Advertisement

Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 68, Issue 1, pp 135–158 | Cite as

W3-privacy: understanding what, when, and where inference channels in multi-camera surveillance video

  • Mukesh Saini
  • Pradeep K. Atrey
  • Sharad Mehrotra
  • Mohan Kankanhalli
Article

Abstract

Huge amounts of video are being recorded every day by surveillance systems. Since video is capable of recording and preserving an enormous amount of information which can be used in many applications, it is worth examining the degree of privacy loss that might occur due to public access to the recorded video. A fundamental requirement of privacy solutions is an understanding and analysis of the inference channels than can lead to a breach of privacy. Though inference channels and privacy risks are well studied in traditional data sharing applications (e.g., hospitals sharing patient records for data analysis), privacy assessments of video data have been limited to the direct identifiers such as people’s faces in the video. Other important inference channels such as location (Where), time (When), and activities (What) are generally overlooked. In this paper we propose a privacy loss model that highlights and incorporates identity leakage through multiple inference channels that exist in a video due to what, when, and where information. We model the identity leakage and the sensitive information separately and combine them to calculate the privacy loss. The proposed identity leakage model is able to consolidate the identity leakage through multiple events and multiple cameras. The experimental results are provided to demonstrate the proposed privacy analysis framework.

Keywords

Privacy Surveillance Video Modeling Events Anonymity 

References

  1. 1.
    Aggarwal J, Cai Q (1997) Human motion analysis: a review. In: Proc. of IEEE nonrigid and articulated motion workshop, pp 90–102Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akyildiz I, Su W, Sankarasubramaniam Y, Cayirci E (2002) A survey on sensor networks. IEEE Commun Mag 40(8):102–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atrey P, Kankanhalli M, Jain R (2006) Information assimilation framework for event detection in multimedia surveillance systems. Multimedia Syst 12(3):239–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boyle M, Edwards C, Greenberg S (2000) The effects of filtered video on awareness and privacy. In: The ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carrillo P, Kalva H, Magliveras S (2008) Compression independent object encryption for ensuring privacy in video surveillance. In: IEEE international conference on multimedia and expo, pp 273–276Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chinomi K, Nitta N, Ito Y, Babaguchi N (2008) Prisurv: privacy protected video surveillance system using adaptive visual abstraction. In: Proceedings of the international conference on advances in multimedia modeling, pp 144–154Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chong C, Kumar S (2003) Sensor networks: evolution, opportunities, and challenges. Proc IEEE 91(8):1247–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Doulamis A, van Gool L, Nixon M, Varvarigou T, Doulamis N (2008) First ACM international workshop on analysis and retrieval of events, actions and workflows in video streams. In: ACM international conference on multimedia, pp 1147–1148Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dwork C (2006) Differential privacy. In: International colloquium on automata, languages and programming, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fernández C, Baiget P, Roca FX, Gonzílez J (2011) Determining the best suited semantic events for cognitive surveillance. Expert Syst Appl 38(4):4068–4079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ferrucci D (2010) Build watson: an overview of deepqa for the jeopardy! challenge. In: International conference on parallel architectures and compilation techniques, pp 1–2Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fidaleo D, Nguyen H, Trivedi M (2004) The networked sensor tapestry (nest): a privacy enhanced software architecture for interactive analysis of data in video-sensor networks. In: ACM iternational workshop on video surveill ance & sensor networks, pp 46–53Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fung B, Wang K, Chen R, Yu P (2010) Privacy-preserving data publishing: a survey on recent developments. In: ACM computing surveys, vol 42Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hayes-Roth F, Waterman D, Lenat D (1984) Building expert systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koshimizu T, Toriyama T, Babaguchi N (2006) Factors on the sense of privacy in video surveillance. In: ACM workshop on continuous archival and retrival of personal experences, pp 35–44Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Langheinrich M (2001) Privacy by design - principles of privacy-aware ubiquitous systems. In: International conference on ubiquitous computing. Springer, pp 273–291Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lu Y, Ga W, Wu F (2002) Automatic video segmentation using a novel background model. In: The IEEE international symposium on circuits and systems, pp 807–810Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McBratney A, Whelan B, Ancev T, Bouma J (2005) Future directions of precision agriculture. Precis Agric 6(1):7–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moncrieff S, Venkatesh S, West G (2008) Dynamic privacy assessment in a smart house environment using multimodal sensing. ACM Trans Multimed Comput Commun Appl 5(2): 1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Paruchuri JK, Cheung S, Hail MW (2009) Video data hiding for managing privacy information in surveillance systems. In: SPIE newsroomGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Piciarelli C, Foresti G (2011) Surveillance-oriented event detection in video streams. In: IEEE intelligent systems, pp 32–41Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Poppe R (2010) A survey on vision-based human action recognition. Image Vis Comput 28(6):976–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Qureshi FZ (2009) Object-video streams for preserving privacy in video surveillance. In: International conference on advanced video and signal based surveillance, pp 442–447Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Saini M, Atrey P, Mehrotra S, Emmanuel S, Kankanhalli M (2010) Privacy modeling in video data publication. In: IEEE international conference on multimedia and expo, pp 60–65Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Senior A, Pankanti S, Hampapur A, Brown L, Tian YL, Ekin A, Connell J, Shu CF, Lu M (2005) Enabling video rivacy through computer vision. IEEE Secur Priv 3(3):50–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Septian H, Tao J, Tan YP (2006) People counting by video segmentation and tracking. In: International conference on control, automation, robotics and vision, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Spindler T, Wartmann C, Hovestadt L, Roth D, Van Gool L, Steffen A (2006) Privacy in video surveilled areas. In: The ACM international conference on privacy, security and trust, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sweeney L (2002) k-anonymity: a model for protecting privacy. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl-Based Syst 10(5):557–570CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Thuraisingham B, Lavee G, Bertino E, Fan J, Khan L (2006) Access control, confidentiality and privacy for video surveillance databases. In: ACM symposium on access control models and technologies, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Turaga P, Chellappa R, Subrahmanian V, Udrea O (2008) Machine recognition of human activities: a survey. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 18(11):1473–1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Van Harmelen F, Lifschitz V, Porter B (2008) Handbook of knowledge representation. Elsevier Science LtdGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Westermann U, Jain R (2007) Toward a common event model for multimedia applications. IEEE Multimed 14(1):19–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wickramasuriya J, Datt M, Mehrotra S, Venkatasubramanian N (2004) Privacy protecting data collection in media spaces. In: International conference on multimedia, pp 48–55Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wiles R, Hirvonen D, Hsu S, Kumar R, Lehman W, Matei B, Zhao W (2001) Video georegistration: algorithm and quantitative evaluation. In: Proc. of IEEE international conference on computer vision, vol 2, pp 343–350Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhu Z, Oskiper T, Samarasekera S, Kumar R, Sawhney H (2007) Ten-fold improvement in visual odometry using landmark matching. In: Proc. IEEE international conference on computer vision, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhu Z, Oskiper T, Samarasekera S, Kumar R, Sawhney H (2008) Real-time global localization with a pre-built visual landmark database. In: Proc. of IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp 1–8Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mukesh Saini
    • 1
  • Pradeep K. Atrey
    • 2
  • Sharad Mehrotra
    • 3
  • Mohan Kankanhalli
    • 1
  1. 1.School of ComputingNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Department of Applied Computer ScienceThe University of WinnipegWinnipegCanada
  3. 3.Information and Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations