The CCTV Reality

[yanieh]

News about CCTV System failures are being reported on television, radio and newspapers; and are even rapidly spreading over the web like fire. This reality triggers the qualms on the reliability of CCTV Systems. Due to this fact, the concerned public can't help but ask and react.

Do CCTV Systems really help us protect our personal and professional assets and properties? Or are they just waste of money?

Do you believe it is a Win-Lose business offering from the CCTV Products manufacturers? That they are just making money out of the deals and not really taking the responsibility of providing the proper security solutions that customers deserve?

Do you agree that CCTV Systems don't really work as deterrent to potential thieves? And serve more like just decors to business and home facilities?

If it really isn't helpful then why are there more and more businesses and residential structures requiring CCTV Systems be installed on their sites? Why do some government sectors of different countries enforce the installation of such equipments to private and public places as a law?

A CCTV should work and perform the way it was designed. It should provide security and protection. As we all know, there isn't a single thing perfect in this world. A CCTV System may honestly fail at times but what's important is for us to know the factors contributing to its failure and how we are going to deal with it.

Please feel free to visit my site as well and share your own significant views: http://security-made-easy.blogspot.com/2008/08/cctv-reality.html

[CameraMan]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

1) CCTV is for evidence, not deterence. Any deterence functionality you get out of your CCTV system is secondary and should not be a consideration when specifying jobs.

2) Most CCTV failure (defined as a CCTV system which fails to give evidence sufficient to solve or help solve a crime) is due to improper equipment specification or improper installation.

[integrator97]

We'll start with systems failing: In my opinion this is often the clients fault. They insist on using the cheapest equipment. They rarely check playback until they need it. They often don't even check the cameras to see if the are functioning. Better equipment will last longer and be more reliable. You should verify playback regularly, at least once a week. Better DVR's can email or alert you when a hard drive gets too hot, or a camera fails, though not usually if it doesn't fail entirely (such as a washed out picture).

Sales people often take advantage of the lack of knowledge of the customer, to make the sale. "Sure you can record your 16 cameras for 60 days on this 80 gig machine":mad: sales people and installers don't explain how to or the importance of verifying system operation and recording on a regular basis.

CCTV can work as a deterrrant, but often people use them instead of alarm systems. CCTV is evidence, not security in the same sense as an alarm system. Also, in reference to above, you can rarely identify someone whose picture doesn't fill a large portion of the screen, especially if it's someone you don't know. Covering large areas with one camera is good if watched live, or to see what happened, but not to determine who did it.

Basically, people generally expect too much from the systems they aren't willing to spend enough money on, or aren't willing to research. Rather than do a little due diligence themselves, or pay a consultant, they end up with the slickest talking salesman who convinces them that their cheaper product is just as good.

[Silva Consultants]

CCTV systems don't provide security or protect life or property. While CCTV can be a useful tool as a part of an overall security program, CCTV and other electronic security systems by themselves are not the solution to most security problems.

A good security program includes an effective combination of security operating procedures (user training, guard patrols, etc.), proper security architecture (site and building layout, fencing, lighting, landscaping. etc.), and electronic security systems (CCTV, intrusion alarm, access control, etc.). The design of an effective security program begins with a comprehensive security assessment that identifies the client's specific risks and threats. Once this has been done, a security program that addresses these risks and threats in a cost effective manner can be developed.

Too many clients think that they can solve all of their security problems by just putting up a few cameras. In addition, most clients have totally unrealistic expectations about what can be viewed and recorded by a single camera, and are unwilling or unable to spend what would be required to provide the coverage that they actually desire. Too often, they are aided and abetted in their misconceptions by the people who are selling CCTV equipment. These people don't want to risk losing a sale, and would rather sell a few cameras (that won't do the job) than try and convince the customer to buy what is actually needed.

[darkenna]

News about CCTV System failures are being reported on television, radio and newspapers; and are even rapidly spreading over the web like fire. This reality triggers the qualms on the reliability of CCTV Systems. Due to this fact, the concerned public can't help but ask and react.

