Smart Cameras Blog

[From Chicago's $1.3 Million Experiment in Democracy: Participatory Budgeting in the 49th Ward]

The 49th Ward, home to over 60,000 people and the neighborhood of Rogers Park, is known for its diversity and vibrant community life. Over 80 languages are spoken within less than two square miles. Independent-minded citizens have often put intense pressure on local officials. Concerned that Moore wasn’t responding to ward needs, they nearly voted him out of office in the last election. So how does one of the nation’s most diverse neighborhoods bring opinionated residents together to make difficult budget decisions?

Moore started by setting aside his $1.3 million “menu money,” the discretionary budget that each alderman receives for capital infrastructure projects.

. . .

The Public Safety Committee, for instance, received many requests for security cameras. To learn more, they visited the neighborhood’s 24-hour camera viewing center. As community representative Marilou Kessler explained, “everyone [on the committee] came—about 15-16 people on a workday. It was astonishing cooperation.” The trip shifted the committee’s priorities: They learned that the cameras are used only occasionally, mostly by specialty police teams, and are not continuously monitored. After police explained that lighting is more effective at deterring crime, the committee replaced several camera proposals with street light proposals. (my emphasis)

It appears the CPD thinks that lighting is more effective than cameras!

rshah Chicago

[From New 911 chief wants private-sector cameras to link in :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: City Hall]

The head of the OEMC, Jose Santiago, wants to further expand Chicago’s camera network.

Santiago said there are still parts of the city “where we can’t see.” And private cameras are the quickest, cheapest way to erase those blind spots.

“Here’s a camera that cost the city nothing. We can help our first-responders. . . . We can flip a switch and we’re there already. We can say, ‘This is what you’re about to get into. You might need more resources.’ We can say, ‘Maybe you shouldn’t go in this way,’ ” Santiago told reporters after his City Council confirmation hearing.

According the article, the OEMC used private cameras to track the whereabouts of Michael Scott. It sounds like Santiago wants to use the private cameras, just like the city uses the public cameras, for watching live feeds of crimes taking place and using archival footage for investigations.

The funny thing is that the agreement between the OEMC and the owners of the private cameras is worded very differently. According to the “Memorandum of Understanding”, the OEMC only has permission for real time video in cases of “emergency management” and “disaster” as defined by the Municipal Code of Chicago, Section 2-29-010. Here are the relevant definitions:

“Disaster” means an occurrence or threat of widespread or severe damage, injury, or loss of life or property resulting from any natural or man-made cause, including but not limited to fire, flood, earthquake, wind, storm, hazardous material spills or other water contamination requiring emergency action to avert danger or damage, epidemic, air contamination, blight, extended periods of inclement weather, drought, and critical shortage of fuels and energy.

“Emergency management” means the efforts of the city to develop, plan, analyze, conduct, provide, implement and maintain programs for disaster mitigation, preparation, response and recovery.

The OEMC’s position is publicly available here:

What cameras does OEMC want to access?

OEMC is only interested in obtaining access to exterior cameras on the public way.

How often will the camera feeds be accessed?

Camera feeds will only be accessed during emergency situations and after appropriate notification has been given.

Who will have access to the camera feeds?

Highly trained Crime Surveillance Specialists will have access to the cameras, but again, only during emergency situations.

Will OEMC be recording footage from the cameras?

OEMC will NOT be recording camera feeds.

It’s pretty clear that Santiago’s views are not in accord with the MOU’s the city has entered into and the OEMC’s stated position regarding private cameras.

rshah Chicago

[From Cameras make Chicago most closely watched US city | Latest National Headlines | News fro...]

An AP story on the Chicago cameras provides a broad overview of the issues. A similar story by the WSJ ran a few months back. The story touches on a number of themes that I have discussed on this blog including the scope of the camera network, integration of private cameras, concerns about the effectiveness of cameras, and worry about the potential abuse of the camera system by government.

rshah Chicago, General

[From Spy cams on sweepers brushed aside -- for now :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: City Hall]

The Sun-Times reported last week that the experiment on installing license plate recognition software (ALPR) on street sweepers has stalled. The idea was to use street sweepers to identify illegally parked cars and then generate tickets based on the license plate of the cars. The idea seemed to work in early tests and the project, dubbed “Sweepercam,” earned a 2009 CIO 100 award. While seem people didn’t like this idea, I thought it was a very reasonable way of using smart cameras. The street sweepers go up and down every street, why not let them ticket illegally parked vehicles?

