. Another one that I thought appealed to the company 'Internet Eyes' would be their availability to collaborate with law enforcement or in fact take away some of the surveillance power given to law enforcement. This company in a sense is able to democratize surveillance because anybody who pays the monthly subscription fee is allowed to play the role of "crime-fighter". Companies like this show that innovation does not always come from the hands of the Americans. Our global society has numerous resources just like this one that are being underutilized in the U.S. Due to the bureaucratic structure of our government and economy I doubt that this would be implemented anytime soon. However I truly believe this is a great concept started in the UK that could easily transition to the U.S. if given the proper support it deserves.
ReplyDelete-James Woodard
While I understand the possible benefits of a system like this I think that there are key facts about it that are being ignored. by allowing anyone in the world to look at the video you open up the process to an amount of bias of unseen levels into the legal system. Someone on the internet will be using a two second clip to determine a suspicion level of an individual which inevitably leads to level of profiling of unseen proportions. In addition it is not addressing the fact that the most harmful form of theft is not that by the consumer but rather the employee. Lastly this system can easily be a problem legally because it is inevitable that innocent people will be accused and possibly prosecuted for a crime that they didn't commit thus leading to the mas amounts of lawsuits that result from this.
ReplyDeleteInternet Eyes seems like a very smart and effective way to keep surveillance on stores and help prevent shoplifting. I see several issues with the system however. Anyone can be employed as a auditor even though they are not trained in surveillance. This may allow for potential shoplifters to get away with crimes because those doing the monitoring are unqualified. Also the auditors could be very biased toward a certain sex or racial group that could affect there judgement to watch and prevent crime. This is a good idea with some flaws that need to be worked out.
ReplyDeleteKyle Porter
Cameron,
ReplyDeleteWhile I do feel that this system is much more efficient cost-wise for the government, there are some questions and concerns that really stand out to me. For example, have the individuals shopping agreed to have their video footage streamed online? While we all are aware that we are constantly being surveilled by store owners/corporations and that our video footage can be seen by trained cops/security personnel/detectives, we are not as reluctant about these individuals looking through our footage because we accept their authority as legitimate (they have been trained and have a duty to watch these videos to arrest people stealing). Yet, I would assume we'd be more reluctant to allow just about anybody to go through our footage. The fact that they can look through our footage online raises concerns such as, can they take a screen shot of our picture? What can they do with the images they see? Additionally, I feel like it is not a really wise choice to give untrained individuals so much power. What if they report behavior that is not suspicious at all because they simply misinterpreted what they saw? Or what if they just let people get away with bad behavior, for example, if someone sees a mother stealing baby food for her daughter, would a person feel inclined to report that or will he/she feel too sorry for the mother? These are the questions that I feel need to be settled before this system can be truly effective.
-Lissette Morales
In theory, Internet Eyes, seems like a both brilliant and efficient tactic to minimize shoplifting crime. Also, simply having this form of surveillance in place may deter many from shoplifting in the first place. I also see how this could become extremely problematic. Those contracted to watch the surveillance footage could use extreme bias when deciding whether or not to report a possible crime. Racial profiling, and or age discrimination towards teenagers may be a huge bias when making the assumption as to whether one is stealing or not.
ReplyDelete~Adriana Regalado
Although I can see how Internet Eyes would be a terrific innovation, especially for those smaller shops hit drastically by theft, I can see how it can also not be a feasible option to a crisis felt by too many small shops. I believe one reason why private and contract policing is so admired is because the shop owners have the assurance that the police is working for them, hired by them and payed by them. This I feel, makes the contract police obliged to be more effective on the job. By passing off that task to individuals you don't even know and who aren't even present, you're taking a risk that may not be worth the money. How would one know if the auditor is actually sitting there and even watching the screens, or what if the auditor is intoxicated in some way? Many questions arise that test the validity of such a thing. I feel as if shop owners feel that the presence of a security guard is more of a deterrent than a panopticon-type of security system.
ReplyDeleteCameron,
ReplyDeleteA very interesting article. I believe some of the other commentators have mentioned this, but while reading your article I kept picturing in my mind the idea of the panopticon and how this will influence the behavior of individuals.
-Yevgeniy Rokhin
This is a really interesting blog post. It comes to show that really anyone can "act as the police." Although this may seem like a great way to reduce costs for companies, my only concern would be if companies participating in this kind of surveillance tells their customers that thy are being watched by complete strangers who are in no way qualified to do so. Would customers then feel uncomfortable with this approach and take their shopping elsewhere, resulting in a loss of profit for store owners? It really is an eerie idea that random people will have video footage of you and you won't be able to discern who that individual is.
ReplyDelete-Laci Patiga
We've read so many blogs and articles about surveillance in the past weeks, that this time I couldn't help myself but chuckle about it. Don't get me wrong, your blog was really interesting and well written, but I am kind of amused by all the strategies and ideas people come up with in order to fully use any surveillance technology available. It seems to me that sometimes it is just about using surveillance tools in the most possibly creative way.
ReplyDeleteWith regards my own reaction to this new idea for commercial surveillance as an honest and law-abiding customer I would probably turn to online shopping (no matter what kind of surveillance is awaiting me there); as a shoplifter, if the stealing was necessary for my survival, I would probably consider an armed robbery next time instead in order to secure that I get what I need.
As a shop-owner I would probably be pissed that I lost my valued customers.
Obviously that's just one way it could go and most people might not be informed enough to make such strategical decisions about their shopping behaviors, nevertheless, I am not convinced about the Internet Eyes' effectiveness and benefit.
I found this blog post very interesting thank you for sharing! As I was reading though, I thought back to our visit to Target and talking to the individuals who are constantly monitoring their security cameras. They essentially do the same thing that Internet Eyes auditors would be doing from home and yet they told our class how rarely they actual use their powers to detain people. It made me think that if a large corporation like Target rarely uses their power despite having a large legal team to come to their defense, then it might be the case that the smaller businesses being targeted by Internet Eyes may be wary as well. I am very curious to see how Internet Eyes plays out.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting article you have shared with us. This new surveillance system Internet Eyes is a pretty efficient way to detect crime while its happening rather than after it happens which is a huge problem. We can't have eyes watching everyone and everywhere, so when someone gets robbed we have to report it to the police after it happened and some of the time, police don't even have enough information to find who did it. Surveillance cameras are there to give people the comfort of knowing that they are safe because they have a camera, this will deter crime and the police will be able to catch anyone who robs my store. But this isn't necessarily the case. People know that they can rob a place and get away with it because surveillance cameras are generally watched after a crime has been committed. I would feel more comfortable having Internet eyes because it actually gives people the comfort of knowing that someone could be watching and can report a robbery either before or while it is happening.
ReplyDelete