Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are cameras really a deterent?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill Warnock
    When cameras are present and warning signs posted, the public has a reasonable expectation of safety and security.
    As Nathan has stated there is case law which upholds that expectation offered to the public.To use dummy cameras, unmonitored cameras and post warning signs, is foolhardy and an invitation for legal entanglements.
    Enjoy the day,
    Bill
    I'm not talking about public places or property. My post deals with private property. If you can show me caselaw in Connecticut where this has resulted in monetary damages being awarded, then I'm "all ears."

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Warnock
    replied
    When cameras are present and warning signs posted, the public has a reasonable expectation of safety and security.
    As Nathan has stated there is case law which upholds that expectation offered to the public.
    To use dummy cameras, unmonitored cameras and post warning signs, is foolhardy and an invitation for legal entanglements.
    Enjoy the day,
    Bill

    Leave a comment:


  • Rooney
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Security
    I believe in the effectiveness of "dummy" cameras, having personally witnessed them deterring crime. We all know that a good security plan includes the right mix of many different security strategies. Personally, I will continue to recommend the use of such devices to my clients.
    I agree that they can be a part of an overall security plan. I just feel that the security plan should not be just dummy cameras for the reasons I've already stated. If a company wants to use dummy cameras I recommend using a working camera as well. Just use the dummy cameras in areas that would not be cost effective for real camera installation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Item #2

    That lawsuit appears to be on shaky ground and is not directly targeted at so-called "dummy cameras."

    I realize that people can sue for the most stupid of reasons, and sometimes they even win. (We need a system where the loser pays all court costs and attorney fees)

    I believe in the effectiveness of "dummy" cameras, having personally witnessed them deterring crime. We all know that a good security plan includes the right mix of many different security strategies. Personally, I will continue to recommend the use of such devices to my clients.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rooney
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    I've "heard of this before," but I have not seen relative caselaw. So, who wants to look this up on lexisnexis?

    Here are a couple of links:

    1. read the bottom paragraphs.

    http://www.infiltration.org/observations-looking.html

    2. This is a lawsuit in texas because the cameras were not monitored.

    http://www.dailytexanonline.com/medi...exanonline.com

    3. This is what can happen if you have covert surveillance without notification. Albeit I agree with the employees in this case.

    http://onlineathens.com/stories/1013...51013088.shtml

    4. Here is another case of covert cameras on campus.

    http://www.refuseandresist.org/resis...61998ccny.html

    That's all I found in 10 minutes of googling. There was a lawsuit here in arizona against a local private store having dummy cameras in the parking lot. The plaintiff was mugged in the parking lot. The police asked for the video from the owner of the store. The owner stated that the camera was a dummy. When the police notified the victim the lawsuit bell started ringing. The owner settled out of court for an undisclosed amount. I was trying to find a link in my local paper but didn't find it. It happened in Feb. 2004.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rooney
    replied
    Originally posted by HotelSecurity
    Rooney,

    I heard that the trend now-a-days is that if (like most hotels) you are not monitoring the cameras, only recording you should hid them so that it is not known that you have them. Have you heard of this?

    Neil
    There are companies that prefer to have the cameras hidden in certain areas. Some larger hotel chains have went to IP based systems that are recorded off site through their wide area network to headquarters. Although monitoring is not always done I have seen monitoring during special events and on weekends. Most companies that have covert surveillance mainly do it for internal security reasons. Especially defense contractors or other companies that have trade secrets. Hotels may prefer hidden cameras within hallways and common interior areas, i.e. lobby, restaurant, lounge, etc. but have visible cameras exterior.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by Eric
    True, they can be part of an effective overall security plan, but used alone in some situations will not solve or displace problems.

    Remember security 101 - detect, deter, respond (defend) = defeat
    That's basically what BHR Lawson meant.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eric
    replied
    Originally posted by BHR Lawson
    Cameras are a deterant, not a security solution.
    True, they can be part of an effective overall security plan, but used alone in some situations will not solve or displace problems.

    Remember security 101 - detect, deter, respond (defend) = defeat

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    I've "heard of this before," but I have not seen relative caselaw. So, who wants to look this up on lexisnexis?
    I recommend Rooney because he made what we call: "A statement of fact." That gives the hearer a right to ask how so?

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    I've "heard of this before," but I have not seen relative caselaw. So, who wants to look this up on lexisnexis?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by Rooney
    Well I've read everyones statements here on security cameras. This is my field of work. surveillance and communications. Here are some perameters that I use when consulting a client on camera systems.

    1. Quality of video. Must be at least 640x480 digital for clear picture and some zoom function.

    2. Area of view. Some companys want a camera to cover a wide angle when most traffic is 100' away or more. At the wide angle a vehicle is so small you can't get good recognition.

    3. Cameras as a deterent. Cameras should be used for monitoring an area and video evidence. As a deterent I have found it does not work unless it is in their face. Bank robberies are a good example. Like most deterents cameras only deter people that normally would not cross the line. It does NOT deter a criminal.

    4. Dummy cameras. If you place a dummy camera up with a sign that states property is under video surveillance you can be in for a lawsuit. If someone gets mugged or assaulted on the property and you state you have cameras you are stating that the person has some reasonable assurance of security. If the cameras are fake, the person may sue you for false representation and neglect.

