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*....
I think the subject says it all.
Camera 1: I predict that I'm going to be stolen in 10 seconds.
...
**Damn** I hate it when I'm right!
Robot cameras 'will predict crimes before they happen'
CCTV: By learning behaviour patterns, computers could soon alert police when an unmanned camera sees 'suspicious' activity
By Andrew Johnson
21 April 2002
Computers and CCTV cameras could be used to predict and prevent crime before it happens.
Scientists at Kingston University in London have developed software able to anticipate if someone is about to mug an old lady or plant a bomb at an airport.
It works by examining images coming in from close circuit television cameras (CCTV) and comparing them to behaviour patterns that have already programmed into its memory.
The software, called Cromatica, can then mathematically work out what is likely to happen next. And if it is likely to be a crime it can send a warning signal to a security guard or police officer.
The system was developed by Dr Sergio Velastin, of Kingston University's Digital Imaging Research Centre, to improve public transport.
By predicting crowd flow, congestion patterns and potential suicides on the London Underground, the aim was to increase the efficiency and safety of transport systems.
The software has already been tested at London's Liverpool Street Station.
Dr Velastin explained that not feeling safe was a major reason why some people did not use public transport. "In some ways, women and the elderly are effectively excluded from the public transport system," he said.
CCTV cameras help improve security, he said, but they are monitored by humans who can lose concentration or miss things. It is especially difficult for the person watching CCTV to remain vigilant if nothing happens for a long period of time, he said.
"Our technology excels at carrying out the boring, repetitive tasks and highlighting potential situations that could otherwise go unnoticed," he added.
While recent studies have shown that cameras tend to move crime on elsewhere rather than prevent it completely, in certain environments, such as train stations, they are still useful.
And Dr Velastin believes his creation has a much wider social use than just improving transport.
His team of European researchers are improving the software so that eventually it will be capable of spotting unattended luggage in an airport. And it will be able to tell who left it there and where that person has gone.
However, the computer is not yet set to replace the human being altogether.
"The idea is that the computer detects a potential event and shows it to the operator, who then decides what to do - so we are still a long way off from machines replacing humans," Dr Velastin says.
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
One forgets that when the computers hold sway over the people, those chosen few who program the computer are Gods. I REALLY can't wait, becuase this is where it all pays off...
"Gnovos, the computer has informed us that your progress in the 'QuakeSex Research Project' has been incredibly successful, and we are to give you another $100 million extension to the grant. Personally, I don't see how playing deathmatch games against your friends between sexual encounters with supermodels contributes to global peace, but it's not my place to dispute the wisdom of the computer. Machines are always right, after all. Oh, and another Nobel prize came today, should I put it in the box with the others?"
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Or do you make it a habit to look like a criminal?
No, but I will now! Oh, what fun to be had...
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
How cynical can you be.. whenever something like this comes around you predict the end of the world.. It's not a question of somebody getting arrested because they thought of mugging a person on the street.. it's about the ability to do city surveilance more effectively by reporting suspecious behaviour of people on screen.. imagine having to monitor 100 cameras at the same time.. wouldn't it then be somewhat of a relief if the program would sort out the screens that show suspicious events on them? Come on people get real! assuming this camera tecnique would work..
Very difficult to spot during editing apparantly ;-) Wonder what it would make of that?
Why can't women be like Hedy Lamarr - beautiful, talented and inventors of frequency-hopping spread-spectrum techn
of an old Guardian Newspaper ad on TV (a few years back now). It showed a skinhead running towards an old man - then froze.
:)
VO: Some newspapers stop here.
Unfreeze and said Skinhead sweeps man out of the way of falling masonry i.e. it was a rescue and not a mugging.
VO: The Guardian - get the full picture.
I guess with this technology in place, computer-controlled lasers would have taken out the rescuer before he could act
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
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
A guy I work with has a PhD in image processing. He relates this story of a system that was designed to try to detect human beings, and raise the alarm so that a security guard could check it out; rather than have a security guard staring at it continuously.
Anyway, they wrote some software- it more or less just looked for a human sized blob that moved. Worked too- it could detect human beings pretty well.
Trouble was, they found that it was unreliable- it tended to think birds landing in flocks and groups were people appearing and disappearing. So they improved on the algorithm, and put in some code that if the system could see the wings flapping- it would realise it was birds and ignore it.
