Smart Cameras Blog

[From Why Baggage-Left-Behind has Been Such a Failure « Spot On Security]

A great analysis of a smart camera technology by Doug Marman. Lets start with this teaser:

It continues to amaze me that people list Baggage-Left-Behind detection as one of the shining examples of the power of video analytics. In fact, it has to be the biggest disappointment in the market. However, the reason it has failed so often is not a reflection on bad technology, but the dangers of complex systems. It is a good lesson in knowing where and when to use new technologies.

Marman goes on to show that while the technology works (detect bags left behind), it is not useful in real life situations. He notes:

IBM made a study of baggage-left-behind years ago. I don’t see a public posting of the study that I can link to, but they went back over the last decade to study terrorist bombings. The question they asked was how much benefit would baggage-left-behind have delivered if it were installed at the sites that were bombed. Their conclusion: Baggage-left-behind would not have helped a single one of the cases. No benefit at all. It wouldn’t have helped even prevent a single bombing or saved any lives.

He then shows the problem of baggage left behind is more nuanced. Its a great analysis of the problem as it actually occurs in real life. I urge you to read this complete post. Here are some of his parting thoughts:

It’s such a tempting use of analytics, especially when it is so easy to demonstrate. It really isn’t that difficult to detect a bag being left in the middle of an empty platform. But when you start looking at the overall complexity of the application, how difficult it is to reduce false alarms, the problems with recognizing bags in crowded areas, and how easy it is for people to defeat the system by not leaving bombs in open areas, then you start to realize that this really isn’t such a great application for video analytics.

rshah Applications

[From $43 million later, Homeland Security project bogged down :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES ]

A year ago I pointed our the numerous problems with Cook County’s Project Shield. The goal of the project was live video from police to central command stations. The project consists of 802.11b and 4.9Ghz hotspots, adjustable and fixed cameras, vehicle locator GPS, pole mounted police surveillance cameras, premises digital video recorders, and personal computer-based viewing stations. These devices are wired into the Cook County network. The project was funded by a $100 million from Homeland Security.

But as Chicago Sun-Times/NBC5 investigation found, there are still major problems:

Already 36 percent over budget, the massive effort now isn’t expected to be fully operational until 2011 — three years late. Even then, it could be without a number of suburbs that opted out because of problems.

Begun in the administration of the late Cook County Board President John Stroger, Project Shield was to be completed in three phases, at a cost of $31.5 million. As of August, the county has spent $42,961,306.38 on Project Shield.

But two years later, after spending $26 million and still suffering with technical problems, IBM — which declined requests for an interview — was dumped. . . . IBM was replaced last year by Johnson Controls, and, as of July, the county boasted that 90 first-responder vehicles had cameras.

The cameras are working in Evanston, Elmwood Park, Glencoe and Palatine. But other police departments have complained of problems — including cameras that don’t work. As a result, Berwyn, Forest Park, Morton Grove, Norridge, Park Ridge, Tinley Park and University Park have abandoned Project Shield. “Every municipality in the county was supposed to be involved,” said Quigley. “If you leave several out . . . it’s useless.”

. . . Still, at a recent demonstration, the video from a patrol car driving down a street was so bad it was impossible at times to clearly see. Oak Park is home to one of three mobile command vans for Project Shield. Each cost $400,000. But the vans haven’t been tested to see if they can communicate with one another, according to Tanksley, and can’t access other cameras.

rshah Chicago

[From Report: Fire city public safety exec :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: City Hall]

According to the Sun-Times, see also Second City Cop:

The inspector general’s office is recommending the firing of the No. 2 man at Chicago’s Office of Emergency Management and Communications for alleged contract irregularities that cost taxpayers $2.25 million.

Jim Argiropoulos, the $149,832-a-year first deputy who once served as OEMC’s acting director, is accused of engineering a scheme that culminated in the falsification of documents to expedite the purchase of a new 911 dispatch console system from Schaumburg-based Motorola.

I briefly met Jim in 2005, when I was trying to setup a project to study the OEMC’s roll out of the cameras. He was very professional and knowledgeable and appeared willing to assist me in my project. (A week later after my meeting with Jim, the city refused to work with me on the project).

From the news story, it is obvious that Jim did something that was wrong. However, it should be noted he wasn’t trying to personally profit, but was instead making sure the city received a good deal. (Nevertheless, he shouldn’t have punished the whistleblower).

rshah Chicago