More Surveillance Cams in NYC
Elaine Newton
enewton at cmu.edu
Mon Apr 24 06:16:45 PDT 2006
For IP if you wish...
The New York Times
April 23, 2006 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section 4; Column 1; Week in Review Desk; IDEAS & TRENDS;
Pg. 14
HEADLINE: The Camera Never Blinks, but It Multiplies
BYLINE: By HENRY FOUNTAIN
BODY:
IT'S spring, and a new crop of police surveillance cameras is
sprouting in
cities big and small. New York is installing 500 on street corners;
Chicago is
upgrading several thousand; and even the city of Dillingham, Alaska,
has 80 --
one for every 30 residents.
Many of these newer cameras can pan, tilt and zoom, and are
networked
through the Internet, so video images can be viewed and stored
centrally. They
are often purchased with homeland security funds, meant for use against
terrorism as well as street crime.
But it is impossible for a police department to continuously
monitor 2,000,
500 or even, in the case of Dillingham, 80 cameras. So other than
producing
mountains of visual data -- and raising the inevitable questions of
privacy --
how useful are they?
Law enforcement officials argue that just putting up a camera
in plain
sight can deter crime. And some see a future in which software will
analyze
video for possible signs of terrorist activity, like someone placing
a suitcase
in front of a building.
''We have seen significant dividends as a result of
implementing this
program,'' said Andrew Velasquez III, director of the Office of
Emergency
Management and Communications in Chicago. Drug trafficking has been
reduced in
areas where cameras have been installed, he said. And the city is
starting a
pilot program to see whether automated analysis can be effective.
But some security experts say the cameras are of limited value
-- largely
in helping investigators after a crime -- and are not cost-effective.
They point
to a large study by the Home Office in Britain, which has perhaps the
world's
most videotaped population, that found cameras to be ineffective in
reducing
crime, except in locations like parking garages. And even scientists
involved in
the development of visual recognition software acknowledge that the
programs do
not work well enough yet.
''Cameras make people feel better,'' said Bruce Schneier, an
expert on
security technology and the author of ''Beyond Fear: Thinking
Sensibly About
Security in an Uncertain World.'' ''But they really don't make sense.
At best
they move crime around a little bit.''
For a business, a camera that makes crime go elsewhere might
be valuable,
Mr. Schneier said. ''If I put a camera in my store and the mugger
goes to the
store next door, that's a win for me,'' he said.
But for a city, moving criminals to the next camera-less block
doesn't
reduce crime. And for the nation as a whole, moving terrorists from
one city to
another that has less surveillance doesn't make sense either. ''Why
would I
spend millions of dollars to move terrorism around?'' he said.
Paul Browne, a deputy police commissioner in New York, said that
so far the
department had installed 52 cameras, clearly marked as police
equipment, in
areas that had seen spikes in crime. Once more policing has
stabilized the
situation, Mr. Browne said, ''cameras can be helpful in preventing a
return of
crime.''
But Scott Henson, director of the police accountability
project of the
Texas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said cameras can
skew how
limited police resources are allocated. If cameras are monitored by
officers, he
said, ''resources are more likely to be dispatched to places where
cameras are.'
''It lets technology usurp the role of police management,'' he
added.
Often, however, no one is actually watching the cameras.
Officials in
Dillingham admit this on the town's Web site, and Mr. Velasquez
acknowledges it,
too. ''We know we are going to have monitoring challenges,'' he said.
Chicago is beginning a trial project using software that will
sift through
thousands of hours of video, trying to recognize unusual behavior,
like leaving
behind a suitcase.
Such software is largely unproven, noted Elaine Newton, a
fellow at the
Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society. ''These things
are going to
have error rates,'' she said.
Face recognition and other biometric applications are
particularly
difficult, and often the results depend on the quality of the image
or the
lighting. ''Typically surveillance cameras are pretty low quality,''
she said.
And they are often exposed to heat, which degrades image quality even
more.
As a result, Ms. Newton said, ''real-time analysis of lots of
cameras isn't
something that's going to be invested in.'' Instead, the analysis may
become
more selective.
For instance, she said, surveillance images can be used to
compile gross
statistics, like numbers of people coming into an area at a given
time. Or
software might be used for simpler recognition tasks, like
distinguishing one
kind of vehicle from another.
''They're probably going to do things that are intelligent
uses of data,''
Ms. Newton said. ''It really depends on what somebody is trying to
get out of
it.''
GRAPHIC: Photos: Street Scenes -- Public and private security cameras
record the
action in Midtown Manhattan. (Photographs by Tony Cenicola/The New
York Times)
--
Lauren Gelman
Center for Internet and Society
Stanford Law School
(ph) 650-724-3358
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blogs/gelman/
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as eugen at leitl.org
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Elaine Newton- in the news</title></head><body>
<div><br>
The New York Times<br>
<br>
April 23, 2006 Sunday<br>
Late Edition - Final<br>
<br>
SECTION: Section 4; Column 1; Week in Review Desk; IDEAS & TRENDS;
Pg. 14<br>
<br>
HEADLINE:<b> The Camera Never Blinks, but It Multiplies<br>
<br>
</b>BYLINE: By HENRY FOUNTAIN<br>
<br>
BODY:<br>
<br>
IT'S spring, and a new crop of police surveillance
cameras is sprouting in<br>
cities big and small. New York is installing 500 on street corners;
Chicago is<br>
upgrading several thousand; and even the city of Dillingham, Alaska,
has 80 --<br>
one for every 30 residents.<br>
<br>
Many of these newer cameras can pan, tilt and
zoom, and are networked<br>
through the Internet, so video images can be viewed and stored
centrally. They<br>
are often purchased with homeland security funds, meant for use
against<br>
terrorism as well as street crime.<br>
<br>
But it is impossible for a police department to
continuously monitor 2,000,<br>
500 or even, in the case of Dillingham, 80 cameras. So other than
producing<br>
mountains of visual data -- and raising the inevitable questions of
privacy --<br>
how useful are they?<br>
<br>
Law enforcement officials argue that just
putting up a camera in plain<br>
sight can deter crime. And some see a future in which software will
analyze<br>
video for possible signs of terrorist activity, like someone placing a
suitcase<br>
in front of a building.<br>
<br>
''We have seen significant dividends as a
result of implementing this<br>
program,'' said Andrew Velasquez III, director of the Office of
Emergency<br>
Management and Communications in Chicago. Drug trafficking has been
reduced in<br>
areas where cameras have been installed, he said. And the city is
starting a<br>
pilot program to see whether automated analysis can be effective.<br>
<br>
But some security experts say the cameras are
of limited value -- largely<br>
in helping investigators after a crime -- and are not cost-effective.
They point<br>
to a large study by the Home Office in Britain, which has perhaps the
world's<br>
most videotaped population, that found cameras to be ineffective in
reducing<br>
crime, except in locations like parking garages. And even scientists
involved in<br>
the development of visual recognition software acknowledge that the
programs do<br>
not work well enough yet.<br>
<br>
''Cameras make people feel better,'' said
Bruce Schneier, an expert on<br>
security technology and the author of ''Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly
About<br>
Security in an Uncertain World.'' ''But they really don't make sense.
At best<br>
they move crime around a little bit.''<br>
<br>
For a business, a camera that makes crime go
elsewhere might be valuable,<br>
Mr. Schneier said. ''If I put a camera in my store and the mugger goes
to the<br>
store next door, that's a win for me,'' he said.<br>
<br>
But for a city, moving criminals to the next
camera-less block doesn't<br>
reduce crime. And for the nation as a whole, moving terrorists from
one city to<br>
another that has less surveillance doesn't make sense either. ''Why
would I<br>
spend millions of dollars to move terrorism around?'' he said.<br>
<br>
Paul Browne, a deputy police commissioner in
New York, said that so far the<br>
department had installed 52 cameras, clearly marked as police
equipment, in<br>
areas that had seen spikes in crime. Once more policing has stabilized
the<br>
situation, Mr. Browne said, ''cameras can be helpful in preventing a
return of<br>
crime.''<br>
<br>
But Scott Henson, director of the police
accountability project of the<br>
Texas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said cameras can
skew how<br>
limited police resources are allocated. If cameras are monitored by
officers, he<br>
said, ''resources are more likely to be dispatched to places where
cameras are.'<br>
<br>
''It lets technology usurp the role of police
management,'' he added.<br>
<br>
Often, however, no one is actually watching
the cameras. Officials in<br>
Dillingham admit this on the town's Web site, and Mr. Velasquez
acknowledges it,<br>
too. ''We know we are going to have monitoring challenges,'' he
said.<br>
<br>
Chicago is beginning a trial project using
software that will sift through<br>
thousands of hours of video, trying to recognize unusual behavior,
like leaving</div>
<div>behind a suitcase.<br>
<br>
Such software is largely unproven, noted<b>
Elaine Newton, a fellow at the<br>
Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society</b>. ''These
things are going to<br>
have error rates,'' she said.<br>
<br>
Face recognition and other biometric
applications are particularly<br>
difficult, and often the results depend on the quality of the image or
the<br>
lighting. ''Typically surveillance cameras are pretty low quality,''
she said.<br>
And they are often exposed to heat, which degrades image quality even
more.<br>
<br>
As a result, Ms. Newton said, ''real-time
analysis of lots of cameras isn't<br>
something that's going to be invested in.'' Instead, the analysis may
become<br>
more selective.<br>
<br>
For instance, she said, surveillance images
can be used to compile gross<br>
statistics, like numbers of people coming into an area at a given
time. Or<br>
software might be used for simpler recognition tasks, like
distinguishing one<br>
kind of vehicle from another.<br>
<br>
''They're probably going to do things that
are intelligent uses of data,''<br>
Ms. Newton said. ''It really depends on what somebody is trying to get
out of<br>
it.''<br>
<br>
GRAPHIC: Photos: Street Scenes -- Public and private security cameras
record the<br>
action in Midtown Manhattan. (Photographs by Tony Cenicola/The New
York Times)</div>
<div><br></div>
<x-sigsep><pre>--
</pre></x-sigsep>
<div>Lauren
Gelman <span
></span> <br>
Center for Internet and Society<br>
Stanford Law School<br>
(ph) 650-724-3358<br>
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blogs/gelman/<br>
</div>
<HR>
You are subscribed as eugen at leitl.org
To manage your subscription, go to
<A
HREF="http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip">http://v2.listbox.com/member
/?listname=ip</A><P>Archives at: <A
HREF="http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/">http://
www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/</A></body>
</html>
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as eugen at leitl.org
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
----- End forwarded message -----
--
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy
mailing list