Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy

Movement Sensors a Less Invasive Alternative To CCTV 103

Posted by kdawson from the sees-you-when-you're-moving dept.
holy_calamity writes "Researchers at Mitsubishi say cramming buildings with movement sensors, not cameras, is a safer and less invasive alternative to CCTV. They covered their office building with 215 low-cost sensors to watch over their colleagues and show how it works. A video shows how a user can see people's movements on a map of the building in real time. Data from the sensors is much easier to handle than video footage, and it can easily be searched." The Surface-like UI is pretty neat too.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Movement Sensors a Less Invasive Alternative To CCTV More

Movement Sensors a Less Invasive Alternative To CCTV

Comments Filter:

  • Better link: (Score:5, Informative)

    by choas ( 102419 ) on Thursday April 10, 2008 @09:18AM (#23024104)
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=VvDxDGiFa8Q [youtube.com]

  • I agree. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by aleph42 ( 1082389 ) * on Thursday April 10, 2008 @09:21AM (#23024164)
    It may seem like a bad idea at first (cheaper == more sensors), but at least this will force them to *really* anonymise the data, and only keep what they need for the security part.

    So probably more sensors, but less abuses.

    • Re:I agree. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by daveime ( 1253762 ) on Thursday April 10, 2008 @09:27AM (#23024248)
      Yes, I can just imagine the investigation into the theft of some office supplies.

      Management : "Who did it ?"
      Security : "Well, we've narrowed it down to anonymous blobs #1,#245 and #777"
      Management : "Your P-45 will be ready in an hour"
      • Or this:

        Management (looking at motion feeds) : "What are anonymous blobs #245 and #777 doing? Why are they so close together?"
        Security : "Well, they could be in a heated discussion...or it got worse and one's strangling the other..."
        Management (now staring) : "Wait...zoom in. They seem to be bumping up against one another."
        Security : "Well, then they're probably having...oh sh-!"

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by mysidia ( 191772 )

        The purpose of this is just to save money, remember, and to give people the feeling that the watchers are less invasive.

        I'm sure they'll post cameras at the entrance or at some other key location, in tandem with the motion sensors.

        The result will be they know the identities of all the blobs.

        It'll never be much a question of who the blobs are or where they've been in the building.

        The only question will be what were they doing

        The motion sensor provides enough information for them to know M

    • Re:I agree. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by aleph42 ( 1082389 ) * on Thursday April 10, 2008 @09:42AM (#23024476)
      Quick reminder of the situation:

      CCTVs are progressing in a lot of place meeting little to no resistence over privacy concern. But once the police have their hands on a video feed, they can:

      1) Track *all* registration plates automatically (right now in London, you couldn't do a 100m in your car without the police nowing it).

      2) Soon track you based on face recognition, which seems to be very actively researched. Add this to the fact that certain shooping-mall already forbid you to wear anything on your head (so you can't hide your face to the camera), and you are in for a real Orwellian nightmare.

      And of course, it's always possible for them to place the camera for one purpose, letting public opinion completly unaware of what is really done with the feed later, when a new technology is discovered or put into use.

      To those who will say I'm being paranoid, or that they have nothing to hide: tell that to the activists who were arrested right before crashing a republican convention, as a result of months of police surveillance (the following link is for the guy with the dot-printer bike; can't find the other one right now: http://www.boingboing.net/2007/04/10/bikes-against-bush-a.html [boingboing.net] )

      An other (now publicly admitted) example is how phones of pacifists were tapped during Viet-Nam.

      And of course now there is the Church of Scientology:
      - "I've got nothing to hide"
      - "Then you've never had the gut to piss the COS"

      • Anti-headgear discriminazis (Score:4, Interesting)

        by tepples ( 727027 ) <.tepples. .at. .gmail.com.> on Thursday April 10, 2008 @09:50AM (#23024564) Homepage Journal

        Add this to the fact that certain shooping-mall already forbid you to wear anything on your head (so you can't hide your face to the camera)
        Has anyone tried to sue the operators of these malls on grounds of discrimination? People in some faiths must cover at least part of their heads, and people undergoing some kinds of cancer treatment lose their hair and need to cover up the chrome-dome with some sort of cap or hat.