    As far as bad video on cameras. I run into that all the time. Especially in convenience stores and gas stations. Some businesses have the theory that the cameras are a deterent and the evidence aspect is of no concern. Also they would rather spend $2500 on a couple of cheap cameras and a recorder instead of $3500 for a better system. Although I have installed High-def cameras at a local convenience store for $34000. Before that system he had a really bad blurry system. He was robbed 12 times in 4 months. After, once in 3 years and the video was able to zoom in on a tattoo and positively ID the person (it helps when the investigating officer recognized the tattoo).

    Just my 2 cents.
    Has this actually happened? Can you refer me to a case that supports your concern? A person can sue for ANYTHING. Wining is a whole different matter. Thus the term: frivolous lawsuit

    Leave a comment:


  • HotelSecurity
    replied
    Rooney,

    I heard that the trend now-a-days is that if (like most hotels) you are not monitoring the cameras, only recording you should hid them so that it is not known that you have them. Have you heard of this?

    Neil

    Leave a comment:


  • Rooney
    replied
    Well I've read everyones statements here on security cameras. This is my field of work. surveillance and communications. Here are some perameters that I use when consulting a client on camera systems.

    1. Quality of video. Must be at least 640x480 digital for clear picture and some zoom function.

    2. Area of view. Some companys want a camera to cover a wide angle when most traffic is 100' away or more. At the wide angle a vehicle is so small you can't get good recognition.

    3. Cameras as a deterent. Cameras should be used for monitoring an area and video evidence. As a deterent I have found it does not work unless it is in their face. Bank robberies are a good example. Like most deterents cameras only deter people that normally would not cross the line. It does NOT deter a criminal.

    4. Dummy cameras. If you place a dummy camera up with a sign that states property is under video surveillance you can be in for a lawsuit. If someone gets mugged or assaulted on the property and you state you have cameras you are stating that the person has some reasonable assurance of security. If the cameras are fake, the person may sue you for false representation and neglect.

    As far as bad video on cameras. I run into that all the time. Especially in convenience stores and gas stations. Some businesses have the theory that the cameras are a deterent and the evidence aspect is of no concern. Also they would rather spend $2500 on a couple of cheap cameras and a recorder instead of $3500 for a better system. Although I have installed High-def cameras at a local convenience store for $34000. Before that system he had a really bad blurry system. He was robbed 12 times in 4 months. After, once in 3 years and the video was able to zoom in on a tattoo and positively ID the person (it helps when the investigating officer recognized the tattoo).

    Just my 2 cents.

    Leave a comment:


  • HotelSecurity
    replied
    OK I don't mean to be blunt but this being my profession I have to speak up. You as a Security Professional should known better than to have left a briefcase in plain site in a vehicle.

    The time the hotel spends showing you the video could be put to better use patrolling to prevent further incidents from happening.

    I don't know about the privacy issues in Texas but here we have to be very careful. I'm sure you've seen news reports where bystanders at incidents have their faces digitally or otherwise hidden. There is a reason for this. Hotels have in the past had people that claim something happened to their vehicle as an excuse to see the video. Turns out they were divorse detectives or other types actually wanting to see if someone they were being paid to look for was staying at the hotel. Hotels can't afford to be involved in these things.

    My experience shows that the criminals that come to the parking lots with cars usually have stolen plates on them, so even with the best of the best in camera equipment you are still not going to catch who did it.

    And it proves my original point. Cameras in these situations do not deter.

    Sorry about the bluntness of the first statement.

    Leave a comment:


  • toxin440
    replied
    I feel compelled to throw my two cents in here. This is my first post but I've been on a quest for more personal security for myself and my car since last weeks break in and robbery of my car here at the hotel I live at.

    Background - for about a year I have been living at a Hilton Homewood Suites here in Dallas/Fort Worth. Semi-nice area, obvious security cameras all around the parking lot. So far I have had my car egged by unknown people ($1000 dollars in damage) and just recently at 8am in the morning some one break into my RX8 and steal my briefcase right before work which containted a high end laptop.

    The security cameras here have done nothing... they havent deterred anyone and the cameras and quality themselves are poor. If they were better we could have gotten a plate number of the truck i saw speeding away from the crime. On top of that this Hilton hotel chooses to repaint the parking lot stripes and intstall granite countertops instead of getting a decent camera system.

    To the remark of someone getting pissed at customers wanting to see video of the crime committed against them or their property. I think it's pretty bad if a hotel or facility refuses to show what happed to their property. The first time I requested to see I was glady given permission, the 2nd time the manager scoffed at me and "had to check with the officer" that was investigating the crime at the time.

    For $1700 dollars a month you think they would be more accomodating especially since this is the 2nd crime within 30 days on my car. The cameras are useless anyways but I still want to see anything and everything I can about the asshats that did it. My thought (and no offese to any that may work in hotel security) but if a crime like this happens in broad daylight... I (the victim) am already pretty shaken up and distraught... the video that any hotel records isnt top secret material for the government or anything... its parking lot security video, if **** goes down, I want to see whats happening against my property.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X