The Future of Video Surveillance

An anonymous reader writes ""In heavily monitored London, England...the average person is filmed by more than 300 cameras each day." Technology Review outlines what we can expect from the eye in the sky in the near future."

Comments

away around it all

[Stinson]

A group called the 'Institute for Applied Autonomy' didn't like all the cameras in NYC, so they went around marking locations, and they have an online service called 'iSee' What it does is allow you to click on a start point and a destination, and it will draw you a route that follows the least amount of cameras in new york city. It would be very useful if someone did the same for London

Re:away around it all

[Stinson]

traffic camera can do face recognition in cars driving by at 25 MPH... Well around my area, they do have cameras that are high enough quality and quick enough for taking pictures of license plates and faces in the car for running red lights, so it wouldn't be too hard to use that input for some of the new face recognition systems (like the one that uses a 3d face 'fingerprint')

Re:away around it all

[reinard]

Actually the pictures taken by cameras for running red lights are oftentimes so bad that you cannot tell who's driving the car. Think about it: reflections from the window, the upper portion of the window is tinted more often than not, the window isn't straight so the distortians aren't symmetric, people usually look at the road, not the cameras overhead, headlights, weather etc. What they can usually see is the license plate, and that because it has a special coating that makes it highly reflective, and there are laws requiring you to illuminate it on your car. The rest of the picture is more of a: oh-yeah-it's-the-right-make-and-model-and-that-som ewhat-looks-like-a-middle-aged-man-driving. Also the 3d face fingerprint needs special equipment that takes pictures from more than one angle at the same time, ie something that will virtually never happen with traffic cameras.

Re:away around it all

[Onassis]

I guess the only bad part would be if they could automate the monitoring and build huge databases. But it's a long way (and an expensive one at that) down the road...

Despite automated monitoring being a long way down the road, someone should still try to prevent it. This should be fought so that it doesn't become legal because it isn't explicitly illegal.

Not that it matters, because unless there are powerfull (read: rich) people reading /., then legislation will continue along the lines of their interests...

Re:away around it all

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Actually the pictures taken by cameras for running red lights are oftentimes so bad that you cannot tell who's driving the car.

Unfortunately, this is no longer necessarily the case. People in the UK were using the lack of personal identification as a defence to speeding charges. There are now a new breed of cameras found on our roads that face towards the driver rather than away precisely so that a clear facial image can be captured. If you think they can't clearly see you, try a web search for some of the driving sites, and check out some of the sample photos. But sit down first. :-)

Why is it an issue?

[nurb432]

Because its none of their damned business where I'm walking. Private citizens should not be under constant investigation.

And no, the argument ' if you aren't doing anything wrong' is not acceptable. Its my life, they can goto hell they don't need to be watching me buy a damned burger or walk to my car.

Basic privacy is part of the rights of all people. This violates it.. but you people allow it in the name of 'safety'.. its not the governments job to take care of you , its YOURS.. get it straight and do it. This all has to stop.

Re:Why is it an issue?

[reinard]

I think you're forgetting that when you walk out in PUBLIC (it's called that for a reason) you are no longer PRIVATE. Anybody walking around, driving by etc, can see you, identify you, take pictures of you - whatever. Just because a technical device that produces images of you to protect you from thieves or idiots running red lights sees you, does not mean you're being investigated. In fact I bet you there are a lot of women out there who don't mind being watched by a camera in a parking lot just 'walking to their car'. Sure who want's to constantly be under surveillance, but then again remember, we ALL have those little things that we do but aren't supposed to. If they witness them on everyone, they still can't do anything about it. If you have a problem with being seen in public, don't go there. Basic privacy is and should be a right. In your home, in your car, in your clothes. And you should have the freedom to express yourself any way you want. That doesn't mean you have the right to remain anonymous at all times. You've never had it, and you'll never get it.

Re:Why is it an issue?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I don't even know where to start attacking this post, so I'll just go through it piece by piece.

You are not being treated like a criminal when the government puts up traffic cams to monitor intersections,

I drive safely and, by and large, legally. And yet, I have been flashed by speed cameras on several occasions now when I wasn't going over the limit. Maybe they were the fakes with cheap sensors, maybe they were misconfigured, who knows? It was certainly very unnerving at the time, and I spent the next two weeks wondering if someone's error is going to result in a fixed penalty notice arriving on my doorstep that I'd then have to defend -- probably unsuccessfully, because the machines are all but assumed to be infallible. "Man shall not be judged by machine" is a fundamental principle that is easily forgotten, but sound nonetheless.

Ok then, let's keep the government out of ALL your business, like maintaining roads, catching traffic offenders and criminals, providing emergency services, funding public utilties like water and phone in remote areas, etc. - yeah that'll work.

Strawman. The only one of the above where cameras can be argued to be relevant is in catching criminals, and there is precious little evidence to support even that claim, since the systems go wrong so often that frequently they aren't of any use when they should be anyway. The fact that they are widely abused is beyond dispute, however.

But seriously, you have to realize that we live in a society: a group. You are not and cannot be a lone individual unaffected by rules that arise out of necessity when living in a (rather large) group.

There is nothing necessary about the cameras invading my privacy. Mankind has survived quite happily for a very long time without such devices. We live in a society that is governed by a few in a system that fundamentally encourages them not to act in the best interests of those they represent. You have only to watch the news this week to see how much several western governments care about the views of those they claim to represent.

