Slashdot Mirror
Movement Sensors a Less Invasive Alternative To CCTV
holy_calamity writes "Researchers at Mitsubishi say cramming buildings with movement sensors, not cameras, is a safer and less invasive alternative to CCTV. They covered their office building with 215 low-cost sensors to watch over their colleagues and show how it works. A video shows how a user can see people's movements on a map of the building in real time. Data from the sensors is much easier to handle than video footage, and it can easily be searched." The Surface-like UI is pretty neat too.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VvDxDGiFa8Q
I will work to elevate you, just enough to bring you down
Don't want to sound like a jackass, but I think you mean motion.
(Cue, you are a jackass comments)
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
It may seem like a bad idea at first (cheaper == more sensors), but at least this will force them to *really* anonymise the data, and only keep what they need for the security part.
So probably more sensors, but less abuses.
Don't take my posts literally; it's just code to control my botnet.
This method appears easier for people doing monitoring. I think it's less safe in terms of public privacy.
Those sensors could be easily hacked into, or disabled, or misdirected.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
welcome our new movement sensor overlords
If people can get past, can they get future? Best way to confuse a stoner
I'm all for privacy, but lets be real. There's no way that motion sensors provide comparable data to video. Tracking movement, while still invasive to privacy, is just short of useless in terms of security. You can't tell if someone is shoulder surfing, or taking that framed picture of Chuck Norris off someone's desk, or judo chopping their boss from motion sensors. Indeed, the identity of the person on the screen is unknown as well. If two people walk towards each other and pass each other in the hall, that would be essentially identical to them walking up to each other and turning around - identity obfuscated.
Interesting tool for traffic analysis, sure. Alternative to security cameras? Not so much.
...and identification purposes, and is also easy to search. The author is either unfamiliar with modern surveillance or chooses to ignore the realities of video analytics.
Loading...
This will be a complete win, I suspect. I can see it now.
business "someone broke into the office through the window near jim's desk over to the west, and stole six new servers from the server room"
law "whoa. send us your sensor logs"
business "ok done"
law (six months later) "we've analysed your sensor logs, and found someone broke into the office maybe on the west side, and went to the server room and back six times"
business "thanks! what would we do without technology"
in other words, completely fucking useless.
2.) You can't tell if that snake of moving lights is one person or more than one (i.e., someone piggybacks on a legitimate user's door swipe and is effectively invisible as long as they're close enough). So, you can't tell if you should be looking at that video or not. Maybe human heat signature detectors instead?
It's a nice concept in general, and I support it, but I wouldn't call it an "alternative to CCTV".
Misery loves company. Online misery loves unsuspecting random strangers.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
How so?
The only example the article mentioned is that motion sensors won't "catch you picking your nose".
Yeah, that's what's privacy advocates are talking about - being caught picking your nose.
Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
Actually, I think this would complement video quite well. You use this system to see WHATS happening -- click a button -- and see WHO is making it happen.
Slashbot, please fix the graphic corner around the reply box. The upper-left, lower-left, lower-right are all find but upper-right is wonked! It's just ugly. I don't know what it looks like under Linux but it's craptastic under IE7 - Vista. PLEEEEAAASSSEE fix! Thank you.
Easily defeated with a couple of frisbies.
Did that video remind anyone else of that scene near the end of Alien where they're crawling around in the tunnels on the Nostromo? I kept waiting to see a much faster moving dot closing in on the guy...
The motion sensor doesn't tell you anything that video cannot. It's a redundancy. Now, if it was a pressure sensor that would be different... You could then do some things that are difficult for a video sensor to discern (like tailgaiting.)
Loading...
Actually it's used for checking if ANYTHING is happening. Or how many people are in hallway and such things. It's just to tell where people typically go, it is NOT surveillance equipment.
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
From the MERL company site:
"MERL's mission--our assignment from MELCO--is two fold:
1. To generate highly significant intellectual property (papers, patents and prototypes) in areas of importance to MELCO.
2. To locate organizations within MELCO that can benefit from this technology and through close partnership with them, significantly impact MELCO's business." [www.merl.com/company]
This is hardly the complete blueprint for a revolutionary security system; it is, however, an innovative (if limited) system of workplace monitoring that may well prove to be "highly significant intellectual property" if applied correctly.
Moreover, the need for security and the right to privacy have been at odds for years now; the fact that someone has taken the initiative to innovate towards a reasonable compromise is laudable, even if the idea didn't spring full-fledged from the head of its architect.
Somewhat off-topic, but the table in question is MERL's DiamondTouch, not Surface or a derivative thereof. The DiamondTouch predates Surface by quite a while - I got to use one at SIGGRAPH 2006. It uses an overhead projector onto the interactive surfac and pads that you must touch with some part of your body to use, generally by sitting on it. The table itself emits signals that are recieved through your body by the pad. This is in direct contrast to Surface and similar technologies, which use infrared emitters and cameras to detect touches, meaning no pads and a number of inputs that is only limited by the tracking software.
That being said, this still quite a neat application, and makes much more sense as a live monitoring tool than a wall of CCTV monitors. If you really wanted to get fancy, the bank of monitors could be hooked up to this system, displaying the most relevant camera footage at any given time.
They claim to be able to track a person, but motion sensors can not do this. They only track (wait for it)... motion! Take my obfuscation example to the next step. Ten people walk to the water cooler in groups of two or three at about the same time. After a few minutes of immobility, singles and doubles leave the cooler. Even presuming the system is sophisticated enough to tell the difference between Andre the Giant Sales Rep and the two underfed interns walking next to each other down the hall, it would not be possible to determine identity.
To turn it off
Motion detection could be less invasive than CCTV, but in combination with CCTV it's more privacy invasive.
Prediction is that BOTH will be used coupled together to provide patterns for each individual.
They demonstrated copier pattern. How about bathroom pattern. Surface: X is going to the bathroom 10 times a day. Video: X is "Office J. Roach"
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
As a thug, I welcome the improvement sensors offer over CCTV. My profession has enough risks without our actual image or criminal act being captured on video. I got a right to privacy too.
It seems more logical to me to let the CCTV cameras dumb-down their output to act as motion sensors capable of discerning color and motion rather than purely using motion sensors. If you want to get an image, you can call up the camera manually and get whatever is live (or less than 5 minutes old). You can then program a system to look for suspicious movement patterns, and grab the video feeds from affected cameras.
Depending on how aggressive you got with the system, you could even scan for things like cashier fraud without storing all the video.
But just plain motion sensors are a pain in the ass. There isn't generally good enough field of view data internally for anything but the most basic functions-- occupancy sensors and alarm systems.
We're getting to the point where decisions made on what kind of surveillance is permitted in public and quasi-public spaces must become a moral and ethical question that goes to the heart of what we mean by democracy. If the need for security is so urgent, how can it be argued that surveillance cameras shouldn't be allowed in washrooms? Is there a better on-site location to do final assembly of a weapon than one where privacy is guaranteed?
My personal belief is that every public area protected only by occasional foot patrols and the commitment of average people to act responsibly is a metaphorical middle finger shoved in the face of all fascists and their terrorist enablers.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
if it exists....
This is safe now, because Robert Redford is now far too old to squeeze into a neoprene wetsuit.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
was welcomed politely but firmly by our new sensor overlords and look forward to their continued domination (they said [in a doom laden synthesised voice] that they know where I live!)
If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
You don't see CCTV in Star Trek (in "the future"), just biological sensors and such: "Computer, where is Mr. LaForge?" "10-forward.". I always wondered why they didn't, though, as it would be handy when there is some kind of intrusion.
For occupancy sensing, this will work fine. But for security, the point is to get a picture of who is swiping what.
Video motion detectors aren't new technology. And they can be 'dual use'. During the day, the cameras only signal motion but in security mode, when motion is detected, they save the image.
Interesting note: Video detection is being used to detect cars at intersections to control signals. In this mode, the system only provides a signal when a car stops within a defined area in the field of view. But one municipality was having problems with their emergency vehicle signaling system. Someone was screwing up traffic light with an IR transmitter (switching them all to green in his direction of travel). The engineers just plugged a recorder, triggered by the emergency signaling system, into the cameras. As the cameras were black and white (sensitive to IR) they clearly picked up an image of the guy driving to work with this gizmo running on his dashboard. And his license plate.
Have gnu, will travel.
If we add this to the technology that can ID a person by the way they walk as seen here we wind up with no added privacy at all.
But it's cheaper, so you can have more of them and cover more area than you could afford to with cameras. I think that was the point.
http://outcampaign.org/
anyone for a game of pac-man on their lunch break?
It isn't necessarily cheaper, depending upon the coverage area you desire, plus if you want cheap, use rfid - that's really cheap. I think there were several points, the one I was addressing (or intending to) is the poster's assertion that it was easier to assess the situation with the motion sensors (and I disagree :).) You also give up a lot of capabilities when you use a motion sensor. Personally, I would use both in order to gain the advantages to be had from sensor 'fusion.'
Loading...
It's been very interesting to read this discussion. Thank for being so interested! A couple points:
...for various definitions of "better"?
1) I think Mason did a great job on the article. That's evidenced by the fact a lot of the posts here center on the questions I think are most interesting:
a) Is there any way to balance the needs of society with the needs of the individual?
b) How much information can you get out of networks of simple sensors?
c) Are dense networks of simple sensors "better" than dense networks of cameras? sparse networks of cameras? networks of RFID readers? combinations of all those
2) That said, Mason's job was to write a very short article about a complex technology he only learned about last week, so it's understandable if some of the subtleties didn't make it through. If you're interested in the nuances, I encourage you to follow through the links and learn more (as many of are already obviously doing).
3) Discussions of privacy are very tricky in the absence of context. Privacy means something very different when you're talking about a citizen and their government, an employee and their boss, a parent and their child, or a lover and their spouse. If I am talking about one context and you have another in mind, then we're not likely to have a useful conversation. Please click through to this TR for a more detailed discussion: TR2006-005
4) It's worth pointing out that security was a good way to fund research these past few years. However the heart of the project is really about intelligent buildings, and how to make our lives better. It started with a focus on elevator efficiency and more recently has shifted to social networking and may yet move on to energy efficiency. Security was just one pit stop (but one the produced undeniably influential demos!)
5) Finally, the project is obviously not just two people, but dozens. Listing them all would have consumed Mason's entire column... so that's how it often is in the news. Many thanks to everyone who has been involved in the project over the years: AmbInt People
cheers,
Chris
Perception is mediated by expectation.
It's neat - tracking things like getting a drink from the machine. I wonder what other kinds of things can be detected that way, maybe with alerts.
One thing I do like though - the shirt on the right arm at least! Where do I get one of those? Given the symbols on the shirt and the string on the wrist I guess this guy's a Hindu and not afraid to show it.