Police Require Problem Businesses To Get Video Surveillance

Author: Ethan Ace, Published on May 31, 2016

Government intrusion or smart practice?

One city is requiring business that cause repeated problems to get video surveillance. In this note, we examine what they are doing and the pros and cons of this approach.

********** ********* ** ***** ********?

*** **** ** ********* ******** **** ***** ******** ******** ** get ***** ************. ** **** ****, ** ******* **** **** are ***** *** *** **** *** **** ** **** ********.

[***************]

Approach ********

*** **** ** ********* *** ***** ********* ********** ********** ********* ******** ************ ******* ************ *******. ******* ******** ********** *** ***** ***** receive ***** ***** ********** ** * ** *** ****** (*****, loud *******, *********, **********, *** ****) ** *** ******* ******* in * ****, ********* ****, *******, *******, ************, ***. ***** classifications *** ***** ** **** *********** *** ******** **********, *** only ********** *** ******** ** ******* ************.

**** ********** ** * ********, ****** *** ******* * **** to ******* ***** ********* **** **********. ********** *** ******** ** install ************ ** **** ** **** **** (****:***** ************ *** *** ***** ** *** ******** *****). ****** connection/live ******* ** *** ********, **** **** *** ****** ** installed *** *********.

********** *** ********** ***** *** *********** ** ******** *** ******* (via *****) *** ****** ******** ** ***** ********, *** ***** three ********* ***** *******, ***** ** ** $*,*** *** ****** for ********** ***********.

**********

***** *** *** ********* ********** ** ***** ************:

  • ******** *****:** **** ** ****** *********, ********* ************ ******* *** ******* police **** ***** ** ********* ***** **** *** ********** *********.
  • **********:**** ******* ************* ********* *** *******, ********* *** ** **** less ****** ** ****** ****** ******. **** ******** ******** *** stop ******** **** ************** ** **** ****** ***'* **** *** record ** **** ********.

*************

*******, ***** *** *** ************* *** ****** ***, ** ****:

  • ********* ********* ************:****** *** ****** ****** ** *** ******** ************ ****** **** can **** ** **** ***** ************, **** ****** ******* ***** to ****** ****** *** ***********, ******* *******, ** ************ ************, making *** ****** *********** ******* **** *** *****.
  • ****** *** ********* ** ********:*******, ****** ****** *** ******* ************ ** ***** ** **** this ***********, **** *** *** ** ********* ** ******** * system **** **** ****** ** *******. *******, ******, ** ***** components *** ****, ******* ****** **** ** ***** ** **** of *********. **** **** ** *********** ************ *** ******** ** the ******** *********.

** * ********* ******** *** *** ******** *****, **** *********, even ***** ***** ** *****, *** ****** *** **** *** notion **** ****** *** ** "********" (****** **** **** ****** is *** ******** *** ** ********) *** **** *********** *** business, ********* *******.

****

**** ** *** *****? ** **** ********** * **** ****, likely ** ****** ********* *** **** ****** *** ***** *****? Or ** ** * *** ****, ********** ********* *** ******** to ******* *******?

**** ** *** **** *** *******:

Comments (15)

Must require a minimum base line spec to be followed and approved by City through permit process.

Is that from a document?

From a UK perspective, this is the default for bars, clubs. Part of the licensing conditions will be the requirement for CCTV.

The issue is its not "to a standard" but its still a general requirement.

More regulations imposed by bureaucracy that has minimal understanding of what they are requiring always sounds like a good idea. Also love the idea of mandating an additional cost of doing business.

The Police tend to find its a waste of time just arresting, charging etc,its often the same people fighting / dealing or causing issues. Using the CCTV they tie in "pub watch" schemes and Police orders banning individuals from the venues or the areas.

To work you need the full circle, councils, businesses and Police to buy in. If you don't its seen as an extra cost and wont be used effectively :)

Businesses are required to install surveillance as part of this plan...

Is this actually part of the Milwaukee Nusiance Ordinance, or some creative police interpretation of the statute?

Well, it would appear to be a strong arm tactic of LE since there is no explicit remediation involving purchasing video surveillance anywhere in the very long statute.

Police must approve of a plan, if they don't they can put a 24/7 cctv truck watching the property and charge you for it.

So I assume that threat is enough to make property owners comply with the far less costly suggestion of self monitoring.

Overreach for sure, but couldn't be for a better cause!

note: I voted "just show me the results".

Detroit is saying they will eventually require businesses that are opened past 10pm to connect to the PD.

"Chronic Nuisance Properties are those which receive three minor complaints in a 30 day period..."

Required upon COMPLAINT? Not upon conviction?

What a great new lever to push! Three noise complaints in a month? Thousands of dollars in costs as well as the disruption of an installation?

In one case, a disgruntled individual made verifiably false official statements which successfully enlisted the coercive power of government to place demands upon business resources. Resultant government inspections cost about half a person-day. Proving the statement false required more than an additional person-day. Beyond these costs, no long term ill occurred, but those false claims had the (unrealized) potential to terminate the business.

The individual wasn't punished -- for him: mission accomplished.

If only I were a trunk slammer....

Step one: purchase a few dozen TracFones (burner phones)

Step two: Call in three noise complaints on each and every piece of city-owned property, forcing the city to install video surveillance.

Step three: Show up at City Hall with a van full of DVRs and Cameras.

Step four: Profit?

As a potential downside for the business owner, some clientele, even those doing no wrong, may simply not like the notion that police may be "watching" (though live view access is not required and is unlikely) and stop frequenting the business, affecting revenue.

Why would the clientele think the police were involved at all, and not just think that the business put in a security system on their own?

