posted 04-21-2002 01:37 PM            

CCTV: By learning behaviour patterns, computers could soon alert police when an unmanned camera sees 'suspicious' activity

By Andrew Johnson
21 April 2002

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.

posted 04-22-2002 12:17 AM            

By May Wong
AP technology writer
July 29, 2001

Deseret News OAKLAND, Calif. — The purse-snatching suspects tried to convince police they weren't anywhere near the victim. Unfortunately for the suspects — now facing robbery charges — crisp, digital images from the Oakland train station's new surveillance cameras caught them in a lie.

Similar cameras are being installed in another two of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit's busiest stations. The surveillance system represents the latest in video technology, the kind also cropping up in schools, street corners, even restaurants.

"The images are much better," BART police Sgt. Frank Lucarelli said. "You can blow them up, and they don't degrade as much." It's a far cry from BART's old patchwork of cameras, which produced the blurry, hard-to-follow shots often seen on television crime shows.

The latest setup features live streaming video with sharp, color images at up to 500 lines of resolution, compared with the old system's 160 lines in black and white. Only partially installed, the new system has already yielded footage that helped police solve 10 crimes. Once fully in place, the equipment will allow police or dispatchers to remotely monitor and control the cameras, zooming in on trouble spots from headquarters miles away.

Digital surveillance systems are growing more powerful, less expensive — and increasingly common. To privacy advocates, they are ominous and invasive. "Whether it's the Big Brother of government or the little brother of industry, both pose a threat to our privacy," said Barry Steinhardt, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Revenues related to video surveillance more than tripled from $282 million in 1990 to more than $1 billion in 2000, and the Security Industry Association forecasts that they could grow to $1.63 billion by 2005.

The latest technology lets operators pan, tilt or zoom their cameras via the Internet or a company's computer network. A single monitor can simultaneously display images from up to 16 cameras, reducing the expense of multiple screens. Finding a particular image used to mean hours of scrolling through analog tapes. Doing it digitally takes less than a minute.

"These cameras are so good today, and the software to control and record them is available at a reasonable cost," said Dale Scheideman, planning director of the Clark County School District in Nevada. Using a laptop, he said, "I can sit in the parking lot of a school and can view the inside of the school."

The Las Vegas-area district is spending $16 million to install the cameras in 250 schools. With a camera that can zoom in on license plates from 100 yards away, Scheideman said, school officials recently caught a young man trying to break into a car. "Business is booming," said Patrick Blair, a vice president with Vital Link Business Systems.

The San Francisco-based company provides monitoring services to restaurants, allowing owners to watch their kitchens and dining areas over password-protected Internet connections.

Vital Link opened two years ago and claims 2,500 customers nationwide. The equipment costs several hundred dollars to install and $250 per month for a standard four-camera package. Century Fast Foods is outfitting its 41 Taco Bell franchises in Southern California with monitoring systems to keep an eye on customer service and employee theft — a common problem in the transient fast-food work force. "I could go on vacation and still watch my restaurants," said Jim Clark, the company's vice president of operations.

Another start-up, Vantum Corp. of Boulder, Colo., has a remote video monitoring system that can begin recording automatically in response to motion, a light turning on, or distinct sounds such as breaking glass.

The systems, which cost from $1,295 to $1,995 apiece, can trip an alarm or send alerts by page, e-mail or telephone. Within a year, operators of Vantum's cameras should be able to program them to follow the movements of a given object or person. "This stuff isn't science fiction anymore," said Howdy Pierce, the company's chief executive. Government-backed surveillance systems are perhaps the most controversial, leading to fears of an Orwellian society. Al Greening, a San Francisco resident and BART rider, understands the desire of law-enforcement officials to keep subways and streets safe. "But I'm a little apprehensive of the Big Brother aspect, too," he said. "It hasn't gone too far yet, but I could see where it could."

The number of U.S. cities with locally approved street surveillance is unknown. But such surveillance has become more common since a 1997 California Research Bureau report counted at least 13 cities from Tacoma, Wash., to Dover, N.J. In June, for instance, California's Simi Valley approved a grant to install cameras to catch graffiti vandals. Palm Springs voted to seek similar funds. In addition, more than 60 U.S. cities are using traffic cameras to photograph motorists who drive through red lights.

Richard Retting, senior transportation engineer at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said only a handful of such cities existed in 1997. "With the exception of very rural states, all are drafting or pushing for state laws" allowing red-light cameras, Retting said. Some 400 motorists are challenging the constitutionality of red-light cameras in San Diego.

America still lags behind Britain, where more than 300 jurisdictions use public video surveillance. Last fall, London police began prowling the entertainment — and crime — hot spots of Soho and the West End in a van armed with nine cameras. For now, the video eyes spreading across the United States remain a hodgepodge of individual systems.

The ACLU worries about a future in which such systems are so linked that someone's identity and whereabouts could be tracked with a few computer commands. Various efforts are underway to develop the necessary tools.

Colorado's Department of Motor Vehicles this month said it planned to buy cameras and map the faces of drivers to curb identity theft and fraud, contributing to a growing number of government databases of facial images. And a few weeks ago, Tampa, Fla., became the first U.S. city to install surveillance cameras that scan faces and match images with a database containing 30,000 mug shots of people wanted by police. Some European cities already use face-recognition technology.

posted 04-22-2002 12:24 PM            

Camera-Ready TA Targets Scammers

By PETE DONOHUE
Daily News Staff Writer

Smile, you're on MetroCard camera.

A hidden video camera in a Manhattan subway station is helping police identify crooks who steal money or fare cards from MetroCard machines.

And more cameras are on the way, the Daily News has learned.

"It's the start of a very successful program," said Tom Savage, a top Transit Authority official.

A crackdown on MetroCard machine scammers has netted 113 arrests the past seven months, police said, with at least five identified through the so-called MetroCam since it was installed in January.

Going to the videotape works, authorities said, not only because it provides good evidence, but because it allows police to help identify MetroCard thieves without having to use officers to stake out machines.

Photographs of those caught on tape — but not yet by police — have been distributed to officers throughout the subway system.
Many of those who commit crimes in the subway system have long rap sheets and are well-known to transit police.

"These are people who frequent the system for reasons other than to get from one point to another," said Transit Bureau Police Chief William Calhoun. "These are people we have locked up previously for similar activities."

A typical vandal jams a MetroCard vending machine chute or money slot using toothpicks or bits of plastic and waits for a rider to attempt a purchase with cash, a credit card or a debit card.

Because the machine is jammed, the frustrated buyer usually walks away empty-handed. The thief moves in, unjams the machine and takes the cash or MetroCard that comes out — and then jams the machine again.

"It's like fishing," said Sgt. James Donovan, of the Transit Bureau's MetroCard fraud task force. "You put bait in the water and come back and see if you've caught anything."

The crooks often sell their ill-gotten MetroCards, or sometimes sell discounted fares to individuals from those cards.
One thief was caught with 21 cards, another with 18, police said.

Busy Stations Popular
When authorities noticed MetroCard machine scams were increasing, the TA provided police with lists of stations where machines were being targeted. Undercover officers staked out those areas and made arrests and, more recently, uniformed officers were trained to identify the various scams.

Most of the criminal activity has been in busy stations in midtown Manhattan and Queens, although it has occurred throughout the system, said Lt. Paul Murphy, commanding officer of the bureau's special investigations unit.

Authorities said the TA is testing new software that would thwart MetroCard machine criminals by programming machines not to release money or cards once a machine is jammed. "It knocks out the profit motive," Murphy said.

Riders who use cash to buy new MetroCards or refill their cards from a vending machine are stuck if it is jammed, since no receipt with an identifying tracking number is issued.

Victims who use credit or debit cards, however, can seek a refund because the TA can check its computer records against a receipt to help verify a theft.
Original Publication Date: 4/22/02 http://www.nydailynews.com/2002-04-22/News_and_Views/City_Beat/a-148452.asp

posted 04-22-2002 12:40 PM            

Coming Soon: Flying Fascism on Your Doorstep

New high-tech surveillance equipment revealed at the Redstone Arsenal's Weekly Arms Bazaar promises a dismal future for freedom-loving people of the world.

The Friendly Colonel has filed the latest report from the most recent arms show at the Redstone Arsenal, which has been shut down and is essentially used for storage. Housed in this facility are several thousands of the new modified urban control Humvees, equipped with 14.5 mm cannons as well as many aerials and satellite dishes. Some are camouflage in color, but most of them are dark matte gray. They looked like they were painted with a sealer coat of paint (primer paint), before the final coat is painted on depending on the theater of operation in which they will be used.

Of greater significance was the introduction of the new DCHD (Domestic Control Hover Drones), which were displayed and offered for sale. They're about a meter in diameter and probably weigh about twenty kilograms each. It looks like a life ring (life preserver) with a motor in the middle of it.

The Chinese and Russian arms dealers were interested in them, and evidently the British Government has been one of this device's primary buyers. Evidently we're not selling them to a lot of foreign countries at this time, but still building inventories for ourselves. Each of these DCHDs costs $178,000 a copy.

He met with an Iranian colonel who is some sort of an engineer, who was trying to explain to him what these things can do. The Friendly Colonel admitted that he didn't even know such technology even existed.

Here are some specs. They can hover to a maximum ceiling of 500 feet, although they're really meant to hover about 50 feet off the ground. They not only hover, but they can go forward and back. Their maximum speed is 50 miles an hour, and they can stay aloft for up to three hours at a time. There are counter-rotating rotors in the middle of the device with what appears to be an engine on top. All of the internal components appear to be made of some sort of super-advanced composite, like boron-graphite composite material that is very, very light, but is also very strong. The propellers are also made of this same material, and they weigh practically nothing.

There are two counter-rotating propellers, two propellers that rotate counter-synchronously, the way the Russians used to build turbo-prop airplanes like the TU-95s. The reason they do it that way is because it gives a much higher speed, lift and stability.

They're controlled electronically - either through satellites or through what they call Fixed or Mobile Relay Command Centers, built right into the Humvee. They showed how the two worked together.

The Friendly Colonel reports that inside this Humvee, which can control a certain quad of these things, it looked like the inside of a spaceship. The components and views screens, which appear to be holographic, and the technology are simply amazing -- "It's like nothing you ever saw."

The surveillance drones come in different color schemes -- a very dark black matte for night use or a two-tone matte white and sky blue top -- so it's hard to see them during the day.They started one of these hover drones up, and he said it virtually makes no sound at all. Even if you're ten feet away, you couldn't hear the thing. That's how quiet they are.

They are fitted with what is purported to be one of the most-advanced micro-cameras ever invented by the US Government. Through satellites, their transmission capability is virtually limitless. Satellites can access its transmissions and give it directions, signals, codes, and tell it what to do.They can be pre-programmed for certain flight paths, but the computer has the ability to think, so that if it acquires a target, it can deviate from a flight path. It also has sensors so it can get out of the way and not run into a tree or the side of a building. It also has infrared cameras and high-resolution night cameras with multiple neutral density filters.

They also have see-through capability -- with a thermal imaging sensor camera, which can actually see inside of buildings and see through walls. The device is meant to be used as a domestic control drone. It not only has cameras, but the most sensitive audio receivers that have ever been made. It can pick up a human conversation from five hundred feet away -- one human conversation.

Not only can they photograph and relay still shots and real time video and transmit video, but they also have a "non-lethal" weapons capability, some sort of stun gun based on energy discharge technology. They're powered by what's known as a fusion power cell, which looks like a square pack of film. The power is produced through some sort of chemical reaction.

These drones can stop and detain people. Since they have a microphone, they can hover right in your face, while you're looking into the camera. It also has a transmitter, which can play pre-recorded messages, or someone can actually talk to you even though they're a thousand miles away.

During the demonstration, they hovered the thing around the room and then it came down in front of this Air Force captain's face, and it said, "Citizen, kindly present your national identification card." Then a little telescoping plate comes out of it, and you're supposed to hold your national identification card in front of this plate. They wouldn't reveal all of its abilities of the drone because some of it was still classified. The manufacturer is the same company, located in Indiana, which makes other equipment for the NSA.

Let's think about where this device could be used. How about South Central Los Angeles street corners? Using these devices, only Government-Authorized crack dealers would be able to sell their product. Crack dealers, not approved by the Government, could then be sanctioned -- or removed.

The exhibit hall had high-definition presentation screens around the room, which showed how these things could be used. It showed them moving down a darkened street at night, and then it showed what the cameras were seeing, pictures of the people and how they looked through an infra red camera and an ultra violet camera and how different images looked through different camera receptors. It looked like it was right out of Star Trek.

posted 04-23-2002 01:28 PM            

There's no question in my mind that the government's move to constrain its citizens' freedoms has made a quantum leap after 9/11. The increased technological advances in UAVs (unmanned air vehicles) and UACVs (unmanned air combat vehicles) gives the government another means to further erode the liberties of its own people. Military technology, although it may have a laudable purpose, often ends up as a handmaiden of tyranny.

This said, I see a lot of stuff in the anonymous and undocumented report that simply smells funny. My company has done a lot of work on UACVs, and, although I don't know details of the classified programs, anyone with a subscription to AW&ST could find a lot of information in this article that just doesn't ring true. Here are some examples:

"...modified urban control Humvees, equipped with 14.5 mm cannons ..." As far as I know there are no 14.5 mm cannons in the US inventory. The closest thing would be a 12.7 mm (.50 caliber) or a 20mm cannon capable of firing HEDP, API and TP rounds. Both of these pieces of ordnance can be carried on a Hummvee. Of course, they are way too heavy for any UAV (of the size) reported in the inventory or even in LRIP to carry.

"They can hover to a maximum ceiling of 500 feet, although they're really meant to hover about 50 feet off the ground." What constrains the hovering capability of such craft is HIGE (hovering in ground effect) or HOGE (hovering out of ground effect). It's pretty easy to calculate ground effect altitude; a rule of thumb is that it's equal to twice the rotor diameter. This means that the ground effect hovering envelope for this aircraft would be about six feet. Both 50 and 500 feet would be OGE, and, once OGE, the only constraint would be the altitude and temperature. In other words, if this whizzbang can fly at 50 or 500 feet, it could fly at 5000 feet as well - unless it were 5000 feet above Kathmandu, Nepal, in which case it couldn't get even 50 feet off the ground!

