Chinese Police Wearing Facial Recognition Are Here

By John Honovich, Published Feb 06, 2018, 09:20am EST

This is a very interesting and highly atypical usage of facial recognition that the Chinese government touted this week [link no longer available]:

It is a PRC police officer performing real-time facial recognition using a camera attached to their sunglasses. The announcement says that they have already captured 7 criminals and 26 people using fake identification.

In this note, we examine why the solution solves many technical problems of using facial recognition but raises significant legal issues.

Improves ** ********* ********

**** *** *** ******** technical ******** ** ********:

  • *** ****** ** ******** - ***** ***** ************ cameras *** ********* ******* on ***** *** ********, the ********* ****** ** incident ********* ****** *** accuracy *** *********** ** the ******** ***** (*.*., too **** ******** *** sidetilt). ** ********, * police ******* ******* * camera ** *** ***** can *** * **** more ****** ****.
  • *** *** **** - The ****** ******* *** move ****** ** ******** to *** * ****** quality **** ** *** suspect, *********** ****** ** **** pixel ******* *** ******* range.
  • ***** ******** - ***** cameras ********** ****** **** harsh ******** (********* *** bright, *** ****, *** much *******). **** * police ******* ******* *** camera, **** *** *** closer *** ***** **** from ******** ********.
  • ********* ****** - *** of *** *** ******** of ****** *********** ** fixed cameras ** ******* * human ** *******. **** if *** ****** *********** was ***% ******** (***** it ** ***), ** still ***** **** ** dispatch *** ****** ******* to ***** *** ****** was **********. ** *** meantime, *** ****** *** move *************. **** * ****** officer ********** *** ****** recognition ** ***** ** the *******, **** *** immediately *********.

Update: **** ** ***** *******

*** **** **** ***** remains ** ******* ******** people. *** ****** *** say *** ****** ** front ** *** ****** officer ******* * ****** or ****** ******* *** it ** ***** ******** possible **** *** ****** simply ********* **** ******* and ** **** ** determine / ***** ** *** moment, ****** *** ******** ********:

Significant ***** / ******* ******

***** *** ***** *** privacy ******... **** *** in ************* *****.

** *** **, **** tactic ** ****** ********* in ********* ** ******* ** ** ********* ******** data ******* **** ** the ********** ** ******'* facial *** *** ******** of ****** ** ******.

** *** **, ** is ****** * ********* of*** *** *********, *** ***** ****** certainly ***** * ****** uproar **** *** ****** misuing it (*.*., *********).

** ********, ** *** West, ****** *********** ** used ** **** ******** applications, **** ******** **** *********** for * ******'* ******* and **** *** ****** have ******* ********** * crime *** ******** ** image ** * *******.

*** *** ******** ** how *** *** **** facial *********** ***** **** grow *** **** *** public **** *****.

Vote / ****

Comments (45)

Avatar

Brian Rhodes

IPVMU Certified | 02/06/18 02:56pm

I have to think it would be ironic if wearing the face rec glasses prevented the face rec system from IDing you. 

In other words, simple disguises or accessories like hats or sunglasses have to be a problem no matter how close the camera is, right?

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Brian Rhodes | 02/06/18 03:06pm

And if the PRC police tell you to remove your glasses and/ or hat, are you going to say no? :)

Avatar

Brian Rhodes

IPVMU Certified | In reply to John Honovich | 02/06/18 03:17pm

Yikes!  That really clarifies the necessary political will involved in a program like this.  

Your point about encroaching on the 4th Amendment for the US is spot on.  People think shooting drones down or squirting ketchup on robots is militant?  Try outfitting LEOs with face rec cameras.

Undisclosed #1

02/06/18 03:26pm

Historically, U.S. law enforcement agencies are not too keen on asking anyone if they can use any technology... they simply do it until someone (ACLU, etc.) tries to make them first admit they are using the technology, and second, to stop using it without the proper legal framework in place to do so.

Stingrays, ALPR and GPS cell phone tracking are some examples of the above.

i.e. without specific laws in place to prevent use, we should expect to see this technology being used by U.S. law enforcement once it is commercially available. 

  

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Undisclosed #1 | 02/06/18 03:48pm

The commercial availability of this is not the question. It's not technologically all that difficult to do this. It's a question of cost and public pushback.

It's one thing to surreptitiously track someone's cell phone, that's hard for people to see. But a police officer standing in front of you, scanning your face, calling out your name and attempting to arrest you for nothing but you being on the street is a whole different level of public issue / spectacle. 

Undisclosed #1

02/06/18 04:24pm

"But a police officer standing in front of you, scanning your face, calling out your name and attempting to arrest you for nothing but you being on the street is a whole different level of public issue / spectacle."

Other than the Chinese norm of 'arrest you for nothing but you being on the street', how is a cop with FR glasses fundamentally different than what US LE currently does with LPR from within their vehicles?

They scan an image (license plate, face) and compare it to a database.  If they get a hit, they either stop you on the street and arrest you (FR) or pull over your vehicle first and then arrest you (LPR).

The FBI has had their Face Services division for some time now.... and the only thing separating what they already do with what they will be able to do is better performing comparison technology.  i.e. at the moment they are using their Face Services team to manually compare the 'best results' kicked out by the FR technology to visually confirm identity before sending the final result to LE who've requested their Face Services. i.e. at the moment it is being used as an investigative tool.

However, once the technology is more mature and can be relied on without human intervention and verification (like ALPR can already do, due to it's rigid structure vs varying facial characteristics) you will see it happening right here on the streets of the good old U S of A.

And no one is ever going to ask if they can do it - they will just do it until they aren't legally able to based on statute.

imo, the only way to get ahead of it is to make the practice illegal before they are able to use the technology in the manner described..

Avatar

Skip Cusack

02/06/18 07:29pm

Achieving accurate FR outside, with the primary lighting source being the sun, stresses even the best FR algorithms (and yes, I have the scars to prove it). Even if complicity is given to the LEO, so that pose is ideal, the lighting will still hold back optimal results. Now, having said that, if you catch a bunch of bad guys, and the deterrent effect is socialized, then one can say the system is effective. It doesn't need to catch 99% of bad guys to be successful. 

Undisclosed #1

In reply to Skip Cusack | 02/06/18 07:57pm

If you were a Chinese citizen and made the claims above, 14 of your neighbors would've turned you in so their social credit system scores go up.

And then we'd see you in about 7 years after your re-education was completed.

Undisclosed End User #2

02/06/18 07:31pm

Undisclosed Manufacturer #3

02/06/18 08:47pm

Recall 4th amendment was also  mentioned when body worn cameras got introduced 

Undisclosed #4

IPVMU Certified | 02/06/18 09:41pm

As of Oct 18, 2016, a Georgetown Law study finds that Half of All American Adults are in a Police Face Recognition Database.

 

Stephen Borders

Echo Technologies
02/06/18 11:39pm

I'm very surprised that all the comments so far are negative. The big brother fear mentality has definitely spread far and wide. I expect more from intelligent peers in the technology industry.

Currently, LEOs are captilizing on the abilities of technology through body cams, public camera networks, and LPRs. This is the next logical step and a valuable tool.

In fact, the idea that the officer is wearing the camera should lessen the worry of privacy issues and 4th amendment claims. If the officer is legally present at a location and can see someone then everything that officer sees is usable. 

If he/she sees a wanted person in public, they have every right to stop, question, confirm ID, etc. They can ask you to show ID, remove hat, glasses, or mask as they investigate. Well before they "arrest" or detain someone. 

One of the biggest problems currently is subjects involved in an investigation giving false names and no ID. I believe here it is a crime to give a false name to a LEO conducting a lawful investigation and this could help solve that.

I am much more comfortable with glasses on a LEO than a drone peering in a elevated window of a private residence.

This is simply another tool in the LE toolbox that has great potential. A DB is a much better and unbiased tool than the standard radio description lookout of " black male, 6', white tee shirt, blue jeans" that causes many profiling claims currently.

I for one see this as a business opportunity that has great value and place in our industry. If any one wants to pass due to moral issues, please send your customers my way.

 

Undisclosed #4

IPVMU Certified | In reply to Stephen Borders | 02/07/18 12:04am

...the standard radio description lookout of " black male, 6', white tee shirt, blue jeans"

So in your opinion, the standard criminal is... 6’ ?

Undisclosed Manufacturer #5

In reply to Undisclosed #4 | 02/07/18 12:29am

I'm a white male, 6', with a white tee shirt, and blue jeans.  I guess I am 75% standard criminal.

 

I predict a riot due to my irrational anger at this offense.

Stephen Borders

Echo Technologies
In reply to Undisclosed #4 | 02/07/18 12:31am

That "standard description" is not meant to stereo type all criminals but to serve as an example of the inefficient current system. Often times a suspect may leave the scene and can be identified by name but with such a vauge physical description as the one above, the officers are left to choose how invasive to be in search. Unfortunately, some have chosen poorly and created a solid disconnect between LE and the public. 

I also fully believe that real time FR is not the solution that fixes that disconnect. Some will still choose to abuse their authority.  I just don't have a fear that this technology is something we should avoid and has lots of postives to explore.

Undisclosed #1

In reply to Stephen Borders | 02/07/18 12:04am

"I'm very surprised that all the comments so far are negative. The big brother fear mentality has definitely spread far and wide. I expect more from intelligent peers in the technology industry."

Nice beginning - calling those that might disagree with you stupid.  This is not a productive style.

It's actually difficult to listen to anything you have to say after that kind of weak and intentionally demeaning opening.

You are clearly espousing the LE position - validating my primary point in this string; that LE will use any technology they can find (to keep everyone 'safe') and never ask anyone if they can legally use it first. 

"If any one wants to pass due to moral issues, please send your customers my way."

spare us the virtue signaling, lieutenant - there is a potential constitutional challenge to how certain data is captured/stored.  Your comment demeans those with differing opinions by insinuating your morals are higher/more important than others.

Stephen Borders

Echo Technologies
In reply to Undisclosed #1 | 02/07/18 12:44am

I truly did not mean to imply that anyone here is stupid because they disagree. The first paragraph was simply to express my surprise at the unanimous negative comments. When I said I expect more, I should have said I expected more diverse dialogue with what I feel is an intelligent group. 

I hate that first paragraph makes me feel like I wasted the rest of my original post. 

As for my morals, I don't feel that they are higher or better than anyone else. I am just eager to explore the potentials of what I see as an exciting opportunity and advancement of technology. 

Undisclosed #1

In reply to Stephen Borders | 02/07/18 12:54am

I apologize for my defensive crudeness.

Its just that it is tough for me to see a group of people (LE) that I respect, fail to grasp that there are constitutional boundaries that they - as LE - are bound to uphold.

Just because some new tech makes it easier to do one of the toughest jobs on the planet does not always mean that it is the right thing to do.  You have to see that.

I have no issue with anything done under the illumination of bright sunlight.  It is when LE conspires to keep the public in the dark (I am specifically referencing Stingrays here) that the 'tool in the toolbelt' argument falls down.

Of course we don't want to needlessly expose the technologies that are being used to fight crime.  But this can not be the call of the ones using the technology (i.e. LE).

With no public/citizen oversight into what technologies use passes constitutional muster, we are left with LE deciding.

This is my primary argument - and imo, should be of concern to any American who recognizes the strength of our own U.S. constitutional law.

Stephen Borders

Echo Technologies
In reply to Undisclosed #1 | 02/07/18 02:16am

I think we are a lot more aligned in our thoughts than it first appeared.

I have no issue with anything done under the illumination of bright sunlight. It is when LE conspires to keep the public in the dark (I am specifically referencing Stingrays here) that the 'tool in the toolbelt' argument falls down.

100% agree. Stingrays are dark scary tech that I feel needs tight control and oversight. I'm not sure how much they are actually used but the fact that they do exist and we don't know is even more problematic. This entire intelligence field is worrisome and can easily cross all kinds of legal and ethical lines. 

What i like about the glasses is the overt application to a LEOs person. We already have strong and tested laws protecting our privacy and search by an officer. The fact that these glasses are not a nano-bot deployed by LE to gain access to previously private or protected areas is a plus I think. Can there be misuse and abuse, absolutely. I just feel the legal test is easy in this case since the tech is attached to the officer.

I also firmly believe in oversight and accountability. This is where we can help as integrators, designers, and engineers. For example, Atlanta Police that have mobile LPRs on their cars must account for any deviation from SOPs when the tech "hit". Officers must respond the same way for an expired tag on the BMW with the hot blonde as they do to the thumping sedan with four black males. Before the tech, its was easy blind eye the blonde and find an excuse to go after the sedan with the hopes of finding drugs. All things equal, that is what profiling is and our tech has helped chip away at corrupt culture.

If done well in the US, this emerging tech can create more data and more oversight. If an officer uses their tech to ID that same blonde to get her number or address without her knowledge and stalk her, our tech should be designed to flag and pull video automatically to justify why he accessed citizens records when it is not tied to an investigation. 

Good solid implemented tech can be a tool for fighting crime and corruption at the same time.

Just food for thought. 

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Stephen Borders | 02/07/18 12:24am

Stephen, thanks! Very interesting!

If he/she sees a wanted person in public, they have every right to stop, question, confirm ID, etc. 

The problem I see is what is included as 'wanted'. Let's take 'illegal immigrants' as an example. The police officer uses their facial recognition glasses and gets a warning that an illegal immigrant is next to them. Do they take them in and have them deported?

Other issues can be where it is used. If police use it more often in minority areas, is it racist?

Let's leave aside whether it's right or wrong for a second. The reality is that it's going to create an uproar. And anyone who has any reason to fear police will run whenever they see a police officer with camera sunglasses.

In fact, the idea that the officer is wearing the camera should lessen the worry of privacy issues and 4th amendment claims. If the officer is legally present at a location and can see someone then everything that officer sees is usable.

I think the 4th amendment issue will be why is the police officer even searching the person's face in a database to begin with? If a person is just walking down the street eating an ice cream cone with his child, even if he has an arrest warrant, do the police have a right to search his face in a database simply because he is walking down the street? I am genuinely don't know the law on this, but it strikes me, at least, as being highly controversial in America.

Stephen Borders

Echo Technologies
In reply to John Honovich | 02/07/18 02:39am

John

The problem I see is what is included as 'wanted'. Let's take 'illegal immigrants' as an example. The police officer uses their facial recognition glasses and gets a warning that an illegal immigrant is next to them. Do they take them in and have them deported?

I am no lawyer, but as I understand it, our local LEOs are not able to demand ID from anyone without cause and immigration status is not a local crime. I believe that there is a notification requirement after arrest but I don't think the glasses would be involved at that point. 

Should an officer be allowed to ID and pull address and phone number of a unknowing woman he wants to date? Absolutely not and a good system and policy will make abuse difficult. 

I could imagine that issue any many others if officers are given too open of access to the data. That though is where I think the tech has to be implemented in an ethical and legal way just as LPRs and crime databases have been tested as lawful when implemented correctly. If an officer runs a crime database check without it being tied to an lawful investigation, it flags it for oversight and justification. These powerful tools can be dangerous or game changing. The oversight, accounting, and reporting aspects are the keys and that is where we come in. 

Undisclosed #1

In reply to Stephen Borders | 02/07/18 03:08am

Stephen,

I like your optimism.  But history has shown that LE regularly fights against any real oversight... particularly, any oversight of their use of new technology that they like.

And they like it because it makes the toughest job in the world a little easier to do for awhile because the perps don't understand how the tech works yet - which they will then attempt to avoid when they do.

Example:  How many house burglars now leave their cell phones at home cuz they know that if they get rolled while walking in a neighborhood late at night that the cops can use their phone's GPS to see where they have been on any given date and time (which can be matched against dates and times of burglaries in the vicinity).

Anytime LE gets themselves any new tool, it takes the bad guys a little bit of time to figure it out.  But they always do, and they always adapt.  Leaving the tech behind to infringe on various constitutional rights of all the non-bad guys in a society where this new tech has proliferated and become commonplace.

When does any technology go from keeping us all safe to infringing on all of our constitutional rights?  I don't know the answer, but nobody in LE even wants to entertain the question.

These powerful tools are dangerous - but only when in the hands of those that are unaccountable to the people that they serve.  What is particularly insidious (imo) is the fact that LE is not operating with evil intent here - they just want to catch perps more efficiently.

The problem lies in the non-existence of any statutory guidelines... primarily because the tech is so new that no guidance has ever been applied via statute.

LE is taking advantage of this and using whatever they can, sans any legal framework.  That is what I (and other civil liberty types) have a problem with.

Stephen Borders

Echo Technologies
In reply to Undisclosed #1 | 02/07/18 04:09am

The problem lies in the non-existence of any statutory guidelines... primarily because the tech is so new that no guidance has ever been applied via statute.

I will argue that there are many solid well tested statues and constitutional rights here in the US. I think those should be applied first with guidelines that help remind agencies how they are applicable regardless of latest greatest tech. 

I do think there is a need to have some oversight and regulation on the database side but that tech has been active for years. This discussion has peaked my interest in that subject. I am completely unaware of what if any oversight in data collection, storage, security, and distribution exist. It would be nice to hear a courts opinion of who, how, and where data can be obtained and stored and who can access it when. 

The glasses are nothing more than a interface with that data. I cant imagine how you could even write a statue prohibiting LEs use of a camera in public on their face. The fact that the SW is able to respond in near real time is the only new facet. There is nothing preventing LE from taking a video from a handheld camcorder, going back and running SW the grabs faces and runs them through a database.

I fairly confident that anyone could create a database and take public legal video and run SW that compares faces to the database. Is it creepy, oh yeah, is it or should it be illegal, my opinion is no. The two issues are how and where the video is obtained and is database created with legal data used legally. Both of these issues are covered with lots of existed privacy laws and such. 

The good thing is that if the scary giant databases do exist and Local LE truly do have open free unfiltered access to them, the glasses with bring that to the surface. I think if we fight the glasses we will be fighting the wrong battle. Prohibit realtime FR glasses and the glasses may die but the questionable data and its use will continue behind the curtain. 

If we allow and encourage new tech use it will be used openly and overtly. If we forbid it, it will be still be used, but out of sight with no acknowledgement or oversight. 

Undisclosed #1

In reply to Stephen Borders | 02/07/18 04:50am

 

"I am completely unaware of what if any oversight in data collection, storage, security, and distribution exist. It would be nice to hear a courts opinion of who, how, and where data can be obtained and stored and who can access it when."

Unfortunately, I think you will find in your search that there are very few local/state statutes regarding any of the above.

Are there some munis/cities/states that regulate this data, and are these numbers growing?  Sure.  Because they are being forced to talk about it after the fact, once the tech is already in use 'keeping everyone safe'.

I air quoted those last three words because that is exactly the position that any LE takes when discussing their use (most often only because they are forced to) of any new and as-yet unregulated thing.

This position taken by LE has the (un?)intentional effect of making those that question the use of the new tech appear to be anti-LE - which imo is a divisive tactic that broadens the gap in trust, rather than seeking to bridge that same gap..

[UD1 EDIT] A good place to start if you are interested in these things is the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF.org)

Avatar

Skip Cusack

In reply to Stephen Borders | 02/07/18 01:32pm

I'm not an attorney either - my understanding is that the Supreme Court ruled that citizens do not have a duty to carry or produce identification IF they are just walking around for example, but I think they are obligated to state their name. Operating a motor vehicle is different, and in that case, there is a duty to produce a valid DL. There certainly is no expectation of privacy walking around in public and FR is fair game.

Carl Kristoffersen

In reply to Skip Cusack | 02/07/18 02:51pm

An LEO would need reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity before detaining anyone.  If one is not detained, that means NO questions need to be answered, including questions of identity.
  Terry v. Ohio, 1968

John Honovich

IPVM | 02/07/18 01:51pm

Update: Today, the WSJ has an article out on this topic, more details on the manufacturer of the device / system, Beijing based 'smart glass' manufacturer LLVision.

Undisclosed Distributor #6

02/07/18 03:19pm

This is great ; depends if the footage is uploaded to cloud or if it’s just used for real time facial .

Avatar

Sean Fitzgerald

IPVMU Certified | 02/07/18 04:04pm

The problem is not the technology, but the application.

Inappropriate use should be addressed as it occurs.

Undisclosed #1

02/07/18 04:47pm

"The problem is not the technology, but the application."

agree.

"Inappropriate use should be addressed as it occurs."

disagree.

My primary position is that inappropriate use should be addressed before it occurs.

Randy Lines

02/07/18 05:33pm

start rant .....

I think its fair to say this technology is coming ... either by evolution or revolution. The lawyers and civil libertarians will scrap this out and we will hear every argument made above thousands of times.  

Our value to the conversation can be to provide information about the technology. I have seen the facial recognition systems at ASIS and ISC and they are not all that. They recognize from a much smaller data base than the Chinese population and they did it with a ton of false positives. 

Would love to see numbers and facts about the precision required to establish a match, what are the error bars on the determination, how long does it take with respect to database size .... are DL photos sufficient resolution for the database ... perhaps a new IPVM tech report ;)   The WSJ article Jon referred to is behind a pay wall and the web site didn't seem to have much in the way of facts. 

The social debate will always rise up ... facial technology can save a man from death row as easy as it can get someone shot because the computer "thought" it was someone else. Let's leave the evangelism to others and contribute with science.

 ... end rant :)

rbl

Undisclosed #1

In reply to Randy Lines | 02/07/18 06:04pm

good words Randy.... and I agree with them all.

"Our value to the conversation can be to provide information about the technology. I have seen the facial recognition systems at ASIS and ISC and they are not all that. They recognize from a much smaller data base than the Chinese population and they did it with a ton of false positives."

This is exactly the time to be establishing our position as experts and leading the effort to establish guidelines for use of this new technology.

Except this doesn't ever happen.

Generally speaking, manufacturers tout their new things as panaceas rather than being concerned with any of the social repercussions of the use of their new technology - because they want to sell lots of this thing.

Also generally speaking, VAR partners of these manufacturers are incentivized to spout the manufacturers propaganda points in order to get their chunk of the deals - because they want to sell lots of this thing.

I am for adding tools to the tool belt of LE.

I am also for constitutional protections.

When the debate occurs after the technology is in place - I believe - it is too late to rein in practices that have already been put in place without serious push back that promotes 'successes' in able to ignore civil liberties concerns.

Randy Lines

In reply to Undisclosed #1 | 02/07/18 06:24pm

I agree however I think this community have a health skepticism for manufactures claims ... we will get to the truth of the technology.

... and skidding out of my lane for a moment I am worried about the Goggles, Amazon and Apples of the world who seem to get a pass from the public who freely up their faces and personal info to them for "free stuff". I think that is a bigger threat to society.

rbl

Truman HW

02/08/18 10:52am

Hmph. Nice.

So I'm not the only one who has a hard time distinguishing chinese people apart. 

 

Its a police state anyway... What difference does it make? Honestly, I think we need it here for the US in high crime areas. 

Avatar

Sean Fitzgerald

IPVMU Certified | In reply to Truman HW | 02/08/18 01:07pm

Wow.

All Chinese look alike. Okay.

Aside from that, yeah, got to agree that Americans living in high crime areas don't deserve to have their 4th Amendment rights.

