Stabilized Cameras for Long-Distance Surveillance

DrBlake writes "New York Times has an article about new systems used to stabilize cameras hung from aircraft. Apparently they make it possible to see many details at 500 meters or higher. The systems are interesting in themselves and the article raises interesting concerns about what implications the systems have on privacy."

Comments

hmpth

[Anonymous Coward]

My head in an aircraft counts as a stabilised camera which can see beyond 500 metres. That is, unless I'm in economy class.

Re:hmpth

[Anonymous Coward]

Humour, not a troll!!

watch my neighbours

[drdata.nl]

Hmm, guess I'll use that when the neighbour girl's taking a shower :)

Privacy is a myth

[laetus]

From an American perspective:

1) Employers, insurers and financial institutions have access to your credit records
2) Employers and financial institutions have or are fighting for access to your medical records (why employ or make a loan to a dying man)
3) Marketing companies are tracking your shopping, spending, web viewing, etc. habits on a daily basis
4) In its fight against terrorism, the federal government is putting in place systems to find out anything about you at anytime (scan the headlines if you don't believe it).

I'm not paranoid. Just realistic and a bit fatalistic. Privacy in modern America is a myth. Watch what you say or do, because others certainly are.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Anonymous Coward]

It's still amusing how many people think that their lives are so important that people are spying on them. The reality check for today is that no one cares about 99.99999% of the people in this world. You might think that the Man (tm) is out to get you, but your life is probably irrelevant to all but about a dozen or more people (and this isn't you personally, it's most of the people on this planet).

It's good to worry about things like this, but let's not all get paranoid that we're being featured on "Enemy of the State" because we're way too damned boring.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[ethereal]

I can't make a guess about tracking of me that I haven't seen evidence of, but in terms of privacy-invading actions that I have been aware of, the most seem to stem from buying a house. Perhaps just because this is a matter of public record, but all the sudden you get a ton of junk mail, financial offers, etc. some of which contain fairly private (so I thought) information. I feel like I've lost more privacy as a result of putting down roots in the community than I ever did as your average netizen.

The worst is all the life insurance promotions that are coincidentally for exactly the amount of my mortgage (I think my mortgage company sold me out on that one). From the mail I get, you'd think that home buying is one of the leading causes of death in the U.S. :)

Re:Privacy is a myth

[nanojath]

With the exception of the theoretical threats of access to medical records and those ominous government "systems to find out anything about you at anytime" (what does that mean?) I don't see that the things you list carries a reasonable expectation of privacy. Actions carried out in the public sphere have public consequences and are publically visible. Moreover, a large percentage of this scrutiny can be prevented, if it means that much: the credit information providers can be contacted and instructed not to release your credit information except if you initiate the transaction, and you can go through the tedious opt-out procedures with financial insitutions. Cash still works for private transactions and nobody has a gun to my head making me use an "E-Z Save" card at the grocery store.

The posting says:

[this] article raises interesting concerns about what implications the systems have on privacy.

Call me crazy, but if there is not a ceiling or a wall between me and a line of site to the outside world, I do not expect that what I'm doing is private, nor do I feel a reasonable expectation for it to be so. Outside is outside, public is public. For the majority of Americans the limiting factor on their privacy is not Society or its institutions, nor Government and its agents: it is how attentive they choose to be to their own privacy. If you sign on the dotted line without reading the small print you've got little cause to complain when your new credit card company sells your information to a telemarketer.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[neocon]

4) In its fight against terrorism, the federal government is putting in place systems to find out anything about you at anytime (scan the headlines if you don't believe it).

Care to back up this claim?

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Anonymous Coward]

The easier and cheaper they make it, the more people they'll spy on. If it costs a lot of money to spy on people, only the really dangerous ones will get attention. If it costs a penny a day, they'll monitor everyone and slap you a fine every time you spit on the sidewalk.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Anonymous Coward]

if there is not a ceiling or a wall between me and a line of site to the outside world, I do not expect that what I'm doing is private

So you have no objection if I follow you around every time you walk out of your house, writing down everything you do in a little notebook?

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time they come up with a new infringement on privacy, people say "you have no privacy anyway." Well, bollocks, it's bad enough now, but that doesn't mean I want it to keep getting worse.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[lrichardson]

"The reality check for today is that no one cares about 99.99999% of the people in this world. "

Two things wrong with this:

First, there are huge industries which keep and use all sorts of personal information. Banks use credit history, insurers use health history, and, in something which everyone in the US and most of Europe is familiar with, marketers use purchase history (and anything else they can get their paws on). It's really not accurate to say most people don't care when there are huge numbers of people employed in industries that do care.

Second, and more insidious, is the effect it has on society. When you have to curtail your own actions, for fear of what might happen - despite the fact your actions would be legal - then we've entered into the "Enemy of the State" scenario. How many people write scathing articles about scientology? Or, with reference to this article, have sex in their enclosed back yard? Both are legal, and both could lead to years of harassment.

On to the technical side of this ... I find it damn funny they're talking about removing the vibrations from helicopters to stabilize the picture. Think balloon. Think fixed-wing drone. Heck, I saw a prototype of the latter, with an electric drive, solar cells, and a simple vibration dampened camera (no gyros, no electronic compensation), and around a 30 ft wingspan that gave pictures better than those in the article ... back in 1989.

Then, of course, there's the fact that large parts of urban areas are already covered by cameras. How long will it be before the police request 'access', such that they can track a suspect? I've seen demos where they've tracked people from their apartment to their workdesk. And into the stores and restaurants they hit at lunchtime. These demos were put together after the fact, in part to argue for real-time access for the LE world. Yeah, the eye in the sky is nifty, but hardly earth-breaking with respect to the total lack of privacy we currently exist under.

There's a growing concern about 'Privatization of public space'. This applies to cell phone users, public demonstations, street vendors, and really ought to apply to the LE agencies.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[Chris Carollo]

1) Employers, insurers and financial institutions have access to your credit records

Do they have access to your credit records or your credit report? The former implies that they know exactly what you're buying and what you're paying for items, which I don't believe my employer has access to.

Re:Privacy is a myth

[UranusReallyHertz]

It would bother and annoy me, but I'm not sure what I could do about it. Maybe sue you for harrasment?

