CCTV Usage

[SP1]

Here is an interesting article concerning the use of CCTV monitoring I ran across. There are opponents on both sides of the issues.
Here is the article link:

http://www.securitymanagement.com/library/001566.html

I am interested in what some of our members involved in this aspect of security believe.

Mainly;
1. Should Pool and other high profile sites be monitored?
2. Should Parking lots be monitored?
3. Should CCTV equipment be consistently monitored?

[FireEMSPolice]

Here is an interesting article concerning the use of CCTV monitoring I ran across. There are opponents on both sides of the issues.
Here is the article link:

http://www.securitymanagement.com/library/001566.html

I am interested in what some of our members involved in this aspect of security believe.

Mainly;
1. Should Pool and other high profile sites be monitored?
2. Should Parking lots be monitored?
3. Should CCTV equipment be consistently monitored?

1. I don't see why the pool and other areas should not be monitored

2. Parking lots should be monitored for vandalism and other crime

3. CCTV equipment works best when someone is watching them. If you have still cameras, then it is what it is. You can't do much with them. This is why I favor PTZ cameras.

[SP1]

CCTV = Liability

I agree with you complete. The problem where I work seems to be all about liability.

I discussed this issue with our GM, and here is what she said;

1. Since the CCTV isn’t monitored, then we don’t want to record any accidents at the pool area, if we did then the guest could sue us saying that since we had the pool area under CCTV then we were responsible. (Talk about reverse logic)

2. We won’t monitor the parking lot areas as this gives the guest a false sense of security in protecting them outside of the hotel.

3. We are meeting the insurance requirements by providing CCTV; nothing says that we have to spend the money to monitor it. (He should read the majority ruling of the court cases based on this issue)

Bottom line = If a guest gets hurt then we will let our insurance carrier deal with it. And the really sad thing about this…

Our hotel boasts 100% guest satisfaction.

If this is the attitude of a major 3 star hotel, what about all the other smaller chains?

[Curtis Baillie]

I agree with you complete. The problem where I work seems to be all about liability.

I discussed this issue with our GM, and here is what she said;

1. Since the CCTV isn’t monitored, then we don’t want to record any accidents at the pool area, if we did then the guest could sue us saying that since we had the pool area under CCTV then we were responsible. (Talk about reverse logic)

2. We won’t monitor the parking lot areas as this gives the guest a false sense of security in protecting them outside of the hotel.

3. We are meeting the insurance requirements by providing CCTV; nothing says that we have to spend the money to monitor it. (He should read the majority ruling of the court cases based on this issue)

Bottom line = If a guest gets hurt then we will let our insurance carrier deal with it. And the really sad thing about this…

Our hotel boasts 100% guest satisfaction.

If this is the attitude of a major 3 star hotel, what about all the other smaller chains?

Very ignorant, uneducated thinking on the part of your GM.

Also take into consideration establishments who do not repair faulty equipment. There is a duty of care. Also businesses who have signs up stating the premises are being video recorded - and do not have cameras or use fake cameras.

[HotelSecurity]

In Quebec a swimming pool in an hotel over a certain size is required to have a Lifeguard on duty when open & locked when closed.

I could write for hours about cameras in parking lots. My 2 airport hotels are side-by-side with large open air parking lots. 1 had cameras & warning signs, 1 did not. The cameras were not monitored. The area is very bad for car theft. One year the same number of cars disappeared from each parking lot. In this case unmonitored cameras did not prevent theft.

Another problem with cameras is that after a theft the victim seem to always want to watch the video. If the car was from a "Park & Fly" guest it is possible it was supposed to be parked for 2 or more weeks. It can take hours to search through the days of video looking for when it was stolen. We do not have a day shift at these hotels. Even if we did time spent looking for the incident could be better spent doing patrols etc. Then when you see it all you see is someone breaking in & driving off. There is nothing we or the victim can do. It is even rare that the video help the police. (I have only seen video help the police after the have arrested someone, to confirm the person was involved). If we refuse to take the time to show the victim the video they accuse us of hiding something.

I'm not sure that monitoring the cameras would even help. I have been in the parking lot watching with bimoculars. A guy went to a car opened it & drove off. An hour later the guest came out & reported his car stolen. The suspect was able to open the car using a slim jim but made it look like he was using a key. The only success we have had in stopping the car thefts have been without the cameras.

So if you are using the cameras for prevention, I do not think they work for the most part. If you want to see how something happened they work for this.

[kingsman]

They need to be monitored. and they need to be controlable.
We had a guy run into the gate with his motorcycle and have it all on tape. We then zoomed in and were able to determine whether there was damage to him, the bike, or the gate, all from the comfort of the control room. Security then went out and opened the gate manually, and made sure he was okay. we have 64 cameras at our facility 80% are fixed, the rest are able to be moved.

[Rooney]

Your GM sounds very uninformed. I recommend to people that work at sites that are not monitored to hire an offsite monitoring company to view live feed. The costs are less then hiring a 24/7 crew and the response time for most of these companies is well within reason of an event taking place. Many also record at their facilities as well. It can sometimes be very helpful to have both onsite and offsite video storage. Just my 2 cents.

[craig333]

I wish I had it for the parking garage. True, probably wouldn't make any difference as far as theft (though you might see the nervous rookie thief) but I could see the panhandlers (btw, a good story from a veteran panhandler is worth about eight dollars on avg) fender benders and other stuff.

[Bill Warnock]

The GM is in line for a Darwin award. I wonder if his mother had any normal children or had her tubes tied after he was born.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[SecTrainer]

I agree with you complete. The problem where I work seems to be all about liability.

I discussed this issue with our GM, and here is what she said;

1. Since the CCTV isn’t monitored, then we don’t want to record any accidents at the pool area, if we did then the guest could sue us saying that since we had the pool area under CCTV then we were responsible. (Talk about reverse logic)

2. We won’t monitor the parking lot areas as this gives the guest a false sense of security in protecting them outside of the hotel.

3. We are meeting the insurance requirements by providing CCTV; nothing says that we have to spend the money to monitor it. (He should read the majority ruling of the court cases based on this issue)

Bottom line = If a guest gets hurt then we will let our insurance carrier deal with it. And the really sad thing about this…

Our hotel boasts 100% guest satisfaction.

If this is the attitude of a major 3 star hotel, what about all the other smaller chains?

I'd love to see this CCTV "requirement", specifically to see whether the insurance carrier specifically excuses the hotel from monitoring the system. I very much doubt it.