John Honovich

IPVM | 02/08/18 11:30am

More mainstream coverage, Gizmodo: China's Dystopian Police State Arms Cops With Smart Glasses to Scan Everyone's Faces

John Honovich

IPVM | 02/08/18 02:14pm

Update: Risk of False Matches

One risk that still remains is falsely matching people. The system may say the person in front of the police officer matches a terror or murder suspect but it is still entirely possible that the person simply resembles that suspect and is hard to determine / judge in the moment, as this WSJ reporter explains:

John Honovich

IPVM | 02/10/18 02:02am

This general story has made LinkedIn's top news of the week:

Related, it has been picked up by all sorts of political and tech sites.

Undisclosed #1

03/23/18 05:50am

China = ‘Big Brother’ for its surveillance tech. But US uses it too

...says Asia Times.

"The Chinese government has never pretended to be a Jeffersonian democracy."

"...the per capita proportion of surveillance cameras to citizens in the two nations isn’t that different."

 

Avatar

Ethan Ace

IPVM | In reply to Undisclosed #1 | 03/23/18 05:56am

My favorite part is this:

US has 30 million police cameras 

China may have 170 million CCTV cameras trained on its 1.3 billion citizens. But there were an estimated 30 million police surveillance cameras installed at US street corners and parks three years ago. Schwartz believes the number of such devices in urban hubs such as New York and small suburban towns has swelled since. Given that the US currently has a population of 326 million, the per capita proportion of surveillance cameras to citizens in the two nations isn’t that different. 

There are roughly 3,000 "cities" with a population above 10,000 in the US. So on average, US cities have 10,000 cameras. Obviously.

Undisclosed #1

In reply to Ethan Ace | 03/23/18 06:41am

agreed.  This piece is rife with propagandized conclusions based on sketchy foundation.

Straight up tu quoque

Avatar

Sean Fitzgerald

IPVMU Certified | In reply to Ethan Ace | 03/23/18 01:04pm

10,000 cameras per metropolitan center is not unrealistic.

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Sean Fitzgerald | 03/23/18 01:08pm

Sean, it's unrealistic given the specific quote:

estimated 30 million police surveillance cameras [emphasis added]

The article is emphasizing that these are 'police' cameras. There are surely 10,000 cameras in even small cities but those are almost all private cameras, not 'police' ones. 

There are various programs to keep lists of private cameras by police but very few of those cameras are actually controlled or directly accessible by the police.

 

Avatar

Sean Fitzgerald

IPVMU Certified | In reply to John Honovich | 03/23/18 02:50pm

I'm not so sure. Using Houston as a basis, 10,000 cameras would cover an average of 3300 intersections.  There are far more than 3300 intersections in Houston, and I'm not sure how many are at bus stations and light rail stations.

Surely, in Northern cities with more developed mass transit systems, there would be even more.  Philadelphia has more than 50 subway/EL stations, NYC has almost 500.

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Sean Fitzgerald | 03/23/18 03:07pm

Houston is not a representative 'basis' given how large it is. For example, Houston is the 4th largest US city in population and the largest by area of the top 10 most populated cities (source).

Even if you said Houston had 100,000 police cameras (they don't) and all the top 10 US most populous cities have 100,000 police cameras (they don't), you still are only at 1 million cameras. Then you need to get the other 29 million cameras claimed from cities smaller than 1 million people each, with a median population of  167,000 people (300 US cities with 100,000+ people - same source).

An 'average' sized US city, e.g., Hartford CN with 123,000 people, only has a few hundred police surveillance cameras. I cite them because the Police there have been speaking at Milestone events and marketing but I know many regular size cities and a few hundred to a thousand cameras are the norm.

As Ethan said earlier:

There are roughly 3,000 "cities" with a population above 10,000 in the US. So on average, US cities have 10,000 cameras

You can't get to the 30 million figure since the largest US cities at best have a few tens of thousands of police / city cameras and the average sized city is lucky to have 1,000, nowhere close to the average implied in that article's claim.

Read this IPVM report for free.

This article is part of IPVM's 6,805 reports, 913 tests and is only available to members. To get a one-time preview of our work, enter your work email to access the full article.

Already a member? Login here | Join now
Loading Related Reports