February 28, 2007
Cameras in Teenagers' Cars
From WSJ.com:
American Family Mutual Insurance will offer some of its customers a camera system known as DriveCam as a way of improving teenagers' driving behavior. The DriveCam captures sights and sounds inside and outside the vehicle.
DriveCam's palm-sized, exception based video event recorder is mounted on the windshield behind the rearview mirror and captures sights and sounds inside and outside the vehicle. Forces (e.g. hard braking, swerving, collision, etc.) cause the recorder to save 20 seconds of audio and video footage – the 10 seconds immediately before and after the triggered event.
When the video event recorder is triggered a light blinks to alert the driver. This is intentional so the driver knows what he/she did to activate the video event recorder and can aim to avoid repeating that behavior.
DriveCam's Certified Driving Behavior Analysts take a cursory look at downloaded events to identify anything that would be critical for a customer to know immediately (e.g. a collision). Next, the experts closely review and assign a risk score to each event.
The story provides some anecdotes of teenagers who claim that the blinking light has led them to drive in a safer fashion. I think the feedback loop here is an important component for not only tracking behavior, but also trying to improve it. Read the article to get the full details on privacy, the role of parents, and how this will affect our insurance rates. Here is the WSJ video (the article is much better):
Posted by rshah at 10:25 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 26, 2007
SmartCheck Airport X-Ray Machines
From NYTimes:
A new x-ray body scanning machine is being tested at the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. It is a millimeter wave machine and is able to provide a "virtual strip search" for airport security.
The machine beams a low-energy X-ray at the passenger, which after it bounces off the surface of the skin is processed by computer software that highlights metals or elements like nitrogen that are found in explosives or weapons. The X-ray is not strong enough to penetrate much beyond the skin, so it cannot find weapons that may be hidden in body cavities.
The interesting part for me is the privacy software that "intentionally blurs the image, creating an outline of a body that is clear enough to see a collarbone, bellybutton or weapon, but flattens details of revealing contours." Its nice to see a smart sensor/camera system that considers privacy. This is an improvement over earlier systems that have been discussed here and here.
Posted by rshah at 08:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 17, 2007
Sound Cameras for Noise Pollution
From PhotoEnforced.com:
Alderman Natarus of Chicago is working on fighting noise pollution with sound cameras. According to his site:
The good news is that we are exploring a new technology that may give us the edge in our efforts to combat excessive motorcycle noise. There is a new device on the market called a sound camera that can take noise readings and automatically issue a ticket just like the red light cameras that are being installed throughout the City.
I am working with Mayor Daley to research the possibility of installing sound cameras in the locations where we get the most motorcycle traffic in our ward.
Its an interesting idea, I just wonder if this is that big of a problem. After all, red light cameras are trying to avert conduct that results in injuries and death. (More than 850 people die and and about 170,000 are injured each year in crashes caused by drivers running red lights according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration - USA Today).
Posted by rshah at 03:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 12, 2007
Video of Automatic Licence Plate Recognition System (ALPR)
FROM Mobile Mag:
A nice video of ALPR in action
Posted by rshah at 11:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Is Anybody Watching the Cameras in Chicago?
From the Sun-Times:
Chicago is widely known for its surveillance cameras. But when an office duty police officer was mugged next to a camera, the surveillance footage was useless. Apparently, no one had put a hold on the video, despite the fact the victim had filed a police report. The point is - if the cameras couldn't help a police officer as a victim in a robbery, how much can they help the average citizen.
So how could the camera system be improved? While a longer archival period could be useful, it would also be more intrusive. It seems to me there, the city needs to improve communication and set up a system for translating incident reports from beat officers. If the beat officer notes the approximate time and location, a system could automatically archive footage for investigators. My two cents.
Posted by rshah at 10:52 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 05, 2007
Smart Cameras in Chicago
From Reuters.co.uk:
An article discussing the current state of smart cameras in Chicago. (They are slowly deploying it, but no results yet) Here are the interesting snippets.
The port of Jacksonville, Florida, has dispensed with human monitoring of cameras altogether by sending alerts and live video to the personal digital assistant of the nearest officer on patrol, according to a spokesman for ObjectView Inc.
"Cameras are great tools for solving crime. They're not really that helpful in preventing crime," said Ed Yohnka of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Velasquez disputed the conclusion that cameras don't prevent crime, saying he constantly fields requests from residents asking for a camera to make their neighborhood safer. He said cameras contributed to a drop in violent crime in the city of Chicago in recent years, a drop that is widely attributed to improved police work in countering gangs and street-corner drug dealing. At the same time, gang activity has surged in some Chicago suburbs.
The city's prosecutors said they rarely use video evidence in court from the cameras, which are encased in bulletproof boxes topped by blue flashing lights and are a common sight in crime-ridden neighborhoods.
Posted by rshah at 10:43 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 01, 2007
Cameras on Street Sweepers
The Washington Times reported on an initiative by new DC Mayor Fenty. The idea is putting cameras on street sweepers to photo enforce vehicles parked illegally in street-sweeping lanes. Last year there was more than 58,000 tickets for these violations. The plan is to outfit street-sweeping vehicles with two types of cameras: a license-plate recognition camera and another that provides a wider view of the vehicle.
Naturally, as with most photo enforcement, it is not popular with everyone. A nice post on why people are uncomfortable with the initiative can be found at the DCist. It also rebuts a lot of the concerns:
The people caught on traffic cameras are running red lights and speeding. Why is it a problem to photo-enforce parking laws as well? If you want to dispute the laws themselves, that's something else. However, unless you are prepared to pony up more in city taxes, it seems fine to let the District generate revenue from those who just can't resist the urge to break the law.
The interesting point for me is that this is another example of wholesale surveillance. What are the limits to photo enforcement in our society?
Posted by rshah at 03:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack