Tag: Cameras

Tech Insight : How AI Can Make Cameras Look Away

Posted on by Paul Stradling

Artificial intelligence has given surveillance cameras the ability to recognise and track what they see, yet researchers are now demonstrating how AI can also be turned against those systems, creating patterns that leave people and vehicles perfectly visible to humans while potentially making them much harder for automated surveillance to detect.

What Has Been Developed?

US cyber security researcher Bill Swearingen has spent around a year investigating whether specially designed visual patterns can interfere with the computer vision increasingly built into modern surveillance systems.

The result is noRecognition, a project using AI-generated “adversarial patterns” designed specifically to confuse object-detection algorithms.

This is very different from hiding from a conventional camera. For example, someone wearing one of the patterns could still appear clearly in the recorded footage, while a vehicle covered with one could remain equally visible. The aim, however, is to make the software analysing those images fail to recognise what it is seeing, potentially preventing the automated detection or alert that would normally follow.

Swearingen’s aim is to give individuals greater control over whether automated surveillance systems can identify and track them as they move through public spaces. His research therefore focuses on disrupting the algorithmic analysis taking place behind the camera rather than preventing the camera itself from recording. As the noRecognition website puts it: “Privacy is not a luxury. It is a fundamental right.”

Teaching AI To Confuse AI

Creating patterns capable of doing that reliably has required an enormous amount of experimentation.

For example, Swearingen reportedly began by testing designs against individual open-source computer-vision systems before developing a reinforcement-learning model capable of improving them automatically. When a pattern failed to fool a detector, the model could learn from the result, alter its approach and try again.

Around 31 million tests later, the system can generate new patterns continuously, with successive designs intended to become increasingly effective against the detection software being targeted.

Tested Against Different Surveillance Systems

Swearingen’s published research covers an 11-detector test environment involving person detection, face detection and recognition models, including a production-grade person detector extracted from a deployed surveillance camera. Results vary considerably between models, garment coverage and test conditions, with many of the strongest findings still based on digital simulations rather than physical clothing facing real cameras.

Importantly, noRecognition also says it records results where the patterns fail, describing its approach simply as: “We publish the results that went against us too.”

That distinction is quite important because something capable of confusing an algorithm using digital imagery may not necessarily work when printed onto fabric and exposed to different distances, lighting conditions, body shapes and camera angles.

Putting The Idea On The Road

A recent demonstration at the DEF CON cyber security conference in Las Vegas provided an important step towards testing whether the principle could work outside a computer simulation.

With help from automotive media company Donut Media, one of Swearingen’s patterns was applied to a 2009 Toyota Yaris before the vehicle was presented to a Flock surveillance camera.

The demonstration reportedly succeeded in defeating automated detection, although Swearingen acknowledged that the vehicle’s wheels presented a particular challenge. It provided early evidence that adversarial patterns can potentially move beyond carefully controlled digital experiments into real-world surveillance environments.

The project is also exploring pattern-covered T-shirts, hoodies and other clothing. Swearingen is deliberately keeping his most effective designs away from the public internet, partly because making them widely available could give surveillance technology developers the data needed to train their own systems against them.

CCTV Isn’t Just Watching Anymore

The wider significance of this research comes from how dramatically surveillance cameras themselves have changed.

Traditional CCTV largely captured images for later examination, which meant the usefulness of a large camera network was limited partly by the number of people available to watch or search its footage.

By removing much of that limitation, computer vision allows AI to analyse enormous volumes of imagery automatically, identifying people and vehicles, reading number plates, detecting particular objects and making recorded footage searchable without somebody manually watching every minute.

Rather than simply recording what happened, modern surveillance cameras are increasingly supported by software that decides what is happening, what deserves attention and what information should be extracted from the scene.

By targeting precisely that additional layer of intelligence, adversarial patterns could cause a detection system to fail to classify a person even though the camera has successfully recorded them, meaning the footage still exists but the automated system designed to find that individual may never flag it.

An AI Arms Race?

That creates a potentially important new contest within computer vision. Camera manufacturers can improve their detection models and train them against known attempts at evasion. Researchers can then use increasingly powerful AI to search for new patterns that exploit different weaknesses, potentially creating a continuing cycle of detection and counter-detection.

Swearingen’s project appears to show how quickly that process can become automated. For example, rather than a human designer manually creating each new camouflage pattern, AI can repeatedly test possibilities and retain those that perform best.

The technology also raises an important question about the balance between privacy and security. A technology capable of reducing automated tracking could appeal to people concerned about pervasive surveillance, yet similar techniques could potentially be exploited by someone deliberately attempting to evade legitimate security or law-enforcement systems.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For businesses, the research highlights an emerging weakness that becomes more relevant as organisations increasingly rely on intelligent cameras for security, access control, retail monitoring, vehicle recognition and automated alerts. Computer vision can dramatically increase the usefulness of surveillance, although businesses should avoid treating an AI detection as an infallible substitute for conventional security controls.

The development also shows how familiar cyber security concepts are moving into the physical world. Protecting a surveillance system increasingly means considering not only whether somebody can hack its network or access its recordings, but whether the intelligence interpreting those recordings can itself be deliberately manipulated.

Perhaps most importantly, this research demonstrates an unusual consequence of the rapid development of AI. The same broad technology that has taught cameras to understand the world around them can now be used to discover exactly what those cameras struggle to understand, potentially creating an ongoing contest between AI-powered surveillance and AI-powered methods designed to defeat it.

Tech News : Croydon First Place To Get Permanent Facial Recognition Cameras

Posted on by Paul Stradling

It’s been reported that Croydon is set to become the first place in the UK (and possibly the democratic world) to host permanent live facial recognition (LFR) cameras on its streets.

Two Fixed Units This Summer

The Metropolitan Police has confirmed the installation of two fixed units in the town centre this summer, the first fixed deployment of the technology in the UK.

What Is Live Facial Recognition and How Does It Work?

Live facial recognition (LFR) technology uses cameras to scan the faces of people passing through a defined area in real time. The images are instantly compared against a police watchlist, which may include suspects, wanted criminals, vulnerable individuals, and even victims of crime.

If a match is found, an alert is sent to nearby officers who are on standby and ready to make an arrest. If there is no match or the alert turns out to be a false positive, the captured image is deleted.

The Met insists the system is accurate, quoting a false match rate of less than one percent during its mobile van trials across London. However, as this tech becomes fixed and potentially more widespread, questions are being raised about its reliability, legality, and ethical implications.

Why Croydon, and Why Now?

Croydon has long struggled with violent crime. For example, the borough recorded more than 10,000 violent offences in a single year, making it one of London’s most crime-plagued areas. High-profile tragedies like the fatal stabbing of schoolgirl Elianne Andam outside the Whitgift Centre last year have amplified public concern.

It seems that this may well be the reason why the Met has chosen Croydon as the launch site for permanent LFR deployment. It’s been reported that the fixed cameras will be installed on North End and London Road (both busy pedestrianised streets) and mounted on lampposts and buildings. Crucially, the Met says the cameras will only be switched on when officers are present and ready to respond.

According to Superintendent Mitch Carr, the move will make LFR a “business as usual” policing tool, rather than relying on the availability of roving LFR vans. “It will give us much more flexibility around the days and times we can run the operations,” he told community leaders earlier this month.

What Are the Claimed Benefits?

The Met claims that the technology is already proving its worth. For example, last year, mobile facial recognition units reportedly led to over 500 arrests across London, including the identification of suspects wanted for stalking, domestic abuse and rape. In Croydon alone, about 200 arrests were linked to LFR use, including at least two alleged rapists.

Supporters argue that fixed cameras will enhance public safety and act as a powerful deterrent to criminals. Croydon South MP Chris Philp, who also serves as the Conservative Shadow Home Secretary, called the move a “logical next step”. In a recent interview with The Times he was quoted as saying: “Those few people opposing this technology need to explain why they don’t want wanted criminals to be arrested.” It’s been reported that for some residents, the technology is a welcome intervention.

But What Are the Critics Saying?

Despite the police’s reassurances, the move has ignited fierce opposition from privacy campaigners and civil liberties groups.

Big Brother Watch, a leading advocacy group, is particularly scathing. Its interim director, Rebecca Vincent, called the Croydon deployment “an alarming expansion of the surveillance state” and part of a “steady slide into a dystopian nightmare”.

She added: “It also underscores the urgent need for legislative safeguards on LFR, which to date has not been addressed in any parliamentary legislation.”

One of the key criticisms is the absence of clear regulation. There is no UK law specifically governing the use of LFR technology, meaning that police forces are left to write their own policies on how it should be used.

Big Brother Watch also points to real-world examples of things going wrong, i.e. cases of mistaken identity by the camera systems. For example, one such case involved Shaun Thompson, an anti-knife crime campaigner who was wrongly identified as a suspect at London Bridge station. He was detained for nearly 30 minutes despite presenting multiple forms of ID proving he was not the wanted individual.