Also, to imply that putting up cameras in public places is equivalent to "waiving all right to privacy" is a groce exaggeration. This doesn't give anybody permission to stop and search you, interrupt you in any way, or prevent you from doing anything (unless what you are doing is illegal, in which case your argument is no longer about privacy).

Ah, but in case you hadn't noticed, there are already legal bases for stop and search, arrest on suspicion and restriction of freedoms in most western countries, particularly the US and UK. Hell, we've all been merrily introducing laws in the interests of "counter-terrorism" that have eroded our civil rights more in the past few years than in the previous several decades. Just this weekend, there was a fabulous story in the news about a guy who was arrested under recent anti-terrorism legislation in the UK because he had a Muslim-sounding name and happened to have bought a book or two from Paladin Press.

No, this is not solely due to the cameras, but the arguments you make in their favour are exactly those that are regularly used to support all the other slow-but-sure evasions of our rights to privacy and freedom that have been occurring ever faster since 911. At the risk of a terrible misquotation, for this shit to succeed, all that is necessary is for thoughtful men to stand by and do nothing.

And lastly, try not to mix the issues of surveillance, and security of the accumulated data. Of course any government database that's not protected sufficiently (by laws and security measures) is somewhat of a threat to privacy, but that is IMHO not a reason to say that surveillance in public places is bad.

Governments have no secure databas

Ubiquitous surveillance

[Dyolf Knip]

As David Brin said, the cameras are coming whether we like it or not. The only question is who gets to use them. Would you rather all the feeds went to police HQ where we can only hope they make good use of them, or should they instead be available for everyone to see?

Re:Ubiquitous surveillance

[vinsci]

It's not as simple as that, I'm afraid. If the public can use the cameras and they show events in real time, then someone could place a bomb and make it detonate at the "right" moment. Delaying the video has its own set of problems.

The reasons we have surveillance cameras is, I guess, that they are cost effective. I don't see them going away (politically, there will always be something more pressing to spend money on, or so it will be argued).

But in the tradition of Juvenal, how about monitoring cameras and microphones on each and every person who monitors the surveillance cameras, with public access?

"Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes."
-- Juvenal (ca 60 bis 130 n.C.), Sat. 6, 347

A double-edged sword

[geekwench]

Video surveillance, especially in public areas, is one of those sticky subjects that invariably provokes a strong opinion. Surveillance cameras are bad, but the footage that leads police to a serial rapist is not. If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. OTOH, do you want a record of your weekly routine filed away somewhere; and why is it anyone's business when and where you pick up your dry-cleaning?

As has been already said: like it or not, the cameras are here to stay. They serve many truly useful purposes. (The jury is still out as to whether tracking red-light scofflaws is among those useful purposes.) However, as we have seen many times, any useful technology can be abused. The only thing that will keep the Total Information Awareness project from becoming an Orwellian nightmare is the public's insistance on accountability. As an aside: Just don't ask me right now if I believe that the public is capable of insisting on any such thing. The short answer is cautiously optimistic, but not before we're slapped repeatedly in the face to make us aware again of why accountability is a Good Thing.

Dosent make it right.

[nurb432]

Just beacuse its public, and we have never had true privacy doesnt make it right to invade it.

Its no one's business. Peroid.

There is a difference between being seen by a person on the other side of the street and recording your activites. Think about it really hard and you will also understand.

If you dont see it as being investigated, then you are part of the problem, for allowing it to happen.

Trafic cameras

[chrestomanci]

When I was driving to the office this moring, I was passing through a small village with a 50mph speed limit. The cops had setup a device with an iluminated sign that read as I passed "A123BCD - 47mph"

I am assuming that it was only there as a deterent, and that the cops would not be sending out speeding tickets to those that where, but it sill bothers me that my licene plate was recorded when I was not speeding.

I live in the UK BTW.

* Not my real licence plate.

Re:Not quite right.

[symbolic]

I think you're forgetting that when you walk out in PUBLIC (it's called that for a reason) you are no longer PRIVATE.

You are taking a situation of necessity, and turning it into a justification for something that isn't correct, ethical, or warranted. If I want to get from my home to another location, I have no other reasonable alternative than to use the public roadways, walkways, and other areas. I believe these are often referred to as the commons - that is, resources available for the benefit and enjoyment of everyone. One of many problems that exist with modern-day surveillance it that government agencies have engaged in a massive usurpation of the commons, turning them into their own, private, often unsupervised, playground for spying and profiling, and all, I'd argue, in violation of the 4th Amendment.

On another note, just because I am in public does not mean that I relinquish any and all rights to conduct my life without intrusion or interference. It does not bestow upon anyone any more right to know who I am, what I am doing, or why I am there - the only difference is that when I am in public, I am at a location that is equally accessible by everyone. That's ALL. Nothing more.

Ergo...

[4of12]

In heavily monitored London, England...the average person is filmed by more than 300 cameras each day.

News Item: Residents of London England are reported to be much more fashionable of late since they became aware of being monitored.

"Yes, I've started combing my hair over my bald spot," said Jack Sprightly, pub owner in the East End.

"I've noticed a lot my customers, too, have started to shave on a more regular basis and to change their clothes before coming over to the pub from working in the garage."

"I'm all in favor of the new surveillance measures if it means `looking smart and proper' for a change."

"Most blokes are in favor of it once they find out the benefits," said Jack. "Many of them haven't had a date in years, but were pleasantly surprised how a few minutes of personal grooming has improved their lot in life."