CCTV Interoperation with Security Professionals

[eric_burcham]

Howdy! My company sells a lot of equipment, like these GeoVision DVRs (http://www.apexcctv.com/c-7-geovision-dvr.aspx), that have a lot of tightly integrated features such as:

1) Access Control Integration - Record on entry / exit swipes, record when door left open, record on PIR motion detection, etc...

2) Alarm system integration - Record on alarm input, record on relay open/close, etc... Also can trigger outputs when motion detection is detected, etc...

3) Notification Integration - Send email/text/sms message on any kind of alarm input, relay open/close, etc...

4) Notification when video is lost or scenes change significantly, for example, a burgler unplugs or destroys a video camera.

Also, all of this stuff can be based on schedules, so if there is motion detected in area A of this mall after 11:00PM, when it should be empty, record and send an alarm output AND send a text message to a security guard, etc...

My question is this. Do any of you security professionals use this type of integration? Is there significant demand for it? Do you think it could be made to be effective? There was a lot of demand for developing these features, but I almost never see them being used. It seems that in a large office building, for example, cameras could be placed on elevator and stairwell doors on each floor, and the guard on duty could get a text message or page whenever there is motion at a time when there should be no motion.

I have always thought that with proper implementation, this could really reduce the need for walking properties and make it much easier to find someone if something shady is going on.

In any case, I would love to hear your input on the situation.

For full features of what I am talking about, you can always check GeoVision's (http://www.geovision.com.tw/english/3_1.asp?stable1=Pro&sfiled=pgid&pno=29) website.

THANKS for the advice!

[darkenna]

Eric, in a word... yes.

I cannot speak for the general asset protective service, but in retail LP some of those integration features have been a godsend. The company I work for uses primarily Intellex units these days (tho we do have some other systems out there), and being able to set higher record rates, flags, and auto-call-ups (amongst other things) to occur automatically durings incidents such as alarms, motion detection, EAS activation, and video loss has been an invaluable tool in the follow-up investiagtions. They have also been quite useful for notifying monitoring officers of incidents elsewhere in the building as they occur, allowing us to (more than once!) "get the drop" on something before it turned into something serious.

Again, just speaking from my little corner of security, the integration of these systems has been very helpful.

[Maelstrom]

Yes integration of such monitoring facilites is relatively commonplace... well at least around here ;)

BTW seems like more of a subtle 'sales pitch' the a question :p

[Curtis Baillie]

Yes integration of such monitoring facilites is relatively commonplace... well at least around here ;)

BTW seems like more of a subtle 'sales pitch' the a question :pI agree. This type of equipment is widely used in the security industry. I too thought it was a sales pitch, but let it ride to see what responses it garnered.
Off to the Vendor forum.

[eric_burcham]

Sorry to dissappoint... I'm not in sales guys. I'm actually the CTO here. I oversee our IT infrastructure, website development, security, technical support, and, among other things, product aquisition.

A few years ago certain things were all the rage. Missing object detection, object left behind detection, health monitoring, real-time notification, on and on. Basically all the stuff that I mentioned plus a lot more.

The interesting thing to me is, at least amoung our customers, nobody much uses them. I have about 3 dozen casinos, 6 of them on the strip in Vegas, banks, large and small retail strips, public and private schools, rapid transit authorities, tollway authorities, all in all a pretty wide spectrum of customers running this equipment. Frankly, I'm wondering if I should continue pushing the high-end gear or start bringing in more stuff that falls in the "simple, rugged, easy to operate, but definately does NOT do it all" category.

We have come to jokingly call all the other stuff "marketing" features. They're good to have up your sleave, but when it comes times for installations to be done, there is seldom a phone call asking us to set that stuff up.

As far as a sales pitch goes, perhaps :), but not directly. What I am interested in arming my VP of sales to prepare a sales pitch, so I'm trying to gather information here first. We are interested in working with security and alarm companies to get more on the integration side of things. We just had our first $5,000,000 year, and have been saving our pennies. We are finally large enough and have the expertise aboard to truly persue this line of the market and have it be viable, so here I am doing my homework.

I don't mind getting a little fun poked at me in the meantime, and thanks for the quick responses.

[eric_burcham]

There is a Vendor areas? Where is that?

[eric_burcham]

Got it. Off to the Vendor Forum means I've been MOVED to the Vendor Forum. Thanks!

[FireRanger]

In my opinion, I feel that integrating CCTV systems with your access control system along with things is a great benefit. A site that my company has, requires one officer to monitor 60 some cameras over an array of several different monitors. They have their PTZ units set-up to automatically turn to and focus on doors that go into alarm. This one function has greatly increased security's ability to respond to alarms faster. In addition not only can we respond faster, but should something occur and we do not get there in time. We now at least of evidence on tape of what happened when the alarm was recieved. This also saves time because the SCC operator doesn't have to sit there see an alarm come in on his alarm screen and then manually plug in a camera and move it to the door in question.

For companies that have multiple sites, should look into hooking their DVR's up to the intranet for that company. This allows mutliple security centers to monitor one site. Lets say my building, which is an SCC has to be evacuated due to a fire. So long as the DVR is up and running another site, that is part of the account can log into my DVR remotely and view what is taking place. They can direct my staff via telephone to respond to different things that are occuring or we can even update the police / fire types with what our cameras and alarms systems are registering.

I think that as security forces are being drawn down more and more, that the increase use of CCTV and other technologies is almost neccessitated. Having these technologies at our disposals are a valuable tool and great "force multiplier". However we as physical security professionals have a responsibility to our clients or orgainizations to caution them that the technology is not the cure all. We still need our officers on site to respond to emergencies. Remember I may have 100 PTZ cameras at my site, but they are nothing more then expensive cameras, if I do not have a trained staff that is capable to monitor / review them in comparison to our access control system and be able to respond to events that may occur.

Some of these CCTV and access control vendors (and please eric do not take offense, this is not aimed at you) will try to sell security managers the world with the new technologies. Yet, they fail to explain to the security managers that having all the cameras in the world with access control devices and physical barriers creating a Fort Knox like system means nothing if you don't have the security force behind it to monitor it. My officers test our alarm systems and cameras on every shift, to ensure that it works and so that if any part of it is down, they can adjust accordingly to make up for that weakness in our armor.

I guess my advice is sell the technologies, show security managers how they can be force multipliers, but make sure that your marketing guy reminds your clients that they also need someone, somewhere to monitor and respond to the events that your systems detect.

[eric_burcham]

We have been toying with a software matrix idea... IP Camera feeds to a monitoring station. The feature in question for production is a mode that would show ONLY cameras that have had motion in the last x seconds.

The idea is that an individual can only split their attention so many ways. 60 cameras, to take your example, is a LOT to expect somebody to monitor effectively. However, among those 60 cameras, perhaps only 12 or so have motion at any given time, so by hiding the feeds from the other and focusing on cameras with motion, we would hopefully make it easier to watch.

Doeas anybody else like this idea? Most of our customers do not use live monitoring, but we are moving into these markets and interested to know what you all think.

[Silva Consultants]

I have been designing systems with CCTV integration for over twenty years. We typically design our CCTV systems to be "event driven", where abnormal activity is automatically brought to the security officer's attention, reducing the need for the officer to constantly watch the monitors.

The most common interface is between the CCTV system and the access control/security management system. This allows automatic camera call-ups on things such as door-forced-open alarms, panic alarms, perimeter protection alarms, etc. We also use video motion detection to automatically bring up cameras when motion is detected in the cameras field of view. This feature is mostly used during low-activity periods such as at night and on weekends. We also do integration with security intercom systems so that the appropriate camera can automatically be displayed when someone places a call at an intercom substation. In the early days, most integration was done by mapping dry-contact outputs from one system to inputs on the other system. A little later on, many systems became capable of using RS-232 connections to provide the interface. Today, many interfaces are done using network (TCP/IP) connections.

The challenge of any of these more sophisticated interfaces is the communications protocols; the CCTV system needs to be able to decode the data sent by the access control system and vice versa. This requires the sharing of information between manufacturers, something that is a real problem in the security industry. Many manufacturers today offer a full "suite" of security products (access control, CCTV, alarm, etc.) and naturally want the client to buy as many of their own products as possible. As a result, there is often a reluctance to share protocols with other manufacturers who they view as competitors.

Often times, a company will develop an interface to the product of another manufacturer only to drop it later when market conditions change. For example, I had a large project recently where we were using a access control system made by Brand "A", and a digital video recording system made by Brand "B". When we were doing the design, "A" didn't offer a digital video recording system so was happy to develop an interface to work with "B". A year or so later, "A" came out with its own digital recording solution and said it was no longer supporting interfaces with "B". This required a change-out of the video system before the project was even completed.

I have numerous horror stories to tell about system "integrations" that went wrong. In fact, this issue has been one of my biggest headaches over the years and has only gotten worse as the big conglomerates gobble up more and more of the smaller security manufacturers. The technical part of the interface is rarely the problem; it is usually company politics and competitive rivalry that is the obstacle. Many security manufacturers like to talk about "open architecture" and "industry standards", but we still have a long way to go before this becomes a reality.

[Silva Consultants]

I guess my advice is sell the technologies, show security managers how they can be force multipliers, but make sure that your marketing guy reminds your clients that they also need someone, somewhere to monitor and respond to the events that your systems detect.

FireRanger, you are absolutely right. CCTV and other electronic security systems are useful tools but are only one part of the total security equation. Too many clients think of CCTV systems as "security solutions" by themselves and fail to look at the big picture. Adequate monitoring of the systems and a timely response by a qualified person are always essential.

[SecTrainer]

In my opinion, I feel that integrating CCTV systems with your access control system along with things is a great benefit. A site that my company has, requires one officer to monitor 60 some cameras over an array of several different monitors. They have their PTZ units set-up to automatically turn to and focus on doors that go into alarm. This one function has greatly increased security's ability to respond to alarms faster. In addition not only can we respond faster, but should something occur and we do not get there in time. We now at least of evidence on tape of what happened when the alarm was recieved. This also saves time because the SCC operator doesn't have to sit there see an alarm come in on his alarm screen and then manually plug in a camera and move it to the door in question.

For companies that have multiple sites, should look into hooking their DVR's up to the intranet for that company. This allows mutliple security centers to monitor one site. Lets say my building, which is an SCC has to be evacuated due to a fire. So long as the DVR is up and running another site, that is part of the account can log into my DVR remotely and view what is taking place. They can direct my staff via telephone to respond to different things that are occuring or we can even update the police / fire types with what our cameras and alarms systems are registering.

I think that as security forces are being drawn down more and more, that the increase use of CCTV and other technologies is almost neccessitated. Having these technologies at our disposals are a valuable tool and great "force multiplier". However we as physical security professionals have a responsibility to our clients or orgainizations to caution them that the technology is not the cure all. We still need our officers on site to respond to emergencies. Remember I may have 100 PTZ cameras at my site, but they are nothing more then expensive cameras, if I do not have a trained staff that is capable to monitor / review them in comparison to our access control system and be able to respond to events that may occur.

Some of these CCTV and access control vendors (and please eric do not take offense, this is not aimed at you) will try to sell security managers the world with the new technologies. Yet, they fail to explain to the security managers that having all the cameras in the world with access control devices and physical barriers creating a Fort Knox like system means nothing if you don't have the security force behind it to monitor it. My officers test our alarm systems and cameras on every shift, to ensure that it works and so that if any part of it is down, they can adjust accordingly to make up for that weakness in our armor.

I guess my advice is sell the technologies, show security managers how they can be force multipliers, but make sure that your marketing guy reminds your clients that they also need someone, somewhere to monitor and respond to the events that your systems detect.

Very well said! Technology is a force multiplier and yet too many clients are sold systems (alarm, access, whatever) that are described as "total security solutions" or in similar terms.

Security systems, per se, are never security solutions and should never be described as such because all of them require some kind of critical human element to be integrated with them - usually for response, but also for monitoring, configuring, maintaining, etc. as well. Yet, ask the typical client to describe his security, and he gives you the yada-yada about the cameras he's got installed or his high-tech lock system. Why? Because that's how the systems were sold to him and that's how he thinks of them - as security solutions. A security system is no more a security solution than a calculator is a "mathematical solution". Someone's got to press the right buttons, and in the right order.

