Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
The mutter of invention.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



Elderly + surveillance cameras

Let people in retirement homes monitor surveillance cameras.
  (+18, -11)
(+18, -11)
  [vote for,

We should allow the elderly to monitor surveillance cameras from their retirement homes.

Reasons to agree: 1. We should try to find activities for the elderly.

2. We should try to find activities the elderly that allows them to make some money.

3. The elderly get bored playing bingo.

4. The elderly need to feel valuable, like they are contributing to society.

5. We all need to have tasks, assignments, outside of just serving ourselves.

6. CCTV cameras are often only used after a crime takes place, and the tape is rewound.

7. Old people love to spy. They are natural busy bodies. For example, my grandpa sat at his front window watching what was going on outside for the last 10 years of his life. The only problem was, his neighbors were very boring.

8. Technology gives power to the weak and aged.

9. Every old person on the planet may not want to do this, but that doesn't mean no one would. If the elderly can watch TV they could do this. They wouldn't have to go to court. Security cameras record what happens. When I go into a store, I see lots of camera's, and I think, man, they would need like 10 people to monitor all of these camera's. All the old people would have to do is say which camera saw someone pickpocket, and then they would just push a button. The manager could then review the tape, call the police, or get the security guard.

10. I've heard people call things like this "little brother" because there is no centralized agency watching. Each company would only watch their own property, to make sure that illegal activities are not happening on the property.

11. So what is the new idea? All I'm advocating is piping the signal into retirment homes, to give the elderly or immobile a connection to the rest of society, and a way to make a buck. But, I'm sure its allready been posted, I think children and animals should also be brought into the retirment centers, to those elderly who want to help care for them.

Reasons to disagree:

1. Crimes don't happen that often, and they happen very quickly. People would get bored watching for stuff to get stolen. Drug dealing is hard to identify. Interest and Motivation of those who agree: Dislike of inactivity.

myclob, Mar 12 2005

David Brin's web site http://www.davidbri...m/othersfbooks.html
It is worth a look. [ato_de, Mar 12 2005]

It might work here Paranoia_20paradise
[Susan, Mar 23 2005]

Daily mail story http://www.dailymai...070&in_page_id=1770
[goldilox, Mar 31 2005]

Arrest made with help from Beatles Cam viewer http://news.yahoo.c...tain_burglary1_dc_1
I don't think the guy watching the web cam was Elderly, though. [Zimmy, Aug 25 2006]

my similar Distributed_20Secur...0Service#1150698583
Holy carp. Can't believe you posted this a mere fortnight before me and I never noticed it till now. [BunsenHoneydew, Aug 27 2006]


       I thought this was going to be about elderly people watching other elderly people in nursing homes or something. Either way, an odd idea, but good [+]
finrod, Mar 12 2005

       //In this way, it could be a win-win solution for all concerned//
Though perhaps those who fear a BigBrother society may disagree.

       The purpose of security cameras is not to watch crimes in progress and to react but to prevent the crimes taking place; the possibility of recorded visual evidence of any crime often being sufficient deterrent for a potential criminal.
calum, Mar 12 2005

       I've heard people call things like this "little brother" because there is no centralized agency watching. Each company would only watch their own property, to make sure that illegal activities are not happening on the property. I'm not afraid of big brother or little brother, but I know I am in a minority. I see no reason for theft in our society, but I don't care about privacy. I don't care if people use my library records to match me with other like minded people. The same goes for me internet, and shopping activities. I think if people want to waste their time watching me, more power to them. Maybe I can get some free psychological advice out of it! But don't judge the idea by these other beliefs of mine.
myclob, Mar 12 2005

       ...and if they want to monitor when you go to work, so they know when to break into your house? There's a point at which the information collected is used against you. That's what can be worrying.
david_scothern, Mar 12 2005

       this is a central plot line in the book "Earth" by David Brin.
ato_de, Mar 12 2005

       I would love to know that my grampa is having fun in his last years. He usually never has anything to do. [+]
Pericles, Mar 12 2005

       This is kinda scary - give curtain-twitchers technology so that they can be even more prying than they already are!   

       You walk down the street, a little old lady spots you and says 'how's the shoplifting going, Larry?', everyone stares. The security guards give you suspicious looks.   

       Long live the big brother - I'm more scared of curtain twitchers than them, I mean, my life is so insignificant, most people wouldn't even bother looking at me! But nosy grannies? No thanks!
froglet, Mar 12 2005

       It's one thing to be buying a magazine, thinking that "if a crime was committed now, someone might review a tape later", vs. "My grandparents may be watching me right now"   

       Some old people (not my grandparents though) are mean, and would enjoy abusing this power to harrass people or sell info to criminals or papparazi. Let's not give away power indiscriminately.
sophocles, Mar 16 2005

       I always here that "this power could be abbused" "that could be abused".   

       I find that when I am nice, it tends to kill converstations, so it's better for me to accuse people of something, call them names, and then we can have some fire works, and resolve all issues.   

       I have to be nice at work, do I have to be nice here too? I do not think that in cities of millions of people, that we should be worried that criminal's might not want their grandparents seeing them shop lift.   

       Re: "Let's not give away power indiscriminately" I'm not saying we should give them the launch codes to all our nuclear weapons. I don't think old people watching a camera piped into a retirment home from wall mart, will have a lot of information that the papparazi would want, or criminals. The only power I suggested that they have, is the power to call the police.
myclob, Mar 16 2005

       [myclob] - the point is not that you're doing anything illegal, necesarily, but you may do things you don't want your grandparents to know about.
Detly, Mar 16 2005

       Glad my Grandparents live in Australia.
froglet, Mar 16 2005

       Is it really that big of an issue?
myclob, Mar 16 2005

       You mean my grandparents? Yeah, they're the ringleaders of the world organisation of nosy-parkers.
froglet, Mar 16 2005

       Put the elderly on conveyor belts so they can monitor life in person. Screw the cameras.   

       I mean unscrew the cameras.
mensmaximus, Mar 16 2005

       You don't have to be a criminal to value privacy.   

       If you recorded every action and could take them out of context, you could make a 4 hour movie where you portray Mother Teresa, Ghandi, and MLK Jr as arseholes by catching them on bad days.   

       I don't want such a movie to be made of our future saints who buck the powers that be.   

       If you don't understand the value of privacy, then this idea would be good.
sophocles, Mar 16 2005

       That’s the thing. I'm not intentionally proposing the use of more video surveillance. I'm just thinking that we should find low mobility jobs for the elderly. I guess you could say, that by extension, if their are more people willing to watch CCTV output (for relatively little pay) then they may be used more. But that was not my intention. As a side matter, I don’t care about privacy, but that is not what I meant this idea to be about.   

       Also, when you go out in public, people are watching you all the time. They are sitting on benches, they are standing at bus stops they are, they are, other people. It's called public, for a purpose. Do you want to walk around with a cardboard box on your head, so no one will know it's you? No that's crazy talk. A camera is no different than an eye ball, and a tape recorder is nothing different than someone's brain.   

       Lets say that Mother Teresa, Ghandi, and MLK Jr were all down town Chicago, and desided to Rob a bank. Do they have a right to brain damage everyone who witnessed the bank robbery, until none of them can remember what happened? So there is no permanent record?   

       You can not stop people from remembering the things they see. So why should you want to stop them from recording things that cameras see?   

       Because, you say, that you can show the video to others, but you can't show others what's in your brain?   

       Well you can tell them what happened. Should this be outlawed? No retelling of the news without the permission of everyone who was there.   

       My prediction is that in the future crime will get so bad, perhaps a terrorist will detonate a nuclear bomb in a big city, and people will accept that you can not demand privacy if you go out in public. If you want privacy, move to Montana or don’t go out in public.
myclob, Mar 16 2005

       Last try: There is a big difference between being on a street in Chicago, and having everyone on that street recording video of you, following you everywhere, and recording non-stop until you hide in a bathroom, and then storing all that video somewhere for eternity in a database, and allow anyone permission to pull clips out to ridicule you.   

       If a nuke explodes in NYC, the USA & democracy will get through it and recover just fine. Bombs, earthquakes, tsunami's are all physical and can't possibly affect the constitution. If you really don't like living in a place with civil liberties, you can move to North Korea.
sophocles, Mar 17 2005

       Is protection of privacy provided for in the US constitution?   

       Like it or not, privacy is going the way of the Dodo. As mote size cameras and widely distributed sensor networks take hold, you will have no privacy, either in public or private spaces.   

       People will adapt and perhaps privacy will take on a new and diluted meaning.   

       As much as I hate to acknowledge this, one of the wiser things someone told me a few years ago was to "act as though nothing you do, say or write is private and you'll potentially spare yourself much grief."
bristolz, Mar 17 2005

       According to current precedent, yes.
theircompetitor, Mar 17 2005

       Quite true, bris--except I think that privacy will take on a more acute definition, on account of its increasing rarity.
yabba do yabba dabba, Mar 17 2005

       Yes, I agree, That is a better definition. It will mean something like "Privacy except for sensor network gathering."   

       Precedent can be rolled back, though. I was wondering if the constitution explicitly provides for the right to privacy in some clause I haven't gotten around to reading. (Which is, I admit, most clauses).
bristolz, Mar 17 2005

       Amendment IV   

       The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
yabba do yabba dabba, Mar 17 2005

       I can easily see where constitutional interpreters can think the wording a stretch for protecting privacy, though, depending on how "secure" is defined and whether or not "surveillance" can be construed to mean "search."   

       Even if the clause is interpreted to mean constitutional protection from government surveillance, I can understand how people might be otherwise forced to agree to surveillance. Imagine a private mandate, community covenant or requirement that says something like, "In order for you to live here you must have X insurance and a requirement of coverage for X insurance is full-time sensor network monitoring with disposition of output data governed solely by X insurers privacy policy that includes no guarantee that surveillance data won't be sold to third parties or provided to authorities upon either a trivial-level court order or the drop of a hat."   

       Okay. I'll stop kvetching now.
bristolz, Mar 17 2005

       you're right--this may (or may not) protect from government surveillance, but it really says nothing of private citizens.
yabba do yabba dabba, Mar 17 2005

       Did cave men have privacy? You and I have more privacy than they did. We have locks. We have doors. I live in an apartment, and I only hear my neighbors having sex occasionally. That is a lot better than tents or TP's. Man you can hear everything through them.
myclob, Mar 18 2005

       You went way too far back, yourclob. Think about a century or two ago, and where we are now--where do you think we're headed?
yabba do yabba dabba, Mar 18 2005

       I think that we have more privacy than they did "about a century or two ago"   

       While we are on the subject of sex, did you know that the family of the king, and all the king's men were in the royal bedrooms on the night of the first humping. I learned about that on the History Channel.   

       Other instances of less privacy.   

       Smaller living quarters. Larger families. Living in the same house of your parents. Smaller towns. Everyone knew everyone. Read Jane Austin. Not a lot of privacy, and they were rich.
myclob, Mar 19 2005

       "...all the king's men were in the royal bedrooms on the night of the first humping."   

       Hehe. Oh my, what a nightmare.
bristolz, Mar 19 2005

       It was probably to restrain the bride.   

       (Oops, did I just say that?)
Detly, Mar 20 2005

       This idea will certainly help the paranoids of the planet. "See, I told you they were watching"
Susan, Mar 23 2005

       An excellent idea! And the subsequent trials would make hilarious viewing if packaged as a TV show. Drooling old dodderers with dementia confusing yesterday's telly with the surveillance footage. Of course, you'd have to cut out all the case dismissed, witness deceased cases.
goldilox, Mar 25 2005

       Looks as though you don't even need to pay them...   

       See "Daily Mail story" link.
goldilox, Mar 31 2005

       So did I win? When the other guy tells you to move to North Korea, does that mean that you win? That they ran out of real arguments?   

       What happened. Their were all of these, "one last time"'s and other snoby comments, then it got friendly and died...
myclob, Sep 02 2005

       I didn't understand a single word you just said.
myclob, Sep 02 2005

       Hmm. I didn't hear him say anything.
bristolz, Sep 02 2005

       re: "Video Surveillance is bad because people can monitor when you go to work and break into your house. "   

       Unless you poke everybody's eye's out there is no way of keeping people from knowing when you go to work. People don't need video surveillance camera's to do that, all they need is eye-balls! My neighbors see when I drive away every morning. And it makes it easy for them, when they don't see my car infront of my house!   

       Re: "Last try: There is a big difference between being on a street in Chicago, and having everyone on that street recording video of you, following you everywhere, and recording non-stop until you hide in a bathroom, and then storing all that video somewhere for eternity in a database, and allow anyone permission to pull clips out to ridicule you."   

       Look, I don't know about you but I try not to hide in bathrooms. I don't know how often you have people take out video tapes and ridiculing you for things you have done in public, but you must do a lot of stupid things in public, for this to be a major concern.   

       But again. No matter how many times you say "LAST TIME" I still don't get how this is any different than people being made fun of 200 years ago? Sure, a picture is worth a thousand words, but people did stupid things 200 years ago, and they gott writen down in books and newspapers, and people laughed. If I did something stupid in public and people made fun of me, that would be awsome! It's called america's funniest home videos. People win thousands of dollars. It's great!
myclob, Oct 16 2005

       I don't see huge things wrong with this, I mean most the cameras out there are monitered by a person anyways, ohterwise how would they catch anyone. But my main problem is that inactivity was listed as a problem for the elderly (and it certainly is) How would sitting and watching a moniter help the elderly be more active. Rather than watching CCTV all day there should be comptetive wheel chair racing.
PollyNo9, Oct 16 2005

       It's that time of the year again is it?
hidden truths, Oct 16 2005

       My grandparents would sit and watch out their front window all day. I'm just saying that this was very boring, because their neighbors were just as old as they were... If they want to be nosey, let them watch a more active part of their neighborhood.
myclob, Mar 17 2006

       My grandmother had the tv channel which showed the lobby of her apartment building on all the time. She loved to watch that.   

       All privacy issues aside, don't old people go to sleep at like 6pm and lots of crimes that happen in areas where security cameras exist (like places that aren't publically visible) occur at night?   

       would we hook up more than one location to a tv and have grandma watch the convenience store down the block as well as one 1pi*rad away?   

       This seems like an excellent use for our aging boomer population.
ericscottf, Aug 24 2009

       My grandma would love this, love it. [+]
Germanicus, Aug 24 2009

       Don Corleone could've used this type of information...
RayfordSteele, Aug 25 2009

       Reason 2 to disagree: It's not cost-effective. Video analysis technology has for years allowed computers to do what your elderly people would do. There are programs that take video feeds and generate text descriptions of what each person/vehicle/etc. in view of the camera does. And I expect it's quite possible to at least interpret their actions for probability of illegality and flag them for review by a professional human (because untrained people would likely be worse than the algorithm at identifying illegal behavior).
notexactly, Nov 15 2015


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle