Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Gunshot Tracking Cameras to be Deployed in LA

Posted by samzenpus on from the mixed-senses dept.

apok04 writes "Get out your tinfoil hats (and ski masks). A USC engineer uses his expertise with nerve cells to create a surveillance system that can recognize the sound of a nearby gunshot - and identify the shooter. In a unique pilot program, L.A. and Chicago will deploy test units in high-crime areas. The creator emphasizes that the system cannot recognize voices or words, but his previous research into speech recognition systems suggests otherwise."

10 of 480 comments (clear)

  1. Seems a great idea by Maqueo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Get out your tinfoil hats

    Why?

    Doesn't seem like a bad idea to know who's shooting who - don't you think?

    1. Re:Seems a great idea by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because when government spies on innocent people...

      These people are in public areas, presumably. No spying would be involved.

      it adopts the principle of guilty before proven innocent

      I could see this case if (1) they were actually 'spying' and (2) if it was humans doing it rather than a computer system defined specifically to look for ILLEGAL ACTIONS, and the system has proven to be ACCURATE.

      It is illegal to fire a weapon in the city. I don't see a problem with a system designed to report a fired weapon, record video of the person firing it, and calling for help.

      Protecting citizens from violence is one of the very few jobs the federal government is actually SUPPOSED to be doing, according to the Constitution.

      Under a just system of law, individuals are innocent until proven guilty.

      I wasn't aware that this system was finding anyone guilty? That is still done in a court of law.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    2. Re:Seems a great idea by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because when government spies on innocent people

      Who said anything about spying? This system is well known and out in the open. By this logic, photo radar and red-light cameras should be banned, because they "spy" on driver behaviours.

      Now, if the government was secretly monitoring specific people it felt were "dangerous", but haven't yet committed a crime, I'd have a problem. But this system most certainly doesn't fit that definition.

      it adopts the principle of guilty before proven innocent.

      Oooh, pulling out the strawman... nice...

      This principle is immoral, corrupt, unjust, and backwards.

      And there you go, knocking it down. Well done, but you failed to actually make a point.

      Under a just system of law, individuals are innocent until proven guilty.

      Very true. Of course, the idea that this system deviates from that principle is a matter of opinion rather than fact.

    3. Re:Seems a great idea by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These people are in public areas, presumably. No spying would be involved.

      Okay, what do you call surreptitiously observing peoples activities, then? Video taping an unaware couple making out in a park isn't spying? Yes, it is a public place and therefore I could be being watched at any time. That does not mean it is acceptable to me to actually be watched all the time. If you disagree, then why don't you just stick a transmitter on yourself whenever you leave the house so the government can track you at all times -- but only when you're in public! That makes it okay!

      a computer system defined specifically to look for ILLEGAL ACTIONS, and the system has proven to be ACCURATE.

      And what is this system doing for all the time that there aren't any gunshots going off? The "system" may be for detecting gun shots, but it's still a moveable camera and a microphone. So they blanket a few neighborhoods with these -- are the LAPD going to be happy with just passively waiting for the system to identify gunshots, or are they going to want to expand what they can do with their new camera/microphone network? Hint: Only one answer is consistent with the history of law enforcement.

      In the article, you should postpend every statement on what the system doesn't do with "... yet." Tracking limited amounts of speech, certain "alarm signal" words, wouldn't be a huge addition to the system and with microphones everywhere... think an Echelon or Carnivore for meatspace. But now that I think about it, my emails and phone calls travel on wires over public property, so I guess it's no big deal if the government listens in on that either.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:Seems a great idea by jadavis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Protecting citizens from violence is one of the very few jobs the federal government is actually SUPPOSED to be doing, according to the Constitution.

      Perhaps you can point out the passage, I haven't found it yet.

      I always thought that was a responsibility of the state. In this case it should be O.K. since the city is the one setting it up and the state prosecutes.

      How did this become a federal issue?

      --
      Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
  2. Good or bad? by joemc91 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't really know if this is a good or bad thing. I like the idea of having people caught quickly but at the same time I feel that law enforcement agencies would quickly find a way to constantly monitor the cameras, cutting into our privacy even more. Since these cameras are in public it doesn't bother me as much.

    Over all I think it's a good idea but it will be exploited so I can't support it fully, even though I'd like to.

  3. Huh? by Otter · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The creator emphasizes that the system cannot recognize voices or words, but his previous research into speech recognition systems suggests otherwise.

    Uh, no, it doesn't. The fact that the guy has worked on different types of signal processing doesn't "suggest" that he builds those capacities into every project he touches.

    --
    What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
  4. a wrong direction by fizban · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In a unique pilot program, L.A. and Chicago will deploy test units in high-crime areas.

    Hmmm... Let me guess, the south side of Chicago and Compton?

    Rather than looking for pro-active solutions to lowering crime in lower-income neighborhoods, like good education systems, quality health-care, living wages, etc. we continue to see crazy-ass reactive schemes like the above camera system that don't do anything to solve the real problems. In the meantime, as these useless systems become the norm, our society moves closer and closer to the ultimate police heaven, where everyone is monitored every second of every day. When's it gonna end?

    Hey, golly-gee-whiz, it sure is a neat technology, Wally.

    But like most things of that sort, no one's actually thought about how it actually makes things better, or how it can make things worse. So you catch a few people shooting guns, so what? They end up in jail, their families get torn apart, their chances of actually becoming a productive part of society diminish and they end up back on the street shooting a gun again, which is caught on camera, etc. etc. etc. Wow, crime sure is decreasing now.

    It's nice to talk about being tough on crime, but oftentimes what's really needed is not the cracking of a whip, or the monitoring of a camera, but rather a signature on a diploma, or on a paycheck. If you start suspecting everyone as a criminal, then they start seeing themselves as criminals and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you first look at people as raw material that can be shaped and molded into something productive, well, you see what I'm getting at.

    I'm getting sick of reading about high-tech crime monitoring systems, but it's appearing to be inevitable that we will live with them in our daily lives now and in the near future, so let me practice my indoctrination recitation:

    "I for one, welcome our all-seeing camera overlords."

    --

    +1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.

  5. Re:Response Time by nomadic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the shooter is still there, she deserves to be caught.

    If the shooter is a criminal, she deserves to be caught whether she's still there or whether she ran away and hid.

  6. I did this in school.. by MAdMaxOr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A buddy of mine and I did this in a physics lab. We used an array of 5 condenser mics wired into a PC running LabView, wired out to a laser pointer mounted on some toy motors.

    Someone would clap 15-30 feet away, and the computer pointed the laser pointer at their hands. We got the position within a foot or so, even in a echoing cinder block room.

    Insights:
    - You need at least 4 mics to get an object's position. (There are 4 degrees of freedom, x, y, z, and time) If you only need the angle, then you need 3 (for time, theta, and phi).

    - There are some places to shoot where due to the symmetries, it would be hard to compute a position. If the mics are arranged in a plane, then one problem area is straight out from the mic, normal to the plane.

    - Another project group in my class developed a computer-controlled ball bearing cannon. I wish we had time to link the projects.

    - Thermal variation in the air can disrupt your results.

    - If you used well-tuned directional mics, you might be better off. Rather than compute the location based on the path-length of the sound to each mic, you could then find out the incident angle of the sound on each mic, based upon how much the sound level is reduced.