free website hit counter
crafting urban camouflage: DIS2012

ABSTRACT     ABOUT     CALL FOR PARTICIPANTS     OUTLINE     THE WORKSHOP

Introduction
Designers working in public spaces may use the physical movement of the people in that space as the means of interaction [1,2,3,4,5]. Often, this requires designing systems of interaction that can track movement or gesture. Motion and feature tracking computer vision algorithms can be used to achieve this on a scale of granularity from simple detection of moving pixels, to more robust tracking of features, faces or gait [6,7,8,9]. Other forms of movement tracking rely on 3D sensing of the space using personal electromagnetic signatures such as Bluetooth, mobile phone signals and WiFi connection, beacons like RFID, or other human characteristics such as temperature or sound [10,11,12]. Such systems of interaction depend on the people in the space becoming visible to the tracking system. Depending on the type of system, this visibility can be affected by degree of movement, lighting conditions, proximity and orientation to the sensing system and available digital devices.

Personal visibility in public space
Being able to manage our visibility status is an important part of our personal use of public space. Some people may desire to become invisible, hiding their presence from systems that can accurately pinpoint location via, for example, mobile phone networks, WiFi proximity, CCTV and RFID travel cards [13]. Others, such as players of locative games who rely on constant connectivity to tracking systems for seamless game play, may seek to improve their visibility status [14][15]. Similarly, disempowered people may wish to raise their profile in public space and so legitimise their presence [16]. Some people may inadvertently become visible when traces of their activity are discovered via practices such as war chalking and wide band radio scanners [17][18] and the ability to manage one's own visibility status can be removed from certain groups, for example, sex offenders in California [19], for reasons of security or control.

Willis describes how our desired degree of visibility to potential tracking technologies affects patterns of inhabitation as laptop users cluster around the café WiFi router and mobile phone users wander in search for the optimum signal strength [20]. Meanwhile, Fussey argues that for those engaged in covert activities invisibility to CCTV cameras is of primary concern [21] and Maccoll describes how locative game players exploit the seams between technological systems to gain advantage [22].

We suggest that these examples highlight how desire for visibility or anonymity in public space affects the places we choose to linger and the routes we take. In addition, interactive systems are increasingly becoming entwined with architecture and physical spaces to form what de Souza e Silva calls 'hybrid spaces' that are able to detect the presence of individuals and to collate this presence with electronically archived personal information such as name, shopping habits, music taste and travel routine [23]. As a result, we argue that the personal control of visibility should be a factor considered in designing interactive public space.

A number of strategies are available to people who want to alter their visibility status in public space; RFID-based travel cards can remain unregistered; mobile phones can be turned off and you can opt to follow the path of least surveillance [24].

Zebra by Desiree Palmen

Figure 1. Zebra by Desiree Palmen.

To increase physical invisibility people have co-opted strategies from nature, for example, army camouflage. This approach has been adapted for urban conditions with nature-based patterns replaced by designs based on branding and strategies for disguise including street features such as road crossings [25] (figure 1) and vending machines [26] (figure 2).

Urban camouflage by Aya Tsukioka

Figure 2. Urban camouflage by Aya Tsukioka.

There may also be alternative strategies for invisibility in modern living that are about hiding specific features such as face, identity or intent. Wearing clothing that hides facial features, for example hooded tops or niqabs, has the side effect of increasing invisibility from recognition systems.

CV Dazzle by Adam Harvey

Figure 3. Designs for CV Dazzle by Adam Harvey.

Other strategies may not attempt to achieve invisibility but instead play with the constraints of a system to inhibit its ability to accurately detect location, trajectory or identity. For example, CV Dazzle is described as open-source camouflage from computer vision and uses hair and make up to render faces unrecognisable by face recognition software [27]. Parallels can be drawn here to the dazzle paint schemes adopted in WWI that were bright and eye-catching, but disrupted the ability of the viewer to predict the direction, size and identity of the ships [28].

HMS Furious painted in Dazzle camouflage

Figure 4. HMS Furious painted in Dazzle Camouflage during World War I

Designing systems to recognise and respond to people in a space can be informed by considering the various failure modes of different technical approaches to tracking and recognition. By explicitly engineering modes of failure, we can learn how visibility and invisibility can be managed, while also considering potential improvements in robust tracking for interaction design. This workshop will provide the opportunity for participants to engage hands-on with a computer vision tracking system by inventing, constructing and testing speculative strategies for managing personal visibility.