Incidentally, one thing that does concern me about the whole concept of integration, especially with networked integration, is the possibility of exacerbating the risk of certain vulnerabilities such as single-point-of-failure, sabotage, hacking, etc. The network need not have any public transport elements like the Internet to experience such risks, either. The question must always be asked: If someone - either internal or external - should gain access to this console (application, user account, server, etc.), how much of my security system could he take down? Or: If I had a power failure at this facility, how much of my security system would be impacted? I see too many clients where the answer to both questions is "All of it". Whether you accept the risk and try to mitigate it (which adds other costs) is the next question.

And, we must also always remember that complexity itself presents a set of vulnerabilities all its own. Some of these are rather subtle, such as the vulnerability of losing the one employee who understands the whole system. The lure of integration should always be assessed in the sober light of "Yes, but what if....?" questions. When we ask these, it sometimes makes more sense to leave disparate systems UNintegrated because the convenience or other benefit isn't worth the increased risk.

I'm particularly disturbed when the security systems are "piggybacked" over the company's normal business IT pipe. It would take a huge savings in infrastructure outlay for me to support that, not only because of the added channels for penetrating the security system (and possibly vice versa), but because the last thing you need if your IT system fails (or is taken down by an attack) is for your security systems to be taken down with it. There are also sometimes organizational issues that arise when the IT department and security department wind up scrapping over bandwidth, budget, server space, etc. Security almost always loses these battles because business processes are considered "critical" while security processes are not.

[Patriot1871]

We have been toying with a software matrix idea... IP Camera feeds to a monitoring station. The feature in question for production is a mode that would show ONLY cameras that have had motion in the last x seconds.

The idea is that an individual can only split their attention so many ways. 60 cameras, to take your example, is a LOT to expect somebody to monitor effectively. However, among those 60 cameras, perhaps only 12 or so have motion at any given time, so by hiding the feeds from the other and focusing on cameras with motion, we would hopefully make it easier to watch.

Doeas anybody else like this idea? Most of our customers do not use live monitoring, but we are moving into these markets and interested to know what you all think.

Hi Eric,
Even though I'm new to the security field what your're trying to do sounds like a intergrated screen which replaced the old style avonics panel being used in today's airplanes. you might want to check out the avionics field to see if any of that technology can cross over to you.

[BailBondInvestigator]

I have found heavily integrated systems to be very bug and glitch heavy at least at first. When I worked at the largest gated community in California just last year, we got a system that tied the cams to our access control homeowner database and recorded license plates of the camera with a "facial recognition" type technology. It then allowed us to put them on guest passes without typing them in etc. I was really cool (very casino compared to the archaic system we had in place) but it didnt work right for at least the first three months.

[Rooney]

I have numerous horror stories to tell about system "integrations" that went wrong. In fact, this issue has been one of my biggest headaches over the years and has only gotten worse as the big conglomerates gobble up more and more of the smaller security manufacturers. The technical part of the interface is rarely the problem; it is usually company politics and competitive rivalry that is the obstacle. Many security manufacturers like to talk about "open architecture" and "industry standards", but we still have a long way to go before this becomes a reality.

I agree whole-heartedly with your response. Being in the portable surveillance market I run into "integration" problems between manufacturers all of the time.

I think it is getting to the point that "integrator" means: A technologically and mentally superior individual skilled in all aspects of electronics and computer programming that makes a bunch of stuff work together that shouldn't.:D

[eric_burcham]

I agree whole-heartedly with your response. Being in the portable surveillance market I run into "integration" problems between manufacturers all of the time.

I think it is getting to the point that "integrator" means: A technologically and mentally superior individual skilled in all aspects of electronics and computer programming that makes a bunch of stuff work together that shouldn't.:D

Fantastic responses, thank you all. Based on what I have heard here and elsewhere the plan is to offer several products lines.

1) A simple line that is VERY easy to use, similar to a VCR, that is strictly for providing a record of what happened.

2) A line that integrates with as many common alarm systems and access control systems as possible that is capable of software pop-ups, SMS messaging, paging, e-mail notification, and using voice modems to dial-out and play a pre-recorded message, such as "This is the security response system for [Building Name]. Motion has been detected outside the determined schedule on [Camera name] at [Location]. Please investigate immediately.

Of couse we already support all the industry standard stuff at the monitoring desk... moving PTZs on alarm, popping cameras based on motion / schedule, etc... so I won't detail those out here.

Thanks everyone for your responses. Everything is running smoothly in development and these features are going into our Casino grade units first.