Lip-Reading Surveillance Cameras

mrogers sends us to Infowars for the following news from the UK, "which is fast becoming the front line of the war on privacy": "'Read my lips..."' used to be a figurative saying. Now the British government is considering taking it literally by adding lip reading technology to some of the four million or so surveillance cameras in order identify terrorists and criminals by watching what everyone says. Perhaps the lip-reading cameras and the shouting cameras will find something to talk about."

Comments

Solution

[Apocalypse111]

Quick and dirty solution: Pig Latin.

Re:Solution

[caramelcarrot]

Better solution: Paintball markers. It might be temporary, but frustrating.

Re:Solution

[Himring]

atwhay teh uckfay you alkingtay aboutay?

Re:Solution

[Shakrai]

There is also the low tech option and just go inside to talk where they're aren't any cameras....

A good low tech option in my mind would be to vote the dumbasses out of power that think this is a good idea.

Re:Solution

[arivanov]

And it will still not recognise them.

Germans found that out in world war 2 and used it. Apparently, no matter how good you get in a language you use different lip technique from the native speakers. As a result a professional lip reader (or a deaf person trained to lip read) will pick you out right away.

Back on the British topic. Just looking at the 7/7 and 21/7 bombers you have more than 4 different ethnic origins - Somali, Jamaican, Ethiopian and various different tribes originally from Pakistan. Each of these will be using a non-standard lip technique. While it may be possible to get some relatively low reading rate by a professional who has unlimited time to look at the tape, a real-time automated system will fail miserably right away. The only ones it will pick out will be Caucasian whites of English origin (I suspect it will fail on Scots and Welsh) who for some unbeknown to us reason have decided to discuss 7/7 instead of Chelsea vs Arsenal (that will probably be 1-2 people in the whole country anyway).

Re:Solution

[yams69]

What about the masks that everyone was wearing during the SARS epidemic? I still see those in airports, so it wouldn't be too out of the ordinary.

Re:Solution

[digitig]

A good low tech option in my mind would be to vote the dumbasses out of power that think this is a good idea.

Unfortunately, many of us see these particular dumbasses as muscling in on the rival dumbasses' territory -- any likely alternative is probably going to be just as bad or worse. Yes, there are minority parties I can vote for, but there are enough people who reckon that if you're doing nothing wrong there's nothing to fear [1] that those parties don't have much chance. As somebody said a couple of elections ago, we're faced with a choice of being forced to eat s*** and being forced to eat s*** with razor-blades.

[1] True enough -- provided that all those with access to the data are and always will be benign and competent...

Re:Solution

[Shakrai]

As somebody said a couple of elections ago, we're faced with a choice of being forced to eat s*** and being forced to eat s*** with razor-blades.

Then do something about it! Run for office yourself. Setup your own party. Try to convince people to vote for the existing third-parties.

Will any of those be successful? Who can say? But I give them a much bigger chance of success then apathy....

Re:Solution

[malsdavis]

license plate recognition systems are in use all over the UK. Several motorways (I think they're called freeways in the USA) have several such cameras on them for calculating average speed and hence detecting if speed limit has been broken (i.e. 2 cameras are placed x miles apart, if a car traversed those x miles in under y minutes then they must have been speeding). Thankfully you apparently have to be averaging 30 miles over the speed limit (so travelling at over 100 mph) to get caught by them.

They are set to be rolled out across the UK soon and tied into the national police databases (as has already been done in the city which the killers got caught). As I say though, the vast, vast majority of people here support their use for hunting criminals. It's only their speed enforcement duties which hopefully will get people worked up.

I think the major difference here as opposed to say the USA, is that vast majority of people in the UK wouldn't consider their license plate being registered on a police database somewhere as an invasion of their privacy. People in the UK are worried about corporations having their personal data, not the government; whereas it seems in the USA, the opposite is the case.

This will all work fine

[Anonymous Coward]

Until someone invents stealth technology to circumvent it. Like covering your mouth with your hand.

Re:This will all work fine

[badboy_tw2002]

Ah, but then you have something to hide. And they know it and will soon be picking you up to have a chat about it. After all, if you weren't doing anything wrong, why would you care if your Big Brother knew about it? He just wants to make sure you're living a comfortable and safe existence!

Re:This will all work fine

[olego]

You know, I used to think that everyone who said that was being sarcastic and was merely making fun of the government... Until I watched a couple of press releases by the government and realised that these things are actually said.

And that really freaked me out.

Re:This will all work fine

[InfiniteSingularity]

So How long until it becomes ILLEGAL to cover your mouth or try and talk without showing your lips?

Re:This will all work fine

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because thjey believe it.
Hell I'm willing to give the people who want to implement the benefit of the doubt, but not the next people who will be in charge.
Get involved.

I am sooo cynical with your everyday people these days.

Most folks think everyone who's arrested is guilty.

Everyone accused of being a terrorist is a terrorist.

If you don't do anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about.

Law enforcement doesn't make mistakes.

I'm sure more can be added...

But my point is, those of us who question authority are in the minority. People think that if you're in Government and in power then you deserve it, NOT that you were the big man's buddy and got there because you are one of his drinking/golf/church buddies. When I question Government I'm called a "Liberal" or "Paranoid".

People have too much faith in their Governments. We, in the Western World, have become too complacent and we will lose our democratic governments one day. Not because of us minorities, but because of the great unwashed who are more concerned about wrestling and who's winning the big ball game or American Idol.

Bread and Circuses is still the method of controlling the masses.

lip-read a speaker?

[Red Flayer]

Perhaps the lip-reading cameras and the shouting cameras will find something to talk about."

Sure, as soon as camera manufacturers start putting realistic mechanical lips[1] on their shouting cameras.

And as soon as that is possible, I'd like to license the technology for a venture of my own, involving about 40 lbs of latex and a metal skeleton. It'll be the best prom evar!11!

Sounds vaguely familiar

[rlp]

Just don't ask it to open the pod bay doors.

obvious

[eclectro]

When the lip reading cameras come online, they will see that everyone is repeating this sequence of numbers;

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

some one has to say it

[phrostie]

" Rotate the Pod please HAL "

Countermeasure

[jbeaupre]

You could easily defeat the system by wearing a burqa or other type of veil. Then you'll never be mistaken for a terrorist. Right?

Re:Countermeasure

[sexybomber]

You could easily defeat the system by wearing a burqa or other type of veil.

Or a Guy Fawkes mask, if you were so inclined. It's more stylish, at least.

Re:Countermeasure

[andphi]

A very valuable variety of evasion, provided everyone volunteers not to violate everyone overusing 'V'.

Written constitution and bill of rights.

[Palmyst]

That is what Britain needs, yesterday. This unwritten constitution business gives too much power to the political class, and they are obviously not above exploiting it to the max.

Re:Written constitution and bill of rights.

[HomelessInLaJolla]

Having a written constitution and a bill of rights isn't helping much on this side of the pond. The politicians have found that everything can be explained to the satisfaction of the voters by saying "interstate commerce" and "terror". Those voters who aren't sufficiently convinced are gradually pushed into lower income brackets so they'll have to spend more time at work and less time asking questions of their political leaders.

I don't know what the solution is anymore.

Re:Written constitution and bill of rights.

[HomelessInLaJolla]

What you've described is a system which is easily defeated by flooding. You're asserting that Congress has no duty to stay within its defined boundaries and that it is the Supreme Court's job to strike down illegitimate legislation. I think the problem is obvious when there are only seven supreme court justices and over five hundred congressional members.

But don't let the obvious prevent you from insulting me. If it makes you feel better then go ahead and do it to your heart's content.

Re:Written constitution and bill of rights.

[zrobotics]

While I agree that the UK fares worse than the US in these regards, that still does not mean that there is a vast "conspiracy" afoot in the US. However, it is clear that, slowly but surely, personal liberty is gradually being suppressed in favor of security in the US. While the parent may be a tinfoil-hatter, that doesn't make his point invalid. The patriot act, guantanamo bay, warrantless wiretapping, etc. could all be called unconstitutional. So, while an unwritten constitution provides less protection than a written one, either can be usurped when the individuals in power find that their personal interests are best protected by "unconstitutional measures".

Succinctly put, citizens can't depend on their governments to provide them with rights. They must demand these rights for themselves. In both the US and the UK, the respective protections of personal liberty were not created by the government, they were created by dissident groups who managed to establish said rights, often with the opposition of the ruling parties. The truly terrifying thing is that few seem committed to any sort of positive action. Everyone bemoans the degradation of these rights, but there are few groups actively doing anything about it; and the groups that are doing something (ACLU, EFF, etc.) are subjects of public scorn. So, rather than relying on political systems (The Constitution, the courts) as you suggest, more emphasis needs to be placed on collective action.

And yes, I know that 99% of the people in any given population are far too apathetic to actually do anything.

Re:Written constitution and bill of rights.

[Khisanth Magus]

The problem is that we have no ability to vote on laws. We can only elect people we HOPE will represent our interests when those laws are proposed, and also write to our representative and hope they listen to us. But they can just as easily ignore the people who elected them. Throw in things like attaching bad laws onto other bills that need to be passed and you have the makings for a government that the people have very little say in.

Re:Written constitution and bill of rights.

[psykocrime]

The Constitution ( and the Magna Carta, and the Articles of Confederation, etc., etc.) is just a piece of paper. It can't do anything to defend our rights... we have to do that ourselves. Once the government has made the decision to step outside of
the bounds set for it (by said Constitution) the only choice is for "We The People" to put it back in those bounds, or destroy it.

Revolution Calling? Yeah, you could say that... But we haven't reached a critical mass yet, where enough people *care* about what's happening to do anything about it.

Re:Written constitution and bill of rights.

[digitig]

well, there is always revolution. As any engineer can tell you, one revolution always gets you back to where you started.

Now time for that popular new hit

[geekoid]

"Fuck you, I'm a terrorist." This single is rising fast on the charts and is on everybodies lips.

Market Prediction

[TheCreeep]

Expect the sales of scarfs in Britain to soar.

Please Run Vista

[happyfrogcow]

Let's just hope it runs on Vista so we can tell it to shut itself off

Re:Would this work?

[drinkypoo]

I suggest mass poetry readings in the streets. The theme: terrorism and terrorist activities. Keep the system overloaded...

Better Solution

[Billosaur]

Train yourself to talk like out-of-synch karate movies...

Re:Better Solution

[Hektor_Troy]

Like this guy? I think that's completely mess with them

Be very afraid

[boyfaceddog]

The odds against something like this working ar astronomical.
The odds against it being used in court (or worse, being used to "detain" someone) are just about even.

That means some poor schmuck will end up sitting in a detention cell for a decade or so because he shouted for something and the lipreaders thought he said 'bomb'.

The algorithms must be state of the art

[Sam H]

Since all terrorists have a beard and speak Arabic, the algorithms used in these cameras must really be state of the art.

Re:Would this work?

[Timesprout]

as in.. Brad Pitt's character in Snatch

Pikeys! I fookin hate pikeys! They are always guilty of something or other so arresting them is OK.

The bad thing is

[Cro Magnon]

it won't work against politicians, because they talk out of their asses, not their mouth.

Re:What is the motivation for all this?

[Anonymous Cowpat]

power - the politicians want power, and have given the police those powers necessary to stop the people objecting in any worthwhile fashion.

Free Speech

[quantaman]

I could see something like this having a very chilling effect of free speech.

Think if you've ever complained about the police when talking when a friend, now think if you'd still complaining as loudly if a police officer was within earshot.

This doesn't even have to work, a lot of people walking down the street are still going to feel nervous saying bad things about Big Brother if they feel Big Brother is actually listening.

It's all about funding

[Flying pig]

In the US you have endless proposals for blue sky research projects that "might" in 20 years or so lead to something that "might" have a military application. Didn't the DoD even spend money on psychics not so long ago?

