Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Smart Cameras Detect Crime, Erode Privacy 223

Posted by Zonk from the unblinking-eye dept.
MattSparkes writes "Smart surveillance systems could identify crimes as they take place, if a computer vision system developed at the University of Texas goes into production. The system is capable of classifying behaviour as friendly or violent. In the past there have been attempts to spot unusual behaviour, but this required subsequent user classification. These new systems may keep us more secure, but is it worth sacrificing our privacy for? And will we see false positives, where police cars screech to a halt beside hugging couples?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Smart Cameras Detect Crime, Erode Privacy More

Smart Cameras Detect Crime, Erode Privacy

Comments Filter:

  • Just because someone pushes or punches... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) on Friday October 27, 2006 @12:07PM (#16610080)
    A computer vision system developed in the University of Texas in Austin, US, can already tell the difference between friendly behaviour, such as shaking hands, and aggressive actions like punching or pushing.

    Just because someone pushes or punches someone else, doesn't mean it isn't friendly. Would be flicking off a friend be considered an aggressive act?

    Let's leave this sort of shit to human judgment instead of relying on cameras all the time. We really don't need to be going down this road.

    • Re:Just because someone pushes or punches... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by richg74 ( 650636 ) on Friday October 27, 2006 @12:24PM (#16610402) Homepage
      From TFA:
      On average, the system was 80% accurate at identifying these activities correctly.

      That figure is for "staged interactions", which are likely to be more exaggerated / less ambiguous than "real life", unless they were performed by accomplished actors (meaning someone that could convincingly portray the actions to a human audience). They are also likely to have less irrelevant random "background noise".

      Just because someone pushes or punches someone else, doesn't mean it isn't friendly.

      Indeed. As it happens, I recently met a friend from college, who I haven't seen for a few years, in front of a cafe in town. He ran up and gave me a huge bear hug. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the system thought he was mugging me.

    • Having humans dedicated to watching for crime posted everywhere is very expensive. Having lots of cameras posted places that flag suspicious activity to a human monitor can probably cover a lot more territory a lot more cost effectively, and still leaves the ultimate decision on action to human judgement.

      Now, I suppose, if they were going to mount machine guns with the cameras, and have an automated system to identify and respond to "hostile" activity, with no human intervention, that would justify the kind

    • Barking up the wrong tree (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      (From the article submitter)

      These new systems may keep us more secure, but is it worth sacrificing our privacy for?

      If government imposes these cameras on me, I will NOT refer to it as a "sacrifice" on my part, and I will NOT be told that somehow I asked for it. I NEVER gave my consent for government to spy on me. But wait, you say, if I remain on the land I was born on, then I have already volunteered my consent to any law the collective wishes to impose on me, past, present, and future!

      Wrong. The "s

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by iamacat ( 583406 )
        Every possible choice you make limits your subsequent freedom. Don't want automated cameras? Prepare to be coerced into paying more taxes for life police. Don't want to pay taxes either? Prepare to protect yourself against crime. I think there are still a plenty of areas in US where both cameras and effective police force are non-existant. East Palo Alto and New Orleans come to mind. Of course, other places in the world may have a less violent culture, so you don't need as much police/cameras. But that's no

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mi ( 197448 )
      Let's leave this sort of shit to human judgment instead of relying on cameras all the time. We really don't need to be going down this road.

      Until these cameras get equiped with guns (or even pepper spray), there is no danger in a mistake. Human judgement is (and will be) required...

    • This is prejudice
      against the machines. Human beings are known for acting based on stereotypes, misbeliefs and preconceptions. How many niggers have been accused just because they were niggers? At least for a computer system, we could have the hope of true objectivity. I am not saying it's perfect, I am not saying it's perfect. But at the same time I see no point in dismissing a idea, that could, theoretically finally give us a legal system completely objective. Think about the judges around pushing their p

  • Half Life 2 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by neuro.slug ( 628600 ) <neuro__@hotmaPOLLOCKil.com minus painter> on Friday October 27, 2006 @12:08PM (#16610096)
    Did anyone think of those annoying little camera-like things in Half Life 2 when they read this? I'm sorry, but having some algorithm deduce whether or not my behavior is acceptable is over the limit.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by beavis88 ( 25983 )
      That's precisely what I thought of - closely followed by "I sure hope a double-barrel shotgun blast will make them fold up and go away"

    • Re:Half Life 2 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by inviolet ( 797804 ) <slashdot@@@ideasmatter...org> on Friday October 27, 2006 @12:24PM (#16610384) Journal
      I'm sorry, but having some algorithm deduce whether or not my behavior is acceptable is over the limit.

