Could low cost digital cameras be used to protect geographically remote, potential targets of terrorism?

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,119
Could low cost digital cameras be used to protect geographically remote, potential targets of terrorism?

In a recent announcement, ISIS urged its followers to use simple mechanical means to derail trains by disturbing the rail tracks. It claims that the vast networks of rail lines could easily be attacked.

Reading an August 18th article in Newsweek "Blood Timber" http://www.newsweek.com/2017/08/18/siamese-rosewood-tree-thailand-poachers-646904.html about the poaching of rare trees in southeast Asia,it occured to me that the digital camera defence against poachers described in the article could also be used against terrorists sabotaging railway lines:

"...motion sensor cameras camouflaged in green boxes...transmit images by email... The newest versions have facial recognition technology... monitor multiple remote locations simultaneously." The photographs transmitted can be quite clear.

Since this camera surveillance is in Thailand, no doubt it has to be a low cost operation.

Other uses for such surveillance could include monitoring high crime streets and antisocial behaviour in housing estates.
 
Last edited:


Old Mr Grouser

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
6,341
... Other uses for such surveillance could include monitoring high crime streets and antisocial behaviour in housing estates.
Yes. There's a lot of that here in London, and it certainly works.

Around here it's been used as part of a drive against burglaries. The police had the cameras in various unmarked vehicles.

There's be
 

Old Mr Grouser

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
6,341
... Other uses for such surveillance could include monitoring ... antisocial behaviour in housing estates.
There'd often be 'Human Rights' problems with that, unless a situation is particularly serious.

Survelllance can lead to situations where a 'troubled youngster' is effecively 'barred' from living at his family's home.

The police then get blamed for everything that then happens from there, which can even be suicide.
 

Mad as Fish

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Messages
24,185

Could low cost digital cameras be used to protect geographically remote, potential targets of terrorism?


Probably not -

The truth outs – CCTV doesn't cut crime


So, there are some benefits, as most acknowledged, but the idea that CCTV has any special power to reduce crime generally is clearly flawed. Travis notes that the investigation by a group including Cambridge criminologist David Farrington was cited by the Home Office in their response to an important report from the House of Lords constitution committee that suggested the spread of CCTV undermined fundamental rights guaranteed by the Human Rights Act.

It is now becoming clear that the £500m spent by local councils on the CCTV in the decade up to 2006 has been on surveillance of the innocent public rather than crime prevention. As I pointed out last week, it may not be long before these cameras can be connected and upgraded with facial recognition technology.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/may/19/cctv-reduce-crime
 
Last edited:

publicrealm

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
5,900
In a recent announcement, ISIS urged its followers to use simple mechanical means to derail trains by disturbing the rail tracks. It claims that the vast networks of rail lines could easily be attacked.

Reading an August 18th article in Newsweek "Blood Timber" Thai Poachers Hunt More Than Just Animals, They're Also After Rare Trees about the poaching of rare trees in southeast Asia,it occured to me that the digital camera defence against poachers described in the article could also be used against terrorists sabotaging railway lines:

"...motion sensor cameras camouflaged in green boxes...transmit images by email... The newest versions have facial recognition technology... monitor multiple remote locations simultaneously." The photographs transmitted can be quite clear.

Since this camera surveillance is in Thailand, no doubt it has to be a low cost operation.


Other uses for such surveillance could include monitoring high crime streets and antisocial behaviour in housing estates.
Low cost?

Indeed, one might think so. In Thailand, perhaps.

But Iarnrod Eireann would need additional resources and, to be safe, a Surveillance Regulator would need to be appointed, and we could do nothing without inter-party committees, reports (from the usual sources) - all decisions must be evidence-based you know - and then the technology used by the Thais wouldn't cut it here - as would be made clear by the reports.

So ours would be bespoke, cutting edge, best in class and designed to work for 50 years.

And then there is the matter of the contract for installation, monitoring, maintenance.