The city tested the cameras on six sweepers. I initially assumed the results were positive, because of the news coverage. However, the city never revealed any details on the tests of sweepercam. I can assume the benefits were not significant, since they are not going forward. The news story gives two reasons for why the program is stalled. The first is that it is to expensive to do:

“To get the desired results consistently, we need to pair our camera technology with higher-tech signage that will work in conjunction with the cameras to confirm our data so that it can stand up in a hearing,” said Streets and Sanitation spokesman Matt Smith. To post those signs citywide would require “time, effort and resources” the city doesn’t have, Smith said.

The other reason comes from the contractor:

John Kosiba, chief operating officer for Span Tech, said the cameras are being removed until the Legislature decides the future of video surveillance for moving violations.

I really don’t understand the reason given by the city. What is higher-tech signage? The only thing I can figure out, is that the city needs a way to prove a car was at a given location. Please let me know if you understand the city’s position.

rshah ALPR, Chicago

[From Ald. Leslie Hairston Wants To Revive Gunshot-Location Technology In Chicago - cbs2chicago.com ]

Fifth Ward Ald. Leslie Hairston wants Chicago to reintroduce the Shotspotter gunshot location technology. After all, Shotspotter’s web site says it can reduce crime. So why isn’t the CPD using it? Don’t they care?

The CPD did adopt Shotspotter and found mixed results in Chicago. Specifically:

The city conducted three separate tests of gunshot sensors between 2003 and 2007 in the West Side’s Harrison Police District. Only on one occasion did the detection system send a warning prior to a person calling 911 to report the shooting. As a result, the city felt the gunshot detection systems were too expensive at a cost of $200,000 a square mile.

The city is going forward with installing the technology in the Loop. However, Shotspotter is an expensive technology and the CPD decided it wasn’t the best use of their scare resources. The city of Chicago is approximately 227 square miles, so to cover the entire city would cost close to $50 million.

The Shotspotter technology locates gunshots. In a dense city, 911 calls often serve the same function. Gunshot location is a useful piece of information for police officers, but it is not a silver bullet. It cannot by itself reduce crime. If the system is reliable and works well with officers, it could lead to less shootings (but not necessarily less crime). The independent studies I have seen show the results are quite mixed.

In Chicago, there has been a rash of shootings in Chicago were no regard for the police or cameras. Shotspotter is now the silver bullet. I am concerned that Shotspotter is seen as the answer because people are scared. It doesn’t make sense to spend money on technology that makes us feel better, but is ineffective. The city can address this by making public its tests of Shotspotter. I would like more details about the tests, for example: How many gunshots were there during the tests? How accurate was the system?

rshah Chicago, Gunshot Detection

[From Special Segment: Blue Light Watchers - 3/31/10 - Chicago News - abc7chicago.com]

A few more tidbits about the Urban Institute study on cameras in Chicago have come out, here is an older post on the study. The core part of this findings are:

Dr. Nancy LaVigne led the study which focused on two neighborhoods – Humboldt Park and West Garfield Park. Each has a fairly high concentration of cameras. In Humboldt, the conclusion is that the cameras have had a real impact. Drug, robbery, weapons offenses, and overall crime dropped significantly after cameras arrived. The same, however, is not true in West Garfield where there was no significant change pre and post camera.

So why would they have an impact in one neighborhood and not in another? There are a number of possible explanations, but the short answer is researchers don’t know.

What they can say, however, is that if you combine the numbers from the two neighborhoods, the cameras still have a significant impact on crime.

The presentation of this study points out a potential big hole in the study. There was another factor contributing to the crime reduction in Humboldt Park, other than the cameras. The police officers over at Second City Cop have pointed this out. The Urban Institute has a rich history of doing good work, so I am going to hold off commenting until I see the final report (which is due out this summer).

I should point out that the Urban Institute had the cooperation of the CPD in gaining access to three years of data. I have been pushing the CPD for reports and data on the effectiveness of the cameras for years and have received little cooperation.

rshah Chicago

[From Video cameras in cars make some cops uncomfortable :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Metro & Tri-State]

The Sun-Times has a story on video cameras in police cars. There are 340 police cars with cameras installed (there are 4,000 vehicles under the CPD). The cameras are pointed “out of the front window and the other aimed at the back seat, where prisoners are transported. Audio is recorded on traffic stops, but not on other types of street stops.”

The interesting part is that the camera system is more about watching police than the public. At one point, officers could turn the cameras off. After all, who wants to have a camera on them while they are working, especially under the conditions police officers have to operate in. The CPD has changed the camera setup, so now supervisors will receive an “electronic alert when an officer is patrolling with a turned-off camera. Eventually this year, new hardware will tie the cameras to the ignition. The cameras will turn on when the key is turned, and they will stay on for an hour even if the car is turned off.”

Another technology that is watching the police in Chicago are the GPS units in police cars. They can determine the following several times a minute: Engine on or off, Idling in place, Parked, Speed, Emergency Equipment activation, and Location. This information is available to police dispatch as well as supervisors (even on their Blackberry).

This story is less about the technology in cars, but how police work is joining a growing set of jobs done under surveillance. While we can think of cameras as neutral, this doesn’t tell the entire story. The cameras affect how people are managed and how they do their jobs. The cameras cut into the autonomy given to police officers. Just take a look at what is said over at Second City Cop on GPS and Weis.

Joe the Cop over at Chicago Now has a thoughtful exploration of a police officer’s stance on cameras. Here is his anecdote on another tracking device in cars:

Back in the mid-90′s my department had tracking devices placed in our squad cars, “for officer safety.” We were told that the trackers could be used during chases if an officer drove into another jurisdiction where he didn’t know street names, or if an officer was injured or unconscious and couldn’t call out his location. A high-ranking member of my department (long since retired) told an assembly of officers that the devices would not be used for disciplinary purposes, and were solely for our safety.

After the devices were installed one of our officers got into a chase that ended 4 towns away. Our dispatchers found out that they could not refresh the computer screens fast enough to effectively use the tracking program during a chase. Strike one. Within months, some supervisors began calling in officers and questioning why they were parked so long at a given location, or why they spent so much time parked next to a fellow officer. It was clear the devices were being used to monitor officer movement and productivity. Strike 2. At a subsequent meeting that high-ranking supervisor told that same assembly of officers that he had never said the program would not be used for discipline. He said–and this was demonstrably false–that he had always described the tracking devices as a management tool. Strike 3. There were a whole lot of officers there that would never again believe anything that came out of that supervisor’s mouth.

rshah Chicago

I created a new red light camera map with revenue data obtained by Barnet Fagel from the Chicago Department of Revenue. The map below shows intersections that have generated $2,000,000 or more in revenue between 2007 to 2009. The complete data set lists the revenue for all intersections with red light cameras for each year (2007-2009). I have made it public, so please drop me a line if you find it useful.

Download the KML here

UPDATE: Here is a link to the complete table with all the revenue information

rshah Chicago, Red Light Cameras

The Chicago Police Department (CPD) uses a formula to calculate whether your neighborhood should receive a camera. If your local corner gets a score of 100, then the CPD may place a camera on the corner. The formula is:

• 1 point for calls for service

• 2 points for reported crimes (public violence, public nuisance, and drug related)

• 2 points for reported arrests (public violence, public nuisance, and drug related)

The formula relies on a 90 day period with a distance of about 200 meters from the camera location. So assuming you could get the data, here is a hypothetical analysis for 5000 W Madison:

100 Calls for Service = 100 points

20 Reported crimes = 40 points

25 Arrests = 50 points

Total = 190 points

The 190 points is above the threshold score of 100 and therefore 5000 W Madison could be a candidate for a CPD surveillance camera.

Unfortunately, the CPD doesn’t make it easy to calculate these scores. Only reported crimes is publicly available at gis.chicagopolice.org. Even then, the CPD restricts you to viewing 14 days of data at a particular location, even though they provide 90 days worth of data. The other two sources of data, calls for service and arrests, are not provided to the public by the CPD web page. Don’t get me started on the lack of crime data, it’s really an injustice!

rshah Chicago

A previous post focused on the extent of Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) in Chicago. It noted there were at least 75 locations (both fixed and mobile) operated by the police or OEMC that use ALPR. The post explores the effectiveness of the ALPR technology. For three different sources, here are some statistics on their effectiveness:

In the first ten months of the cameras (starting from January 2006), they had recovered 310 vehicles for the first 2.3 million plates scanned – see Sun-Times from Nov. 2006. By May 2007, there were 725 vehicles recovered and 6.5 million plates scanned. By spring 2009, there were over 13 million plates scanned and 1000 vehicles recovered. (The data also includes arrests). Here is a graph of the recovered vehicles over time:

I was a bit surprised when I saw these results (based on three data points). I would have expected a high rate of recovered cars initially and then a gradual taper to a plateau. First, I don’t have the most reliable data sources. Second, I don’t know much about the circumstances of how these cameras were deployed (how the cameras come online, how they were deployed, where they were use).

The average is one recovered car per day (using over 75 cameras). There are also 325,000 license plates scanned every month on average. If every camera is working equally, this works out to 144 license plates scanned per day with each of the 75 cameras. This is a very low number, because some of these cameras are capable of scanning 3,600 license plates per hour!   I have no idea why this discrepancy exists.

I can’t fully explain this data, but I thought it would be useful to publish it. Please let me know if you have any explanations.

rshah ALPR, Chicago