Slashdot Mirror


Prying Eyes of Tampa Police

Anml4ixoye writes: "Building off of the Super Bowl incident here in Tampa, the Police have instituted the technology directly into the cameras around Ybor City. From Bay News 9:"Police, using pole-mounted, remotely-controlled surveillance cameras, scan crowds of people and feed their digital images into a massive databank with the purpose of finding a match on anyone with an outstanding arrest warrant. The cameras have the ability to tilt, pan and capture digital images of anyone within range." Read the Bay News 9 Report here, the St. Pete Times version here, or visit the Visionics web site or the Tampa Police Web Site."

10 of 300 comments (clear)

  1. What's the benefit here? by Restil · · Score: 5

    There are many ways to aprehend someone who has a warrant out for them. You pick them up at home, you pick them up at work, you wait till they get pulled over for having a tailight out. Most of the people with warrants out for them are for traffic offenses or other minor crimes. Even if this works as well as they claim, its not going to be instantanious. By the time you've got a "potential" match, the mark will be long gone. Sure, you can attempt to establish a pattern, but frankly as a law abiding tax paying public citizen, I'm willing to wait until he gets pulled over before you call out the swat team for that $200 ticket.

    The potential for misuse is too great here. Technology is not infallible. It can be 99.9%, but that means nothing in the grande scheme of things. There will be LOTS of false positives in a system like this. Even if the prospect of getting picked up for someone else's crime doesn't bother you (after all, subsequent validation will vindicate you from this incident), if you ARE attempting to develop a pattern, then false positives will make for an extremely diverse pattern, one that can't be relied on for much.

    -Restil

    --
    Play with my webcams and lights here
  2. Re:This is getting out of hand. by AntiBasic · · Score: 5
    Seriously -- practices like this are becoming far too acceptable by the general public. Why? Does it start at home? Are we as a society raising drones who refuse to question authority or take an active role in something as running this city/county/country (i.e. voting)?

    They are becoming all too common because of the media. Most people are pacifists by nature, they'll avoid confrontation at all costs. CNN(insert favorite govertainment channel here) will call something like the Million Mom March "groundbreaking" but will insert another adjective like "contraversial" in front of the Guns Owners of America. The sheeple automatically are drawn to a don't-rock-the-boat mentality.

    Why do you think people accept drug tests being part of job interviews? If my employer can prove that my being a coke addict directly affects my job performance fine. But it's an invasion of privacy to see if I am indeed a coke addict. People are drawn to it because some Demopublican will mask it about being for the children.

    It's very similar to what that idiot Steve Gibson is doing. Cnet, ZDnet, whatever-pc-magazine prints his half-baked theories about UNIX sockets in XP. Just having UNIX sockets isn't necessarily a bad thing, its in how they're used obviously. They follow his words since he has a flare for the dramatic and sounds very clueful to the average AOL user. UNIX sockets don't spoof packets, script-kiddies spoof packets. Look at those kennedy elitists: all of my unregistered handguns have kill less people than kennedy cars and golf clubs combined.

  3. Re:No tech comment: by enneff · · Score: 5

    "It seems more technology means the 'cops' of cops and robbers get the upperhand."

    Well, you've trolled me. "Cops and Robbers" is not a game. When people have crimes committed against them then the perpetrators need to be punished.

    Have you ever been Robbed? Assaulted? Raped?

    I think you watch too many trashy films. Criminals do not deserve an even playing field when it comes to law enforcement.


  4. 1984 is here by Ziest · · Score: 5
    If you have not read it in a while, everyone should re-read 1984 again.

    If you really want to do something about this organize a day of protest. Image several thousand people wondering around downtown Tampa dress as Santa or wearing Nixon masks. Will they get arrested for not showing their face in public? What will the police in Tampa charge them with?

    --
    Another day closer to redwood heaven
  5. Re:Care to explain? by xigxag · · Score: 5
    I just can't see how any law-abiding citizen would have a problem with this

    Most people aren't 100% law-abiding, are they? Ever smoke a joint? Spit in public? Swear on a public street? Stop your car temporarily in a spot where you weren't supposed to stop your car? Exceed the speed limit? Let your dog take a poop without cleaning it up? Cross at a location which is not an intersection? Keep in mind that the Supreme Court recently ruled that the cops are within their rights to arrest you even for failing to wear a seat belt. Are you absolutely sure you haven't broken any laws recently?

    Or maybe you might have a family member or friend who has done something illegal, and you've been spotted on camera talking with them. Perhaps you wouldn't mind the cops bringing you in for questioning so you can rat out your buddy. Or perhaps a judge would okay a search of your premises on the grounds that you were frequently associating with a known criminal.

    But what's more worrisome is the idea that it will become much easier to keep an eye on people who are political threats: Opposition party rank-and-file workers and other political nuisances could find themselves in court for petty violations people don't normally receive summonses for. They could become the object of harrassment and search warrants, all "justified" because they were caught on camera throwing a chewing gum wrapper upon the sidewalk.

