Chicago Developing 'Suspicious Behavior' Monitoring System

narramissic writes "Over the past few years, Chicago's Office of Emergency Management and Communications (OEMC) has been blanketing the city with a network of thousands of video cameras in an effort to remotely keep track of emergencies in real time. Now, with the help of IBM, the network is getting some smarts. IBM software will analyze the video and ultimately 'recognize suspicious behavior,' says OEMC spokesman Kevin Smith. 'The challenge is going to be teaching computers to recognize the suspicious behavior,' said Smith. 'Once this is done this will be a very impressive city in terms of public safety.'"

Good or bad?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

Obviously, this software will do squat. And obviously they'll be flooded with false positives. Assuming they still try to investigate all of these leads, they would need to increase the size of their work force - i.e. more jobs. Which is good. But does that offset all the taxpayer money going into this ultimately useless program?

Re:Good or bad?

[spleen_blender]

You have to field test your research somewhere, this one just happens to have a big juicy contract with it probably.

Obviously ...

[PhxBlue]

Chicagoans should go out of their way to act "suspicious" in front of these cameras if they want to prevent the onset of a nanny state. Wear thick coats during the summer months, keep their hands in their pockets, look back and forth. Hell, maybe sticking their tongues out at the cameras would constitute suspicious ...

Besides, where they ought to be placing these cameras is in the halls of Chicago's city government.

This is the goddamned end of the universe

[StealthyRoid]

Cool, so, we're not even pretending anymore that the use of cameras are anything less than the complete and total expansion of the panopticon, are we? I mean, of course, you'll still have the people who say "well, if you aren't doing anything wrong, why are you worried", but for the most part, we're pretty up front about the fact that we're going to be using cameras to keep our citizenry under the thumb. Who defines what constitutes "suspicious behavior", local cops, politicians, computer techs? There will be essentially zero guidelines for the implementation of this technology, so what's to stop the local PD, or the DEA from auto-flagging someone who looks like they're raising a pipe to their mouths, or, even better, engaging in nefarious acts like leaving the house late at night? And not just that, but how many citizens will have their rights violated because of a false positive from the "suspicious behavior" flag? Will the flag be enough to get a warrant to search someone's car or home?

End of the fucking universe, right here.

Conformity

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

'Once this is done this will be a very impressive city in terms of public conformity.'

Fixed it.

False Positives

[grassy_knoll]

From TFA:

The trick will be to make the analytics software work in a useful way. "The challenge is going to be teaching computers to recognize the suspicious behavior," said Smith. "Once this is done this will be a very impressive city in terms of public safety."

I'd wager the false positve rate is going to be very high, and it will be interesting to see if they can bring that down. Something like an alert for a stolen car ( or a car related to an amber alert ) could generate a very high false positive rate if the car is a common make/model.

On the other hand, if it teaches criminals to act in less "suspicious" ways, then the system will be of no value or perhaps even detremental ( showing no "suspicious" behavior when criminal activity is present, leading to a false sense of security ).

IBM again ?

[witte]

<sarcasm> What's next ? Hollerith numbers tattooed on wrists ? </sarcasm>

Re:YRO??!!!

[Elemenope]

City camera is pointed at a window in which is visible the screen of a computer at a public internet cafe. You log on to /. at the cafe. Bam! Suspicious activity! See, it's applicable. :)

Also, and call me crazy if I'm crazy, but its awfully hard to live as a free, responsible person online if you can't live as a free, responsible person offline . Hence, meat-space rights are relevant to YRO.

London

[Boogaroo]

Wasn't there an article on how the massive London camera network doesn't actually do any good? And that one has real people monitoring it. Who really thinks a computer will be able to do a better job at something so nebulous as "suspicious behavior?"

Oh, that's right, nobody. However, that doesn't stop the company pushing this from trying to make a buck. It's sorta like the DRM companies. The DRM companies all know it doesn't work, but companies keep falling for the salesmen's lies.

Once this is done...

[greg_barton]

'Once this is done this will be a very impressive city in terms of public safety.'

How many times have I heard this on an AI related project? "Once this is done..." is a fantasy, especially when they already describe it as a "trick" and a "challenge." From TFA:

The trick will be to make the analytics software work in a useful way. "The challenge is going to be teaching computers to recognize the suspicious behavior," said Smith.

Challenge, indeed. I'll believe it when I see it.

Scratch that. I'll believe it when the system sees it.

That's rich

[bogie]

"'Once this is done this will be a very impressive city in terms of public safety.'""

Impressive if your main hope in life is to live in some sort of Orwellian nightmare. Hey, here's a thought. If you put cameras in every house you can cut down on child abuse! You don't object to that do you? What are you some sort of kid toucher? Won't somebody please think of the children!

So much for Chicago being the lovely city I wanted to visit again.

is this serious?

[tacokill]

We can't even make a translator that works and you're going to look for "suspicious" people? Is that some kind of sick joke? What, exactly, constitutes "suspicious" and wouldn't that be almost impossible to code in any meaningful way? Hell, we humans can't even agree on what "suspicion" looks like and now they want to teach a computer. Good luck with that.

I expect that "suspicion" is a fairly complex process in the human brain (it relies on a lot of different senses) so I am having difficulty understanding how anyone in their right mind would undertake such an effort.

I've worked on machine learning systems...

[NeutronCowboy]

... and unless we've made astounding progress in the last 5 years (as in, someone created a strong AI), IBM is full of crap. Completely, utterly full of guano.

Here's how the system will work.
head covered: check
metal flash: check
loud sound: check
Result: sound warning

There's absolutely no way in hell that the system is going to be able to do a real-time analysis that goes beyond basic image and sound recognition that is coupled with a set of expert rules. Why? Because no will have the time to properly train the system. And even if someone would be insane enough to do that, it'll still fail, because context is utterly missing.

Example: someone runs out of a store in a hurry. Someone comes after him. Should the police be involved? Did someone steal something from the store, or did two people find out one of their friends is in trouble? Or are they late to a movie?

This system is doomed to complete failure and is nothing but a boondoggle for IBM. Kudos to the IBM salespeople who sold Chicago on this system. They're able to sell fridges to eskimos, I'm sure.

The only thing that really worries: the politicians who drank the kool-aid. For those of you who live in Chicago: vote them out, or move. This is a sign of serious trouble on the horizon.

Re:Obviously ...

[putzin]

This could be entertaining on Clark south of Addison on Friday and Saturday nights, especially around the Cubs clinching a playoff spot (it could happen), any Bears win, and Halloween. I guess it depends on what is suspicious.

Also, didn't London, the worlds first true nanny city just figure out that crime is the same or worse where the cameras are the densest?

Re:Good or bad?

[PinkPanther]

If the system for example could recognize signs of someone being followed, it might be enough to dispatch a police car to drive past

The one thing I constantly keep hearing about is all those police officers who show up to work day after day with nothing to actually do. This system will help those cops fill up the massive gaps in their daily schedules...

Re:False Positives

[noidentity]

They don't understand that it's not behavior that's suspicious, it's a particular person who is suspicious that another person's behavior is aimed at achieving some particular goal. For example, I may be suspicious that my dog is attempting to get to the fresh meat, or suspicious that the driver in front of me is going to change lanes without a turn signal.

On the other hand, looking at the definition of the word I guess it sums up nicely why such an automation is ill:

1. The act of suspecting something, especially something wrong, on little evidence or without proof.

Re:Good or bad?

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Hmm. Wouldn't it be cool if the headline was actually "Chicago Developing 'Superstitious Behavior' Monitoring System"?

Lazy-Ass's Crime Prevention Machine

[eepok]

This is just silly. I understand that people would prefer to PREVENT crime instead of REACTING to crime, but you can't PREDICT crime as an alternative. Prevention and prediction are two very different things.

To prevent crime, educate the populace so as help to instill acceptable ethics and a sense of shame. Help them to acquire the resources they actually need and stop telling them they're less of a person if they don't have the "best" of everything. Teach people about people and reinforce those teachings throughout life.

To predict crime, go see a psychic because they are just as likely to choose an imminent criminal due to "suspicious" activity. You'd spend less money this way. You'll need it for the counter-suits.

Truth of the matter is that the nation isn't a fan of raising their children. Nor do they look kindly on higher taxes to reduce classroom size so that teachers can be mentors as well as lectures. And since crime prediction is a fantasy, the best we can do is crime reaction.

Re:Good or bad?

[Seumas]

Why? The role of the police department is not to prevent or stop crimes that are in progress. If someone breaks into your house and you don't have a weapon, you are likely fucked. Unless you can convince the burgler to sit nicely in a chair until the police come before he does anything to you. The role of the police department is to clean up and investigate AFTER a crime has been committed.

While these cameras might give you a little faster response, they're still not much more useful than providing post-incident records for court cases.

And frankly . . . while I hate the whole fucking big brother aspect that our society is taking since 9/11 . . . I'm getting too old to give a shit. Just bring on the inevitable and get it over with.

Re:This is the goddamned end of the universe

[suv4x4]

I love they gave you +5 Overacting, but no, this is not "the goddamned end of the universe".

No, no one will be arrested because a flag. Don't you realize what this system is supposed to do. Reduce the amount of material that has to go through human eyes. If IBM software can flag suspicious activity, then police officers will monitor mostly the flagged videos, and work only a FRACTION of those flagged videos (if a human eye decides activity is suspicious.. then it may really be).

The problem isn't the fact they try to automate it. There are two other distinctive issues:

1. The fact they installed cameras everywhere. This is an actual problem, but, not the "end of the universe". You're already under control in public places, there are people EVERYWHERE around you, and they SEE you. If there were no cameras, would you feel ok to pull your pants down in the middle of the street? No. So, beside the people around you, few guys monitoring the cameras will also see you. Not that big of a deal.

2. Second problem is they put too much hope on software detecting suhspicious behaviour. That's a joke. We're AT LEAST, and I say AT LEAST, super-duper-optimistic, 20 years away from being able to create a system smart enough to detect suspicious with good accuracy. This means IBM's system will have big number of false positives, and big number of false negatives. In the former case, it means it won't be as effective in reducing the number of material a human eye has to go through. That's not a big problem but makes throwing so much money into a poor system worth question. In the latter case though, it means monitoring guys trusting the system too much and not watching the NON FLAGGED videos, and missing on ACTUAL suspicious activity which doesn't look suspicious to a computer system.

This could backfire

[PPH]

Considering Chicago's political history, they'd better not put up any cameras near city hall.

Re:Good or bad?

[zymurgyboy]

As long as you and everyone else keep waiting, it will never happen. Change occurs when people get fed up and do something about it themselves rather than waiting on someone else to solve the problem for them.

Hammer meets nails. Very good.

An equivalent amount of funding put into community policing programs or Neighborhood Watches would likely be far more effective than a camera program could ever be. When citizens start paying attention and giving a shit about what happens in their neighborhoods, things change. Buying lots of cameras and cops only seems to grow bigger tax bills.