The Washington Post recently did a lengthy investigation into video surveillance systems that featured both Verkada and IPVM's testing of Verkada. We just released a follow-up to this, Verkada Below Average Facial Recognition Tested
The article cites our testing:
Verkada's rebuttal to WaPo was that we made a mistake:
The reality was we did not make a mistake and that Verkada acknowledged this. For months, for whatever reason, they did not respond to our emails about our test results (it's the norm for us to email companies we test prior to releasing sharing problems found). On a positive note, in the last few weeks, Verkada's communication on our testing has improved, we did talk through the facial recognition testing extensively with them and the results were fundamentally poor, covered in Verkada Below Average Facial Recognition Tested.
The dispute about facial recognition performance aside, the central question is how much of these issues are the fault of Verkada, or any surveillance manufacturer, versus the customer of those systems, as the opening from the article describes:
When they installed the new surveillance system, local officials promised it would help tamp down a gang war menacing this forgotten steel town. But residents of Steubenville public housing soon learned the cameras were pointed at them.
One man was filmed spitting in a hallway. A woman was recorded removing a cart from a communal laundry room. Footage in both cases was presented to a judge to help evict the residents in court.