From TechDirt:
Several examples of speed cameras improperly issuing tickets. The summary:
Three major speed camera mistakes could cost speed camera operators US $900,000 or more. London officials announced today that they will refund £335,000 (US $609,000) worth of speed camera tickets issued to motorists who should not have been ticketed. In Lincolnshire, a court ruling late last week suggests £158,000 (US $287,000) worth of tickets were improperly issued and face legal challenge. Finally, London’s chief detective suggested on Sunday the possibility that variable speed limit signs could cause erroneous speeding citations, opening the possibility of thousands of additional camera ticket challenges.
rshah Uncategorized
From Northwest Indiana News:
After a successful pilot program, Chicago officials have installed 30 of the devices alongside video surveillance cameras in high-crime neighborhoods, with 12 more on the way, and dozens more to follow, Baker said.
In Los Angeles County, the sheriff’s department plans to deploy 20 units in a pilot test, and officials in Tijuana, Mexico, recently bought 353 units, Baker said. Police in Philadelphia and San Francisco are close to launching test programs of their own, and New Orleans and Atlanta have also made inquiries.
SENTRI is the brainchild of Safety Dynamics and Dr. Theodore Berger, director of the Center for Neural Engineering at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. Each SENTRI contains a library of acoustical patterns, or “sound signatures,” which Berger developed over several years.
Four microphones in the system differentiate gunshots from other noises like traffic and construction by measuring the unique decibel level of a bullet being shot out of a gun, and comparing the sound to its library. That way, a gunshot would activate the system, but a siren or a car backfiring would not, Baker said.
Adding the SENTRI to an existing surveillance camera is not cheap. The system costs between $4,000 and $10,000 per unit, but in Chicago they and the accompanying cameras are paid for with forfeiture money.
rshah Chicago, Gunshot Detection
From Public Eye:
A nice article from Washington Technology on intelligent video surveillance systems. It notes the problem with false alarms and privacy concerns:
Typical concerns with other systems include a high rate of false alarms and an inability to distinguish significant events from common “video noise,” such as the motion of a flag waving, he said.
Although it has little new information, the reporter talked to several important people. Here is what they had to say:
Alan Lipton from ObjectVideo: “History has shown that you need brains behind the eyeballs watching the videos”
Bruce Dewitte from Northrop Grumman: “Guards can get overwhelmed with the amount of video content”
Joe Freeman from J.P. Freeman Co. Inc: Freeman expects the $7 billion global video surveillance industry to grow to $13 billion within five years. IT integrators’ share of the revenue may be only about 10 percent now, but it is growing, Freeman said.
Steven Hutchens, Homeland Security Director: “We’re cognizant of the need for video integration,” Hutchens said. “We see it as a growth area.”
John Honovich, Maximum Level Physical Protection Systems Corp: “But in two to five years, the most valuable solutions for video surveillance will be IT-based.”
Arthur Chang, Cradle Technologies: “Intelligent video is a huge trend” “We’re moving from forensic analysis to preventative analysis.”
rshah Uncategorized
From the Daily Herald | Cook County:
Illinois received 215 grants totaling $6.78 million for police and sheriff’s departments across the state through the Illinois Terrorism Task Force. The article includes several examples of how the money is being used to upgrade surveillance systems.
For example, the Buffalo Grove Police Department received $11,430, which will be used to update camera systems. Last year, the department spent the $50,000 grant on a portable surveillance system. Part of reasoning behind this system was for the protection of the community’s many synagogues.
Des Plaines is also using its grant to upgrade its security camera system.
rshah Uncategorized
From Public Eye noting that John Honovich at MaxPPS has a post on the status, direction and outlook of security standards. Its a topic that I haven’t thought a lot about, but as John points out it will be an important issue for the second generation (post 9/11) systems.
Over the last few years, the Security Industry Association has developed a program called OSIPS to develop standards for physical security equipment and integration. It is this program and these efforts that are being finalized currently.