The Government and privacy

[uberlinuxguy]

This is just an another example of the government using technology to out stretch the telescope that Big Brother uses to watch over us all. Now that is not to say that such things are not needed. In wake of last fall's events... umm yes we need some kind of surveillance system to catch the bad guys. But there comes a point where you have to stop and wonder, why are they getting so sophisticated with all of this? Is to to catch the bad guys? Or is it to catch a glimpse of what you and the milk man/woman are doing in the hot tub? Things that make ya go hmmm......

Re:The Government and privacy

[Oculus Habent]

Time to go into the lead-lined tarp, tent, and awning business.

Yes, you too can protect yourselves from the prying eyes (infra-red or otherwise) of high-altitude aircraft and satellite telemetry.

Come visit Crazy Al's House 'O Lead and find out what deals await you!

Re:The Government and privacy

[uberlinuxguy]

I'm not normally one of those hardcore privacy advocates, but you wouldn't happen to know of any publically traded stock I should start checking out that is in the Lead or tarp/tent/awning business or any combination of the 2 would ya? Good ol' crazy al, he'll sell just about anything.

Anyone got a mirror?

[xQx]

NYTimes wants me to register and log in.

Anyone got a mirror?

Re:Anyone got a mirror?

[Hektor_Troy]

For the Spy in the Sky, New Eyes

By IAN AUSTEN

FLYING in his helicopter, Sgt. Frank Sheer of the Orange County Sheriff's Department in Southern California can be literally miles from the action. But that does not mean that he and his co-pilot do not know what's going on. In fact, Sergeant Sheer says they often have a clearer picture of a crime scene than the officers who are there.

Advertisement

"We'll be tracking a suspect on a hillside from the helicopter," said Sergeant

Sheer, the chief pilot in the Orange County force, "and the deputies climbing up it will be saying to us, `There's nobody here.' We've actually had them step on a guy who pulled up a bush for cover."

It's not just having a bird's-eye view that gives Sergeant Sheer and many other airborne police officers, rescue workers, military personnel, and television news and movie crews almost paranormal vision. Nor is it simply advances in optics and cameras. Ultimately they all rely on complex camera stabilization systems that mix mechanical and electronic technologies to produce steady images, even at high magnification, from inherently unsteady craft like helicopters and boats.

When officers pursued O. J. Simpson along the freeways of Los Angeles eight years ago, a covey of police and television news helicopters tracked him with stabilized cameras hanging at the sides in their distinctive ball-shaped pods. But most helicopter surveillance is not that dramatic. If the Orange County Sheriff's Department needs a car discreetly followed, Sergeant Sheer can keep tabs on it from 3,000 feet up and a considerable distance behind -- a position that would leave most motorists unaware there was a helicopter around, let alone watching them.

New systems built around all-electronic motion-sensing technologies are so stable that only the horizon and haze limit how far away observers can be.

The use of airborne stabilized cameras to create films or follow athletes in action attracts little controversy. Nor does anyone dispute that the systems allow police officers to capture criminals or rescue people. Some privacy advocates, however, are concerned that the recent proliferation of airborne cameras and the growing capabilities of new systems may mean that anyone who steps outside may unknowingly be a target of an aerial eye. Outdoors, there may no longer be any place to hide.

"Because technology affords police what amounts to superhuman vision, that doesn't mean we lose all expectations of privacy," said Barry Steinhardt, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's program on technology and liberty. "There are lots of innocent people who are going to have their privacy invaded -- observed naked in their backyard sunbathing from far away."

There is a long history of efforts to produce steady airborne pictures. But in the early years, the results were for the most part dismal.

Steven Poster, the president of the American Society of Cinematographers, recalls his first attempt at photography from a helicopter, in the late 1960's. "It was an Illinois State Fair, and the stabilization came from a rope tied around me to the helicopter," Mr. Poster recalled. "I quickly realized that this was not a very good system."

While more sophisticated systems existed back then, they did not differ much from Mr. Poster's rope. Known as side mounts, they generally relied on bungee cords and the user's body to isolate the camera.

By the 1980's Mr. Poster was a director of photography for feature films and television advertisements, and he had found an answer to his aerial photography problems with a system made by Wescam, a company now based in Burlington, Ontario.

"It's the best way to stabilize a camera," said Mr. Poster, who has used the system in films like "Stuart Little 2," which is to be released this summer.

The Wescam system used by Mr. Poster's film crews is remarkably similar to the original Wescam developed in the early 1960's by a Canadian subsidiary of Westinghouse as a battlefield surveillance tool for the Canadian military. (Wescam is short for Westinghouse camera.)

Eliminating the vibration from the helicopter was the first step and the easy part. The Wescam ball is attached to a helicopter or airplane through a shock absorber that uses springs and other damping materials. "It is tuned for the natural frequencies of helicopters," said Mark Chamberlain, a mechanical engineer who is president and chief executive of Wescam.

But eliminating the vibration does nothing to limit three other kinds of movement by the camera: pitch (plunging up and down), yaw (rotating around a vertical axis) and roll (the side-to-side rotation that creates a moving horizon).

To deal with these kinds of movements, inventors of the original Wescam turned to large gyroscopes, which create inertia. It is like strapping a large boulder to the camera to stabilize it, yet without all the weight that a boulder would add.

Inside the camera ball are three gyros oriented to offset each of the three types of unwanted motion. Motors attached to the camera mount allow an operator within the helicopter to view images from the camera on a video monitor and point the camera as needed.

The gyro stabilization system proved so steady that it has not significantly changed over the last three decades. But the system has one significant drawback: the gyros require frequent maintenance.

That is not a problem for the movie industry, which rents the camera systems for short periods. (Other companies, including Gyron Systems International, Tyler Camera Systems and Spacecam Systems, also offer stabilized motion picture cameras.) But the need for maintenance made the systems largely impractical for full-time use by police, the military and television stations.

After Mr. Chamberlain led a management buyout in 1987 of the engineering company that had come to control the Wescam technology, he turned its attention to introducing a technology that was more robust.

Instead of providing stability, its three gyros wobble slightly when the rig changes directions. Sensors measure the wobbling and feed the data to microprocessors that in turn use high-speed electric motors to move the camera and offset the unwanted motion.

he second-generation technology -- what Mr. Chamberlain calls a sense- and-react system -- has only about half the stability of the original Wescam, so it cannot be used with lenses with very high magnification. But for the Orange County Sheriff's Department, it is unquestionably an improvement over using hand-held binoculars from a helicopter.

