Computational Public Safety: The Evolution to Public Safety Research

Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies book series (LNDECT, volume 7)

Abstract

The proliferation of internet connected devices, sensors and big data is changing the way public safety is being studied. Traditionally, statistical methods are used to extrapolate information from data in which public safety decisions based upon. The current state of interconnected systems and devices such as internet of thing (IoT), generate a continuous deluge of data are unable to be accommodated traditional means processing and mining. This paper surveys public safety topics in the context of digital systems and algorithms. Furthermore, we propose Computational Public Safety as the study of digital systems and algorithms that promote the welfare and protection of the general public.

Keywords

Computational Public Safety CPS Algorithm Smart city IoT Infrastructure Big data Security 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Leaning, J., Guha-Sapir, D.: Natural disasters, armed conflict, and public health. N. Engl. J. Med. 369(19), 1836–1842 (2013). doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1109877. Last accessed 27 Apr 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Banholzer, S., Kossin, J., Donner, S.: The impact of climate change on natural disasters. In: Reducing Disaster: Early Warning Systems For Climate Change, pp. 21–49. Springer (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Meulen, R.: Gartner Says 8.4 Billion Connected “Things” Will Be in Use in 2017, Up 31 Percent From 2016, Gartner, 7 February 2017. http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3598917. Last accessed 15 May 2017
  4. 4.
    IDC Inc., The Digital Universe of Opportunities: Rich Data and the Increasing Value of the Internet of Things, April 2014. https://www.emc.com/leadership/digital-universe/2014iview/executive-summary.htm. Last accessed 22 Apr 2017
  5. 5.
    Ferworn, A., et al.: Urban search and rescue with canine augmentation technology. In: IEEE International Conference on System of Systems Engineering, Los Angeles, CA, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ferworn, A., Tran, N., Tran, J., Zarnett, G., Sharifi, F.: WiFi repeater deployment for improved communication in confined-space urban disaster search. In: IEEE International Conference of Systems of Systems (SoSE 2007), San Antonio, TX, USA (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ribeiro, C., Ferworn, A., Tran, J.: An assessment of a wireless mesh network performance for uban search and rescue task. In: IEEE Toronto International Conference – Science and Technology for Humanity (TIC-STH 2009), Toronto, ON, Canada (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tran, J., Ferworn, A., Ribeiro, C., Denko, M.: Enhancing canine disaster search. In: IEEE International Conference of Systems of Systems (SoSE 2008), Monterey, CA, USA (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ferworn, A., et al.: Wireless mesh network performance for urban search and rescue missions’. J. Homel. Secur. Emerg. Manag. 5(2), 38–57 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tran, J., Ferworn, A.: Bark indication detection and release algorithm for the automatic delivery of packages by dogs. In: 6th International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC 2010), Cane, France (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ferworn, A., Tran, J., Ufkes, A., D’Souza, A.: Initial experiments on 3D modeling of complex disaster environment using unmanned arial vehicle. In: IEEE International Workshop on Safety, Security & Rescue Robotics (SSRR 2011), Kyoto, Japan (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tran, J., Ufkes, A., Fiala, M., Ferworn, A.: Low-cost 3D scene reconstruction for response robots in real-time. In: IEEE International Workshop on Safety, Security & Rescue Robotics (SSRR 2011), Kyoto, Japan (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ferworn, A., Herman, S., Tran, J., Ufkes, A., McDonald, R.: Disaster scene reconstruction: modeling and simulating urban building collapse rubble within a game engine. In: Summer Computer Simulation Conference, SCSC 2013 and Work in Progress, WIP 2013, Part of the 2013 Summer Simulation Multiconference, SummerSim, Toronto, On, Canada (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ferworn, A., Herman, S., Kong, C., Ufkes, A., Tran, J.: Interacting with a virtual destroyed environment constructed from real disaster data. In: IEEE International Workshop on Safety, Security & Rescue Robotics (SSRR 2014), Toyako-Cho, Hokkaido, Japan (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kong, C., Ferworn, A., Tran, J., Herman, S., Coleshill, E., Derpanis, K.: Toward the automatic detection of access holes in disaster rubble. In: IEEE International Workshop on Safety, Security & Rescue Robotics (SSRR 2013), Linköping, Sweden (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kong, C., Ferworn, A., Tran, J., Coleshill, E., Derpanis, K.G.: What is a Hole? Discovering Access Holes in Disaster Rubble with Functional and Photometric Attributes. J. Field Robot. 825–836 (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Waismark, B., Ferworn, A., Tran, J.: Enhancing autonomous access hole detection. In: IEEE Canada International – International Humanitarian Technology Conference-(IHTC). IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chan, C., Ferworn, A.: Serious gaming for improvised explosive device neutralization training. In: The 3rd International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Applications (ICIEA 2016). MATEC Web of Conferences, vol. 68, Hong Kong. EDP Sciences (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chan, C.C.K., Ferworn, A., Chin, L.: Towards determining relative densities for common unknown explosives in improvised explosive devices. In: IEEE Canada International – International Humanitarian Technology Conference-(IHTC). IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Batty, M., et al.: Smart cities of the future. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 12(1), 481–518 (2017). doi: 10.1140/epjst/e2012-01703-3. Last accessed 5 May 2017Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Albino, V., Berardi, U., Dangelico, R.M.: Smart cities: definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. J. Urban Technol. 22(1), 3–21 (2015). doi: 10.1080/10630732.2014.942092. Last accessed 1 May 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Manville, C., et al.: Mapping Smart Cities in the EU (2014). http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2014/507480/IPOL-ITRE_ET(2014)507480_EN.pdf. Last accessed 8 May 2017