        • Add this to the fact that certain shooping-mall already forbid you to wear anything on your head (so you can't hide your face to the camera)

          Has anyone tried to sue the operators of these malls on grounds of discrimination? People in some faiths must cover at least part of their heads, and people undergoing some kinds of cancer treatment lose their hair and need to cover up the chrome-dome with some sort of cap or hat.

          I imagine they handle these types of things on a case by case basis with exceptions for the people you describe being the rule.

          Not to say that some jerk in some mall won't go power-tripping one day and ask someone to do it but between the majority being quietly overlooked and the few that aren't overlooked probably happen to a lot of people that just decide to comply or leave the mall.

          But when/if it comes to what you describe will be an interesting case to follow.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by mrogers ( 85392 )

          Has anyone tried to sue the operators of these malls on grounds of discrimination?

          A mall is a private business premises, the owners have the right to refuse entry on any grounds they like. This is arguably one of the reasons local councils in Britain are so keen to convert their town centres into covered shopping malls: it makes them easier to police because you can just throw out anyone you don't like the look of, no questions asked.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by tepples ( 727027 )

            A mall is a private business premises, the owners have the right to refuse entry on any grounds they like.

            Even "no black people allowed"? True, the U.S. anti-discrimination statutes [wikipedia.org] are more restrictive for government-owned businesses and government contractors. But some are still in effect for private or publicly-held private businesses that engage in commerce among the states, such as a retailer that deals with a distributor in another state.

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by mrogers ( 85392 )
              I don't know whether "no black people allowed" has ever been tested in a British court - we have anti-discrimination laws for jobs, but I'm not aware of any that apply to shops (for example it's common to see "only one schoolchild at a time" on the doors of corner shops). That's not to say that I think "no black people allowed" would stand up in court, but until it's struck down and a precedent is set, rules like "no baseball caps" are likely to continue.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Of course, what is really needed are video cameras in areas of police work, such as jails, police cars, etc. to ensure that police are correctly doing their jobs, without brutality, unnecessary force, etc. After all, if they 'aren't doing anything wrong, then they have nothing to hide' works both ways, doesn't it? :-)

        And this would be a good idea for politicians too. We must have video cameras of all of their meetings, both public and private to ensure accountability, transparency, etc. I mean, after a

  • 50/50 (Score:1)

    by mfh ( 56 )
    This method appears easier for people doing monitoring. I think it's less safe in terms of public privacy.

    Those sensors could be easily hacked into, or disabled, or misdirected.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by martin_henry ( 1032656 )

      ...could be easily hacked into, or disabled, or misdirected.
      Unlike a camera?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Enleth ( 947766 )
        Well, with a camera it's quite easy for the operator to tell that it was taped or pointed in another direction and anyone who did that was recorded anyway. With motion sesnors, how do you know that the sensor is actually sensing no motion or was just taped?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by mfh ( 56 )
        Yes, unlike a camera, which is very similar to human perception and therefore the security guard can assess things much easier. They have a base reference.

        Unless you are an auto-bot, knowing the difference between a static field of a proportional density to the proximity of actual matter, will be difficult!

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by trolltalk.com ( 1108067 )
      I just want to know if my laser pointer can blind them, like it can a CCTV.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by PlatyPaul ( 690601 )
        Well, since they're likely to be using IR sensors [wikipedia.org], all signs point to no.

        It does, however, mean that you can mess with them using a blowdryer, cranking up the building temperature, reflecting sunlight on it, or fiddling with the direction of the heat ducts nearby. Other measures exist for alternate detector types (like using a white noise generator to mess with ultrasonic devices).
        • Speaking of "messing with" the sensors, do they not have squirrels, rats, and cats at this facility? Good luck trying to tune hundreds of motion sensors to be sensitive enough to capture a slow-moving human but still not alert for a wild animal.

          • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

            by orangesquid ( 79734 )
            That's why I pounce and dash around instead of walking at work. Plus, it keeps the boss from asking about the TPS reports.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Lumpy ( 12016 )
        no.

        but if they are ultrasonic wearing a large yellow fluffy suit will.

        Problem is you cant be "invisible" running around looking like a giant fluffy chicken.

        IR sensors can be killed by holding a IR reflective plate of glass. Again, you look obvious to others as you walk the halls with a big piece of glass.
    • They'd be as easily hacked into as the CCTV cameras that they can theoretically replace, while offering up less personal data in the process. They certainly seem more safe in terms of public privacy to me. (Not to say that all CCTV cameras could/should be replaced by these systems; it's not a substitute for loss prevention cameras in a retail store, for example.)
  • welcome our new movement sensor overlords

  • Effectiveness (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Woundweavr ( 37873 ) on Thursday April 10, 2008 @09:23AM (#23024194)
    I'm all for privacy, but lets be real. There's no way that motion sensors provide comparable data to video. Tracking movement, while still invasive to privacy, is just short of useless in terms of security. You can't tell if someone is shoulder surfing, or taking that framed picture of Chuck Norris off someone's desk, or judo chopping their boss from motion sensors. Indeed, the identity of the person on the screen is unknown as well. If two people walk towards each other and pass each other in the hall, that would be essentially identical to them walking up to each other and turning around - identity obfuscated.

    Interesting tool for traffic analysis, sure. Alternative to security cameras? Not so much.

    • Re:Effectiveness (Score:4, Informative)

      by esocid ( 946821 ) on Thursday April 10, 2008 @09:32AM (#23024312) Journal
      RTFA: They will mainly use motion sensors and place cameras in strategic locations so they can go back and track a particular person if they need to. It doesn't seem like a good implementation for a method of time-sensitive tracking to me, plus in a crowd situation it's pretty useless. I may be wrong but it sounded like it was more a way of studying movement behaviors rather than pure individual tracking.
      • They claim to be able to track a person, but motion sensors can not do this. They only track (wait for it)... motion! Take my obfuscation example to the next step. Ten people walk to the water cooler in groups of two or three at about the same time. After a few minutes of immobility, singles and doubles leave the cooler. Even presuming the system is sophisticated enough to tell the difference between Andre the Giant Sales Rep and the two underfed interns walking next to each other down the hall, it woul
        • Even if they are not alternative for CCTVs everywhere, I think they could at least force those who install cameras to be honest with their intentions.

          Like
            - "We need a camera near that door so that, at night, we can tell when someone comes close it"
            - "Use a motion sensor then. It's cheaper, and easier to analyse"
            - "Well... actually, we intended to log the faces of the people who use that door during the day, too."

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by jdigriz ( 676802 )
            The obvious question is why not both? The problem with CCTV is that it's space-inefficient. It records a whole lotta nothing. By pairing a cctv with a motion sensor, it can turn on the recording just when something interesting is happening. Or if they still want to record the whole time, the motion sensors can be used to tag interesting time codes on the tape, so you know where to fast-forward to without having to watch the whole damned thing. Heck, I can do this with my iSight and Evocam http://www.ev [evological.com]

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by neumayr ( 819083 )
          RFID.
          That way, they still don't track the real person, but their assigned tags.
          I'm pretty sure you can tell if people have been swapping their tags.

          That sort of tracking was demostrated in 2004: http://www.openbeacon.org/ [openbeacon.org]
    • Agreed. If the motion sensors activated the CCTV would be equally useful but that will still have its own flaws - aka what happens if something is going on in an area but no movement.

      I think the simple realistic answer here is there are only so many camera feeds and you need a sufficient number of eyes to watch them, of course dependent on how much action and detail is needed to be seen in each area. Having worked in Loss prevention at a retail setting I am extremely impressed with how many screens they can

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by EdIII ( 1114411 ) *

        aka what happens if something is going on in an area but no movement.


        Huh? You got me stumped here. What "something" exhibits no movement that we would be interested in from a security standpoint?
        • Hmm, perhaps after you've persuaded someone else to do something, verbally perhaps?

          Unless you set the motion sensor so sensitive that even air conditioning/heating sets it off, it's not going to catch those situations.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by maxume ( 22995 )
      It seems like it would work well as a complement to cameras, so that you didn't need to have as many cameras to keep track of things, and that you could spend less time worrying about the cameras, as you could use the motion tracking to key into interesting time periods in the camera footage.

      And the identity obfuscation you mention would work, but it would require both participants to be willing participants, so it is still somewhat helpful if something goes down.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Tacvek ( 948259 )

        It seems like it would work well as a complement to cameras, so that you didn't need to have as many cameras to keep track of things, and that you could spend less time worrying about the cameras, as you could use the motion tracking to key into interesting time periods in the camera footage.

        Based on the video link in the first post (unlike the seemingly broken link in the submission), it seems that it is intended to be used in conjunction with cameras. It is of course not terribly useful for real time security, but take the example of something stolen from a person's office. Given the time frame the object must have been stolen during, one could check for any motion entering the office and then leaving it. Then continuous motion can be tracked until it passes one of the cameras. Then queue up

    • atoms so possess such elasticity

      "If two people walk towards each other and pass each other in the hall, that would be essentially identical to them walking up to each other and turning around - identity obfuscated."

      i'm unsure humans do, but as to the topic of this thread, Mit has clearly been given a blow
    • There are many places where security cameras are not allowed. In California, state employees cannot be recorded while working as an example. (Fear of having their productivity analyzed) I have seen a couple of data centers with NetBotz cameras that all have to be covered because of this. There are applications, but there are also better approaches.
    • Not true at all. There is a lot of information which can be gleamed from motion sensors, although it is probably most useful when coupled with video rather than detached from it. For example, if you track a person circling a building (or car or bicycle or backpack...) that is suspicious. Let's say controversial company X has a large office building. Most people either walk past (on their way to other places) or go into the main entrance. If someone circles the building once or twice, that's suspicious

  • Actual video footage is far better for tracking... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Assmasher ( 456699 ) on Thursday April 10, 2008 @09:24AM (#23024206) Journal
    ...and identification purposes, and is also easy to search. The author is either unfamiliar with modern surveillance or chooses to ignore the realities of video analytics.

    • Re:Actual video footage is far better for tracking (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Jhon ( 241832 ) * on Thursday April 10, 2008 @09:29AM (#23024258) Homepage Journal
      Actually, I think this would complement video quite well. You use this system to see WHATS happening -- click a button -- and see WHO is making it happen.
      • The motion sensor doesn't tell you anything that video cannot. It's a redundancy. Now, if it was a pressure sensor that would be different... You could then do some things that are difficult for a video sensor to discern (like tailgaiting.)

        • The motion sensor doesn't tell you anything that video cannot. It's a redundancy.

          But it's cheaper, so you can have more of them and cover more area than you could afford to with cameras. I think that was the point.

          • It isn't necessarily cheaper, depending upon the coverage area you desire, plus if you want cheap, use rfid - that's really cheap. I think there were several points, the one I was addressing (or intending to) is the poster's assertion that it was easier to assess the situation with the motion sensors (and I disagree :).) You also give up a lot of capabilities when you use a motion sensor. Personally, I would use both in order to gain the advantages to be had from sensor 'fusion.'
      • Actually it's used for checking if ANYTHING is happening. Or how many people are in hallway and such things. It's just to tell where people typically go, it is NOT surveillance equipment.

  • Cool, but not perfect (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PlatyPaul ( 690601 ) on Thursday April 10, 2008 @09:26AM (#23024234) Homepage Journal
    1.) You can't tell activity without a paired set of video cameras (i.e., legitimate night access by staff versus corporate sabotage). From TFA:

    Users can select a certain path on the map - for example from the office drinks machine to the front door - to call up motion and video data from the path at a particular time and reveal who used the route. [emphasis mine]
    So, you still have video cameras around and constantly capturing - this just narrows when you'd be looking at them.

    2.) You can't tell if that snake of moving lights is one person or more than one (i.e., someone piggybacks on a legitimate user's door swipe and is effectively invisible as long as they're close enough). So, you can't tell if you should be looking at that video or not. Maybe human heat signature detectors instead?


    It's a nice concept in general, and I support it, but I wouldn't call it an "alternative to CCTV".

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by esocid ( 946821 )
      I think the piggy-backing thing would be obvious to spot. Instead of a tail on the screen x cm long, it is 2x cm long, plus the person might notice someone 2 feet behind them. But, then again someone would have to be monitoring for it wouldn't they?
      • The tail would be the same length plus a constant (for the tailing person, assuming they're not walking alongside and keeping up a conversation). Since a person moving at different speeds will produce tails of different lengths, this may not be easily discernible.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mblase ( 200735 )

      So, you still have video cameras around and constantly capturing - this just narrows when you'd be looking at them.

      That seems to be the idea. The motion sensors, taken as a whole, provide a "god's eye" view of the entire floor/building, essentially reducing all the cameras on the floor to a single "camera" watching the entire floor.

      Since the human brain can only focus on one image at a time, this makes it easy to spot anomalies anywhere on the floor. When an anomaly is found, video cameras can be trained on it.

      Think about it: if you were the night watchman, would you rather be responsible for picking out one black-clad

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mblase ( 200735 )

      You can't tell if that snake of moving lights is one person or more than one (i.e., someone piggybacks on a legitimate user's door swipe and is effectively invisible as long as they're close enough)
      I think a security guard at the front door would be enough to eliminate this as a problem.

  • Energy saving (Score:5, Insightful)

    by esocid ( 946821 ) on Thursday April 10, 2008 @09:27AM (#23024246) Journal

    "It has large implications for energy savings," Ivanov adds, saying that heating or air-conditioning use could be informed by the data."
    This is one thing I've always wondered about. Why in the hell do office building needs to keep the lights on 24/7? I'm not sure if it has something to do with how the power grid operates, but if not then motion sensors connected to the lights and AC would be a great idea imho. Lower (or raise) the temp a little to save energy, and shut off most lights when the building is not in use.
    • For some buildings its a security measure. If you have motion detecting lights everywhere in the building... anyone that can see the lights of the building can tell exactly when everyone checks in and out of the building. Lets be honest, it is less likely to be broken into when its packed full of worker bees in their offices.

      --------
      Never put motion detecting lights in bathrooms... you're on the can in a stall for a few minutes and then...

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by PlatyPaul ( 690601 )
      I'm not sure where you're working, but over here we have motion sensors on all lights in offices, hallways, and bathrooms (with adjustable sensitivity and null-motion persistence). The same can be said for places I've interned - larger companies seem to be particularly "on the ball" for the savings and good eco-karma.

      For temperature, it might be more efficient to keep that boiler lit than having to reignite every day....

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sholden ( 12227 )
      I remember those times well, after midnight make sure to wave your arm above your head every 20 minutes or so, otherwise the damn lights turn out as you type away on that thesis (with I guess a not so sensitive motion sensor so that a cockroach doesn't turn on the lights, or your keyboard hidden by your chair for the sensor's view)...
      • I think it'd be a good idea to package a cheap little microphone in those sensors so you could pick up on motion OR noise. So in the case of sitting nearly motionless at a computer typing, the sensor would pickup on the keyboard noise and assume there is still activity in the room.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by flyingfsck ( 986395 )
      Electricity use for lighting in North America is only about 1% of the total. Most electricity is used by heavy industry, steel mills, aluminium smelters and the like. So even if all tungsten bulbs are replaced with twirly-whirlies, it will make practically no difference. In a large office building, most lights are fluorescent already and the cost of adding more light switches outweighs any energy savings. Also, lights (even fluorescents) produce mostly heat and little light. In areas where buildings need

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by TubeSteak ( 669689 )

        Electricity use for lighting in North America is only about 1% of the total. Most electricity is used by heavy industry, steel mills, aluminium smelters and the like. So even if all tungsten bulbs are replaced with twirly-whirlies, it will make practically no difference.

        If that was true, then why do local utilities ask for rate hikes in response to decreased usage from conservation?

        http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/03/22/toronto-hydro-conservation.html [www.cbc.ca]
        That's one article from last year, but similar articles pop up all the time.
        When everyone uses less natural gas/heating oil/water/electricity, rates go up.
        It pisses people off to no end, because they forget that their utility's profit margin is enshrined in law.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by proxima ( 165692 )

        Electricity use for lighting in North America is only about 1% of the total.

        Got a source for that? Some quick Googling shows that there is serious disagreement about the number, but I've seen estimates from about 3% to 20%. This post [grist.org] illustrates the wildly different numbers.

        It's amazing to me that we haven't pinned down this number better, but some people like to include things like the amount of extra air conditioning required to compensate for the heat generated in the summer and subtract the amount of

      • Electricity use for lighting in North America is only about 1% of the total. Most electricity is used by heavy industry, steel mills, aluminium smelters and the like.

        According to the EIA's "Direct Use and Retail Sales of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by Sector, by Provider [doe.gov]",

        in 2006 residential use was 1,351,520,036 megawatt hours; commercal use was 1,299,743,695 megawatt hours; industrial use was 1,011,297,566 megawatt hours; transportation use was 7,357,543 megawatt hours; and 'direct use' was 146,926,612 megawatt hours.

        In other words, of a total 3.82 billion megawatt hours, 1.35 billion megawatt hours were used residentially. That's 35.3%.

        Furthermore, according t

      • Electricity use for lighting in North America is only about 1% of the total. Most electricity is used by heavy industry, steel mills, aluminium smelters and the like. So even if all tungsten bulbs are replaced with twirly-whirlies, it will make practically no difference. In a large office building, most lights are fluorescent already and the cost of adding more light switches outweighs any energy savings.

        Rubbish. Maybe a steel mill won't notice the difference for its offices, but an office without huge power-gobbling plant attached certainly will. A quick calculation suggests that my office (20 people) has about 60 fluorescent tubes. Running those 24 instead of 8 hours/day would use an extra 33 kWh/day, =12000 kWh/year. Certainly enough to warrant installing a few switches, if that's even necessary. I can't imagine installing lighting in a building without providing light switches.
        The only reason lights ar

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AJWM ( 19027 )
      Most of the meeting/conference rooms where I work have motion (or possibly passive IR?) sensors on the light switches, they'll turn the lights off if nobody's in the room. (Or, if they're strictly motion sensitive, if everybody just sits really still for a few minutes. I haven't tested. ;-)

      A bit impractical for the cubicle farms though, and in my case there are at least a few people there at any given time.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MtlDty ( 711230 )
      My old college had motion sensing lights. It was supremely spooky on the times I had stayed late into the night. Walking down the long (dead straight) corridors, with glass doors from one end to the other and having the lights pop on as you walked along, then off again as you left that section. The claustrophobia was nerve jangling. Ideal for a horror movie.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Idbar ( 1034346 )
      I would say it requires some sort of intelligent sensors. If you are based only on motion sensors, it would be a pain having to move to activate them when you are working late at night.

      On the other hand, if you say you can adjust them to be more sensitive, then any mosquito will keep the lights on.

      So I guess, this sort of intelligent system can keep a log of people that it's still in their offices and not turning their lights off... but... is that again a privacy concern?
  • How so?
    The only example the article mentioned is that motion sensors won't "catch you picking your nose".
    Yeah, that's what's privacy advocates are talking about - being caught picking your nose.

  • Alien (Score:5, Funny)

    by MadUndergrad ( 950779 ) on Thursday April 10, 2008 @09:34AM (#23024358)
    Did that video remind anyone else of that scene near the end of Alien where they're crawling around in the tunnels on the Nostromo? I kept waiting to see a much faster moving dot closing in on the guy...
  • From the MERL company site:
    "MERL's mission--our assignment from MELCO--is two fold:
    1. To generate highly significant intellectual property (papers, patents and prototypes) in areas of importance to MELCO.
    2. To locate organizations within MELCO that can benefit from this technology and through close partnership with them, significantly impact MELCO's business." [www.merl.com/company]

    This is hardly the complete blueprint for a revolutionary security system; it is, however, an inn

  • Somewhat off-topic, but the table in question is MERL's DiamondTouch [merl.com], not Surface or a derivative thereof. The DiamondTouch predates Surface by quite a while - I got to use one at SIGGRAPH 2006. It uses an overhead projector onto the interactive surfac and pads that you must touch with some part of your body to use, generally by sitting on it. The table itself emits signals that are recieved through your body by the pad. This is in direct contrast to Surface and similar technologies, which use infrared

    • It's rather annoying the way some people tend to label any tabletop computer / multitouch display a "Surface-like" these days.
      I don't know if Microsoft did it on purpose or not, but it seems a lot of the people frequenting tech sites have been spoonfed into thinking that the concept originated at MS.
  • To turn it off

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AJWM ( 19027 )
      Heh. But it doesn't (yet) tag the movement dots with the names of the movers.

      Hmm, prior art do you suppose? ;-)
  • Motion detection could be less invasive than CCTV, but in combination with CCTV it's more privacy invasive.

    Prediction is that BOTH will be used coupled together to provide patterns for each individual.

    They demonstrated copier pattern. How about bathroom pattern. Surface: X is going to the bathroom 10 times a day. Video: X is "Office J. Roach"
  • As a thug, I welcome the improvement sensors offer over CCTV. My profession has enough risks without our actual image or criminal act being captured on video. I got a right to privacy too.
  • It seems more logical to me to let the CCTV cameras dumb-down their output to act as motion sensors capable of discerning color and motion rather than purely using motion sensors. If you want to get an image, you can call up the camera manually and get whatever is live (or less than 5 minutes old). You can then program a system to look for suspicious movement patterns, and grab the video feeds from affected cameras.

    Depending on how aggressive you got with the system, you could even scan for things like ca
    • It seems more logical to me to let the CCTV cameras dumb-down their output to act as motion sensors capable of discerning color and motion rather than purely using motion sensors

      Actually, most CCTV controllers worth bothering with have motion sensor inputs that will switch the monitor to a camera in response to a nearby sensor being triggered. That way, if (for example) someone trips a sensor in a corridor, the monitor will show that camera rather than rolling through all its inputs one-by-one, possibly m

  • Too Many Voyeurs (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hyades1 ( 1149581 ) <hyades1@hotmail.com> on Thursday April 10, 2008 @10:18AM (#23024968)

    We're getting to the point where decisions made on what kind of surveillance is permitted in public and quasi-public spaces must become a moral and ethical question that goes to the heart of what we mean by democracy. If the need for security is so urgent, how can it be argued that surveillance cameras shouldn't be allowed in washrooms? Is there a better on-site location to do final assembly of a weapon than one where privacy is guaranteed?

    My personal belief is that every public area protected only by occasional foot patrols and the commitment of average people to act responsibly is a metaphorical middle finger shoved in the face of all fascists and their terrorist enablers.

  • Well done. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Rob T Firefly ( 844560 ) on Thursday April 10, 2008 @10:35AM (#23025206) Homepage Journal
    This is safe now, because Robert Redford is now far too old to squeeze into a neoprene wetsuit. [wikipedia.org]
  • was welcomed politely but firmly by our new sensor overlords and look forward to their continued domination (they said [in a doom laden synthesised voice] that they know where I live!)
  • You don't see CCTV in Star Trek (in "the future"), just biological sensors and such: "Computer, where is Mr. LaForge?" "10-forward.". I always wondered why they didn't, though, as it would be handy when there is some kind of intrusion.

    • "Computer, where is Mr. LaForge?" "10-forward."

      If I remember my Treknobabble correctly, the computer was able to locate people by tracking their communicator badges. It makes sense that the comm system would constantly track all badges so as to efficiently route calls.

      I always wondered why they didn't, though, as it would be handy when there is some kind of intrusion.

      Not only was Trek (and Starfleet in particular) usually portrayed as too utopian for such privacy issues, but it just makes for better TV drama to send a bunch of expendable redshirts and/or every senior officer on the ship to go down to a hull breach not knowing what they're going to f

  • For occupancy sensing, this will work fine. But for security, the point is to get a picture of who is swiping what.

    Video motion detectors aren't new technology. And they can be 'dual use'. During the day, the cameras only signal motion but in security mode, when motion is detected, they save the image.

    Interesting note: Video detection is being used to detect cars at intersections to control signals. In this mode, the system only provides a signal when a car stops within a defined area in the field of v

  • If we add this to the technology that can ID a person by the way they walk as seen here [slashdot.org] we wind up with no added privacy at all.
  • It's been very interesting to read this discussion. Thank for being so interested! A couple points:

    1) I think Mason did a great job on the article. That's evidenced by the fact a lot of the posts here center on the questions I think are most interesting:

    a) Is there any way to balance the needs of society with the needs of the individual?

    b) How much information can you get out of networks of simple sensors?

    c) Are dense networks of simple sensors "better" than d

Slashdot Top Deals

news: gotcha

Close