Posted on 04/21/2002 8:29:38 AM PDT by dogbyte12
Computers and CCTV cameras could be used to predict and prevent crime before it happens.
Scientists at Kingston University in London have developed software able to anticipate if someone is about to mug an old lady or plant a bomb at an airport.
It works by examining images coming in from close circuit television cameras (CCTV) and comparing them to behaviour patterns that have already programmed into its memory.
The software, called Cromatica, can then mathematically work out what is likely to happen next. And if it is likely to be a crime it can send a warning signal to a security guard or police officer.
The system was developed by Dr Sergio Velastin, of Kingston University's Digital Imaging Research Centre, to improve public transport.
By predicting crowd flow, congestion patterns and potential suicides on the London Underground, the aim was to increase the efficiency and safety of transport systems.
The software has already been tested at London's Liverpool Street Station.
Dr Velastin explained that not feeling safe was a major reason why some people did not use public transport. "In some ways, women and the elderly are effectively excluded from the public transport system," he said.
CCTV cameras help improve security, he said, but they are monitored by humans who can lose concentration or miss things. It is especially difficult for the person watching CCTV to remain vigilant if nothing happens for a long period of time, he said.
"Our technology excels at carrying out the boring, repetitive tasks and highlighting potential situations that could otherwise go unnoticed," he added.
While recent studies have shown that cameras tend to move crime on elsewhere rather than prevent it completely, in certain environments, such as train stations, they are still useful.
And Dr Velastin believes his creation has a much wider social use than just improving transport.
His team of European researchers are improving the software so that eventually it will be capable of spotting unattended luggage in an airport. And it will be able to tell who left it there and where that person has gone.
However, the computer is not yet set to replace the human being altogether.
"The idea is that the computer detects a potential event and shows it to the operator, who then decides what to do – so we are still a long way off from machines replacing humans," Dr Velastin says.
Other things I can predict: Sunglasses/cosmetic contacts will be going like gangbusters (the better to conceal pupil dilation); looser, more concealing clothing with plenty of visual distraction/concealment characteristics; a dramatic resurgence of hats on men, especially wide-brimmed styles. Of course, enough people would have to adopt these things so that wearing them does not in itself stand out as a 'suspicious pattern'.
OK, here's a project for you we can use to fight back. Let's do some research on what type bullet we can develop that will penetrate the mounted camera case, but fired from a low-sound weapon so as to be hard to detect.
Oh, the weapon also should not LOOK like a weapon at all, lest the cameras and software anticipate an attack that's being set up. I have ideas on what might work. Perhaps we have some engineers out there who would find this interesting.
Oh, the weapon also should not LOOK like a weapon at all, lest the cameras and software anticipate an attack that's being set up. I have ideas on what might work. Perhaps we have some engineers out there who would find this interesting."
Sneak up on the camera from behind and put a potato sack over it. Or paint the lens black.
Warning: they will have cameras watching other cameras.
================
I proposed a website, called "Surveil the Surveillors". It would be a big database. Volunteers armed with GPS receivers would upload the location, coordinates, and purpose (if known) of every camera they can find.
Highway cams, 7-11 cams, "security" cams...all of them.
Why? Just to piss off the guys running the cameras. Sort of Discordian...
--Boris
Wonder how hard it would be to disguise a paint-ball gun as a long-lens camera? Just a thought.
How many terrorists have they caught?
None.
If that doesn't raise flags, nothing will.
When it happens over here (and it will, the majority of Americans are sheep), say a liberal administration is in power...do you see cameras going up around gun/ammo/hunting stores, VFW halls, American Legion halls, etc.? Probably.
The current administration wants to film people visiting our memorials in DC. I can only imagine what a liberal will do.
Here in Austin, Tx, we have a police department that focuses on the parks, the Park Police. You break the leash laws, your in deep doggy do, etc. etc. Many people, myself included, have been weirded out by them. They watch the children very very closely, hell they watch everybody very closely, as if your guilty of something and they don't know what, they have nightvision glasses (to make sure people aren't walking their dogs at night, or something, they won't say).
Anyways, the police chief was recently arrested for raping/molesting several young relatives.
I know, it has nothing to do with this thread, sorry.
I do agree with you, the liberals love to "protect the children" while doing borderline un-constitutional things. It's going to get worse.
EMP.
Short the buggers out.
At 14, I "invented" (in my head only, alas) the Compact Disc. I discovered "Fredkin's Number" before Fredkin. The difference was that he published and I did not!...etc. Sigh.
--Boris
Well, citizens with cherry-pickers can "pick off" the high-up ones. I guess they'd have to outlaw cherry-pickers.
Many cameras are easy to reach. For example, the "red-light" ticket cameras in L.A. are prominent and at low elevation...certainly not higher than 8-10 feet.
--Boris
I was only two years behind the patent filing date.
"It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself -- anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offence. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called."
- 1984, Chapter 5
Guess they'll have to outlaw Botox...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.