  23. 23.
    Hawk, C., Kaushiva, A.: Cybersecurity and the Smarter Grid. Electr. J. 27(8), 84–95 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Clemente, J.: The Security Vulnerabilities of Smart Grid. J. Secur. Envery, 18 June 2009. http://www.ensec.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=198:the-security-vulnerabilities-of-smart-grid&catid=96:content&Itemid=345. Last accessed 13 May 2017
  25. 25.
    Bartels, G.: Combating Smart Grid Vulnerabilities. J. Energy Secur., March 2011. http://www.ensec.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=284:combating-smart-Grid-vulnerabilities&catid=114:content0211&Itemid=374. Last accessed 19 Apr 2017
  26. 26.
    Zetter, K.: Inside the Cunning, Unprecedented Hack of Ukraine’s Power Grid. Wired.com, 3 March 2016. https://www.wired.com/2016/03/inside-cunning-unprecedented-hack-ukraines-power-grid/. Last accessed 28 Apr 2017
  27. 27.
    Boston Transportation Department. The Benefits of Retiming/Rephasing Traffic Signals in the BackBay, March 2010. http://www.cityofboston.gov/images_documents/The%20Benefits%20of%20Traffic%20Signal%20Retiming%20Report_tcm3-18554.pdf. Last accessed 8 May 2017
  28. 28.
    Ghena, B., et al.: Green lights forever: analyzing the security of traffic infrastructure. In: Proceedings of the 8th USENIX Workshop on Offensive Technologies, August 2014. https://jhalderm.com/pub/papers/traffic-woot14.pdf. Last accessed 11 May 2017
  29. 29.
    Legezo, D.: Smart Megalopolises. How Safe and Reliable Is Your Data? In: RSA Conference, San Francisco, 29 February 2016. https://securelist.com/blog/research/74454/how-to-trick-traffic-sensors/. Last accessed 9 May 2017
  30. 30.
    Tracy, P.: How industrial IoT is transforming public safety, 1 September 2016. http://www.rcrwireless.com/20160901/big-data-analytics/iiot-public-safety-tag31-tag99. Last accessed 19 May 2017
  31. 31.
    Zanella, A., et al.: Internet of Things for Smart Cities. IEEE Internet Things J. 1(1), 22–32 (2014). doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2014.2306328. Last accessed 7 May 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    McCue, C.: Data mining and predictive analytics in public safety and security. IT Prof. 8(4), 12–18 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Graves, A.: A case study for integrating public safety data using semantic technology. Inf. Policy 16(3), 261–275 (2011)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bharosa, N., Janssen, M., Tan, Y.-H.H.: A research agenda for information quality assurance in public safety networks: information orchestration as the middle ground between hierarchical and netcentric approaches. Cogn. Technol. Work 13(3), 203–216 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Durbha, S.S., King, R.L., Amanchi, S.K., Bheemireddy, S., Younan, N.H.: Standards-based middleware and tools for coastal sensor web applications. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Observations Remote Sens. 3(4), 451–466 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Halsey, N.A., Edwards, K.M., Dekker, C.L., Klein, N.P., Baxter, R., Larussa, P., Marchant, C., Slade, B., Vellozzi, C., Causality Working Group of the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment network: Algorithm to assess causality after individual adverse events following immunizations. Vaccine 30(39), 5791–5798 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jung, H., Yoo, H., Chung, K.: Associative context mining for ontology-driven hidden knowledge discovery. Cluster Comput. 19(4), 2261–2271 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kavanaugh, A.L., Fox, E.A., Sheetz, S.D., Yang, S., Li, L.T., Shoemaker, D.J., Natsev, A., Xie, L.: Social media use by government: from the routine to the critical. Gov. Inf. Q. 29(4), 480–491 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kaza, S., Chen, H.: Evaluating ontology mapping techniques: an experiment in public safety information sharing. Decis. Support Syst. 45(4), 714–728 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Li, G.: A framework to integrate public information into runtime safety analysis for critical systems. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. E97-D(4), 981–983 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Masías, V.H., Valle, M.A., Amar, J.J., Cervantes, M., Brunal, G., Crespo, F.A.: Characterising the personality of the public safety oender and non-oender using decision trees: the case of Colombia. J. Invest. Psychol. Oender Proling 13(3), 198–219 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Parker, E.M., Jenson, I., Jordan, D., Ward, M.P.: Development of an algorithm for assessing the risk to food safety posed by a new animal disease. Zoonoses Publ. Health 59(3), 184–192 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Woods, A.: Quebec winter storm ‘shambles’ prompts government investigation, Toronto Star, 16 March 2017. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/03/16/handling-of-quebec-winter-storm-prompts-government-investigation.html. Last accessed 13 May 2017

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.N-CART LabRyerson UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations