Maximum security facilities have far different requirements for video surveillance than typical commercial use. In a maximum security facility, like a nuclear power plant or prison, adversaries must be stopped on-site and in progress. This is far different than typical commercial deployments where investigations are the most common use and detering intruders is a key value.
Design Philosophy of Maximum Level Security Facilities
For maximum level security, systems must be designed to stop adversaries before they reach critical assets (see the classic text on maximum level security). To meet this goal, technology, procedures and people are organized for rapid detecton and response. Video surveillance is used to support 3 goals:
- Identifying a threat as soon as possible (e.g., perimeter video analytics)
- Tracking the movements of an adversary (e.g., cameras throughout a facility)
- Coordinating a real-time response (e.g., VMS software and PSIM)
Of course, video surveillance cannot be used alone. Barriers must be employed (fences, doors, gates, etc.) to slow the movements of adversaries. Guards must be able to respond quickly. Indeed, guards must be able to respond in less time than it takes to identify the threat and for the adversaries to pass the barriers.
When done correctly, some deterence is gained because adversaries may realize the low probability of success and investigations may be unecessary because attacks are either averted or stopped in progress.
Indetifying a Threat
Using video surveillance to identify threats is a relatively new approach to maximum level security system design. The most common historical approach is to use sentries (i.e., guards) or electronic/mechanical systems (like leaky coax, fiber optics, pressure sensors). In the last decade, using video surveillance cameras with video analytics has become a third major option. The benefits of using video surveillance cameras is that they provide identification and verification in a single device. The drawbacks of video analytics is the accuracy (though all of these devices have certain weaknesses in various environmental conditions or intrusion scenarios).
For any identification tool, the goal is to place the sensors as far out as possible and with barriers in between to maximize the time to review and respond to the identification.
Tracking the Movements of an Adversary
Once an intrusion is detected, in a maximum security facility, guards must be able to track exactly where the adversary is moving. This is critical because the goal of such systems is to stop the adversary before they complete their task.
Video surveillance cameras are deployed throughout the facility to enable the guard to track the suspect. In large areas, controllable PTZ cameras will be used so that the guard can move the camera to follow the adversary. These cameras are often supplemented with fixed cameras with a wide area view to help the guard locate the general position of the adversary.
Co-ordinating a Real-Time Response
Since speed is critical, a variety of software systems are often used to help the guard immediately track and not lose the adversary.
- 2D and 3D Mapping systems that embed the locations of cameras can help the guard determine where a suspect is and where they might be headed
- PDAs/Phones with video monitoring applications can be used to help the on-foot responders locate and track the adversary
- Physical Security Information Management systems can be used to coordinate response and trigger other systems (like locking doors or turning on lights).
The faster and more likely security can respond to an adversary, the higher the probability of defeating the intrusion. Software can eliminate risk and reduce time.
Maximum level security facilities must integrate a variety of technologies into a coherent system that facilitates early identification, lengthy delays and rapid responses.
On the other hand, most organizations do not need and likely cannot afford designing this type of system. However, appreciating and using these principles in any design can help clarify and focus the use of video surveillance technologies to better secure facilities.
Hikvision's ImageNet Win Analyzed
on Nov 28, 2016
Hikvision is pushing hard to move up market and win at video analytics.
One notable sign is Hikvision touting their #1 ranking for an ImageNet...
China Hot For Intelligent Video
on Oct 27, 2016
The clear top theme at the 2016 Security China show has been intelligent video.
This is a big shift from past years, and China's historical focus...
Intrusion Motion Sensors Tutorial
on Oct 04, 2016
Motion sensors are one of the most common, and most useful alarm sensors, but they also often cause problems. Many motion sensors types exist and...
History of Video Surveillance
on Sep 22, 2016
This is a concise history of video surveillance covering the past decade.
The goal is to help professionals newer to the industry understand...
Most Recent Industry Reports
The Russian SMP Security Robot
on Dec 08, 2016
A Russian manufacturer, SMP, has a commercially available outdoor security robot, at a lower price and with much less marketing than their main...
How Hikvision Beats Its OEMs
on Dec 08, 2016
Hikvision GM declared that they are not aggressive with their competitors.
But some of their own OEM partners disagree.
Inside, we reveal a key...
IP Networking Course January 2017
on Dec 08, 2016
This is the only networking course designed specifically for video surveillance professionals plus it includes live training, personal help and...
Hikvision vs Dahua Mobile Apps Tested
on Dec 07, 2016
With smartphone use and low-cost video recorders surging, many user's main interface to their surveillance system is their phone. With mobile video...
Sony IP Camera Backdoor Uncovered
on Dec 06, 2016
A backdoor has been uncovered in ~80 Sony IP camera models, attackers can remotely enable telnet on the camera, and then potentially login as root,...