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

[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

[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.

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]

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...

[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...

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

Violence Detection Unit?

[wild_quinine]

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

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.

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.

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.

"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.