Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Interaction with Law Enforcement

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

  • CameraMan
    replied
    Originally posted by integrator97 View Post
    Ha-ha. I thought beach front meant you worked in shorts and tank tops.

    Yea, I know what you mean on all counts, except having one fail. BTW, I always strip my wires, not relying on the pins in the b-connector to punch through the insulation. And I always twist my wires together before inserting them in the connector. And I crimp with the back end of my dykes, not the cutting end, as I've seen some fools do.
    Well, sometimes working the beach (specifically, the Jersey Shore) means working in shorts and sandals (and many distractions- I once had a tech "calibrate" a PTZ for an entire day... by which he meant he had to follow all the girls down the boardwalk to make sure the joystick was working).

    (I meant the joystick on the KBS3 controller, you pervert. Get your mind out of the gutter).

    Usually working beachfront means wintertime, aka off-season. Ever been on the boardwalk when it's like 15 degrees and it's snowing sideways and there's no place to hide from the wind? Not fun.

    And there is no excuse for crimping B connectors with the cutting end, although it's very helpful for troubleshooting- you see that and you know you're going to be there all day so you better cancel all your appointments. And break out the meter. And the tape. And the vodka.

    Leave a comment:


  • integrator97
    replied
    Originally posted by CameraMan View Post
    I've had crimp connectors fail all the time- when I've cut off the ends of transformers to connect a camera to the power wire, making myself a ghetto pigtail. The stands they use to make transformer wires are so damn thin the B connector just slices it. It was my policy to always use two layers of tape, and to fold over the splice. Soldering is a pain in the anatomy when it's like five degrees out with twenty mile an hour winds and you're clinging desperatly to the top of a 24 foot ladder on the side of a beachfront property (so you're completely exposed to the wind).

    Bottom line- I am incredibaly gratefull that I now have an indoors, clean-pants type job. Installations are too much work.
    Ha-ha. I thought beach front meant you worked in shorts and tank tops.

    Yea, I know what you mean on all counts, except having one fail. BTW, I always strip my wires, not relying on the pins in the b-connector to punch through the insulation. And I always twist my wires together before inserting them in the connector. And I crimp with the back end of my dykes, not the cutting end, as I've seen some fools do.

    Leave a comment:


  • CameraMan
    replied
    Originally posted by integrator97 View Post
    Soldered connections. Now there's an arguement starter. Yes, you can't beat a good soldered connection. Hmmmm. There's that word. "Good". Not everyone solders well. Soldering irons aren't always clean & in good shape, so don't get hot enough. It's hard to solder in a 15 degree house with no insulation or garage door and half the doors not installed yet, with a 20 mph wind.
    Cold solder joints can cause falses. I've NEVER had a crimp connector fail. But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. (Well, not this time though).

    PS, I can solder pretty damn well myself.
    I've had crimp connectors fail all the time- when I've cut off the ends of transformers to connect a camera to the power wire, making myself a ghetto pigtail. The stands they use to make transformer wires are so damn thin the B connector just slices it. It was my policy to always use two layers of tape, and to fold over the splice. Soldering is a pain in the anatomy when it's like five degrees out with twenty mile an hour winds and you're clinging desperatly to the top of a 24 foot ladder on the side of a beachfront property (so you're completely exposed to the wind).

    Bottom line- I am incredibaly gratefull that I now have an indoors, clean-pants type job. Installations are too much work.

    Leave a comment:


  • integrator97
    replied
    Soldered connections. Now there's an arguement starter. Yes, you can't beat a good soldered connection. Hmmmm. There's that word. "Good". Not everyone solders well. Soldering irons aren't always clean & in good shape, so don't get hot enough. It's hard to solder in a 15 degree house with no insulation or garage door and half the doors not installed yet, with a 20 mph wind.
    Cold solder joints can cause falses. I've NEVER had a crimp connector fail. But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. (Well, not this time though).

    PS, I can solder pretty damn well myself.

    Leave a comment:


  • CameraMan
    replied
    I had to leave- the paperwork was killing me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Warnock
    replied
    Originally posted by CameraMan View Post
    Hmm. True. I like Condanchri's idea of tracking false alarms by company and penalizing those with a higher than normal false rate.

