AI Could Power Next-gen CCTV Cameras

Barence writes "UK researchers are working on fitting CCTV cameras with artificial intelligence, allowing them to more quickly respond to crimes. The technology, being developed by University of Portsmouth scientists, would allow cameras to "hear" violent sounds and react, swiveling quickly in the direction of a broken window or somebody shouting abusively for example, before alerting an operator. The artificial intelligence powering the camera would also be able to respond to visual cues such as fights, or violent behaviour."

Comments

Ninjas

[SigNuZX728]

They'd be completely useless against ninjas, and ninjas are everywhere.

Re:Ninjas

[dreamchaser]

Yes but they would catch a lot of Pirates. Pirates are a noisy lot.

Re:Ninjas

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. In fact if you look carefully you'll find over 50 comments posted by ninjas for this story alone.

Re:Ninjas

[Kinky Bass Junk]

Too bad they wouldn't catch any Robots. Robots stick together.

Re:Ninjas

[cayenne8]

I wonder if while the cameras are first deployed, if everyone does "Silly Walks" for weeks...it will really fsck up the AI on the cameras? I'd have to think that after a week or so of them trained that way....they'd have so many false positives on 'normal' people going about their way, they'd just chuck the whole thing in the trash can.

Someone over there try to remember this if they try to implement it....

Re:Ninjas

[SiriusStarr]

Who cares about ninjas! Do they detect raptors?!?!

Re:Ninjas

[SigNuZX728]

That's a good point. Or what about breakdancing? Could the cameras tell the difference between breakdancing and fighting?

Re:Ninjas

[danwat1234]

Screw that! Do they detect Velociraptor(s )?

Re:Ninjas

[Anonymous Coward]

Yooo hooo camera over here...look at me (dummy with voice box playing halloween sound effects) ...While real crime occurs outside of gullable cameras gaze...

Re:Ninjas

[mpe]

That's a good point. Or what about breakdancing? Could the cameras tell the difference between breakdancing and fighting?

Or people making music videos :)

Re:Ninjas

[Anonymous Coward]

An even better exploit would be to create a loud argument on the right of the camera, and silently break in/do your criminal business/ to the left of the camera.

The AI camera will home in on the argument (of course you will just have a loud argument about something useless (like ms vs linux) so that the police will not get involved. And your camera system has failed.

Re:Ninjas

[Pichu0102]

I wonder if while the cameras are first deployed, if everyone does "Silly Walks" for weeks...it will really fsck up the AI on the cameras? I'd have to think that after a week or so of them trained that way....they'd have so many false positives on 'normal' people going about their way, they'd just chuck the whole thing in the trash can.

Someone over there try to remember this if they try to implement it....

Or they'd just arrest and jail everyone who does "silly walks" on charges of trying to interfere with law enforcement.

Re:Ninjas

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they detect double posts?

Re:Ninjas

[TractorBarry]

My first thought was to randomly shout loudly whilst walking near these things. Cue confused "operator" wondering why he's been alerted to watch a fat middle aged oaf peacably walking down the street.

On another in my locality the local council spent several hundred thousand pounds on one of these stupid CCTV systems. However they didn't budget for paying someone to watch the bloody things thinking this would be done by "community volunteers".

Needless to say there have been very, very few volunteers (which in itself is quite suprising) and the whole thing is simply a collosal waste of money. Needless to say local residents are not impressed and will be electing those responsible out of office.

Re:Ninjas

[Jellybob]

Charges? This is being developed in the UK, we don't need any of your antiquated "charges" to lock somebody up.

Just shout terrorist, and the jobs done.

Re:Ninjas

[zappepcs]

You missed out on a couple things: Tourrettes http://www.tourettes-disorder.com/introduction.html Even if they get computers to 'watch' the cameras, they have to train the software to take into account such things. Having to respond to even just the odd things the software sees will be far more than volunteers can do, and would most probably stress the constabulary to it's limits. CCTV monitoring of whole communities was a bad idea, remains a bad idea, and is simply not pragmatic... even with software that is capable of analyzing the video.

I'm glad that the UK is so avidly trying to prove to the world what a huge waste of money it really is.

Re:Ninjas

[Cro Magnon]

My first thought was to randomly shout loudly whilst walking near these things. Cue confused "operator" wondering why he's been alerted to watch a fat middle aged oaf peacably walking down the street.

I wonder if those cameras can tell the difference between a shout and a loud belch. If not, they'll be watching a lot of peaceful fat middle-aged oafs.

Re:Ninjas

[mdwh2]

Oh that's easy, here in the UK the police just stop people from dressing as ninjas.

Re:Ninjas

[HiThere]

Only if you use molasses. ... Well, or magnets.

Re:Ninjas

[HiThere]

Unfortunately, the rest of the world doesn't seem to be paying attention.

It appears that this is such an attractive dream to governments that evidence that it's not working doesn't stick.

Re:Ninjas

[danwat1234]

I don't know, do they?

Re:Ninjas

[Heather D]

A ninja is supposed to operate in utmost secrecy. If you know they are everywhere then they are not ninjas they are ninnys.

Like the Eye of Sauron?

[Russ Nelson]

Would that be swivelling around the like Eye of Sauron did when Frodo put on the ring on the rim of Mount Doom?

I'm just askin'

Yeah... that'll work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice idea- 'till someone gets his buddy to play a loud accordian solo ten feet away while he picks pockets out of frame.

(Sorry for the AC, I'm on a public terminal.)

So, the idea...

[msauve]

is to toss a firecracker in the other direction as a distraction for both the camera and the victim, before quietly garroting them?

Re:So, the idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

"A diversion!" - Legolas

Re:So, the idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Aragorn: "He needs time, and safe passage across the Plains of Gorgoroth. We can give him that."

Gimli: "How?"

Aragorn: "Draw out Sauron's armies, empty His lands. Then we gather our full strength and march on the Black Gate. We can give Frodo his chance if we keep Sauron's Eye fixed upon us!"

...long pause...

Legolas: "A diversion!"

WELL THANK YOU LEGOLAS CAPTAIN OBVIOUS

Re:So, the idea...

[TubeSteak]

is to toss a firecracker in the other direction as a distraction for both the camera and the victim, before quietly garroting them? And the solution will be to make it illegal for one to make loud noises in public, or some other such nonsense.

Re:So, the idea...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Think about it. If you wanted to garrotte someone quietly, why the fuck would you toss a firecracker? At least it will give you an option of either putting the police on your trail, or having to come face-to-face with a camera.

Re:So, the idea...

[Lars512]

Exactly. The technology they're suggesting is not that useful. Let's think of a better idea.

Suppose instead you use cameras with a full field of view, that don't need to swivel at all and always can record everything. Aside from recording a crime, can we do more?

If you still have these microphones, you could can use them to pinpoint where on a hi-res camera feed the noise came from. If you can identify the type of sound, you could use them in some sort of alert system which escalates warnings to a real person.

None of these fixes the quiet garotting scenario, since there's no sound. Instead, you have AI looking at physical cues and body language for suspicious behaviour. Even then, we're just talking about trying to get there in time to apprehend the culprit; nothing will save the victim.

Re:So, the idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

That would at least stop those obnoxious, anti-social "boom cars".

Re:So, the idea...

[Hal_Porter]

They should attach chain guns to the swiveling AI cameras.

In b4 "I for one welcome <chain gun firing sounds, screams, silence>"

Re:So, the idea...

[icegreentea]

Garroting someone is already a crime. If you can catch the guy using firecrackers as a distraction while murdering someone, I think you can catch the guy for murdering the guy. I don't see why making firecrackers a crime would work. It's not like they're impossible to make at home.

Re:So, the idea...

[g0at]

And the solution will be to make it illegal for one to make loud noises in public, or some other such nonsense. How is that a solution to any relevant problem under discussion? The CCTV stuff is presumably a practical attempt to aid in catching people who perform more lothesome acts. The loathesome acts in question are already illegal; the question of whether an act is or is not legal is not the focus.

Re:So, the idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense. Giant cameras armed with friggin' laser beams could easily save the victims.

Re:So, the idea...

[drsquare]

Easier to follow the normal method: don't bother distracting the camera, commit the crime anyway in full view, give the finger to the camera operator, then walk off to remain unpunished forever. Of course if on the odd chance you are arrested by the single remaining policeman who isn't filling in paperwork or persecuting motorists, you won't get any time anyway as the prisons are full. Welcome to Britain.

Re:So, the idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the frickin' camera should be armed with a shark cannon.

Re:So, the idea...

[hvm2hvm]

That was exactly his point. That the government might do that even though it would never work. I have to agree that it seems most governments do this kind of shit every day. Instead of fixing the underlying problems they just patch up the effects those problems cause.

Re:So, the idea...

[I cant believe its n]

Garroting someone is already a crime. Why didn't you tell me this YESTERDAY!

Re:So, the idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course if on the odd chance you are arrested by the single remaining policeman who isn't filling in paperwork or persecuting motorists, you won't get any time anyway as the prisons are full. If that one policeman has filled all the UK's prisons, no wonder they only need one policeman!

Re:So, the idea...

[Alioth]

I have this strange insight that you read the Daily Mail.

Re:So, the idea...

[Peter Cooper]

And the solution will be to make it illegal for one to make loud noises in public, or some other such nonsense.

You say that as if that'd be a bad thing!

Re:So, the idea...

[Big Hairy Ian]

Yeah right pretty much the same way you'd distract a human CCTV camera operator or a security guard. How long before they train it to catch people shagging? Will it have cleavage detection? If you mod me down I probably wont even notice

Re:So, the idea...

[Mushdot]

I think this is another one of those "let's justify our research and get some more budget" press releases. As most people have pointed out this isn't going to work in the real world, but there will probably be a lot of offshoot technology and advancements which come from it. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if the CCTV idea was an afterthought.

The number of false positives this tech would produce is quite alarming. What if you are walking home talking to a mate about GTA - does that mean the feds are going to be kicking down your door because a camera picked up that you had killed 5 prostitutes and stolen a car?

I was just walking back to the office and I said to my mate "I'm going to kill Alex when I see him", referring to the fact Alex stitched me up at the pub last night. How would the voice recognition construe that?

Re:So, the idea...

[fish waffle]

I don't see why it would have to only be a toy for criminals. A small group of people could stand in a circle around it and take turns yelling to see how fast they can get the camera to spin. Slap on some ipods, and you've got a new sensation.

I foresee big fun.

Re:So, the idea...

[the 99th penguin]

And the solution will be to make it illegal for one to make loud noises in public, or some other such nonsense.

The whole thing just reminds me of the parable of Ruritania

Re:So, the idea...

[Bat Country]

And that policeman is Constable Nicholas Angel.

Re:So, the idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Firecrackers are already illegal. Therefore your argument is null and void.

Re:So, the idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

That pretty much happened to me. The crook came up in full view but using a flashlight (it was night) to do his best to blind the cameras. He then cut the cameras down and took off with them. I had the footage, but the police and the prosecutors don't seem to know how to open a video file and said they didn't recognize anyone.

It was grand theft and they knew who it was, but didn't want to even try. If it wasn't an HD res, 3D model, and a nametag on the crook, it wasn't good enough. Lazy ass corrupt Santa Clara PD, council, and county prosecutors.

Re:So, the idea...

[mOdQuArK!]

Who needs a firecracker? How about an inflated balloon & a needle?

Re:So, the idea...

[Joe Jay Bee]

You and me both.

"Persecuting the motorist?" The ones that break the law, yes...

Easy to subvert.

[CastrTroy]

Couldn't you use this feature to make the camera turn away. Have somebody make a big ruckus, so the camera turns away, then go in and do the actual crime while the camera is focused somewhere else.

Re:Easy to subvert.

[Zosden]

Shhhhh dont tell of their weakness.

Re:Easy to subvert.

[CauseWithoutARebel]

An interesting point. Any brief distractions (such as a firecracker or single broken pane of glass) would, in theory, fail, as the camera would just abandon them and turn toward the real crime the instant it noticed what was happening off-camera.

However, how would it handle a prolonged mock crime and a real crime that occur simultaneously...

Regardless, I point you to this gentleman's timely journal on the matter of surveillance:

"Official Voyeurism"

Re:Easy to subvert.

[tukang]

The article is short on details but it seems like the person would have to make a specific type of noise and even then the visual cues would have to match once that person gets the camera's attention.

The distraction trick is actually one of the oldest tricks in the book, so it's fitting that people would think of this method to defeat an AI system.

Re:Easy to subvert.

[inKubus]

The best security is unpredictable. For instance, the security the casinos use, or the scheduling the Army uses for patrols. They use random noise to generate the schedule. With this, you are installing predictable rules into the camera, which (like in the Matrix) can then be bent or broken.

You could add some unpredicability to the AI, but then you might miss something. The best thing is a nice preventative camera viewing cone covering every inch of the surface you intend to protect, preferably with multiple cameras.

This could be of use in other aspects, such as accident cams and such. I think there was something like this in demolition man (Brave New World) wherein the nearest camera to a detected incident swiveled and zoomed. Everything of course was recorded. Crime of course was completely gone, bred out of society. Well, until an unconventional enemy showed up.

Re:Easy to subvert.

[Tubal-Cain]

Why? It's not like any of us will ever go aboveground to take advantage of this shortcoming.

Re:Easy to subvert.

[rm999]

Wouldn't it be much smarter just not to commit crimes near cameras? Either:
1. Your diversion isn't very good and the camera will continue scanning elsewhere when it realizes this, seeing the crime
2. Your diversion is good, and calls the cops, who will trivially catch you

I fail to see how committing crimes near cameras make sense. What I would do (which is what plenty of people currently do) if I wanted to commit a crime near a camera is destroy the camera first.
See http://aia.mahost.org/act_cctv.html

Re:Easy to subvert.

[deepgrey]

So, for example, you have your friends breakdance while you steal the stereos out of every car on the other side of the street. Ingenious!

Re:Easy to subvert.

[emjay88]

you are installing predictable rules into the camera, which (like in the Matrix) can then be bent or broken.
No rules are being bent or broken, in fact, you take advantage of the fact that the AI can't bend or break those rules.

Re:Easy to subvert.

[Anonymous Coward]

This presumes that people are planning some type of illegal activity ahead of time. If they are there are already ways of disabling the camera. Paintball gun anyone? While I wouldn't guess at the numbers clearly some number of crimes are going to be opportunistic, or emotionally charged. But these aren't likely to be stopped by cameras anyway making the cameras all around useless as a preventive measure.

Re:Easy to subvert.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it be much smarter just not to commit crimes near cameras?

I think you'll find it quite impossible to do anything in the UK without being near a camera. Destroying the cameras would be a quite futile endeavor because they have you heavily outnumbered.

Re:Easy to subvert.

[mpe]

Couldn't you use this feature to make the camera turn away. Have somebody make a big ruckus, so the camera turns away, then go in and do the actual crime while the camera is focused somewhere else.

Or maybe there will be a special feature built into the AI such that the camera will be incapable of recording the likes of a gang of police gunning down an innocent commuter...

Re:Easy to subvert.

[pjt33]

How is the camera going to notice what's happening off-camera, though?

Re:Easy to subvert.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no need to "use" it. Image a bank robbery happening, and people outside of the bank mugging the shit out of everybody - no one is watching :)

Re:Easy to subvert.

[whereiswaldo]

That was my first thought as well. The word you're looking for is: misdirection.

Re:Easy to subvert.

[HiThere]

Given what's being done in the studio's today there's no reason for more than one camera. You just need to use a super-fisheye lens and run the resulting image thorough the appropriate filters to reconstruct it into a cylindrical image. With three of them you could even get a reasonable 3-D reconstruction (for the area seen by all 3). Now the 3-D reconstruction takes a lot of computing power, but the cylindrical view doesn't. More than would fit on the camera, probably, but not more than you can get out of a video-card in nearly real-time...NOW, not in 5 years.

The problems here are figuring out what's interesting enough to show to a person, and getting someone to watch it and respond appropriately. At the moment I fairly certain the first part's so poor that the second part can't be done at anything within an order of magnitude of an acceptable cost. You'd be watching cat fights and dogs barking at passers-by.

As to whether it's a good idea anyway... well, that's almost irrelevant. It's an ATTRACTIVE idea to governments. So we'd better find out a way to MAKE it a good idea before it becomes feasible.

Re:Easy to subvert.

[coolsnowmen]

I think you'll find it quite impossible to do anything in the UK without being near a camera. Destroying the cameras would be a quite futile endeavor because they have you heavily outnumbered.

Is that really an efficient use of resources? I mean, it seems like a waste of money to buy and maintain that many cameras.
~(US resident)

Re:Easy to subvert.

[coolsnowmen]

I guess would should move Diehard with a vengeance to the educational section of the library (along with "Count of Monte Cristo").

Violence Detection Unit?

[wild_quinine]

If this technology were ready for prime-time the cameramen for NHL would be out of a job.

a better idea

[ILuvRamen]

Hey, I've got an idea. First, why don't they upgrade the image quality so you can actually see what's going on and get good pictures of criminals? It all looks like blurry gas station cameras from 10 years ago right now. Why spend millions making them follow people intelligently if you still can't make out details or get a good image of the person?!

Re:a better idea

[CastrTroy]

Nonsense. The computers on CSI are able to filter out those crappy images, and produce wonderful quality 20 megapixel images from .3 megapixel over compressed jpgs. I'm sure the brits have similar technology.

Re:a better idea

[Z34107]

Those folks at CSI also have amazing internet trace softare. Even from octets in the 300s! Click "expand text" and scroll down a tick.)

If they can hunt you down from that, no telling what they could do with actual AI-controlled footage of you comitting a crime.

Re:a better idea

[icegreentea]

They are cameras that good. They just cost more. People are cheap, and almost probably banking on cameras acting as a deterrence, not an actual 'ah ha! I can ID the kid who held up the night shift dude with a baseball bat'. I'm pretty sure places which actually places an emphasis on that aspect has the better cameras. The fact that many of crimes take place in poor lighting conditions really can't help the picture quality either.

Re:a better idea

[willy_me]

Well, having an AI zoom the camera onto points of interest is one way to help solve the problem. Even if you have high resolution cameras, having an AI that can zoom the camera allows the camera to cover a wider area.

Re:a better idea

[WK2]

That's not an error. That's to prevent singling out any real I.P. address. Similar to how phone numbers are in the xxx-555-xxxx range. Most TV shows and movies use I.P addresses where the first octet is beyond 255. Sometimes they use 10., 172.(16-31), or 192.168. And sometimes (but very rarely) they will use their I.P address.

There are plenty of errors in Hollywood. This is not one of them.

Re:a better idea

[mpe]

They are cameras that good. They just cost more. People are cheap,

Actually people are expensive. Otherwise there would be no need for cameras in the first place.

Re:a better idea

[mowall]

It all looks like blurry gas station cameras from 10 years ago right now.

You're probably referring to images which are from 10 year old equipment. In the last couple of years high resolution digital cameras have started to become the norm for serious CCTV installations, although gas stations probably still use the crappy old analogue cameras with cheap multiplexing recorders.

As a poster said above, instead of trying to get the Pan/Tilt/Zoom cameras to swivel round after an incident has started (since it may have already finished), just use decent high-resolution cameras instead and cover the required area permanently.

Re:a better idea

[CastrTroy]

While it may be intentional, it really is still quite silly. To anybody who knows anything about IP, it just looks plain wrong, and takes away from the whole immersion in the TV show. It's pretty hard to suspend your disbelief when stupid completely wrong stuff like that is showing up on the screen. At least 555-xxxx could possibly be a valid phone number. I think it would just be better if the studio would buy a class C IP block, not have any computers hooked up to those IP address, and just use that set, instead of having all these plain wrong things show up on the screen.

Re:a better idea

[clone53421]

At least 555-xxxx could possibly be a valid phone number.

No, it couldn't. You are just too ignorant of the phone system to realize that (most people are, actually).

I'm not trying to single you out and call you ignorant, btw. I'm just pointing out that everyone is ignorant of lots of things. You're tech-savvy, so you gawk at IPs of 3??.*.*.*. Somebody from the phone industry, OTOH, might silently snicker at the 555-* telephone numbers (and entirely miss the invalid IP address).

Re:a better idea

[clone53421]

(Just to be accurate, I should add that only numbers of 555-0100 to 555-0199 are reserved for fictional use now. Other 555- numbers can be used for directory assistance and similar services.)

Atrocity Archives

[PHAEDRU5]

Obviously ignored by way too many.

Pity, that.

Though, I am looking forward to lasered cows in Milton Keynes. Milton Keynes. Sorry, but ugh.

correct me if I'm wrong...

[Eto_Demerzel79]

...wouldn't this classify as image or sound analysis package with really advanced algorithms and not really AI in the strictest sense? I mean by this definition "the animal" program written in Basic, where the program learns patterns to yes/no questions can likewise be considered an "AI". I would consider this program an AI if it was able to call 911 and describe the attacker/situation.