"At 1,500 feet we're not reading license plates, but we can tell if it's a man or a woman on the ground," Sergeant Sheer said.

Advertisement

Like many systems used by police forces, one of the two Wescam systems

owned by Orange County has a night vision camera that creates images by capturing the infrared radiation emitted by warm objects, including people.

But a United States Supreme Court ruling last June has forced the Orange County Sheriff's Department and other police forces to change the way they use those thermal imaging cameras. The court said that the police could not train thermal imaging cameras on private homes without a warrant.

Mr. Steinhardt of the A.C.L.U. said he would like to see legislators, rather than the courts, come up with specific rules for police use of helicopter camera systems. The A.C.L.U. does not oppose the use of cameras "under the rare circumstance that the police might be legitimately in pursuit of a hot suspect," he said.

"But in the end, that's not how it's going to be used," he added. "It's going to be used in ordinary law enforcement, and that's very different."

It is also being used from ever greater distances. Four years ago Wescam introduced a third stabilization system that combines the reliability of cameras like those used by the Orange County Sheriff's Department while offering even greater stability than the original system. It replaces the spinning mechanical gyroscopes with fiber-optic gyros, which use bursts of laser light to calculate movements by the camera system in each direction.

Once measured, the movement is also offset with a new technology known as magnetic torque motors that can apply a force in a specific direction but allow free movement in all other directions.

Not only is the new system much faster, said Steven Tritchew, Wescam's chief technology officer, but it will also provide a steady image with the magnification of "any lens being made." Practically speaking, atmospheric haze and, ultimately, the impossibility of seeing beyond the horizon are the only limits on how far it can see. "We call it the ground-based Hubbell -- we can see a long way," Mr. Chamberlain said.

Certainly Lt. Keith Howland, a mission commander and tactical coordinatorbased at the Naval Air Station in Brunswick, Me., noticed a big difference after an old system in his P-3 Orion surveillance airplane was replaced by a turret with Wescam's new technology about a year ago. "You wouldn't even place them in the same universe," he said.

While on patrol, Lieutenant Howland said, he can watch events on the ground "well outside of visible range."

Like many civilian cameras, the Wescam on the P-3 can be aimed by punching in Global Positioning System coordinates. Software allows it to track moving objects on the ground more or less automatically.

While his aircraft's camera system cannot match the broad sweep of surveillance satellites, Lieutenant Howland said that it had many other advantages. "Basically we can be in real time on a target, see things at the moment they happen, and report it," he said. "It's live video versus a picture."

The systems can be costly, with the most advanced models costing as much as $650,000. But Wescam plans gradually to introduce variations on the new technology into all its markets, potentially giving police departments the same farsightedness. (The Raytheon Company recently introduced a fiber-optic gyro-stabilization system of its own. FLIR Systems of Portland, Ore., is also among the companies that make stabilization systems for police and military use.)

Mr. Chamberlain suggested that the most advanced technology might next go to an even more demanding customer than a police department chasing criminals or a military unit tracking terrorists: the broadcast news industry.

"From a pure image point of view, the military want uninterrupted imagery," he said, "but if it bounces a little bit once in a while or there's a little bit of fuzz on it from interference for a second or two, that's O.K. In the broadcast industry, if it jiggles a little bit or has a bit of fuzz when someone's crossing the finish line, well, you might not get invited back."

Re:Anyone got a mirror?

[gentix]

"NYTimes wants me to register and log in. Anyone got a mirror?"

... must... resist... temptation...

Sure I've got a mirror, but I don't see how looking at yourself is gonna help you getting in NYTimes....

Yup... that was the end of my positive amount of Karma...

Re:Anyone got a mirror?

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone posted a mirror before this poster, it would be redundant.

But how is it a troll?

Re:Anyone got a mirror?

[grifter7]

Try this:

http://www.majcher.com/nytview.html

--grifter

Re:Anyone got a mirror?

[216pi]

wow, now that is a great tool... /. should use that one...

Re:Anyone got a mirror?

[silicon_synapse]

how the fuck is this redundant?

damn moderators dont know shit

It's redundant because all of that information was in the article. Considering it was the article, that's not too hard to figure out. There is no good reason to copy this article and post it as a comment.

Re:Anyone got a mirror?

[Anonymous Coward]

"There is no good reason to copy this article and post it as a comment."

Well, the original poster _did_ ask for a mirror, and if the poster of the trolling, redundant, underrated and informative post didn't have access to a webserver, where he could place a mirror, he posted a copy of the article on slashdot in a reply to the request for a mirror, thereby turning Slashdot into a mirror of the article.

That wasn't too hard to understand, was it?

Re:Anyone got a mirror?

[silicon_synapse]

Well, the original poster _did_ ask for a mirror, and if the poster of the trolling, redundant, underrated and informative post didn't have access to a webserver, where he could place a mirror, he posted a copy of the article on slashdot in a reply to the request for a mirror, thereby turning Slashdot into a mirror of the article.

That wasn't too hard to understand, was it?

So what? What does that have to do with anything? How does someone asking for it make it any less redundant? Any redundant comment is just a mirror (maybe not word for word) of another comment or something in the story/article itself. If you want a mirror of the article, ask NYT. Otherwise its probably copyright infringment. The information is readily and legally available in the linked article therefor any reposting of that information within the comment section is redundant.

Too many cameras already

[MosesJones]

Lets face it the resolution on sats up in space and the number of CCTV cameras around means that the scope of privacy is getting smaller and smaller. Security systems inside your home with video cameras connected to a central hub ? No problems if you want it.

You are being watched most of the day by cameras, and connect this up to a fundamentally flawed idea like facial recognition to find terrorists and you have a wonderful vision of hell.

Which satellite will this be on?

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad to hear the US/NATO are investing is some new kit to improve the quality of airborne surveillance pictures broadcasts to the whole of Europe.

Encrypted Conversations

[Anonymous Coward]

I was told [from a reputable source] of the ability to hold a conversation to ground using a helicopter-mounted laser.

Obviously this secure as any attempt to tap into the conversation would break the beam - revealing the attack attempt.