Unfortunately, nothing managed by Government is cheap - because first all risk and accountability must be shed - and this requires spending taxpayers money like monopoly money.
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
In a recent announcement, ISIS urged its followers to use simple mechanical means to derail trains by disturbing the rail tracks. It claims that the vast networks of rail lines could easily be attacked.

Reading an August 18th article in Newsweek "Blood Timber" Thai Poachers Hunt More Than Just Animals, They're Also After Rare Trees about the poaching of rare trees in southeast Asia,it occured to me that the digital camera defence against poachers described in the article could also be used against terrorists sabotaging railway lines:

"...motion sensor cameras camouflaged in green boxes...transmit images by email... The newest versions have facial recognition technology... monitor multiple remote locations simultaneously." The photographs transmitted can be quite clear.

Since this camera surveillance is in Thailand, no doubt it has to be a low cost operation.

Other uses for such surveillance could include monitoring high crime streets and antisocial behaviour in housing estates.
Have you ever heard of CCTV? Its quite common. Next time you are in a 'high crime street', take a look upwards. You'll see cameras everywhere.
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520

Could low cost digital cameras be used to protect geographically remote, potential targets of terrorism?


Probably not -

The truth outs – CCTV doesn't cut crime


So, there are some benefits, as most acknowledged, but the idea that CCTV has any special power to reduce crime generally is clearly flawed. Travis notes that the investigation by a group including Cambridge criminologist David Farrington was cited by the Home Office in their response to an important report from the House of Lords constitution committee that suggested the spread of CCTV undermined fundamental rights guaranteed by the Human Rights Act.

It is now becoming clear that the £500m spent by local councils on the CCTV in the decade up to 2006 has been on surveillance of the innocent public rather than crime prevention. As I pointed out last week, it may not be long before these cameras can be connected and upgraded with facial recognition technology.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/may/19/cctv-reduce-crime
CCTV doesn't cut crime but it does massively improve conviction rates. A recent study by the British transport police found that when a crime has been captured on CCTV it is 8 times more likely to be solved.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,119

Could low cost digital cameras be used to protect geographically remote, potential targets of terrorism?


Probably not -

The truth outs – CCTV doesn't cut crime


So, there are some benefits, as most acknowledged, but the idea that CCTV has any special power to reduce crime generally is clearly flawed. Travis notes that the investigation by a group including Cambridge criminologist David Farrington was cited by the Home Office in their response to an important report from the House of Lords constitution committee that suggested the spread of CCTV undermined fundamental rights guaranteed by the Human Rights Act.

It is now becoming clear that the £500m spent by local councils on the CCTV in the decade up to 2006 has been on surveillance of the innocent public rather than crime prevention. As I pointed out last week, it may not be long before these cameras can be connected and upgraded with facial recognition technology.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/may/19/cctv-reduce-crime
Cameras would definitely be useful for preventing terrorist acts on a railway line or a major industrial facility in remote locations where the presence of a small number of people would attract the attention of the monitors, unlike in crowded city streets.
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
Cameras would definitely be useful for preventing terrorist acts on a railway line or a major industrial facility in remote locations where the presence of a small number of people would attract the attention of the monitors, unlike in crowded city streets.
CCTV doesn't prevent terrorism because the terrorists don't care if they are caught in the act. These are suicide attackers after all. Las Ramblas is covered in cameras, so was Charlotts ville.

In fact, the terrorists like video of their attacks being shared - it helps spread the terror.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,119
Low cost?

Indeed, one might think so. In Thailand, perhaps.

But Iarnrod Eireann would need additional resources and, to be safe, a Surveillance Regulator would need to be appointed, and we could do nothing without inter-party committees, reports (from the usual sources) - all decisions must be evidence-based you know - and then the technology used by the Thais wouldn't cut it here - as would be made clear by the reports.

So ours would be bespoke, cutting edge, best in class and designed to work for 50 years.

And then there is the matter of the contract for installation, monitoring, maintenance.

