Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Technology

Surveillance Cameras Get Smarter 186

kog777 writes to mention that the IB Times is taking a look at where surveillance camera technology is headed. Soon researchers tell us that cameras will be available that not only record, but are able to interpret what they see. "The advancements have already been put to work. For example, cameras in Chicago and Washington can detect gunshots and alert police. Baltimore installed cameras that can play a recorded message and snap pictures of graffiti sprayers or illegal dumpers. In the commercial market, the gaming industry uses camera systems that can detect facial features, according to Bordes. Casinos use their vast banks of security cameras to hunt cheating gamblers who have been flagged before."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Surveillance Cameras Get Smarter

Comments Filter:
  • Gunshots (Score:5, Funny)

    by Threni ( 635302 ) on Monday February 26, 2007 @06:07PM (#18159344)
    > For example, cameras in Chicago and Washington can detect gunshots and alert police

    Can they tell the difference between gunshots and recordings of gunshots played back on people's mobile phones? I think we're about to find out!
    • Re:Gunshots (Score:5, Informative)

      by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 ) * on Monday February 26, 2007 @06:11PM (#18159404) Homepage Journal
      Have you ever actually heard a gunshot? As in live, in person? I have. Gunshots are very loud. Much louder than a mobile phone speaker. Mobile phones simply do not have the dB range to mimick a gunshot accurately.

      • Re:Gunshots (Score:4, Informative)

        by GiovanniZero ( 1006365 ) on Monday February 26, 2007 @06:35PM (#18159728) Homepage Journal
        Depends on the gun, 22s and even 45s aren't that loud. Especially if theres lots of white noise around it (ie cars etc). If someone were trying to protest urban surveillance it would interesting to see people spoofing gunshots or random other flags.

        You're probably right that a cellphone wouldn't be able to do it but building a decent facsimile thats easy to hide wouldn't be hard. You'd probably get arrested though for defrauding police. You'd have to be more innovative, maybe incorporate your sounds into a song then play it over a boom box and say that you were just listening to music.

        • Re:Gunshots (Score:4, Informative)

          by Mister Whirly ( 964219 ) on Monday February 26, 2007 @09:03PM (#18161462) Homepage
          I doubt you have ever shot a .45 before, or been near one when one is fired. The .22 I'll give you - not that loud, could easily be mistaken for a backfire or fireworks. I can guarantee you a .45 would not be mistaken for a car backfiring - even with ear protection it still is quite a bang. Without earplugs, even being on the range when .45s are being fired will cause you to cover your ears instinctively. I have shot thousands of rounds from 4 or so different models of .45s, and not a single one of them could even laughingly be called "semi-quiet". 9mms are not as loud either, but usually they are so rapid in succession that you know it isn't anything but gunfire. See, living in the city CAN teach you things!

          It would be very hard to realisticly duplicate the decibel level of actual gunfire on a boombox. The sounds you could get, but not the volume. And IANAL, but as far as I can tell, playing sounds of gunfire isn't illegal (unless done with intent to commit some other crime perhaps), but discharging a firearm is. If playing gunfire sounds was illegal, gangster rap would have been over shortly after it started in the 80s.
          • yes, grandparent poster can look it up, a .45 or 9mm is 155+ db, a 357 magnum 160+ db, even the lowly .38 special 153. No car stereo or boom box ever made sounds like that, you'd go painfully deaf if that level of sound lasted even a second. I find the 9mm higher pitched but not quieter than .45 ACP. Even lowly .38 special out of my snub nosed Ruger SP101 has a roar under the high pitched crack that no one is ever going to mistake for a firecracker.
            • No car stereo or boom box ever made sounds like that, you'd go painfully deaf if that level of sound lasted even a second.

              Apropos to nothing ... but, apparently, the record for a car stereo is in the 177db range according to this. [cnn.com]

              Certainly, no normal stereo is that loud. I also intentionally went to the extreme end of things. But, there's always somebody out there who is trying to go way beyond anything sensible (even if it's not so much an identifiable series of sounds).

              I don't think that detracts from y

              • yowzah, a car stereo that can reproduce jet engine noise at full volume. or a howitzer firing, for that matter.
                • yowzah, a car stereo that can reproduce jet engine noise at full volume. or a howitzer firing, for that matter.

