Australian lifeguards may get swimmer-detecting cams

Researchers at Australia's Griffith University are working to modify low-resolution webcams to detect swimmers and notify lifeguards of potentially dangerous situations. Right now, the black-and-white cameras are able to detect people with 85% accuracy, according to the developer. The next step is to improve that accuracy through enhanced pattern recognition and to add motion detection so that the cameras can track swimmers who stray into unsafe areas. The developer hopes to have a beach-ready version within two years and insists that, despite the fact that the cams will be aimed at crowds of scantily clad beachgoers, there are no privacy issues, as the resolution will be too low to identify individuals.

[Via the Raw Feed]

[happy sam @ Jan 30th 2006 7:52PM]

surely shark detecting cams would be better

__________________________________________
http://hotcelebfemales.blogspot.com/

[Feeble @ Jan 30th 2006 8:03PM]

you really shouldnt be worried about sharks when swiming.
shark attacks really dont occur all that often.

its the drowning part, that you should probably look out for.

[Calibur @ Jan 30th 2006 8:18PM]

especially considering you have a better chance at being hit by lightning then being bitten or attacked by a shark. I mean you are in THEIR home also.

[JohnDoe @ Jan 30th 2006 8:25PM]

Too bad the camera system can't prevent that other risk on Australian beaches... massive race riots aimed at people of darker complexion. No offense intended please, just trying to be funny.

[Deluxe @ Jan 30th 2006 8:33PM]

Drownings occour far more often than Shark attacks - Shark attacks just get media coverage.

[Mr. Anonymous Tipster @ Jan 30th 2006 9:07PM]

No, no, no- you've got it all mixed up! You should be worried about the Lightning-Sharks drowning in the water! There's a danger we all come across at some point in life.

..but you didn't hear it from me..
-Anonymous Tipster.

[JJ @ Jan 30th 2006 9:10PM]

#4 - hahaha nice one.
Although the riots were kind of spun out in the media, I live 5 minutes from Cronulla and the riots were a result of tension building up for about 3 years.
The beach in question wasn't a safe place anymore, and the middle eastern gangs were out for a fight. The media really ruins public outcry sometimes.

[FULLYSIKMATE! @ Jan 30th 2006 9:14PM]

JohnDoe (aka, Number 4)... Youre HILARIOUS lol... but seriously, I live in Cronulla, it wasnt that funny here. It started with one argument between a caucasian bloke and a lebanese bloke. Then the lebanese gangs fired up... they got involved in somone elses argument (as per usual sadly), and that triggered both sides to go off.

Hey another funny bit.. Can you replace my windscreen???? =P

[HarryC @ Jan 30th 2006 9:27PM]

I'm a Sydney resident too. The media hyped it up way outta proportion - it reflected very very poorly on australia.

I'm thankful that Australia has tougher gun laws than the US. I can imagine that a similar incident in the states might have resulted in a fatality.

[Ben @ Jan 30th 2006 9:34PM]

I'm personally afraid of sharks with freak'in lasers on their heads.

[Sirius @ Jan 30th 2006 10:14PM]

"despite the fact that the cams will be aimed at crowds of scantily clad beachgoers, there are no privacy issues, as the resolution will be too low to identify individuals."

Next they're gona want to have higher res cams for the purpose of 'more accurate identification' :)

BTW y don't they just use infrared cameras, seeing as warm bodies in cold waters are quite a contrast and much easier to identify... yes? no?

[Tim @ Jan 31st 2006 1:21AM]

"despite the fact that the cams will be aimed at crowds of scantily clad beachgoers, there are no privacy issues"

And why is that even an issue? What's to stop some beach goer sitting on the beach taking his own photos?

"shark attacks really dont occur all that often."

You mustn't live in Australia then. Here's the most recent one, earlier this month: http://www.abc.net.au/sunshine/stories/s1545775.htm

It's an issue that needs to be addressed here.

[Xenedar @ Jan 31st 2006 2:08AM]

I've always wondered about that "more chance of being struck by lightning" theory about shark attacks.