Related: I just saw this article about a town in Iowa expanding their surveillance ordinance to businesses other than convenience and liquor stores:

While the current ordinance essentially requires convenience stores and liquor stores to have cameras, the proposal would add banks and credit unions, carry-out restaurants, coin dealers, payday lenders, firearm dealers, hotels, cellular phone dealers, money transmission services, pawn brokers, pharmacies, scrap metal dealers and second-hand goods dealers.

Most of these businesses are likely to have systems anyway (which the police acknowledge in the article) but interesting that they require it by law for this many categories.

Video has not proven to be a deterrent for many of the named crimes listed above so that pro is out the window. Sounds like more uninformed government overreach.

This was mandated by the State of Florida in the late 80's for C-Stores and the like, open after 11PM along with lighting, clear windows, etc. Lots of pushback and rebellion from C-Stores until they could buy $300 DIY systems from Sams!

Another simple solution that might work.

From the perspective of local municipalities… for private property deterrent alarm systems.

No permits, no registration, no regulations, no requirements of any kind, except fines/fees for false police reports, paid by the caller. Calls from monitoring firms for emergency police response to private property deterrent alarm systems will receive the same priority as all other citizens.

Emergency police response only IF witness to a 911 type emergency. Lower priority response would apply for all other "suspicion calls".

Remote Video or remote audio could qualify as remote witness (but not ECV). This would be motivation for private upgrade to audio/video witness technology if wanting the emergency service.

Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts unique testing and research funded by member's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.

Related Reports on Police

City Physical Security Manager Interview on Mar 14, 2019
This physical security pro is the Physical Security Manager for the City of Calgary. He is a criminologist by training with an ASIS CPP credential....
US City Sued For Hiding Surveillance Camera Map on Mar 08, 2019
Should maps of public surveillance camera locations be kept a secret? That is what one US city is trying to do. Though the city admits the...
Verified Response Discontinued in Silicon Valley San Jose on Feb 28, 2019
Almost all security alarms are false. This has driven some municipalities to require verified response before dispatching police. However, now San...
Police Department Surveillance Manager Interview on Feb 28, 2019
Former Memphis PD Surveillance Manager, Lt. Joseph Patty retired months ago, but kept busy during his decades on the force, working to build up...
Massive Leak Of Chinese VMS Provider Exposes Xinjiang Surveillance on Feb 20, 2019
A subsidiary of China’s claimed largest VMS provider is tracking the precise location and ethnicity of millions in China’s Xinjiang region,...
Austria’s First GDPR Fine Is For Video Surveillance on Jan 29, 2019
Should EU businesses be concerned if police see a business' surveillance cameras filming public areas? This is what happened with Austria’s first...
Mobile Surveillance Trailers Guide on Jan 17, 2019
Putting cameras in a place for temporary surveillance where power and communications are not readily available can be complicated and expensive....
The False SCMP Story on Hikvision NYC AI on Jan 14, 2019
In the past week, one of Asia's largest publications, the South China Morning Post (SCMP), posted an article about "Chinese [facial recognition]...
Infinova's Xinjiang Business Examined on Dec 07, 2018
As pressure mounts for companies to stop doing business in China’s Xinjiang region amid a severe human rights crisis, IPVM has found Infinova sold...
ADT Wins Fire Death Suit But Faces Appeal on Dec 05, 2018
ADT/Protection 1 has won a wrongful death court case in which it was sued by the estate of a deceased customer. However, the attorney for the...

Most Recent Industry Reports

Avigilon Launches 'Renewed Products Program' on Mar 19, 2019
There are lots of 'pre-owned' cars but pre-owned IP cameras? While such programs are common in other industries, in video surveillance, they are...
Hanwha Tax Evasion Probe, Camera Division Implicated on Mar 19, 2019
A Hanwha group subsidiary was raided as part of a tax evasion probe. While a Korean news media report listed the raided entity as 'Hanwha...
Genetec Security Center 5.8 Tested on Mar 19, 2019
Genetec has released Version 5.8. This comes after a wait of more than a year that caused frustrations for many Genetec partners. Our previous...
Retired Mercury President Returns As Open Options President on Mar 18, 2019
Open Options experienced major changes in 2018, including being acquired by ACRE and losing its President and General Manager, John Berman who...
Large US University End-User Video Surveillance Interview on Mar 18, 2019
Schools have become targets in modern days of active shooters and terrorist fears. The need for video and access security is high. Universities...
Hikvision Favorability Results 2019 on Mar 18, 2019
Hikvision favorability results declined significantly in IPVM's 2019 study of 200+ integrators. While in 2017 Hikvision's favorability was...
ONVIF Favorability Results 2019 on Mar 15, 2019
In the past decade, ONVIF has grown from a reaction to the outside Cisco-lead PSIA challenge, to being the de facto video surveillance standard...
Installation Course - Last Chance on Mar 14, 2019
This is the last chance to register for the March Installation course. This is a unique installation course in a market where little practical...
City Physical Security Manager Interview on Mar 14, 2019
This physical security pro is the Physical Security Manager for the City of Calgary. He is a criminologist by training with an ASIS CPP credential....
US Drafting Separate Rule for NDAA Dahua/Hikvision 'Blacklist' on Mar 14, 2019
The most debated provision of the NDAA ban of Dahua, Hikvision, Huawei, et al. is the so-called 'blacklist' provision which would ban any company...

The world's leading video surveillance information source, IPVM provides the best reporting, testing and training for 10,000+ members globally. Dedicated to independent and objective information, we uniquely refuse any and all advertisements, sponsorship and consulting from manufacturers.

About | FAQ | Contact