Slashdot Mirror
Airport Video Surveillance Goes Hi-Tech
conq writes "BusinessWeek has a piece on new tech used in the airport of Helsinki to monitor behavior and alert people when predefined situations arise. From the article: "The system can alert staff to events which may need further investigation without the need for every camera to be observed by staff. For example, suspect packages or vehicles left unattended will be flagged up and staff alerted. Similarly if the system detects queues growing beyond a pre-defined length in the security zone staff will be alerted of the need to open another lane""
I wonder how it detects an unattended package. If said package is left in a crowded area, will the system be confused that such package is still being "attended" by moving traffic?
Please stop entering code 2,2,7,6,6,4
"Similarly if the system detects queues growing beyond a pre-defined length in the security zone staff will be alerted of the need to open another lane"
Mondays incur serious bottlenecks here at IAH Terminal C (Houston). The security staff seems stymied by their limited empowerment to work the crowd. Often, the line extends out the door, and sometimes into traffic. In fact, it's often more expedient (though no less "secure") to check into a different terminal altogether, then walk or take a tram to Terminal C's gates. The idea that we could open several lines seems beyond the security personnel.
The odd thing to me is that this airport seems the *least* offensive of several majors. Perhaps it's just my familiarity with Houston's particular brand of inefficiency.
I know that the security measures in most were put in place *after* 9-11; therefore, they didn't benefit from any really modern analysis of their security methods (Denver is the most egregious that I've found, to date). However, true to "government droid" stereotypes, the people manning the lines can't seem to think adaptively *and* provide equivalent security.
Ah well, getting to the airport 2 hours early is supposed to be relaxing, somehow....
I immediately thought "emperor has no clothes" myself. We are not at the level of technological sophistication where this is feasible.
This will actually create morework because the "terra sentinels" will quickly realize the system is useless, but will be compelled by their boss to investigate every blip in addition to their current duties.
In the UK over the past few years there've been various rights-eroding laws put in place (e.g. warrantless searches and arrests if they suspect you're a terrorist), and then this happened.
What worries me is that the security staff are going to blindly believe the computer's "this is suspicious", causing the person huge inconvenience despite any actual evidence of him being a terrorist on his person. See the link - just because someone matched enough random, minor items on (presumably) some sort of mental checklist in the security staff's head, they put him through huge inconvenience, arrested him, searched his house, took his cellphone's SIM card, took computers from his home, all without a warrant, simply because they had enough things crossed off to be able to mark him as "suspicious" (and thus use the Terrorism Act), despite there being absolutely no proof on his person.
If this gets done, thus moving the mental checklist into the computer, I can only hope there WILL be regular false positives (so that the security staff take it with a pinch of salt and use it as a guideline only), else they might suspect people unduly despite there being no cause for suspicion other than "the computer says so".
Speaking from personal experience here, you are talking out of your arse. Helsinki airport is an order of magnitude more bearable, than, say Manchester or Heathrow here in the UK. The Finns, in general, are a level-headed race and they seem to be able to run things in an orderly fashion. Helsinki airport is clean, I've never found myself short of somewhere to sit and wait, or been too far out of range of the toilets, or, as you kind of suggest, had to stand there in a massive queue whilst staff stand idly around. BTW, have you really been there? Quick test: What hangs from the ceiling quite prominently in the checked-in waiting area?
Can't the actual human employees at the head of the line make this determination and alert whomever has the authority to open another lane?
Seeing as the standard "pre-defined length" actually stretches over the horizon, beyond the sightlines of the employees working the security station, then no, they can't. This new system enables them to know when they can have another employee earning money, without detracting from the 3-hour experience of waiting in line that we've all come to know and love.
Just think of the problems if you got through security quickly, and had to kill those three hours waiting on the departures concourse. *shudders*
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
Now, if the technology is tried, tested and improved enough, why not put 'em everywhere. You know, juste like in London, to prevent crimes. Then vote some laws that says doing this or that is terrorist-like and then illegal. Then arrest more people.
Yeah, I'm stretching it. But you know, when the technology's there, available and working, there is no reason not to use it. Then you can mix techs and end up with nicer cocktails. Like an "ID tag canon" that shoots a tiny RFID tag on someone when the camera decides he looks suspicious -- it'll be easy to follow him. Then you bust his ass when he gets home and hope to find some pot or porn.
Ok, ok. Sci-fi gibberish. But still, if *I* can think of this, I'm sure many others can come up with worse than that. And apply it.
You are more than the sum of what you consume. Desire is not an occupation.
Several years ago I spoke with a friend of mine who went to work in the security department of a major retailer as a programmer. The project that he was working on was to design a system that would detect motions that would identify shoplifters, thieves, and other bad guys (like thieving employees). They used things like furtive movements and a person's route through the store to trigger the system that would sound the alarm and bring the camera online to a security officer. They used hundreds of hours of security video showing crooks doing their work to vet the system and they had it working pretty well. I would imagine that this is a system similar to what they are doing at the airport.
He did share some humorous observations about this work. The system would frequently target completely innocent little old ladies as potential shoplifters. Apparently their movements while on a routine shopping trip were quite similar to a crooks and the system was not able to differentiate between them.
I have to post anonymously because I work in this field.