Las Vegas Mass Murder Used Video Surveillance - Fair To Cite Manufacturer Used?

JH
John Honovich
Oct 04, 2017
IPVM

Manufacturers love to do case studies, taking credit for surveillance systems in pizzerias and hair salons and various other random applications (e.g., Axis pizza case study, Hikvision pizza case study, etc.)

Now, the Las Vegas mass murder used video surveillance cameras, according to authorities. 

Which raises the question - if manufacturers can use random applications as marketing for their companies, should a company's products used by a mass murder be mentioned as a 'negative' 'case study' for that manufacturer.

Why or why not? Discuss.

UM
Undisclosed Manufacturer #1
Oct 05, 2017

No, one can hardly blame the camera manufacturer for anything in this case. You can argue with some credibility that the purpose of a security camera is to keep people safe. It would be a different debate if you were talking about the gun manufacturer.

My nightmare however, is the case where a camera or VMS crashes and reboots and goes offline for 2 minutes at a critical moment during a crime. It's a different debate in that case also. 

(1)
JH
John Honovich
Oct 05, 2017
IPVM

No, one can hardly blame the camera manufacturer for anything in this case.

So conversely can you praise the camera manufacturer in a pizza case study? If yes to that, why no to this case?

UM
Undisclosed Manufacturer #1
Oct 05, 2017

In the pizza case they are giving an example where their product is solving the problem that the vast majority of customers wish to solve - it is being used for the purposes it was designed for. If someone used it for a different purpose, and there is no way to stop them, you can't really blame them. It would be like blaming the automobile manufacturer in the Charlottesville case. Most people know it could have been any manufacturer, and that the car was not used for the purpose it was designed for. In fact cars are probably designed to minimize damage if they collide with people, but there is only so much they can do to stop misuse.

The only case I could think of where negative publicity might be justified is if it were a camera built and/or marketed in some gimmicky way for dodgy purposes. e.g. covert, "tactical", wireless spy camera marketed to teenagers or kids...   I think I do recall seeing an ad a long time ago that fits this description. 

(3)
JH
John Honovich
Oct 05, 2017
IPVM

It would be like blaming the automobile manufacturer in the Charlottesville case.

Disagree. If a murderer hit someone in the head with a camera and killed them, that would be the analogous case.

In this case, the mass murderer used a surveillance camera in a standard way that surveillance cameras were designed to be used. His use case was gaining advance knowledge of who and where his adversaries were and the camera succeeding in helping him there.

The problem was that he used the cameras for a horrific, unethical end but the cameras were used as designed.

(2)
UM
Undisclosed Manufacturer #1
Oct 05, 2017

They were used for what they were designed for, but not for what they are intended for. The vast bulk of the market for camera manufacturers are people and organizations purchasing cameras to make people and property safe and secure. i.e. crime prevention. This is surely what drives design meetings in the board room. That is they don't say, "well a small percentage of our customers are weirdos, we need to have a special model to cater for them...". So there is no ill intent on the part of the manufacturer.

You could just as well blame the manufacturer of his contact lens, or hearing aid, or the hotel because all of these were essential tools to carry our his plan.

I am half expecting someone now to file a lawsuit against the camera company on behalf of the victims families. Person A commits crime against person B, person Z gets the blame.

 

 

(1)
(1)
JH
John Honovich
Oct 05, 2017
IPVM

So there is no ill intent on the part of the manufacturer.

I agree that there is no ill intent on the part of the manufacturer. I also don't think the manufacturer has any legal liability or should be sued.

However, my point is that if manufacturers can increase their brand value by running case studies of random every day uses of their products, why cannot their brand be fairly viewed negatively for their products being used in bad things?

Avatar
Brian Karas
Oct 05, 2017
IPVM

why cannot their brand be fairly viewed negatively for their products being used in bad things?

Unless a corporation encouraged nefarious use of their products, why should they be viewed negatively if someone takes it upon themselves to use the products that way? Should the manufacturer of the freezer that Jeffrey Dahmer stored body parts in be viewed negatively because of that?

I think many people recognize that things intended for Good can be used for Bad. Unless the manufacturer is actively promoting use case scenarios that imply wrongful use, I do not see how they can reasonably be viewed negatively when someone decides that a product designed for good is used instead maliciously. 

Does anybody remember some of the X10 camera pop-up/under ads of the late 90s? Those definitely crossed some lines. If he had used X10 cameras, I might agree that the manufacturer encouraged such a use and should be viewed negatively.

Suggesting the manufacturer could/should be viewed negatively only leads to more stupid warning labels. If some politicians see this we are going to end up with camera activation pop-ups that say "I agree to only use this product for good...". And it will have the same net effect as other click-wrap agreements: none.

(2)
JH
John Honovich
Oct 05, 2017
IPVM

product designed for good is used instead maliciously.

Disagree. The product, in this case a camera is designed to monitor the customer's environment. It was not designed to consider the ultimate moral objectives of their customers.

Both the pizzeria and the murderer used the product as it was designed, to monitor their environment. One was ultimately good, one was ultimately bad, but the product was not designed to only monitor environments of pizzerias, it was designed to let anyone monitor their environment.

(1)
(1)
Avatar
Orlando Ayala
Oct 05, 2017

If the devices performed as designed. Why would this be a negative case study?

(2)
UM
Undisclosed Manufacturer #1
Oct 05, 2017

Because it's associated with the worse mass killing in US history!!!

RS
Robert Shih
Oct 19, 2017
Independent

Well, let's pose it this way:

What if you ran a gun review and education site instead of being in this industry. You mean well and you preach safety and all that jazz, but come to find out that this man made his weapons choices based on our collective knowledge and recommendations. Would you want this incident and man to be a ringing endorsement on effective gun use and the educational effectiveness of this site?

You may be posing this as a perceived hypocrisy and a mental exercise to check what kind of gymnastics are necessary to de-equivocate using positive events vs negative events that showcase product efficacy, but overall this is a line that isn't just drawn in proverbial sand.

We can take it a notch further and ask if anyone wants their products endorsed by IS and the answer should be a resounding "no".

Just because the tools and knowledge themselves are neutral and we can claim that we're showcasing efficacy and not morality in endorsement, not having that filter will exude amorality by association and is typically horrendous for PR.

U
Undisclosed #3
Oct 05, 2017

you said pizza.

JH
Jay Hobdy
Oct 05, 2017
IPVMU Certified

A certain truck saves a company money by hauling xx amount of cargo and gets 200 mpg etc etc. This would be a valid case study.

 

Any idiot can take any car or truck and plow a crowd down.

 

This analogy can be applied to a lot of products.

 

No you can't blame the manufacturer 

(6)
U
Undisclosed #3
Oct 05, 2017

order pizza.

stop your analogy theories.

order a second pizza, stuff your face.

RS
Robert Shih
Oct 19, 2017
Independent

Exactly.

That is not the kind of case study to prove that your horsepower and torque are second to none.

The Japanese were particular assholes in using defenseless Manchurian civilians, lining them up and seeing how many heads they can cut through in one horseback run.

Product efficacy examples do have unwritten morality standards.

U
Undisclosed #2
Oct 05, 2017
IPVMU Certified

...should a company's products used by a mass murder be mentioned as a 'negative' 'case study' for that manufacturer.

Sure.  

But if the camera crapped out, then should it be praised? ;)

(1)
(2)
U
Undisclosed #2
Oct 05, 2017
IPVMU Certified
(1)
(2)
U
Undisclosed #3
Oct 05, 2017

After reading this thread all I want to do is order pizza.

 

Not for me, but for my overweight coworkers. 

 

Just so I can hear them chew, chew, chew, burp. 

 

From surveillance to PIZZA. Kudos.

U
Undisclosed #2
Oct 05, 2017
IPVMU Certified

Where does one find 'negative' case studies in this industry, anyway?

Except for on IPVM, I don't think I've seen any ;)

(5)
(3)
U
Undisclosed #4
Oct 05, 2017

However, my point is that if manufacturers can increase their brand value by running case studies of random every day uses of their products, why cannot their brand be fairly viewed negatively for their products being used in bad things?

 

It is horrifying to me that this question was even asked, and it makes me question my membership here. 

There is absolutely no reason the manufacturer should be viewed negatively based upon what one lunatic decided to do, UNLESS there is something specific to that brand that led the lunatic to choose it over others. Only then is it is a relevant discussion in any way. Otherwise, it's clickbait nonsense to even mention the manufacturer.

 

(3)
JH
John Honovich
Oct 05, 2017
IPVM

It is horrifying to me that this question was even asked

In your opposition #4, you have not considered my question. I will state it again:

However, my point is that if manufacturers can increase their brand value by running case studies of random every day uses of their products, why cannot their brand be fairly viewed negatively for their products being used in bad things?

Now, I actually agree that manufacturers should not be viewed negatively for a mass murder using their product. That is not what I am getting at.

What I am emphasizing is that manufacturers play that same game with fluff case studies, trying to get positive press for random uses of their product. I think it's logically consistent that if manufacturers can use some uses of their product for brand building, than other uses of their product should be open to brand damaging.

 

UM
Undisclosed Manufacturer #1
Oct 05, 2017

other uses of their product should be open to brand damaging

By who? The manufacturer isn't going to voluntarily use it in a case study to damage their own brand. A competitor would look equally silly.

(1)
U
Undisclosed #4
Oct 05, 2017

I considered the question, and then I was so blown away that you were even asking that I forgot about it and couldn't think of anything else to type other than "wtf did i just read," which got cleaned up into what you see above.

Let me just make sure I understand the logic here.

The marketing department of a company assembles a case study that can be used for a competitive comparison between their products and other products in the marketplace. Not surprisingly, the case study is overwhelmingly positive, and should, in theory, showcase the features and functionality of the product that sets it apart from other similar products.

Since a company is so audacious as to present their product in a positive light, you are suggesting that it also stands to reason that when a deranged individual utilizes the product in a way that was obviously not intended and causes harm to people -- through no fault or action of the device itself -- you believe that it should be fair game that the company be negatively impacted by that story.

If that is the case, then I will state it again --

wtf did i just read?

The idea is absurd and terrifying. It is akin to me suggesting that the next time that someone named "John" commits some heinous act, that your name should be listed as complicit.

The company -- whoever it was -- had absolutely nothing to do with what happened. Attempting to associate them in any way should be shouted down from all corners.

(4)
JH
John Honovich
Oct 05, 2017
IPVM

The company -- whoever it was -- had absolutely nothing to do with what happened. 

If the company has nothing to do with what happened for a heinous crime that used their products, than logically the company would have nothing to do with what happened for a pizzeria that used their product.

Clearly, you and most believe that when a company's products are used for some moral application, the company has something to do with what happened. So, to be consistent, if that product was used in an immoral application, it too would have something to do.

Without telling me how 'blown away' or 'wtf' you are with my analysis, can you calmly tell me where the flaw in this logic is. I am happy to read it carefully and respond thoughtfully. Thanks.

Avatar
Brian Karas
Oct 05, 2017
IPVM

If the company has nothing to do with what happened for a heinous crime that used their products, than logically the company would have nothing to do with what happened for a pizzeria that used their product.

Many times the company DID have something to do with the positive outcome. They solicited their top integrator partners for a customer with "Problem X" because they wanted to highlight some aspect of their products. The company, via sales or marketing people, work with the customers and integrator to ensure the right units are selected, and may even discount or give some of the product away for free in exchange for the right to use the customers name in the case study.

Obviously no company is going to be actively involved in a scenario where someone wants to use their product for a purpose that would have nothing but negative connotations.

 

(2)
JH
John Honovich
Oct 05, 2017
IPVM

That's a good counter. Does that mean case studies should then only be done for projects whether the manufacturer is, as you say, 'actively engaged' with the customer? And what level of engagement is needed to qualify as it being more than just product?

(1)
Avatar
Brian Karas
Oct 05, 2017
IPVM

I think of case studies as analogous to "serving suggestions", or the pictures you see beside recipes in cookbooks.

Odds are, your version is never going to come out exactly like the perfectly crafted and positioned example shown, but you should be able to replicate something close.

Case studies, like serving suggestions, help show potential customers how the item could be used, combined with other 'ingredients', and set expectations for a positive outcome.

I do not think the manufacturer needs to have been actively engaged for the case study to be used.

Similarly if somebody pours orange juice, instead of milk, over their Cheerios,  I do no think General Mills (or the dairy that produced the milk) should get any negative feedback for the combination/use of their products that was never suggested or endorsed.

(3)
JH
John Honovich
Oct 05, 2017
IPVM

I do think there is a good distinction between case studies that include services vs products. A service, by nature, is done directly for a customer, which implies the service provider is involved and choosing to support the customer.

Taking marketing credit though for a product usage, with no services, however, should logically follow that the manufacturer should also accept criticism for other negative uses of their products.

(3)
(1)
UM
Undisclosed Manufacturer #6
Oct 05, 2017

By their very nature, true case studies require active engagement with their end users.  The bigger the case study, the more direct engagement required.  I.e.  Gas station case study with direct quotes from small biz owner to multi-thousand camera stadium project which would need images and quotes likely run through legal dept, PR dept and an exec review team.  

One of the easiest ways to spot what you call a "fluff" case study is by measuring the amount of engagement that would have been required to provide as detailed information as they do.  If applications, methods, locations, resolutions etc are discussed alongside of genuine screen shots and quotes from stakeholders, then the case study was a joint effort and went through many layers of vetting.  If it sounds like just a single third party describing a generalized application of one customer who basically just agreed to allow their name and logo to be used, it's easy to pick up on.  

So as it relates to your overall post, there's no real equivalent like you're implying.  Anyone who would do a 'case study', positive or negative, directly from or against a MFR used in this unintended way would just be someone adding to that cloud of worthless fluff pieces.  And of course there is no manufacturing organization that would actively "engage" with such a customer. (except perhaps the NRA)  

So in answer to your original question...  No.  It's not OK.

(1)
Avatar
Adam Messina
Oct 05, 2017
Qumulex

I love marketing.  That said, in the wake of a tragedy such as this, I would rather people did not use the event to push any agenda, be it commercial or political, positive or negative. 

(9)
(1)
Avatar
Brandon Knutson
Oct 05, 2017
IPVMU Certified

Didn't he use a baby monitor? (I now can't locate where I read that)   

UI
Undisclosed Integrator #5
Oct 05, 2017

I can't believe you would even suggest this as a serious topic for discussion.

(4)
(2)
Avatar
Orlando Ayala
Oct 05, 2017

This is a ridiculous topic but the answer is that the equipment performed as designed and, if anything, would be a positive case study of a terrible event.

The event isn't what a case study highlights, it's the performance of the equipment covering the event. Of course certain events could highlight the performance of a device but they are not inherently what is being judged.

(1)
JH
John Honovich
Oct 05, 2017
IPVM

The consensus here seems to be:

It is ethically acceptable for a manufacturer to take credit (e.g., case study) for its products used in moral applications but it is ethically unacceptable for a manufacturer to be criticized for its products used in immoral applications.

I believe this is logically inconsistent. If someone sees a flaw in the premise or the logic, I'd like to hear it.

(1)
UM
Undisclosed Manufacturer #1
Oct 05, 2017

You are equating two different scenarios.

Person A successfully uses product from Company B for the market driven purpose that it was designed for. Company B takes credit for it.

It doesn't logically follow that that is equivalent to:

Person A successfully uses product from Company B in a way not intended to harm person D. Person E blames company B.

Or you could argue that Company B could proudly take credit in both cases because the product functioned correctly, so it is logically consistent. But it doesn't have to be logically consistent to be bad idea to use it in a case study, since when one is concerned with branding and so forth you are dealing psychology, and the human mind is anything logically consistent most of the time.

JH
John Honovich
Oct 05, 2017
IPVM

Good feedback.

for the market driven purpose that it was designed for

Are surveillance products designed only for moral purposes? If they were, the license agreements would have clauses that would prohibit immoral use. If they were, the products would design features to detect immoral use and disable the product, etc.

The products are clearly designed in a morally neutral way. The cameras are tools to help people monitor. The people wanting the monitoring function of a surveillance camera could be 'good guys' like the police or 'bad guys' like drug dealers. And that is a realistic use. I am sure lots of drug dealers use surveillance cameras to better monitor against intrusions from the police.

Certainly manufacturers benefit from a marketing perspective when their products are used morally but they are certainly not designed in any way to stop immoral uses of their products. Agree/disagree?

UM
Undisclosed Manufacturer #1
Oct 05, 2017

Are surveillance products designed only for moral purposes?

In absolute terms, no. In practice the answer is yes, because the product features are driven by customer demand and that is overwhelmingly for crime prevention. The criminal element would be very small, and probably has no market influence.

The products are clearly designed in a morally neutral way.

Certainly manufacturers benefit from a marketing perspective when their products are used morally but they are certainly not designed in any way to stop immoral uses of their products. Agree/disagree?

They are not designed to prevent misuse because there are constraints no one has control over. It is impossible for the camera manufacturers to prevent the Las Vegas incident unless they stop selling cameras altogether, in which case the criminals win. In anycase, I do not want my camera to make a moral decision about what it is being used for. Especially these days, no one can agree on a single moral system anyway. Google apparently uses AI to make moral judgments on what videos are being uploaded, we don't want that in this industry. 

 

(2)
SC
Scott Clingan
Oct 05, 2017
IPVMU Certified

No and it isn't really relevant.  While this may be a case of "too soon" it just does not seem to have merit to discuss period.  Who would even write a “negative case study” and why?   I hesitate to even further this discussion at all honestly.  While I sort of get your goal of trying to focus on the “logically consistent” part, this was a swing and a miss discussion to start in my opinion.     

(4)
UI
Undisclosed Integrator #5
Oct 05, 2017

Agree wholeheartedly. The entire premise of this post is beyond ridiculous.

(5)
(1)
U
Undisclosed #2
Oct 05, 2017
IPVMU Certified

Would a case study of a marijuana dispensary be negative or positive?

Marijuana is illegal at the federal level, often legal at the state level.  If you derive morality purely from legality( I don't), you might view a company bragging about "keeping cannibis safe" negatively...

 

(2)
Avatar
Robert Summers
Oct 05, 2017
IPVMU Certified

In my humble opinion, it would be unethical for a manufacturer to seek publicity in any manner associated with such a heinous, tragic event.

(2)
U
Undisclosed #2
Oct 06, 2017
IPVMU Certified
(1)
U
Undisclosed #2
Oct 07, 2017
IPVMU Certified

From an e-mail I just received:

"We will never, ever let the actions of one person prevent us from delivering on the expectations of this great city."

Really?  Two people though and its at least a lousy weekend...

Perhaps its a dig at Mandalay, and their lack of Marines?

Related: Wynn Casino Has Metal Detectors And Devices At Every Entrance Non-Visible To The Public?

UI
Undisclosed Integrator #7
Oct 07, 2017

Perhaps someone who understands that Vegas rises or falls together after an event like this. 

U
Undisclosed #8
Mar 31, 2018

I found a picture of the hallway outside the killers room that shows how (and what) he used for surveillance:

 

 

Is that a doorbell camera?

Avatar
Orlando Ayala
Mar 31, 2018

Looks similar to this Logitech Webcam.

Avatar
Jon Jones
Apr 05, 2018

Oh I am betting if it was a certain manufacturer it would be blasted all over this site.

(1)
(1)
U
Undisclosed
Apr 05, 2018

title update suggestion "Las Vegas Mass Murder INVESTIGATION Used Video Surveillance"

 

Also there's a movement to not crow about the perp in these events so anybody using this for advertising will get to deal with that.  

New discussion

Ask questions and get answers to your physical security questions from IPVM team members and fellow subscribers.

Newest discussions