Unfortunately, nothing managed by Government is cheap - because first all risk and accountability must be shed - and this requires spending taxpayers money like monopoly money.
The projects could be contracted out to security companies. UK companies have a lot of experience in this field.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,119
CCTV doesn't prevent terrorism because the terrorists don't care if they are caught in the act. These are suicide attackers after all. Las Ramblas is covered in cameras, so was Charlotts ville.

In fact, the terrorists like video of their attacks being shared - it helps spread the terror.
It would take a while to disturb a railway track, so it would be possible to catch terrorists in the act or shortly afterwards. Even if they escaped, the location of the attack on the railway line would be identified and warnings given to the trains to divert traffic.

In the case of an attack on a remote facility such as a power station, it is better to have some potential warning from video surveillance than none, especially given the low cost of the video.
 

Gin Soaked

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
4,028

Could low cost digital cameras be used to protect geographically remote, potential targets of terrorism?


Probably not -

The truth outs – CCTV doesn't cut crime


So, there are some benefits, as most acknowledged, but the idea that CCTV has any special power to reduce crime generally is clearly flawed. Travis notes that the investigation by a group including Cambridge criminologist David Farrington was cited by the Home Office in their response to an important report from the House of Lords constitution committee that suggested the spread of CCTV undermined fundamental rights guaranteed by the Human Rights Act.

It is now becoming clear that the £500m spent by local councils on the CCTV in the decade up to 2006 has been on surveillance of the innocent public rather than crime prevention. As I pointed out last week, it may not be long before these cameras can be connected and upgraded with facial recognition technology.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/may/19/cctv-reduce-crime
Its benefit really only works where it is actively used to prosecute, and it is understood that this can happen.

Like dashcam footage, it can be unambiguous and really useful. Esp. in staged insurance fraud.

But, like my comments on road offences. Visible enforcement by officers is the key. Cops on the beat. Knowing the community. The quiet and stern word with families about their young lady's boredom.....

I'd invest in 'hours of pavement walked' by the Gardai and let citizens have their CCTV footage brought as evidence as needed.
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
It would take a while to disturb a railway track, so it would be possible to catch terrorists in the act or shortly afterwards. Even if they escaped, the location of the attack on the railway line would be identified and warnings given to the trains to divert traffic.

In the case of an attack on a remote facility such as a power station, it is better to have some potential warning from video surveillance than none, especially given the low cost of the video.
There's 250,000 km of railway track in the EU. You'd probably need a million cameras to cover all of it. Who is going to watch 1 million camera feeds? Even if you used fancy software to detect movement, you'd be detecting mostly normal activity. Who's going to review 10 billion hours of video per year in the hopes of catching one terrorist event?

Even if you built all the needed infrastructure to handle 1 million cameras (and that would take years) most likely a real terrorist event would be missed in the ocean of normal boring activity.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,119
There's 250,000 km of railway track in the EU. You'd probably need a million cameras to cover all of it. Who is going to watch 1 million camera feeds? Even if you used fancy software to detect movement, you'd be detecting mostly normal activity. Who's going to review 10 billion hours of video per year in the hopes of catching one terrorist event?

Even if you built all the needed infrastructure to handle 1 million cameras (and that would take years) most likely a real terrorist event would be missed in the ocean of normal boring activity.
Cameras could be programmed to an extent to detect suspicious behaviour. Bearded fellows in a remote area late at night, for instance.

It would be a big investment to set up cameras but that's better than allowing a rash of jihadi train derailments.
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
Cameras could be programmed to an extent to detect suspicious behaviour. Bearded fellows in a remote area late at night, for instance.

It would be a big investment to set up cameras but that's better than allowing a rash of jihadi train derailments.
No such technology exists, certainly not to any degree of reliability. Stop watching CSI Miami.
 

Mad as Fish

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Messages
24,185
You wouldn't actually need to tear up the track, just a couple of lads in hoodies pretending to do so would cause disruption while the track was checked to see if it was still OK. From that point of view CCTV could encourage delays.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top