It continues to amaze me that people list Baggage-Left-Behind detection as one of the shining examples of the power of video analytics. In fact, it has to be the biggest disappointment in the market.
However, the reason it has failed so often is not a reflection on bad technology, but the dangers of complex systems. It is a good lesson in knowing where and when to use new technologies.
First, it is important to say that there are hundreds of integrators now using video analytics with very positive results. They are going after the sweet spot, where analytics produce great returns on investment and solve real problems that would be difficult to solve any other way: detection of people where they aren’t supposed to be, perimeter protection, security for outdoor assets, remote guarding, storage and bandwidth savings, etc.
But we have heard so many stories of failed projects as a result of trying to make baggage-left-behind work that we have intentionally left it out of our product, and we regularly warn integrators of the dangers. I thought it would be worth sharing a little more information about it, to help others from falling into this trap.
If you want to see cases of proven failures, you can check out the lawsuit between Lockheed Martin and NYC:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/nyregion/29mta.html?_r=1
Their problem wasn’t just about baggage-left-behind, but that was one of the applications that they simply couldn’t get to work. This doesn’t mean the technology couldn’t detect bags left behind. It means that even though it could, the system was unusable.
IBM made a study of baggage-left-behind years ago. I don’t see a public posting of the study that I can link to, but they went back over the last decade to study terrorist bombings. The question they asked was how much benefit would baggage-left-behind have delivered if it were installed at the sites that were bombed.
Their conclusion: Baggage-left-behind would not have helped a single one of the cases. No benefit at all. It wouldn’t have helped even prevent a single bombing or saved any lives.
We also had a recent discussion with someone from the I-LIDS group in the UK, which is a UK Home Office sponsored testing group for video analytics. They set benchmarks for a variety of video analytics requirements. Many have been effectively deployed. However, when it comes to baggage-left-behind, they told us that no vendor has come even close to meeting the needs of supplying the functionality needed to make the technology work as it would need to work to be successful.
The problem isn’t detecting a bag being set down or left behind. That’s the easy part. It is the complexity of the whole system and what is needed to make it practical.
Think about how often you might get an alarm if you detected any bag put down in a crowded airport. How often do people let go of their bags for a moment? How often do they walk away from their bags to throw a newspaper away in the trashcan, or leave their bags with a family member while going to the restroom? How often do people leave a newspaper behind or a lunch bag?
So, the first problem is that the system produces a ton of false alarms. Who wants to continue responding when false alarms are continuous and far outnumber real warnings?
But this is only one part of the problem.
The second part of the issue comes down to how often is a terrorist bomber going to leave their bomb out in the open in the middle of the floor? Even if they were crazy enough to do this, how long would terrorists continue leaving bombs out in the open once they knew baggage-left-behind was deployed everywhere?
Not many. Especially when it is so easy to put a package into a trashcan, or hide it from open view.
It is true that there have been cases of people leaving bombs behind under a seat or in a corner, but the moment word gets around that someone was caught by baggage-left-behind, the technology would be useless, as terrorists would soon stop leaving bombs in any visible place.
On top of these issues, you have the problem of accurately detecting objects that are left behind when you have a crowded area. When people are continuously walking in front of a bag, how long will it take before you detect it?
If the false alarm rate were really low, I’m sure some transportation facilities would still like to use it, even if the ability to detect a bag was low. However, when you add in the low, low likelihood of it actually catching anyone who is intentionally leaving a bomb, and the lower likelihood of it catching terrorists in the future, then the whole program simply becomes impractical.
This doesn’t mean it can’t be used some places effectively. I’ve heard of a couple. They were not crowded areas, and they were not places where people waited, but where people simply walked through, so they shouldn’t be leaving anything behind. But this doesn’t deliver the great promise that people imagine when they think of baggage left behind. They think of catching terrorists planting bombs in crowded areas, such as train stations or airports or bus terminals.
It’s such a tempting use of analytics, especially when it is so easy to demonstrate. It really isn’t that difficult to detect a bag being left in the middle of an empty platform. But when you start looking at the overall complexity of the application, how difficult it is to reduce false alarms, the problems with recognizing bags in crowded areas, and how easy it is for people to defeat the system by not leaving bombs in open areas, then you start to realize that this really isn’t such a great application for video analytics.
What is such a shame is that this application has gotten so much prime time attention, while the uses of video analytics that produce huge real-world benefits get much less discussion.
I think the big lesson here is the importance of thinking the whole system through. Detecting bags is the least of the problems. There are way too many bags and it is way too easy to plant bombs in areas that can’t be seen. The system turns out to be far more complex than it seems at first.
To counter my note of caution, I’d love to hear of examples where baggage-left-behind has been used effectively, and the key requirements needed to make systems like this successful.
October 21, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Why Baggage-Left-Behind has Been Such a Failure…
Marman goes on to show that while the technology works (detect bags left behind), it is not useful in real life situations.
…But when you start looking at the overall complexity of the application, how difficult it is to reduce false alarms, the p…
October 21, 2009 at 10:07 pm
[...] Why Baggage-Left-Behind has Been Such a Failure October 21st, 2009 Goto comments Leave a comment [From Why Baggage-Left-Behind has Been Such a Failure « Spot On Security] [...]
October 28, 2009 at 6:40 pm
I could not agree more with the article. A few years ago we won a pilot project with Virginia Prisons and left behind technology work extremely well. When maintenance workers enter and exit a facility all their equipment is inventoried. If a tool is left behind the prison could be shut down. On more than one occassion the software successfully “found” that left behind object. Like anything else it is so important to match the application to the requirement.
November 5, 2009 at 6:39 pm
In the prison case it will work but in the airport you do not have a complete definition. For example, if you step away from your bags and keep an eye on them, the system will trigger a false alarm.
Also, if you leave your bags for your family to watch them and you go to pick a coffee, the system will have a false alarm.
The leave behind in an airport does not have a complete definition. it is simply ill defined problem.
November 5, 2009 at 7:58 pm
William,
Just getting around to responding.
Thanks for the example. The prison case sounds perfect for baggage left behind. There are a few good applications like this where it works.
Thanks.
Doug.
November 5, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Wael,
I agree completely.
It can seem like such a good application until you really think it through.
Thanks.
Doug.
November 19, 2009 at 1:05 pm
I think the failure of most “baggage left behind” projects is two folds. One as you mentioned, is how and where to use this technology. The other is the technology itself. So far most vendors use a tracking -based method to do the “baggage left behind” detection, which only works in less crowded situations. Based on these products, it will not work for the crowded cases, such as train station, or airport.
November 19, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Harry,
Excellent point. If you only use motion based tracking, which is what almost all systems use today, you are going to have a hard time keeping track of the bag as people walk in front of it.
It will also be difficult to track the person who put down the bag, when there are a number of people around. So, it is almost impossible to know if the bag is truly abandoned, or just set down.
As soon as a person crosses in front of another person, most systems lose track of which person is which.
Our technology goes far beyond motion based tracking. We have full appearance based tracking, which is why we can do object based searches.
We are sure this will help substantially in object left behind applications, but have been reluctant to offer this because of all the over-selling that has gone on, and the challenges of crowded places.
I’d be interested to hear another approach to this if you know of one. Besides tracking, what approach would you suggest? Have you seen any other approaches that work better?
Thanks
Doug.
February 11, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Hi Doug,
I would like to elaborate on the technology part.
Right now in the market, almost all video analytics vendor provide solution for left object detection with technologies based on motion detection. And they simply failed in crowded scene because there are too much motion.
However, our company iOmniscient (www.iomniscient.com)owned an internationally patent technology called non-motion detection. The technology was designed to allow detection of left object in a crowded environments despite constant movement in front of the left objects. I have a long list of customers that have our products implemented and are happy with the result particular on the left-objection detection part. I would love to share that with you in a further discussion.
February 19, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Daz,
Thanks for your comment.
I’ve seen your web site and I’m familiar with your products. I’ve spoken with people from your company before, as well.
If I understand how your technology works, what you are calling “non-motion” detection means that you ignore the motion in the scene, and it allows you to keep track of an object that isn’t moving even with lots of movement all around it.
Our technology works the same way. For example, we can ignore a truck that drives by in front of a parked car without losing track of the car, even though it is temporarily obscured by the truck.
We can also keep track of a bag, or whatever object you might select, and ignore people walking in front of it. It does not alarm until the object is removed – or if it is blocked for too long.
This does indeed reduce many of the most common false alarms.
However, in crowded areas like airport terminals and bus depots, I would expect quite a few false alarms every day. Because people will put their bags down when waiting or while sitting down. Sometimes they even walk away to throw something in the trash and then come back.
So, the problem isn’t detecting a bag that is not moving for a long time, but that this happens way too often in those locations.
If a crowd of people walk in front of a bag, how long can the bag be blocked before your system forgets it was there? How long do you watch a bag that isn’t moving before you call it an alarm? If a person is standing next to their bag while waiting, but the bag isn’t moving, do you still generate an alarm, or do you see the person is still there, so it isn’t abandoned?
How many alarms do you typically see per day per camera in busy airport terminals?
I would be interested to hear more about your results.
The other concern I have is that this is still only going to catch someone who abandons an object in open view. If a person wanted to leave a bomb somewhere, why not put it in a trash can or under a bench that can’t be seen by a camera?
Thanks.
Doug.
January 25, 2011 at 11:07 am
:.. I am very thankful to this topic because it really gives up to date information ::,
September 4, 2011 at 8:53 am
this really is something i have never ever read. quite detailed analysis.