                  Nah, more like a loud, ill-defined noise -- they're not really generating anything which would be called music, or a tune, it's just a big brrraaattt sound which they measure for intensity.

                  You use a large amount of power, for a very short discharge, and then after the smoke clears and you've probably damaged a few $k in parts, they decide who won.

                  A very odd competition indeed. :-P

                  Cheers

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            I was probably thinking of a 9mm rather than a 45. So now that someone looked up the dBs we'd need what if we changed proximity rather than volume. Get a tiny speaker right up near the mic. Wouldn't that be more manageable and more likely to trick the sensors?

            Something else that I hadn't thought of is that it says the cameras detect gun shots. It doesn't say whether these cameras have microphones or not. You'd think so but what if it actually just detects flashes? Then it would be way easy to fake gunshots,

            • Yeah, I have heard of microphones to detect gunshots in cities before, and in China. Especially if they have them all over, they can triangulate and know exactly where the gunshots come from. The mics work without giving false positive because they only register if the dBs are high enough. You would need a serious amp and speaker combo to pull off 150+ dBs...
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        What about guns with sound suppressors?
      • by KKlaus ( 1012919 )
        But you might be able to still fool it depending on the range it's designed to detect shots at. If it tries to detect .22's at 100m, then I'm sure a mobile phone held right next to it would be sufficient. It would then simply be a question of how close you were willing to get to the camera.

        Not that I think any of this will ever become a real life issue. I'm sure the penalties for any such efforts will be over zealous and disproportionately high, so I suspect no one will find it a good risk.
    • Re:Gunshots (Score:4, Insightful)

      by biocute ( 936687 ) on Monday February 26, 2007 @06:13PM (#18159428)
      Maybe if a mobile phone is able to simulate a realistic gunshot noise, and its owner is keen to play that in the public, police should be alerted anyway.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by garcia ( 6573 )
        Maybe if a mobile phone is able to simulate a realistic gunshot noise, and its owner is keen to play that in the public, police should be alerted anyway.

        Maybe the government shouldn't be finding new and exciting ways to do less work and employing less real people? IMHO, as soon as they start tracking us with these cameras we should start making loud gun shot noises as we shoot the lenses out.

        Take back your personal freedom and stop listening to the "but you are in public!" bullshit. If they aren't willing
        • Re:Gunshots (Score:4, Insightful)

          by inviolet ( 797804 ) <slashdot&ideasmatter,org> on Monday February 26, 2007 @06:47PM (#18159890) Journal

          Maybe the government shouldn't be finding new and exciting ways to do less work and employing less real people? IMHO, as soon as they start tracking us with these cameras we should start making loud gun shot noises as we shoot the lenses out.

          I'd rather be watched by algorithms than by humans. Humans are woefully fallible and (worse) in denial about their own fallibility. Humans are tribalistic asshats who lose objectivity if you are different than they are -- or if you aren't different.

          Of course the advantage of human surveillance is that humans are so expensive that we won't pay for enough of them to watch everyone. That fact affords me the room I need to break laws in moral ways. We'd never program the surveillance computers to grant the same leeway.

          Of course that would have the further advantage of eventually getting all those stupid laws undone. The only cure for a bad law is to enforce it on everyone, as only a surveillance society could do.

        • by kabocox ( 199019 )
          Take back your personal freedom and stop listening to the "but you are in public!" bullshit. If they aren't willing to have real people watch you then I'm not willing to tolerate it.

          Um, I'd rather live in the IT police state where everything is recorded and nothing much ever looked at rather than the police state that has actual cops everywhere. Let's be honest. Police aren't meant to stop violence or protect anyone. Police are meant to clean up afterwards, fill out their paper work, and do something to ma
          • by Hatta ( 162192 )
            Um, I'd rather live in the IT police state where everything is recorded and nothing much ever looked at rather than the police state that has actual cops everywhere.

            Sure, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about electronic police officers looking at EVERYTHING.
        • Re:Gunshots (Score:4, Interesting)

          by couchslug ( 175151 ) on Monday February 26, 2007 @07:54PM (#18160728)
          "Real people" are often dumber than the proverbial box of hammers.
          I'd rather have cameras watching me any day so I can potentially use the footage (possibly along with other footage) to prove my innocence should any questions arise.
          Ubiquitous private and public cameras mean the death of privacy, so I want as level a playing field as possible.

          I live in a quaint little rural town. Given the choice between Bubbas eyewitness testimony or video footage, I'd feel much more comfortable going to court with pictures of truth.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by jZnat ( 793348 ) *
            You're not the one who has to prove your innocence; the prosecution has to prove your guilt. The only case where you're guilty until proven innocent is in military trials usually regarding treasonous activity and other dangerous things.
            • by FLEB ( 312391 )
              Still, it's much better to be obviously innocent instead of being potentially guilty.

              Of course, when you take into account the interests of the people who own the cameras... and how accidents and losses are bound to happen sometimes...
          • I'd rather have cameras watching me any day so I can potentially use the footage (possibly along with other footage) to prove my innocence should any questions arise.

            You've made a critical error. There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt. Sooner or later, those omnipresent cameras will record enough of your lack of innocence for you to regret their presence. It's just a matter of time.
    • Re:Gunshots (Score:5, Insightful)

      by celardore ( 844933 ) * on Monday February 26, 2007 @06:19PM (#18159524)
      You may be aware that the UK is ahead of everyone else in terms of CCTV surveillance. This doesn't mean that the UK has a lower crime rate though, nor does it mean that they are on top of terrorism or gun crime. There has been a lot of publicity in the UK recently about gun crime, with a famous picture in the papers of Tory leader David Cameron with a youth behind him making some kind of gang sign related to guns.

      Surveillance is not the answer, it doesn't make a difference if there are too many criminals to monitor. Gun laws (as Americans will say, right to bear arms etc) are not the answer. This has lead me to believe that there is no answer. We have to be politically correct remember. Don't discriminate against trolls, they're people too.
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        There's an easy solution to get the crime rate to zero: Just legalize all actions! Sure, it will not prevent those actions (quite the opposite), but since they are no crimes any more, no crimes will be committed. :-)
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by couchslug ( 175151 )
        Incarceration is an answer, but there is no single answer. There is no way to make people behave if they don't wish to, but we can lock them up and keep them in the slammer longer. The UK prison system is a walk in the park compared to the US.

        Combine UK surveillance with the harshest US punishment and incarceration rates, and make every prison look like Parchman.
        Prison should crush prisoners and utterly break their will because they are bad humans who have nullified their value to society. They can be an ex
      • by aslate ( 675607 )
        You may be aware that the UK is ahead of everyone else in terms of CCTV surveillance. This doesn't mean that the UK has a lower crime rate though, nor does it mean that they are on top of terrorism or gun crime. There has been a lot of publicity in the UK recently about gun crime

        Yes, we're far ahead when it comes to CCTV, and 95% (okay, arse figure there, but it's not controversial) of the population really don't care about this and are quite happy with them being there. I've previously posted how CCTV has
      • by shmlco ( 594907 )
        You obviously don't have ENOUGH monitoring. I'd say you need to fit everyone with a GPS-enabled, non-removable ankle bracelet so that, if a crime occurs, you just trace who was there at the time.

        Actually, I think some prisons are already doing this...
    • Doubt it. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Kadin2048 ( 468275 ) <.ten.yxox. .ta. .nidak.todhsals.> on Monday February 26, 2007 @06:26PM (#18159606) Homepage Journal
      Most sound effects / recordings of gunshots aren't accurate representations of the sound (aka, air pressure waves) produced when a gun actually goes off. They're more of an artists' interpretation of what the human mind thinks that a gun sounds like, based on what we remember them sounding like after we've heard one.

      Most speakers can't accurately reproduce a gunshot, because they can't move enough air at one time to create the pressure wave. They play something that's more of a "boom," when in reality a gunshot is a sharp "crack" (followed by reverberations / reflections from the room or surrounding objects). Not being able to play the initial 'crack' very well, they over-emphasize the reverberations.

      A 'gunshot sensor' would probably be a microphone or microphone-like device that was purposely de-sensitized so that it only received particularly loud, sharp sounds. You might be able to fool it with something explosive (like dry ice and water in a soda bottle), or where there was a significant release of pressure (car backfire), but most sound-reproduction systems wouldn't cut it -- they don't move that much air at once. Even with things like backfiring and explosions, you could probably filter them out if you wanted to, because I doubt they're the same when you really look at the waveforms (I suspect that the high pressure escaping from the small aperture of a gun's muzzle makes a very distinct sound from a car backfiring through the 1-2" muffler), even though they sound the same to a person, because we're not good at discriminating very loud, sharp sounds.

      OT: I wonder what a nearby lightning strike "sounds" like to a microphone with the capacity to accurately measure the maximum amplitude of the sound?
      • Re:Doubt it. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by GFree ( 853379 ) on Monday February 26, 2007 @07:13PM (#18160188)

        Most sound effects / recordings of gunshots aren't accurate representations of the sound (aka, air pressure waves) produced when a gun actually goes off. They're more of an artists' interpretation of what the human mind thinks that a gun sounds like, based on what we remember them sounding like after we've heard one.
        I'm reminded of a saying about how sound engineers describe the methods used for obtaining good gun sounds:

        If you want a pistol shot, use a rifle.
        If you want a rifle shot, use a shotgun.
        If you want a shotgun blast, use a Howitzer.
      • by K-Man ( 4117 )
        From what I've seen the mechanisms are even simpler -- they filter out events that weren't heard by more than one sensor. There are patents online for some of these systems, but they seem to use simple heuristics.

        Nobody seems to hold a significant patent on these techniques, so a number of companies make acoustic and radar, etc. gunshot location systems. The interesting thing about the military ones is that instead of pointing a camera at the shooting, they point a howitzer. Much more effective, IMHO.
    • A tiny phone speaker isnt going to do it, but some of those thumper stereos they have in those neighborhoods just might set them off.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by inviolet ( 797804 )

        A tiny phone speaker isnt going to do it, but some of those thumper stereos they have in those neighborhoods just might set them off.

        It is true -- a thumper stereo can set off even a very advanced gunfire detector... but in a different way than you are thinking:

        • Car equipped with "thumper stereo" drives through a sensor-equipped neighborhood.
        • Quiet, mild-mannered WASP (like me) hears the stereo and so finally crosses the annoyance threshold.
        • WASP opens fire on car.
        • Gunfire sensor detects the sound and not
  • resistance is futile (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ArsonSmith ( 13997 ) on Monday February 26, 2007 @06:12PM (#18159412) Journal
    So, how is this going to make life change? Is big brother going to become a huge menace to society as a whole or is it going to make a better standard of living? I know all the scifi authors' opinions so I'd like to find out what are the positive sides of this?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Travelsonic ( 870859 )

      I know all the scifi authors' opinions....

      Surely that is sarcasm?


      While we have an obligation to allow flourishing technology we also, IMO have a great obligation to make sure the technology is protected from tyrrany as well.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by biocute ( 936687 )
      As long as these cameras are installed in and made known to the public, I'm actually fine with them. It would be like an extra pair of eyes or ears for the police.

      For instance, if a camera is smart enough to pick up a car accident and notifies appropriate parties (towing, cops etc) timely and accordingly, wouldn't it be bettter?
      • I (generally speaking) agree with you but I would say there has to be rules in place that ensure that protects your privacy. I would say that these cameras can not be placed in an area where someone can assume a certain level of privacy, and the footage a camera catches of (what can be assumed is) a private space (say a camera that has some view into your house) can not be used against you.
        • My original question was more looking for good out of no longer having a certain level of privacy available. Not that I think it is a good thing, and I fear the day it comes to this, but I also see it as something that is going to happen. Whether it is a chip in your skull or facial recognition cameras covering every square inch of the world (notice not just US or EU or some other growing bb state) we will be tracked sometime in the future.
          • David Brin's book The Transparent Society (part of which is available on his site) argues that universal surveillance is inevitable, and that the question is, who will have access to the data? Will the cameras all be aimed at us private citizens and watched by faceless Thought Police agents (or AIs, for the modern version), or will we too be able to tune in and know who is watching us and why? So far the answer seems to be the first one.
      • My problem with traffic cameras is not their use, but that they are in my city outsourced to a private company. From what I understand I thought it was Illegal to profit from criminal activity. They are actually paid more if more crime happens so what is their incentive to be accurate and impartial?

        Also if you think that the government is making a ton of money off your speeding tickets then go to court with them and fight it. Your $120 fine will not pay the DA, Judge, court reporter, bailiff, admins etcs
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The scifi authors got it wrong. First of all, the term 'big brother' is a blatant sexism terminology that should be banned, since surveillence is independent of gender. Secondly, unlike the 1984, the technology is so cheap these days, it is accessible by almost everyone. If you think all these 'authorities' are trying to get you, grab a digital camera and SPY THEM BACK AND POST THEM IN THYTUBE! I am so sick and tired of people who whine about how the Orwellian fantasy are becoming true when those are the sa
      • This is modded funny, but this is actually the kind of interesting answers I was looking for. Unfortunately the AC seems to be a little hot headed in his answer and I would like to see more thought put into it.

        Counter surveillance is a big issue on this. Once we get to the point where we can see everything a politician is doing and has done. I was attacked by a security guard and charged with assault although I did nothing, even in defense. Luckily it was caught on camera and the charges on me were drop
      • by K-Man ( 4117 )
        Security cameras are a tool. They're actually a less oppressive tool than people think, because recorded information can often be subpoenaed or requested through freedom-of-information laws.

        It's not the tool that determines the use. In a free society, tools like this can have a net positive effect, so long as the public has equal access to the information generated.
      • I am so sick and tired of people who whine about how the Orwellian fantasy are becoming true when those are the same people carrying technologies to combat against such scenarios.
        Yes because our single, personal low quality "sous"vellance cameras can so easily even the odds against the literally millions of electronic eyes at the governments disposal, not to mention their ability to analyise and selectively edit their recordings. I mean how can we lose?!
      • If you think all these 'authorities' are trying to get you, grab a digital camera and SPY THEM BACK AND POST THEM IN THYTUBE!
        and face [nbc10.com] retaliation [daily-tribune.com]?
    • by ArsonSmith ( 13997 ) on Monday February 26, 2007 @06:27PM (#18159640) Journal
      I know I asked the question but I'd like to post my, umm, hopes for how this will turn out.

      1. Standards of Law will have to change. As it is now, if people were recorded 24x7, and held accountable for everything done, everyone would be in jail and or have racked up millions of dollars in fines. So what would this do? It would have to make laws that are much more relaxed, lenient and reflect actual intent of evil or harm.

      2. punishment would have to be adjusted to actually reflect the crime. Would this also be able to change things like drinking and driving laws? Right now they are so out of control, if you have been drinking and the cops go to pull you over you have about equal consequence if you are to pull over and cooperate as you do if you flee from the police, and are picked up much later after the alcohol has left your system, but if your recorded history shows that you don't drive any worse after having a beer at the pub, but after 3 your driving habits change would this make the legal limits individualized and appropriate rather than blacked and abusive as they are now?

      3. In a fully monitored society, what would be the justification for things like anti-gun laws? If Big Brother always knew what you were doing and could see that you grabbed your rifle and are now climbing the clock tower and stop you before you could do anything, how could they say that you can't own any gun you want? If I enjoy taking a fully automatic machine gun to the range and blasting off some rounds, big brother nows I like doing this and watches me ever time and tracks to see if I deviate in an attempt to go shoot up a school and stop me before that could happen. Fully monitored societies could actually be more free.

      • by FLEB ( 312391 )
        In a perfect world, you might be right, but this is doubtful optimism.

        1.) What that other fellow said above me-- it still takes people and money to enforce. Now it just means that there's a ready grab-bag of minor infractions ready as a weapon whenever the people-in-power have someone they want to pick on.

        2.) Person A doesn't mind "safe" drinking and driving, but is vocal for tougher legislating on pornographic access. Person B is wanking off at the computer right now, but when he's done, he's back to sendi
        • In a perfect world, you might be right, but this is doubtful optimism.

          This is what I am looking for. Fighting against having cameras everywhere is a losing battle. I am looking for the things that need to be faught for in a society that is under constant surveillance.

      • if you have been drinking and the cops go to pull you over you have about equal consequence if you are to pull over and cooperate as you do if you flee from the police, and are picked up much later after the alcohol has left your system

        Actually, in some states in the U.S. you're better off refusing to take a breatalyzer or field sobriety test. In Illinois, the penalty for refusing is a six month suspension of your driver's license while a first time DUI conviction will get you up to one year in jail, a o

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Teppic_52 ( 982950 )
      To be honest, it just makes the jobs of CCTV control room operators easier, the technology isn't that new either, we just have the ability to put the thinking part of the system inside the camera now, instead of inside the DVR.
      For the average Joe on the street it won't make much difference in this case, unless you get shot, then the paramedics may turn up a bit sooner.