    Bottom line, though, in my experience, the number one reason- 75%, at a guess- for false alarms is user error, followed by installer error, lack of maintanence, enviromental, and about 5% who-the-hell-knows.

    Of course, I worked for a competant company who always soldered connections, grounded panels, marked wires, made a note of splices, took baseline resistance readings, programmed correctly, walked on water, healed the sick, raised the dead, and understood how to program DSC panels.
    CameraMan, that company you worked for probably insisted on space orientation in relation to AC conductors especially specifal purpose conductors for furnance or clothes dryers and where necessary installed additional ground rods bonded to the basic grounding system to avoid ground loops. Those companies are few and far between.
    Enjoy the day,
    Bill

    Leave a comment:


  • CameraMan
    replied
    Hmm. True. I like Condanchri's idea of tracking false alarms by company and penalizing those with a higher than normal false rate.

    Bottom line, though, in my experience, the number one reason- 75%, at a guess- for false alarms is user error, followed by installer error, lack of maintanence, enviromental, and about 5% who-the-hell-knows.

    Of course, I worked for a competant company who always soldered connections, grounded panels, marked wires, made a note of splices, took baseline resistance readings, programmed correctly, walked on water, healed the sick, raised the dead, and understood how to program DSC panels.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Warnock
    replied
    One can hardly blame the owner or operator when in the middle of the day when nobody is at the residence, and an alarm is registered. Worse yet is when a thunderstorm visits the area, most of the alarms in the area sound. The only way to mitigate false alarms is through better installation techniques and better power conditioning equipment. I have had my share of alarm problems and upon inspection determined the installer did not follow the instructions received from our office. "I told one installer he was paid to follow instructions as written and not take any shortcuts. If you run into any problems pick up the phone and call, day or night." When they found out we meant business, false alarms dropped to zero. Every once in awhile there would be a nuisance alarm when the operator forgot a procedure. We dealt with those problems. Dual technology has greatly reduced those instances of false and or nuisance alarms. When you see ads in the paper for alarm installers "no previous experience necessary," you're in for a long day!
    Enjoy the day,
    Bill

    Leave a comment:


  • CameraMan
    replied
    Reducing false alarms by penalizing the installers is a toughie- most false alarms are due to user error, as you said. I think the best way to go about reducing false alarms is by levying a small but annoying fine on the subscriber (to be knocked off if they attend a class), as you described. For your recidivist dumbasses, you can refuse to respond to alarms if you recieve three falses in a period of, say, six months, until they get a letter from the alarm company saying that the issue has been corrected. This will force the subscriber to call out the service company to either 1) fix the falsing device, or 2) reteach the customer how to push the beepy buttons to stop the shiny blinky lights and make the whoo whoo siren shush.

    Leave a comment:


  • integrator97
    replied
    We try and verify residential & commercial, but with the commercial types I described earlier, it's often hard to reach someone, as the office are so large. And as I said, alot of them don't give a rats butt.

    Leave a comment:


  • condanchri
    replied
    Most of ours is residential - I think because most businesses get the verification call and cancel it.
    Last edited by condanchri; 01-25-2008, 05:05 PM. Reason: me know spel sew gud

    Leave a comment:


  • integrator97
    replied
    Our biggest false alarm problems are offices. You have 30 people with a code, but the same few that arm & disarm Monday through Friday. Then in the evening or on the weekend one of the others needs to come in, and doesn't remember the procedure. That's always tough to deal with, cause these may be Dr's or acct execs for national companies dealing the largest retailer, and some don't care. I have those kinds coming in at 1 am on weekends and stuff.

    Leave a comment:


  • condanchri
    replied
    I got the job

    I am hoping you guys have some ideas - some outside the box thinking - about how to reduce false alarms.

    Prior to 2004 we ticketed home/business owners. Since then we bill the alarm company directly and they pass the costs on to the customer. The downside of this is that the alarm companies often add on "administrative fees" etc and can actually profit from the false alarms - not really an incentive.

    Companies pay annual license fees based on how many alarms they have in the city.

    6 false alarms in any 12 month period goes on a no response list.

    Private security response is an option to property owners.

