Smart Cameras Blog

[From L.A. Consequential - Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com]

In a column in the NY Times, Tim Egan’s writes about the crime drop in LA. The LA murder rate is down 50% from 2 years ago. Omaha, Nebraska has a higher murder rate than LA.

Los Angeles is on a pace for about 230 murders this year, in a city of nearly 4 million people. And the department clears — solves and prosecutes — more than 80 percent of the homicides, well above the national average for big cities.

So what is the explanation for the drop in crime? As Egan notes, there are lots of possible factors:

A high-tech mapping strategy, where police move on crime hot spots in something close to real time, was pioneered in New York and mastered here (give praise to William Bratton, who oversaw the departments in both cities, for that effort); the stuffing of prisons with career criminals also gets much of the credit; the role played by legalized abortion, according to the authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner in their book “Freakonomics,” in preventing a generation of unwanted children from being born; and the settling down of the drug trade, the source of so much violence during the formative years of narcotic fiefdoms, to such a degree that in many parts of the city there are now more medical marijuana dispensers in Los Angeles than Starbucks outlets (regulated retailers creating an ecosystem of nonviolence).

Interestingly, LA has accomplished this without a reliance on surveillance cameras. Unlike Chicago, where cameras are given prominence, I believe cameras play a tiny role in the LA police strategy. While this is quite anecdotal, it does pose the question of whether cameras are the most effective tool for fighting crime. LA’s successful strategy has focused on using Compstat and hiring more police officers in the last few years.

rshah Crime, Other Cities

[From Taipei Times - archives and Taiwan News and China-Taiwan News]

Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin announced on April 8 that his government would spend NT$1.6 billion (US$50 million) to install 13,000 “intelligent,” high-performance cameras in the city. Of the 13,000 cameras, 1,500 will be high-resolution one-mega-pixel models. The city is replacing 12,000 existing security cameras.

Here are the scenarios for the smart cameras:

Closed-circuit television (CCTV) technology is so far advanced nowadays that it’s possible to search for certain actions in recorded video. For example, when investigating an ATM crime, police can set a search condition for “a person staying near a machine for longer than 10 minutes” and the system will find all video meeting the criterion.

It’s also possible to have the system to alert police automatically when a car matching a previously entered description appears in the camera lens, helping to solve car thefts more quickly.

The article notes there are still concerns about privacy and how footage will be used.

Asked whether the new equipment would mean a further erosion of residents’ privacy, Hau said that no one will be given access to the recorded tapes without a justifiable reason. He added that all the video footage will be recordings of activities on public roads and will not infringe on people’s privacy in their homes.

According to police executives, the new cameras, linked to a computer terminal, will be able to home in on suspected targets and will have the ability to detect cars thefts by reading the number plates of vehicles and sounding alarms.

rshah Other Cities

[From Are Indy's police surveillance cameras worth it? | IndyStar.com | The Indianapolis Star ]

Indianapolis has a small camera network, I first mentioned it last year. For background, they have spent over a million dollars and are at 54 cameras with another 40 coming online this year.

The problem noted in the article is the city doesn’t keep any data on the effectiveness of the cameras. As a result, taxpayers and police don’t know if these cameras are really helping to address crime. The article notes recent studies show cameras have limited effectiveness, e.g. San Francisco. The article also states that Chicago “reported that neighborhoods with cameras operating for more than six months saw a 30 percent decrease in crime and a 60 percent drop in drug incidents.” However, Chicago, unlike San Francisco, has not made public its data or analysis for these statistics.

The lack of data will probably not hamper the growth of camera networks. Unlike many other technologies, people believe in their guts that cameras can make a difference. In the absence of data, they will probably prefer cameras. However, for the policy wonks and those that care about the long term, the lack of data will mask the true value of cameras. We won’t know if money should be spent on cameras, officers, other police technologies, or for other strategies.

rshah Chicago, Other Cities, Policy

[From A Chance For Input On 3,000 New Police Cameras- City Limits: News for NYC's Nonprofit, Policy and Activist World]

Ali Winston has another good story on the cameras in NYC. (The details of this network came about from a lawsuit filed by the NY Civil Liberties Union.)

Modeled on London’s 10,000 camera system, called the “Ring of Steel,” the Lower Manhattan Security Initiative (LMSI) – which has attained the same nickname – will consist of 3,000 networked cameras monitoring 1.7 miles of area south of Canal Street. One-third of the cameras will be city-owned, with the other two-thirds belonging to private businesses, termed “stakeholders” in the guidelines. Automated license plate readers and environmental sensors will also provide data to the police. The cameras will be monitored by officers at a coordination center on Broadway, which opened last November. The system is expected to cost $89 million in local and federal funds. [More info at Danger Room]

The NYC network is a study in contrast with Chicago.

First, the NYC network is much more geographically focused system. Using my previous estimates, if lower manhattan is 4 square miles, then it would need about 5000 cameras to ensure a camera is every 50 yards. So the network is highly likely to complete saturate the area. In contrast, Chicago is far from evenly covering the city and even the downtown area which has a much higher concentration of cameras is not near this density.

Second, we know something about the NYC network. Through the NYCLU and NYPD, the public knows about the camera system and is being asked for their input. (The NYPD is asking for comments on its privacy guidelines, something Chicago has never done).

Third, the NYPD is putting into place policies for how the surveillance technologies (cameras and ALPR) will be used. The policies make it seem the focus of these technologies is counterterrorism and not crime prevention. As a result, there are procedural safeguards to using the surveillance data for other purposes. In Chicago, the city has never publicly stated what its policies are regarding security and privacy of surveillance data.

From my view, I am just heartened that the NYPD is publicly developing such a policy.

rshah Other Cities, Policy

[From How useless are the D.C. Police Department's CCTV crime cameras? - Cover Story - Washington City Paper]

An investigative piece on the cameras in DC. It offers a nice bit of history on the DC cameras which has grown to 5,200 cameras which can be monitored live. I once considered DC a model for other cities based on its openness in regards to polices with cameras. However, as the article shows, the city has become more secretive and aggressive in its use of cameras.

The article discusses the lack of effectiveness of the DC camera network.

In the fall of 2007, in response to a FOIA request by the ACLU, the police admitted that surveillance footage had never been used to make an arrest from the start of the program to March 2007 (when the request was filed). Hughes subsequently insisted the cameras have been useful since then—they provided evidence that contributed to two arrests.

The department’s 2007 annual camera report, released early in 2008, says investigators viewed images 532 times and recovered 144 useful bits of video. One camera captured images the report says became “vital evidence” leading to the arrest of a murder suspect.

The department has not yet released an annual camera report for 2008—not that the year didn’t provide some camera moments worth reporting.

The final bit I liked was the view of citizens for the cameras:

The department’s cameras are good for at least one very significant thing: public relations. Residents routinely demand camera installment near shady alleys and troubled side streets in the wake of crime waves. Last year, the mother of a man who’d been shot to death demanded that the mayor apologize for the city’s failure to catch the perp. If the city can pay for traffic cams, it can pay for crime cams, the woman said.

“What’s the difference in the price to put a camera up to catch someone speeding and putting a camera up to catch a killer?” she asked the mayor.

“Regular citizens want those crime cameras up,” says D.C. police union boss Kris Baumann, who never hesitates to criticize the department. Because citizens like cameras, Baumann says rank-and-file cops like them, too. A new camera and its accompanying signage give citizens a tangible piece of evidence that the department is trying to help the neighborhood.

rshah Other Cities

[From Baltimore Crime Beat: Police surveillance cameras - Baltimoresun.com]

Some comments from Baltimore regarding their surveillance system, which were inspired by the study of San Francisco cameras. Here are some snippets:

Issue of image quality:

Yes, cops love to release videos showing crimes, and we call watch and are horrified. But it’s often hard to identify an acutal suspect from the video, and more often than not, only a part or the aftermath of a crime is caught on the tape.

That leaves attorneys to argue and jurors to decide what actually happened. In one case city prosecutors described to me, a witness testified to being one place on the street when the video clearly showed her standing someplace else when she saw one man shoot two other men. Defense attorneys seized on this to question her integrity, but did convict in the end.

Cameras or Cops:

“When the cameras were announced by then Mayor O’Malley and brought into the city, no one consulted with our office on how to use the cameras effectively to bolster prosecutions,” Margaret T. Burns, the spokeswoman for the city State’s Attorney’s Office, told me. “They were viewed by the administration at the time as a quick fix to violent crime.” Cooperation has improved, but Burns said questions remain. She said community members continue to tell State’s Attorney Patricia C. Jessamy, “We would just like another police officer.”

Cameras as investigative tools:

“Our preliminary results are similiar to the preliminary results in San Francisco. The cameras are not always relevant to the violent crime that is being prosecuted. They are helpful investigative tools. The footage is often used to point us in the right direction. Whether or not they have an overall affect on violent crime in the city, whether or not they are cost effective, are things we can’t speak to, but they are questions that have been raised.”