      It's the behavioral recognition systems that have the good features, they can tell the difference between someone pacing up and down talkin
      • by shmlco ( 594907 )
        "Even with a 50% false positive rate on a system like that you are giving your 'Security Officers' a good head start on containing or even preventing any possible trouble."

        Forget false positives, what about security officers who now only look at whatever it is the system highlights for them? I can easily see such a system becoming a crutch and a excuse, "Well, the computer didn't signal anything was wrong..."
  • by CrazyJim1 ( 809850 ) on Monday February 26, 2007 @06:15PM (#18159460) Journal
    Imagine a 10mx10m room that has cameras on many angles. You wear different colored gear on your head, upper arms, lower arms, chest, upper legs, lower legs, and your sword. You wear a light VR helmet. Inside the room spawns monsters that you have to fight off with your sword, while the cameras track where you are.

    To me, the arcade died off because home technology caught up. These VR rooms will be the resurgence of the arcade when they become a reality.
    • To me, the arcade died off because home technology caught up. These VR rooms will be the resurgence of the arcade when they become a reality.

      Until I can sit back on the couch and poke claudia schiffer for $19.95 an hour, I could give a flying fuck about your immersive VR.

      Prior to that I'll stick to VR simulations of car driving and 'mech combat.

    • by Tarlus ( 1000874 ) on Monday February 26, 2007 @06:35PM (#18159722)
      "You wear different colored gear on your head, upper arms, lower arms, chest, upper legs, lower legs, and your sword. You wear a light VR helmet. Inside the room spawns monsters that you have to fight off with your sword..."

      Well, there's kind of a line between the sleek elegance of the Wiimote, and just flat-out looking like an idiot. :P
    • Hmmm... and what is going to physically come in contact with your sword so that it actually feels like you're hitting something? ...and how easy is it to eat hot pockets while wearing proposed helmet?

      I think that tracking is the least of the problems faced when trying to implement VR, and really, is one that has already been solved and is used frequently in film and game production.

      You're mostly correct about why the arcade died, but the only way to replace it is to come up with something that is just as no
  • ObjectVideo (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 26, 2007 @06:16PM (#18159470)

    I used to intern at ObjectVideo [objectvideo.com]. They're a DARPA spin-off. I got to sit in the cubicle with all the PhDs and watch them as they used remote control cars to test their tracking cameras. Their products are really pretty stunning.

    The basic idea is that if you have a complex with 100 security cameras, you're going to have half a dozen security guards sitting there looking at a huge bank of video feeds. Studies show that guards tend to just phase out after about twenty minutes anyway. So all those security cameras are really pretty worthless.

    Instead, you run all the video feeds through a set of servers, the servers can detect moving objects and track them. It's more sophisticated than basic motion detection. They can differentiate between cars, dogs, trucks, boats, etc. They can even tell if you drop or pick up a bag, or throw something. Some applications of their technology can be used to monitor highways for instance: cars traveling north-to-south produce no alert, while cars traveling south-to-north set off the alarm.

    This technology removes the human restriction on scale and overcomes the diminishing returns barrier to deploying huge huge banks of CCTVs all over a chemical plant, or military base, or corporate HQ, or national border.

    (And as a side note, their IT guy was a real hard-ass about information security. He gave me a personal, one-on-one, 45 minute lecture about everything I wasn't allowed to do, or even think about doing, when I arrived. Guy had the place locked down tight, and easily out-nerded the dozen or so PhDs who were doing the actual coding and development. Just sat in the server room with the petabyte backup drives and listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio. Hilarious.)

  • by Mr.Scamp ( 974300 ) on Monday February 26, 2007 @06:17PM (#18159482)
    Would someone PLEASE adapt these new intelligent cameras to work with traffic lights? Cameras that can tell how much traffic is coming from each direction could move a lot more traffic. I can't count the amount of time I have wasted at red lights when there was NO traffic at all coming the other way. Intersections that can intelligently route traffic would be uber useful.
    • Now THAT is a potential use for this technology I can absolutely support, given the kinks are worked out to prevent accidents if things were to go afoul. ^_^
      • by beset ( 745752 )
        We already have traffic lights that respond to motion / induction loops in the ground in the UK, surely this started state-side?
        • We already have traffic lights that respond to motion / induction loops in the ground in the UK, surely this started state-side?

