Comments for SightLogix Blog http://www.sightlogix.com/blog Thermal Cameras and Video Analytics for Outdoor Security Thu, 08 Mar 2012 14:00:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on Airport Perimeter Security – ABC World News Coverage by Eric http://www.sightlogix.com/blog/airport-perimeter-security-abc/#comment-4051 Eric Thu, 08 Mar 2012 14:00:41 +0000 http://www.sightlogix.com/blog/?p=995#comment-4051 Don, radar certainly has its place in open areas like airports. Thanks for the comment. Don, radar certainly has its place in open areas like airports. Thanks for the comment.

]]> Comment on Airport Perimeter Security – ABC World News Coverage by Eric http://www.sightlogix.com/blog/airport-perimeter-security-abc/#comment-4050 Eric Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:52:44 +0000 http://www.sightlogix.com/blog/?p=995#comment-4050 Don, good points, we would like to see the report also, but the version available to us and the public from the TSA report has been redacted. Fortunately, the full reports are posted on TSA's Secure Webboard. Every airport is required by regulation to establish an Airport Security Coordinator (ASC) position. The ASC has webboard access provided to them by the TSA. It's also the location where they go to retrieve Security Directives. We're told that over 400 domestic airports have access to the full un-redacted report. As said, we (at SightLogix) do not have access to the full report nor does anyone else without clearance to use the TSA webboard. We can however provide additional information that is not confidential regarding the testing at Buffalo Airport. SightLogix equipment went through a 9-month, three-season test by the TSA before being funded at Buffalo Airport. And they are now testing additional SightLogix products through the same three-season process. This funding and testing is based upon the favorable results achieved in their test environments. And shortly the TSA will begin the evaluation of a third product, because of the positive results achieved and the applicability of this technology to solving airport perimeter challenges. As for the nuisance alerts, the integrator involved in the project has stated on another blog that “99% of the alarms are caused by animals and dependant on the size and quantity may or may not be a concern for the airport.” What he did not mention is that the cameras were configured for detecting animals because that was of interest to the airport. We are confident the testing at Buffalo Airport would have yielded a very high probability of detect because we conduct our own testing during qualification and will not leave a site without 100% coverage and margin to spare. Our cameras use GPS-based analytics and are geo-registered to the scene during initial calibration. This allows the camera to determine the precise location and actual size of all objects in its field of view, allowing users to set very accurate video analytic size filters for eliminating animals and other objects from sending alerts. This is a key to accurately detecting targets based upon size, and is the reason that SightLogix systems have the lowest outdoor FAR/NAR available. Don, good points, we would like to see the report also, but the version available to us and the public from the TSA report has been redacted. Fortunately, the full reports are posted on TSA’s Secure Webboard. Every airport is required by regulation to establish an Airport Security Coordinator (ASC) position. The ASC has webboard access provided to them by the TSA. It’s also the location where they go to retrieve Security Directives. We’re told that over 400 domestic airports have access to the full un-redacted report.

As said, we (at SightLogix) do not have access to the full report nor does anyone else without clearance to use the TSA webboard. We can however provide additional information that is not confidential regarding the testing at Buffalo Airport. SightLogix equipment went through a 9-month, three-season test by the TSA before being funded at Buffalo Airport. And they are now testing additional SightLogix products through the same three-season process. This funding and testing is based upon the favorable results achieved in their test environments. And shortly the TSA will begin the evaluation of a third product, because of the positive results achieved and the applicability of this technology to solving airport perimeter challenges.

As for the nuisance alerts, the integrator involved in the project has stated on another blog that “99% of the alarms are caused by animals and dependant on the size and quantity may or may not be a concern for the airport.” What he did not mention is that the cameras were configured for detecting animals because that was of interest to the airport.

We are confident the testing at Buffalo Airport would have yielded a very high probability of detect because we conduct our own testing during qualification and will not leave a site without 100% coverage and margin to spare. Our cameras use GPS-based analytics and are geo-registered to the scene during initial calibration. This allows the camera to determine the precise location and actual size of all objects in its field of view, allowing users to set very accurate video analytic size filters for eliminating animals and other objects from sending alerts. This is a key to accurately detecting targets based upon size, and is the reason that SightLogix systems have the lowest outdoor FAR/NAR available.

]]> Comment on Airport Perimeter Security – ABC World News Coverage by Don http://www.sightlogix.com/blog/airport-perimeter-security-abc/#comment-4030 Don Thu, 08 Mar 2012 01:54:17 +0000 http://www.sightlogix.com/blog/?p=995#comment-4030 I read the TSA's report (clean version) of the test results from the Buffalo airport that tested the Sightlogix system. It is interesting how little attention was paid to your nuissance alarm rate. Sightlogix seemed to minimize the data (which I could notsee). I sure would like to get an uncensored copy of that report to see your detection rate and nuissance alarm rate. I read the TSA’s report (clean version) of the test results from the Buffalo airport that tested the Sightlogix system. It is interesting how little attention was paid to your nuissance alarm rate. Sightlogix seemed to minimize the data (which I could notsee). I sure would like to get an uncensored copy of that report to see your detection rate and nuissance alarm rate.

]]> Comment on Airport Perimeter Security – ABC World News Coverage by Don http://www.sightlogix.com/blog/airport-perimeter-security-abc/#comment-4029 Don Thu, 08 Mar 2012 01:52:12 +0000 http://www.sightlogix.com/blog/?p=995#comment-4029 I wouldn't discount non-video based detection sensors. There are areas around an airport where video based detection is not practical, especially when the airport builds fences in a non-straight fashion (zig-zags, rectangles around power substations, etc.). What is important in those areas is timely cueing of PTZ cameras to slew to the intrusion spot fast enough to aid in verification of the intrusion. I wouldn’t discount non-video based detection sensors. There are areas around an airport where video based detection is not practical, especially when the airport builds fences in a non-straight fashion (zig-zags, rectangles around power substations, etc.). What is important in those areas is timely cueing of PTZ cameras to slew to the intrusion spot fast enough to aid in verification of the intrusion.

]]> Comment on Airport Perimeter Security – ABC World News Coverage by Eric http://www.sightlogix.com/blog/airport-perimeter-security-abc/#comment-3974 Eric Tue, 06 Mar 2012 22:11:05 +0000 http://www.sightlogix.com/blog/?p=995#comment-3974 Larry, excellent comments. It's certainly true that physical barriers or ditches would have gone a long way to create more delay. In this particular situation, even without the delay, there would have been a benefit with video detection at the perimeter. According to the information we received, the car was originally detected by radar, and there was time between the vehicle going through the fence and when it was noticed on radar. Had there been more serious consequences, that delay could have been relevant. Further, had this been a person instead of a vehicle entering the perimeter, there would have been substantially more delay in detection, assuming the radar could detect the person at all. Larry, excellent comments. It’s certainly true that physical barriers or ditches would have gone a long way to create more delay.

In this particular situation, even without the delay, there would have been a benefit with video detection at the perimeter. According to the information we received, the car was originally detected by radar, and there was time between the vehicle going through the fence and when it was noticed on radar. Had there been more serious consequences, that delay could have been relevant. Further, had this been a person instead of a vehicle entering the perimeter, there would have been substantially more delay in detection, assuming the radar could detect the person at all.

]]> Comment on Airport Perimeter Security – ABC World News Coverage by Larry Budnick http://www.sightlogix.com/blog/airport-perimeter-security-abc/#comment-3970 Larry Budnick Tue, 06 Mar 2012 21:16:36 +0000 http://www.sightlogix.com/blog/?p=995#comment-3970 Ironically, none of the examples shown in the video would have been prevented by any detection mechanism. In every case shown, the "delay" part of "delay, detect, deter" failed totally. And the report's comparison to passenger inspections was also flawed since passengers could in fact "bolt" through security just as the truck did in the video. Nice placement for your brand, though! Ironically, none of the examples shown in the video would have been prevented by any detection mechanism. In every case shown, the “delay” part of “delay, detect, deter” failed totally. And the report’s comparison to passenger inspections was also flawed since passengers could in fact “bolt” through security just as the truck did in the video. Nice placement for your brand, though!

]]> Comment on Automated Border Surveillance with Intelligent Video by 3VRSecurityInc http://www.sightlogix.com/blog/border-security/#comment-1214 3VRSecurityInc Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:06:24 +0000 http://www.sightlogix.com/blog/?p=638#comment-1214 Border surveillance is extremely important. With all of the advances in technology it will continue to become a more effective method of detecting individuals crossing the border illegally. Border surveillance is extremely important. With all of the advances in technology it will continue to become a more effective method of detecting individuals crossing the border illegally.

]]>