Does not need to swivel but sound is useful

[ulash]

I am not exactly sure this would be useful for the swiveling aspect of things as mentioned by other posters. However using sound could be an interesting augmentation to vision if done using the right filters. Swiveling would not be a big issue if using a wide angle lens like a fish-eye lens.

I feel better now

[mlwmohawk]

Knowing that they will use "AI" to aim their cameras instead of just pointing them to a wide view, makes me feel good. The government and its fascist corporate accessories may be evil, but at least they are also incompetent.

Balloons with angry faces will distract the cameras while you walk down the street unobserved.

Speakers, too

[Repton]

In further news, researchers are investigating adding speakers and speech synthesis to the system:

"Where did you go?" "There you are!" "Could you come over here please?"

Re:Speakers, too

[wagnerrp]

Activated, preparing to dispense product.

Re:Speakers, too

[Anonymous Coward]

To ensure the safe performance of all authorized activities, do not destroy Vital Testing Apparatus.

Re:Speakers, too

[Yetihehe]

Where did you go?" "There you are!" "Could you come over here please?"

It calls for this one link

Re:Speakers, too

[aproposofwhat]

John Spartan: [to machine on wall after finding out that they no longer use toilet paper] Thanks a lot you shit-brained, fuck-faced, ball breaking, duck fucking pain in the ass.

Moral Statute Machine: John Spartan, you are fined five credits for repeated violations of the verbal morality statute.

John Spartan: [grabbing the tickets] So much for the seashells. See you in a few minutes.

Re:Speakers, too

[BruceCage]

See:

• CCTV Cameras In UK Get Loudspeakers
• And this news report: Big Brother Literally Watching You - and Talking!

An interesting point of law:

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

At least in the US, the restrictions on video surveillance are much, much looser than those on audio surveillance(at least for the commoners). There has been some expansion of restrictions on strictly voyeuristic taping; but it is otherwise largely open season. Audio surveillance is much more restricted.

I'll be interested to see how the law treats a system that is a form of audio surveillance; but is not an audio recording device. Is it legal if the AI responds to sound but won't tell you what it responded to? Can the AI classify sounds into a variety of categories and report those? Is a verbatim speech-to-text record ok, as long as the audio is not recorded? Depending on how this one shakes down, it could end up being, in effect, an elimination of restrictions on audio surveillance.

This is getting old.

[stavrica]

Every schmuck who wants to get in the news slaps "Artificial Intelligence" on their contraption and suddenly the world stops to take notice.

Unless this system:

1. employs (or provides) some sort of multitiered malleable logic established by prior experiences that can identify a scenario based on inputs,

2. identifies the best case response to the identified scenario, using not only stored experiences (preprogrammed memory), but relevant characteristics of the scenario itself.

3. implements that best case scenario, checking constantly (or at least regularly) that the implemented actions are yielding results along the desired/expected solution path.

4. identifying the resolution phase of its response, so it can consider the scenario resolved and cease its response process. ...then there's no intelligence to it. What these fellows have sounds more like an advanced sound analysis engine that autonomously controls a camera swivel.

Good for them. Yay. Fun. Hurrah.

But, where's the AI again? Next...

Re:This is getting old.

[TapeCutter]

Judging by some of the stuff I read on slashdot a large number of posters would fail all 4 criteria.

Re:This is getting old.

[ColdWetDog]

Judging by some of the stuff I read on slashdot a large number of posters would fail all 4 criteria.

Well, can you pass the Turing test? Can you?

Re:This is getting old.

[TrueJim]

Some U.S. traffic cameras do something similar already. The camera continually records and discards about a minute's worth of footage...unless it hears the sound of a car crash. If it hears a car crash, it archives the recording on either side of the sound, so that investigators can later watch events leading up to the crash. I've seen the footage...it's amazing stuff. But I wouldn't call it AI.

Re:This is getting old.

[TapeCutter]

"Well, can you pass the Turing test? Can you?

Interesting, tell me more about the Turing test.

Oh, this is a great idea!

[Smoke2Joints]

Let the AI watch humans at their worst for years on end? Do we really need to give them another reason to want to exterminate us? I think not!

Whoops mis-read the title

[slater86]

I read that title as AL not AI.
My first thought was...Is there anything Al Gore can't do, after all he did invent the internet :-)

Re:Whoops mis-read the title

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I didn't know that the misread title meme could be stretched that far!

Re:Whoops mis-read the title

[denzacar]

Is there anything Al Gore can't do Get elected as president?

Re:Whoops mis-read the title

[aproposofwhat]

Well, he did win the vote, just not the courts!

Well, one would assume (hope)

[greentshirt]

That the exact algorithms and rule sets the software would use to alter the camera angles isn't something the manufacturer is going to come out and publish. If someone is spending the time to develop something of this nature I'm sure there will be a lot of customization available to suit different environments as well as some algorithms designed to detect a diversion. Furthermore, two simple solutions I can think of right away are 1) encase the camera inside a container that allows it to swivel when necessary without having the outer container move. This would make it more difficult for people to know if their diversion work. Second, you could easily have them set up in pairs, having one static or scanning while the second one is responsive and uses the "ai".

More Tires?

[maz2331]

And how many more tires full of petrol are Brits going to put on these things every week?

They seem to be burning them up pretty regularly over there.

Re:More Tires?

[Fnord666]

And how many more tires full of petrol are Brits going to put on these things every week?

Do you think you'll be able to hear the AI screaming when it burns?

It's truly amazing...

[TaleSpinner]

...what you can accomplish against a population under constant surveillance and no human rights left at all. Consider:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/16/1730221
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/20/2318220
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/27/1457253
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/20/1344200
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/10/1846241
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/04/1750246
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23412867-details/Tens+of+thousands+of+CCTV+cameras%2C+yet+80%25+of+crime+unsolved/article.do

and, my personal favorite:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/6524495.stm

Oh, I'm sure the UK government has the very best of intentions. We all know what is paved with those. And the UK has already arrived.

Re:It's truly amazing...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

...what you can accomplish against a population under constant surveillance and no human rights left at all.

Wow, exaggerate much?

Oh, I'm sure the UK government has the very best of intentions. We all know what is paved with those. And the UK has already arrived.

I guess you do.

Re:It's truly amazing...

[Anonymous Coward]

a population under constant surveillance and no human rights left at all.

If you said this with a straight face, you are a kook and possibly suffering from paranoid delusions. Please visit your doctor and tell him your beliefs.

Re:It's truly amazing...

[pennyloafer]

So what about the link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/6524495.stm We have cameras on our suburbian intersections here in Redmond, Washington State, USA that are manned by the city (I guess). No one I've asked seems to know who is responsible for them. They seem to be better quality (newer) than the WSDOT cameras on the highways. Anyone from Redmond? I'd appreciate any info on this. Thanks

The New Turing Test

[Waffle Iron]

Test subjects position themselves in front of cameras, then they move around while performing every heinous act of depravity that is humanly possible. If the focus and movements of the cameras are indistinguishable between the computer control vs. human operators, then true AI will have at long last been achieved.

Re:The New Turing Test

[Anonymous Coward]

More of a turning test.

AI on cameras?

[crazybit]

As far as there wasn't even an homogenous definition of what is AI (http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/23/1539245)

Now they say they will stick it on cameras? Is this just a marketing trick? or a way to explain l-users that the camera has some sort of "image recognition"?

tasers

[Anonymous Coward]

They should hook tasers up to these things.

Revision this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing how we know that these cameras don't actually do the task they were originally put in place to do, I am certain this "constant snooping 2.0" will fare much better.

old news, very old indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

I know lots of people have gotten the short attention span sickness, which most Americans have. Still i am dissapointed, even on slashdot.
But this stuff is not new.

Just some links about this technology, from 2006:
http://blog.wired.com/music/2006/11/acoustic_recogn.html
http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg19225780.159-big-brother-is-listening-to-you.html

One of the companies responsible for this was founded in 2000:
http://www.soundintel.com/

more links wanted? go to http://www.rug.nl/scholieren/adamsAppel/archief2007/afl11 [dutch]

**** Knowing is less important then Remembering. ****

Wow! Thought-powered cameras!!!

[FredThompson]

AI Could "power" Nex-gen CCTV Cameras?

POWER?!?!

Control? Yes. Power? No.

Re:Wow! Thought-powered cameras!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir, underestimate the power generated by nerds jerking off to AI models.

oblig futurama excerpt

[pak9rabid]

Hyper-Chicken: As the surveillance camera for the bank what all the judge was a-jawing about, could y'all tell us what you done seen the day of the crime?
Camera: Well, let's see. My memory's a little fuzzy, but it went exactly like this:

It projects a picture of Fry and Bender taking the money from Roberto

Hyper-Chicken: Your Honour, I move that I be disbarred for introducing this evidence against my own clients.

"DRIVE", not "POWER"

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Jeez. We're supposed to be techies here, not a clueless advertising department.

There are proper terms for this:

  - If the AI provides energy to make the circuitry of the camera run, it's POWERing it.
  - If the AI provides processing to control the camera's operation and/or reducing the data it produces, it's DRIVing it.

So unless this camera has a REALLY SMART power supply the headline is flat-out bogus.

Re:"DRIVE", not "POWER"

[aXis100]

Thank you captain obvious. If you wanted to be really pedantic:

It's the motors DRIVing it
It's the servo controller CONTROLing it
It's the AI SUPERVISing it.

Re:"DRIVE", not "POWER"

[Gnavpot]

If the AI provides energy to make the circuitry of the camera run, it's POWERing it.

I was actually rather disappointed over this story. When I read the headline, I thought that they had made mobile CCTVs with some AI enabling them to find and connect to random power sources.

Re:"DRIVE", not "POWER"

[DanLake]

Jeez. We're supposed to be techies here, not a clueless advertising department.

There are proper terms for this:

- If the AI provides energy to make the circuitry of the camera run, it's POWERing it. - If the AI provides processing to control the camera's operation and/or reducing the data it produces, it's DRIVing it.

So unless this camera has a REALLY SMART power supply the headline is flat-out bogus.

Metaphorically speaking, the power of a camera is in the images it captures and the power provided by those images (ability to prosecute a crime typically). So in a sense, the AI would be giving the camera its power or increasing its power.

Re:"DRIVE", not "POWER"

[The_mad_linguist]

If you wanted to be really pedantic, you would have spelled "controlling" correctly.

Re:"DRIVE", not "POWER"

[clone53421]

I was actually rather disappointed over this story. When I read the headline, I thought that they had made mobile CCTVs with some AI enabling them to find and connect to random power sources.