          Induction loops suck. 95% of them aren't tuned to be sensitive enough to detect bikers (either the motorized or the human-powered variety). Bring on the cameras, please!

          -b.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      You're missing the point of traffic lights. Regulation, revenue. Your convenience doesn't even make the list.
      • Um, no. The revenue gained by red light runners is greatly less than the revenue not lost to accounting, tow trucks, etc. caused by crashes.
    • Why a camera, when you can just put sensors in the ground ?
      They're both less intrusive (only detect whether there's a car or not. Not get your face on a picture), and less vandalisable (they're under the ground, as oposed to a camera mounted on the ground).

      We have a few of them around here.
      Either on very-low traffic lanes, that normally have permanently red lights and only stop the rest of the traffic and turn green in the few case there's some one on them.
      Or on normal traffic street, at night-time when the
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by rfkm ( 717025 )
      Someone [autscope.com] already has. It's just a matter of getting your city/county/state to pony up the money to install a new intersection management system.

      And the problem with induction loop sensors is that they are prone to failure and expensive to replace. You don't need to dig up a lane every time a camera needs to be replaced.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by owlnation ( 858981 )
      You need to bear in mind that traffic flow isn't confined to one junction. It relies on the complete matrix of most if not all traffic lights in a city. So, although any one red light might be holding up traffic where there's none from the other direction, that may also be to manage flow further into the city centre in the same direction.

      That said, in principle there's merit in what you suggest, but all the cameras on all the lights would need to be hooked into a program to manage overall flow dynamicall
  • by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Monday February 26, 2007 @06:18PM (#18159514)
    I'd think "switch view to camera that detects movement" would be a good-enough feature for most places. That would at least alert a live operator to a view where something MIGHT be going on.
  • I see a flaw... (Score:1, Redundant)

    by mustafap ( 452510 )
    >For example, cameras in Chicago and Washington can detect gunshots and alert police

    I wonder if they can distinguish the sound of a gunshot from the sound of a recording of a gunshot...
  • by Ancient_Hacker ( 751168 ) on Monday February 26, 2007 @06:22PM (#18159568)
    "interpret what they see": is a bit of a strong statement.

    lat time I checked, AI wasnt up to the task of discerning whether someone was spraying a wall with Lysol, or spray paint. or spraying with the intent to cover grafitti, or to add new grafitti.

    Methinks someone is applying a generous dollop of wishful thinking.

    • Well, it didn't say "correctly interpret what they see." A camera which interprets every occurrence of red as blood, and that as indication of a crime, is still a camera which interprets what it sees, despite the fact that it will give alarm as soon as someone with a red bag comes into view.
  • Translation (Score:2, Insightful)

    by OpenSourced ( 323149 )
    Casinos use their vast banks of security cameras to hunt cheating gamblers

    ...meaning anybody that manages to win more than a couple of times. You know, once is happenstance, two is coincidence, three is getting your legs broken.

    • by jZnat ( 793348 ) *
      No man, that's Counter-Strike.
    • Well to be fair you're allowed to win a few hundred grand before they kick you out. And vegas is better about breaking things... they usually just let you sweat in a back room for a while then blacklist you. Of course out of the country is a different matter. Also, they have those high roller sweets for a reason... not *everyone* loses, especially if you go high stakes and fewer games. They try to convince you to either spend the money at the hotel or stay the next day and lose even more then you've won
  • So, when will the casinos install these to help track down those Konami slot machines with the subliminal messages?
  • Define cheater? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by schwit1 ( 797399 ) on Monday February 26, 2007 @06:34PM (#18159716)
    "Casinos use their vast banks of security cameras to hunt cheating gamblers who have been flagged before."

    Casinos would have us think that card counting is cheating.

    • I was wondering about this. It is very hard to really cheat at most casino games. (Note that I've set foot in a casino twice in my life, and then just for a look around, so I'm not an expert.) There are things like nicking other people's chips or cheating in poker (if the casino provides for poker games.)
  • by richg74 ( 650636 ) on Monday February 26, 2007 @06:37PM (#18159754) Homepage
    In the commercial market, the gaming industry uses camera systems that can detect facial features, according to Bordes. Casinos use their vast banks of security cameras to hunt cheating gamblers who have been flagged before.

    The tests of facial recognition technology in which the results have been made available (e.g., in airport security trials) have been failures. I'm pretty skeptical that there's anything of substance to this until I see some evidence. The intelligent student will readily observe that the casinos have a strong interest in having people believe that the technology can do this.

  • oh goodie (Score:3, Funny)

    by band-aid-brand ( 1068196 ) on Monday February 26, 2007 @06:46PM (#18159870)
    This has made firecrackers much MUCH more entertaining. *runs off to buy stock in black cat fireworks co.*
  • If only.. (Score:4, Funny)

    by hack slash ( 1064002 ) on Monday February 26, 2007 @06:46PM (#18159882)
    I could've done with some smart surveillance cameras on my property last night, some fucker stole my two mountain bikes :(

    But the joke's partly on them, one of them was waiting to be junked, brakes shot, chain twisted, chainrings bent, tyres bald, bottom bracket does a very loud SKREEEEEEEE sound when you try and pedal and it weighed half a ton. The other was from Halfords.
    • But the joke's partly on them, one of them was waiting to be junked, brakes shot, chain twisted, chainrings bent, tyres bald, bottom bracket does a very loud SKREEEEEEEE sound when you try and pedal and it weighed half a ton.

      Heh. That might be the best security - leave an obvious bike that's somehow dangerous for the yobs to steal and put the GOOD bikes somewhere else. Then just look at hospital records for someone who pranged face first into a lamppost.

      -b.

  • TBH this sounds like it would set a really bad precedent. Think about it, if the cameras are trusted to interpret what they see, then security guards stop being employed and noone is watching the video screens. But what if the camera malfunctions in some way, and ignores activity it should be alerting the law about. More to the point, imagine the problems if someone could hack the system - camera's report a terrorist threat at X location, and half the local police screams round to a house where they find an
    • Think about it, if the cameras are trusted to interpret what they see, then security guards stop being employed and noone is watching the video screens.

      Well, they'll act as a filter for the security guards, anyway. A filter can be a blinder as well as an aid to the guards and cops, since if the behavior of the cameras becomes known, perps will learn to act in ways that are ignored by the cameras.

      -b.

  • I have installed some IP cameras and some regular cameras with a 4 port card in my PC. To date I have not been able to find even basic, stable software for them.

    Does anyone know where to get *any* decent software for security cams?

  • Saw a very cool video demo the other day.

    Problem: Gramma wins big at casino, takes winnings in cash (why not a cheque?? I dunno). Joe Badguy follows her into the parking lot; bops her on the head, takes money, drives away. Not enough security guards to watch 10 acres of parking lot, surveillance cameras inside the casino see Joe Badguy leaving Casino but can't prove he did crime.

    Solution: smarter video. Two cameras, one for spotting, one for tracking. First camera is a wide angle view of the parking lot
  • Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Monday February 26, @02:05PM
    from the walk-without-rhythm-and-you-won't-attract-the-one dept.

    That's is very sad... The misunderstand of song lyrics is the minor part. It's that the lyric in question is an obvious reference to DUNE, and anyone who ever saw the movie should know it. /. editors that have never seen Dune??? It's a sad sad day.
    • ...anyone who ever saw the movie should know it.

      When I was younger, we had those things, I think they were called books. They actually required some effort to read, though; also, having an imagination of one's own usually enhanced the storytelling instead of colliding with it like in case of moving pictures. Geez, am I *that* old?

      • When I was younger, we had those things, I think they were called books.

        A similar line was in the book as well.

        It's fascinating to see xenophobic trolling on /. against something as old as motion pictures, by people only too happy to use computers.
  • For example, cameras in Chicago and Washington can detect gunshots and alert police. Baltimore installed cameras that can play a recorded message and snap pictures of graffiti sprayers or illegal dumpers.
    Heh, and yet the USians harp on about the UK being a police state. Sounds like you have the same tech as us, guys. Big Brother is watching & listening!

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Working...