Face Rec Coming to Chicago Transit

From Bob Roberts at WBBM:

Pickpockets and muggers beware -- soon, every turnstile at a CTA 'L' station will have airport-style face recognition cameras, and the transit agency is planning much more comprehensive cameras at all 144 of its 'L' stations. [...] CTA President Richard Rodriguez said the agency's goal is to fully outfit all 'L' stations, but said it is dependent on federal funding, and as a result chose the 29 Green and Red Line stations first.

Rodriguez said all of the cameras will be linked not just to the CTA Control Center but to the city's 911 call center and police, as well. At suburban CTA 'L' stations, CTA has established or intends to establish a similar link with local police agencies and Cook County Sheriff's Police.

CTA's board Wednesday approved a $4.3 million contract with Teleste Corp., of Georgetown, Tex., to install the cameras and related equipment. It is financing the high-resolution turnstile cameras, which will be capable of showing facial details, through a $17.9 million U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security grant.

This type of public deployment of facial recognition technology is extremely difficult. So far, 3VR Security is the only organization to come close to providing adequate technology of this task as showcased in its deployment in South Korea.

Sitting Down with Rob Jenkins

I recently connected with Rob Jenkins, a lecturer at the University at Glasgow and leading authority of facial recognition technology in the UK, to pick his brain about different topics in facial recognition, namely airport security, the future of biometric technology and privacy/related concerns.

Rob had some very insightful, innovative answers to my questions, and I'm excited to share them with the growing IHF readership. Going forward, I'm hoping to have other thought leaders and readers contribute content and commentary to this blog, as I'd like to make this more of a forum for biometric, facial recognition and other technology discussions rather than a one-sided conversation. Feel free to make comments on any of the responses or questions, and I will be sure to address them!

Also, check out Rob's departmental Web site for selected publications on gaze perception and other facial identification topics. Very interesting stuff.

In response to Manchester Airport lowering their matching thresholds, The Telegraph quoted you saying that lowering the passport match level to 30 percent would make the system almost worthless. Another perspective is that the previous levels were causing horrendous queues and customer dissatisfaction. Is there a middle ground here?

There is certainly a middle ground in the sense that we can choose where to strike a balance between rejecting genuine matches and accepting false matches. But reducing either type of error generally increases the other, so it’s a trade-off. There is no ‘sweet spot’ where both types of error are reined in.

Despite the advanced nature of this technology, do you believe that there should still be a human element involved in security checks? If so, do you believe we will ever reach a point where this will no longer be necessary?

The main problem with referring the difficult cases to humans is that humans cannot do the task reliably either - even if we’re trained and experienced. Humans are fantastic at matching familiar faces, but our performance with unfamiliar faces is very poor. If we can somehow incorporate the benefits of familiarity into the technology, then it could be transformed.

Facial recognition technologies are popping up all over -- club entrances, bathroom faucets, online photo services, using cameras in lieu of passwords to access computers -- have they hit the tipping point? Is it only time before we use the technology to unlock our front doors and open our car trunks? What trajectory do you see it taking? Staying in security-based deployments, infiltrating everyday life or a balance between the two?

To some extent I think a tipping point is being ushered in, mostly by people who have something to sell. And it is an idea that some sectors are keen to buy into. So in that sense there is a lot of good will wishing the technology to work. I don’t find the gadget market especially troubling, provided that errors are of relatively little consequence. The real danger is in rushing to large-scale security deployments. For applications such as passport control or forensic face recognition the stakes can be much higher, and we know that the available technology is not yet up to the task.

In the same vein, has facial recognition reached a point where accuracy and reliability now line up with the media's expectations?

In my experience, identification errors tend not to go down well with the public. I often ask audiences how often they would be prepared to be the subject of a misidentification. The answers are in the order of once a decade, even when the imagined consequences are minor. That’s a tall order, given the number of identity checks that some proposals entail. It comes as something of a shock when these demands are compared against current capability. As far as media expectations are concerned, I think there has been a change in tone. Traditionally, the emphasis has been on the implications face recognition for privacy, with the unspoken assumption that it is reliable. These days there is more of an awareness that the technology simply is being phased in, whether it works or not. That changes the focus of the debate.

The "Big Brother" argument -- that citizens are losing their individual privacy rights due to increased public security efforts -- is always present in a discussion about surveillance. Is there a point at which facial recognition and biometric technology infringe on personal freedoms and the right to privacy? Is blurring faces enough? Are there places where surveillance should not be allowed?

I don’t think facial recognition and biometric technology necessarily infringe on privacy. It is certainly possible to imagine applications where privacy concerns don’t arise. However, for the security and surveillance applications that have been at the forefront of public discussion, the tension with privacy is fundamental. The whole purpose of identifying someone is to connect them with some other information, and the nature of that information is a major issue. We can think of face recognition as a key to identity. But focusing on the key tends to distract us from other questions, like What’s behind the lock? As more and more information is stored behind the lock, the reliability of the key becomes increasingly important. As does the question of who has access to the key.

The practice of blurring or pixellating faces to protect identity (as in Google Streetview) is often poorly informed. Although such manipulations can make it more difficult for observers to identify people, this is only the case when the observer is unfamiliar with the faces concerned. When the observer is familiar with the face, blurring or pixellating the image does surprisingly little to impede identification.

People have very different ideas about where surveillance should be allowed, and which places should be out of bounds. I don’t really foresee any wide agreement on the extent of coverage that is desirable or acceptable. The general trend is for rapid expansion, especially in the US and the UK, but my impression is that this trend is not driven by public demand.

The UK has over 4 million cameras -- that's one for every 14 people in the country and 200,000 in London alone. Chicago is working to improve its 'Virtual Shield' and include the entire metropolitan area in its surveillance grid to cut down crime. Yet, criminals still often get away with murder -- literally. Are expectations set too high? Are surveillance grids more of a scare tactic in preventing crime from happening rather than proactive in catching criminals in the act?

It has been known for some time that the unprecedented CCTV coverage in the UK has had little or no effect on crime rates. A recent Home Office report revealed that only 3% of crimes were solved using CCTV footage, and suggests that simple improvements to street lighting would be more effective. Part of the problem is that it is unrealistic for police to monitor CCTV footage on the scale that it is produced. But more importantly, little thought has gone into the use of CCTV evidence in court. It has only recently become clear how poor humans are at matching unfamiliar faces, even when the images are far higher quality than could be obtained from CCTV. We’ve already looked at machine performance in this context. Establishing a match that will stand up in court is very difficult indeed.

The deterrent argument is interesting because the figures imply little or no deterrent value in CCTV. The standard explanation for this is that people assume the cameras are not working, which is a reasonable inference to make if they are not reducing crime. However, I wonder if there is also a paradoxical effect of increasing coverage. After all, the more cameras there are, the less likely it is that any particular camera is being monitored.

Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: Chicago's Quest For Perfect Municipal Surveillance

As previously discussed, since its launch in 2001, Chicago's Operation Virtual Shield and its network of public surveillance cameras has consistently been billed the most advanced deployment of intelligent video in the nation. This week, the city announced that as a result of recent increased funding the project is now linked to the city's 911 system, an integration that makes the grid unlike any other in the country.

With a $6 million grant from the DHS, Chicago's computer-aided dispatch emergency system can now see real-time video if there is a surveillance camera within 150 feet of a 911 call. It was officially deployed after a trial run in December, during which live video caught a petty thief sticking his hand into a Salvation Army kettle outside of a Macy's when a bystander called 911 to report the crime.

Nonetheless, the network still has its share of flaws and areas demanding improvement.

The Chicago Office of Emergency Management and Communications maintains that only about 95 percent of the network's cameras are working at any given time. This statistic was at the forefront of headlines just last week when a camera in the southeast Chicago was unable to capture footage of three teens were slain directly in front of it. While the camera's blue light was functioning, technicians thus far have been unsuccessful in downloading footage -- that is, if it even exists.

