News: Video Analytics to be Used by British Army to Spot 'Suspicious Activity'

From BBC News: Video analytics programmes are being developed at military research laboratories at Porton Down in Wiltshire. They are emphasising the use of the technology for tackling the use of improvised explosive devices. By automatically highlighting footage of unusual behaviour, such as going off road, captured by plane and helicopter mounted cameras, they hope to make the tracking of enemies more effective:

Andrew Seedhouse, from the Defence, Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL), said: "Think of it as the ultimate CCTV system.

"An incident occurs, perhaps an IED goes off, and we can use this host of data to back track over time.

"Who was near the scene and where were they before the incident? What buildings or vehicles can we now associate with the incident?"

He said the research could help scientists to look for anomalies in behaviour and environment and alert appropriate forces before an incident occurred.

The video analytics are being combined with other methods for sophisticated modelling of the surveyed terrain, as you can see in the 'British Forces News' video below.

Also interesting is the same scientist Andrew Seedhouse's comment that the only way to tell insurgents from everybody else is "by what they do -so the whole experiment is about tracking people, finding what they're up to each day, who they're meeting, what they take with them, what they do, where they place things, and then hopefully we'll be able to track back through all that stuff and find out where they are now":

How to Use Surveillance

Via privacydigest.com - there's an interesting National Public Radio story on the investigation that has led to terrorism charges against Najibullah Zazi, a Denver area shuttle bus driver. It's being claimed that this is a textbook case for showing how surveillance techniques are used in successful cases:

Officials say FBI agents in Denver and New York had been tracking Zazi for some time — and experts analyzing the case say the way law enforcement gathered evidence against Zazi and possible co-conspirators may be a textbook case of how to conduct a terrorism investigation. The FBI used a blend of wiretaps and subpoenas, search warrants and local police, among other things, to build its case.

"I think what's striking about the Zazi case is not so much that new tools were being used, but that old tools were being used in a comprehensive fashion," says Sam Rascoff, who used to work terrorism cases for the New York Police Department's intelligence unit. "And that they were being stitched together in a thoughtful, strategic way, so that one tool naturally gave way to another."

Is Anybody Watching?

Although Britain may boast a denser concentration of CCTV cameras than any other in the world, most forces "do not have systems to retrive, process and distribute CCTV crime scene images" according to a senior officer speaking to BBC news. The officer goes on to say that too much money has been spent on kit, while not enough money has been spent training operators or putting effective structures in place.

The widespread use of CCTV has been criticised a great deal by privacy advocates. How would an awareness that the technology is being used very ineffectively impact on these assessments? Should someone worried about the Big Brother state be cheered or saddened by this news?

Does it just make it even worse, because the promised benefits of intrusions are not being delivered on? Or is there any sense to the claim that, if nobody is watching the footage that CCTV is recording, then there can't be an invasion of privacy occuring? Or can surveillance be intrusive just by virtue of the possibility that someone could be watching?

Should Local Councils have Surveillance Powers?

I should now be able to return to regular posting (and get round to responding to the comments some of you have left). Today I have two stories involving Burnley Borough Council's use of Surveillance.

First a recent story from the Sunday Times. Apparently they mounted a "direct surveillance operation" against an employee they suspected of using the shower while clocked in.

There have been loads of stories like this over the last few years, and I can't find anybody who defends surveillance for uses like these - reading the newspapers you might get the impression that there's widespread consensus that local councils should not be engaged in surveillance at all.

But the stories keep coming. Presumably the councils doing this think they are doing the right thing, and that they are acting in a proportionate manner - how can there be such a big gap between their view and the widespread public condemnation?

The second story concerns a case which would be easier to defend but I'd be fascinated to hear some responses to the case: a few years back they caught someone flytipping through use of covert CCTV. The cameras covered public space, and surely nobody would object if the dumper had been caught as the result of, say, a chance eyewitness.

So is this a form of surveillance councils should be engaged in? Or is this still inappropriate and disproportionate?