These efforts are perfectly timed. It is likely that 80% of the network-based physical security systems were deployed after 9/11. Given an average lifespan of 5 years for computers, the current generation of systems will be ready for upgrades and replacements between 2007 and 2010. At the time, because of a simultaneous increase in the technological efficacy of network systems plus the exogenous terrorist threat, the value proposition of physical security was high. Neither integrators nor security managers seriously considered the problem that a lack of standards would cause in the future.
I believe security managers are now beginning to see the problems a lack of standards causes. Over time, you see that your options for adding other vendor’s systems are severely constrained. You find out that even though you want to interface different subsystems, it cannot be easily done even if you spend tens of thousands on it. You attempt to integrate the newest element of technology only to discover that because of the constraints of your current equipment that it is very costly to do and it doesn’t provide a very easy to use end product.
The benefit is that once standards are adopted and your systems become standards based, the total cost of your systems will easily drop by 25% with a similar increase in the effectiveness of your system. Standards will cause product prices to drop as lock-in effects disappear. Compatibility between systems will cause integration costs to drop dramatically as simple interfaces can be designed between many subsystems. Finally, all of your systems will be able to seamlessly speak to one another. Your ability to rapidly utilize your surveillance and perform investigations will enhance dramatically.
rshah Uncategorized
From Spyblogs London Congestion Charge advanced ANPR camera test:
The UK is moving ahead with using ANPR as a method of collecting toll fees. I don’t think its happened yet in the US, but as the technology improves its probably likely. Here is a snippet from the the Evening Standard article:
Trials for super-spy cameras By David Williams Motoring Edito, Evening Standard 17 June 2005. Secret trials of cameras for the extension to the congestion charge zone are under way. Powerful new digital cameras are being tested at two sites. They can read thousands of number plates in minutes.
They are more powerful than the CCTV cameras enforcing the ?5 charge – soon to rise to ?8 – in central London. Officials are testing accuracy as the cameras read thousands of number plates in quick succession; they are said to be highly impressed. The units use digital technology instead of the analogue system in the existing zone. They are more accurate and are not affected by the weather. Insiders say they can zoom in with far greater clarity than any previous-traffic camera, and they are believed to be able to read foreign plates.
Here is a picture of the system from Spyblog:
rshah ALPR
From SI.com:
Apparently cameras aren’t enough to for determining if the ball crossed the goal line. One game had 12 cameras and that wasn’t enough to determine if the ball crossed the line. Consequently, FIFA is testing the use of an electronic microchip inside the soccer ball to confirm goal line calls.
rshah Uncategorized
Link from Schneier:
EPIC has highlighted the problems with backscatter X-ray technology in their spotlight on surveillance. They are focusing on eliminating the use of the technology, rather then trying to find a way to limit the privacy issues. The relevant part of their analysis is:
The risks to privacy rights can be lowered only slightly with some modifications to TSA’s current X-ray machine program. The agency could tailor the backscatter technology with the digital equivalent of a “fig leaf.” As recently as November, the British press reported that the TSA did not intend to deploy the scanner until manufacturers had made such modifications. Whether the agency will modify the scanners before they are used at the 16 airport test sites is uncertain. . . . But even this technique leaves open the question of whether the original unedited image is obtained and stored by scanning device, whether or not it is available to a screener at a particular point in time.
I don’t know why they didn’t discuss the methods in my earlier post. Maybe those methods won’t work or maybe no one is interested in pursuing a somewhat less intrusive method.
rshah Uncategorized
From ThisisLondon:
A report from Direction D’rtementale de l’ipement (DDE) notes problems with the Paris infrastructure, specifically:
Surveillance cameras and traffic control centres are obsolete, with outdated computers frequently crashing and causing chaos. Laurent Baudet, regional head of the DDE, said: “Control systems including video surveillance have to be radically improved so as to improve safety.”
rshah Uncategorized
From Federal Computer Week:
An article on the role of sensors and surveillance for securing our borders. There is little new material on the role of technology. However, the article notes there is not going to be a rise in the number of border agents, instead the DHS will rely on smart video surveillance technologies from firms such as ObjectVideo and Vistascape.
rshah Uncategorized
Recent Comments