Lightning can strike anywhere. Sharks can only attack people at the beach. Do the statistics count everyone in the country, or just everyone who actually goes into the water? Because, hey, very few sharks around Uluru.

[yet another Matt @ Jan 31st 2006 8:18AM]

It can only identify people at 85% accuracy? So say if 1 in 100 people drown, thats 0.85% accuracy finding a drowning person?
Maybe they need to stop with the cheap stuff and get better cameras.
I really do hope the technology will get better

[Michael @ Jan 31st 2006 9:22AM]

I can just imagine the computer geeks working on their next hack. How to gain access to these cameras on the web. Or, the lifeguards could post it as a fund raising attempt...

[kenny @ Jan 31st 2006 9:59AM]

It's not the sharks I would be affraid of on Australian beaches

I would be affraid of the Sea Snakes, and Jellyfish that can kill you/paralize you that are the size of your fingernail...

#'s dealing with Race Riot in Australia/France.....if it happened in the USA...more than one person would die, and maybe possiblly offset country wide rioting...race relations are even more problematic than before...with current Job losses, media, and illegal immigration and New Orleans, its a powder keg ready to explode...

[RIC D.T. WILSON, LFIBA. @ Jan 31st 2006 5:15PM]

In Australia shark attacks are largely covered up to protect tourism and conservation agendas. The Australian Shark Attack File run by John West is designed to hose down the public fears of shark attacks and debunk whenever possible. We are told less than one attack per year but have a missing persons toll at sea of between 100-300 each year - missing without trace at times. In some cases body parts are recovered by anglers or pulled up in trawler nets. This tells me that jelly fish were not involved. Comparing shark attack statistics with lightening strikes and bee sting victims devalues human life and does nothing to assist greiving relatives and friends after somebody goes missing or is bitten in half. Flake for thought.

[Popularo @ Jan 31st 2006 9:59PM]

What ever happened to the rope? "Don't swim past the rope"

[Seb @ Feb 1st 2006 11:33AM]

Y'know.. that'd be really handy.

Most people drown either during the unpatrolled hours (6pm - 7am) or at unpatrolled beaches, I can see this coming in handy for the unpatrolled beaches (assuming the cameras would be useless at night).

I'm a regular voluntary lifesaver on the Gold Coast, and had no idea that in other beaches around Australia they didnt have as many sets of Flags set up for people to swim in. Seriously, during the on-season here you walk 300m and you hit the next patrolled area (prolly 700-1000m during the off-season).

I did some travelling these holidays and in some parts, there were no patrolled areas at all along an entire stretch of beach! Not that that stopped us going in for a swim but I figured, when I saw all of my friends dive straight into a rip, that it's these places that can't be regularly patrolled and thus, people drown at.

Hence, a bunch of cheap cameras would definately help in monitoring these places. I can only dream of them being able to track people entering the water and raising an alarm if they dont come out again, or if they get "lost" for a period of time. That would require almost complete coverage of a beach though, which would be fairly costly.

By the way, on sharks, unless there are a fair few people around (or the beach is patrolled), I get quite antsy swimming too far out just in case. I know if I'm between the flags that someones there keeping an eye out (if not several eyes) and can be out in an instant in some form of boat to help. Swimming alone, at an unpatrolled beach, in the middle of nowhere, is just asking for trouble.

And while Im on the subject of marine life, #16, you watch too much Discovery Channel :P That kind of marine life only lives waaay up north (if you find a map of Australia, look at Queensland and draw a line around halfway up, from there to the top are where your Box Jellyfish and Sea Snakes live).

Regardless, paralasys and death are only possible if you're not treated, and you'd have to be pretty silly to be swimming *alone* in a place you *know* there's a possibility you could be in trouble *away* from any lifeguards.

PS. #14, with 85% accuracy it means that if 1 in 100 people drown, there's an 85% chance that they'll be "seen" and monitored. Whether the system realises they're drowning (or can notify someone in time) is seemingly still to be developed.

Cheers.