If It's Broken, Fix It

Just caught this article (via @abc7newsBayArea) that surveillance cameras on more than half of MUNI buses were broken or only "partially operational" as of September 2009.

According to documents that the ABC I-Team received, 22 percent of buses and light rail had no working cameras on board, while 30 percent were listed as only "partially operational."

Yes, MUNI is facing a $129 million deficit heading into the new fiscal year that began July 1, much to do with the many fare cheats costing it $19 million annually, but the buses must have working cameras in order to deal with the violence and fights that break out, like this one on the 20-Columbus. It's obvious just having an empty, inoperable box in buses is just not doing the trick these days.

SFO Receives $5 Million in New Funding for CCTV Equipment

SFO travelers may see some additional surveillance equipment as they make their ways from curbside to board their flights this holiday season.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA), last week announced SFO will receive $5 million in additional funding to enhance its existing closed circuit television (CCTV) system to help in 'providing a high level of threat detection and enhancing emergency response and risk mitigation.'

SFO is only one of many airports to receive funding from a $241 million TSA program, which is based on airports' 'critical need to increase operational efficiency, their readiness to begin and complete the project, and the airport's ability to cost share, to use their own funds along with what we provide,' according to TSA spokeswoman Suzanne Trevino.

In addition to SFO, John Wayne Airport, in Orange County will receive $8.8 million for a new baggage system and Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) is in line to get $6 million to fund a similar system to that planned at SFO.

As I've written before, with political obstacles and the budgetary limitations that frequently deter airport security initiatives, it's great to see these projects taking shape.

Not sure how long roll-out will take, but something to watch out for with the holiday travel season fast approaching. Santa Claus won't be the only one with his eye out.

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.

Justice Chief Wants Cops Monitoring Cameras

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's new anti-crime adviser said Wednesday that he will recommend a major change to the city's beleaguered video surveillance program, allowing police to watch footage in real time as officers do in other cities. San Francisco, in deference to privacy concerns, only allows detectives to request footage if they have information that a crime occurred on camera.

In part because of a lack of costly data storage space, San Francisco achieves 80 percent of the resolution that its cameras are capable of producing and gets choppy footage comprised of, at best, two to four frames per second, telecommunications officials say. The problem is not with the manufacturer, but with the implementation of the cameras on a tight budget. The hearing made clear that city officials, and residents, have tough choices ahead on how much money to put into surveillance.

While informative, this article neglects to include an important option that could solve San Francisco’s dilemma—intelligent video surveillance.

San Francisco Rail Agency Doubles Down on Surveillance

My hometown is looking to make another $5.4 million investment in cameras and surveillance infrastructure at the Bay Area Rapid Transit system, better known as BART.

BART will spend $5.4 million to upgrade and expand its security camera system to help protect Bay Area transit riders from terrorist attacks and everyday crimes, officials said Monday. The regional rail agency will deploy the cameras in stations, on the trains, along tracks, in the Transbay Tube, in parking lots and at other facilities. The new system will make use of sophisticated software that allows the cameras to detect such suspicious activity as an unattended backpack on a boarding platform or trespassers in areas off limits to the public.

Previous investments in cameras and recording equipment at BART are credited with a 98% drop in graffiti, and the prosecution of a variety of criminals, among other benefits.

Cameras have also helped solve crimes on transit systems. In August, for example, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority used video footage to help find two suspects who assaulted a passenger. And earlier this month, cameras picked up people breaking into cars in BART's parking lot at the Coliseum/Oakland Airport Station. Police then apprehended the suspected culprits at the scene, Johnson said.

Despite privacy concerns, the investment will likely meet the approval of most Bay Area travelers who appreciate the benefits of genuine technology. And the new system is certainly far superior to BART’s other controversial anti-crime strategy…the slowing down transit thieves through the exclusive use of Susan B. Anthony and Sacajawea dollar coins in all transit ticketing and change machines.

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?

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.