"He met with an Iranian colonel...". The United States does not deal military stuff with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Although there might be some secret, under-the-table dealings with them like there were back in Contra-gate days, you can bet that you wouldn't see someone walking around admitting to be an Iranian colonel - or even pretending to be.

"...propellers are also made of this same material..." I can't think of anyone in the service with any exposure to aircraft at all who would call these things propellers. They're rotors. It would be like a certified auto technician calling a fuel injection system "one of those carburetor-thingies".

"They started one of these hover drones up, and he said it virtually makes no sound at all." Huh-uh. Even if you had a perfectly quiet motor, the sound comes from the rotor blades beating the air (which is why the tail rotor is the biggest contributor to a helicopter's aural signature). You can't simply silence a helicopter's rotors, although there is a certain level to which you can quiet them. But the smaller the rotor, the louder that threshold is.

"...most-advanced micro-cameras ever invented by the US Government." The government hasn't invented anything of much interest since the Manhattan Project. Cameras and other electro-optical devices - even top secret ones, like the old KH-11 -- are developed and built for the government by private industry under contract.

". They're powered by what's known as a fusion power cell, which looks like a square pack of film. The power is produced through some sort of chemical reaction." I can only imagine that they're talking about a fuel cell, which provides its power through 'some sort of chemical reaction'. But it's not fusion by any means!

"...they looked through an infra red camera and an ultra violet camera..." Naah. An IR camera is great, since it allows you to see an object by its IR (heat) emission. They've been using these boogers for night sights since I was a pup. But passive UV cameras are used to look at things that fluoresce in the UV range, like the sun or a nearby star. Theoretically, you could develop an active UV camera where you'd use a UV sensitive array to read the fluorescence caused by a nearby UV emitter, but why? An active IR works better, as does an image intensifier camera - and they're already developed and off the shelf.

The bottom line is that most of the "specifications" just don't make sense. They might fool someone who is not in the business, but that's about it.

Now don't get me wrong: I still think that the government is systematically destroying our freedoms (usually with our implicit help, because most of us don't seem to care one way or another). But when someone comes up with stuff like this, which is simply wrong - even in an attempt to warn us of a real danger - he blows his credibility and does more to damage the cause of individual liberty than to protect it.

Regards,

posted 04-23-2002 01:31 PM            

My post above was in response to the "Flying Fascism" article. The previous three that you printed, on the other hand, are right on the money. They should be a real wake-up call to people who value their liberties and privacy.

posted 05-08-2002 04:24 PM            

The move is part of an attempt to reassure people who have been frightened off flying since the 11 September attacks.

At an airline technology conference in Prague last week, a delegate from the VALK Foundation said that before 11 September, none of the 4000 people it has helped to overcome their fear of flying had ever cited hijacking as the root of their fear. But since then it has become the main fear for a third of its clients.

The industry hopes that well-publicised improvements in airline security will quell passengers' fears. Airbus, working with American aerospace technology company Goodrich, thinks the best strategy is to let passengers know that everyone is being watched by hidden cameras.

Infrared image

One plan Airbus is considering, says the firm's cabin security expert Rolf Gφdecke, involves hiding a tiny camera inside the light fittings above each passenger seat, surrounded by a ring of infrared LEDs. The cameras will normally work with ambient light, but switch to infrared when the cabin is dark.

Black-and-white images captured by the cameras will be fed to screens in the cockpit via the cables used to distribute pictures to seat-back video screens. Although only some lights will have cameras, potential terrorists will not know which ones.

posted 05-08-2002 04:30 PM            

Bionic Retina Gives Six Patients Partial Sight
Wed May 8,10:30 AM ET By Julie Steenhuysen

CHICAGO (Reuters) - They're not as fast as Lee Majors' Bionic Man, but six patients implanted with bionic retinas are seeing things they haven't seen in years.

Thanks to an artificial silicon retina, the six patients, many of whom were virtually blind, are rediscovering simple gifts of the sighted: the flight of a flock of geese, the pattern on a well-worn tablecloth, the face of a loved one. The patients are part of a pilot study of a solar-powered microchip created by Optobionics, a private company based in Wheaton, Illinois. The microchips, surgically implanted behind the retina, are smaller than the head of a pin and about half the thickness of a sheet of paper. They work by converting light into electrical impulses.

"What we are doing is trying to replace the function of photoreceptors," said Dr. Alan Chow, a pediatric ophthalmologist and chief operating officer of Optobionics. He developed the chip with his brother Vincent Chow, an electrical engineer. Loss of light-sensing photoreceptor cells occurs in retinitis pigmentosa and macular degeneration, the two most common causes of untreatable blindness in developed countries, affecting at least 20 million people worldwide.