Anyway, it worked pretty well, so they thought they'd give a hard test. Could someone deliberately evade it? They got a grad student and told him to work out a way to fool it. They set up the computer guarding a notional prize, and set him at it.
The grad student puzzled over it for a while, then siddled into the middle of view; and removed his jacket. He then waved his jacket over his head vigorously. The computer saw all the flapping, and activated the 'bird' assignment and he was able to steal the item...
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"http://www.cordis.lu/telematics/tap_transport/rese arch/projects/cromatica.html
Their other projects are also interesting as well
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Locating "suspect packages" left in public places
Spotting vehicles parked in dodgy places
Watching for people accessing secure areas
Making sure no service vehicles get onto runways
Yes, all this is possible with more conventional technology but these often need a human being in close attendance. This system filters out noise like stray animals, cyclists, etc because it learns what suspect packages, vehicles and aeroplanes look like and also how they move and behave.
and yes... it could be used to spot human behaviours. It appears that someone plotting a crime moves differently to someone just going about their business. This system knows the rules about human shapes and modalities and fluidity of movement.
My view is that the final bit is a bit of spin for the consumption of venture capitalists and is unlikely to be of much use in prime time - so no need to panic yet. 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.
Cameras set up at Kingston University in London marked everyone coming into the computer lab as "criminal" as it predicted each individual was about to illegally download copyrighted music.
--
Mike Nugent
-- Mike wildcard@illuminatus.org
...but one oft-proposed use of this technology is to catch shoplifters. If you're running around the store flapping your coat like a bird, I have a feeling that a little computer is a small worry compared to those nice men in white taking you away right now.
Last post!
Every psycologist worth his salt knows that you can't predict the behavior of individuals or even small groups. You need a large group before the mathematics of psycology can be applied with any acceptable degree of accuracy, on the order of the population of a medium to highly populated planet. Seldon would be rolling in his grave if he'd been born yet.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I don't think we have to worry yet about a computer causing the erronious arrest of someone performing thoughtcrime or attempting a mugging: "'The idea is that the computer detects a potential event and shows it to the operator, who then decides what to do - so we are still a long way off from machines replacing humans,' Dr Velastin says." It's simply a tool to help the operators sort through the huge amount of visual data they are presented with.
BTW, I don't support the idea of a Big Brother monitoring the public. However, I'm equally unsupportive of the spread of FUD like this article write-up.
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."
These analysis programs are interesting research, but it'll be years before there's any thing even close to being have picking up enough threats and few enough false positives to be considered being in production. Besides, by the time physical movement is visible, the target / victim has already been selected, monitored, and assessed by the attacker. Proactive measures are much more effective than reactive. Look at the PC virus industry for detailed case studies in prevention versus cure.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
I live 20 steps from Times Square in the only residential building on my block. As such, I probably can't pick my nose without being recorded on 15 different cameras. Of course, you think this is bad, but consider the possibilities!
1. If I seem lost in thought, change the contents of some of the digital billboards to warn me about wandering into traffic.
2. If I seem sleepy, send an email to my employer warning them not to let me touch any code that day.
3. If I seem irritable, call my girlfriend and warn her to leave me alone for a few hours.
4. And of course, if I seem shifty and nervous, like someone about to do something hazardous and antisocial, someone with something to hide, who is going to do harm to everyone around them... warn the police because I am about to experience flatulence.
;-P
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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
In that case I'd like to be the first person to complain about flocks of geese looking like soviet nuclear missiles...
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"There is nothing scary about this; in fact, humans already do it on a regular basis. A department store security guard scopes out a crowd of shoppers for potential shoplifters. An airport security guard scans a terminal for suspicious activity. A cop checks out a crowded street looking for potential muggers and pickpockets.
The trouble is, humans are inefficient and expensive, and their "gut instincts" may be fallible. The mall security guard may be the only guy watching a dozen closed-circuit monitors, and he may even be dozing off from the monotony of his job. The airport guard might be a minimum wage high-school dropout with barely any training. The cop's instincts are pretty good, but as objective as he tries to be, he unconsciously tends to target members of a particular race instead of going by solid scientific indicators.
This technology (if it works) will be a Good Thing because:
1. It improves upon an existing system that helps keep us safe.
2. It could be more effective and consistent.
3. It could apply rules objectively, and could be designed to flag activities that truly are suspicious (e.g. "casing" a department store) rather than those that merely look suspicious to biased humans (e.g. a young black man in a record store). This means that it could help protect our rights more than the current system.
Cheers,
IT
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
Seems to me that this would be trivially susceptible to DDoS attacks.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
This article is much more in-depth and does a better job of representing the technology. The article posted to Slashdot implies that Cromatica can predict a mugging. Cromatica identifies congestion and predicts suicide attempts. And it does this with pretty simple algorithms.
Briefly: Cromatica views crowds as changing colors against a background. When the colors stop, this is congestion. Likewise, suicide attempts are indicated by lingering for 10 minutes or more. It's pretty easy to identify a single person against an empty backdrop.
Of course, people are working on predicting muggings, and the article goes into that as well.
The article also has links to the research itself.
Sir, I call you a troll.
:-)
The Independent is by no means the UK's tabloid rubbish. We've got plenty of them - the Sun and Daily Mail spring instantly to mind
The Independent is a respected, pretty objective high-quality broadsheet. It's not politically aligned at all (hence the name) which I suppose might mean some doubt its accuracy because it's not just following the normal right-wing bias (see, UK media's overwhelmingly right wing, it's not just you in the US who have that problem!) but really, let's be honest. You may not like it but it's straight.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
It is being done on casual basis by police around the world for personal preventive searches and car searches. For the time being it is "the trained operator told us so" instead of computer. And to be honest I would rather have a computer decice then some cops. It will be less racially and ethnically biased
Statistics from observing policemen in some US states and the number of blacks and whites they stop for checks and searches are well known, no point in reiterating them...
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
NTS uses real-time video and neural-network technology at traffic intersections and railroad crossings to predict traffic accidents and enforce traffic violations (bad news for you guys who blow red lights) - kind of similar to the situation in the article...instead of predicting the actions of people, it's predicting the actions of automobiles. There are already many deployments nationwide and lots more being installed.
BTW, the same predictive neural network technology is used to predict all types of financial fraud, including credit card fraud and money laundering.
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.
The would-be perpitrator is either arrested pre-emptively, or in one case just told in a phone call that they know they're about to commit a crime, which is enough to deter them.
This is creepy, people, yes even us programmers and tech types amaze me, I guess what I mean is I cant belive the arrogance of people that think they can devise a machine that tells someone what is in the heart and intentions of a man, just from looking at him nonetheless. Someone needs to get ahhold of the "geniuses" that are working on this and give then a good ass kicking, just for attempting to be so naieve.
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
Statistics from observing policemen in some US states and the number of blacks and whites they stop for checks and searches are well known, no point in reiterating them...
Well, the accusations are well known. Then the US Justice Department got New Jersey to "agree" to actually commission a study of the issue, in a consent decree.
The company hired to do the study found that the incidence of speeding varied by race. In a way fairly consistent with the stop ratio.
The Justice department was outraged, has "grave doubts", etc. because that isn't what they wanted to find.
So when robbers learn to adapt their pattern of dress and behavior when they go out on the streets to mug people, and say, start dressing and shuffling about as old ladies, the police will start arresting old ladies on the street because the computers told them they fit the behavior patterns of robbers? :)
Of course, all this technology assumes that humans don't have the ability to adapt their behavior patterns when performing a crime. The stupid ones will get caught while the smart ones learn what trips the system to "track" suspects and endevour to avoid those actions. True for nearly any aspect of life; from hacking to shooting rockets into space.
But the point with face recognition would truely be a kicker. Once that system acually becomes reliable, anybody with a record notorius enough to have their face mapped would be tracked the moment they entered a store. Assuming you can't obscure your likeness in someway, of course.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Let's install cameras everywhere and use them in a court as evidence.
You know, if you were robbed, you would be only too pleased to pull up the video evidence of it to help nail the person who did it.
Indeed, many people want cameras up in train stations and on trains (and probably would prefer to have a real person watching it to arrange for help if there was a problem). On a similar note of machine prediction, most of us are happy to have metal detectors at airports as a "predictor" of subsequent potential illegal acts.
So what gives? I think that what we are worrying about here is about a couple of themes:
1) The possibility that someone can collate and document your own activities and use innocent (and legal) behaviour against us. Of course, all bets are off with some groups. Just ask Bill about Monica - I don't think he actually broke the law, but everyone wanted to know anyway. (Ok, you expect a little scrutiny as a president!)
2) The possibility of persecution for acts which have never been commited, and where people are being judged on presumed intent. (Although most peopole still don't want guns on airplanes, funnily enough).
If this is the case, then what we need is more in the way of legislative (or ideally, constitutional) protection of:
1)rights to privacy, and
2)the presupposition of innocence.
These concepts do exist legally in some areas for protection of privacy (eg., Medical records) and from persecution (when accused of a major felony).
But they really don't exist at a day to day level for most people living normal lives. Protection against these actions with legal rights is probably the best solution here.
Because the technology isn't going to go away.
My 2c worth - Michael
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
This is just another exampel of how ludicrous some company's "busines plans" are, and how willing the government is to spend money on things like this.
Right, this company out of nowhere can suddenly predict human behavior? Humans in large groups?
This is akin to the millions of dollars that CA just needlessly spent on Oracle licenses -- it's an example of some government flunky with a budget picking up some snake oil from an overzealous salesperson.
Anyone who claims they can "mathematically predict" human behavior is lying through his or her respective teeth.
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
666... yeah, that's right, it's not he machines top be concerned about, it's the human beasts to watch out for. From the programmers to the cops to the potential muggers and victims...
The machines are just a good excuse and distraction for that beasty point, via reflection.
Whatever you do, don't EVER get a large bag of red balloons and release them into the summer sky. Boy, I learned my lesson...
There was a TV news magazine article yesterday (might have been on Sunday Morning) about the 2 MILLION surveillance cameras that now infest London, in response to IRA threats. The piece pointed out that NOT ONE terrorist has been stopped by these cameras (but that abuse is rampant). It also mentioned that the average Londoner is caught on camera 300 times a day.
Privacy issues aside, somehow a 0:2,000,000 success:cost ratio strikes me as a wee bit useless, not to mention being an utter waste of tax money and gov't time.
And that doesn't begin to touch the problem of sorting out the mass of data from 300 screencaps per day per citizen.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
to cut out all the bullshit.
I'd guess there's a simple reason for your observation: when there is no speed limit, most people worry more about their driving than about whether there's a patrol car in their rearview mirror, about to haul them over for a speeding ticket.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
The trouble is that people have too much confidence in the efficiency and infallibility of machines. A department store security guard that suspects you of being a shoplifter might be annoying, but he can't do anything until you actually shoplift.
Also, these kinds of machine vision applications are almost impossible to validate. Where do you get the training data from? How do you measure false alarm rate? Most likely, they will have to get trained by some person's judgement of what looks suspicious, which merely enshrines a fallible human judgment into perpetuity, inexactly at that.
The potential for false alarms is enormous. If you have some disability, carry a heavy package in an unusual way, or wear some strange outfit, this system is likely going to tag you as suspicious. Video cameras and computers have nowhere near the reasoning ability to figure out what is going on, or the resolution to even see the necessary details if they could.
hopefully they didn't test this software on the typical soap opera... which was probably written by "plot writer version 1.0" anyway.
I can see it now: "The camera predicts that the person on screen will turn out to be the long lost, transgender half-brother of the amnesiatic ex-stripper, and that he will marry the heiress to the papaya plantation..."
He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send your fingerprints off to Washington."
Trying to substitute cheap technology for a functioning society is the wrong path. You can put in cameras to detect potential criminals, but that doesn't get at the root of the problem. Crime and violence are the result of failed government policies. Cameras won't make you secure, and neither will minimum wage security gaurds or a stressed police force.
The cynic is you: rather than trying to prevent crime at the root, you give up and want throw more and more people into jail.
Now I've got me talking to myself... but it just occurred to me: London is what, 10 million people or so? (I really have no idea, just guessing)
Assuming that's tolerably close, that means there is one camera for every 5 residents!!
And postulating that perhaps 20% of Londoners are out in public at any given moment, that's one camera per publicly-visible citizen at all times.
So.. with what statistically amounts to 100% surveillance of each and every citizen while they're out in public, the cameras still can't catch ONE terrorist.
[sarcasm] If the surveillance system is accurate in determining potentially naughty behaviour, it follows that the number of terrorists in London is zero. [/sarcasm]
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I was neither trolling, nor intending to start a flamewar. I simply wanted to point out that an article in the Independent criticising CCTV is a bit like an article in The Morning Star saying that capitalism is bad.
:-) Since I'm not concerned about karma points, I post my own opinions, not necessarily popular ones.
Frankly, as a left-of-centre Scottish Nationalist, if I was trolling or inciting flames, you'd know about it
How the fuck is that offtopic? Asshole editors.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?