    My thought would be having a sliding scale for annual licenses based on false alarm percentage for the company. More false alarms equals higher annual license fee (maybe even the option of denying licenses if they get too high). Sure, the cost will still get passed along, but less expensive service would only be an option for those keeping the false alarm rate low.

    Any other thoughts?

    As a police department, there is not much we can do regarding response - we get the call and we go.

    I think we need to train the end users better (since almost every false alarm is their fault). I am thinking of suggesting that the false alarm reduction class we offer to people to get out of paying for their first false alarm becomes mandatory to all alarm users before they get the system (or within 30 days). That way best practices can be explained early in the process. Since that is not the current practice, there would be one year for current alarm holders to take the class. How much training to typical alarm companies give the users beyond the basics to prevent false alarms?

    Our goal is to reduce false alarms by 20% by the end of the year. I welcome any thoughts and opinions.

    Leave a comment:


  • junkyarddog
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier View Post
    I can see why alarm monitoring companies dislike verified response services. After all, 911 was (and continues to be in some areas) free. Clients are happy that the "real police" will show up when the alarm is activated. They do not know that the police, by law, will not show up anymore unless someone "verifies the alarm condition."

    Paying a private firm to verify this, or installing additional equipment (audio or visual sensors), etc all increases overhead. Which was unneeded before the days of 'verification.'
    On the other side of it, should the tax payers have to shoulder the burden of additional resources needed to respond to private alarms, especially when many of them are false? You want security, you have to pay for it, not expect everyone else to. Yes many alarms are false, maybe most. And we don't just deal with our own monitoring system, but also systems set up by guardian, tattletale etc. They call our dispatch when an alarm sounds and we respond. People either have to pay the fines or upgrade their security systems to reduce false alarms to the point where police response is always justified.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by cocknaces View Post
    Thanks. I am interested in the literature you mention. "Private Policing" is a subject I am interested in and would be regardless of whether or not I worked in security.

    Regardless of how anyone wants to characterize it, the trend is privatization of public services, maintaining a small, streamlined core public "elite" service to do deal with critical situations. This is true even with the military, but they call it "force transformation". This follows from the progression of public to private, government as authority to corporation as authority, nation-state to trade zone.

    In the future I can see public police existing only pretty much as SWAT teams, or public "Special Response Units" in contrast to privatized "Conventional Response Units".

    In the present, emergency pre-responders are really the most effective way to go in terms of most efficient use of actual public emergency services.
    This phenomenon is occurring throughout "Western" civilizations. Here's a link to a paper from the Australian Institute of Criminology on this subject:

    http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/regulation/sarre.pdf

    Let me quote briefly from the paper to whet your appetite:

    "The dichotomy between “public” and “private” police and policing is no longer clear, if it ever was. Indeed, the distinction between public and private policing operatives and operations continues to blur irrevocably. New terms have been coined to describe what is under observation, such as a ‘pluralisation’ of policing, ‘hybrid policing’, or ‘continuum of activity’, a ‘security quilt’, ‘parapolicing’, ‘greying’ of policing, a ‘fragmentation of policing’, and a ‘mixed economy’ of protection. Even the term ‘security personnel’ has lost some currency. Two researchers at least now refer to security operatives as ‘social control entrepreneurs’.

    People and businesses more generally use private police personnel for a range of different reasons, both ideological and practical. Suspicions of government, profit, and vigilantism feature amongst them. So pervasive is the mix today that policing theorists are moving beyond the public/private debate, preferring to review models of complementarity (“how would we like the future to look?”) rather than engaging in an ideological dialectic (“are the processes of privatisation effective and worthwhile?”).


    Incidentally, I highly recommend the AIC website as an outstanding source of criminology information. These folks are really sharp and they have bunches of papers you can read on every crime- and policing-related topic under the sun. I admire the quality of their work very much. It's sometimes a little "scholarly" in tone, but it's still quite readable. Some (e.g. aboriginal crime) is only pertinent to Australia, but most is broadly applicable to the US, England, Canada, etc.

    Here's the link to the AIC Index of Publications: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications

    Just click on a topic like "Internet Crime", and then you'll see a list of all the papers on that topic. Click on those links and just follow the yellow brick road!
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 01-16-2008, 08:18 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X