Govt Tool Automates Surveillance Requirements

By John Honovich, Published Nov 06, 2013, 12:00am EST (Info+)

What if an online tool could generate specific recommendations on meeting high quality surveillance requirements? This is the objective of a recent tool from the US Government's Department of Commerce. In this note, we review the tool, demoing it in a video screencast and explaining its strengths and weaknesses.

Background

*** "*************** **** *** ***** ************" *** ********* ** ********* ****** ************** ******************.

*** **** ******* * ****** ** 7 ********* ** ****** **** ** usage, ************** *****, ****** ****, ******, lighting ***** *** *******. *** **** then ********* * ****** ** *************** for *** ***** ****** ***** *** bitrates.

*** ***** ***** ** ** ****** and ****** **** *** ****:

Well ******* *** ****** ******

******* **** **** *** ***** **********, and ** ** ******, ***** **** security ***** ************. *************, *** ********* overlook *********** ******* ** ************ (**** how **** *** *** **** *** scene ** ************, ** *****). ******, even **** *************** ****** **** **** ********* ***** (though ***** ********* ******* ** *** own *****).

*** ********* ** **** ***** *** so **** *******, *** ***** ** which ** *** **** ******** ** product *********** (****** **********) *** ******* options (**** ** *** *****, *** have */*, ***** *** *****, ********** IR, ******** ** *** *******), **** any ********** ******* ** * *** basic ********* **** ** **** ******* to ********* ******* *********.

** ** *********** ******* *** ********** could ** * ****** ******** ** fundamental *********** *** ********* ** ******* even ****** ***** ***************.

Comments (11)

Avatar

Luis Carmona

Geutebruck USA
IPVMU Certified | 11/06/13 04:21pm

Why don't they just put together a list of independant security consultants? I know they're trying to take out as much of the corruptable human factor as possible, or reduce variables and subjectivity, but at some point you gotta trust someone.

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Luis Carmona | 11/06/13 04:45pm

Because if you could do it online, it would make it dramatically simpler, quicker and cheaper. It's certainly a good goal but at some point you have to be realistic if your automation attempt does not deliver on it (hello video analytic vendors past and present :)

Marc Beningson

In reply to John Honovich | 11/07/13 04:38pm

you mean like the affordable health care web site?

Avatar

Ross Vander Klok

IPVMU Certified | 11/06/13 04:22pm

I am sure this was money well spent though. Probably only took them ten or twenty million to program it....

Avatar

Hal Bennick

Trafficware, a CUBIC Company
11/06/13 07:32pm

Must...control...political...rant...

Jim Elder

IPVMU Certified | 11/11/13 05:39pm

John. I totally agree with your evaluation; but the idea seems sound. This would be a great tool, if it did addressed all your points.. Maybe you could send your comments to the author. Better yet, maybe IPVM could author such a tool. I can't think of anyone bettter to do it.

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Jim Elder | 11/11/13 05:45pm

Such a tool is the "Holy Grail" of surveillance. I've thought about this for years but have been equally concerned about our ability to do it right, simply because it's complex and it's easy to screw it up.

I think we are getting closer to doing this, now that we have a strong wealth of tests behind us.

Our development schedule is as follows: Camera Finder 2.0, then Manufacturer Spider 2.0, then Camera FoV / Lens calculator tool. After that, we will strongly look at a recommendation tool.

Jim Elder

IPVMU Certified | In reply to John Honovich | 11/11/13 05:48pm

Thanks... What's the time table?

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Jim Elder | 11/11/13 05:51pm

We are in the middle of Camera Finder 2.0, development should be done in the next few weeks, then Spider in December, Camera FoV/Lens calculator January.

Btw, Camera Finder 2.0 may not be officially released until the new year as it will take us a month to repopulate / build the database with new camera entries.

Andy Lee

IPVMU Certified | 11/14/13 04:08pm

I don't know why you said it makes vague recommendations, it said you need 632.813 GB storage. Can't get much more specific than that.

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Andy Lee | 11/14/13 04:25pm

You're right! That one is very specific, it's just a shot in the dark. The way they got 632.813 is assuming 2Mb/s bandwidth per camera for 30 days.

The problem is that 2Mb/s is a wild guess considering there's no specification of frame rate or resolution (or camera used, since that can cause massive variations as well). The video could average 2Mb/s or it could be far higher or lower. See our How to Calculate Surveillance Storage / Bandwidth Guide.

Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts reporting, tutorials and software funded by subscriber's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.
Loading Related Reports