Biggest Misconception Security Managers Have About CCTV

This is an interesting perspective. I think most industry people mean 'forensics' when they say 'surveillance'. This is the heart of the live monitoring vs recorded video distinction.

And I see the positive of trail cams, in that they are inexpensive, high resolution and simple to set up. But, then, you absolutely give away all possibility of 'surveillance'.

While I agree that most of the time, cameras are not being used for 'surveillance', the possibility / ability to periodicly conduct surveillance is quite valuable.

Trailcams? Really? That is horrible advice. Dropcams are cheaper than a quality trailcam AND easier to program/install. Not to mention the aesthetics difference between the two.

If I said to an executive, “What? You want to see live footage of what is going on in your house from anywhere on any device? That is stupid, put up this trail cam.” I would be out of a job and rightly so.

Also, what security managers is Mr. Strauchs talking to that are so ignorant of the field they are in? Are you sure he was not speaking about managers or corporate executives in general? Maybe IT Security managers?

Btw, this is not the first time a senior industry person has raised concerns about users deploying too many cameras. See our interview with Charlie Pierce.

I mostly agree with him. In some ways, he seems closed-minded. It's almost like he's only provide part of a solution.

My thoughts... there are two (main) different reasons why you usually put up cameras. One is proactive (meaning actively watched), the other is forensic (after the fact, "lets see what happened") in nature which fits most implementations/installations. If it's after the fact, then the video could be handy in resolving the breach, identifying the perps, etc., and so yes, it's important to have imho.

Further, it's up to the installer/integrator to get that message accross. And to me, there are two types of installers/integrators... one has the physical security background to identify the correct needs of the client, and the other has the skills and background to install devices. Most that I have seen fall into the latter. It's much like having the cable guy come install your cable television service... they put it where you (or sometimes where they)want it without any further thought. You get my drift.

What also needs to be made clear is that video surveillance is only part of the solution. To take it out completely is like installing a home theater system with no speakers.

His use of 'forensic' is interesting. I would have used 'investigatory' or 'evidentiary'. Makes the meaning clearer.

That said, his recommendation of trail cameras makes a lot of sense if 1) they're going to be used as "trap" cameras, recording some tempting valuables and letting a thief get caught stealing them, and 2) if you have to decide between hiring security officers and paying for cameras. If your CCTV budget is seperate from your security officer budget, though, or if you use surveillance video as a force multiplier to make your officers more effective, then I would argue that surveillance offers greater value than he's implying here.

But an interview like this is just a reminder than security isn't a product, it's a process. If in a particular case security officers give a better value than cameras, then security officers is the way to go.

One of the biggest issues buying surveillance system is that the buyer often focuses and chooses between either a great sales man or the price and maybe both. All 3 will often not solve his problem.

In many cases I think that the customers has to little knowledge about what is possible and what is needed to solve different problems or issues.

Furthermore it is not that often that one solution will solve all issues.

NOTE: I woul never advise trail cams!!

I take it that when saying that "...he’s hardly seen anywhere other than military facilities and prisons with effective surveillance programs" Mr. Strauchs hasn't visited many casinos? Because they tend to have the money and, at least in Asia, the manpower to effectively monitor (vital events at any rate and this effectively means losing gaming tables or slots or high value transactions) and to perform forensics when it is believed that something has gone on.

In addition there are integrations out there, including the company I now work for, that take data feeds and integrate this with video so that, provided the system is digital, any event can be viewed instantly; as well as providing analytics that can identify suspicious incidents buried among the data so that people can look at it, bring their expertise to bear and determine whether a crime has taken place.

I appreciate that this is not a common market, but it is a large one with considerable resources at its disposal and systems to monitor POS transactions are not only a must have but relatively cheap too.

In UK Casinos audio of the gaming tables, Cash desk and receptions are allowed. This, despite the fact that it is well known, doesn't deter staff fromtalking about all kinds of subjects. Including on one memorable occasion a trainee croupier regailing his colleagues with stories of his drug fueled debauchery of the night before. Suffice to say his employment was not long continued.

Any deterrent effect, IMO, is short lived, if it is even noticable. Most people realise quite early on than it is unlikely that anyone is actively watching and therefore decide to "take their chances".

He is obviously blissfully ignorant about Casino Surveillance.

I'd argue that there was still a lot of value to be gained by forensic examination of video footage. Maybe incidents were not detected while they happened but later review may identify perpetrators, or procedural loopholes. Such as the failure to lock-down quickly enough in that school from which the autistic pupil escaped?

To me, as a Security Manager, a security camera is most valuable whenever an alarm system sensor is tripped and a near-by camera can be used by the video operator to verify the issue so he can provide the most propper response to the scene.

Consultants seem to like to differentiate themselves from one another, and lessening the importance of video seems to be this guy's thing and I wish him luck.

I was thinking he had a bad experience with surveillance in ye olden dayes and hasn't reexamined his assumptions since then. Maybe the VCR ate his tape and let a bad guy get away.

I am not sure what to think of the article. I really did not get much out of it other then to say I am not sure John Strauch does not know what he's talking about. If he is talking to a true Security Professional who is truly in the Security industry working in his field then John does not know what he’s talking about.

If he is talking to an individual who has the title of security manager and this is merely a collateral duty or part time hat he or she wears when not doing his primary function as properties manager or building engineer then he is right they have no clue what they are asking for or what the final result will be.

Take even the large universities or independent school districts often the director of security is a police officer. Many police officers don’t know what they are talking about when it comes to cameras either. However they are given the title of Security manager or director of security.

A good friend of mine whom I served with in the military for years, is the director of safety and Security for a large Texas College. He is the first person to admit he knows little about Security and lots about Safety.

Even many bank’s and credit unions don’t have a knowledgeable about security. The main reason for this is there is no requirement to put a person in charge of security who knows what they are doing. The bank Protection act of 1968 says the bank must appoint a security officer. In many institutions this person is a senior lender or other banker who has other duties such as finding new clients to bring in revenue not protect the banks assets.

The only point John makes that makes sense is the fact that there is a difference between putting in a system to actively watch for as I like to put it “catch shop lifters” in a retail store such as Target or Wal-Mart and putting up cameras for evidentiary purposes for review later. This has been stated before but another point to bring up is all to often people think they simply can put up a PTZ camera and solve the entire problem and cover an entire scene.

I recall one of my deployments with the military to the Middle East. My mission was to help run a prison set up after 911. During the deployment the prison was receiving some much needed upgrades. One being the planning for a CCTV system. One of the individuals I had to work with was under the impression that if we simply put up ten PTZ’s through out the facility we could cover the entire prison. My plan called for 45 fixed cameras and only 4 PTZ’s. We argued about this point for days. He just did not understand the point that yes a PTZ can be moved to any point in its field of view but the issue was that when it looked in one direction it was not looking in another.

Anyway my point being most true security professionals understand what they are asking for. And the folks John is describing are not security professionals. They are simply wearing the hat along with many others and they probable spend most of their time on the job they know best and which in most cases is not security.