Madeleine Stone, Senior Advocacy Officer at the group, said: “Everyone gets something wrong sometimes, but what happens when the algorithm gets it wrong? Who is responsible then?”

Even more concerning, critics say, is the makeup of the ‘police watchlists’. These reportedly include not only suspects but also victims and vulnerable individuals, thereby blurring the line between surveillance and profiling.

Legality and Oversight Still in Question

The introduction of permanent facial recognition cameras comes at a time when the legal framework around the technology remains unclear. For example, a House of Lords committee recently expressed “deep concern” over its unregulated use and campaigners have called for Parliament to intervene.

In contrast, the government seems to be doubling down. The current Labour administration recently launched a £20 million fund to expand LFR use across UK police forces.

Despite this political momentum, critics remain unconvinced. Big Brother Watch recently filed legal action in response to what it calls an “unprecedented expansion” of facial recognition surveillance in both public and private sectors.

The group has warned that the Cardiff trial during the Six Nations tournament, where over 160,000 people were scanned and no arrests made, shows that mass surveillance doesn’t always yield results. In that instance, temporary LFR cameras were deployed throughout the city centre, but the operation failed to identify any wanted suspects.

Is the Technology Effective or Just Theatrical?

The core question for many people remains whether permanent facial recognition cameras will genuinely help tackle crime or whether the move is more about public reassurance and political point-scoring, i.e. more of a theatrical gesture than a real, practical solution.

Press reports about the subject (e.g. in the Metro) highlight how some Croydon residents clearly welcome the technology, particularly after years of rising violent crime and high-profile incidents in the town centre. With concerns about gang activity, knife crime and anti-social behaviour dominating local conversation, it’s no surprise that many see any effort to increase safety as a step in the right direction.

However, doubts persist. In a borough where offenders often wear masks, balaclavas or hoodies to obscure their identities, it’s unclear how effective facial recognition will actually be in real-world conditions. Some commentators have also noted how the fixed locations of the new cameras may also work against them once people know where the cameras are, avoiding them could be as simple as taking a different route.

What This Could Mean For Your Business?

The decision to install permanent facial recognition cameras in Croydon isn’t just a local policing initiative – it’s the first real test of whether this kind of surveillance can be embedded into everyday British life. With no specific laws governing its use, and police forces writing their own rules, the move exposes a major gap in oversight that lawmakers have so far failed to address.

If the technology proves effective, it could pave the way for wider adoption in other towns and cities, which would bring facial recognition into regular public and commercial spaces. For UK businesses, particularly those in high-footfall retail or transport hubs, that might mean closer partnerships with police or even the rollout of their own systems. However, this could raise fresh challenges around data protection, customer consent, and reputational risk, especially as public awareness of privacy rights continues to grow.

For residents and civil liberties groups, the concern is not just how the technology works, but also how it’s controlled, and who gets to decide where the limits lie. As Croydon essentially becomes the UK’s surveillance testbed, its experience will likely shape future policy, public trust, and the broader role of biometric surveillance in Britain’s urban life. Whether it’s a breakthrough or a step too far, the rest of the country is now watching closely.

Tech News : UK Cars Now Using Rear HD-Screens Instead of Windows

Posted on by Paul Stradling

The new Swedish-made Polestar 4 will be the first car on UK roads to replace a rear window (and traditional rear-view mirror) with a high-definition screen showing a real-time roof-mounted camera feed.

Two Digital Cameras With Feed Displayed In ‘Mirror’ 

In fact, instead of a traditional rearview mirror, the Polestar 4 has a high-resolution rear-view display in the shape and in the place of a normal mirror that receives the feed from the two roof-mounted digital cameras. Polestar describes this as a kind of 2-way mirror because it also doubles as a regular mirror, making it possible to switch between the live feed and a view of the rear passengers.

Already On The Road In China

The new Polestar 4 SUV coupe has been on the road in China since December and there have been no publicised problems.

The Benefits 

Polestar says the benefits of making the rear window obsolete and relying on a camera view instead are that: “It allows for an extended panoramic roof, a spacious passenger environment, and generous headroom, while a rear-facing HD camera provides a wider, unobstructed rearward view.”  

Necessary Because Head Structure Was Pushed Back To Make More Room 

As highlighted by the BBC’s UK motoring programme ‘TopGear,’ replacing the mirror and back window with a camera feed was less of a decision to include technology and more of a design necessity. This is because the desire to create a feeling of spaciousness and extra headroom in the Polestar 4 required pulling the header structure back as far as possible so that the panoramic roof stretches behind the rear passengers’ heads. This would have meant that a back window would be below the actual sightline anyway, thereby meaning a traditional rearview mirror would be useless.

Concerns 

Although there haven’t been any prominent stories emerging about issues, some concerns have been floated on the Polestar Forum. For example, one user says the rearview camera puts “everything in equal focus so nothing is unseen or blurry, but then you lose any accurate depth perception”. Another expresses concern that although they have designed the roof camera “not to get dirty,” they “simultaneously say manual cleaning is recommended”.

That said, others see the camera as a plus. For example, another forum contributor makes the point that “rear view is already just about gone especially with my kids’ car/booster seats taking up all but the middle few inches of view; this would be a net plus for me in that respect”. 

Vans 

For those concerned about the idea of no traditional rearview mirror, it’s worth remembering that many vans with solid back doors don’t have rearview mirrors anyway, and some trucks now have cameras instead of wing mirrors. Many drivers will also be familiar with driving behind cars that have so much stuff in the back that the rearview mirror is likely to be useless anyway. Also, with passengers in the back of the car, the rearview is often obscured.

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

The Volvo-owned sub-brand Polestar is associated with sleek modern design and technology – perhaps in a similar space to Tesla so it’s not a huge surprise that it would opt for this kind of change. Also, as the boss of Polestar pointed out in a recent interview, being relatively new on the scene, it doesn’t have a legacy of customers to disappoint, or who are likely to object and complain. In fact, the removal of the back window and replacement with a camera-feed mirror actually seems to have been a necessary design change in order to make the car feel more spacious rather than purely a decision to include more new technology.

Thinking about it logically, if you accept that many vans on the road don’t have rear windows or rearview mirrors, and assuming we trust reversing cameras and then consider the fact that there hasn’t been a huge outcry about the gradual introduction of autonomous vehicles to UK roads, this change by Polestar shouldn’t seem too scary. It seems that as we experience (and trust) technology more, we’re willing to give more ground to it and swap more first-hand and ‘real’ experiences for virtual ones, even while travelling at speed. That said, Polestar says that its 2-way mirror actually gives a better and wider view of the road than a traditional mirror.

The hope is, of course, that the cameras don’t get dirty, and that the camera/mirror system doesn’t fail (there’s always the side mirrors if it does). It’s likely that in the quest for more comfortable and spacious vehicle interiors, other vehicle manufacturers will opt for a similar system.

Tech Insight : Cameras In Airbnb Properties – What Are The Rules?

Posted on by Paul Stradling

Following the Metro recently highlighting the issue of undisclosed cameras being used by a small number of Airbnb hosts, we take a look at what the rules say, reports in the news of this happening, and what you can do to protect yourself.

Do Airbnb Hosts Have The Right To Film Guests? 

You may be surprised to know that the answer to this question is yes, hosts do have the right to install surveillance devices in certain areas of their properties (which may result in guests being filmed) but this is heavily regulated and restricted for privacy reasons.

When/Where/Why/How Is It OK For Hosts To Film Guests? 

The primary legitimate reason for hosts to install surveillance devices is for security purposes. They are not allowed to use them for any invasive or unethical purposes. Airbnb’s community standards, for example, emphasise respect for the privacy of guests and any violation of these standards can lead to the removal of the host from the platform.

Clear Disclosure 

Airbnb’s company rules say that monitoring devices (e.g. cameras), may be used, but only if they are in common spaces (such as living rooms, hallways, and kitchens) and then only if Airbnb hosts disclose them in their listings. In short, if a host has any kind of surveillance device, they must clearly mention it in their house rules or property listing so that guests are made aware of these devices before they book the property.

What About Local Laws? 

It is also the case that although disclosed cameras in common spaces on a property may be OK by the company’s rules, Airbnb hosts must also adhere to local laws and regulations regarding surveillance. This can vary widely from place to place and, in some regions, recording audio without consent is illegal, whereas video might be permissible if disclosed.

Hidden Cameras 

Even though Airbnb rules are relatively clear, there appears to be anecdotal and news evidence that some Airbnb guests have discovered undisclosed surveillance devices in areas of Airbnb properties where they should not be installed. Examples that have made the news include:

– Back in 2019, it was reported that a couple staying for one night at an Airbnb property in Garden Grove, California discovered a camera hidden in a smoke detector directly above the bed.