All that seems straightforward, but the ability to stabilise and aim a laser from a helicopter [of all places] was a bit mind-boggling.....

Re:Encrypted Conversations

[Yarn]

You could intercept the beam using a beamsplitter which just taps a small amount of the signal.

Of course, you can't tap single photons as simply. You first would have to amplify the incoming photon stream (probably within another laser, like a telecomms EDFA) then split the resultant beam

Re:Encrypted Conversations

[lionchild]

Tell me, isn't line-of-sight laser communication simply another version of a fiber-optic technology? I thought there was a recent /. article about having fiber-optic lines tapped. Wouldn't, or rather couldn't line-of-sight laser communications simply be 'tapped' in a similar way, opposed to actually breaking the signal?

Re:Encrypted Conversations

[lasertech]

I'm impressed with the using a laser to hold a conversation, but the ability to stabilise and aim a laser from a helicopter is pretty commonplace. How do you think that the sighting and targeting systems on attack helicopters work? The AH-64 Apache has 127 X optics, with that you can target a tank or other object from quite a few miles off and still be relativly safe from counter-attack.

Re:Encrypted Conversations

[RegularFry]

Unless you can see backscatter from the receiver, of course...

Re:Encrypted Conversations

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. A partially reflective prism would do the trick.

Re:Encrypted Conversations

[mindstrm]

The point wasn't that you can't tap it.

The point is that it's a very narrow beam compared to radio, and you can't listen in from any kind of distance.

Re:Encrypted Conversations

[Anonymous Coward]

In my college physics class we made some laser "radios". They were basically full-duplex walkie-talkies, except instead of broadasting in the radio spectrum they were in the visible spectrum.

The sound quality wasn't very good, but that is because we use a very simple circuit design. Obviously if we had spent a little more money/time it could have sounded much better.

Search around google and you will find lots of pages describing amateur radio people doing this exact thing (but better than us)

Re:Encrypted Conversations

[Yarn]

That's not what he actually said:

Obviously this secure as any attempt to tap into the conversation would break the beam - revealing the attack attempt.

Old hat

[drunkmonk]

This kind of stuff has been around for years in the military. Sure, it's a nice compact little civilian package now, but it's not exactly revolutionary.

If you're a privacy zealot, I don't see this as nearly as concerning as tracking through credit card transactions, etc. And honestly, I don't have any problem with my picture being taken when I'm walking around outside. I'm not doing anything illegal, I'm not going anywhere shameful, and if someone wants to spend thousands of dollars on technology to enable them to watch my fat ass stroll from place to place then more power to them. And hey, they might even catch a criminal or two.

Re:Old hat

[littlerubberfeet]

I agree. But, I don't want them watching my fat ass while I am with my girlfriend. Thats legal, but not neccisairly something i want recorded. Also, what about 3rd party access? What if the government starts sharing info with advertisers?

Re:Old hat

[q-soe]

" Also, what about 3rd party access? What if the government starts sharing info with advertisers?"

Not something likely to happen as the sort of systems that can do this tend to be used for fairly sensetive uses (read spying) and cost massive amounts of money.

The government often denies they exist so why would they sell the data ? and what data - its images ? they could be of anyone.

I somehow think that no one would use a $650'000 camera to spy on you and your girlfriend - they're to busy hanging out over britney spears house taking videos for that :)

Re:Old hat

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't trust a government with too much power, because all of the governments on earth are made up of humans. Humans in general are coruptible, and flawed by nature. The scope for mis-use of a technology like this is massive, and becuase of this we must be very careful in how we use it, and how we allow it to be used. Burying our heads in the sand does no good either, this technology should and will be used, the question is how.

Also, something doesn't have to be wrong or shamefull to be illegal. A government with enough power can make almost anything a crime, and almost anyone a criminal.

Re:Old hat

[halftrack]

This kind of stuff has been around for years in the military.

No, stabilized cams have been around for years, but this system is more advanced and clear pictured than earlier.

Re:Old hat

[Xaoswolf]

First off, if you are outside with your girlfriend, then everybody can see what you are doin anyways, and if you walk by a bank, mall, or anyother big building, chances are you are going to get recorded anyways. I think that the chances of the government singling you out and following you with a spyplane for the next several months is highly unlikely.

And as for advertisers wanting the tapes, I don't really see that happeneing either, do they ask banks for their tapes? The only people that these tapes would be shared with would be whoever chooses the videos for those "worlds scariest/funniest/stupidest" TV shows. I can't really picture any advertising mogul saying "Hi General, about those tapes with the guy with the fat ass, what kind of shoes was he wearing?"

Re:Old hat

[Anonymous Coward]

"A government with enough power can make almost anything a crime, and almost anyone a criminal"

I dont see most voters being concerned about this. You are in the minority. Most people are more concerned with not being blown up by mad muslim terrorists than the possibility that one day there`ll be a camera in everyones bedrooms - and rightly so.

Time to get the old tin-foil hat out, I guess.

Re:Old hat

[jovlinger]

heh. I just "invented" a stabilised pair of binoculars the other day. The idea is that you mount cheap-ass (the kind you use in ABS systems, natch ~ $10 a pop) micro-gyros to sense pitch and yaw of the binoculars (roll is benign, and REALLY hard to compensate for) and correct by micro-actuators attached to the optics.

Maybe I'm really shaky, but I have a really hard time using binoculars, as I just can't keep them very steady. (yes, I am a crap shot with a rifle, too)

Re:Old hat

[|<amikaze]

Canon sells binoculars with something like this already

Re:Old hat

[jovlinger]

and all this time, I was wondering how Canon's IS series of 35 lenses worked... doh!

Neeto

[ins0m]

This seems fine and dandy and will help the authorities do what they are supposed to do in chase situations. However, I'm a bit surprised that even though it's claimed that recent Hollywood efforts are getting their hands on this, that it's similar to "the original Wescam developed in the early 1960's by a Canadian subsidiary of Westinghouse as a battlefield surveillance tool for the Canadian military".

That said, I wonder why it never made its way down to police sooner? Cost of maintenance, perhaps?

