[From Crime cameras not capturing many crimes - Chronicle]
Preliminary results are being released on a study of the effectiveness of cameras in San Francisco. The cameras have slightly reduced nonviolent threats, otherwise they have had no effect on crime.
The city contracted with the UC Berkeley’s Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society to evaluate the cameras. The final report won’t be available for a few months. I am glad San Francisco is doing this and I wish other cities (ahem . . Chicago) would allow researchers to evaluate the effectiveness of cameras. An important factor to consider is that the cameras in San Francisco are not monitored in real-time (lowering costs, but also lowering effectiveness).
Researchers examined data from the San Francisco Police Department detailing the 59,706 crimes committed within 1,000 feet of the camera locations between Jan. 1, 2005, and Jan. 28, 2008. . . . The only positive deterrent effect was the reduction of larcenies within 100 feet of the cameras. No other crimes were affected – except for homicides, which had an interesting pattern. Murders went down within 250 feet of the cameras, but the reduction was completely offset by an increase 250 to 500 feet away, suggesting people moved down the block before killing each other.
rshah Other Cities, Policy
[From San Francisco Chronicle: San Francisco security cameras' choppy video]
Another great article by Bulwa reporting on the San Francisco camera system. Before noting the technical flaws, I would like to point out San Francisco is ahead of Chicago in having a good reporter following the developments as well as developing an ordinance for the video surveillance system. (The city is even supporting academic research into the effectiveness of the system, unlike Chicago which rebuffed my attempt).
Because of a lack of funds, San Francisco has cameras running at slower frame rates, which results in choppy video that may miss vital information.
Motion pictures and television programs are shown with a frame rate of at least 24 frames per second. Las Vegas casinos are required by regulators to film many gaming areas at 30 frames per second.
In Chicago, where Newsom sampled anti-crime cameras before starting his program, police get motion-picture-quality footage shot at 30 frames per second. But in the San Francisco footage, as many as 10 seconds pass between frames. Some cars and bicycles going through the intersection show up on just a single frame.
But they [technical staff for the city] acknowledged that most of the city’s cameras achieve only 80 percent of the resolution they are capable of, and that they generate, at best, two to four frames per second because the city lacks the data storage space to accommodate more footage.
FYI, the cost for the 68 cameras is around $900,000 with an additional $200,000 budgeted for 25 more cameras.
rshah Other Cities
[From City Limits: News for NYC's Nonprofit, Policy and Activist World]
A very good investigative article on the camera systems in schools. The article is noteworthy for several reasons, but I like the fact that it carefully details the problems in the camera installation. As yesterday’s post also noted regarding the NYC subway camera system, installation is never a slam dunk. While I am sure those inside the industry hear these stories all the time, they are rarely brought to the attention of the public (or me), especially for camera systems designed for security. However, its an important point that getting these systems up and running outside of the lab can be difficult in real world environments with budgets.
Another good point in Winston’s story is the use of the cameras and access to the footage. She details the rules regarding archived footage and the difficulty for parents and students in gaining access to the footage. I am sure the issues here occur for lots of cities and schools using cameras. Putting into places rules and procedures for camera footage is not accomplished overnight. Its a mixture of bureaucratic, legal, and technical issues.
rshah Other Cities, Policy
[From NYC's Subway Spycam Network Stuck in the Station | Danger Room from Wired.com]
Noah Shachtman has an interesting post about NYC smart camera for its subway. He cites a government report which finds that the project has been delayed because the “contractor [Lockheed Martin I assume] has difficulty tailoring the software to the conditions in the MTA environment.” It also noted that cost has growing from $265 million to $450 million—an increase of $185 million or 70 percent. (Nearly half of the increase is due to the inclusion of additional facilities). The timetable is now pushed back into 2009 and “while the MTA is proceeding with the intelligent video program, one particular element could not be advanced at this time due to difficulties tailoring the software to conditions in the MTA environment.”
So the smart camera system is costing more because of the difficult conditions in the subway system. I wonder how well its performing? Clearly, at least one feature is not working. I wonder exactly what that feature is (could be facial recognition . . . they really couldn’t think that would work . . .)
rshah Other Cities
From SecurityInfoWatch.com:
Philadelphia is expanding its pilot project of 18 cameras, which have been responsible for 60 arrests. 250 cameras at a cost of $8.9 million will be added. The city already has 1000 recommended locations for the surveillance cameras. (More cameras are on the way after this).
Voters in Philadelphia voted by a 4-1 ratio in a non-binding resolution to approve the use of public surveillance cameras. Other interesting nuggets is the claim that siting of the cameras will be done on a “data-driven” process. I personally am interested in how that would work.
The cameras are wireless and can be viewed in real time.
“The initial focus for the cameras will be to deter violent crime in commercial areas of heavy pedestrian and vehicle traffic but also near schools, recreation centers and transportation hubs.”
rshah Other Cities
From New York Times:
In the city of Shenzhen (12.4 million people), the Chinese government is rolling out 20,000 surveillance cameras that will be smart cameras. Their goal is to use facial recognition to identify police suspects as well as to detect unusual activity. Additionally, there are 180,000 indoor and outdoor closed-circuit television cameras owned by businesses and government agencies that the police will have the right to integrate. (There are also smart cards given to citizens that contain a lot of information). They are also using cell phone signals to track the location of police officers (chicago is testing this idea).