What Dr. Chow found is that the chips also seem to be stimulating remaining healthy cells. "We're pretty excited. We initially expected only some light perception where the implant was. What seems to be improvement outside the areas was unexpected," he said. 'RESCUE EFFECT' He said the device is having a "rescue effect" on the retina, restoring cells located near the implant site. "What we think is happening is the implant is stimulating other cells around the retina. We're finding vision is improving not just where the implant is but also in areas near the implant," he said.

Chow is presenting his results later on Wednesday at the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology annual meeting in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The trial includes three patients implanted with the chips for 9 months and three implanted for 21 months. Patients range in age from 45 to 76. All had lost their vision to retinitis pigmentosa, a hereditary condition in which the retina gradually degenerates.

Chow said the study was conducted to determine whether the device is safe. "In all six patients there are no signs of infection, inflammation, rejection or detachment," Chow said. He also said the chip has not eroded or moved, and none of the patients have experienced any pain or discomfort. "None can tell there is an implant in their eye," he said. What they can tell is that they can see better. Chow said one patient, who has had the implant for 9 months, saw his wife's face for the first time in years.

The man, who previously could only see hand motions from four to five feet away, can now see cars from half a block away. Another patient, who could not detect light even if a bright light was pointed at his eye, now knows when he needs to turn off his porch light.

For another patient, though, the implant has been a bit sobering, Chow said. The patient, who has begun to recognize faces, was disappointed to see how his own face had aged. But he was quick to note signs of age in his brother, who also received an implant. Chow said his company will continue following the patients, with implants planned for the near future.

posted 05-16-2002 06:00 PM            

It is America's new reality: security and surveillance. From intense scrutiny at airports to expanded government authority to track Internet use, federal agents now watch American citizens more closely than ever, reports CBS News Correspondent John Blackstone.

Such scrutiny seemed over the line to retired phone company worker Barry Reingold, after the FBI got interested in remarks Reingold made at his health club. After loudly criticizing the war in Afghanistan, Reingold had some unexpected visitors a few days later.

"I said, you know, 'Who's there?' And they said, 'It's the FBI,'" said Reingold, 60.

Reingold says the two agents wanted to know more about his locker room outburst.

"Someone's reported to us that you've been talking about what happened on 9/11 and terrorism and oil and Afghanistan," Reingold said the agents told him.

The FBI insists agents do not interview people because of their political views. But since 9/11, the agency says it needs to cast a wider net than ever in its search for information.

That's helped create fears the FBI could slip back to the days of J. Edgar Hoover, when the agency went outside the law to watch Americans whose politics Hoover disagreed with.

The current FBI director Robert Mueller says investigations today are lawful — and thorough.

"If we get a threat," Mueller said, "We will do everything we can to interview anybody who may have some information about that threat."

When a locker room bull session can bring questions from the FBI, it's clear agents are casting a wide net indeed.

Kate Rafael, a California peace activist, often takes part in anti-war demonstrations. But she was stunned when an FBI agent called her, seeking information about Muslim men.

"If it's your job to hunt Islamic fundamentalist terrorists," said Rafael, "Then it's your job to know that they don't hang out with Jewish lesbians in San Francisco."

Josh Thayer got a surprise, too.

"I'm about to go to a meeting, very stressful day, all of a sudden, the FBI calls."

The agent wanted to know about the computer systems at Independent Media, a leftist Web site where Josh occasionally works as a volunteer technician.

Thayer said he has no idea how the FBI got his name.

"I really don't. That is, to me, that's the scariest part. You are being watched, you know, like what you do isn't anonymous."

From left to right, government surveillance since Sept. 11 is raising privacy fears.

U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, a conservative Republican from Georgia, has joined liberal Democrats to back new privacy legislation.

posted 05-17-2002 09:25 PM            

- Random tests of facial-recognition technology at a Florida airport this spring show that it failed to identify even half of the employees who went through screening.

The American Civil Liberties Union released the results of the first four weeks of an eight-week study at Palm Beach International Airport. According to the group, the system made a match only 455 out of 958 times that volunteers who had their faces recorded digitally in the computer system went through it.

"The face-recognition technology was less accurate than a coin toss,'' said Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU's technology program, which is campaigning against the machines. Steinhardt noted the Palm Beach results come in the wake of failures of such technology to identify people when the machines were used at the Super Bowl, and on the streets of Tampa, Fla.

The ACLU obtained the results through Florida's sunshine laws.

Visionics, the Jersey City, N.J., company that makes the machines, contended that poor lighting at the airport was responsible for the poor results, and that the ACLU did not obtain data from three other airports - Boston's Logan International, Dallas-Fort Worth and Yosemite International in Fresno, Calif. - that had far better success rates.

"The project is in its test phase and we are adjusting things," said Visionics spokesman Meir Kahtan. He said the results from Logan and Dallas-Fort Worth showed a success rate of better than 90 percent, and that Fresno's success rate was 80 percent.

"The ACLU puts out information that suits its own agenda," he said. Kahtan said he did not know when the final results from all tests would be released.

Facial-recognition, or biometric, technology relies on reducing the measurements on human faces to mathematical formulas. The information is then matched with formulas of pictures stored in a computer database.

Privacy advocates oppose the machines, saying they only serve as a deterrent but aren't sufficiently reliable to identify dangerous people like terrorists, even if there are good up-to-date pictures of their faces.

John Magaw, director of the new Transportation Security Administration that oversees airport security, says he is weighing using the machines at all U.S. airports as part of an effort to improve security and identify suspected terrorists before they can board U.S. aircraft.

Bruce Pelly, director of Palm Beach International Airport, said he did not regard the tests as a success.

"It is not satisfactory. We had hoped to get a higher percentage,'' he said. The ACLU obtained data only from the first phase of the tests, but Pelly said the second testing period produced similar results.

The Boston machines got better results because employees there looked into the cameras, Pelly said. "Ours was more random."

Test results found that the machines had problems identifying people wearing glasses. "Tinted lenses diminished the system's effectiveness," the report on the first phase says. There was also "a substantial loss of matching" if the face of a test subject was caught at a side angle, or was looking down or up. The machines also registered an average two or three "false positives," or false alarms, an hour where people were identified improperly.

"There are a lot of issues using this equipment," Pelly said.

posted 05-25-2002 02:16 PM            

Face Scans Set Up at Lady Liberty

NEW YORK- As visitors to the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island board a ferry from Manhattan, a new surveillance system is taking their pictures and comparing them to a database of terror suspects compiled by the federal government.

The system was installed just ahead of the Memorial Day weekend, days after the FBI said it had received uncorroborated information that terrorists had threatened New York and some of its landmarks, including the Statue of Liberty.

"We're going to look at the facial recognition technology to see if it can be expanded for use in other parts of the city," Gov. George Pataki said on Saturday during a visit to the statue with his family.

"People are still coming to New York City, to the Statue of Liberty, from around our country and around our world because they appreciate that this is a secure, safe and free city," he said.

The facial recognition technology, provided by Visionics, of Jersey City, N.J., already is used in some airports and government buildings.

Mustafa Koita, a manager for Visionics, said the system searches 1 million images per second. "It has not slowed any of the foot traffic and I think people feel a little safer, too," Koita said.

Several cameras at varying heights snapped tourists' photographs just before they walked through a security checkpoint to board a ferry to the statue and Ellis Island, both operated by the National Park Service. Koita said the cameras were positioned so it would be difficult for people to look away or hide their faces.

The system was received with enthusiasm by tourists waiting in line on Saturday.

"I think it's great. It's a good safety precaution that is definitely necessary," said Joe Scali, 57, of North Haven, Conn.

Surrounded in the ferry terminal by signs warning that facial recognition cameras were in use, Dave Miller, of Madison, Ala., accepted the increased security as part of post-Sept. 11 life in the United States.

"I've got nothing to hide, and neither should anyone else," said Miller, 49. "Life changed on Sept. 11, and we're going to have to give up some freedoms so that we can continue to have freedoms."

But the American Civil Liberties Union criticized the system, calling it "ineffective" and "an insult to the American people."

"To have such a system in place near the Statue of Liberty ... is both ironic and disheartening," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the group's Technology and Liberty Program, said in a statement on the group's Web site.

posted 05-31-2002 10:26 PM            

By MATTHEW L. WALD
The New York Times

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa, May 30 — The Sept. 11 hijackings have left pilots wanting more knowledge about activity in the passenger cabin, without stepping through their newly fortified doors. Now the Transportation Department, with encouragement from Congress, is considering requiring video cameras that will provide images of passengers to the cockpit.

Manufacturers, working to anticipate a demand, are developing systems, including one that would transmit images from hidden cameras to the cockpit and to tiny hand-held screens that air marshals could look at without blowing their cover.

United Airlines will begin a six-month test of cabin surveillance this summer, using a system built by Rockwell Collins, which has its headquarters here. The system feeds the images from as many as 32 cameras to hand-held computers in the cockpit, and beams them back into the cabin, where they can be picked up by a pocket computer.
Robert G. Geers, of Rockwell Collins, demonstrated the system on an HP Jornada, which captured the images from tiny cameras hidden in a model of a first-class cabin. It also captured pictures from a camera focused on people in a hotel conference room here, who jerked a bit like a Charlie Chaplin character, because the system does not run as fast as an ordinary television. But the image was clear.

Mr. Geers tapped the screen with a stylus to alternate among images.
"To the guy next to the marshal, it just looks like he's playing a video game," said Mr. Geers, a business development manager.

United plans a four-camera system on a Boeing 747 that pilots can use to assure themselves, before they emerge from the cockpit to use the lavatory, that no one is lurking behind the door in wait. Since Sept. 11, airlines have relied on secret knocks and passwords.

Jet Blue, a new airline based in New York that flies a new Airbus A320 fleet, recently put cameras on several of its 25 planes and expects to install them on all planes in a few months. Two cameras are visible, one outside the cockpit door and the other at the rear galley, and two others are hidden, said Fiona Morrison, a spokeswoman. "It gives our pilots some eyes," she said.

Security officials are intrigued. At a hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee on May 21, the undersecretary of transportation for security, John Magaw, said no to giving pilots guns but expressed strong interest in giving them video surveillance of the cabin. If pilots knew a hijacking attempt was under way, they could throw their planes into radical maneuvers, Mr. Magaw said, to knock the hijackers over.

"Unless you are seat-belted in, they can make your equilibrium so that you can't function," he said.

Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, said: "It's not expensive, it's not a new-tech, a high-tech situation — it's a rearview mirror. Please do it. Don't wait."

United likes the idea of surveillance, but not radical maneuvers. "I don't mind the rearview mirror part," said Capt. Joseph D. Burns, United's director for flight operations technology, in a telephone interview. But, he said, airplanes are tested up to certain limits in maneuvering. "Exceed that, and you're a test pilot," he said. "Your chance of damaging the aircraft beyond repair exceeds your chance of disabling a hijacker."

The Rockwell Collins camera system can be configured to record, and to play back the last few seconds, and can be set up to beam images to the ground.

Rockwell Collins's main American rival in the commercial avionics business, Honeywell, has been offering camera systems to airlines since early this year, said Ben McLeod, the company's director of aviation safety and security. Mr. McLeod said in a telephone interview that he thought flight crew unions would push the airlines into installing the systems even if the government never required them. "Ultimately, that's where the motivation will come from," he said.

The systems could sell for a second reason, he said. "The occurrence of hijackings is going to be so rare," he said, but "air rage" is far more frequent. Before Sept. 11, air rage was a major concern for airlines.
"What we've seen historically is the only cases successfully prosecuted were those where they had had some hard evidence," Mr. McLeod said. A tape would provide that, he added.

Mr. McLeod said Honeywell's system would have at least three cameras , mostly to assure people on the flight deck that it was safe to come out to use the restroom. But there could be 10 on a large plane, he said. Mr. Geers of Rockwell foresaw cameras in cargo holds, to look for stowaways or other problems, and cameras under the belly, so pilots at the gate could tell whether the cargo doors had been latched.
The Honeywell system's cameras could be black and white or color, but the system will also use infrared, Mr. McLeod said. That makes it possible for the system to see in the dark.

posted 06-09-2002 02:34 PM            

Police to spy on all emails

Fury over Europe's secret plan to access computer and phone data

Kamal Ahmed, political editor
Sunday June 9, 2002
The Observer

Millions of personal emails, other internet information and telephone records are to be made accessible to the police and intelligence services in a move that has been denounced by critics as one of the most wide-ranging extensions of state power over private information.

Plans being drawn up by Europol, the police and intelligence arm of the European Union, propose that telephone and internet firms retain millions of pieces of data - including details of visits to internet chat rooms, and of calls made on mobile phones and text messages.

In a move that has been condemned by privacy campaigners, a draft document passed to The Observer reveals that the EU is now drawing up a 'common code' on data retention which will be applicable in all member states.

Security and police sources said new powers on accessing personal data will come into force in Britain towards the end of the year.

'It is typical that such a significant change in the control over private information is being worked out in secret,' said Dr Ian Brown, a leading expert on data privacy and director of the Foundation for Information Policy Research.

'It does seem to have been Britain that has put pressure on other member states to put in place this type of legislation. In 99 per cent of cases it will be used properly, but what about the other one per cent? There is not enough scrutiny of what is going on.'

The Europol document was drawn up at a private meeting of police, intelligence services and customs and excise officials from across Europe in The Hague last April. It lists 10 areas where companies will be required to keep information to help in the fight against international terrorism, domestic crime and drug running.

Companies that run internet sites will be required to retain passwords used by individuals, record which website addresses are visited, and keep details of webpages looked at and any credit card or bank details used for subscriptions.

The information retained about emails will include who sent the message, where the email went, its contents and the time and date it was sent.

It is believed that Britain will push for the data to be kept for up to five years. At the moment much of it is only kept for one or two months, for billing purposes, by the companies that run internet and email services.

Sources at the National High-tech Crime Unit, which is overseeing implementation of plans for data retention in Britain, point out that the growth of so-called 'cyber crime' means that they need new powers to keep ahead of the criminals.

One official also said that investigations into crimes such as the murders carried out by the GP Harold Shipman relied on the retention of old telephone records.

'We need to codify how this happens, so all countries in Europe are dealing with the same set of rules,' the source said.

'The internet does not recognise national boundaries and international companies don't need the confusion of dealing with separate codes in different countries.' The Europol document says the use of telephones - land lines and mobiles - will be monitored. Numbers dialled, when and where they were dialled from and personal details such as the address, date of birth and bank details of the subscriber who paid for the call will also be kept.

The document, headed 'Expert Meeting on Cyber Crime: Data Retention', suggests mobile phones records could be used by police and the intelligence services to track the geographical location of people making calls.

Mobiles use a network of masts to convey the calls, placing the user in a geographically distinct 'cell' at the time of the call. Records using such geographical locations were used to acquit the teenagers accused of murdering Damilola Taylor.

The Association of Chief Police Officers is also drawing up a manual of standards so that police forces across the country use similar methods when accessing the data. http://www.observer.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,730091,00.html

posted 06-14-2002 12:50 AM            

James Meek, science correspondent
Thursday June 13, 2002
The Guardian

A security system designed to automatically recognise people on the street and report their whereabouts to a central control room is being tested secretly in three places in Britain, according to the American manufacturer.

Three other areas - the London borough of Newham, Tameside in Greater Manchester, and Birmingham - are publicly using the system, known as FaceIt, made by Visionics.

A spokeswoman for the company, Frances Zelazny, said some councils had not yet announced their use of the system because it was still "in the pilot phase". The Home Office said it was up to local authorities whether they bought facial recognition software, which works as an extension of CCTV networks, and the government did not know which councils were using it.

The expansion of the FaceIt system in Britain comes amid growing doubts on both sides of the Atlantic as to whether the technology works. Civil liberties groups in the US claim Visionics has exaggerated the software's ability to pick out "known" faces in crowds.

In Newham, where the council claims non residential burglaries fell by 39% in the six months after FaceIt was installed in 1998, the local police officer responsible for providing photographs of ex-offenders to the council security service told the Guardian that FaceIt had never spotted a live target.

"There have never been more than 20 or 25 faces on the system," said Detective Inspector Ian Chiverton. "They've been weeded on a monthly basis. We've chosen what we call our nominal criminals, so they would be convicted burglars and rob bers, but only one facial shot was ever put on.

posted 06-16-2002 12:29 AM            

By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
posted: 02:43 pm ET, 13 June 2002

A new British science program aims to produce cameras for use in space that are so sensitive they will see through fog, smoke and even walls and clothing.

The technology will detect an obscure yet ubiquitous form of radiation known as terahertz waves, also called T-rays. Similar cameras are also expected to have applications in airport security and medicine.

One camera, already built by a company called QinetiQ and working in so-called millimetric waves, has demonstrated the ability to eerily peer through clothes and reveal a concealed weapon -- as well as much of a person's body. The image shows far more detail than an infrared camera, which detects heat.

Terahertz radiation is similar to but more revealing than what the QinetiQ camera detects. Scientists say T-rays are emitted by pretty much everything. They come from "the human hand, an envelope, someone with clothes on or a comet," says Geoff McBride, who works on Star Tiger, the British project. It is supported by the European Space Agency.

In a telephone interview, McBride told SPACE.com that a space-based T-ray imager could be deployed in two years if funding is made available. The first objective might be to study Earth's atmosphere, he said.
Similar but less sensitive systems are currently used on satellites to measure sea surface temperatures.

"Unlike light, terahertz waves are able to propagate through cloud and smoke, providing a powerful advantage for certain remote-sensing measurements," according to Star Tiger officials. "From a practical aspect they are also able to pass through windows, paper, clothing and in certain instances even walls."

Eventually, a T-ray imager could be deployed to investigate a comet's tail, McBride said.

Unheralded frequency

Low frequency versions of terahertz waves are known as millimeter waves, and they behave much like radio waves, Star Tiger engineers say. At higher frequencies, the terahertz waves straddle the border between radio and optical emissions.

The technology, for which there is surprisingly little literature, is sometimes referred to as quasi-optics.

T-ray cameras might one day be used to peer under the skin and detect cancer, scientists say. They could also have security and communications applications.

A February article on the Web site of the journal Nature said terahertz cameras could be "the next big wave" in imaging technology for everything from cells to stars.

Scientists at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York claim T-rays will be harnessed to speed computer memory and sharpen flat-panel displays, as well as provide a new imaging technology that could prove valuable for airport security.

"It is quite possible that plastic explosives look very different under terahertz light and could be distinguished from the molecular structure of suitcases, clothing, and common household materials or equipment," says Rensselaer engineer Xi-Cheng Zhang.

The Star Tiger project, meanwhile, would bring leading researchers together in a laboratory where all the equipment and support exist to develop the necessary technology, according to a statement from the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in the United Kingdom.