Here we don't have big slush funds. (The Govt. can endlessly waste public money on hopeless IT projects, but that's different.) So University lecturers, especially ones from not terribly good universities (have you ever been to Norwich? Don't.), have to try and invent other ways to get funding. Since the Govt. is obsessed with finding terrorists before they manage to get the gunpowder under Parliament again, one way to get funding for a visual recognition project is to suggest it can be used for lipreading terrorists in shopping centres. Of course it won't work, but hopefully by then the guy will have written a few papers and moved a bit up the academic pecking order. And good luck to him. British Government policy with universities basically involves being nice to Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial and UCL and stuff the rest. (No, I'm not bitter. My family has degress from 3 of the 4. But I do recognise that it's not a good or fair system)

hattery

[HomelessInLaJolla]

I'm homeless. I can't afford a tinfoil hat.

It's a scam

[DeafScribe]

If the UK goes forward with this scheme, they're getting scammed. I know, from research and real-world experience with people with intensive speech-reading training, that lipreading will yield, at most, about 25% of speech. There are simply too many words that look alike or resist analysis to grasp more than that. You can fill in some of the blanks by the situational context, body language and residual hearing, if there is any. But frankly I see this as an effort to take advantage of gullible government agencies by touting a gee-whiz technological solution that won't work.

Re:It's a scam

[techno-vampire]

I've some hearing loss, and recently took a series of classes on coping with it. Part of it was experimenting with lip reading. Not only do many words look similar, letters formed mostly with the tongue look identical. Look in the mirror, sometime, and say the letters t, c, g and z, and try to tell which one is which. You can't. Now, imagine security droids looking at what the computer thinks somebody is saying and taking it as the literal truth because, as we all know, computers never lie. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Re:It's a scam

[myowntrueself]

I know, from research and real-world experience with people with intensive speech-reading training, that lipreading will yield, at most, about 25% of speech.

I know someone who is deaf and who is a Japanese/American linguistics student. They say that many languages are impossible to lip-read, including Japanese.

And by 'impossible' they do mean 'not possible', as in there is no way to tell from the movements of the mouth what the person is saying.

Talking cameras

[Virak]

Nothing quite says "we're watching you" like a camera that actually says "we're watching you".

Expectation of privacy

[Miseph]

So, who, exactly, has an expectation of privacy when they're in public? Yeah, yeah, surveillance bad, privacy good, rah rah rah, but seriously, if you don't want your business to be public, then keep it in private.

Either that, or talk about incredibly private things that are virtually guaranteed to make whatever poor schlub is reading the transcripts incredibly uncomfortable. Or say things that are so unbelievably suspicious that they'll have no choice to investigate, and when it turns out to be complete fabrication remind them it was their ill-conceived idea to read your lips in the first place.

Re:Expectation of privacy

[Travelsonic]

"No" expectation of privacy is a far cry from it being ok to basically stalk people and pry into their lives that way, and too many people who carry the tagline about expectation of privacy, in my opinion at least, ar (intentionally or not) using a red herring to distract from the real problems raised.

Infowar == kookery

[Bogtha]

Please, why are you linking to kooks like Infowar? Here is the original article, which they conveniently don't link to. Compare and contrast. Infowar:

Imagine a place where if you say something considered by the authorities to be suspicious a team of agents is dispatched to your location to detain and question you.

Of course, the lip reading technology isn't even in existence yet, let alone any kind of government plan to use it or secret police squad. From the original article:

Richard Harvey, a senior lecturer in computer vision at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, is embarking on a three-year project that will collect lip-reading data.

It's just hype to promote a new research project. Infowar seeks out anything that can possibly be used for bad purposes, and spins it out of all recognition. It's a site run by a paranoid kook, not a legitimate news source.

Evil Ventriloquist Masterminds

[bill_mcgonigle]

OK, I admit I just wanted to use that subject line. But it does seem rather quaint that it'll be Scarface who winds up toppling the British Crown now.

Mom != Bomb

[blondieeng]

Speech reading technology is based on...human speech. It won't tell the difference between "mom" and "bomb". Just look in a mirror yourself when saying those two words. Just 30% of spoken speech is on the lips anyway so it's hard as hell to speech read anyone, and I've been doing it my entire life.
I still can't tell if someone is saying "I love food" versus "I love you".
Has anyone else here figured out how accurate this recognition package is right now?