Role of Live Monitoring:

In addition, Baltimore’s live monitoring has made the cameras an effective tool to engage in targeted enforcement and to capture and sometimes even prevent violent crimes in progress. I think the San Francisco study says that camera footage was only used to help solve or prosecute 5 or 6 cases of violent crime since 2005. Baltimore has been far more progressive in that area.

rshah Other Cities, Policy

[From San Francisco Chronicle: Spy cameras no help in violent crime]

I haven’t had a chance to read the study, which is available from the Samuelson clinic. But here are some tidbits from the Chronicle.

A long-awaited study of San Francisco’s installation of surveillance cameras in high-crime areas shows that the effort fails in its primary goal of reducing homicide and other violent crime, but succeeds in reducing such offenses as burglary, pickpocketing and purse-snatching. The study found that the program, started by Mayor Gavin Newsom in 2005, is hampered by a lack of training and oversight, a failure to integrate footage with other police tactics, inadequate technology, and what may be fundamental weaknesses of cameras as devices to stop violent crime.

The 184-page study, which was called for by the Board of Supervisors in 2006, was conducted by the UC Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society. It represents one of the most thorough reports on public surveillance, a trend that has swept the nation in recent years.

The report was critical of the way a hodgepodge of city agencies combined to administer the program. It said the program had no dedicated manager, and that officers and attorneys got no training on how to view the footage. The clarity of the footage, the study said, could be greatly improved if San Francisco bought more data storage space.

The report raises the idea of using the program more aggressively, perhaps integrating cameras with gunshot detection devices called ShotSpotters or buying so-called smart cameras that are capable of sounding an alarm if a gun is brandished, a fence is jumped, or a person falls down.

rshah Other Cities, Policy

[From CCTV camera pushes crime into blind spot @ SecurityInfoWatch.com]

A story that illustrates the classic displacement effect. This occurred in Flint, MI using a 2 camera system.

To those living in view of the police security camera at Cecil and Jewell drives on the city’s north side, the camera has really cleaned up the neighborhood.

But residents who live just out of the camera’s range tell a completely different story.

“Now what happened is the drug dealers have went on the side streets because the camera just does not get down those side streets,” said Curtis Baker, president of the Northeast Carpenter Road Neighborhood Association. “We have a drug house on just about every street now.”

rshah Other Cities, Policy

[From Crime-fighting cameras a bust | CharlotteObserver.com]

A few months ago, I pointed out the problems in Chicago with Project Shield. A similar occurence has happened in Durham, NC.

DURHAM Police hoped that the cameras lined up along Angier Avenue would be the latest technology to help them fight crime. They had visions of not only capturing criminals in the act on video, but also controlling the cameras remotely from police cars to keep ever-present eyes on the street.

But so far, after months of work, the video surveillance program has not produced one arrest and its future is uncertain.

Documents obtained by The News & Observer – e-mails between city officials and TelePort Systems Inc., the Baltimore based company that installed the system – detail a project filled with missed deadlines, recurring technological problems and complaints from police officers and city officials.

TelePort’s contract ended in October after the city spent over $90,000 on the project. What the city got was a system of 13 cameras where only six are used for their intended purpose.

Camera systems are complex from a technological, economic, and organizational perspective. Cities that don’t remember this will run into problems using cameras.

rshah Other Cities

[From Feds Investigating Cook County's 'Project Shield' | NBC Chicago ]

Project Shield in Cook County 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 $41 million grant from Homeland Security.

During Phase I and II of the project, the county installed the system in 35 municipalities. “Hylton said that paid for 35 to 40 suburban police cars to be outfitted with cameras and computers, as well as 37 stationary cameras placed across the county. In some of those police cars, though, the cameras never worked.” The cost was $22 million for Phase I and II.

“We were scheduled to get some installed in 2006,” said Franklin Park Police Chief Tom Wolfe. “There was either a hardware problem or some kind of installation problem that didn’t allow that to occur.” Franklin Park was hardly alone, Marin reported. Suburban police departments across Cook County were contacted, and while there was some praise for Project Shield, there were more often complaints. In departments like the River Forest and Palos Heights police departments, mobile cameras were installed and later removed because they just didn’t work.

Phase III consists of a partial retrofit and an emphasis on standardizing all the system components. As of July, 2007, 130 vehicles, 65 hotspots, 98 surveillance cameras and 55 viewing stations had been installed as part of Project Shield.

The lack of results has pushed governments official to seek greater oversight into how this money was spent. Some are calling it a boondoggle. For more background, see these stories on ABC and Fox.

rshah Chicago, Other Cities