June 28, 2006
Arms Race over Speed Cameras
A Press Release in Directions Magazine:
NAVTEQ is offering a Camera Alert feature in their vehicle navigation system. It has data (which is updated monthly) on the location of speed cameras. This allows drivers:
to get from A to B while being told via clear, concise voice alerts to avoid potential hazards such as speed cameras, speed limits and many officially designated accident blackspots. From the NAVTEQ newsletter
I am sure this will go over big in the UK, which has lots of speed cameras. But it highlights a potential arms race between navigational systems that cater to drivers and governments that don't want to publicize the location of cameras.
Posted by rshah at 10:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Criminals simply avoid cameras
Inspired by the Cincinnati Post:
Its something sociologists have long recognized, but its talked about very little. When cameras go up in one area, some crime may just move to another area. The term for this is displacement.
"We've never really gotten anything useful from them," said Cincinnati Police Capt. Kimberly Frey. With hopes that they would be a boon for crime-fighting, the city first installed video cameras in 1998. By 2000, their utility was already in doubt. A review by the University of Cincinnati that year found the devices accomplished little beyond shifting criminals out of areas under the lens into unwatched spots, where they resumed their illegal activities.
While the police captain is shaking his head, the academic review provides some key insights. Some of results of the study were published in Security Journal by Mazerolle, Hurley, and Chamlin (I believe the Cincinnati study was done for David Hurley's dissertation):
Our study of CCTV in Cincinnati found that surveillance cameras create somewhat of an initial deterrent effect in the month, perhaps two months, following implementation. We conclude that erecting signs to notify people about the cameras could possibly increase the level of deterrence of CCTV. Signs about CCTV cameras in operation would also address some of the fairness issues raised by civil libertarians. We also suggest that shifting CCTV cameras around on a frequent basis could solve two dilemmas: first, it would increase the number of hotspots under surveillance, and hence remove some of the inequities observed in CCTV deployment; second, short and periodic, as opposed to permanent, deployment of CCTV cameras would capitalize upon some of the initial deterrent effects of the cameras that are observed in our data.
The recommendations seem solid to me and should be considered by those deploying cameras. (And this shows the value of allowing academics to study the deployment of crime fighting technology).
Posted by rshah at 10:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Criminals simply avoid cameras
Inspired by the Cincinnati Post:
Its something sociologists have long recognized, but its talked about very little. When cameras go up in one area, some crime may just move to another area. The term for this is displacement.
"We've never really gotten anything useful from them," said Cincinnati Police Capt. Kimberly Frey. With hopes that they would be a boon for crime-fighting, the city first installed video cameras in 1998. By 2000, their utility was already in doubt. A review by the University of Cincinnati that year found the devices accomplished little beyond shifting criminals out of areas under the lens into unwatched spots, where they resumed their illegal activities.
While the police captain is shaking his head, the academic review provides some key insights. Some of results of the study were published in Security Journal by Mazerolle, Hurley, and Chamlin (I believe the Cincinnati study was done for David Hurley's dissertation):
Our study of CCTV in Cincinnati found that surveillance cameras create somewhat of an initial deterrent effect in the month, perhaps two months, following implementation. We conclude that erecting signs to notify people about the cameras could possibly increase the level of deterrence of CCTV. Signs about CCTV cameras in operation would also address some of the fairness issues raised by civil libertarians. We also suggest that shifting CCTV cameras around on a frequent basis could solve two dilemmas: first, it would increase the number of hotspots under surveillance, and hence remove some of the inequities observed in CCTV deployment; second, short and periodic, as opposed to permanent, deployment of CCTV cameras would capitalize upon some of the initial deterrent effects of the cameras that are observed in our data.
The recommendations seem solid to me and should be considered by those deploying cameras. (And this shows the value of allowing academics to study the deployment of crime fighting technology).
Posted by rshah at 10:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Criminals simply avoid cameras
Inspired by the Cincinnati Post:
Its something sociologists have long recognized, but its talked about very little. When cameras go up in one area, some crime may just move to another area. The term for this is displacement.
"We've never really gotten anything useful from them," said Cincinnati Police Capt. Kimberly Frey. With hopes that they would be a boon for crime-fighting, the city first installed video cameras in 1998. By 2000, their utility was already in doubt. A review by the University of Cincinnati that year found the devices accomplished little beyond shifting criminals out of areas under the lens into unwatched spots, where they resumed their illegal activities.
While the police captain is shaking his head, the academic review provides some key insights. Some of results of the study were published in Security Journal by Mazerolle, Hurley, and Chamlin (I believe the Cincinnati study was done for David Hurley's dissertation):
Our study of CCTV in Cincinnati found that surveillance cameras create somewhat of an initial deterrent effect in the month, perhaps two months, following implementation. We conclude that erecting signs to notify people about the cameras could possibly increase the level of deterrence of CCTV. Signs about CCTV cameras in operation would also address some of the fairness issues raised by civil libertarians. We also suggest that shifting CCTV cameras around on a frequent basis could solve two dilemmas: first, it would increase the number of hotspots under surveillance, and hence remove some of the inequities observed in CCTV deployment; second, short and periodic, as opposed to permanent, deployment of CCTV cameras would capitalize upon some of the initial deterrent effects of the cameras that are observed in our data.
The recommendations seem solid to me and should be considered by those deploying cameras. (And this shows the value of allowing academics to study the deployment of crime fighting technology).
Posted by rshah at 10:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 22, 2006
Government Surveillance Efforts
From Scripps Howard News Service:
This is an excellent article on government video surveillance. It covers several issues including the growth of cameras, regulation (or lack of), effectiveness, and the privacy implications. The article really doesn't discuss smart cameras (but includes quotes from yours truly).
Posted by rshah at 03:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 15, 2006
RMS Technology Solutions
From the Daily Herald:
A story on the manufacturer of Chicago's surveillance cameras with the blue flashing light. The best facts are the cameras were initially purchased as a $11 million "sole-source" contract. (I guess Chicago couldn't or didn't find anyone else that could provide such a camera?) And they recently sold 80 cameras to Baltimore.
But read the story if you are interested in the company, because they are looking for a national partner.
Posted by rshah at 03:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
NIce Systems
From The Register:
A story on Nice Systems which makes smart software. Nice is a leader in smart phone surveillance technology. This software is used by the police to identify people as well as when keywords are used. It is also used by corporate call centers to detect "emotions." For example:
FedEx's Custom Critical service, for example, uses Nice software to notice when someone says "wow," explains Eyal Danon, Nice's vice president for global marketing. "Whenever a customer says 'wow' on a call, that call immediately is being recorded and then it's being sent to hundreds and hundreds of call center agents so they can actually learn from the interaction and see what prompted the customer to say 'wow,'" he says. From ASAP
They are now moving into smart software for cameras. Here is a PR blurb from the Register article:
"By employing software-based analytics on unstructured multimedia content, companies are able to detect customer intent, often through near real-time interactions where a customer may express concerns, desires or provide other signals of their intentions," said the statement. The same advantages of crime prediction will be conferred on the security services, it said: "Our solutions enable our public safety and security customers to identify threats as they occur, and analyze video footage to identify suspicious objects or behavior more quickly and effectively."
Posted by rshah at 03:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 05, 2006
Border-Patrol Webcams in Texas
From Newsfactor & BBC
Texas Governor Rick Perry is spending $5 million to set up webcams along the border. The real time video streams will be broadcast on the Internet along with a 800 number that will allow viewers to contact the appropriate law enforcement agency. The analogy supporters like to use is that of a neighborhood watch program. I think the analogy is flawed because people are not going to commit themselves to watching video footage one night a week for the foreseeable future. Also, one function of a neighborhood watch is to intimidate criminals. A few cameras hanging off posts are not likely to intimidate illegal immigration. Nevertheless, I hope this program goes forward, merely because I am interested in whether "outsourcing" monitoring to the general public is worthwhile.
Posted by rshah at 09:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 01, 2006
British to Develop National Video ID System
From CNET News.com:
The British are developing a facial-recognition system that would link a national police database with facial images of criminals and their history. I am curious how well this will work, since facial recognition technology has been over-hyped. However, there are signs that facial recognition may have value, such as the recent study on Identix. So lets wait and see.
According to a report quoted in the article:
"PITO [Police Information Technology Organisation] expects to prepare an outline business case for national video identification systems, define standards and link video images with facial images stored within Find [national police database], during the coming year"
Posted by rshah at 03:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack