Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AI Could Power Next-gen CCTV Cameras

samzenpus posted more than 6 years ago | from the the-unseen-mechanized-eye dept.

Security 173

Barence writes "UK researchers are working on fitting CCTV cameras with artificial intelligence, allowing them to more quickly respond to crimes. The technology, being developed by University of Portsmouth scientists, would allow cameras to "hear" violent sounds and react, swiveling quickly in the direction of a broken window or somebody shouting abusively for example, before alerting an operator. The artificial intelligence powering the camera would also be able to respond to visual cues such as fights, or violent behaviour."

cancel ×

173 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Ninjas (5, Funny)

SigNuZX728 (635311) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944239)

They'd be completely useless against ninjas, and ninjas are everywhere.

Re:Ninjas (4, Funny)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944293)

Yes but they would catch a lot of Pirates. Pirates are a noisy lot.

Re:Ninjas (1)

Kinky Bass Junk (880011) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944701)

Too bad they wouldn't catch any Robots. Robots stick together.

Re:Pirates (1)

HiggsBison (678319) | more than 6 years ago | (#23945333)

Arrrr! But, would it work in the West Country, where they all talk like pirates?

Re:Ninjas (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23944303)

I agree. In fact if you look carefully you'll find over 50 comments posted by ninjas for this story alone.

Re:Ninjas (4, Interesting)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944859)

I wonder if while the cameras are first deployed, if everyone does "Silly Walks" for weeks...it will really fsck up the AI on the cameras? I'd have to think that after a week or so of them trained that way....they'd have so many false positives on 'normal' people going about their way, they'd just chuck the whole thing in the trash can.

Someone over there try to remember this if they try to implement it....

Re:Ninjas (2, Funny)

SigNuZX728 (635311) | more than 6 years ago | (#23945097)

That's a good point. Or what about breakdancing? Could the cameras tell the difference between breakdancing and fighting?

Re:Ninjas (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 6 years ago | (#23946097)

That's a good point. Or what about breakdancing? Could the cameras tell the difference between breakdancing and fighting?

Or people making music videos :)

Re:Ninjas (2, Funny)

SiriusStarr (1196697) | more than 6 years ago | (#23945053)

Who cares about ninjas! Do they detect raptors?!?!

Raptors errr huh (1)

danwat1234 (942579) | more than 6 years ago | (#23945623)

Screw that! Do they detect Velociraptor(s)?

Re:Ninjas (1)

danwat1234 (942579) | more than 6 years ago | (#23945653)

Screw that! Do they detect Velociraptor(s )?

Re:Ninjas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23945907)

Yooo hooo camera over here...look at me (dummy with voice box playing halloween sound effects) ...While real crime occurs outside of gullable cameras gaze...

Like the Eye of Sauron? (4, Funny)

Russ Nelson (33911) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944245)

Would that be swivelling around the like Eye of Sauron did when Frodo put on the ring on the rim of Mount Doom?

I'm just askin'

Yeah... that'll work. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23944259)

Nice idea- 'till someone gets his buddy to play a loud accordian solo ten feet away while he picks pockets out of frame.

(Sorry for the AC, I'm on a public terminal.)

So, the idea... (4, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944263)

is to toss a firecracker in the other direction as a distraction for both the camera and the victim, before quietly garroting them?

Re:So, the idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23944469)

"A diversion!" - Legolas

Re:So, the idea... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23944569)

Aragorn: "He needs time, and safe passage across the Plains of Gorgoroth. We can give him that."

Gimli: "How?"

Aragorn: "Draw out Sauron's armies, empty His lands. Then we gather our full strength and march on the Black Gate. We can give Frodo his chance if we keep Sauron's Eye fixed upon us!"

...long pause...

Legolas: "A diversion!"

WELL THANK YOU LEGOLAS CAPTAIN OBVIOUS

Re:So, the idea... (4, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944611)

is to toss a firecracker in the other direction as a distraction for both the camera and the victim, before quietly garroting them?
And the solution will be to make it illegal for one to make loud noises in public, or some other such nonsense.

Re:So, the idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23944949)

That would at least stop those obnoxious, anti-social "boom cars".

Re:So, the idea... (2, Funny)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 6 years ago | (#23945229)

They should attach chain guns to the swiveling AI cameras.

In b4 "I for one welcome <chain gun firing sounds, screams, silence>"

Re:So, the idea... (0, Redundant)

icegreentea (974342) | more than 6 years ago | (#23945245)

Garroting someone is already a crime. If you can catch the guy using firecrackers as a distraction while murdering someone, I think you can catch the guy for murdering the guy. I don't see why making firecrackers a crime would work. It's not like they're impossible to make at home.

Re:So, the idea... (2, Funny)

I cant believe its n (1103137) | more than 6 years ago | (#23946281)

Garroting someone is already a crime.
Why didn't you tell me this YESTERDAY!

Re:So, the idea... (1)

g0at (135364) | more than 6 years ago | (#23945661)

And the solution will be to make it illegal for one to make loud noises in public, or some other such nonsense.
How is that a solution to any relevant problem under discussion? The CCTV stuff is presumably a practical attempt to aid in catching people who perform more lothesome acts. The loathesome acts in question are already illegal; the question of whether an act is or is not legal is not the focus.

Re:So, the idea... (5, Insightful)

hvm2hvm (1208954) | more than 6 years ago | (#23946239)

That was exactly his point. That the government might do that even though it would never work. I have to agree that it seems most governments do this kind of shit every day. Instead of fixing the underlying problems they just patch up the effects those problems cause.

Re:So, the idea... (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944659)

Think about it. If you wanted to garrotte someone quietly, why the fuck would you toss a firecracker? At least it will give you an option of either putting the police on your trail, or having to come face-to-face with a camera.

Re:So, the idea... (4, Insightful)

Lars512 (957723) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944933)

Exactly. The technology they're suggesting is not that useful. Let's think of a better idea.

Suppose instead you use cameras with a full field of view, that don't need to swivel at all and always can record everything. Aside from recording a crime, can we do more?

If you still have these microphones, you could can use them to pinpoint where on a hi-res camera feed the noise came from. If you can identify the type of sound, you could use them in some sort of alert system which escalates warnings to a real person.

None of these fixes the quiet garotting scenario, since there's no sound. Instead, you have AI looking at physical cues and body language for suspicious behaviour. Even then, we're just talking about trying to get there in time to apprehend the culprit; nothing will save the victim.

Re:So, the idea... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23945707)

Nonsense. Giant cameras armed with friggin' laser beams could easily save the victims.

Re:So, the idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23945895)

I think the frickin' camera should be armed with a shark cannon.

Re:So, the idea... (3, Insightful)

drsquare (530038) | more than 6 years ago | (#23945793)

Easier to follow the normal method: don't bother distracting the camera, commit the crime anyway in full view, give the finger to the camera operator, then walk off to remain unpunished forever. Of course if on the odd chance you are arrested by the single remaining policeman who isn't filling in paperwork or persecuting motorists, you won't get any time anyway as the prisons are full. Welcome to Britain.

Re:So, the idea... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23946333)

Of course if on the odd chance you are arrested by the single remaining policeman who isn't filling in paperwork or persecuting motorists, you won't get any time anyway as the prisons are full.
If that one policeman has filled all the UK's prisons, no wonder they only need one policeman!

Re:So, the idea... (2, Insightful)

Alioth (221270) | more than 6 years ago | (#23946439)

I have this strange insight that you read the Daily Mail.

Easy to subvert. (4, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944269)

Couldn't you use this feature to make the camera turn away. Have somebody make a big ruckus, so the camera turns away, then go in and do the actual crime while the camera is focused somewhere else.

Re:Easy to subvert. (2, Funny)

Zosden (1303873) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944333)

Shhhhh dont tell of their weakness.

Re:Easy to subvert. (3, Funny)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944435)

Why? It's not like any of us will ever go aboveground to take advantage of this shortcoming.

Re:Easy to subvert. (4, Informative)

CauseWithoutARebel (1312969) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944353)

An interesting point. Any brief distractions (such as a firecracker or single broken pane of glass) would, in theory, fail, as the camera would just abandon them and turn toward the real crime the instant it noticed what was happening off-camera.

However, how would it handle a prolonged mock crime and a real crime that occur simultaneously...

Regardless, I point you to this gentleman's timely journal on the matter of surveillance:

"Official Voyeurism [slashdot.org] "

Re:Easy to subvert. (1)

tukang (1209392) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944381)

The article is short on details but it seems like the person would have to make a specific type of noise and even then the visual cues would have to match once that person gets the camera's attention.

The distraction trick is actually one of the oldest tricks in the book, so it's fitting that people would think of this method to defeat an AI system.

Re:Easy to subvert. (4, Interesting)

inKubus (199753) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944409)

The best security is unpredictable. For instance, the security the casinos use, or the scheduling the Army uses for patrols. They use random noise to generate the schedule. With this, you are installing predictable rules into the camera, which (like in the Matrix) can then be bent or broken.

You could add some unpredicability to the AI, but then you might miss something. The best thing is a nice preventative camera viewing cone covering every inch of the surface you intend to protect, preferably with multiple cameras.

This could be of use in other aspects, such as accident cams and such. I think there was something like this in demolition man (Brave New World) wherein the nearest camera to a detected incident swiveled and zoomed. Everything of course was recorded. Crime of course was completely gone, bred out of society. Well, until an unconventional enemy showed up.

Re:Easy to subvert. (1)

emjay88 (1178161) | more than 6 years ago | (#23945037)

you are installing predictable rules into the camera, which (like in the Matrix) can then be bent or broken.

No rules are being bent or broken, in fact, you take advantage of the fact that the AI can't bend or break those rules.

Re:Easy to subvert. (1)

rm999 (775449) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944491)

Wouldn't it be much smarter just not to commit crimes near cameras? Either:
1. Your diversion isn't very good and the camera will continue scanning elsewhere when it realizes this, seeing the crime
2. Your diversion is good, and calls the cops, who will trivially catch you

I fail to see how committing crimes near cameras make sense. What I would do (which is what plenty of people currently do) if I wanted to commit a crime near a camera is destroy the camera first.
See http://aia.mahost.org/act_cctv.html [mahost.org]

Re:Easy to subvert. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23945967)

Wouldn't it be much smarter just not to commit crimes near cameras?

I think you'll find it quite impossible to do anything in the UK without being near a camera. Destroying the cameras would be a quite futile endeavor because they have you heavily outnumbered.

Re:Easy to subvert. (1)

deepgrey (1246108) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944593)

So, for example, you have your friends breakdance while you steal the stereos out of every car on the other side of the street. Ingenious!

Re:Easy to subvert. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23945711)

This presumes that people are planning some type of illegal activity ahead of time. If they are there are already ways of disabling the camera. Paintball gun anyone? While I wouldn't guess at the numbers clearly some number of crimes are going to be opportunistic, or emotionally charged. But these aren't likely to be stopped by cameras anyway making the cameras all around useless as a preventive measure.

Re:Easy to subvert. (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 6 years ago | (#23946127)

Couldn't you use this feature to make the camera turn away. Have somebody make a big ruckus, so the camera turns away, then go in and do the actual crime while the camera is focused somewhere else.

Or maybe there will be a special feature built into the AI such that the camera will be incapable of recording the likes of a gang of police gunning down an innocent commuter...

Violence Detection Unit? (4, Funny)

wild_quinine (998562) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944329)

If this technology were ready for prime-time the cameramen for NHL would be out of a job.

a better idea (3, Insightful)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944337)

Hey, I've got an idea. First, why don't they upgrade the image quality so you can actually see what's going on and get good pictures of criminals? It all looks like blurry gas station cameras from 10 years ago right now. Why spend millions making them follow people intelligently if you still can't make out details or get a good image of the person?!

Re:a better idea (4, Funny)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944397)

Nonsense. The computers on CSI are able to filter out those crappy images, and produce wonderful quality 20 megapixel images from .3 megapixel over compressed jpgs. I'm sure the brits have similar technology.

Re:a better idea (1)

Z34107 (925136) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944695)

Those folks at CSI also have amazing internet trace softare. Even from octets in the 300s [thedailywtf.com] ! Click "expand text" and scroll down a tick.)

If they can hunt you down from that, no telling what they could do with actual AI-controlled footage of you comitting a crime.

Re:a better idea (1)

WK2 (1072560) | more than 6 years ago | (#23945827)

That's not an error. That's to prevent singling out any real I.P. address. Similar to how phone numbers are in the xxx-555-xxxx range. Most TV shows and movies use I.P addresses where the first octet is beyond 255. Sometimes they use 10., 172.(16-31), or 192.168. And sometimes (but very rarely) they will use their I.P address.

There are plenty of errors in Hollywood. This is not one of them.

Re:a better idea (1)

icegreentea (974342) | more than 6 years ago | (#23945267)

They are cameras that good. They just cost more. People are cheap, and almost probably banking on cameras acting as a deterrence, not an actual 'ah ha! I can ID the kid who held up the night shift dude with a baseball bat'. I'm pretty sure places which actually places an emphasis on that aspect has the better cameras. The fact that many of crimes take place in poor lighting conditions really can't help the picture quality either.

Re:a better idea (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 6 years ago | (#23946149)

They are cameras that good. They just cost more. People are cheap,

Actually people are expensive. Otherwise there would be no need for cameras in the first place.

Re:a better idea (1)

willy_me (212994) | more than 6 years ago | (#23945669)

Well, having an AI zoom the camera onto points of interest is one way to help solve the problem. Even if you have high resolution cameras, having an AI that can zoom the camera allows the camera to cover a wider area.

Re:a better idea (1)

mowall (865642) | more than 6 years ago | (#23946445)

It all looks like blurry gas station cameras from 10 years ago right now.

You're probably referring to images which are from 10 year old equipment. In the last couple of years high resolution digital cameras have started to become the norm for serious CCTV installations, although gas stations probably still use the crappy old analogue cameras with cheap multiplexing recorders.

As a poster said above, instead of trying to get the Pan/Tilt/Zoom cameras to swivel round after an incident has started (since it may have already finished), just use decent high-resolution cameras instead and cover the required area permanently.

Atrocity Archives (0, Offtopic)

PHAEDRU5 (213667) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944351)

Obviously ignored by way too many.

Pity, that.

Though, I am looking forward to lasered cows in Milton Keynes. Milton Keynes. Sorry, but ugh.

correct me if I'm wrong... (2, Insightful)

Eto_Demerzel79 (1011949) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944357)

...wouldn't this classify as image or sound analysis package with really advanced algorithms and not really AI in the strictest sense? I mean by this definition "the animal" program written in Basic, where the program learns patterns to yes/no questions can likewise be considered an "AI". I would consider this program an AI if it was able to call 911 and describe the attacker/situation.

Does not need to swivel but sound is useful (2, Interesting)

ulash (1266140) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944361)

I am not exactly sure this would be useful for the swiveling aspect of things as mentioned by other posters. However using sound could be an interesting augmentation to vision if done using the right filters. Swiveling would not be a big issue if using a wide angle lens like a fish-eye lens.

I feel better now (3, Insightful)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944371)

Knowing that they will use "AI" to aim their cameras instead of just pointing them to a wide view, makes me feel good. The government and its fascist corporate accessories may be evil, but at least they are also incompetent.

Balloons with angry faces will distract the cameras while you walk down the street unobserved.

Speakers, too (1)

Repton (60818) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944411)

In further news, researchers are investigating adding speakers and speech synthesis to the system:

"Where did you go?" "There you are!" "Could you come over here please?"

Re:Speakers, too (2, Funny)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944489)

Activated, preparing to dispense product.

Re:Speakers, too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23945587)

To ensure the safe performance of all authorized activities, do not destroy Vital Testing Apparatus.

Re:Speakers, too (1)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 6 years ago | (#23946137)

Where did you go?" "There you are!" "Could you come over here please?"
It calls for this one link [vgcats.com]

Re:Speakers, too (1)

aproposofwhat (1019098) | more than 6 years ago | (#23946443)

John Spartan: [to machine on wall after finding out that they no longer use toilet paper] Thanks a lot you shit-brained, fuck-faced, ball breaking, duck fucking pain in the ass.

Moral Statute Machine: John Spartan, you are fined five credits for repeated violations of the verbal morality statute.

John Spartan: [grabbing the tickets] So much for the seashells. See you in a few minutes.

An interesting point of law: (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944433)

At least in the US, the restrictions on video surveillance are much, much looser than those on audio surveillance(at least for the commoners). There has been some expansion of restrictions on strictly voyeuristic taping; but it is otherwise largely open season. Audio surveillance is much more restricted.

I'll be interested to see how the law treats a system that is a form of audio surveillance; but is not an audio recording device. Is it legal if the AI responds to sound but won't tell you what it responded to? Can the AI classify sounds into a variety of categories and report those? Is a verbatim speech-to-text record ok, as long as the audio is not recorded? Depending on how this one shakes down, it could end up being, in effect, an elimination of restrictions on audio surveillance.

This is getting old. (3, Interesting)

stavrica (701765) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944497)

Every schmuck who wants to get in the news slaps "Artificial Intelligence" on their contraption and suddenly the world stops to take notice.

Unless this system:

1. employs (or provides) some sort of multitiered malleable logic established by prior experiences that can identify a scenario based on inputs,

2. identifies the best case response to the identified scenario, using not only stored experiences (preprogrammed memory), but relevant characteristics of the scenario itself.

3. implements that best case scenario, checking constantly (or at least regularly) that the implemented actions are yielding results along the desired/expected solution path.

4. identifying the resolution phase of its response, so it can consider the scenario resolved and cease its response process. ...then there's no intelligence to it. What these fellows have sounds more like an advanced sound analysis engine that autonomously controls a camera swivel.

Good for them. Yay. Fun. Hurrah.

But, where's the AI again? Next...

Re:This is getting old. (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944751)

Judging by some of the stuff I read on slashdot a large number of posters would fail all 4 criteria.

Re:This is getting old. (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 6 years ago | (#23945525)

Judging by some of the stuff I read on slashdot a large number of posters would fail all 4 criteria.

Well, can you pass the Turing test? Can you?

Oh, this is a great idea! (1)

Smoke2Joints (915787) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944499)

Let the AI watch humans at their worst for years on end? Do we really need to give them another reason to want to exterminate us? I think not!

Whoops mis-read the title (2, Funny)

slater86 (1154729) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944553)

I read that title as AL not AI.
My first thought was...Is there anything Al Gore can't do, after all he did invent the internet :-)

Re:Whoops mis-read the title (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944713)

I didn't know that the misread title meme could be stretched that far!

Re:Whoops mis-read the title (2, Funny)

denzacar (181829) | more than 6 years ago | (#23945111)

Is there anything Al Gore can't do
Get elected as president?

Re:Whoops mis-read the title (1)

aproposofwhat (1019098) | more than 6 years ago | (#23946457)

Well, he did win the vote, just not the courts!

Well, one would assume (hope) (1)

greentshirt (1308037) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944559)

That the exact algorithms and rule sets the software would use to alter the camera angles isn't something the manufacturer is going to come out and publish. If someone is spending the time to develop something of this nature I'm sure there will be a lot of customization available to suit different environments as well as some algorithms designed to detect a diversion. Furthermore, two simple solutions I can think of right away are 1) encase the camera inside a container that allows it to swivel when necessary without having the outer container move. This would make it more difficult for people to know if their diversion work. Second, you could easily have them set up in pairs, having one static or scanning while the second one is responsive and uses the "ai".

More Tires? (1, Interesting)

maz2331 (1104901) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944563)

And how many more tires full of petrol are Brits going to put on these things every week?

They seem to be burning them up pretty regularly over there.

It's truly amazing... (4, Interesting)

TaleSpinner (96034) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944571)

...what you can accomplish against a population under constant surveillance and no human rights left at all. Consider:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/16/1730221
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/20/2318220
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/27/1457253
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/20/1344200
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/10/1846241
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/04/1750246
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23412867-details/Tens+of+thousands+of+CCTV+cameras%2C+yet+80%25+of+crime+unsolved/article.do

and, my personal favorite:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/6524495.stm

Oh, I'm sure the UK government has the very best of intentions. We all know what is paved with those. And the UK has already arrived.

Re:It's truly amazing... (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944683)

...what you can accomplish against a population under constant surveillance and no human rights left at all.
Wow, exaggerate much?

Oh, I'm sure the UK government has the very best of intentions. We all know what is paved with those. And the UK has already arrived.
I guess you do.

The New Turing Test (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944625)

Test subjects position themselves in front of cameras, then they move around while performing every heinous act of depravity that is humanly possible. If the focus and movements of the cameras are indistinguishable between the computer control vs. human operators, then true AI will have at long last been achieved.

Re:The New Turing Test (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23944983)

More of a turning test.

AI on cameras? (1)

crazybit (918023) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944707)

As far as there wasn't even an homogenous definition of what is AI (http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/23/1539245)

Now they say they will stick it on cameras? Is this just a marketing trick? or a way to explain l-users that the camera has some sort of "image recognition"?

tasers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23944795)

They should hook tasers up to these things.

Revision this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23944809)

Seeing how we know that these cameras don't actually do the task they were originally put in place to do, I am certain this "constant snooping 2.0" will fare much better.

old news, very old indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23944905)

I know lots of people have gotten the short attention span sickness, which most Americans have. Still i am dissapointed, even on slashdot.
But this stuff is not new.

Just some links about this technology, from 2006:
http://blog.wired.com/music/2006/11/acoustic_recogn.html [wired.com]
http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg19225780.159-big-brother-is-listening-to-you.html [newscientist.com]

One of the companies responsible for this was founded in 2000:
http://www.soundintel.com/ [soundintel.com]

more links wanted? go to http://www.rug.nl/scholieren/adamsAppel/archief2007/afl11 [www.rug.nl] [dutch]

**** Knowing is less important then Remembering. ****

Wow! Thought-powered cameras!!! (2, Insightful)

FredThompson (183335) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944929)

AI Could "power" Nex-gen CCTV Cameras?

POWER?!?!

Control? Yes. Power? No.

oblig futurama excerpt (2, Funny)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944969)

Hyper-Chicken: As the surveillance camera for the bank what all the judge was a-jawing about, could y'all tell us what you done seen the day of the crime?
Camera: Well, let's see. My memory's a little fuzzy, but it went exactly like this:

It projects a picture of Fry and Bender taking the money from Roberto

Hyper-Chicken: Your Honour, I move that I be disbarred for introducing this evidence against my own clients.

"DRIVE", not "POWER" (4, Insightful)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 6 years ago | (#23944985)

Jeez. We're supposed to be techies here, not a clueless advertising department.

There are proper terms for this:

  - If the AI provides energy to make the circuitry of the camera run, it's POWERing it.
  - If the AI provides processing to control the camera's operation and/or reducing the data it produces, it's DRIVing it.

So unless this camera has a REALLY SMART power supply the headline is flat-out bogus.

Re:"DRIVE", not "POWER" (1)

aXis100 (690904) | more than 6 years ago | (#23945389)

Thank you captain obvious. If you wanted to be really pedantic:

It's the motors DRIVing it
It's the servo controller CONTROLing it
It's the AI SUPERVISing it.

Careful with those CAPS (3, Funny)

Nazlfrag (1035012) | more than 6 years ago | (#23945431)

*Top Priority Transmission to Mission Control from Camera #412163*

Subject shouting abusively, recommend immediate ASBO and follow up with sustained surveillance for two months.

Re:"DRIVE", not "POWER" (1)

Gnavpot (708731) | more than 6 years ago | (#23945543)

If the AI provides energy to make the circuitry of the camera run, it's POWERing it.

I was actually rather disappointed over this story. When I read the headline, I thought that they had made mobile CCTVs with some AI enabling them to find and connect to random power sources.

Re:"DRIVE", not "POWER" (1)

DanLake (543142) | more than 6 years ago | (#23946011)

Jeez. We're supposed to be techies here, not a clueless advertising department.

There are proper terms for this:

- If the AI provides energy to make the circuitry of the camera run, it's POWERing it. - If the AI provides processing to control the camera's operation and/or reducing the data it produces, it's DRIVing it.

So unless this camera has a REALLY SMART power supply the headline is flat-out bogus.

Metaphorically speaking, the power of a camera is in the images it captures and the power provided by those images (ability to prosecute a crime typically). So in a sense, the AI would be giving the camera its power or increasing its power.

cameras to "hear" (1)

v4vijayakumar (925568) | more than 6 years ago | (#23945055)

... cameras to "hear" violent sounds and react ...
what if the same sound is used to fool these CCTV Cameras..? hm..!

And what... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23945247)

...next generation technology couldn't eventually AI power?

Colossus (3, Informative)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 6 years ago | (#23945283)

"You will learn to love me."

-- Colossus, The Forbin Project

"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that".

HAL 9000 -- 2001 - A Space Oddessy

already done... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23945377)

Pelco has done a proof of concept tying camera systems in to gun shot detectors. Once there is an event "shooting" the cameras can swarm that area to record the suspected area. No AI needed.

Voice print id (1)

n3tcat (664243) | more than 6 years ago | (#23945545)

I wonder how long before they figure out how to make the AI listen for a given voice or footstep pattern to identify known criminals... and then eventually when the computers are powerful enough to track most everyone...

And the test-case could be... (3, Insightful)

kellererik (307956) | more than 6 years ago | (#23945665)

if(hot_chick()) {
      zoom_follow();
}

Three words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23945725)

..."Broken-window ringtones."

Portsmouth Uni? This is going to work... (1)

scott792283 (800957) | more than 6 years ago | (#23945773)

I'd feel more confident this might work if it was coming from anywhere but the University of Portsmouth. Don't some US cameras already do this for gunshots?

Ultrahouse 3000 (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 6 years ago | (#23946257)

Don't take out my British charm unit! Without that I'm nothing but a boorish American clod.

Humans are not the only animals... (1)

Nomen Publicus (1150725) | more than 6 years ago | (#23946321)

Hey, Joe! You know those AI cameras? Yes? The ones that track noise and violent actions? Yes? They just recorded 24hours of pigeons copulating...

Stupidity Attack (1)

VoidCrow (836595) | more than 6 years ago | (#23946381)

Bastard A makes loud noise to detect camera, or triggers a ghetto blaster and walks away from it.

Bastard B walks up behind person to be fucked up, duct tapes person B, and does whatever it takes.

Fuck this idiotic shit.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?