Useless.

[EVILjbf]

Our cctv is useless. We don't have access to it, only the police do. the feeds are wired into the local precincts but that is about it. they pull the tapes when something major goes down.

[Rooney]

I have done installations where that was a requirement. Only police feed and no local recording or operation. Mainly on military installations going to the Military police headquarters.

Is this at a business? If so, where are you located (generally)?

[craig333]

That boggles me too. Only one site I've worked did I have access to the video. I can't even begin to guess why.

[Sir Flannel]

Weird. I can understand it being annoying for a manager not being able to review if he thinks a guy was shoplifting, but I don't know that it's useless. Is the system losing video to the police? Does anyone in the sight's chain of command get to request the cops pull video? Who gets to decide what "major" is? I have seen it in conveinence stores, where you don't want the counter jockey to be able to mess with the recorder.

[NRM_Oz]

I have seen this done at store level with 1 retailer I worked with as some of the stores had staff access the sealed cabinets (pays to know who has keys to security cabinets, etc) and destroy evidence but forgot about the twin HDD's on the DVR which I set up to make a backup. Not sure whom your client might be but I also know on high risk sites there are 2 chances of front line staff - even the security manager having access to review footage - NONE and NONE. At 1 data centre it was only myself and the security technician who had access through the DVR systems to review footage to supply clips to the police and facilities manager.

[EVILjbf]

we actually have a police substation onsite. The police never ever go in there but the computers linked to the cameras are in that room. We don't have keys and the owners of the buildings don't even have keys for that room.

[NRM_Oz]

They may have remote access through another site or master control unit but either way who owns the equipment and services it ? I was at 1 building where I informed the other tennants that we had the building access control server in our security office and only the building manager and our staff plus any technician had access 24/7 as sometimes passes would expire mid weekend and people would be unable to access there offices.

[bigdog]

We have CCTV on my site but the only one that has access to it is the manager. Its linked in to his office computer.

[N. A. Corbier]

Usually the security personnel aren't actually thought about when it comes time to create a CCTV system, unless is an office where there will be a 'console operator' who has the task of staying and watching the CCTV.

The CCTV is there to lower insurance rates, etc. :)

[CameraMan]

Usually the security personnel aren't actually thought about when it comes time to create a CCTV system, unless is an office where there will be a 'console operator' who has the task of staying and watching the CCTV.

The CCTV is there to lower insurance rates, etc. :)

Which is retarded and totally negates the very reason that CCTV exists. :confused:

[N. A. Corbier]

Perfect Example:

15 camera system, multiplexer, VHS (ew) recording system, etc. Proxim Card Readers on all doors, PC interface.

All locked in a closet in the safety director's office, with a 4 inch layer of dust on it. The guard had no access to it, and most of the guard force had no idea it existed.

I knew about it because I had to reboot the damned thing once after using my master "Oh shi-" key to open the proxim fail-secure doors.

Yep, they were in fail-secure configuration.

[CameraMan]

Perfect Example:

15 camera system, multiplexer, VHS (ew) recording system, etc. Proxim Card Readers on all doors, PC interface.

All locked in a closet in the safety director's office, with a 4 inch layer of dust on it. The guard had no access to it, and most of the guard force had no idea it existed.

I knew about it because I had to reboot the damned thing once after using my master "Oh shi-" key to open the proxim fail-secure doors.

Yep, they were in fail-secure configuration.

So... the CCTV system was an emergency redundant backup security system for in case the primary security system, ie the guard force, failed? I don't get it. Who the hell speced this system? Who approved it? Why pay whatever thousands of dollars for a security system and not use it to make you more secure?

Never underestimate the power of stupidity, that's all I can say.

[darkenna]

I feel odd in this thread... a good chunk of my life has been spent in retail and club environments, where CCTV is an active tool, accessible and usable even at the lowest security level. What's the point of having a monitoring system if you can't use it to monitor and review? Now, I'm not saying every Dante & Randal should have access to it... but anyone in a management or security/investigative capacity should have access, and use it regularly. The only situation I can think of where your line guards should not have access to the CCTV system is in extreme high-security areas, and every system I've ever encountered has the capability of selective observation. And even if you have to hard-wire a camera out of a particular monitoring loop, it's easy to do.

[Bill Warnock]

Darkenna you need not feel odd. You are used to using CCTV the way it was meant to be used. Nathan ran across a client whose security director, not all that uncommon, had his head wedged in the terminus of his alimentary canal.
I have surveyed organizations that had cameras galore to include those that looked at each other. Others had cameras but no monitors or recording equipment. In a few instances, there was no one to monitor the CCTV system and as Nathan described, locked away in a room gathering dust.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[darkenna]

Darkenna you need not feel odd. You are used to using CCTV the way it was meant to be used. Nathan ran across a client whose security director, not all that uncommon, had his head wedged in the terminus of his alimentary canal.

Well, at least it was only in the terminus. I've worked for some that it was so far into the canal that it was at risk of digestion... :eek:


I have surveyed organizations that had cameras galore to include those that looked at each other. Others had cameras but no monitors or recording equipment. In a few instances, there was no one to monitor the CCTV system and as Nathan described, locked away in a room gathering dust.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

I've caught officers doing that: "Stop watching the camera; it's not doing anything wrong."

What is the point of surveillance... if you're not surveilling? :confused:

[Bill Warnock]

Darkenna pleased be advised that some security supervisors were until most recently siding supervisors working for shaky contractors.
I subscribe to your remark of interfering with digestion. I've seen it both in government and in the private sector.
I continue to be amazed at how long we have travelled the security road to have only gone such a short way.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[CameraMan]

Now, I'm not saying every Dante & Randal should have access to it... but anyone in a management or security/investigative capacity should have access, and use it regularly.

LOL... awesome reference.

As to the cameras looking at each other... I always tried to install cameras so that cover each other. If you disable a camera, you will be recorded by some other camera. You'd have to disable two or more widely separeted cameras at once to not get caught.

Of course, this may be because a lot of my work was in high risk areas such as public housing, where there is not only crime but vandalism as well, especially to cameras.

Sure, I'm paranoid... but am I paranoid enough?

[Curtis Baillie]

In covert employee theft operations I made it a practice to place a camera watching the camera equipment. Imagine the look on the face of an employee when he has denied his actions, and you show him on tape tampering with the equipment.......priceless.

[HotelSecurity]

We don't allow our Officers to have access to view what has been recorded because of the problem we were always having. A guest who parked his car in the free open parking lot gets it stolen while he is away on a 2 week vacation. He comes back in the middle of the night & can not find his car. He sees we have cameras & DEMANDS to see the video. The Officer then has to spend hours looking through 2 weeks of recordings to see the car being stolen. Then what? Seeing it does not bring it back. The criminals do not wear name tags. If you refuse to show it to the guest they accuse you of coverup. Meanwhile while he is looking for something that happened days earlier other cars are being stolen. We found it was easier to say (and it is true) only the Director can review the recordings.

[NRM_Oz]

Like Curtis, I have also had opportunities for `welfare cameras` as I called them for not productivity monitors but for ensuring the person doing the monitoring or review is not tampering with anything. Whilst it is far easier to do this with VHS taped incidents, "honesty challenged" staff will try just about anything to cover up their actions or those of a colleague.

I recall searching for the back up CCTV server (tape and HDD based) in 1 store I worked at, only to find it like N.A's case behind a wall unit, covered in a piece of carpet and used as a shelf for storage. It had not been touched for a few years and even the technicians were unaware of it's location. It was promptly relocated with a vast cable run to a secured cabinet.

[darkenna]

LOL... awesome reference.

I was hoping someone would get it. :cool:


As to the cameras looking at each other... I always tried to install cameras so that cover each other. If you disable a camera, you will be recorded by some other camera. You'd have to disable two or more widely separeted cameras at once to not get caught.

I was actually referring to a PTZ being focused in on another PTZ, watching it spin 'round. Fascinating, yes; but totally unproductive.


Darkenna pleased be advised that some security supervisors were until most recently siding supervisors working for shaky contractors.
I subscribe to your remark of interfering with digestion. I've seen it both in government and in the private sector.
I continue to be amazed at how long we have travelled the security road to have only gone such a short way.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

:eek: Odd... the very man I was thinking of was a backhoe operator only 5 months earlier.

[EVILjbf]

Well, I don't know if it's comforting or not to see that so many other people have problems with their surveillance situations.

On the one hand, I'm not alone

on the other hand, technology that could be used to help people is being wasted away.

[N. A. Corbier]

So... the CCTV system was an emergency redundant backup security system for in case the primary security system, ie the guard force, failed? I don't get it. Who the hell speced this system? Who approved it? Why pay whatever thousands of dollars for a security system and not use it to make you more secure?

Never underestimate the power of stupidity, that's all I can say.

It was specced by the Safety Manager, installed by FacEng (Maintenance), and then thrown in a locked closet and only the safety manager knew/cared about it.

Also, I forgot. They weren't proxim. They were the bar code reading kind of door scanner. All supervisors from the guard firm had photocopied IDs of the regular "Guard1" card, so that they could get in.

They also had biometric time clocks because the employees would make photocopies of their ID barcodes and use the copies to clock each other in/out.

It required a thumb print to clock in/out. They tried to make us use it once, but that lasted a day as it was a material breach of contract. (Client cannot supervise the guard force.)

[integrator97]

We don't allow our Officers to have access to view what has been recorded because of the problem we were always having. A guest who parked his car in the free open parking lot gets it stolen while he is away on a 2 week vacation. He comes back in the middle of the night & can not find his car. He sees we have cameras & DEMANDS to see the video. The Officer then has to spend hours looking through 2 weeks of recordings to see the car being stolen. Then what? Seeing it does not bring it back. The criminals do not wear name tags. If you refuse to show it to the guest they accuse you of coverup. Meanwhile while he is looking for something that happened days earlier other cars are being stolen. We found it was easier to say (and it is true) only the Director can review the recordings.

The answer to this problem, is to loop the cameras out to in inexpensive switcher or mux, and monitor for the guards. The can see live video, and still be able to say they can't review it for someone. Better security all around.

[HotelSecurity]

The answer to this problem, is to loop the cameras out to in inexpensive switcher or mux, and monitor for the guards. The can see live video, and still be able to say they can't review it for someone. Better security all around.

We do this but we don't encourage the staff to sit in the office & monitor them. they work solo so need to be out patrolling. They can watch them while writting reports. I can watch them through my computer at home.

[secguy]

I worked a high profile 16-story condo. that had 7 cameras.

There were a few occasions where it would have helped me investigate had I
access to the monitor (which was in the sales office?)

The lobby of the building had a concierge desk that I was stationed at
some of the time.

As part of my investigation I found out some of the problem was the building
manager............he gave some residents a key to the freight elevators.