Smart Cameras Detect Crime, Erode Privacy 223
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?"
Just because someone pushes or punches... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Barking up the wrong tree (Score:3, Insightful)
(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)
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
At any rate, I'm always hesitant to hurrah for cameras watching me.
Half Life 2 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Half Life 2 (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Some Dostoevsky (Score:5, Insightful)
http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/d/dostoyevsk
Re: (Score:2)
"We do not blame the machine. We understand the machine."
-- Plague Carrier Patient, Doctor Who "New Earth"
Re: (Score:2)
Easily solveable (Score:5, Funny)
This is easily solvable by splitting behavior into 3 different types: Normal, dangerous, and HOT!
This could revolutionize the webcam industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Finally (Score:2)
Sure, a robot audience, but beggars can't be choosers.
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are now proposing that the police, as government officers, should be prohibited from patrolling public areas?
Re:Privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or you think cops walking a beat are doing it just for exercise? Do you scream at them to turn their heads when they walk by you. Get real.
We were not discussing current police abuses, only what they should be doing.
Re:Privacy? (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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!!!
Yo, dumbass (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really eroding privacy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not really eroding privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't get it. Government is supposed to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens. To that extent, cameras and police officers are no different.
In theory, you're wrong. The government is supposed to protect the people from external threats, not internal ones. It is not the job of the police to protect you. No really, they don't have the manpower to even come close. They respond in time to do something to a tiny number of crimes a year. Legally they have no obligation to stop a crime, even if they
If we could trust... (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
Easy answers (Score:2)
No.
Yes.
Riiight (Score:2, Funny)
Filtering not decision making (Score:3, Insightful)
The presentation of this is pure FUD.
AI-complete (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of people that fall short of that same mark. Many of whom are now guests of the state, in fact...
missing option (Score:2)
Not the use for systems like this.. (Score:2)
Hold up just one second! (Score:2)
This tech won't work. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Old tech (Score:2)
Oh let them implement this near me Pleeeeaaaasssee (Score:2)
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
Intelligence REDUCES erosion (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Damn, I hate when fiction becomes reality -- especially when written by PKD.
Absolute Bollocks (Score:2)
Great... so, th
Will only work for Untalented (Score:2, Interesting)
Once again Scientists fail to consult those who make their living by fo
Computers have civil rights too... (Score:2)
There should be allowable exceptions. (Score:2)
No security cams in public places! (Score:2)
Fake Fight! Fake Fight! (Score:2)
Yet another example of the fallacy that better knowledge can lead to a better society.
What Privacy Issues? (Score:2)
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?
smart people smash cameras, regain privacy (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if they are mounting cameras in isolated spots in the wilderness.
In populated areas, people firing
Re: (Score:2)
I tried that last year, I like to have the picture window open and I like to be in my underwear. the screams from the sidewalk as people were first horrified and then blinded by the set of 12 high power green lasers was keeping the neighbors up at night so I had to stop.
Finally Teenagers Have Something to Do (Score:2)
What a colossal failure a system like this would be.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Can help or hurt privacy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
false positives (Score:2)
One just can't believe the comments here (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Bullying (Score:2)
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
New Product: Teh Ghettoifier (Score:2)
Call now, operators standing by..
Nonsense - Privacy in a PUBLIC place ? (Score:2)
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 ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is an important point to emphasize. It's no different than the promise of security cameras on every street corner. I'm not saying it's good or bad, but this layer of technology isn't real important. It's the cameras going everywhere that should be at the center of the debate.
Re:Are these in public places? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if privacy has 100 grades intead of 2 grades (binary), there is 0 change if these are looking at public streets, because you don't have privacy to prevent you from being looked at there anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
That out of the way, a person does have some reasonable expectation of privacy when on a public street, at least in the US. Amendment IV covers "...persons, houses, papers, and effects..." and if it were stricly limited to anywhere other than public streets it would have specifically stated that. An excellent example is the fact that infrared waves emitted f
Re: (Score:2)
Humans decide to engage any investigative or legal processes.
Re:Are these in public places? (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't have arrest and prosecute to squash free speech and free assembly. You just have to have persistent police investigations and police "harassment".
Why would you even want to live in a society like that?
Re: (Score:2)
There's already peeping eyes and lots of cops all over, especially in crowded areas.
"You don't have arrest and prosecute to squash free speech and free assembly."
It's pretty hard to do it any other way. The "harassment" you mention is closely related to arrest, and should be included above.
Re: (Score:2)
Are these in public places? If so, there is no change in privacy...
Legally, and without any cause can the police spend taxpayer dollars following me around and videotaping me just in case I might commit a crime? No. It is not their job and it is a violation of my privacy by the government. An agent of the government acting in their official capacity does not have the same rights as everyone else. They have fewer rights and are restricted in their actions to doing their duty. The government is the single
Re: (Score:2)
Please clarify something. Do the cops need a warrant or something to one of those "stakeouts" in which they park near your house to see you go in and out, follow you in unmarked cars, etc?
" An agent of the government acting in their official capacity does not have the same rights as everyone else"
More "devil's advocate". If the government could not do this
Re: (Score:2)
Areas with large groups of people would be low priorities for such a system (crowds, except alerting to unusual crowds, could probably be deprioritized in software.) The system seems a lot better for flagging crimes in places that might otherwise not be seen by anyone but the victim, and where the victim might be unable to summon help in a timely manner.
Re: (Score:2)
No, police can, quite legally, follow you without a warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)