Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Stabilized Cameras for Long-Distance Surveillance

Posted by michael on from the eye-in-the-sky dept.

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."

41 of 123 comments (clear)

  1. Privacy is a myth by laetus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --

    "We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
    1. Re:Privacy is a myth by lrichardson · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "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.

  2. Old hat by drunkmonk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Old hat by q-soe · · Score: 2

      " 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 :)

      --
      I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
    2. Re:Old hat by halftrack · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Look a monkey!
    3. Re:Old hat by jovlinger · · Score: 2

      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)

    4. Re:Old hat by jovlinger · · Score: 2

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

  3. Neeto by ins0m · · Score: 3, Informative

    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?

    --
    Never attribute to Hanlon that which can be adequately attributed to Heinlein.
    1. Re:Neeto by monkeydo · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    2. Re:Neeto by M-G · · Score: 2

      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.

  4. Oh puhleese by SkyLeach · · Score: 2

    "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.

    --
    My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so :-p
    1. Re:Oh puhleese by Amarok.Org · · Score: 2
      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?

      --
      -- "Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"
    2. Re:Oh puhleese by SkyLeach · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so :-p
    3. Re:Oh puhleese by Amarok.Org · · Score: 2
      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.

      --
      -- "Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"
  5. Re:Encrypted Conversations by Yarn · · Score: 2

    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

    --
    -Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
  6. Right on. by BoBaBrain · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I am a Karma Library.
  7. Radar for the Car by Alien54 · · Score: 2
    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.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  8. Not entirely groundbreaking but.. by q-soe · · Score: 5, Informative

    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)

    --
    I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
  9. Privacy? by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  10. "New" technology by jridley · · Score: 2
    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.

    1. Re:"New" technology by jridley · · Score: 2

      Whups, sorry then.

  11. And if.... by MosesJones · · Score: 2

    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".

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    1. Re:And if.... by InsaneGeek · · Score: 2

      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.

  12. More comments by ch-chuck · · Score: 3, Funny

    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?

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    1. Re:More comments by Zathrus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:More comments by BoBaBrain · · Score: 3, Funny

      So when are they going to develope a countertechnology


      You mean like an umbrella, or large hat?

      --
      I am a Karma Library.
    3. Re:More comments by nathanm · · Score: 2
      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.
  13. Supreme Court positions on airborne surveillance by ChrisCampbell47 · · Score: 2
    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.

    --
    One simple rule for its versus it's
  14. x10.com by Brightest+Light · · Score: 3, Funny


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

  15. More information by q-soe · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
  16. 2000 cameras a day by peter303 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:2000 cameras a day by Zathrus · · Score: 2

      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.

  17. Re:The Government and privacy by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 2

    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!

    --
    That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
  18. Privacy? by OpIv37 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  19. Recording and networking is the difference... by MosesJones · · Score: 2


    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.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
  20. US Military insurrection by intermodal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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...

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    1. Re:US Military insurrection by PD · · Score: 2

      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".

      --
      If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
  21. I'm not paranoid by MrFredBloggs · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah,right.

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

    http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html

  22. You too, can enjoy image stabilization by kindbud · · Score: 2
    This technology has been in consumer products that have been on the market for about 8 years.I can hardly wait for the article about refrigeration. Did you know you can actually chill your perishable foods without buying any ice? Amazing!
    --
    Edith Keeler Must Die
  23. Re:Encrypted Conversations by mindstrm · · Score: 2

    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.

  24. Encryption Ensures Privacy by ebuck · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.