In other news, 7 out of 10 AIs agree: Plugging an extension cord into your neighbour's back porch outlet should be legal.

Re:"DRIVE", not "POWER"

[clone53421]

So in a sense, the AI would be giving the camera its power or increasing its power.

More accurately speaking, wouldn't that be "empowering"?

Re:"DRIVE", not "POWER"

[Anonymous Coward]

Your fighting a loosing battle.

cameras to "hear"

[v4vijayakumar]

... cameras to "hear" violent sounds and react ... what if the same sound is used to fool these CCTV Cameras..? hm..!

And what...

[Anonymous Coward]

...next generation technology couldn't eventually AI power?

Colossus

[Nefarious Wheel]

"You will learn to love me."

-- Colossus, The Forbin Project

"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that".

HAL 9000 -- 2001 - A Space Oddessy

Re:Pirates

[HiggsBison]

Arrrr! But, would it work in the West Country, where they all talk like pirates?

already done...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pelco has done a proof of concept tying camera systems in to gun shot detectors. Once there is an event "shooting" the cameras can swarm that area to record the suspected area. No AI needed.

Careful with those CAPS

[Nazlfrag]

*Top Priority Transmission to Mission Control from Camera #412163*

Subject shouting abusively, recommend immediate ASBO and follow up with sustained surveillance for two months.

Voice print id

[n3tcat]

I wonder how long before they figure out how to make the AI listen for a given voice or footstep pattern to identify known criminals... and then eventually when the computers are powerful enough to track most everyone...

Raptors errr huh

[danwat1234]

Screw that! Do they detect Velociraptor(s)?

And the test-case could be...

[kellererik]

if(hot_chick()) {
      zoom_follow();
}

Three words...

[Anonymous Coward]

..."Broken-window ringtones."

Portsmouth Uni? This is going to work...

[scott792283]

I'd feel more confident this might work if it was coming from anywhere but the University of Portsmouth. Don't some US cameras already do this for gunshots?

Ultrahouse 3000

[Ihmhi]

Don't take out my British charm unit! Without that I'm nothing but a boorish American clod.

Humans are not the only animals...

[Nomen Publicus]

Hey, Joe! You know those AI cameras? Yes? The ones that track noise and violent actions? Yes? They just recorded 24hours of pigeons copulating...

Stupidity Attack

[VoidCrow]

Bastard A makes loud noise to detect camera, or triggers a ghetto blaster and walks away from it.

Bastard B walks up behind person to be fucked up, duct tapes person B, and does whatever it takes.

Fuck this idiotic shit.

Every second of footage is a false accusation

[dugeen]

"allowing them to more quickly respond to crimes" - or most likely to totally innocent activity.

I am for artificial intel and CCTV

[evil_arrival_of_good]

I am for artificial intel and CCTV involved in law enforcement and killing terrorists.

Security mindset...

[js_sebastian]

1- Your pal "accidentally" makes a loud noise
2- Cameras all turn towards him
3- rob bank
4- Profit

What's truly amazing...

[Anonymous Coward]

is using the <a.. tag

You're hired!

[Wowsers]

What happens instead of AI-CCTV, they actually hire police with REAL intelligence? Or is the notion of police officer with intelligence clearly nuts?

Re:You're hired!

[phoenixwade]

What happens instead of AI-CCTV, they actually hire police with REAL intelligence? Or is the notion of police officer with intelligence clearly nuts?

I it just me, or has the term "AI" been watered down over the years?

It seems to me that the HAL-9000 wouldn't have had any of the problems that have been suggested here.

And Deep Thought would have pointed out all 42 of the criminals before they even decided to do the deed.

Re:You're hired!

[Zwicky]

You may notice that anytime a police officer talks to the press he invariably uses the sentence, "We have no intelligence".

(That would be perfectly accurate as it is, but he will always then ruin it by continuing, "to suggest that...")

Join the AI bandwagon

[wye43]

I saw this show:

1. Smoke a lot of pot. Create a retarded cause => effect algorithm. (E.G. "If temp > 30 then start fan" - genius in a line of code!)
2. Market it as AI (no actual meaning behind it, just two letters)
3. Profit!!!
   
   But I'd really love this sequel:
   
   
4. The shit gets on /.
5. Ppl point and laugh

A camera for which every 5yo has a guaranteed way to not get caught - genius! I'm not even sorry for the sorry SOBs who will buy this.

I'm writing this from a motherboard called AI Life. Pah-leeease! People don't even care what AI is or it should be, it just a buzz word, like eXXXXXX, or iXXXXXX.
And I simply can't stop myself: Artificial Intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

Daily Mail Reader Cynic Thread

[MightyDrunken]

The result of this will be: Zero extra rape/murder convictions. Tens of violent crime convictions. Thousands of litter and traffic violations convictions. Cost millions.

Chicago Already Has It

[Anonymous Coward]

Computer controlled CCTV already exists... The Chicago system monitors for gun shots using special microphones. It also alerts a human monitor if a large group gathers and other fun stuff. Here is a was too brief article on it http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/15/chicagos-cctv-network-to-be-autonomously-monitored-starting-thi/

IBM is doing this now in Chicago

[Anonymous Coward]

AI is already watching in the U.S. Chicago's surveillance network has already been upgraded to include video analytics or "AI" if you prefer.