The article states:
Security experts describe China’s plans as the world’s largest effort to meld cutting-edge computer technology with police work to track the activities of a population and fight crime. But they say the technology can be used to violate civil rights. . . . Both steps are officially aimed at fighting crime and developing better controls on an increasingly mobile population, including the nearly 10 million peasants who move to big cities each year. But they could also help the Communist Party retain power by maintaining tight controls on an increasingly prosperous population at a time when street protests are becoming more common.
rshah Facial Recognition, Other Cities
From the San Francisco Chronicle:
A story on the difference between Chicago and San Francisco’s use of cameras. Its a rich news story with some good facts (fyi – I talked to the reporter). The story points out that in San Francisco, no one watches the camera footage live, they go back and look at it for serious crimes. In contrast, for Chicago, there are always a few people watching the camera feeds and they use the footage for minor crimes like drinking in public. San Francisco is treading lightly, while Chicago wants to make sure its citizens know they are being watched. Here are some interesting snippets:
Chicago police said that, as of the same day, they had used camera footage in 1,407 arrests, including at least five homicides, since the city began tracking data in February 2006.
“If you were to ask me for change for a $20 bill,” said Hendricks, a 40-year-old printer, “I wouldn’t give you change. “The camera doesn’t know I’m giving you change,” he continued. “The camera thinks we’re doing a drug deal. The police would come out, and I’m not going through that harassment for nothing.”
Flyers distributed in neighborhoods detail several camera-related arrests – for shooting dice, for stealing a street sign for scrap metal and for firing a gun. “This is a way to make it much more effective,” said police Cmdr. Jonathan Lewin, who heads Chicago’s information services division. “It’s a more trustworthy source to say, ‘Here’s an arrest made because of a camera.’ It becomes real.”
Chicago police acknowledged a problem that San Francisco investigators have linked to their lack of arrests using cameras: When a serious crime is captured, and the footage is looked at later, the images often aren’t sharp enough to identify suspects.
rshah Chicago, Other Cities
From San Francisco Chronicle via Schneier on Security:
The 178 video cameras that keep watch on San Francisco public housing developments have never helped police officers arrest a homicide suspect even though about a quarter of the city’s homicides occur on or near public housing property, city officials say.
Nobody monitors the cameras, and the videos are seen only if police specifically request it from San Francisco Housing Authority officials. The cameras have occasionally managed to miss crimes happening in front of them because they were trained in another direction, and footage is particularly grainy at night when most crime occurs, according to police and city officials.
Similar concerns have been raised about the 70 city-owned cameras located at high-crime locations around San Francisco.
The 178 cameras on public housing property, which have been installed over the past two years with money from the federal government, were the subject of a hearing Monday by the Board of Supervisors’ public safety committee.
So far this year, 66 homicides have occurred in San Francisco, compared with 85 in all of 2006. On average, about a quarter of the city’s homicides happen on or near public housing property every year, according to statistics from the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice.
Though the Housing Authority doesn’t keep a record of how often its cameras’ footage is used in making arrests in crimes, a housing authority official and a police lieutenant told the committee they are unaware of the footage ever being used to arrest a homicide suspect.
The city has its own security camera program with 70 cameras in 25 high-crime locations. None of them is on federal housing authority property, but many of them are positioned at street corners right outside them. The city cameras operate in much the same way; they are not routinely monitored in part due to privacy concerns, but footage is available to police upon request. Lenore Anderson, director of the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice, said she didn’t know whether any city cameras had been used to make an arrest in a homicide case.
rshah Other Cities
From baltimoresun.com: (sorry the link doesn’t work anymore)
Its a rare occurrence, but cameras in Baltimore caught a man being shot during a drug deal. As a result, three men were arrested and two handguns were found in the car.
“It’s just another case showing that the cameras are effective,” said Sterling Clifford, the Police Department’s chief spokesman. “The cameras can’t do everything. They can’t replace other evidence and they can’t take the place of good police work. But they provide an opportunity to make an arrest quickly and to get the right guys.”
In December, police detectives used camera footage to track down a suspect in the beating death of a drifter. Officers have also been able to make quick arrests in armed robberies and assaults in at least four publicized cases this year.
State’s Attorney Patricia C. Jessamy has, through her spokeswoman, criticized the police camera footage, saying the quality is sometimes too poor to be useful in criminal prosecutions or does not clearly identify a suspect.
Police have said that the video is an invaluable tool for detectives, and they called the footage of Wednesday’s shooting a shining example of the cameras’ effectiveness. The video appears in good quality, and shows a well-lighted downtown area, taken from a camera posted at Park Avenue and Mulberry Street. Some letters and numbers on the license plate of a 2003 Toyota Camry that the gunman is seen getting into are readable.
rshah Other Cities
From Post-Gazette:
Pittsburgh is following Chicago in developing a surveillance network.
The city sent 21 security companies an outline of a plan to cast a video surveillance web from Downtown to high-crime neighborhoods, and maybe beyond. The administration wants firms to compete this year to craft a plan and win a camera contract.
The first phase described in the city’s request for information involves linking “several hundred” cameras owned by the city, county, state and private companies into a single system that can be centrally monitored. It involves installing 28 new cameras on 14 bridges, four atop the U.S. Steel Tower, and others in Point State Park. Also part of the initial phase could be 48 plate recognition devices, which can read vehicle license plates and run them through databases. Two unspecified neighborhoods, and Point State Park, would get gunshot detection systems, which instantly pinpoint the location of a shooting and take pictures.
A second phase would involve deployment of more cameras Downtown.
A third phase would identify six-square-block areas of high-crime neighborhoods, and deploy cameras there.
rshah Other Cities
Recent Comments