
Incentivised Multi-Target, Multi-Camera Tracking with Untrusted Cameras - david_at
https://medium.com/coinmonks/multi-target-multi-camera-tracking-with-untrusted-cameras-c8efeb2a06a8
======
pwinnski
Although you make a good case that informational asymmetry is a problem, I
suspect you underestimate the willingness of the average person to stick one's
head in the sand, focusing only on what they'll perceive as the privacy
violations of this system.

After all, they don't have any control over the many public cameras controlled
by others, but they do have control over whether or not they install a camera
of their own.

I fear you've spent quite a bit of time on the technical aspects and
theoretical human aspects, but will run head-on into the practical human
aspects and bounce off.

~~~
david_at
> you underestimate the willingness of the average person to stick one's head
> in the sand, focusing only on what they'll perceive as the privacy
> violations of this system.

I see your point but remember this is all public information gathered from
public areas where there is no expectation of privacy. There are few
circumstances in which you can stop anyone from taking a picture (or a series
of pictures) in a public place, let alone from their own property.

> ... they [the average person] do have control over whether or not they
> install a camera of their own.

That's true but let me show you why whether or not the average person installs
a camera of their own doesn't matter. Take my neighbours for example; I have
over 170 of them, identities, historical movements and current location
estimates tracked and searchable from just the FOV of one web camera in my
living room window. And that's from below average residential traffic.

That's 1 person out of 170, far from the average. They didn't need to install
a camera to be part of the network. They were part of it long before they'd
even heard of it.

~~~
pwinnski
I'm reminded of the adage that, for most authors, piracy isn't a challenge,
obscurity is.

You mention 1 person out of 170. Okay, I think I have more than 170 neighbors
whose windows I pass in order to leave my neighborhood. I can't imagine even
one choosing to install a camera. _That 's_ the point I'm making: Many/most
people will not rationally weigh the costs vs benefits of this system. They
will see only "more cameras, less privacy," and that's that.

BTW, there is no _legal_ expectation of privacy, but that's a far cry from the
average person's understanding. We live in a world in which people attach
notes to Venmo payments spelling out their illicit activities, in large part
because they seem to not realize just how public that information is.

The network you describes seems to rely on a regular series of periodic
updates to track movement. I can't imagine uptake being high enough in most
locales for that to work.

------
david_at
David here. I'm the author of this article. If you have any questions, please
feel free to ask.

~~~
Coll
Did you upload the full version or just the lite version? It looks awesome by
the way, really cool idea!

~~~
david_at
Thanks :)

The full version has a lot of my own personal configurations in there so I
haven't uploaded it yet. It also requires a good video card so it's expensive
to run.

I'm still working on the lite version as you've probably seen. It comes down
to trying to make the right tradeoffs when computational power is scarce. I'll
be uploading the lite version's tandem Detection Server as a Docker file along
with it.

Which one are you interested in?