Huh? I've not heard any news about such "failures." What sort of failure? System or hardware failure? Or failure to be useful in providing evidence? I can tell you that the only "failure" to any of my systems in recent months was due to a lightning strike on the building, which blew through a pair of surge suppressors and fried 3 out of the 4 fuses in a pair of J-Boxes. Which were quickly repaired. Other than that, they've been operating perfectly.


Do CCTV Systems really help us protect our personal and professional assets and properties? Or are they just waste of money?

Yes, they can help. Manned systems can provide instantaneous response to wrongdoing, and continuous observation of suspicious activities. Recorded stills can provide evidence of occurrences for follow-up prosecution. The first provides protection; the second allows for recourse should something actually occur.


Do you agree that CCTV Systems don't really work as deterrent to potential thieves? And serve more like just decors to business and home facilities?

CCTV can most definitely act as a deterrent, if set up correctly. No, they won't give any pause to the professionals or the dedicated, it is true... but they will deter the amateur or the opportunistic. A camera attached to a public view monitor can have a tremendous impact on theft.

[jack chu]

I work in Chinese factory of CCTV surveillance system, I knew that, generally, the system won't fail, for the system itself work at proper load,
much lower than other equipment.
then, why they fail? the most reasons, appears to be from outside, no good installation, operation mistake, no regular check and maintain on equipment after installation finished!

[CameraMan]

I work in Chinese factory of CCTV surveillance system, I knew that, generally, the system won't fail, for the system itself work at proper load,
much lower than other equipment.
then, why they fail? the most reasons, appears to be from outside, no good installation, operation mistake, no regular check and maintain on equipment after installation finished!

Agreed! Regular systems checks and regular maintainence is essential.

[SecTrainer]

I haven't noticed the news that you cite, Mr. Chu, but I wouldn't make too much of it. Obviously, "non-failures" of all of the other installed systems in the world, which must number in the millions, would not be reported so there's no balance in such reporting.

Systems fail for the reasons you cite, and they also "fail" on a functional level for other reasons, even when they are working properly. For instance, the system is not being monitored properly, or it was not designed for the purpose it is being used for. For instance, if you want the system to provide identification of a perpetrator, the camera must have sufficient resolution to provide facial details, it must be properly positioned, properly focused and there must be adequate lighting of the subject's face. Any system that doesn't meet these criteria might be said to "fail" if used for this purpose even if the system itself is working properly.

CCTV systems, in and of themselves, have little or no deterrent value in some circumstances, but may have a great deal of deterrent value in others. This value actually depends on the criminal's calculation of the risk of being caught based on what the CCTV can provide - i.e., notification and evidence.

For instance, a "smash-and-grab" burglar will calculate that he can cover his face to defeat identification, and that he can commit the crime and escape before CCTV (or alarm) notification can result in an effective response. On the other hand, an employee will probably be deterred from skimming cash from the sales register if there is a camera trained (properly) on the sales counter, and a dock hand would likely be deterred from certain kinds of theft by cameras covering the loading dock. I find that CCTV systems have greater deterrent value in preventing both crimes and misbehavior by employees than by outsiders.

[yanieh]

Thank you very much for the wonderful comments. The news were about CCTV's failure to cut crimes and provide evidences for police investigations. I do believe a CCTV System can perform to its optimum efficiency and effectiveness if the raw materials and equipments will come from a quality and reliable CCTV Supplier. Failures of the system can be prevented if it is to be setup and maintained properly. Still, I think it all boils down to choosing the best Supplier and Installer for the CCTV System.

[cat]

The news were about CCTV's failure to cut crimes and provide evidences for police investigations.

Are you referring to the public CCTV surveillance systems in England?
I don't believe those type failures apply to a properly installed and monitored private installations.

What a bureaucracy is able to do with the information (overload?) and what a private party directly involved in the loss do are two different matters.