References
[1] M. W. Krueger, T. Gionfriddo, and K. Hinrichsen, "VIDEOPLACE - an artificial reality," in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, New York, NY, USA, 1985, pp. 35-40.
[2] D. Rokeby, "Transforming Mirrors," in Critical Issues in Interactive Media, S. Penny, Ed. Albany: SUNY Press, 1995, pp. 133-158.
[3] P. Worthington, Shadow Monsters. 2005.
[4] M. Sester, ACCESS. 2003.
[5] S. S. Snibbe and H. S. Raffle, "Social immersive media: pursuing best practices for multi-user interactive camera/projector exhibits," in Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems, New York, NY, USA, 2009, pp. 1447-1456.
[6] D. Damen and D. Hogg, "Recognizing linked events: Searching the space of feasible explanations," in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2009. CVPR 2009, 2009, pp. 927-934.
[7] A. P. French, A. Naeem, I. L. Dryden, and T. P. Pridmore, "Using social effects to guide tracking in complex scenes," in IEEE Conference on Advanced Video and Signal Based Surveillance, 2007. AVSS 2007, 2007, pp. 212-217.
[8] F. Sparacino, "Narrative Spaces: bridging architecture and entertainment via interactive technology," in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Generative Art, 2002.
[9] L. Lee and W. E. . Grimson, "Gait analysis for recognition and classification," in Fifth IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition, 2002. Proceedings, 2002, pp. 148-155.
[10] C. Ratti, R. M. Pulselli, S. Williams, and D. Frenchman, "Mobile Landscapes: using location data from cell phones for urban analysis," Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 727 - 748, 2006.
[11] N. Eagle and A. Pentland, "Social Serendipity: Mobilizing Social Software," IEEE Pervasive Computing, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 28-34, 2005.
[12] S. Benford et al., "Can you see me now?," ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 100-133, 2006.
[13] M. R. Rieback, B. Crispo, and A. S. Tanenbaum, "RFID Guardian: A Battery-Powered Mobile Device for RFID Privacy Management," in Information Security and Privacy, vol. 3574, C. Boyd and J. M. González Nieto, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2005, pp. 184-194.
[14] A. Drozd, S. Benford, N. Tandavanitj, M. Wright, and A. Chamberlain, "Hitchers: Designing for Cellular Positioning," in UbiComp 2006: Ubiquitous Computing, vol. 4206, P. Dourish and A. Friday, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2006, pp. 279-296.
[15] M. Struppek and K. S. Willis, "Botfighters," in Space Time Play, F. Borries, S. P. Walz, and M. Böttger, Eds. Basel: Birkhäuser Basel, 2007, pp. 226-227.
[16] A. Minton, Ground Control: Fear and Happiness in the Twenty-First-Century City. Penguin, 2009.
[17] K. J. Hole, E. Dyrnes, and P. Thorsheim, "Securing Wi-Fi networks," Computer, vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 28- 34, Jul. 2005.
[18] A. Dunne, Hertzian Tales: Electronic Products, Aesthetic Experience and Critical Design. RCA Computer Related Design Research, 1999.
[19] I. Shklovski, J. Vertesi, E. Troshynski, and P. Dourish, "The commodification of location: dynamics of power in location-based systems," in Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Ubiquitous computing, Orlando, Florida, USA, 2009, pp. 11-20.
[20] K. Willis, "Sensing Place: Mobile and Wireless Technologies and Urban Spaces," in Encountering Urban Places - Visual and Material Performances in the City, L. Frers and L. Meier, Eds. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2007, pp. 155 - 170.
[21] P. Fussey, "Observing Potentiality in the Global City," International Criminal Justice Review, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 171 -192, 2007.
[22] I. Maccoll, M. Chalmers, Y. Rogers, and H. Smith, "Seamful ubiquity: Beyond seamless integration," Proc. Ubicomp 2002 Workshop on Models and Concepts for Ubiquitous Computing., 2002.
[23] A. de Souza e Silva, "From Cyber to Hybrid," Space and Culture, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 261 -278, 2006.
[24] T. Hirsch, iSee. 2002.
[25] D. Palmen, Zebra. 2002.
[26] A. Tsukioka, Urban Camouflage. 2008.
[27] A. Harvey, CV Dazzle. 2010.
[28] R. R. Behrens, "The Role of Artists in Ship Camouflage During World War I," Leonardo, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 53-59, 1999.

TOP