Photosynthing Entire Cities

I have written about Mirosoft's Photosynth before. It's a technology that takes collections of single still image photographs and mashes them together in remarkable ways. From overlapping photos, the 3D structure of an object or building emerges.

Recently, folks used Photosynth to create create a truely amazing view of Obama innauguration.

Now, it is being used to model entire cities!

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.

Opt-In Video Surveillance "Cloak" Aims to Calm Privacy Fears

The "Big Brother" argument -- that citizens are losing their individual privacy rights due to increased public security efforts -- is found in nearly all articles and reporting that cover the growing ubiquity of surveillance cameras worldwide.

Hewlett-Packard computer scientist, Jack Brassil, is hoping to address and resolve such criticisms with a new opt-in surveillance technology, Cloak, that he hopes will limit the privacy invasions presented by massive surveillance networks. According to Brassil, "Rather than prohibit surveillance, our system seeks to discourage surveillers distributing video without the authorization of the surveilled."

Cloak enables those who wish not to be identified in video footage to "opt-in" to the system, essentially making a "do-not-call" list for the surveillance grid. However, with this selection, the person must instead carry a 'privacy enabling device' that enables the image processing software to blur them out of any corresponding surveillance video, yet still allows the system to locate them on the grid.

Brassil is off to a great start in addressing the "loss of anonymity" argument that large-scale surveillance deployments bring to the forefront. However, the system still has a few kinks that need to be addressed before installation.

From a crime prevention standpoint, those that have the most to gain by blurring themselves out are those committing the crimes. In Brassil's proposal, it is impossible to 'un-blur' someone into focus for evidence in a possible investigation. Furthermore, requiring people to register GPS devices that tracks their location as a means to prevent surveillance systems from capturing their image seems to be just trading one modest privacy violation for another (perhaps even more) severe one.

As privacy analyst Ian Brown of the Oxford Internet Institute in the UK comments, "People shouldn't have to opt in to get privacy protection. And this system actively invades your privacy because it tells the service where you are at all times."

I commend Brassil in his efforts to resolve some of the privacy repercussions advanced surveillance deployments continue to introduce to society and have a couple suggestions to further improve the developing technology.

In an ideal system, every tracked face and motion activity should be blurred using a "reversible encryption" to enable future investigations if needed. That way, subject to policy (and perhaps subpoena), a person's anonymity can be reversed in a narrowly-focused way to solve crime and/or prove innocence.

Furthermore, the blurring functionality should be tailored to enable monitoring by police without revealing identity. For instance, security officials would be able to see if someone engages in violent or publicly-unacceptable behavior without identifying the individual. However, in an emergency, or if the system identifies a criminal, officials should have the option to disable the blurring feature in order to speed up the necessary response.

With these adjustments, Cloak is a much more workable proposal and more congruent with privacy, legal and societal concerns. Brassil is definitely a visionary in the space, and I hope to hear more about Cloak's progression in the near future.

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'.

Getting San Fran Surveillance Right

Surveillance cameras mounted at First and Mission Streets in San Francisco

Big news. Despite doing many things wrong, San Francisco has still managed to reduce non-violent crime by an average of 24% in areas where they deployed surveillance cameras. Yet, a main objective to reduce violent crimes has yet to be accomplished. But, what would it mean if the city did everything right? That question wasn't addressed in a substantial piece in the SF Chronicle today, but the statistics the article provides are making for some pretty interesting food for thought.

The article cites a recently released study that shows that San Francisco's surveillance program has failed in its primary goal of reducing homicide and other violent crime, although it has succeeded in reducing such lesser offenses as burglary, pickpocketing and purse-snatching. While this statistic is important, it should be noted that San Francisco's cameras are not monitored in real time, but rather the footage is ordered by investigators only after the crime is reported; privacy controls prevent city police from monitoring the city's surveillance cameras in real-time. The privacy controls are so stringent, in fact, that I recently wrote about a man forced to spend 69 days in a San Francisco jail waiting for access to surveillance video footage that ultimately exonerated him. The city can and should be doing much better.

Protecting Privacy With Technology vs. Non-Use

There is very little excuse these days for deploying city surveillance and then not monitoring cameras or granting police and attorneys access to footage that helps convict or exonerate. That's because identity protection and search engine technology exists today that enables police to actively monitor and query city surveillance systems without sacrificing privacy. The ACLU recently wrote about one example of this kind of technology from 3VR Security, and these kinds of approaches are getting better every day. Had San Francisco deployed its surveillance system with this kind of privacy protection technology, it would not have been necessary for the city to take the extreme step of locking police out of its surveillance infrastructure.

The Value of Image Quality and Data Storage

In San Francisco, image quality and data storage are two other major concerns. The cameras the city purchased and installed for $700,000 in 2005 are high-resolution, but produce only three frames per second and thus the footage appears choppy (movies are shot at 24 frames per second), making it difficult to identify even license plates – forget about trying to recognize a repeat car thief or vandal. Again technology may provide an answer for the city. Instead of storing everything and an equally poor frame rate and video compression level, why not use face and license plate detection algorithms to smartly track and store relevant information when, and only when, it is detected. Intelligent approaches that separate what is important from what is not have been proven to dramatically improve both the quality and storage longevity of surveillance archives.

A Fully Integrated Platform

Traditional surveillance systems often require an army of people to patrol the system and report suspicious activity to a security manager. However, by using networked systems that apply analytics and reporting, municipalities can service security functions of hundreds with an army of one. By incorporating the latest innovations in face recognition, license plate recognition, video motion alarms and other new technologies to make systems more effective and efficient, municipalities can vastly improve the results of their security systems. As John Honovich points out in a recent contribution to Government Security News, "cameras enable officers to assess and respond over much greater areas at much lower cost. Even in the U.K., famous for its mass public deployment of surveillance cameras, video surveillance costs are only one one-hundredth of police costs."

Creating A Better Solution

Ultimately, video surveillance is nothing new and many cities are capturing hours and hours of footage on a daily basis. However, that endless volume of footage must be managed to be valuable, and even if a surveillance system features the highest quality cameras, the best image resolution, and a fully integrated network, the resulting video footage isn't going to be useful unless it can be stored, analyzed and searched – in real time. Search and analytics would dramatically improve the usability of the footage and make the surveillance network that much more effective in achieving its objective of crime reduction.

With the right ingredients, municipal surveillance has the potential to significantly counter criminal activity, but it takes that correct formula and a scientific approach to have such results. Despite its inefficiencies, the San Francisco municipal surveillance system isn't a disaster by any means. If Newsom can bolster its allotment of the 2009 budget and add the aforementioned features into the existing infrastructure, San Francisco has the opportunity to have one of the largest municipal surveillance systems out there operating smoothly, meeting and perhaps even surpassing expectations.

Finally, A Balanced Take on Security Cameras

Okay, in this case, Fox News actually is providing a "fair and balanced" take on things. Apparently security camera neither put a complete stop to crime nor are completely useless privacy invasions. In known, high-crime areas, the deployment and use of surveillance systems can actually help fight crime. Maybe not all crime, but at least enough to make it worth doing. Obviously, privacy is important. I get that. But I think the way to get folks on board with privacy protection is not to make unfounded statements like "cameras have absolutely zero effect on crime." That's just absurd and patently false. Extreme statements like that will just keep people on opposite sides, not solving either the privacy problem OR the security problem.

On a lighter note, with the suggested increase of cameras in Lynwood, Paris Hilton's crime spree may finally come to a halt.

Surveillance and Mapping Software Together at Last

It seems like a lot of cities are announcing large scale facial recognition systems these days, which will definitely require an increase in data storage capabilities to store more and better footage. What I find more interesting than the storage angle in this piece, is mention of combining Microsoft’s Virtual Earth (which could just as easily be Google Earth, for that matter) with surveillance video--presumably this will/could be used to map in real time the location of bad guys and dispatch law enforcement as appropriate. It’s an interesting approach and no doubt going to be much more useful than the giant video walls normally deployed.

SF Cameras Prove Innocence...69 Days Too Late

Despite a clear fascination with red light cameras and other video traffic tracking systems, San Francisco policy makers can’t quite figure out how to use city surveillance systems in the pursuit of actual criminals. Even worse, it seems, the city's backward policy now prevents the exoneration of the innocent.

Here is one case in point:

Butler and Dillon were positively identified by the robbery victims, according to the public defender's office. They were then booked for robbery and assault with intent to commit great bodily harm.

During Butler's primary court appearance a witness informed deputy public defender Eric Quant that she had been with Butler during the time of the robbery and that surveillance cameras at 16th and Mission streets could prove this.

Quant then requested copies of the tapes, but was denied because city policy restricts the release of the tapes. According to the public defender's office, Quant was informed that all tapes are erased after seven days.

He then requested that the Department of Emergency Management, which is in charge of the tapes, not erase them pending a formal request. The videotapes were reviewed and showed that Butler and Dillon were at the corner of 16th and Mission streets at the time of the robbery.

Charges for both men were dropped Oct. 16. Both men were imprisoned for 69 days before being released.

69 days? Really?

Not So Fast Ontario

The $21 million Toronto Transit System is on hold after Privacy International filed a complaint with the city’s privacy commissioner. They believe “that the installation of cameras on the scale proposed by the TTC fundamentally violates privacy law.”

The TTC, which provides 1.4 million rides each weekday, is in the process of installing up to 10,000 security cameras in its buses, streetcars and subway system, adding to its current network of about 1,500 cameras. The system, which was approved by the TTC last spring and is expected to be operational by June, will be capable of snapping photos and recording video – and in some cases, audio – of any of the TTC's daily riders. The federal government kicked in $6.5 million for the project.

Like all previous attempts to slow and or block city camera implementations, this effort is probably doomed to failure.

TTC chairman Adam Giambrone defended the system today, saying the information is centrally collected and accessible only to police, and that the cameras are part of a larger security plan that involves such measures as increasing the number of transit constables. "We were the last of the major transit authorities in North America and Europe – who are way ahead – to install a major camera program," he said. "So clearly, the consensus out there is that this is a positive."

Given their track record and the inertia behind these urban camera rollouts, privacy advocates might want to try a new tact. Maybe…something like this or this.

Philly Touts Cameras in 37% Crime Drop

Philadelphia is aggressively adding city surveillance cameras, 250 of them, after the success of its initial rollout of just eighteen cameras last year.

The city installed 18 video surveillance cameras last year, which resulted
in an 8.4 percent decline in reported crime at 8 of the locations and a 37
percent decrease in violent crimes. (via Philadelphia Business
Journal)

I think Philly's aggressive monitoring and prosecution efforts might have had a little something to do with the decrease too.

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.

The Maginot Line Part Deux

Andre Maginot has nothing on the virtual defense being mounted by French police.
Alliot-Marie said the Paris public transport network would expand its surveillance network to 6,500 cameras, while systems operating in provincial cities would be progressively linked to police control rooms. France stepped up security measures after the 2005 attacks in London's transport system that killed 52 people.

Cameras, cameras, everywhere.