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.

Comments

I agree.

[aleph42]

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.

Re:I agree.

[aleph42]

Quick reminder of the situation:

CCTVs are progressing in a lot of place meeting little to no resistence over privacy concern. But once the police have their hands on a video feed, they can:

1) Track *all* registration plates automatically (right now in London, you couldn't do a 100m in your car without the police nowing it).

2) Soon track you based on face recognition, which seems to be very actively researched. Add this to the fact that certain shooping-mall already forbid you to wear anything on your head (so you can't hide your face to the camera), and you are in for a real Orwellian nightmare.

And of course, it's always possible for them to place the camera for one purpose, letting public opinion completly unaware of what is really done with the feed later, when a new technology is discovered or put into use.

To those who will say I'm being paranoid, or that they have nothing to hide: tell that to the activists who were arrested right before crashing a republican convention, as a result of months of police surveillance (the following link is for the guy with the dot-printer bike; can't find the other one right now: http://www.boingboing.net/2007/04/10/bikes-against-bush-a.html )

An other (now publicly admitted) example is how phones of pacifists were tapped during Viet-Nam.

And of course now there is the Church of Scientology:
- "I've got nothing to hide"
- "Then you've never had the gut to piss the COS"

Re:I agree.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, what is really needed are video cameras in areas of police work, such as jails, police cars, etc. to ensure that police are correctly doing their jobs, without brutality, unnecessary force, etc. After all, if they 'aren't doing anything wrong, then they have nothing to hide' works both ways, doesn't it? :-)

And this would be a good idea for politicians too. We must have video cameras of all of their meetings, both public and private to ensure accountability, transparency, etc. I mean, after all, if they 'aren't doing anything wrong,then they have nothing to hide', right? :-)

Cool, but not perfect

[PlatyPaul]

1.) You can't tell activity without a paired set of video cameras (i.e., legitimate night access by staff versus corporate sabotage). From TFA:

Users can select a certain path on the map - for example from the office drinks machine to the front door - to call up motion and video data from the path at a particular time and reveal who used the route. [emphasis mine]

So, you still have video cameras around and constantly capturing - this just narrows when you'd be looking at them.

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".

Re:50/50

[trolltalk.com]

I just want to know if my laser pointer can blind them, like it can a CCTV.

Re:Actual video footage is far better for tracking

[Jhon]

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.

Anti-headgear discriminazis

[tepples]

Add this to the fact that certain shooping-mall already forbid you to wear anything on your head (so you can't hide your face to the camera) Has anyone tried to sue the operators of these malls on grounds of discrimination? People in some faiths must cover at least part of their heads, and people undergoing some kinds of cancer treatment lose their hair and need to cover up the chrome-dome with some sort of cap or hat.

Re:Energy saving

[PlatyPaul]

I'm not sure where you're working, but over here we have motion sensors on all lights in offices, hallways, and bathrooms (with adjustable sensitivity and null-motion persistence). The same can be said for places I've interned - larger companies seem to be particularly "on the ball" for the savings and good eco-karma.

For temperature, it might be more efficient to keep that boiler lit than having to reignite every day....

Too Many Voyeurs

[hyades1]

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.

Re:Energy saving

[TubeSteak]

Electricity use for lighting in North America is only about 1% of the total. Most electricity is used by heavy industry, steel mills, aluminium smelters and the like. So even if all tungsten bulbs are replaced with twirly-whirlies, it will make practically no difference. If that was true, then why do local utilities ask for rate hikes in response to decreased usage from conservation?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/03/22/toronto-hydro-conservation.html
That's one article from last year, but similar articles pop up all the time.
When everyone uses less natural gas/heating oil/water/electricity, rates go up.
It pisses people off to no end, because they forget that their utility's profit margin is enshrined in law.