Slashdot Mirror
New Surveillance System May Let Cops Use All Of The Cameras (engadget.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Wired: [Computer scientists have created a way of letting law enforcement tap any camera that isn't password protected so they can determine where to send help or how to respond to a crime.] The system, which is just a proof of concept, alarms privacy advocates who worry that prudent surveillance could easily lead to government overreach, or worse, unauthorized use. It relies upon two tools developed independently at Purdue. The Visual Analytics Law Enforcement Toolkit superimposes the rate and location of crimes and the location of police surveillance cameras. CAM2 reveals the location and orientation of public network cameras, like the one outside your apartment. You could do the same thing with a search engine like Shodan, but CAM2 makes the job far easier, which is the scary part. Aggregating all these individual feeds makes it potentially much more invasive. [Purdue limits access to registered users, and the terms of service for CAM2 state "you agree not to use the platform to determine the identity of any specific individuals contained in any video or video stream." A reasonable step to ensure privacy, but difficult to enforce (though the team promises the system will have strict security if it ever goes online). Beyond the specter of universal government surveillance lies the risk of someone hacking the system.] EFF discovered that anyone could access more than 100 "secure" automated license plate readers last year.
London’s Surveillance Fails – Only 1 Crime Solved per 1000 Cameras
By Aaron Saenz, Sep 01, 2009
London has a million of these cameras. They don't seem to be working.
The UK has 4 million CCTV cameras. Some of them even work.
Some people don't mind being watched. Apparently London criminals are among those. According to several major UK news outlets, an internal Metropolitan Police report was released last week that admitted less than 1 crime was solved per year for every 1000 CCTV cameras in London. This comes as a major blow to the UK police who spent £500 million between 1996 and 2006 installing 4 million cameras nationwide, with 1 million in London alone. Despite claims that each citizen might be seen on 300 cameras a day, perhaps half of all CCTV camera footage is unsuitable to convict criminals in court. The British public is crying foul, the police force is scrambling to access the problem, and everyone is watching to see what the world's most recorded country is going to do next.
Whether you like or not, digital observation is only going to get more prevalent in the future. We have faster, cheaper, and more plentiful recording devices everywhere and attached to everything. You're already recorded many times a day by private cameras, and that's only going to get more invasive when implants, facial recognition software, and 3D scanning get going. What's happening in London, both the wide spread public use of CCTV and the complications from it, is a precursor to what the rest of the world can expect.
The failure of Britain's massive surveillance system highlights a truth of public monitoring: more isn't always better. Cameras are not always at the correct angle or resolution to provide meaningful identification. And everyone seems to know that. There has been little evidence of CCTV serving as a deterrent to crime in London. A man was beaten in front of a pub in full view of a camera. His assailants were convicted based on eye witness testimony because the recording wasn't clear enough to identify them. In fact, besides parking lots, few locations seem to have lower crime rates thanks to the cameras dotted around the city.
Perhaps the biggest problem with the current British system is that it is passive. Few circuits are monitored by a living person, so crimes committed in front of cameras aren't noticed until long after they occur. Switching to an active system would greatly improve the efficacy of the observation. As we've mentioned before, there is a wide range of surveillance systems that can recognize actions and intents, including Europe's own Humabio. An active computer monitor would be able to alert police as a crime was taking place. In some cases, computers would even be able to detect individuals who's faces, gaits, or posture indicated hostile intent. Crimes could actually be prevented from happening.
Alternatively, connections to CCTV cameras could be available via wireless interface. Police officers could use smart phones to monitor footage in real time. Heck, depending on their preference for privacy, the UK could allow anyone to log on to cameras in this fashion. Sort of a nationwide neighborhood watch. It's scary, but entirely possible with current technology.
In fact, a lot of things are scary but possible with current technology. Cameras are getting smaller, cheaper, and more versatile. Security checks are leaning towards non-invasive brain scans, and facial recognition linked to photo IDs. As Britain's willingness to go under the lens shows, the concept of privacy is evolving with technology. I'm sure many are worried that we may soon face a world where any step you take outside your home could be monitored.
Actually, the funny thing is, this has already happened. Speeding tickets are already dolled out by cameras, ATMs record you, key words spoken on cell phones may trigger federal surveillance, and priva