Subscribe to RSS - surveillance


Global market for mass transit security to grow 76 percent by 2018

Railroads projected to be key growth area

LONDON—The global mass transit security market will grow 76 percent from 2013 to 2018 according to a TechNavio report that assesses the value of this market through examining surveillance, infrastructure, and identification.

State of the Industry: Looking ahead to 2014

Expanding access to FBI database, school security loom large for 2014

IRVING, Texas—The past year on Capitol Hill will be remembered for legislative inaction and partisan rifts so deep they culminated in a 16-day government shutdown.

Arkansas town considers requiring businesses to install surveillance


PINE BLUFF, Ark.—Leaders in this town are considering an ordinance requiring convenience stores and restaurants to install and maintain surveillance equipment, according to

Speco Technologies beefs up product engineering team

Expands headquarters, jumps on HDcctv bandwagon

AMITYVILLE, N.Y.—Video security surveillance manufacturer Speco has beefed up its product engineering team with an eye toward “creating something that’s a bit different with our products,” according to Peter Botelho, executive vice president, in an email interview with Security Systems News.

“Scary” or “Effective” - amazing how perspective matters

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Recently, CNN ran a feature on facial recognition technology. Some of my security journalist colleagues reposted it, as in, “look how informative.”

But, come on. This story is exactly why people complain about bias in the media.

I write for a security industry publication. Of course I’m biased from a security industry point of view. But CNN? Aren’t they supposed to be a little skeptical?

Just look at the headline: “Why face recognition isn’t scary — yet.” Then it goes on to outline why it doesn’t really work very well (a conclusion I basically came to in my special report on facial recognition this spring).

However, instead of at least considering whether this technology could be effective in keeping people and property safe, the headline writer, at least, and the author, too, jumps to the conclusion that, of course, this technology is going to eventually be used for evil purposes.

That may be comforting news for people worried about governments using facial recognition systems to surveil the public — in effect, ending anonymity.

Who has ever intimated that the government wants to end anonymity? And how would that work, exactly? The government would have a giant database of every face of every citizen in the country? Even at its most-invasive security use as proposed by security types, the cameras are just going to be looking for known criminals.

The inherent assumption in that assurance to their readers by CNN is so fundamentally ridiculous it shouldn’t even be considered. And yet, it’s the basis for their entire story.

I also have a problem with this quote: “”I don’t think, currently, any facial recognition system is good enough for security purposes — not even close, actually,” said Yi Ma, an associate professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Illinois, and a visiting researcher at Microsoft Research in China.”

So I guess the people in this story I wrote last month are just liars?

And, yet again, a news organization queries some academic who doesn’t even work in the security field when it’s wondering about security technology. How about asking someone who installs and works with the technology every friggin’ day? Would that be too difficult?

Finally, we have the privacy guys, who set up straw men left and right to make points and arguments against invisible and non-existent evil government bad guys. This section is so laughable I can’t believe that any journalist would write it:

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said the motives behind the technology are what worry him.

Governments and corporations intend to use facial recognition software to track the public and to eliminate privacy, he said, noting that automatically identifying people in public in the U.S., when they are not suspected of a crime, could be a violation of constitutional rights.

When facial recognition comes to surveillance cameras, which are already in place, “you’re no longer racing through iPhoto to figure out how many pictures of Barbara you have,” Rotenberg said. “You’re walking around in public and facing cameras that know who you are. And I think that’s a little creepy.”

Seriously, look at that: “Governments and corporations intend to use facial recognition software to track the public and to eliminate privacy.” What!?! What government has ever said they want to do that? What corporation? That is a completely unfounded belief on his part, but CNN accepts that as fact.

Of course governments want to track the general public and eliminate privacy!

Why on earth would anyone believe that the government wants to track the movements of random members of the public?

Oh, look there! Sally is going to the grocery store again! That’s the third time this week!

The government barely has enough staff to make sure the toilets are clean in the Pentagon. Does anyone really believe there are the resources and manpower to track the movements of every person in the United States?

I’m glad this joker noted that “automatically identifying people in public in the U.S., when they are not suspected of a crime, could be a violation of constitutional rights.” Who cares if it is or it isn’t? No one is actually trying to do that!

Let me now note for the record that checking to see if small children can fly by throwing them off the top of the Empire State Building could very well be a violation of their constitutional rights!

The security industry needs to speak up about these issues and take back this conversation about privacy. As long as privacy nuts, who live in false realities constructed in their paranoid imaginations, are allowed to dictate the conversation, the security industry will be on the defensive and the general public will be ignorant of the technology’s intended uses.

Someone tell the mainstream press a great story about saving a life or saving property by using this technology. And do it fast.

That headline should have read, “Why face recognition isn’t EFFECTIVE — yet.”