ABC News just did a story on it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUChfEK6-eM

on a tangent.........

[shakuni]

http://www.pajamachannels.com/

Re:So, the idea...is very useful

[Anonymous Coward]

The article being in a UK publication, somebody decided to 'sex it up' and blathered on about the "AI" aspect instead of the real (but evolutionary) news.

Everything they talked about these new cameras doing is being done (with varying degrees of reliability) by camera systems today. One of the common terms for that stuff in industry is "intelligent analytics" and there are more than a couple of vendors of various kinds server-hosted software that can perform such analytical processing and send reactionary commands to the nearest camera.

The real (but evolutionary) news in this is that the processing performance available in small and very-low-power packages is believed to have grown enough to allow moving these intelligent analysis algorithms off of the servers and down in to the cameras themselves thereby allowing extremely rapid (article mentioned 300ms) reactions to the event that the analytics found interesting. http://www.objectvideo.com/products/onboard/ is an example of a company from whom you can buy similar implementations today but theirs is limited to only certain video-based analyses whereas the article talks about plans to support a richer spectrum of analytics in the CCTV's on-board processing.

Man I LOVE accordian solos!

[Anonymous Coward]

If there was an accordian solo going on, having my pocket picked is a small price to pay. =)

*does jig*

Abuse...

[Bert64]

What's to stop criminals employing cutting edge technology like a tape recording of violent sounds to make the camera look the other way?

Re:Abuse...

[evil_arrival_of_good]

Maybe the tenable target is non-tech-savvy, possibly impoverished and ignorant class of people involved in crime.

Re:Abuse...

[Bert64]

Yeah, because tape recorders are really expensive, hard to use, impossible to steal and only owned by rich tech savvy businessmen.

Difference between SEX sound and Violence sound?

[Anonymous Coward]

This would be difficult to differentiate...!!!! Poor AI! Or we can get more scandal videos of many celebrities :)

I'm so glad "the cameras react"..

[Anonymous Coward]

.. because then there is at least something that happens when someone slashes your throat or kicks your head in.

Call me a cynic, but I can't help wondering what the UK would look like if someone actually focused on crime PREVENTION rather than reporting that you're dead and whodunnit afterwards. You're still dead, but at least their statistics look better.

Note to UK Government: this is not a request for a pre-crime unit (besides, that would mean locking up most of Westminster).

I have the Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called Spray Paint and its cheaper than cameras.

Oddly enough

[FoamingToad]

I live in one of the UK towns where the talking CCTV cameras have been installed. My first experience of them being used was on Saturday evening.

There was an unholy bellowing like a dyslexic dalek from halfway up the clock tower. For the life of me I have no idea what was being said, or who at.

1/10 FAIL.

F_T

Replace humans with computers?

[HalAtWork]

So I guess the plan with CCTV is to slowly replace human-aided recognition to machine-only recognition until it can report crimes on its own?

Better Idea, prevention

[ChrisA90278]

I got a better idea...

Why wait until after the crime? The police should but the would-be criminal in jail before he does the crime so as to prevent it.

Hey I said "better" not good.

Is this what Einstein meant?

[dmmiller2k]

Could this be another version of Einstein's "spooky action at a distance"?

Hey, look over there

[beit_yosef]

I'll bet that humans can tell the difference between a real act of violence and a diversion much better than AI. This CCTV is inviting me to say "OK, you create a diversion so I can run by when the camera is looking away and steal all the jewelry"

What about living breathing policemen?

[Wonderkid]

Who, unlike cameras, can come to the aid of the public - and run after any legitimate criminals. People fighting after a few drinks are not criminals, they are just lads having a night out and getting rowdy. Life in the UK is now grey, stressful and humdrum - America, do NOT allow this to happen to you - please!

Re:What about living breathing policemen?

[ReedYoung]

Who, unlike cameras, can come to the aid of the public - and run after any legitimate criminals.

Where the police want to do police work, surveillance cameras are unwanted because they're worse than useless. In fact, they're positively correlated to increases in violence. I don't know, but I suppose that when shoplifting becomes impossible because all the commercial areas are infested with video cameras, the same crooks resort to mugging, presumably when their victims are out of frame.

The implicit justification for the video surveillance system is security. But it is far from clear how the proliferation of video cameras through public spaces in D.C. would have any real impact on crime. In fact in England, where there are so many public cameras that they have stopped keeping count, incidents of violent crime have risen since the network was installed. Furthermore, in Oakland, CA, officials considered video surveillance for three years and rejected it. Police Chief Joseph Samuels, Jr., stated that his department had hoped to be "among the pioneers in the field of taped video camera surveillance" but ultimately found that "there is no conclusive way to establish that the presence of video surveillance resulted in the prevention or reduction of crime."

First AI camera hack

[Orig_Club_Soda]

Throw a lit pack of firecrackers in the opposite direction from the people you are mugging

panorama, 360 degree

[sam0737]

Couldn't they just make a high res panorama CCTV instead? Like a camera shooting at a dome shaped mirror hanged on top. They could save some motors by making this too.
With transformation algorithm, the footage could also be easily converted back to a regular 2D view.

So, more gruesome footage of terrorism

[ReedYoung]

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/03/17/lorne-gunter-on-surveillance-cameras-in-public-places-expensive-intrusive-and-ineffective.aspx

By Neruos

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans alone have trouble detecting a crime, let alone if it's a crime or not. (see justice system).