Sensor-fusion software technology replacing traditional security systems

By Grace Jean

SensorSoftware As more and more security cameras are being installed around the globe, companies are developing software solutions and other technologies that increasingly advance the intelligence of such monitoring systems.

While analysts contend that cameras do not necessarily prevent crimes, industry experts say that making them smarter will allow security specialists to be more proactive in stopping wrongdoers.

Closed-circuit television systems first appeared in the early 1960s. Today, they are ubiquitous. Though the exact number of deployed cameras is unknown, estimates show that in the United Kingdom — the world’s leading user of video surveillance — there are as many as four million cameras in operation.

The usage of cameras in the United States continues to grow. Since 9/11, many cities have funneled millions of dollars from homeland security funds into purchasing visual monitoring systems to protect their populations.

“Camera surveillance systems are very visible, so people believe something is being done,” says Melissa Ngo, staff counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a public interest research organization located in Washington, D.C. However, she says, studies have shown that such systems do not deter nor decrease crime. Many times, they simply cause criminals to conduct their business elsewhere.

“Crimes seen on cameras are petty crimes — drug deals, people drinking in public, these types of situations,” says Ngo. “I want my homeland security funds to go to people and to programs where we will be able to stop terrorist activities.”

Last summer’s suicide bombings in London are a prime example of cameras not deterring acts of terror. Despite having an estimated 200,000 cameras watching public areas, the city fell victim to four terrorists who boarded three underground trains and a bus and detonated explosives, killing 56 people and injuring hundreds on their morning commute.

But following the attacks, British authorities were able to reconstruct the events and identify the bombers using video footage.

“Camera surveillance systems are very good for finding people after the fact. However, sometimes they can’t even do that,” says Ngo. In Washington, D.C., for example, police installed numerous cameras to catch a serial arsonist. Though he was never caught on video, the suspect was later apprehended following traditional police forensic work, says Ngo.

“Machines will never be able to do the thought processes that humans can. You don’t want a computer investigating the crime. You want more trained officers,” she says.

Simply having more electronic eyes surveying an area doesn’t necessarily increase security, say analysts.

“By themselves, cameras really can’t be more than a minor deterrent,” says Jack Riley, associate director of Rand Corp.’s infrastructure, safety and environment division. “They’re passive portals that would allow you to observe people carrying backpacks, luggage, and briefcases … but that doesn’t necessarily tell you anything.”

Though today’s surveillance cameras often come equipped with advanced capabilities ranging from full movement to night vision and infrared modes, limitations still exist.

“First of all, you can’t have them everywhere. It’s pretty easy to tuck packages underneath a chair on a subway and not have it be noticed,” says Riley. “Second of all, there’s just a lot of potential terrorist activity that can be disguised as routine activity.”

It is up to the officials monitoring the command and control centers at the heart of every video surveillance system to catch potential wrong-doers before they act — a task generally easier said than done.

“Right now, one of the shortcomings of video monitoring systems out there is that it’s pretty expensive to have someone sitting there monitoring a camera,” says Riley. Not only that, but studies have shown security officers tasked with tracking video footage on banks of monitors stop paying attention after 20 minutes. The sheer number of video feeds can overwhelm operators, and if something does occur, figuring out the exact location can consume precious minutes.

To address these and other issues, companies have developed software systems that aim to streamline and automate the process.

One such product, called Praetorian, created by Sarnoff Laboratories, integrates surveillance video feeds and other sensor inputs into a single, three-dimensional display on computer monitors. This “stitching” process results in a digital, virtual environment, not unlike that of today’s video games, through which operators can navigate to gain better awareness of activities.

“The operators are engaged in the environment where they’re hopefully being proactive instead of reactive,” says Corby Lawrence, director of business development at SYColeman/L3 Communications, which purchased the technology from Sarnoff.

The Windows-based system operates in real-time, and simultaneously records and stores all video. Like the digital television recorder, TiVo, Praetorian users can also pause footage, rewind and explore the recorded portions in that same immersive 3-D environment using a keyboard or joystick. It has an open architecture that allows for any type of sensor to be incorporated into the system, whether analog or digital.

The package comes with software that can provide alerts for numerous events. Operators can set the system to detect motion, breaches, left-behind objects and even loiterers.

A test of the “left-behind” alarm function in New York picked up a person spraying graffiti on a wall, says Mark Redlinger, program director for Praetorian. In another test case, the technology was used to catch a hacker attempting to break into a computer terminal being monitored by several sensors.

The system has been deployed to Iraq and to the Jacksonville International Airport in Florida, among other installations.

Company officials decline to disclose the price of systems, saying cost is determined on a case-by-case basis.

The system, say company officials, actually can help cut costs by reducing manpower requirements. They claim that clients have seen a 30 percent savings in the security force alone by using Praetorian.

The company has developed a small hand-held device, similar to a personal digital assistant, that will allow security officers to see and manipulate camera feeds en route to a location.

“What you’re trying to do with surveillance is get awareness, not just monitor,” says Redlinger. “You’re trying to find awareness, so you can be proactive.”

He says the biggest challenge is breaking what has been the traditional way of doing surveillance — putting up more cameras, adding more monitors, hiring more people to monitor the system. This technology marks a paradigm shift, he says.

Opportunities for surveillance technologies abound. In recent years, the security realm has seen an influx of information technology companies eager to respond to the market demand for more and better systems, says Joe Freeman, president and CEO of J. P. Freeman Co. Inc., a market research, management consulting, and technical services organization based in Newtown, Conn.

“While it’s true cameras aren’t cure-alls, technology is on the way to making it as much a cure-all as possible,” he says. As the industry evolves from analog to digital, wired to wireless and passive to intelligent, surveillance will become much more automated, he says.

“There will be smart cameras galore in five years with smart chips,” he says.