As this instance demonstrates, the importance of maintaining existing infrastructure while installing more advanced, integrated capabilities simultaneously is vital to the success of any surveillance grid. How effective are cameras at fighting crime when they aren't operating? Department spokesmen note that this neighborhood is not yet on the most updated wireless network, where a connection can be established to send an alert when the camera is down.

From my point of view, however, it’s tough to find fault with a city focusing its surveillance and emergency resources on actual crimes reported by citizens. I’ll take that over red-light cameras and anti-dog-pooping surveillance any day. And in a city that’s often been criticized for its slow response to 911 calls in many of its Chicago neighborhoods, the ability to instantly assess a potential emergency will almost certainly save lives -- if the systems are functioning properly.

Integrating all cameras to operate wirelessly, as well as updating all "record on sight" cameras to enable live monitoring at the city's operations center are crucial steps Chicago must take in order to continue its leadership in municipal surveillance. If that's not enough incentive, it seems likely that Mayor Daley's team will make the necessary improvements as an argument in favor of the city's preparedness to host the 2016 Olympics.

Big Surveillance Initiatives in the Heartland

Chicago's Office of Emergency Management and Communications recently installed 500 surveillance cameras and integrated them with the existing 4,000 public sector cameras already installed across the Windy City as part of Operation Virtual Shield.

Currently in its third phase, Operation Virtual Shield's network of public surveillance cameras has been billed as the most advanced deployment of intelligent video in the nation since its launch in 2001. Cameras at Boeing, John Hancock, Sears Tower and over 100 other private companies have been integrated into the citywide surveillance grid and feed into the system.

Next steps for the project include extending the network along the city's lakefront and non-central business district locations, as well as adding more video analytic functionality to control how footage is captured and indexed. Without advancing analytics to help intelligently sort and organize footage, increasing the surveillance grid is insignificant.

As ABC News asks, "The technology will grow and so too will the number of cameras. But ultimately, how many cameras do we need, at what cost and how effective are they in fighting crime?"

Chicago police claim the increased number of street cameras have both discouraged crime and also led to arrests in other violent crimes, however there is still room for improvement in order to decrease the growing "Security Gap" between how much data systems can collect and how much humans can analyze.

Chicago is on the right track, but there are still some holes to be filled in this 'virtual shield'.

Wi-Fi Brings Cameras to Tough Neighborhoods

Wi-fi Mesh technology is bringing down video deployment costs and making surveillance possible in some fairly rough neighborhoods. Contrary to some other reports, this seems to be having some effect:

"The cameras have made a difference," contends Pastor Mike Cummings, a former
gang member who for nine years has been escorting students to and from Jordan
High in a program known as Safe Passage. As school lets out on a sunny Friday
afternoon, Cummings, a large man wearing a gang-neutral yellow shirt and holding
a walkie-talkie, watches over large groups of youngsters walking home on 103rd
Street. They're going either to the weathered apartment buildings at Jordan
Downs, barrack-like structures fitted with barred windows and satellite dishes,
or to modest detached homes in the neighborhood. Several blocks from Jordan
High, Maricela Vargas is pushing a stroller with three grade-schoolers in tow.
"About a year ago, there was a lot more violence," she says in Spanish, pointing
to what had been a dangerous area just down the street. "Now, it's calmer." (via
FastCompany)

An interview with a Chicago Police officer sheds some light on why some communities are having success with cameras and others, like San Francisco, are not:

"Someone has to watch (the footage)," said Garbauski, who runs missions once a
week. "If there were no arrests, people would say, 'There's no one watching
this. It's just for show.' "

The San Francisco cameras installed at Newsom's request are facing scrutiny
because they have helped police make just one arrest, for an attempted murder,
in more than two years. A city law, prompted by civil liberties concerns, allows
police to request footage only after a crime occurs.

Records show that,
as of Sept. 18, San Francisco inspectors had asked for footage 58 times since
the cameras were installed in mid-2005. Chicago police said that, as of the same
day, they had used camera footage in 1,407 arrests, including at least five
homicides, since the city began tracking data in February 2006. (via
SF Gate)

San Francisco doesn't seem to have any problem using cameras to hand out traffic infractions though.