– In July 2023, a Texas couple were widely reported to have filed a lawsuit against an Airbnb owner, claiming he had put up ‘hidden cameras’ in the Maryland property they had rented for 2 nights in August 2022. According to the Court documents of Kayelee Gates and Christian Capraro, the couple became suspicious after Capraro discovered multiple hidden cameras disguised as smoke detectors in the bedroom and bathroom.

– Last month, a man (calling himself Ian Timbrell) alleged in a post on X that he had found a camera tucked between two sofa cushions at his Aberystwyth Airbnb.

Wouldn’t It Be Better To Disallow Any Cameras Inside An Airbnb Rental Property? 

Banning all cameras at Airbnb rental properties might initially seem like a straightforward solution to privacy concerns, yet there are important factors to consider around this. Some hosts may legitimately need to use common areas such as entrances, for security purposes (perhaps the property is in an area where crime has been a problem) and they need to deter theft and vandalism and provide evidence if a crime occurs. On the other hand, a complete ban on cameras would address the privacy concerns of guests, ensuring they feel comfortable and secure during their stay.

Airbnb’s current policy attempts to balance security and privacy by allowing cameras in certain areas while requiring full disclosure and banning them in private spaces like bedrooms and bathrooms. However, enforcing a complete ban on cameras would be very challenging, as hidden cameras are, by nature, difficult to detect and even if there was a ban, some owners may simply not comply. The Airbnb model is built on trust between hosts and guests, and clear communication and transparency about security measures, including camera usage, are crucial for maintaining this trust. While a total ban on cameras might seem like a simple solution to privacy concerns, it overlooks the legitimate security needs of hosts. A balanced approach with clear guidelines and strict enforcement might be more effective in protecting both guest privacy and host security.

How To Check 

If you’re worried about possibly being filmed/recorded by hidden and undisclosed surveillance devices in a rented Airbnb property, here are some ways you can search the property and potentially reveal such devices:

– Inspect any gadgets. Check smoke detectors or alarm clocks as they are known as places to hide cameras. Examine any other tech that seems out of place. You may also want to check the shower head.

– Search for Lenses. For example, making sure the room is dark, use a torch (such as your phone’s torch) to spot reflective camera lenses in objects like decor or appliances.

– Use phone apps like Glint Finder for Android or Hidden Camera Detector for iOS to find hidden cameras.

– Check storage areas, e.g. examine drawers, vents, and any openings in walls/ceilings.

– Check mirrors. Many people worry about the two-way mirrors with cameras behind them. Ways to check include lifting any mirrors to see the wall behind, turning off the room light and then shining a torch into the mirror to see if an area behind is visible.

– Check for infrared lights (which can be used in movement-sensitive cameras). Again, this may be spotted by by using your phone’s camera in the dark, and then looking out for any small, purple, or pink lights that may be flashing or steady.

– Scan the property’s Wi-Fi network and smart home devices for unknown devices.

– Unplug the Airbnb property’s router. Stopping the Wi-Fi at source should disable surveillance devices and may reveal whether the owner is monitoring the property, e.g. it may prompt the host to ask about the router being unplugged.

– If you’re particularly concerned, buy and bring an RF signal detector with you. Widely available online, this is a device that can find any devices emitting Bluetooth or Wi-Fi signals, e.g. wireless surveillance cameras, tracking devices and power supplies.

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

The issue of undisclosed cameras in Airbnb properties raises important considerations for Airbnb as a company, its hosts, and travellers. For Airbnb, the challenge lies in upholding and enforcing privacy standards to maintain user trust. This could involve enhancing their policies, perhaps even investing in technology or an inspection process for better detection of undisclosed devices, and/or providing more reassuring information about the issue, thereby safeguarding guest security, ensuring host accountability, and helping to protect their brand reputation.

It should be said that most Airbnb hosts abide by the company’s rules but are caught in a delicate balancing act between providing security and respecting the privacy of their guests. Any misuse of surveillance devices can, of course, have serious legal consequences and potentially harm a host’s reputation and standing on the platform. However, even just a few stories in the news about the actions on one or two hosts can have a much wider negative effect on consumer trust in Airbnb and can be damaging for all hosts. It could even simply deter people from using the platform altogether.

For some travellers, this situation may make them feel they must proactively take the responsibility for their own privacy (which may not reflect so well on Airbnb). They may feel as though they need to be informed about their rights, familiarise themselves with detection methods and remain vigilant during their stays.

This whole scenario emphasises the need for a continuous update of policies and practices by Airbnb to keep pace with technological advancements and the varying legal frameworks in different regions. It also highlights the importance of clear communication and transparency between the company, its hosts, and guests to maintain a trustworthy and secure environment.