Tuesday, 7 April 2009
When it comes to CCTV, we live in an age of innocence
You'd think after all these years of walking along chatting on a mobile phone (cellphone), that by now the novelty would have worn off. And yet time and again I'm struck by the apparent simplicity of the concept against a backdrop of some quite spectacularly clever technology, that we all just take for granted.
It will perhaps come as no surprise that I'm actually old enough to appreciate a world before mobile communications, in fact I can still readily recall the immense effort required for my then young and spindly fingers to turn the old rotary dialler, on our ancient rattly old bakolite telephone.
Now you could be forgiven for wondering what the heck this has to do with CCTV, but quite by accident, I had something of a eureka moment the other day.
I happened to come across an interesting article written on the subject of video surveillance, possibly one of perhaps hundreds that I might chance upon in an average week.
What set this piece apart was not so much the content, as there's very little written on the subject that I haven't already seen a few dozen times before.
No, what really set this apart, was not only was it written by a very thoughtful and articulate young lady in her twenties, but she also happened to be a resident of the United States that is currently studying in the U.K.
I've long been wondering about the precise mechanics of deterrence in relation to the way we attempt to use CCTV as a crime reducing technology, and how our experiences in the U.K. tend to suggest that there is something fundamentally wrong with the simple concept of 'cameras cut crime'.
I certainly know enough about the subject to realise that it isn't simply about using the technology, but equally it's as important to apply the correct techniques, and in so doing properly fulfil a defined and achievable strategy.
Now coming back to the young lady gracing our shores, her perception of CCTV and it's implications on our society, were reported by her to be very different from those of her british peers, and this simple observation was what finally caused the penny to drop.
Since successive U.K. governments started to fund the widescale deployment of Public Space CCTV schemes back in the '80s, that would mean that anyone under the age of 25, would not really know a world without surveillance cameras. From their earliest memories of childhood, the cameras have always been there, albeit that it's only been in the last ten or so years that the installation of cameras has really taken off big time.
So on the basis that over here, people of a certain age have become generationally habituated to the presence of CCTV, barely concerned as to whether the systems are operating efficiently, or at all for that matter, it can't really be any great surprise that youth crime is stubbornly refusing to respond to a deterrence, which an older generation have naively invested billions in, and which to this day is promoted as a technological cure-all for societies many and varied ills.
There has to be something not quite right, when the old duffers think it's money well spent, and the target of their attentions, the less than bright young things ... just ain't bovvered.
As a society, we perhaps need to take a step back and consider carefully all the achievable objectives, and how best to focus resources on addressing the actions of the law defying, without continuing to routinely impact on the everyday lives of the law abiding.
Or then again, we could just keep on spending a large fortune on covering the country with as many CCTV cameras as possible, and still have one of the least enviable crime rates amongst all of our european neighbours.
Decisions, decisions .....
Labels: CCTV, Civil Liberties, Closed Circuit Television, crime, crime reduction, privacy, video surveillance
Monday, 6 April 2009
Does white van man have his eyes on you ...?
There's been a lot of controversy just recently about the launch of Google's StreetView service, where camera equipped cars are roaming the country snapping images of peoples homes, which are readily available over the internet for anyone that has an interest.
The fact that the vehicles are unmarked, and indeed carry no signage to comply with the Data Protection Act, shouldn't really provide any great surprises, and yet Google aren't really alone when it comes to having a quick snoop up the average side street.
Not for the first time in recent weeks, I've spotted a white unremarkable unmarked van, cruising past my door, with nothing to arouse suspicion other than the fact that each corner of the roof is embellished with an outwardly pointing CCTV bullet camera.
Rumour has it, the vehicles (of which there are many) are being deployed by the local councils in order to identify untaxed vehicles, using a database supplied by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA), which is compared against the images of vehicle number plates snapped by the passing van.
Now why would they want to cruise the streets of old London Town looking for untaxed vehicles.
The answer of course is clamping and penalty charges for release; so acting as agents for the DVLA, in the words of Arfur Daley they're on to a nice little earner.
And who said there's not much profit left in video surveillance ...?
Labels: CCTV, CCTV and Data Protection, CCTV News, Civil Liberties, PCN's, privacy, traffic enforcement, video surveillance
Sunday, 5 April 2009
The art of CCTV resolution, or reading between the lines?
Just prior to the G20 summit here in London, this CCTV news story caught my eye on www.guardian.co.uk.
Now I'm quite used to reading 'strange but true' stories about the mad things people do with video surveillance cameras, but this piece really did stand out simply because it's daftness could so easily have been mistaken for an April fool joke, and by all accounts, many indeed thought that it was.
The background is very simple; Londons Westminster City Council have invested £ 15 million ( about US$ 20m or € 15.5m ) in a "state of the art" mesh network enabled video surveillance system, using re-deployable dome cameras that are mostly fixed to street lights.
At this point, I should perhaps mention that they've been happily using them for quite some time now, that is until the civil servants at the Department of Transport decided that with some new legislation coming into effect on the 1st of April, the cameras were no longer compliant and so would have to be switched off.
So that's about 60 street surveillance cameras deemed to be unfit, and condemned to be switched off, on the very day that all the worlds top brass buttons roll into town, amid one of the largest security operations ever seen in the capitol.
All makes sense so far ...? Well no actually, there was something rather odd about this story, repeated as it was across numerous news and media organisations; so I decided to do a bit of research to try and find out what all the fuss was about.
Now the first thing I discovered was the new legislation related specifically to the use of CCTV cameras, in order to issue Penalty Charge Notices (PCN's) for traffic violations. Now unless I'm misreading the situation, the cameras were ordered to be turned off, simply because they were deemed to be non compliant with the specification laid down for cameras, intended to be used for policing vehicle offences.
I could be wrong here, but it doesn't actually follow that if the cameras cannot be used for issuing PCN's, then they can't in the meantime be used for something else, such as Public Space Surveillance, where no such mandatory specification actually exists.
So at this point, it becomes clear that the cameras could in theory continue to be used for street monitoring / public safety, but they cannot be used lawfully for issuing tickets, or what according to the great British public, is euphamistically termed "revenue generation".
That then conveniently brings me on to the next point of contention, which actually relates to the new legislation introduced by the Department of Transport.
The entire basis of the argument is over the difference in image resolution between 4CIF (in this case, the councils cameras that are imaging at 702 x 576 pixels), and the stated requirement in the DfT documentation which is a minimum of D1 ( 720 x 576 pixels).
Now there's actually a number of quite seriously daft issues here.
Firstly, the actual difference between 4CIF and D1 may only be in the order of about 2.5% in practical terms, but in the real world, there isn't an engineer alive that could visually tell the two standards apart if the pictures were presented for viewing in isolation.
That said, there is a glaringly obvious mistake in attempting to relate image quality in relation to resolution, by simply stating the requirements in pixels. That is an absolute no, no in my world, for reasons I won't bore you with at this point.
The correct way to lay a standard for resolution, is by stating a requirement for both vertical and horizontal resolution, measured in "lines", with perhaps a + / - 10% to allow for what goes on in the real world.
For example, if the camera, transmission system and recorder are all optimised for D1 quality, the lens may be within spec at 2.10 pm on a monday afternoon, but twelve hours later, as the iris opens to allow night coverage, the resolution produced by the lens could easily drop 10 - 20%, so in theory making the entire system underperform, and therefore prove to be unfit for purpose according to the minimum specification.
Likewise, atmospheric grime deposited on the cameras dome or window, could quickly reduce the resolution by anything up to 30 percent or more, which in itself presents an interesting situation for anyone wishing to challenge the legality of PCN's issued using a CCTV system, which may well be unwittingly, unlawful in nature.
Despite numerous attempts to find a reference in the documentation, it would appear that unlike the widescale use of 'speed guns' which are used for tackling motorists travelling over the speed limit, there doesn't appear to be any mandatory calibration process required, to ensure that the CCTV cameras are operating 'on spec', most of the time.
There isn't even a statutory requirement for regularly cleaning the camera's to maintain quality; it simply states that a camera should be kept clean to help maintain the image performance.
I suppose the bottom line is, the difference between 4CIF and D1 may only be a couple of percent in terms of potential resolution, but the difference between using notional pixels and actual resolved 'lines' as a measure of image resolution, is quite literally worlds apart.
Labels: CCTV, CCTV News, Closed Circuit Television, Department for Transport, DfT, IP Video, PCN, security cameras, traffic cameras, traffic monitoring, video surveillance, Westminster City Council
Happy new CCTV year .... again!!
Well that just goes to prove it .... I said way back in January that my new year's resolution was going to be a concerted attempt to spend far more time blogging about CCTV and the meaning of life.
So what do I do?, well not a lot to be honest, until that is I discovered quite by accident that last week was yet another New Year celebration, this time in Iran.
Having promised in the new year to post more stories about video surveillance, now at last I can actually fulfil my obligations, albeit that I'm probably about three months later than perhaps I should be.
Oh well, the brain is willing but the body is otherwise occupied; that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.
Anyway, if you come across any interesting CCTV or IP Video related news stories, why not drop me a line and I'll make sure they get seen by a wider audience.
In the meantime, if you happen to know any of the words to Auld Lang Syne ....
Labels: CCTV, CCTV News, Closed Circuit Television, IP Video, security cameras, video surveillance
Friday, 9 January 2009
When it comes to CCTV, colour is the new black ... and white
Well to be strictly accurate, here in the U.K., colour systems became the preferred option perhaps seven to ten years ago, which in itself does provide a somewhat tenuous link for this particular posting.
Having been in the business for just over thirty years, every now and again I try and take a few minutes to look back at material I'd previously written, and see whether the prophecies and predictions were really all that I thought they would be, when I actually sat down and wrote them.
As you might imagine some aspects of CCTV development were fairly easy to foretell although it wasn't always possible to be completely accurate on timescales.
I only mention this because one particular area of somewhat rapid development which is currently subject to my less than detailed consideration, is the adoption of "Headcams" or "Body Worn Video" as some agencies prefer to call it.
The idea of equipping an individual with their very own compact CCTV system is not in itself completely new, but the main accelerant in it's increasingly enthusiastic adoption, now appears to be the rapid drop in pricing for the equipment.
In the last couple of years, police officers, traffic wardens, door operatives, security officers, hospital employees, bus and train inspectors, and would you believe even police dogs, to name but a few, have all increasingly been required to wear their own personal constantly recording video package, as part of their everyday work wear.
The deployment of these systems is often in the name of capturing anti social behaviour, although as the technology becomes more widely used, it does raise a number of questions which thus far have not really been addressed.
For example, there really is little or no discussion about the implications for using this technology. Quite apart from an individual being routinely recorded without consent, often going about their lawful business, the fact that there are little if any controls or checks on the way the equipment is currently used, and what might eventually happen to the recordings themselves, does suggest that this may in some respects be the 'thin end of the wedge' when it comes to recognising what may or may not be an appropriate and justified use of the technology.
The Information Commissioner recently outlawed the widescale use of microphones as part of a CCTV installation, and yet Body Worn Video (BWV) sets routinely record speech along with pictures, and nobody dares to question the practice. Come to think of it, in relation to the Data Protection Act, personal data is being gathered, often without the consent or knowledge of the data subject, and there are no statutory signs to notify members of the public that the systems are being used.
Now to be equitable about this, there are obviously a number of situations where the appropriate use of BWV is both sensible and acceptable, but then where as a society do we decide to draw the line.
Twenty years ago, the idea of everyone and his uncle walking down the high street with their own camera phone, was quite literally an idea born from science fiction.
So what if I were to suggest that in perhaps twenty years time, BWV will not only have permeated throughout society, but may indeed be a technology of fashion, with people reluctant to leave home unless their personal video system is both charged and recording.
Shoppers may use the evidence of their recordings to return goods to a store, demonstrating that the sales assistant promised on camera that the product would do something, which it was subsequently found to be quite incapable of achieving.
Covert cameras are already being sold at silly prices, with a range of clothing disguises from baseball caps, ties, handbags, buttons, belts, sunglasses, watches, and goodness knows what else, readily available from a number of far eastern suppliers, and in a range of styles.
Whilst it could be agreed that in the field of video surveillance, we've actually come a very long way in the last few years, many could quite justifiably argue that in some respects, we may already have gone just that little bit too far.
Labels: Body Worn Video, CCTV, Civil Liberties, Closed Circuit Television, Headcams, Surveillance State, video surveillance
Wednesday, 31 December 2008
No sooner has the CCTV future arrived ... then it's past.
So much has happened in the world of CCTV this year, that it's difficult to look back and accept that 12 months have passed quite so quickly.
Whilst the technology moves on apace, particularly in the areas of recording and video analytics, the general level of improvement in system design and deployment doesn't actually seem to progress to any great degree.
That may well be down to an over reliance on the latest technology being used, to offset a lack of knowledge in how best to apply what's already available.
That said, 2008 has certainly been a very busy year for me, with growing interest in my TRUSTED CCTV Improvement project (the TRUSTED Camera Assessment documents are also gaining in popularity), and of course the new VIPER Image Evaluation service has also generated bucket loads of interest from right around the world, so that's very encouraging.
Towards the end of the year, it has become increasingly noticeable how many businesses in the wider security industry, have been significantly affected by the general economic downturn; something which is possibly only a relatively short term phenomenon for some, given that crime tends to increase rapidly when economy's move into recession.
But that aside, looking ahead to 2009 business confidence may well take an increasing hit, but then particularly in the security industry, this tends to encourage a focussing of minds, to hopefully deploy and operate more cost effective and efficient systems.
The days of naively throwing large sums of money at video surveillance projects, are over for the time being, and whilst that may help to improve standards more quickly, there is no doubt that the next year or two are going to be painful for many key players in the industry.
On the technology side, predictions of IP Video wiping out analogue, and in some cases the assertion that CCTV in it's conventional sense is all but dead, will be proven to be nothing more than misguided wishful thinking on the part of those, more in love with the technology, than the operational objectives for which it is used.
Many security managers will be faced with a very simple decision, upgrade to digital to look cool, or leverage their existing analogue equipment, to improve their security operations at a much reduced cost.
Whilst it may not be trendy to admit that conventional CCTV still has a lot of mileage in it, the fact that it will become increasingly difficult to justify going fully digital in many situations, is an unpalatable but necessary technological fact of life.
The wise will hopefully look at the most cost effective ways of improving or upgrading what is required to meet their objectives, whilst the foolish will continue to stick religiously to a utopian dream of technology that solves problems, as if by magic.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, but then there's a world of difference between what a Michelin starred chef can do with a bag of ingredients, and an average canteen cook.
Choose your recipes wisely my friends, and whatever you do, don't be tempted to cook the books :-))
A very Happy, Healthy and Peaceful New Year to you all!!
Labels: CCTV, CCTV Consultancy, CCTV Market forecast, Closed Circuit Television, Digital CCTV, IP Video, TRUSTED CCTV, Video Analytics, video surveillance, VIPER evaluations
Saturday, 22 November 2008
The latest CCTV news offerings from around the globe
After a few weeks of catching up on loads of things that needed to be caught up on, it's now time to get back to the business of CCTV blogging, although quite how one eventually becomes a security camera blogmeister, or indeed an appreciative bloginista, is still something of a complete mystery to me.
And you know what .... you'd be absolutely right!
Every week, I scan through over 200 published stories from around the globe, and the most unusual are distilled down into what I hope proves to be an interesting and palatable mix of CCTV insights - which you can read if you're so inclined on this page.
I'm also very fortunate to have lots of Press Releases sent through to me, from many of the Industry's leading and most respected players, although somewhat bizarrely, many of the company's that actually spend the most on publicity, are the ones that don't even bother to avail themselves of my free news service on the main site; what's it they say about pleasing some of the people, some of the time ....
Anyway, if you want to read all the latest from companies like Altronix, AVT, Bosch, Controlware, Dallmeier, Dedicated Micros, DVTel, Fluidmesh, ioimage, IndigoVision, OnSSI, Pelco, Verint, and Videotec for starters, that's just what's come in during the last couple of weeks - for a complete list of the most recent press releases, have a look at this page.
And of course if you do happen to come across any interesting CCTV / IP Video related newsy stuff which you'd like to share, why not drop me a line and I'd be happy to present it to a wider audience.
Labels: CCTV, CCTV News, Closed Circuit Television, IP Video, security cameras, video surveillance
Wednesday, 29 October 2008
The future for CCTV ... Mega Pixels or Mega problems?
Apologies in advance for the somewhat sensationalist heading to this blog post, but I've been pondering recently the accelerating transition from conventional analogue (frequently described as legacy) CCTV cameras, towards 'how did we ever manage without them' digital models.
You'll perhaps have to forgive me for being ever so slightly flippant with that last comment, but as time and again I come across apparent CCTV "experts" promoting the quantum leap into the wonderful world of MegaPixel technology, as perhaps the best thing since crimp connectors, the realisation for me that things may not be quite so hunky dory has come as a bit of a shock.
Increasingly I find the suggestion that fitting extremely wide angle lenses as a possible killer application for MegaPixel cameras, unfortunately overlooks a glaringly obvious problem with what should be in the great scheme of things, a revolution in imaging technology.
For the benefit of those unfamiliar with the concept of MegaPixel imaging, the theory is actually very simple, so I'll likewise try and explain the issues as straightforwardly as possible.
An everyday standard analogue or IP Video camera may produce an image resolution (horizontal res.) of let's say for arguments sake, perhaps 480 lines.
Now a jobbing 2 MegaPixel camera can normally produce a resolution which is roughly four times that of our conventional example, so unlike a normal camera, the MegaPixel image is actually sufficiently sharp to allow a digital electronic zoom function to be used. This will allow the operator to examine a selected area of the picture for more detailed examination, without having to use the standard approach of increasing magnification with an optical zoom lens.
So far so good, but then recently I've noticed a growing tendency for some practitioners to promote the idea that the MP cameras are so sharp, you can easily fit an ultra wide angle or even borderline fisheye type lens, to cover extremely large areas with just the one camera.
Now this practice may seem o.k. on paper, but then the realities of trying to be all things to all men suddenly becomes somewhat less attractive, when the disadvantages are carefully considered.
Firstly, if you compare the performance of a normal camera fitted with a "standard" lens, against a 2MP camera fitted with an ultra wide angle optic, whilst the latter may cover a much greater area (and at a significantly greater cost), if you zoom in electronically to pick out a face from the crowd, the actual size of the persons head at a set distance, may well be equivalent to ... or dare I suggest even less than, the normal set up - so in this simple example, apart from covering a much wider area, the technical quality advantage presented by a much higher resolution camera, is to all intents and purposes completely lost.
Now the next problem relates to the difference between the two lenses.
With a "standard" lens, a person can move away from the camera a few metres, and the reduction in their head image size on screen will in general terms be minimal. However, with the MegaPixel camera, if it's fitted with an ultra wide angle optic (i.e. a very short focal length lens), any movement away from the camera will result in a very rapid reduction in the size of the person on screen.
So, in order to provide an equivalent size image, a greater degree of digital zoom would be required, which will effectively cause a reduction in image quality (probably through increased "pixellation"); so regrettably, in a purely practical sense, as a technical solution it may actually be far less effective for providing those vital evidential quality images.
This may all sound a bit strange compared to what many would have us believe, but the bottom line as with any video imaging technology, is that the more you ask a camera to do, then generally speaking the less efficient it becomes.
It would be a shame if all the potential quality improvements that are inherent using MegaPixel systems, were thrown away in the rush to adopt the technology in any situation whether optimised or not.
That said, if ever there were a clear case for the uninitiated of caveat emptor (buyer beware), then this would be as good an example as I could reasonably think of ....
Labels: CCTV, Closed Circuit Television, IP Video, Lenses, Mega Pixel Cameras, security cameras, video surveillance
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, 23 October 2008
Defining the use of video surveillance, in a Homeland Security role
The U.K.'s wide scale adoption of CCTV over the last dozen or so years, has in many situations, seen the enthusiastic deployment of technology looking for an appropriately defined purpose.
The idea of public space (mostly Town Centre) camera schemes being tasked with improving public safety, may be a commendable concept in itself, but the legacy of almost exclusively deploying "active" CCTV systems with the inherent cost and operational limitations dictated by their structure, has resulted in a less than convincing argument for continuing the funding of a technology, which parts of the media would now have us believe is failing before our eyes.
The truth of the situation is that much which has gone before, has been an expensive experiment in an open space laboratory, where the outcome in terms of actual effectiveness, has been both predictable and lately proven.
Now anyone that's read any of my spurious scribblings over the years, will be aware that this is something of a recurring theme for me, albeit that it is particularly relevant to review the state of play at this time, given that many of the mistakes made over here, are now being enthusiastically replicated by regional governments and law enforcement agencies, right around the globe.
Where perhaps ten years ago, the motivation for deployment was based on anti social behaviour and mostly low level criminality, the world as we know it has changed in nature, and the ever present threat of terrorism, is now more than at any previous time in our history, a driving factor for the further deployment of expansive and expensive, video surveillance networks.
We only have to look across the pond to our colleagues in the U.S., to see that massive amounts of Homeland Security funding are being channelled into large public space security camera schemes, which despite being less readily acceptable overall to the good folks stateside, are nevertheless being promoted as a necessary weapon in the fight against terrorism.
And yet experience here tends to suggest that given the often low operating efficiency of the average Town Centre camera, the real potential for addressing Homeland Security issues actually lies with the massive number of relatively low tech privately owned and operated cameras, most of which are in urgent need of some proper 'care in the community'.
Considering the security camera images captured of the London Bombers back in July 2005, including the failed attacks a fortnight later, and more recently of course the attempted car bomb attack on Glasgow airport, it is now widely accepted by most law enforcement professionals that privately owned and operated CCTV systems will undoubtedly in the future, hold the key to potentially unlocking both Homeland Security and serious organised crime investigations.
The fact that vast sums of investment continue to be pumped into unsustainable mostly inefficient publicly owned schemes, whilst little if any practical assistance is invested in improving smaller privately maintained installations, speaks volumes for the clarity of thought currently being applied to tackling one of the most serious issues facing our modern societies.
It's perhaps ironic that over here, government grants can so easily be obtained to help stop heat being lost through the roof, yet there's no actual mechanism available to help keep the roof on in the first place.
Labels: CCTV, Closed Circuit Television, crime, homeland security, terrorism, video surveillance
Tuesday, 21 October 2008
So the French have decided to polish up their CCTV act
The UK may be regarded by many as the epicenter of the CCTV universe, but when compared to our freres across the channel, I'm reminded that there may only be a 22 mile strip of water that separates England from France, but in terms of deploying video surveillance in the capitol cities, we're practically living on separate planets.
Following a visit to our shores by Monsieur Sarkozy roughly a year ago, the President was heard to remark about his admiration for the significant and impressive level of surveillance, currently experienced by those people living in London.
Although traditionally, citizens of the republique have been spared the delights of widescale video surveillance monitoring, all that is set to change big time, with the announcement that Paris will receive a further thousand or so Public Space security cameras, within the next two years.
According to this news piece in the Telegraph, cameras are to be installed where they are needed most, which somewhat optimistically assumes that once installed, the political and operational pressures for expansion will somehow be contained through the power of the people.
Far more likely is the scenario that the proposed 44 million Euro investment as described in Le Figaro will provide the pump priming foundation for a far more expansive and no doubt expensive foray, into wide ranging video surveillance throughout the city.
Whether the rapid adoption of city wide video monitoring is actually going to meet the needs of the good citizens of Paris, is perhaps something only the authorities can decide in the fullness of time.
That said, given the proposed expenditure for what is in effect a relative small and no doubt less than efficient 'active' surveillance scheme, this does tend to suggest that whilst Londons past enthusiastic adoption of this technology may well provide a compelling basis for comparison, in practice our less than perfect experiences may not be quite so readily acknowledged, by those who are clearly on a mission to impress.
Bon chance mes amis!!
Labels: CCTV, Closed Circuit Television, paris, security cameras, television circuit ferme, video surveillance
Sunday, 19 October 2008
Community CCTV cameras incapable of catching criminals
It's not that unusual to come across video surveillance cameras that for one reason or another, are quite incapable of producing Evidential Quality Recordings (EQR).
Although to some degree, a wide range of technical issues afflict the vast majority of CCTV security cameras currently in use across the UK, according to this story from The Shields Gazette, the three cameras in question were actually not working at all, when needed the most.
It would appear that the CCTV cameras which were installed to protect a parade of shops in South Shields, had in fact been out of action for a number of weeks due to an underground cable fault, at least according to a Local Authority spokesperson.
Failed equipment is not in itself a story, but where staff are held up at knifepoint, some hours after the suspect has been seen parading around the area supposedly surveilled by the community safety cameras, it beggars belief that the same serious fault which prevented the cameras from functioning, could so easily be repaired within a matter of hours of the attack taking place.
Whilst it's true to say that most equipment failures are only ever discovered post event, in this situation, the council were apparently aware for some time, but failed to effect a repair within what most people would consider a reasonable period.
The local traders may be absolutely fizzing at this blatant example of technical incompetence, but I'd much prefer to regard the failing as an obvious example of the laissez-faire irresponsibility, much beloved by those in authority who's favourite expressions include "we're not worried about that" and "it'll never happen here".
This may be all too familiar to most CCTV Consultants, but for those people affected by poor security management procedures, they could be forgiven for asking who exactly should be held responsible.
Labels: CCTV, Closed Circuit Television, community cameras, security cameras., Town Centre CCTV, video surveillance
Wednesday, 15 October 2008
A little CCTV knowledge is a dangerous thing
As part of the daily work on my main CCTV information website ( http://www.doktorjon.co.uk ), I generally go through a couple of hundred or so Closed Circuit TV related news stories, in what passes for an average week.
Now it doesn't really take that much imagination to accept that apart from the numerous "video surveillance coming to smalltown" stories, being supplemented by a never ending procession of "state of the art" products that will revolutionise CCTV as it is today, every now and again a story will pop up that is ever so slightly out of the norm, although not necessarily for the most obvious of reasons.
So it is with this apparently innocuous news piece from the UK's Telegraph.co.uk.
The writer having picked up on some industry chatter about British Standard BS8418 having a negative effect on many older "legacy" CCTV systems, has somewhat inconveniently extrapolated what is in practice a relatively small problem, and elevated it into the realms of borderline video surveillance armageddon.
The story relates to the suggestion that the new British Standard for remotely monitored CCTV, in other words, systems that are mostly connected to Central (monitoring) Stations, will only guarantee a police response if the sites security camera equipment fully complies with the latest standard.
Unfortunately, whilst the number of cameras being remotely monitored here in the UK, is only a tiny percentage of the overall numbers in use, the article rather confusingly implies that failure to comply may have far wider and more serious consequences for surveillance systems in general.
The one thing we can say with certainty about CCTV, is that very few users have that much interest in the subject, and of those even fewer have a strong grasp of the basics. Where journalists are perhaps innocently inclined towards grabbing sensationalist claims, and then running off towards the horizon leaving a trail of confusion behind them, it certainly doesn't help to clarify an already misunderstood situation.
This article is by no means unique in it's dearth of factual clarity, but then reporting what's wrong is almost always more readable, than maintaining complete and total accuracy in what they write.
Labels: BS8418, CCTV, Closed Circuit Television, security cameras, 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
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]