From IndyStar.com :
Indianapolis has decided to follow other big cities in installing 27 cameras to monitor local sports stadiums, water treatment facilities and high crime areas. A $1 million federal grant is paying for the cameras, which run $14,000 for fixed cameras and $12,000 for movable cameras. The camera footage will be available at police headquarters and and in officers’ cars (no idea how many cars are wired for this).
While the public generally favors cameras for crime fighting, this is still a partisan issue. Take a look at the 123 comments generated by readers.
rshah Other Cities
From San Francisco Chronicle:
San Francisco has outfitted a car with ANPR to scan more than 250 plates an hour. It looks for cars with at least five outstanding tickets and stolen cars. The technology costs $92,000 for one car. I don’t understand why its so expensive. But the price is being paid by ACS Inc. (they hold the ticket-processing contract with the city). Its a test run right now. I would wager that ANPR will be widely used in San Francisco for these purposes, but it seems a bit expensive right now.
This application has been discussed here previously. Boston and New Haven for using ANPR for collecting on outstanding parking tickets.
rshah Applications, Other Cities
From Digital Communities:
A story on video analytics or smart cameras that appears largely based on a report by Dilip Sarangan, a research analyst for Frost & Sullivan. The report is titled Video Analytics: The Ground Reality. I haven’t read it and I missed the briefing on the report back in October. The story covers the basic uses and markets for smart cameras.
The story has a few interesting facts:
Some estimates put around 30 million video surveillance cameras in the United States, shooting four billion hours of footage each week.
The video surveillance industry has grown into a $160 billion global industry, especially after homeland security efforts after 9/11, where the federal government has poured money into video surveillance.
The New York City Police Department operates its own network of 3,000 cameras. Chicago has also received grant funds from the DHS and built a “Homeland Security Grid” of 2,250 cameras, with plans to add even more cameras in the coming years. Baltimore and New Orleans also have thousands of cameras throughout the cities.
Municipalities that deploy Wi-Fi networks can often utilize the infrastructure to greatly reduce the cost of deploying video cameras across a city. And emerging mobile video capabilities are going to play an increasing role for police and emergency responder.
rshah General
From El Universal – Mexico News:
Mexico City tentatively plans to install 4,000 new surveillance cameras in 2007 (they have 1,000 existing cameras). An interesting part is the they will use multiple monitoring centers (16), because they believe this will lead to quicker police response. The cameras use a Wimex high-speed microwave transmission system to feed into each monitoring center.
They are also following the model of Athens and using cameras to looking for suspicious behavior. They plan to use 100 cameras for facial recognition. (Are there other setups that have found facial recognition software useful?) While 16 cameras are dedicated to ANPR.
rshah Uncategorized
The Surveillance Camera Players have a critique of the recent report released by the NYCLU, which was discussed here a few days ago. I hope to go into the substance of the report at a later point, but at my first reading I don’t think their critique is very strong (accurate on some points, but more nitpicking than substantive). I hope to at a future point carefully go through their allegations.
I think there are some useful issues and points for those people who are carefully following the issues around government surveillance. At the very least, its nice that there are multiple groups focused on this issue with differing viewpoints. (Also, can someone tell the Surveillance Camera Players to update their web site to support RSS and newreaders. I don’t have the time to check web sites for updates manually).
rshah Policy
Another use for cameras is to collect evidence of incidents or accidents. For example, there have been calls for patrol cars to have video recording (e.g., Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune). In one example:
In a three-month experiment with 74 Oakland police officers, complaints were filed against 15 of the cops when they patrolled without video cameras. But when they were driving cars with cameras, there wasn’t a single complaint filed against any of the 74.
Another example in the Tribune is to place cameras on the front of Metra trains to collect evidence when accidents occur. Metra plans to install more than 500 cameras at a cost of $3.5 million.
In its test along the Rock Island Line, Metra’s cameras captured events that engineers witness every day but that would shock many people, especially parents, officials said.
Efforts such as the international Operation Lifesaver program attempt to educate people about taking risks at rail crossings, but the videos captured by the cameras may be more effective. Footage of youths trespassing on tracks might help pinpoint areas near playgrounds or schools.
They also may put pressure on police to better enforce laws against pedestrians and vehicles ignoring gates and signals, he said.
rshah Applications
From NYCLU:
The New York Civil Liberties has just published a report, “Who’s Watching? Video Camera Surveillance in New York City and the Need for Public Oversight,” on the threats to civil liberties posed by the unchecked proliferation of surveillance cameras in New York City. Its a short report that succinctly states the risks of public video surveillance and provides some policies to ensure that cameras are not abused. Its a great read and I hope to expound on the report in the future.
rshah Policy
From Newswise PR:
This is a PR on gait analysis research, something that hasn’t really been covered here. Its based on research by Rama Chellappa, a professor in the department of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Maryland. He is also combining his gait technology with facial recognition techniques. Here is a snippet:
When a person’s limbs are unencumbered, gait movements are symmetrical. Represented graphically, these movements form a twisted helical pattern resembling a “figure 8” called a double helical signature. Chellappa and his team call this pattern, which is slightly different in each individual, “human gait DNA.” An individual’s gait pattern is changed by any activity that changes the symmetry of the movements, such as carrying a package. By defining these signatures, the system can recognize unique patterns in human gait and automatically detect asymmetric movements like an individual walking with a hidden object tied to an ankle or wrist. Hidden objects secured to the body in ways that don’t affect movement symmetry, for example, a fanny pack that is belted around the waist, aren’t currently detected by this technology.
Chellappa and his team have integrated human gait DNA into a real-time video surveillance system and used it to study and locate pedestrians. The experimental results have demonstrated the effectiveness of the system under lighting changes, shadows, camera motion, various viewing angles, as well as significant obstacles in the cameras’ viewing angles. The results also indicate that the approach is superior to many existing methods in terms of accuracy and reliability.
His research team is also “teaching” their gait recognition system to identify individuals by their unique gait. This is a much more difficult task, since subjects may deliberately attempt to walk in an uncharacteristic manner in order to try and cheat the system and avoid detection. If the suspect is unaware of the surveillance system, their normal walking style is more easily identified.
rshah Applications, Facial Recognition
Recent Comments