Chicago Developing 'Suspicious Behavior' Monitoring System

narramissic writes "Over the past few years, Chicago's Office of Emergency Management and Communications (OEMC) has been blanketing the city with a network of thousands of video cameras in an effort to remotely keep track of emergencies in real time. Now, with the help of IBM, the network is getting some smarts. IBM software will analyze the video and ultimately 'recognize suspicious behavior,' says OEMC spokesman Kevin Smith. 'The challenge is going to be teaching computers to recognize the suspicious behavior,' said Smith. 'Once this is done this will be a very impressive city in terms of public safety.'"

Comments

Re:Good or bad?

[spleen_blender]

You have to field test your research somewhere, this one just happens to have a big juicy contract with it probably.

Obviously ...

[PhxBlue]

Chicagoans should go out of their way to act "suspicious" in front of these cameras if they want to prevent the onset of a nanny state. Wear thick coats during the summer months, keep their hands in their pockets, look back and forth. Hell, maybe sticking their tongues out at the cameras would constitute suspicious ...

Besides, where they ought to be placing these cameras is in the halls of Chicago's city government.

Re:Obviously ...

[putzin]

This could be entertaining on Clark south of Addison on Friday and Saturday nights, especially around the Cubs clinching a playoff spot (it could happen), any Bears win, and Halloween. I guess it depends on what is suspicious.

Also, didn't London, the worlds first true nanny city just figure out that crime is the same or worse where the cameras are the densest?

This is the goddamned end of the universe

[StealthyRoid]

Cool, so, we're not even pretending anymore that the use of cameras are anything less than the complete and total expansion of the panopticon, are we? I mean, of course, you'll still have the people who say "well, if you aren't doing anything wrong, why are you worried", but for the most part, we're pretty up front about the fact that we're going to be using cameras to keep our citizenry under the thumb. Who defines what constitutes "suspicious behavior", local cops, politicians, computer techs? There will be essentially zero guidelines for the implementation of this technology, so what's to stop the local PD, or the DEA from auto-flagging someone who looks like they're raising a pipe to their mouths, or, even better, engaging in nefarious acts like leaving the house late at night? And not just that, but how many citizens will have their rights violated because of a false positive from the "suspicious behavior" flag? Will the flag be enough to get a warrant to search someone's car or home?

End of the fucking universe, right here.

Re:This is the goddamned end of the universe

[suv4x4]

I love they gave you +5 Overacting, but no, this is not "the goddamned end of the universe".

No, no one will be arrested because a flag. Don't you realize what this system is supposed to do. Reduce the amount of material that has to go through human eyes. If IBM software can flag suspicious activity, then police officers will monitor mostly the flagged videos, and work only a FRACTION of those flagged videos (if a human eye decides activity is suspicious.. then it may really be).

The problem isn't the fact they try to automate it. There are two other distinctive issues:

1. The fact they installed cameras everywhere. This is an actual problem, but, not the "end of the universe". You're already under control in public places, there are people EVERYWHERE around you, and they SEE you. If there were no cameras, would you feel ok to pull your pants down in the middle of the street? No. So, beside the people around you, few guys monitoring the cameras will also see you. Not that big of a deal.

2. Second problem is they put too much hope on software detecting suhspicious behaviour. That's a joke. We're AT LEAST, and I say AT LEAST, super-duper-optimistic, 20 years away from being able to create a system smart enough to detect suspicious with good accuracy. This means IBM's system will have big number of false positives, and big number of false negatives. In the former case, it means it won't be as effective in reducing the number of material a human eye has to go through. That's not a big problem but makes throwing so much money into a poor system worth question. In the latter case though, it means monitoring guys trusting the system too much and not watching the NON FLAGGED videos, and missing on ACTUAL suspicious activity which doesn't look suspicious to a computer system.

Conformity

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

'Once this is done this will be a very impressive city in terms of public conformity.' Fixed it.

False Positives

[grassy_knoll]

From TFA:

The trick will be to make the analytics software work in a useful way. "The challenge is going to be teaching computers to recognize the suspicious behavior," said Smith. "Once this is done this will be a very impressive city in terms of public safety."

I'd wager the false positve rate is going to be very high, and it will be interesting to see if they can bring that down. Something like an alert for a stolen car ( or a car related to an amber alert ) could generate a very high false positive rate if the car is a common make/model.

On the other hand, if it teaches criminals to act in less "suspicious" ways, then the system will be of no value or perhaps even detremental ( showing no "suspicious" behavior when criminal activity is present, leading to a false sense of security ).

London

[Boogaroo]

Wasn't there an article on how the massive London camera network doesn't actually do any good? And that one has real people monitoring it. Who really thinks a computer will be able to do a better job at something so nebulous as "suspicious behavior?"

Oh, that's right, nobody. However, that doesn't stop the company pushing this from trying to make a buck. It's sorta like the DRM companies. The DRM companies all know it doesn't work, but companies keep falling for the salesmen's lies.

That's rich

[bogie]

"'Once this is done this will be a very impressive city in terms of public safety.'""

Impressive if your main hope in life is to live in some sort of Orwellian nightmare. Hey, here's a thought. If you put cameras in every house you can cut down on child abuse! You don't object to that do you? What are you some sort of kid toucher? Won't somebody please think of the children!

So much for Chicago being the lovely city I wanted to visit again.