The World's Most Demanding Surveillance Requirements

"It looks strong enough" is the best reason I've ever heard for accepting a piece of equipment. If that's not highly technical, objective specmanship, I don't know what is!

The increased security measures in Qatar and the demand for clear identication and long term storage is the rationale behind their new video requirements. Not to forget the fact that more than 150 security integrators where asked to hold their business activities due to their inability or poor qualification to deploy high end professional video solutions.

Undisclosed manufacturer, while these requirements certainly will improve image quality and reduce poor quality integrators, hasn't Qatar gone to the other extreme? I can understand that, as people who sell surveillance, why this would be celebrated but as businesses, this is essentially a unnecessary tax. It's the equivalent of everyone being required to use MacBook Pros. They might be 'better' but at a radical increase in cost.

Ray, All, Am I alone in thinking that this is radically overkill? How much safer does this make Qatar at what cost?

I'm sure you are not alone in that thinking. Overkill was my first thought, but then I had a second one, because I have a number of clients whose successful approach to QoS on the network is overprovisioning.

I was thinking that Qatar's initiative could be more akin to that as a means to assure high quality and capability for video surveillance.

How bad could things get over there? I don't know. But if they could get "very bad", at the very point where threats have scaled up to warrant this level of widespread tech deployment, it will be way too late to get things in place.

Given the wealth of the nation and its general level of prosperity compared to others, this may not be overburdensome regulation.

The NFPA is working here in the U.S. to make its security system standards published as code, with the intention of having municipailities and other authorities adopting the code as law. "enabling enforcement" is a term used in their statements about the initiative. Insurance companies have been the principal driver, intending to reduce loss claims.

I've seen enough bad security systems that I can't completely oppose such measures. The question always is: Will the intended results be achieved with minimal unintended bad consequences?

Certainly the prevelance of video surviellance will have some deterrent effect. How much safer will people be? Time will tell.

It would be interesting to review the analysis that led to this initiative. Of course, if such an analysis exists it most likely would be highly confidential.

If you grandfather existing installs, the minimum mandates are pointless - especially if there are already large numbers of existing installs.

With their wealth, if they want to make the sweeping mandate, they should also provide a scaled platform of reimbursements to existing surveillance users. i.e. if you installed it the day before the mandate takes effect, you get most of your cash back. If your stuff is 320TVL crap you've had for 5 years you get nothing. Everything between is scaled.

John, Daniel amd Marty - I have heard stories of installations in India and other Middle East locations where a lot of money was spent on what we would consider outdated equipment. The worst cases were characterized as "legacy product dumping". In India it is common for the sale to be made directly to the customer, who then engages an installer after the fact of purchase. This has often been done with no security design plan to guide things. The criticisms were about (a) overpricing of the outdated technology and (b) insufficient address to actual security needs.

How much of this is an element of the situation in Qatar? I have no idea.

We're looking at requirements that are a mix of functional and technical. To have miminum standards and a grandfathering program, a selectoin of functional standards would have to be utilized, and maybe some additional functional standards implemented. Perhaps with an age limit to the installation, like what Marty was describing, grandfathering could work--even without rebates if the age line was drawn appropriately.

In the U.S. the approach most widely used for security regulations has been to require a site security plan that covers people and process as well as technology. Most facilities I have worked with don't need to rip and replace whole systems, just upgrade. In some cases existing systems have been fine.

I haven't had the time to read the entirety of the Qatar spec docs, but many of the specifications items are general enough that they wouldn't negatively constrain an appropriate design. The situation could still come out alright if common sense prevails, which is not usually the case. But then setting the bar this high for security requirements is not the usual case, and neither is the country's overall financial status.

We're stating opinions and making assumptions with practically no Qatar-specific knowledge to back us up. Dangerous territory unless you are just talking in a discussion forum, as we are.

Undisclosed Integrator, Thank you for providing these insights.

This reminds me of how some coutries who were lacking in telecommunications infrastructure began their major infrastructure initiatives with cellular technology rather than wired infrastructure. It was faster and less costly, and so they skipped a generation of legacy technology and went directly to current-day tech.

It is going to be interesting, and probably enlightening, to see how all this unfolds for Qatar.