Surveillance Rocks

This is a pretty clever idea and sort of cool, but on a more serious note, it brings up some interesting aspects of the freedom of information act. I think I'd rather that surveillance just be more targeted, rather than something that rock bands and divorce lawyers can use to get footage.

More Cool Privacy Tech

The new privacy technology we are working on at 3VR does more than simply blur people's faces. Here is an example where full images of surveilled people are actually scrambled and encrypted before they are displayed for monitoring security personnel.

The image on the left is from the original video feed. The second image is from a scrambled and encrypted version of that same feed.

Though with the encrypted feed it's possible to detect loitering, fighting, and many other behaviors of concern, identity information is totally protected...that is, until an authorized user chooses to decrypt the feed. BUT then that action is controlled and logged, and an alert can even be generated, to ensure that the surveillance system is not being abused or misused.

The Costs and Benefits of Face Recognition

Most people think face recognition is great when it's catching baddies and weird or invasive when it's tracking innocent people. The technology has sparked debate after debate over whether privacy or security is more important. Honestly? I think we can have both.

First off, people need to understand what facial recognition can and can't do. This ABC story about a face rec system analyzing someone's face and telling a clerk that they're underage is bogus. If the kid had been in the store previously and been busted for buying liquor then yes, the system could alert the clerk, but no one is suggesting that face rec can tell the difference between 17 and 18 any more than a human can.

One thing face rec can do, which hasn't gotten a ton of press, is include simple privacy measures. We have been working on this at 3VR and I wrote recently about a team in Canada that's working on a similar project. Basically, software engineers can write a password-protected program that blurs faces and when an incident occurs, an investigator can unblur faces in particular pieces of video. This way, while people may still feel uncomfortable about being on camera, at least they will not really be watched unless they happen to be present during a robbery or some other incident, in which case they'll typically be glad the cameras were there to help catch the bad guys. Also, because this type of application can also have auditing capabilities written into it, it provides a crucial and often overlooked capability: a way to "watch the watchers," if you will.

The same could feasibly work in the grocery store situation described in the ABC story - if someone was a match with a suspect in the database, then the system could alert the clerk. For everyone else, faces could be blurred, and if someone is caught buying liquor or cigarettes underage, then the store manager could unblur the face and save it to the suspect list.

There has also been a lot of press recently about the rise of surveillance that risks privacy without actually improving security. I agree. Thing is, the bulk of new cameras installed are meant to catch traffic violators and raise money for municipal governments, not improve security. These cameras misfire fairly often, sometimes costing a city more than they're worth, and invading citizens' privacy for no good reason.

During the bombings in London, however, investigators were able to use video footage to find their suspect. If they had had face recognition and video search capabilities, that investigation would have been far shorter. And as banks have begun installing surveillance systems, they have seen a marked increase in the number of fraud cases they're able to solve.

Surveillance clearly has a place in modern society, but I do think that the industry needs to continue to work towards securing both people and their privacy.

Surveillance as Voyeurism

I knew it was bound to happen - the security industry finally found a way to hobnob with celebrities and artists.

Smart Surveillance Protects the Innocent

This story is a prime example of why it's important to have not just cameras and DVRs, but intelligent surveillance. This poor guy who was just depositing a check at his local bank was mistakenly linked to a stolen I.D. crime that he has nothing to do with. Another woman, who also had the misfortune of visiting the bank in the same time frame that the thief was there, was actually arrested as a result, and later discharged. The mistake was the result of human error - with a smart system, police would have received instead several images and video of the actual suspect, who, by the way, stole the wallet of a dying man in the hospital and used his ATM card to steal $1700 in cash.

It's far from the first time surveillance has been involved in a mistaken identity case, but it would be nice if it were the last.

What Do Smokers and Pooping Dogs Have in Common?

Well at least we know the new "surveillance society" is catching sneaky smokers and pooping dogs.

Why Fuzzy Footage Is Useless

The fact that even with several minutes of video footage the police are stilling calling a suspect in a recent Palm Springs robbery Hispanic or African American is a prime example of why poor quality surveillance systems are a huge waste of money. Even if they catch this guy, the video evidence will not be enough to prosecute him.

Here's hoping he cracks and confesses during the interogation.

Cameras Don't Cut Crime, People Do

Here's a news flash: more cameras doesn't necessarily mean less crime. It's true - the presence of surveillance cameras alone will not deter crime. The consistent use of footage caught by those cameras to successfully prosecute criminals, on the other hand, may, eventually. Everyone knows that the presence of cameras or even extra policemen is not a deterrent in and of itself; criminals need to fear that they will be caught and that, once caught, they will be punished.

In other words, surveillance cameras may not be the solution, but they are a key part of it. In downtown Seattle, for example, where the aim is to make it more difficult for the open-air drug market to exist, installing cameras on dark and hidden alleys once left to drug dealers immediately creates a less safe atmosphere for drug deals. In London, where a senior police official recently denounced the "deterrence" factor of surveillance cameras, investigators did use CCTV footage to catch suspects in the 2005 terrorist bombing. And Scotland Yard has said that rather than throw surveillance cameras out altogether, they need more sophisticated equipment that turns surveillance footage into actionable data.

Meanwhile, this guy had an interesting take on the whole thing that brings into play the ongoing privacy vs. security debate. I'm not sure if I agree or disagree, but it's a thoughtful, well-written take.

UK Tests Face Rec at Airports

The UK government is set to be the latest to test facial recognition technology on a large scale. British border officials plan to test a new facial recognition system at airports this summer to see if it can boost security and reduce overcrowding.

American and French airports were the first to test face rec and both are now testing second generation technologies. Similarly the London Olympics committee and the Nashville School District are both testing face recognition software, but the most ambitious project to date seems to be the nationwide deployment of face recognition in South Korea.

A Camera Trained on Nothing Catches Nothing

A federal courthouse in San Diego was shut down today after a suspected pipe bomb blast exploded through its front entrance early Sunday. No one was hurt in the blast, but debris wound up on the 8th floor of the building facing the courthouse, so it was clearly not a minor explosion. Authorities are collecting evidence, but much of it is in the form of debris because, while the courthouse does have surveillance cameras, according to authorities none of those cameras are trained on the entrance door. I find that pretty amazing.

"It's too early to tell if it's terrorism-related," FBI spokesman Darrell Foxworth said about the blast. "It does not appear to be right now."

How can the FBI tell if a bomb blast is terror-related when they have no evidence at all pointing to who may have planted the bomb?

This case really underscores the importance of not just having a surveillance system but having the right system, set up correctly. Why spend money and time on surveillance cameras if they are not catching what you need? Security personnel set up surveillance systems to catch suspects in exactly these sorts of situations, when the retrieval of accurate, relevant evidence is crucial.

Should Red Light Cameras Be Stopped?

Theoretically red light cameras are great - who wants people running red lights? The problem comes when people fail to differentiate between red light cameras and security cameras and wind up throwing the baby out with the bath water. While they appear to be associated with safety, red light cameras in fact exist to generate revenue for cities, and they're largely ineffective at actually reducing accidents. Security cameras, on the other hand, exist to protect cities and people. To lose the latter because of the annoyance and poor performance of the former would be silly in the best case scenario, tragic in the worst. Unfortunately, that is exactly what may happen in cities throughout the country as citizens protest against red light cameras and the trade-off of privacy for city funds that they require.

If the Pentagon Wants TiVo They Can Give Me a Call

Wired's Noah Shachtman blogged this week about a report recently released by the Pentagon's Defense Science Board that basically espoused the application of existing video technologies in the commercial sector to national security.

In the report, the board calls for TiVo by name, describing the need for a "Tivo-like" ability to run recorded time backwards and pinpoint important events. Word-for-word, the report said:

To counter these new threats, technology exists, or could be developed, to provide new levels of spatial, temporal, and spectral resolution and diversity. Furthermore, the ability to record terabyte and larger databases will provide an omnipresent knowledge of the present and the past that can be used to rewind battle space observations in TiVo-like fashion and to run recorded time backwards to help identify and locate even low-level enemy forces. For example, after a car bomb detonates, one would have the ability to play high-resolution data backward in time to follows the vehicle back to the source, and then use that knowledge to focus collection and gain additional information by organizing and searching through archived data.

Hmm...well, lucky for the Pentagon, the former head of TiVo's engineering group is now working on exactly that at 3VR Security, which was also recently covered in Wired.