I do understand where the ACLU is coming from as regards the invasions of privacy. I believed we recently rehashed this over the debate on metal-detector technology in airports that would let clothing be seen through, or other such nonsense. Yet, I'm surprised no one has made that big a deal over Terra Server. Going on the resolutions they can get down to, you'd be hard pressed to hide much more than a naked sunbather in your backyard, and it's only a matter of time before satellite imaging will make even that impossible. Why the fuss over one and not the other?

Re:Neeto

[monkeydo]

You must have stopped after the first paragraph. The article goes on to point out the the original Wescams were useful to film makers who only used them for weeks at a time, but the maintanence requirement s made them useless for law enforcement and military. The newest generation totaly elimites the mechanical gyros and is mostly solid state making it much more useful. The author also points out the different needs of Hollywood and law enforcement. Next time, please read the whole article. Thank you.

Re:Neeto

[M-G]

and it's only a matter of time before satellite imaging will make even that impossible

Satellite tech is already that far. They don't show any higher res on TerraServer because the companies that have the high-res birds make their money by selling those images. And those companies are limited to the resolution they can acquire by the feds. So the technical ability to get much better satellite images is out there, just not publicly available.

Oh puhleese

[SkyLeach]

"what implications the systems have on privacy."

What a troll.

If you are worried about he FBI, NSA or CIA using an aircraft to spy on you then you are definitely doing something very very bad or very very suspicious.

I have trouble with people reading my email or scanning my HD, but they can use cameras on anything they want for all I care.

I'm not that ugly.

Re:Oh puhleese

[Anonymous Coward]

Speak for yourself. I'm so damn ugly I have to post this message anonymously.

Re:Oh puhleese

[Amarok.Org]

If you are worried about he FBI, NSA or CIA using an aircraft to spy on you then you are definitely doing something very very bad or very very suspicious.

So it's ok for the police to come stand on your front lawn, peek in through your windows, as long as you have nothing to hide? Or are you saying that if the police are peeking through your windows, you obviously are already guilty of something?

So where do you draw the line about how much privacy is "enough"? Why is that reading your e-mail is bad, but watching what you do in you backyard is ok? Is reading the screen of your laptop through the window of your house ok? Where does it stop?

Re:Oh puhleese

[SkyLeach]

Obviously police can and will stand on your front lawn and peek in your windows if they already suspect you are doing something wrong...

That's what they do, they investigate. They don't do that to people who are law-abiding citizens. If they were doing that to everybody then we would have a problem, but they aren't.

They aren't going to go get a high-tech camera just to keep tabs on people either. But they will use them to check on people they think are doing something bad.

Anarchy sux, "pure" democracy sux, that's why we have a Republic.

Re:Oh puhleese

[KenRH]

If the police/FBI/NSA/CIA is using a lot of resources ($$$) to spy on you they must have a good reason to do so.

I'm more worried about automated survaliance where they log everything you do, if it's suspicius or not.

For example: think about running for some political office in the future being confrontet with a casual phone conversation with a "unpopular" person 10 years before, or with wisiting "unmoral" but legal websites.

Politicians in office have abused inteligicene information agains the opposition before and will do it again.

Re:Oh puhleese

[Gwyn_232]

If you are worried about he FBI, NSA or CIA using an aircraft to spy on you then you are definitely doing something very very bad or very very suspicious. Fair enough, but who decides what's bad? In any case, it's dangerous to allow precedents to be set in regard to what equipment/methods can be used, because you don't know how they will be used in the future. Freedom is removed by degrees, and it's little "advancements" like this that send a cold shiver up my spine.

Re:Oh puhleese

[Amarok.Org]

They don't do that to people who are law-abiding citizens. If they were doing that to everybody then we would have a problem, but they aren't.

Well, I'm glad you live in a utopian society... unfortunately, the rest of us live in the real world.

If I understand your point, you're saying that invasion of privacy is OK as long as the person being invaded is already guilty - so the presumption of innocence is already tossed out the window. The potential for abuse is what's being argued, not the potential for good.

Saying that we can invade the privacy of anyone, as long as it's not ME, well... that's just short-sighted.

Whose going to watch the camera operators?

[ch-chuck]

App: tabloid media journalists need one to get those photos of media stars sunbathing out their tan lines.

Right on.

[BoBaBrain]

The systems are interesting in themselves and the article raises interesting concerns about what implications the systems have on privacy.

Long range cameras can indeed be an invasion of "My Privacy"(tm). As can telescopes, binoculars, strong reading glasses and eyesight in general.

I believe the government have used all the above to spy on people at some point.

Radar for the Car

[Alien54]

That's it.

Time to hack the old kitchen Microwave oven, and make a do it yourself home made radar.

Best to rig it for a pickup truck, so you have the space to do a phased array on the roof of a shell.

Miniturization is going to be a pain, though.

Side benefit -- smoking police speed trap radars.

Not entirely groundbreaking but..

[q-soe]

Amongst all the comments that will flow about big brother etc it is interesting to note that there have been satellite systems in existance that can see small details from space since the late 1980's.

What we are talking about here is a gyroscopic stabilised mount which enables cameras on Police helicopters to get a clearer picture at long range. Some of the uses pointed out here are surveilance of suspects, search parties etc. The camera systems have existed on law enforcement helicopters for about 10 years that i can recall and have been getting more advanced every year - its hardly a violation of your rights in a new form unless of course you are worrying about the cops reading the paper over your shoulder.

At $650,000 US its a bit more than a toy and i dont see it being something used by a peeping tom - it raises a few issues on privacy but the fact is Police around the world have had the ability for years its just been an issue with vibration which is amplified the more you zoom making things like license plates harder to read etc.

Interesting but not a massive breakthrough and not something id lose sleep worrying about - the only people who would need worry would be people who were hiding from the police in the first place and it might even save some lives when used on searches.

PS some cooler uses of gyrostablised systems like this (if you like that sort of thing) can be found in new generation FLIR and Laser targeting systems on military aircraft (think the article mentions it)

Re:Not entirely groundbreaking but..

[codeButcher]

its hardly a violation of your rights in a new form unless of course you are worrying about the cops reading the paper over your shoulder.

Wait until that newspaper gets some pay-per-view tech to protect their rights on the content...

Privacy?

[t_allardyce]

Your so concerned about privacy, but out-side your own homes, your privacy is 0. Even if the government (uk) doesn't put security cameras everywhere for all you know its because their hidden. Take a look next time you walk down the street. Any one of those people could be spying on you, with hidden cameras, microphones, wireless scanners, or even just cutting eye-holes in a newspaper :). Any of those buildings on the sides of the road could be full of people spying on you. How many times have you looked out of the window and watched someone walk down the road? It could be the government, a private detective, the mafia or even terrorists. What about camera crews? how do you know they're filming a documentary, they could be the government spying on you... I know there are laws to protect you from this sort of thing, but who follows laws?

Even in your home, the privacy you have is only there because of the walls surrounding you. Your phone could be tapped, there could be lasers pointing at your windows to pick-up sound. There could be infrared cameras looking for heat sources.

Lets not even talk about the isp admins who could be reading your mail...

You don't have any privacy.

Zoom Cam

[mobets]

Looks a lot like the "Zoom Cam" that my local news stations have had on the choppers for years.

What's the big deal...

[Lord_Slepnir]

If you want to contine to overthrow the government, run your meth lab or whatever you don't want the gubmint to see, just move it indoors. Protesting the gubmint taking photos of what you do outside is like giving the guest account on your computer root privaliges and protesting when people go through your hard drive.

"New" technology

[jridley]

When officers pursued O. J. Simpson along the freeways of Los Angeles eight years ago, a covey of police and television news helicopters tracked him with stabilized cameras hanging at the sides in their distinctive ball-shaped pods.

Not exactly new. Sure, it's better, more refined. Hell, I saw a Discovery Channel special that featured these cameras several years ago. They're used on the "cop" shows all the time.

Re:"New" technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, read the fucking article. The section you quoted is discussing the history of the cameras, and goes out of its way over and over to tell you that this was a predecessor to the subject of the article. The new technology is discussing the fiber optic gyro system over the antiquated mechanical type that previously existed (which is the type you are talking about).

Re:"New" technology

[jridley]

Whups, sorry then.

Expectation of privacy

[mericet]

The main problem I see with this technology is that you can no long expect privacy in many situations - this means that privacy laws may no longer protect you from invasion to privacy in some of these situations.

And if....

[MosesJones]

The "camera" is an Electro-magnetic sensor so it can see what you are typing, and can read the email that you are reading on your screen.

Not wanting badly regulated security agencies spying on you is not a case of doing some thing wrong, its a case that these agencies have a history of "bending" or breaking the laws themselves to justify their budget or opinions.

Sad to say that goverment is not of the people, by the people, for the people anymore. "interests" are at work and normal people are refered to as "collatoral damage".

Re:And if....

[InsaneGeek]

Dear God... you're right we need to ban binocular's and opera glasses too, since the government could possibly use them to spy on you.

Hmm... reminds me of a certain CSS case about how there are bad uses for tech and good uses for the same tech.

Obligatory Simpsons Reference....

[Your_Mom]

Now we all know what this will really be used for...

Chief Wiggum: "Continue swimming naked...c'mon...continue!....OK Lou open fire"

More comments

[ch-chuck]

1st Office: Nothing happening on the hillside, sir.

Sgt Sheer: OK, well lets head back over to that nudist colony with the hot chicks.

---------------

So when are they going to develope a countertechnology: the cloak of invisibility! We have airplanes with low radar profiles, (stealth) so what will it take for low visible / infrared / UV profiles? A kind of flexible mirror suit that reflects the surrounding environment?

Re:More comments

[MullerMn]

So when are they going to develope a countertechnology: the cloak of invisibility! We have airplanes with low radar profiles, (stealth) so what will it take for low visible / infrared / UV profiles? A kind of flexible mirror suit that reflects the surrounding environment?

Gary Glitter had one of those in the 80's and look where it got him. Ostracised for being a kiddie fiddler, that's where..

--
Andy

Re:More comments

[Zathrus]

We have airplanes with low radar profiles, (stealth) so what will it take for low visible / infrared / UV profiles?

For the record, stealth planes like the B1, the F-117A, and the F-22 have low radar, IR, and sound profiles. It's not of much use to be near invisible on radar if you show up like a torch on IR, or if the guy in the AAA can track where you're going to be by sound. All of the stealth planes disperse their output through large areas, generally directed upwards (I'd guess that the F-22 does the worst job of this, but that's just a WAG). The sound is similarly baffled, with efforts made toward minimizing disruptive air flow and contrails.

If you want a low IR profile, just cover yourself in a heat reflective blanket. They've been on the market for years. If it's warm out then you'll need to figure out some way of dumping heat elsewhere though, or else you'll suffocate in your own reflected heat.

If you want a true camo suit with chameleon like abilities, well, the US Army is researching those. There have been several stories on here about them and powered armor.

Re:More comments

[BoBaBrain]

So when are they going to develope a countertechnology


You mean like an umbrella, or large hat?

Re:More comments

[nathanm]

All of the stealth planes disperse their output through large areas, generally directed upwards (I'd guess that the F-22 does the worst job of this, but that's just a WAG). The sound is similarly baffled, with efforts made toward minimizing disruptive air flow and contrails.

Actually, the F-22 has large, wide, thrust vectoring nozzles that should do a pretty good job of dispersing the exhaust heat. Besides, it's 3rd generation Low Observability (LO, technical term for stealth) technology, and they didn't make any effort to protect the 1st gen LO technology when the F-117A crashed in Serbia. I was surprised they didn't send in a few Tomawhawks to turn the wreckage into little, unrecognizable pieces. Aviation & Space Technology had an article about how it ended up being studied in Russia. Since the DOD wasn't too worried about it, the newer LO technology must be a lot better.

The B-1B does have baffles in the air intakes, so radar doesn't get a return from the compressor blades, but otherwise it just uses 4 standard (for fighters at least) low-bypass, afterburning turbofan engines. If you've ever been near one taking off, it's probably the loudest aircraft you'll ever hear. Also, they didn't make much effort to disperse the exhaust heat: its engines are mounted underneath the aircraft and its exhaust nozzles are similar to most fighters, albeit much larger.

Supreme Court positions on airborne surveillance

[ChrisCampbell47]

The big statement made by the Supreme Court regarding airborne surveillance of private property was made in the case of Florida v. Riley (1989)

Here are the results of a Google search for florida riley privacy supreme court. Google is your friend.

x10.com

[Brightest Light]

i swear to god, if i see any new pop-ups for the "BESTSELLING Wireless Color Stabilized Video Camera!"; somebody is going to die...

