Monday, 20 July 2009
Town Centre CCTV ... crime hot spots or scenes of crime
This blogging lark really does require a strong level of commitment, and despite the fact that many have suggested that Doktor Jon should have been committed years ago, life and the world of CCTV seem to conspire against updating these occasional musings, on anything more than a sporadic basis.
Immediately after this post it will be back to the usual five hundred lines of, " I must make an effort to blog more often", but for now, here's the latest in a long line of glimpses behind the stories, that really should be making the news.
So what is it that's raised the Dok's ire in this instant?
Well after years of trying to encourage CCTV system designers to adopt a more "holistic approach" to deployment, the inescapable fact is that time and again, Public Space Surveillance is still being commissioned in the time dishonoured style of a remote control camera on a pole, watched by a person in front of a screen.
Do I have a significant problem with this? ... well yes I do if it's not the appropriate technique for the location, and the range and scale of problems that it's inevitably required to address.
For the benefit of those new to the world of CCTV, "Active" remote controlled cameras are really most appropriately used for active roles, such as Site Management or Incident Monitoring, provided of course the incident has been spotted in the first place (and as a subject for discussion, that could quite easily fill an entire chapter or two on its own).
Fixed and optimised "Passive" cameras are ideally suited for Evidential Recording, and to a lesser and perhaps secondary degree, the often stated objective of Deterrence, or as politicians so often prefer to describe it, "reducing the fear of crime ... and reducing the causes of crime" .
Which conveniently brings me on to a recent case of how not to decide which CCTV is most appropriate, for an apparent need.
Let me take you back to an incident which occurred last Halloween, where a shop owner was viciously mugged in a relatively laid back area of North London known as Temple Fortune. The location of the attack was at the northern end of a long straight shopping parade, which is somewhat unique in having a diverse and cosmopolitan selection of retail and leisure outlets, arranged over a distance of perhaps 1.1 ish miles (a bit short of 2 kilometres) from end to end.
On the fateful night of the attack, the female victim was violently assaulted in the street, and her car driven off by the perpetrators, who made their escape whilst the family's pet dog sat cowering in the back of the vehicle.
Now it perhaps goes without saying that there was no PSS camera system in place, and of course no privately operated CCTV cameras within 100 metres of the incident.
So now fast forward eight months, and on the back of a 1,000+ signature petition presented by local residents and traders to the London Borough of Barnet, the case for CCTV in Temple Fortune was rushed before the council's ruling cabinet committee.
In the documents presented to the meeting, it was stated that in the sixth month period between July and December 2008, 100 crimes had been recorded locally, as such designating the location as an obvious crime hot spot, something which given the scale of local concern, must be fast tracked through the system for urgent attention.
To address the unease of all and their dog, it was agreed by the committee that FIVE remote control CCTV cameras would be positioned along the length of the shopping parade, at the magnificent cost to the ratepayers of £ 150,000.
Great news indeed for all the locals; traders are mightily happy, terrified residents can sleep safe in their beds at night, the council have demonstrated that they really have their finger on the pulse with this one, and the overstretched boys and girls in blue are soon to have an all seeing high tech tool, supposedly guaranteed to help make their lot a much happier one.
So why is the Dok less than delirious at what appears on the face of it to be a more than happy outcome for all?
Well if we look at the council's own map showing a 'Global' non specific crime audit for the area, it doesn't actually present 100 crime incidents locally, but rather no more than a couple of dozen that had been recorded within the approved CCTV zone, although of course, they would in no way have been guaranteed to have been picked up by the proposed new surveillance system. As we all know, remote control cameras can only ever look in one direction at one time, so which one is the right one ...?
Without wishing to state the obvious, a couple of dozen incidents equates to roughly one crime per week during the stated period; as crime hot spots go, it's not exactly sizzling.
Then there's the small matter of the location of the cameras; spaced out as they are at significant distances from each other, the likelyhood is only a very small percentage of the area will actually be recorded in anything approaching a useful level of detail, and certainly the chances of capturing suspects at anything approaching the recommended levels of clarity laid down by the Home Office Scientific Development Branch, are too small to even bother trying to calculate.
Now if the truth be told, the location of last years car jacking is in excess of 250 metres away from the nearest camera, or to put it another way, if the crime were repeated post CCTV installation, there would be no possibility whatsoever of recording the incident, with the proposed system.
Had the local authority taken the trouble to examine the unique features and requirements of this popular shopping area, a more intelligent approach may have suggested that a properly deployed and operated community based "SafetyNet" type CCTV installation, would almost certainly be significantly more effective for both Forensic Surveillance and Crime Reduction purposes.
Given that it may well have cost perhaps £ 75 - 100k less than the approved project, and it does start to raise questions about how and why funding is blindly spent, on schemes which are on the face of it questionable at best, and from this side of the table at least, more akin to an ineffectual and expensive drain on very limited resources.
Politics aside, if there is a need for CCTV that's fine, but at the very least, some concerted effort should always be made to establish the extent of the need, and the most appropriate and affordable means by which to satisfy the desire.
On a happier note, I'm delighted to report that the car jacked doggie was quickly returned to his distraught owner, who despite her recent pyrrhic victory in the council chamber, may not actually receive the longterm level of technological protection, which some media reports would have us believe.
An interesting although almost certainly less than unique example, of how the age old approach to public space surveillance, is well overdue for a serious rethink, if progress is ever going to be made.
Labels: CCTV, Closed Circuit Television, crime reduction, Forensic Surveillance, PSS cameras, security cameras
Sunday, 26 October 2008
From CCTV to CSI, the search for elusive evidence goes on ...
Most people tend to think of the CCTV industry as a high tech business solely concerned with selling "state of the art" surveillance systems, almost guaranteed to catch crooks and increase public safety, as if by magic.
Whilst it's true that globally Closed Circuit Television, and specifically IP Video based surveillance is growing at a more than healthy rate, there are actually two specific areas which are destined for much greater attention in the years to come.
Somewhat paradoxically, Video Analytics and Forensic Surveillance usually occupy their places of merit, at completely opposite ends of the CCTV spectrum.
In recent years, there's been an increasing awareness that enhancing the use of surveillance within a 'digital' domain, is only likely to make quantum leaps in terms of efficiency on the back of rapid developments using powerful image analytic and target tracking systems.
In time, they may not only replace much of the the routine input of a human operator, but will also increase their efficiency and capabilities by automating many aspects of the humble video monitoring and recording process.
Definitely a subject to be revisited in more detail very soon; but of more immediate interest, the role of the Forensic Video Analyst in extracting evidential images from video recordings that aspire to be appalling, is rapidly increasing in importance, particularly as the volume of CCTV 'product' being recovered post incident continues to increase at an exponential rate.
More cameras may well equal more recordings, but for the merry band of experts tasked with recovering usable images, perhaps the only absolute certainty for them is that when it comes to coping with an exploding workload, the demand for more highly skilled technicians will undoubtedly continue well into the foreseeable future. Which in itself creates a wealth of new employment challenges ...
The specialist role of a Forensic Video Analyst has really only existed for a relatively short period, and whilst organisations like the Law Enforcement and Emergency Services Video Association (LEVA) have done much to develop this area of expertise, there are only a relatively few top "experts" working within the field.
One such highly respected member of this rather exclusive 'club' is Jim Hoerricks, the Senior Forensic Video Analyst (FVA) for the Los Angeles Police Department. Having authored his book "Forensic Photoshop" as a working bible for analysts keen to learn about the techniques and tricks used in enhancing video images, his latest development just launched is an online training course entitled "An introduction to Forensic Photoshop".
The course is available through the American Institute of Forensic Education, and will no doubt prove to be an invaluable step for any technicians setting out on a challenging career as an FVA.
Which is very opportune considering the slowly growing recognition here in the UK, that Forensic Surveillance may well in the not too distant future, eclipse the potential for both DNA and fingerprint analysis, in providing the vital edge in crime detection and case resolution.
Labels: CCTV, CCTV Training, Closed Circuit Television, Forensic Surveillance, Forensic Video Analyst, Video Analytics, video surveillance
Thursday, 2 October 2008
How good are your CCTV cameras ...?
After more years than I can remember of advising clients about their problem CCTV, it occurred to me that given the widescale issues with so many poorly set up cameras, I really ought to look at doing something positive to help address the situation.
Well here we are at the 1st of October (erm, that was a couple of hours ago), and after months of planning, ok so it was really only a few weeks, I've now officially launched my new VIPER service.
The idea is actually very simple; if I'm sent a half decent JPEG image from a CCTV or IP Video camera, I can then produce a detailed "Video Image Performance Evaluation Report", which will identify how well the unit is performing, and whether the images produced would be considered as acceptable for possible court use.
The report also highlights key improvements that can be made to improve the picture quality, and consequently the cameras overall operational efficiency.
It remains to be seen how well received it proves to be, but for those interested in finding out a bit more, there's an introductory page about VIPER on my main site.
Labels: CCTV, Closed Circuit Television, Forensic Surveillance, security cameras, video evidence, video surveillance, VIPER
Wednesday, 27 February 2008
Mistakes may be part of human nature, but they mustn't be at the expense of human lives
Here in the U.K., there has been much press and media coverage this week, over the conviction of Levi Bellfield, found guilty in the High Court of murdering two young women, and currently under suspicion for having committed further serious offences over a period of at least a decade.
On the Telegraph.co.uk website, an interesting article describes how mistakes were made in the investigations, amongst which, possibly vital CCTV recorded evidence was retrieved, but not reviewed by police at a time when it could possibly have helped towards tracking down the killer.
It goes on to speculate that as a result of numerous operational mistakes made, the second victim was murdered, when the tragedy could conceivably have been prevented.
The loss of a young life is tragic under any circumstances, but when failings in the way in which essential CCTV recorded evidence is gathered, processed, reviewed and presented, has now become an almost routine problem both within the U.K.'s Criminal Justice System and increasingly similar institutions around the globe, it really is unacceptable for governments to allow the discipline of Forensic Surveillance (FS) to develop organically, rather than put in place robust mechanisms to design out many of the existing shortcomings.
The concept of specialising Forensic Surveillance perhaps along the lines of the way in which DNA evidence is currently utilised, has already been explored to some degree in the recently published National CCTV Strategy, and it would be much welcomed if some of the reports specific recommendations on this matter, were pursued with vigour.
Tragically, this situation is not without precedent, and if there were any possibility that useful lessons would be learned, ideally as a matter of priority, I for one would possibly sleep better in my bed.
In all likelyhood, it's going to be a rough night .... and possibly with many more to come.
Labels: CCTV, Closed Circuit Television, Forensic Surveillance, National CCTV Strategy
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]