    --
    There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
  6. Technical summary FAQ by ortholattice · · Score: 5
    An interesting technical summary is given in their FAQ (500 kb pdf) which includes sample photographs and reconstructions.

    A face is compressed to between 100 and 300 bytes. Even with 100 bytes the reconstructed face looks remarkably similar to the real one.

    With a 500 MHz Pentium, up to 47,000,000 rough ("vector") matches per minute can be made. A vector is an 88 byte representation of a face. Then, a finer scan can pin down the top matches.

    In other words the entire population of the US can be scanned in a few minutes with a single PC. Is it just me, or is there something scary about this?

  7. In reality by corvi42 · · Score: 5

    The reason for implementing this is that police officers were complaining that they just couldn't manage to get a good look at ALL the women on the beach without these.

    --

    There are a thousand forms of subversion, but few can equal the convenience and immediacy of a cream pie -Noel Godin
  8. This is getting out of hand. by Jhon · · Score: 5

    When did "ACLU" become a dirty word? How did defending the bill of rights come to be out of fashion? Did I miss the spaceship that took all the rational people away?

    Seriously -- practices like this are becoming far too acceptable by the general public. Why? Does it start at home? Are we as a society raising drones who refuse to question authority or take an active role in something as running this city/county/country (i.e. voting)?

    Ok. Stop the ride. I want to get off. It's finally starting to make me sick.

    -jhon

  9. London: anecdotal evidence by imipak · · Score: 5
    Just some anecdotal evidence from the UK.

    I live in Brixton, an area of South London known for a very high level of street drug dealing (smack, crack). A very close friend of mine has the misfortune to be a heroin addict. I went down with her once when she went to score. In a five minute walk around this particular area (which is also the heart of Brixton's new-found fashionable status,. with lots of new clubs and bars, very much part of the London scene[tm]) she was approached *by* no less than eight dealers, most of whom were part of groups of three or four.

    For some reason (more yuppies in the area?), the police have decided that open crack dealing is a Bad Thing. As part of a new campaign to *cough* crack down on the problem, CCTV was installed a year ago, the whole length of the street.

    It has made no difference at all as far as I can see.

    In the last three months, however, the residents of the estate where I live - about a ten minute walk from this inferno - have been kicking up a fuss because prostitutes and junkies bean to come up here after they'd scored / picked up a client. There are lots of young kids round here, & it's not very nice to find used works in your apartment stairwell in the morning. So, CCTV to the rescue again; another few dozen cameras now cover the entire estate. This has actually helped. The reason the dealers can't be busted even when they're seen on video clearly dealing, is that actual drugs are needed to get a conviction - and of course they swallow it immediately if the cops show up. It's harder for a junkie to swallow a syringe, however ;)

    Ironically I then met someone who works for the local council on the second scheme. Although when it's completed, only the police will have access to the pictures, she has a stack of monitors on her desk at present for 'debugging' purposes - and she sure as hell uses it for personal use (checking up on her S.O. to make sure he goes to the shops when he said he would, for instance.) She was also attacked on the street a few weeks ago. She called her boss afterwards, who took the tapes straight to the cops 20 minutes after the incident, and the attacker was picked up 30 mins after that. As she herself said, however, this was only because of who she was... if she was a random member of the public, the service would have been much, much slower.

    I just remembered another anecdotal data point... another junkie, friend of the above-mentioned one, was beaten up just outside his apartment block. This block is staffed 24/7 and, yep, they have CCTV which is supposed to be monitored. Surpise, they happened to be "looking the other way" at the time... he's apparently talking of sueing them (IIRC it's a criminal offence not to respond in such a situation) - but what's the betting that teh relevant tapes get "lost" or "accidentally wiped"?
    --
    "I'm not downloaded, I'm just loaded and down"

  10. I built Some of this Crap(It can be defeated) by TastyWheat · · Score: 5

    I have worked in the face detection and recognition business. I think its time to show people how they might be able to defeat the system. In england such a defense system to your identity is highly desired because almost every sqr foot of london is covered by face detectors. Actually the system is so error prone that its really a piece of cake to defeat it. Simple hats and big sun glasses pretty much keep you anonymous. iridescent surfaces will reek havoc with the algorithms also. A good amount of high frequency changes in the image and it won't even detect your face anymore. The systems are appearance based and appearance based systems have trouble with multiclored high frequeny changing images. Such as sparklies on your face cause the system to have more noise in its algs. I can forsee a public revolution as people start to wear more iridescent colored glasses in larger numbers. I plan on doing some research on the defense mechs. Right after my thesis, which will be the tool I use to help discove good defenses. I am a member of the OpenCV group on sourceforge and on Yahoogroups. I will release the tracking program as open source if possibble.