NEWS London Underground is set to roll out high-tech CCTV surveillance software that will automatically alert operators to suspicious behaviour, unattended packages and potential suicide attempts on the capital's Tube system.
The move comes as London remains on a high state of alert against a possible terrorist attack following the bombs in Madrid earlier this month.
LU has been trialling the technology at Liverpool Street station over the last two months and is now evaluating the results with a network-wide rollout tipped to follow across the Tube's 6,000 CCTV cameras, which cover 95 per cent of stations.
The Intelligent Pedestrian Surveillance system from Ipsotek compares CCTV footage against pictures of the empty station and alerts operators to strange behaviour such as people loitering or bags that have been left on the platform.
Sergio Velastin, director of research and founder of Ipsotek, said that it cuts down on operator time and costs related to blanket monitoring of all CCTV screens by only alerting staff when there is potential problem.
"It brings the attention of the operator to a camera that is meaningful," he said.
Velastin said LU is happy with the results of the trial and that a wider rollout will go ahead, although funding issues between the Mayor and the private companies that now run the Tube network will have to be overcome first.
But not everyone is likely to be happy. Privacy groups are concerned about the increasing coverage of monitoring technology such as CCTV.
Velastin dismissed privacy concerns over IPS and said the software only monitors behavioural patterns and not the individual.
"We have tried very consciously to stay away from facial recognition issues. None of our system is capable of recognising an individual – just behaviour. Then the police can come in and say 'we need to find out who that person is'," he said. "It is a balance between being free to do what we wish and being protected."
Comments
There are 4 comments. Join the discussion
1. Phillip Holley
Given the complexities of what the system is monitoring, I do not believe that it can adequately spot abandoned luggage or loitering passengers. It might be able to spot some and that is welcome but the danger is that security staff, aware that the system is in place, will rely on it meaning that all security is effectively left to a computer system that can only pick out the most obvious security threats. For that reason I think it's a bad idea.
2. Tim Giles
It's good to see LUL leading the way with this trial. This kind of
technology should be viewed as a valuable tool that can help skilled
operators deliver the level of security we would all hope for.
The previous commentator questioned the adequacy of such technology in
the complex environment of the underground. I think it's more helpful to
ask if it's useful and valuable. I believe the answer to this is yes,
when sensibly applied within a suitable security regime. Our own
experience is that security and IT managers piloting our NiceVision
analysis system have been convinced of its value when suitably applied
to well defined problems. Of course, technology is only one part of the
solution - it isn't a replacement for sound people and processes.
3. Owen Sayers
I am concerned that in the rush to push new technologies to the fore - driven both by operators and vendors of the kit - that we are losing sight of the benefit basic observation may give.
London Underground identified to me in the last year that the extent of coverage was not good when they could not fulfill a data subject request I made for footage. In addition I note that they still do not comply with DPA 1998 requirements - a full 3 years after the date by which they were legally compelled to do so.
Surely this basic coverage and legal operation is of more direct relevance and benefit to passengers?
Persons who suggest that CCTV and new technologies provide protection against serious violent crime or terrorism are propagating a misconception (most commonly from a self-serving position rather than for the public benefit) - a terrorist bent on a zealous attack cares not a jot for CCTV. Most violent criminal acts are committed under the influence of drink and CCTV is rarely a concern to the perpetrator.
CCTV systems do discourage - or at least have a displacing effect on some types of crime - they cannot however arrest or detain individuals and have an investigative function only. As a result they do little to actively defend or protect the public - though they are actively promoted as a panacea for this and other ills.
4. Nick Hewitson
There seems to be an interesting divide in the coments between suppliers of "Smart" CCTV and other readers as to its effectiveness. My company Smart CCTV Ltd clearly falls into the former group, and while the technology today falls well short of the Hollywood future shown in films like Minority Report, the technology does provide a useful filter to the Human operator.
It has been shown that a CCTV operator's ability to concentrate falls very fast after watching less than 20 minuites of boring mundane video, what the technolgy can do today is to deal with that pre screening and only deliver to the Human operator the odd and the interesting thereby increasing their effectiveness.
This means that there is no real change to the privacy issue, in fact it could be argued that privacy has been increased because people watch less video of the Public going about its day to day business; only the out of the ordinary is highlighted.
It will therefore increase the chances that the Mugger or Terrorist will be noticed before they act and give a better chance of intervention to stop the crime taking place.