Slashdot Mirror
Smart Cameras To Predict Crimes
hairybacchus writes: "The Independent News is reporting that scientists at Kingston University in London have developed video processing software that is able to predict behavior patterns of the people on-screen. They say it will be used to alleviate congestion in the London Underground or alert police to potential muggings. I wonder how long it will be before this is combined with face-recognition technology? It's spooky." I can't wait. "We searched you because the computer told us to." Trust the Computer.
The Independent News? Wot's that thar then? The newspaper is called 'The Independent'.
Sorry, but I still on 'Stunned by the Americacentrism' after the story where every man and his dog bemoaned a story that spoilt a television program before it has been shown in the whole of the *states*....
It's a trashy promo for the new movie Minority Report. Computers predicting crimes before you commit them (in the 'not too distant future' they'd have you believe).
What I find funny is that Phillip K. Dick is listed as an 'author' of the movie on that web page. Promotional bs. He died in 1982 just before Blade Runner was released (his short story 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep was the philosophical foundation for it).
aren't we always the ones to yell that it's not the technology, but how you use it, that counts? just saying...
sic transit gloria mundi
And rightly so! Ever since the settling of the New World we have experienced racial/ethnic/religious oppression, corporate power-mongers using their money and influence to squash our rights and freedoms, magic bullet theories, the use of fear to convince us to sign our freedoms away (eg. 09/11 "terrorism", crime) among other things. All of them committed by those in power.
It all boils down to whether you trust them to responsibly use the power they have in cases like this.
Well, do you?
STUDY THE PAST
-- Jim
how would this system make a difference between a begger, a person waiting for someone, a person waiting to commit a crime?
do authorities take a care about it if there is a difference?
would being black, hispanic or asian rise the chance of triggering an "alarm"?
what does this mean for the definition of public space? will there be a public space in future, if this technology is used, or would it shift the term of public spaces, and fragment them into spaces for certain people, that are forbidden to others just because a computer systems database says they are likely to commit a crime, even if they dont want to?
As with all technologies that are present, this one has the ability to be misused or just mis-interpreted.
However, the idea present in the system are not poor. When at university, I knew many students that worked nights as security guards. Most of them would either be studying notes or sleeping! Having a machine to help during the monotony isn't necessarily a bad thing.
If however this leads to harrassment from the authorities just cos you have bad social skills is another matter. Hence its use must be monitored and have regulations inplace to tackle misuse.
-- "To ask a question is to show ignorance; Not to ask a question means you'll remain ignorant."
Not sure where your from, but most of us here don't like the idea of cameras, let alone cameras reporting on any "suspicious behavior" we might be doing at any given moment.. We like to think we live in a free society based around citizens, where the country is run for us and is a product of us as a whole as opposed to being subjects of a government. Basically we belive people's rights come first and not governments rights. Governemnt is an extension of the people. People aren't an extension of the government... Follow?
You know, I *LOVE* computers. I've been around them since I was 8 and got my first one, a VIC-20... But I think it's wrong to EVER put them in "charge" in any way in law enforcement.
The popular myth is that "computers never make mistakes". Well, we ALL know this is bullshit. No computer is any better than the software that it is running, and the hardware is no better than the people who designed it.
Show me ONE bug free piece of software that exists, anywhwere, that is more complex than the "hello world!" level and you can argue with me.
Better yet, show me one OPERATING SYSTEM, the layer atop the hardware that any applications software (such as this Orwell-Ware) that is bug free.
Bug=mistake.
That said, the odds of any such application, to be flawless itself, running on a flawless OS, running on flawless hardware, are SO small as to be non-existant.
The best that can be hoped for is accuracy in the 90%+ range. Multiply that by 300 million people, and the number of people who are going to be harassed is in the TENS of million... The potential for abuse, by both law enforcement, and by hackers with agendas is staggering...
Already the face scanners have been proven to be so inaccurate that they are being dropped in places. This is a FAR more complex algorhythm... I'd think an accuracy rate of 20% would be generous.
For one thing, they are assuming that normal people will behave normally, but that criminals will behave differently, evasive, etc... Well, I for one will NOT act normally anyplace I know such a thing is operating, and I doubt anyone else will either. This, I doubt can be taken into account.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
I saw a blurb about Washington, D.C. wanting to install a massive system of cameras like London has and now I understand why there is such a backlash. There are cameras everywhere in our society now. Our homes are just about the only place left that we can hope to not be captured on camera without our consent, but how long will that last? Why do Americans allow our government to slowly eradicate our civil rights in the name of safety and security? Benjamin Franklin would be turning over in his grave if he heard some of the twaddle people are blathering about these days. What you say? Yes, we should ban guns.. they're dangerous and can be used to kill people. Hmm, yes.. privacy.. that's an odd issue too, maybe we don't need privacy. Let's install cameras everywhere and use them in a court as evidence. Freedom of speech? Well, only when it is convenient and when it doesn't offend anyone. We wouldn't want to be politically incorrect now would we? The PC police might come and haul us away for being insensitive. What? You plead the 5th? What do you have to hide? Are you a TERRORIST or something? Only terrorists plead the 5th Sir! You must be hiding something. Let's go review the video cameras for the last month of your movements.
Anyway, I'm getting a little off topic, but from what I've seen, the London camera system was installed to combat the IRA terrorists (sound familiar Americans?) but according to the program hasn't ever actually resulted in capturing an IRA terrorist. So, pray tell, what is the massive camera system in London used for? Spying on the citizens of course. Am I paranoid? A little, but without paranoid people we would not have a Bill of Rights in the US. We'd all be ignorant trusting twats who believe evil men don't exist and believe everything spoon-fed to us by the media and our government.
I'm still not sure how I feel about this, really. There was a little grocery shop across the street from my high school, everyone would go there to buy candy and pop for lunch, and it made for a popular hangout after school.
Once new management came in, it took approximately three hours for them to come up with a rule that changed all that. They were tired of stuff being shoplifted (can you blame them?), so they said nobody can wear coats or backpacks into the place. We all had to leave them outside the front door. And it wasn't their responsibility to watch the coats and bags, either.
The very first day, someone walked out and picked up two backpacks, the next day a leather coat was stolen. After that, nobody wanted to go.
The problem? They assumed everyone with a coat or a backpack was a shoplifter. Inconveniencing everyone in order to stop one or two people seems wrong to me. I imagine this new camera system will use some sort of stereotyping as well, like watching for people who bounce around nervously, looking all around them for escape routes or police (many armed robberies in gas stations are like this). But, will the software be able to tell that from someone who really has to use the bathroom, and is bouncing up and down impatiently, searching around the room for the nearest restroom? I think not.
I admire the optimism, though.
The speed of time is one second per second.
Study the past, indeed! From your post, you would think that all this began with "the settling of the New World"! ROTFL! Try reading any history about any part of the world at any time!
When we consider whether we allow the police to have guns, we don't ask whether we can always trust them to use their guns wisely. Of course we can't. Instead, we ask what are the advantages of the police having guns versus their not having guns and what procedures we can have in place that will minimise the abuses.
We don't ban police from interrogating suspects even though sometimes they abuse their power in those interrogations. We do prevent them from torturing suspects, and we also will exclude certain evidence if police disregard the rights of suspects. Some jurisdictions also videotape all (custodial) interrogations of serious crimes, an excellent practice, which should be required.
But, notice, we do not ban interrogations. Nor do we say, we trust police to do the right thing always. The very foundations of our government are based on accountability to the people and checks and balances, not on trusting authorities to always do the right thing. Try reading The Federalist Papers some time instead of watching Oliver Stone movies.
Of all technologies, this one of having computers analyzing video surveillance cameras in public places, seems amazing innocuous. I can hardly imagine anything less threatening to me.
In Northamptonshire in the UK, the number of deaths have doubled so far this year compared to last year.
Last year they put a load of static and mobile cameras all over the place. Basically, their "Safety camera" scheme has been a devastating failure.
Cameras have no effect on the casualty rate and are nothing more than revenue generation mechanisms.
Deleted
It does however raise interesting questions about "reasonable suspicion", evidence and culpability if someone is wrongly detained. Police would no doubt try to shift resonsibility onto the technology, as is their wont.
I would hope that trying to shift responsibility for wrongful detention/arrest/prosecution would be met with a resounding, "So what?" If you use a tool to do your job, you're still responsible for what you do with the tool. If a house I build collapses and kills people, I shouldn't be able to blame the hammer - even if it's a special prototype hammer with artificial intelligence and accelerometers. I decided to use that particular hammer, so I am responsible for the results of that decision. (I'll get around to suing the hammer manufacturer later).
Also, we hear time and time again about how police don't have the power to act until a crime is committed (e.g. domestic violence) so how will this stop crime? It might assist in arrest or conviction rates by capturing evidence, but unless we have even more fundamental rights taken from us by our "representatives" and "protectors..."
It does seem to be a cool technology, but the potential for abuse is so high that I have trouble supporting it. When a technology exists that has a high potential for criminal abuse (e.g. MP3 copying) legislators fall all over themselves trying to quash it. But they conveniently look the other way when it's something that government might abuse (e.g. radar guns, surveillance equipment, drunk driving check points, Patriot laws...).
Slashdot comments... splitting hairs since 1997.