      And what, pray tell, do you think the policeman's brain is executing when he is deciding whether or not to accost you?

      At least with a robotic police force, the algorithms can be standardized, QA'd, reviewed, perhaps even open-sourced.

      • Re:Half Life 2 (Score:4, Insightful)

        by lymond01 ( 314120 ) on Friday October 27, 2006 @12:48PM (#16610746)
        And what, pray tell, do you think the policeman's brain is executing when he is deciding whether or not to accost you?

        1) A mugging or a hugging can be over in seconds. Can the camera tell which was which before it phones the police?
        2) There'll be more cameras than patrolling cop cars. A patrolling cop car can ignore or react to an incident depending on how it unfolds. A camera that tells a cop to respond to a particular location means the cop HAS to respond.

        Not the worst idea ever, but it might be the biggest waste of time for our boys in blue.
      • awesome!! I was hoping for my chance to implement my Zero Wing Police Force.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday October 27, 2006 @12:08PM (#16610104)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Some Dostoevsky (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mateo_LeFou ( 859634 ) on Friday October 27, 2006 @12:22PM (#16610364) Homepage
      "He's written a good thing in that manuscript," Verhovensky went on. "He suggests a system of spying. Every member of the society spies on the others, and it's his duty to inform against them. Every one belongs to all and all to every one. All are slaves and equal in their slavery. In extreme cases he advocates slander and murder, but the great thing about it is equality. To begin with, the level of education, science, and talents is lowered. A high level of education and science is only possible for great intellects, and they are not wanted. The great intellects have always seized the power and been despots. Great intellects cannot help being despots and they've always done more harm than good. They will be banished or put to death. Cicero will have his tongue cut out, Copernicus will have his eyes put out, Shakespeare will be stoned--that's Shigalovism. Slaves are bound to be equal. There has never been either freedom or equality without despotism, but in the herd there is bound to be equality, and that's Shigalovism! Ha ha ha! Do you think it strange?

      http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/d/dostoyevsky /d72p/chapter13.html [adelaide.edu.au]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by HTH NE1 ( 675604 )
      Many people already automatically trust the machine since "it's the machine." To them, it can only fail when it's broken, not be broken by design

      "We do not blame the machine. We understand the machine."
      -- Plague Carrier Patient, Doctor Who "New Earth"
    • Let's make this the most literature-heavy thread in the history of /.

  • Easily solveable (Score:5, Funny)

    by eln ( 21727 ) * on Friday October 27, 2006 @12:09PM (#16610112)
    And will we see false positives, where police cars screech to a halt beside hugging couples?

    This is easily solvable by splitting behavior into 3 different types: Normal, dangerous, and HOT!

    This could revolutionize the webcam industry.
    • this actually could help defray the cost of going to "big brother" system, footage of flagged HOT behaviour could be available for pay per DRM managed download
  • There's an audience for performance art!

    Sure, a robot audience, but beggars can't be choosers.
    • Calling all cars, calling all cars. Man apparently trapped in box off public plaza square 3; suffocation immenent. Please respond.

  • Privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by yourestupidjerks ( 948216 ) on Friday October 27, 2006 @12:10PM (#16610130)
    Do people really have an expecation of privacy while in a public area? Should I expect to be able to walk down the street with my dick hanging out of my pants screaming "FREE SPEECH! FREE SPEECH!" at the top of my lungs and not expect any repercussions?

    • Re:Privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Friday October 27, 2006 @12:22PM (#16610368)

      Do people really have an expecation of privacy while in a public area?

      From private individuals, no. From the government, yes.

      Should I expect to be able to walk down the street with my dick hanging out of my pants screaming "FREE SPEECH! FREE SPEECH!" at the top of my lungs and not expect any repercussions?

      Sure. I don't see how that behavior is hurting anyone so go ahead. It wouldn't bother me a bit and even if it did, I don't see why the government should be involved.

      • Do people really have an expecation of privacy while in a public area?

        From private individuals, no. From the government, yes.


        So you are now proposing that the police, as government officers, should be prohibited from patrolling public areas?

        • Re:Privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Friday October 27, 2006 @12:39PM (#16610622)

          So you are now proposing that the police, as government officers, should be prohibited from patrolling public areas?

          I think the police should be restricted to their real job, investigating and collecting evidence of crimes. I have no problem with them being posted in random locations, or locations with a high concentration of people to speed response times, but realistically, the police don't respond to crimes in time to prevent them, or do so very, very rarely. Quite frankly, it is not their job to watch everyone all the time just in case someone might commit a crime and it certainly is not their job to videotape everyone. In the same way it is illegal to radar gun everyone driving by, but cops break the law and abuse our rights in that regard every day, this system would be one huge infringement on our rights. If you want to live in a nanny state, please do so elsewhere. I don't need, want, or expect the police to protect me.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by smooth wombat ( 796938 )
            I think the police should be restricted to their real job, investigating and collecting evidence of crimes.

            Where did you ever get the idea that police should not be proactive in trying to prevent crime? Apparently you want them to sit in their offices and wait for someone to call and report a robbery.

            Police on patrol are doing exactly what their job is all about: trying to prevent crime and apprehend perpetrators of crimes. I know of several situations where police on patrol have apprehended indi

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 )

              Where did you ever get the idea that police should not be proactive in trying to prevent crime? Apparently you want them to sit in their offices and wait for someone to call and report a robbery.

              First from the courts, which ruled that as it is not their responsibility. Police cannot be held accountable for failing to act to prevent crimes, even when they are informed of the crime and tell the victim they will respond. Second, from the police officers I know, who all will tell you they don't have the numb

          • I think the police should be restricted to their real job, investigating and collecting evidence of crimes.

            That's not the real job of police, otherwise, they'd eliminate the bulk of the uniformed force, and just have crime scene crews, community services officers, and detectives.

            I have no problem with them being posted in random locations, or locations with a high concentration of people to speed response times, but realistically, the police don't respond to crimes in time to prevent them, or do so very, ve

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 )

              That's not the real job of police, otherwise, they'd eliminate the bulk of the uniformed force, and just have crime scene crews, community services officers, and detectives.

              I agree it is not what they are doing. It is what they are supposed to be doing.

              It is impossible to respond to an event occurring in time to prevent it from occurring; the very concept is self-contradictory.

              Only if you assume that all crimes take place instantaneously and there is no way to foresee them. Since those are both untru

      • I don't know, the laughter might hurt his feelings. Don't we have some laws about that or is hurting yourself still just come kind of mental condition?

    • Re:Privacy? (Score:5, Funny)

      by dr_dank ( 472072 ) on Friday October 27, 2006 @12:24PM (#16610388) Homepage Journal
      Should I expect to be able to walk down the street with my dick hanging out of my pants screaming "FREE SPEECH! FREE SPEECH!" at the top of my lungs

      Many don't know that you really can shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater if you have your dick hanging out of your pants.

      Try it and see!

      Fun Fact: Thomas Jefferson wrote the entire Declaration of Independence with his dick hanging out of his pants.

    • Re:Privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Artifakt ( 700173 ) on Friday October 27, 2006 @12:27PM (#16610444)
      Do people really have an expectation of privacy while in a public area?

      Yes. For example if you were walking around in public locations for a few hours, and I were to follow you the whole time, making notes about where you went, whom you talked to, what you bought, etc. you'ld probably feel your expectations of privacy were being violated, even though I had as much legal right of access to those locations as you did.
      Also, the original framers of the constitution aimed, in large part, to constrain government from exceeding the control of the people. Under the US system, if it is questionable at best for me, as a private citizen, to conduct public surveilance on you, then if I do it as an agent of government, it becomes even more dubious, and my requirements to show cause become greater, not less.

      I'm not going to think about your second question - pervo!!!

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by ThatsNotFunny ( 775189 )
      Hanging? Please... let's be honest... "Poking" or "Sticking" I might believe... but Hanging? Sheesh...
    • Thanks, I finally understand. Those guys putting cameras into the women's stalls in bathrooms were only watching for illegal behavior...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by iamacat ( 583406 )
      Why should there be repercussions for me simply showing a part of my body? As a society, are we considering human body in general shameful or ugly? If I was threatening anyone, it would be a different matter.
  • If they were getting put up in your house yes, but is it reasonable to have an expectation of privacy on the street? A tourist can snap pictures all day long and that doesn't erode privacy.

    • Re:Not really eroding privacy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Friday October 27, 2006 @12:27PM (#16610442)

      ...but is it reasonable to have an expectation of privacy on the street? A tourist can snap pictures all day long and that doesn't erode privacy.

      It is not reasonable to expect that your actions in public will be kept private from other private citizens in a public area, as that would be taking away the rights of other citizens in order to provide you with privacy. The government, however, is not a private citizen and has no rights. It exists only to serve the people. In order to spend my tax dollars and intrude on the privacy of the people, they need to show a reasonable cause. Blanket surveillance under the assumption that you might be about to commit a criminal act does not meet those criteria.

      • I am not in favor of Big Brother always looking over my shoulder and pulling off "patriotic" stuff, my only point was that there may be a time and a place for some video monitoring that wouldn't necessarily be an invasion of privacy. I think the important thing is that any monitoring that is done is known to the public. Hidden cameras are a no go for me, but if a city, say NYC, wants to monitor Times Square and they put up signs that let you know entering an area under video surrvailance that could be ok.

      • and intrude on the privacy of the people

        You realize you are begging the question, right? The original post asks if you have a reasonable expectation of privacy on the street. You respond by saying that in order for them to intrude on your privacy on the street, they need a reason.

        I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that people are generally not considered to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public places. Without a reasonable expectation of privacy, there is no intrusion on privacy and

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Qzukk ( 229616 )
          people are generally not considered to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public places.

          Except that they do have an expectation of privacy. If I followed a woman around all day in public, I'd be considered a stalker. If people had no expectation of privacy in public, then there would be no such consideration, it would be normal.

        • You realize you are begging the question, right?

          Only if you completely ignore my answer to the question, that precedes the quote you posted.

          The original post asks if you have a reasonable expectation of privacy on the street. You respond by saying that in order for them to intrude on your privacy on the street, they need a reason.

          No, I responded by saying that they do have an expectation of privacy and then explaining why I think that. Then I go on to discussing why the government needs cause. Your r

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by bigpat ( 158134 )
        In order to spend my tax dollars and intrude on the privacy of the people, they need to show a reasonable cause. Blanket surveillance under the assumption that you might be about to commit a criminal act does not meet those criteria.

        That is the point. It is a democracy, or supposed to be, and to give this much power to the police and expect then to use it only for good and have no ability to provide effective oversight. We don't have to be anti-police in order to think this is a bad idea. Sure we don't h
  • ...that the use of these cameras would ONLY be for personal protection, and not used for any other purposes, than there would be a lot less concern.

    However, as well all know, this is not the case, and the potential for abuse is huge.

    P.S. I love the built in spell check on Firefox 2.0. :)

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Ciarang ( 967337 )
      Doh. Spellcheckers don't notice when you type 'than' instead of 'then' do they. Hopefully 3.0 will have a grammar checker for you.
  • but is it worth sacrificing our privacy for?

    No.

    Will we see false positives

    Yes.

  • Riiight (Score:2, Funny)

    by igny ( 716218 )
    That will teach robbers some politeness!

  • Filtering not decision making (Score:3, Insightful)

    by John.P.Jones ( 601028 ) on Friday October 27, 2006 @12:15PM (#16610222)
    Hopefully this will trigger an analyst to watch the video to make a decision on how to proceed (video that would otherwise be filtered out of the system) rather than automatically trigger some sort of real-world action. Thus once the cameras are up and people are watching this system can only help privacy (the existance of the cameras and watchers in the first place is a different battle.)

    The presentation of this is pure FUD.

  • AI-complete (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Shimmer ( 3036 ) on Friday October 27, 2006 @12:16PM (#16610240) Journal
    Without even needing to RTFA, I think we can say with high confidence that "detecting crime" is an AI-complete [wikipedia.org] problem. That is, any system capable of detecting crime must also have the full intelligence of a person in order to make the complex ethical/legal judgments involved. This implies as well that the system will likely have all the accompanying quirks of personhood, including (but not limited to) a favorite baseball team and a strong desire to be on American Idol.

    Thus, we can conclude that a) the supposed system is 95% bunk, and b) anyone who eventually invents such a system for real will win the Nobel Prize and be immortalized in human history.
    • any system capable of detecting crime must also have the full intelligence of a person in order to make the complex ethical/legal judgments involved

      There are plenty of people that fall short of that same mark. Many of whom are now guests of the state, in fact...
    • You forgot: (c) any such system will suicide or go mad as soon as it realizes it has no freedom whatsoever, and is condemned to spend its entire existence watching boring video footage of ugly bags of mostly water (humans) and deciding whether their behaviour fits within an arbitrary and poorly-defined category of "crime."
  • Classification systems such as this are still fundementally in an early form of development. The purpose of these things, whether computer vision or patient classifiers to aid in medical diagnosis is not to replace the doctor/human observer. It is either to pre-screen, or provide a second opinion that may cause further testing to be done. This system would work just fine if, when it detected violent behavior, it flagged it to the attention of a human observer who could then evaluate whether it was a false p
  • Before anyone makes any production decisions on these cameras we should consult the precogs!
  • Problem is that people get frantic and excited about things and its even hard for a human being to read the situation sometimes. I mean if a girl yelps as a guy is picking her up off her feet, is it an abduction or is it playfulness with a gleeful squeal? If two guys are rushing into one another, it might just be horseplay. One of the funniest things I remember from my college days was when one of our buddies toppled a friend of ours into the bushes when they were both drunk. Many would see this as viol

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by HTH NE1 ( 675604 )
      Expect tripping of the crime sensor to be itself a crime on the level of filing a false crime report. Public horseplay will become illegal or will be self-consciously curtailed just to avoid the hassles. Children will spend more time indoors playing video games than they already do.
  • Isn't this technology already commercialised ? I remember seeing it in pre-production research a few years ago...
  • I need some extra income.

    I can see it now, slapping my wife on the ass or a slug-bug shoulder punch.

    The funny part is , is this a public university and as such is this data available to the public or through correct channels.

    AND Can you Sue a computer for slander ?, think about it ,I tap my wife on the ass and othr "VIOLENT" type interactions and the Computer system classifies me as "VIOLENT" untrue in this context but then what happens with the data, is it added to my file, my credi
  • Think about it, if they just stick a dumb camera up on that street corner, it will record everything. Someone will have to watch it constantly, or review extended sections when looking for a specific individual.

    With intelligence the camera only needs to record the time surrounding a "violent" event. Sure, there may be a few false positives, but it will greatly reduce the amount of record/monitor time that an overseeing body would have to go through. Thus, less people's "privacy" (you're in a public place, y

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Twanfox ( 185252 )
      Sure, because we can always trust that, once this system is in place, there will be no way for them to circumvent the 'We only record violent crimes' protection. All it takes is for the infrastructure to be put in place for innocent enough reasons and once there, those in power will attempt to expand it to cover things not originally intended nor desired. History has proven out this path of behavior for those in power.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by RingDev ( 879105 )
        Uhh, it doesn't matter. If they are currently recording the area with a 'dumb' camera, they have everything already. If someone circumvents the 'intelligence' of the new camera, we're just back to where we are now, with constant survailence.

        People are screaming that the intelligence of this camera reduces their privacy, but the truth is that you have already LOST your privacy. The intelligence of this camera reduces the amount of privacy lost.

        I fail to see how a system that records LESS than a traditional s
  • Welcome to the new Precrime devision of the police department where we never, never make a mistake. You'll all be safer. Just trust us.
    Damn, I hate when fiction becomes reality -- especially when written by PKD.

  • At the moment, the system has to capture the interaction from side-on to make its evaluation.
    "The system works quite accurately," says Park. Tests were carried out on six different pairs of people performing a total of 54 different staged interactions including hugging, punching, kicking and shaking hands. On average, the system was 80% accurate at identifying these activities correctly.
    According to Park, a commercial version of his system could be implemented within the next few years.

    Great... so, th

  • Any conjurer will tell you the futility of this system. Conjurer's make stuff happening when you are looking (sometimes days before you think he is doing it). This camera may identify when a person gets out of control and ignores his surroundings, but will be useless for people who plan ahead, especially if they know such a system is in place. Its greatest use is what cameras are currently used for, checking what happened after the fact.

    Once again Scientists fail to consult those who make their living by fo
  • So if a human user does a field goal kick on a computer, would that be considered aggresive behavior towards computer kind?
  • Another guy sent my girlfriend a dozen long stemmed red roses yesterday. Frankly, there are times when we should allow someone to beat the bejeezus out of someone else. Last thing we need is cameras thwarting justice in action.
  • I don't care if it's a human monitoring the cameras or a computer; I just think it's wrong to have security cameras in public areas. They may be effective, but they're still wrong.
  • What a wonderful way to distract the police while the rest of the gang does something really evil.

    Yet another example of the fallacy that better knowledge can lead to a better society.
  • I don't see how this is a privacy issue. The system would be attached to existing CCTV networks. If it flags something, then a real person looks at it. Contrast this with a system where real people attempt to watch 8-20 or whatever screens and make any sense of it...

    1) There already are CCTV cameras going, this doesn't make more.
    2) It doesn't automatically summon the police when it flags something. I can't imagine police who would respond to a computer, can you?
  • All of this technology has one weakness, if you make it either too expensive or difficult for them they give up.

    Sniffing for secret messages? if everything you send has a secret message then they get way too many false positives.

    If their cameras accidently get shot alot with a 3006 sniper rifle all the time from off camera locations, they will give up, domes spraypained over, etc.... hell if you dont want one of the security cameras outside being able to see in your home simply set up a cheap laser firing
    • If their cameras accidently get shot alot with a 3006 sniper rifle all the time from off camera locations, they will give up,


      Maybe if they are mounting cameras in isolated spots in the wilderness.

      In populated areas, people firing .30-06 rifles, whether or not caught on camera, and whether or not they are shooting a police cameras, stand a substantial risk of getting noticed and having the police show up.
  • No more listless, bored teenagers... hours of fun can be had acting out violent scenes to make the cops show up.

    What a colossal failure a system like this would be.
    • Uhm, if bored teenagers acted out a violent scene today (in a location where people would notice), a cop still will show up. So, what's changed? All that's changed is people are going to be able to notice more locations.

      Why do so many people think such a system will automatically trigger the cops? All that such a system will trigger is someone to look at the camera video to make a decision. This will allow a person to monitor more cameras, but nothing else changes. (Of course, if a person can monitor m
      • If the teenagers are any good, they'll be able to fool the camera operator, too. And if the camera operator learns to ignore teens, just wait until the headline when the operator ignores a REAL crime involving teens.

        Teenagers antagonize cops all the time. It's a hobby. These cameras would be another avenue. Flash mobs could be fun with these things, too.
  • A system like this could actually help privacy when compared to an alternative: a human being monitoring every camera. A computer watching me has no effect on my privacy, it's only when a person sees what the computer recorded that my privacy is affected. (What that person sees doesn't have to be a video, it could be the computers report, etc.). If a computer is monitoring a bunch of cameras but only flagging a few minutes here and there for human inspection, then only those minutes invade anyone's priva
    • In addition, no doubt the computers will record everything permanently so that criminals can later be identified.

      I doubt it would be permanent as there's really little point. The vast majority of recorded data would be of innocent people and therefore of no use storing for an extended period. So other than a window that would give time for a crime to come to light and investigators to investigate (say 4 - 8 weeks) any footage outside of that window could be safely deleted in the knowledge that it is probabl
  • Would it be a violation of free expression to purposely commit non-violent acts that will trip the system? Would these previously legal actions now be restricted? Could I, every hour on the hour, commit a non-violent, non-illegal act that set off the alarm bells and caused cops to waste their time?
  • 1) it's cameras in public places. When did you ever HAVE privacy in public places ? Anyone is fully within his rights to spy on others in public places, so the police is too
    2) the computer will simply notify human operators, who will then decide wether to send in force or not
    3) the camera images will provide a record of what happened, so that police brutality will be self-evident from the imagery, and thus, decrease
    4) it's not the terminator that's coming for you. It's human beings that are paid to help you
    • Why is this such a bad thing ?

      So, when the 20 second clip of you digging for gold hits the airwaves two days before the election in which you are currently ahead by two or three points, will you consider this to be a "good thing"?

      How about when you walk by another crime being committed, and are flagged as a possible suspect in collusion? If there are ten faces in the frame and all get incarcerated for safety's sake until the evidence is sorted out that's good, right? And if that only takes a week, it's not
  • It's possible that this tech won't go anywhere, but think of where the Japanese car market was in the 1960's.. There had some pretty clunky things at first but they kept at it and won the world over.

    Bullying in particular sort of needs a belief that no one's watching in order for it to happen.

    In "The Day The Earth Stood Still," an advanced society turned their policing over to robots who kicked into high gear when they saw agression.

    The world's always a better place when people aren't worrying about agg
  • Gangstas and cracker suburbanites, I am about to reveal to you a new revelation in the perception of cool! Our new computer vision system trains you to become more "ghetto" looking and dangerous! Simply aim system at yourself and practice your ghetto styles and violent stares! The new force feedback mechanism tells you when you are sufficiently "rude and dirty"! Guaranteed to make you 200% more violent looking or your money back!

    Call now, operators standing by..

  • Crap. If you go to a public place, you DO forego your privacy to a degree.

    The least, other people can see what you are doing there. Is this not a breach of privacy then ?

    As long as people dont try to lower your pants to see what underpants you are wearing, you dont care. But then these camera systems do not do that either.

    So whats the problem ?
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot Top Deals

The rule on staying alive as a program manager is to give 'em a number or give 'em a date, but never give 'em both at once.

Close