What do you think they invented this?

[HowlinMad]

The systems are interesting in themselves and the article raises interesting concerns about what implications the systems have on privacy.

Well duh. This wasnt invented so you could take a close up picture of a flower while flying in an airplane. It was invented so we could spy on people. Now the question of who we are going to spy on........

More information

[q-soe]

For those wanting to find out more about this stuff some links.

Wescam page on their camere systems

The MX 20 is i believe the system they are talking about - has been widely fitted on naval and coast guard aircraft for a number of years

The company makes systems for space, marine and air and sells to the military and private enterprise. They make some very interesting systems and anyone interested in this sort of stuff or wanting to know just how non new this technology is head over and have a read. There are also sample images to show resolution etc of the systems.

Clarification

[Anonymous Coward]

For the people in backwater countries like Brunei, South Yemen, and the United States of America, 500 meters is about 1500 feet.

2000 cameras a day

[peter303]

Last week ABC news followed a worker in downtown Atlanta through her work day and counted the cameras- nearly 2000. A large fraction were along the roads observing traffic and in stores.

Re:2000 cameras a day

[Zathrus]

One of the nice things that came out of the 1996 Olympics was a traffic management center (which is staffed 9a-4p M-F, but that's another boondoggle). As part of it they put up a network of cameras and radars to monitor traffic on the major highways and some of the major intersections. You can see the results here.

It's really nifty - you can click on any camera to see the current conditions, click on digital signs to see what they're displaying, see the current speeds being reported by the radar guns (and click on them too), and so forth.

This is particularly useful for a city with some of the worst traffic in the US.

Why..why ..why!

[mlati]

why does every new idea/innovation/invention have to be seen as a threat to 'privacy'!?.
This line is getting played out on /.

Hot chicks at nudist colony?

[tacokill]

Are you kidding me? Have you ever SEEN the chicks in a nudist colony? Yuck...

Privacy?

[OpIv37]

I'm not exactly sure how this relates to improved police surveillance cameras, but Americans (and probably many other countries as well, especially England) have lost their privacy years ago. Think about it:

-Almost every school/store/bank/gas station/place of employment has security cameras- there is video footage of you almost anywhere you go
-Every time you do any banking at a branch office or pay for anything electronically (ATM, Credit Card), there is an electronic record of where you were at that time
-Every time you log into the Internet or use any site to purchase/pay a bill etc, there is an electronic record that you (or at least someone with access to your account) was online at that time
-If you attend college, there is an electronic record every time you use your ID to enter your dorm, go to the dining hall, check books out of the library, use the gym, etc.

I know I'm getting dangerously close to paranoia- I'm 99.99% sure that no one is tracking me or has ever attempted to track me. My point is simply that if someone wants to track me (or anyone else for that matter), it would be fairly simple to pinpoint my exact locations throughout the day.

Our society is becoming ever closer to matching the Big Brother/Enemy of the State model. The question: How do democratic nations such as the US defend civil rights while still protecting their citizens from criminals and terrorists?

I find myself being somewhat ambiguous on this issue. I hate the thought of the police or the government being able to observe common citizens- it is clearly dangerous and, in many cases, unconstitutional. However, what's the point of freedom if you can't leave your house without getting mugged or blown up? I'm going to have to do some more thinking about this, but my gut reaction is that I'll take my chances with the terrorists and the murderers rather than being under constant surveillance when I've done nothing wrong.

As far as the specific issue of high-tech police cameras- there are only two of these cameras and they are only in one city. Cameras are nothing new- simply increasing the technology is no more of a violation of privacy (or a police necessity, depending on your opinion) than the previous versions.

Ignoramus

[OpIv37]

I don't know why I'm wasting my time responding to someone who posts anonymously- the Internet is anonymous enough, but here goes- I appreciate the cynicism in your comments, however, your statement wreeks of ignorance. Simply not using the metric system doesn't make a country a "backwater country". More importantly, just because the US doesn't use the metric system doesn't mean Americans don't know how far 500 meters is. Even arrogant Americans (I hope you appreciate the cynicism in that comment) can multiply by 3 and then put the word "about" in front of the number . This is a cheap shot- there are plenty of things about the US that deserve criticism, but those require a thought process, which you are clearly incapable of.

Re:Ignoramus

[Anonymous Coward]

YOU HAVE TO DIVIDE EVERYTHING BY FRIGGIN 16 th or whatever -

you phone systems suck for the same reasons, so does your power, so do your railways and public transport. To big , to slow to change.

Bye bye dinasoaur !

Terra Server

[WellHungYungWun]

Screw that, I'll just the terraserver. I can see my house from it. : )

Recording and networking is the difference...

[MosesJones]

One person can use binoculars, a whole organisation can use a networked camera. And record for ever what you have done even if it wasn't at all suspicious.

US Military insurrection

[intermodal]

See, the thing is, according to their oath that they all take, the US military should have revolted against the government decades ago. They are sworn to uphold the constitution, not the current regime or "US Foreign Policy". The constitution has been increasingly subjected to bastardizing and degradation at the hands of politicians, getting worse with every succession of each Congressman and Senator's term. However, since the military brass can't technically get another star to improve from Brigadier General to Major General and such without Congressional approval, it'll never happen...

Re:US Military insurrection

[PD]

That's utter nonsense. The Constitution is what is running our country. If the government is not as free or as liberal as you'd like it to be, then that's a sign that the CONSTITUTION is faulty and needs to be fixed, not a sign that a military coup and military government is required.

Do not mistake the Constitution for a holy document. It's just the product of an immense hack session, and thus qualifies as a pretty successful hack. The founding hackers recognized that the document would require maintenance in the future, and provided a way to dynamically link new code into the running constitutional kernel.

So, stop all this talk of military coups and start pushing for some new ammendments. As Linus said, "show me the code".

Re:US Military insurrection

[intermodal]

I'm not talking "new amendments". I'm talking de-cruftifying the old code. Version 2.0. Not so much a full rewrite as a reinstall of the OS. For example, if you have a Win98 box, and you run it for 4 years without reinstalling windows but install and uninstall various software over the years, it turns to shit. however, if you reinstall win98 (or perhaps something better, like Linux) you don't have as many remnants of the crappy, deteriorated removed software you did beforehand, and only have to reinstall what you actually need. What I honestly want isn't military revolution if it can be avoided. What I want is for lawmakers to look at every bit of legislation and every court precedent and remove redundancies, powers that are abused, irrelevancies, laws with no rhyme or reason in today's society, and anything that goes against anything in the spirit of the constitution, not just anything that doesn't quite break the letter of it. The founding fathers of this country would be appalled at the state of freedom in this country, especially related to the concept of Intellectual Property and, if they were taught about modern communications systems, in free flow of information. Their intent in providing copyright to creators has been mangled, twisted, and stretched so horribly that I honestly don't see why it's been tolerated for so long.

I'm not paranoid

[MrFredBloggs]

Yeah,right.

Just in case, you might want to get one of these:

http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html

You too, can enjoy image stabilization

[kindbud]

This technology has been in consumer products that have been on the market for about 8 years.

• Canon IS
  
• Zeiss
  
• Fujinon
  

I can hardly wait for the article about refrigeration. Did you know you can actually chill your perishable foods without buying any ice? Amazing!

whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

I can get LOROP (long range oblique photography) images that can read your license plate from 20 miles away, and that's civillian technology.

Police had gyro-stabilized optics in 1960s

[yoDon]

TV cameras were too heavy back in the 1960's, so they just had gyrostabilized binoculars, but the effect was about the same. The binoculars were made by a now-defunct company called ORDCO. LAPD owned several of them which they used in helicopters. There is an episode of Adam-12 (a police show from the late '60s and early '70s) where one of the officers is seen riding in a helicopter and using an ORDCO stabilized binocular to locate a suspect.

Nice sig you arrogant fucking american.

[Anonymous Coward]

NT

Re:Nice sig you arrogant fucking american.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't be mouthing off if I were you. America whipped damn near every European country's ass at one time in the past and they could can do it again with ease. 8)

"Lurid Confessions," by Steve Kowit

[Anonymous Coward]

"Lurid Confessions," by Steve Kowit
(from The Dumbell Nebula, The
Roundhouse Press). Formatting may be damaged
in this illicit reprint by the fucking lameness filter.

Lurid Confessions

One fine morning they move in for the pinch
& snap on the cuffs-just like that.

Turns out they've
known all about you for years, have a file the
length of a paddy-wagon with
everything-tapes, prints, film...
the whole shmear.
Don't ask me how but they've managed to
plug a mike into one of your molars
and know every felonious move & transgression
back to the very beginning, with ektachromes
of your least indiscretion & pecadillo.
Needless to say, you
are thrilled, tho sitting there in
the docket you bogart it, tough
as an old tooth - your jaw set, your
sleeves rolled & three days of stubble

Only, when they play it
back it looks different: a life common &
loathsome as gum stuck to a chair.

Tedious hours of you picking your nose,
scratching, eating, clipping your toenails...

Alone, you look stupid; in public, your rapier
wit is slimy & limp as an old bandaid.

They have thousands of pictures of people around you stifling yawns. As for sex -- a bit
of pathetic groping among the unlovely & luckless:
a dance with everyone making steamy love in the dark & you alone in a corner eating a pretzel.

You leap to your feet protesting
that's not how it was, they have it all wrong.

But nobody hears you. The bailiff is snoring, the judge is cleaning his teeth, the jurors are all
wearing glasses with eyes painted open.

The flies have folded their wings and stopped buzzing.

In the end, after huge doses of coffee,
the jury is polled. One after another
they manage to rise to their feet
like narcoleptics in August, sealing your fate:

Innocent... innocent... innocent... Right down the line.

You are carried out screaming.

FILR

[arvn]

Neat stuff, if someone couples this tech with stuff from Intevac, look out. They have a system that they claim beats FLIR by a factor of 7, they call it LIVAR. More here"http://www.intevac.com/products.asp?ItemID=20 ", and here "http://www.intevac.com/products.asp?ItemID=51" L8r,

Ok, I gotta ask...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the damn fascination with that damn cheesy picture of the elf queen?!! It' almost as bad as this stuff or this>! Do you have a rad picture of a unicorn by a waterfall on the side of your van?!

And you keep misrepresenting the link like it's some interestingly depraved pr0n or something! Damn you! Damn you straight to Hell!

If you really want to provide a service to the slashdot community, find us some goddamned transformers gay fanfic pr0n!

Contact the RIAA!

[Thurn und Taxis]

If this device could really stop piracy, I'm sure the RIAA would have their hands on one by now.

Oh, sorry, I'm dyslexic today. Never mind.

Slashdotters might be more interested in this...

[SaxMaster]

Wescam makes a camera called the TrollCam. Perfect tagline: "Official camera of Goatse.cx"

Trollcam website

wait take a breath

[synshyne]

calm down..breath...geeze a bit paranoid are we? Does it really matter how much privacy you have when your outside your home anyway? I dont see the big fuss about worryin about your "privacy", People watch others because they are nosey (dont deny you do it too), police use cameras and other devices to catch criminals or suspects (which screening of anysort that is used is regulated by law), businesses use cameras and track everything on their computers for security of the business (again regulated)...theres no argument for privacy in any of that, in some aspects being less worried about someone watching your every move and just doing what needs to be done in every day life you will have no need for privacy at all. (note i said in "some" aspects)

Re:wait take a breath

[t_allardyce]

Thats my view too, i was just commenting on slashdot's yet-another privacy scam story.

You want airborne image stabilization...

[mph]

...you want this. 0.5 arcsecond pointing and tracking accuracy for a 2.5-meter telescope on a 747 with a sunroof.

Encryption Ensures Privacy

[ebuck]

Anyone who is watched with this camera is just asking for it. Privacy concious users of the atmosphere are aware that their photons are not encrypted in transmission. Heck, even little Kodak kiddies can capture and analize them using widely available tools like the One-Shot(tm) obtained from their local grocery store.

That's why it is imperative that security concious users embrace encryption. With a sufficent application of trees, smoke, camoflauge, and other photon encrypting material it is virtually impossible to seperate the subject from the background noise.

Oops... my mistake, it's already patented.