Condo Media - June 2014 - 41

by Michael A. Silva, CPP

We recommend that clients develop
a comprehensive security plan for their
facility before making the decision to
install security cameras. This plan should
be based on a security risk assessment
and address all aspects of security, including security policies and procedures,
employee training, architectural security,
and electronic security systems.
While video cameras can be part
of your overall security plan, they are
rarely a security solution in themselves.
Below are three dirty little secrets
about video surveillance systems.

Security Cameras Rarely
Serve as a Deterrent to Crime

Despite an almost universal belief otherwise, there is no conclusive evidence
that video surveillance systems serve
as a deterrent to crime. While a few
studies have shown that there may be a
decrease in crime when cameras are installed in certain settings, such as publically operated parking garages, there
are many more studies that have shown
the installation of security cameras has
no effect whatsoever on crime rates.
While more independent studies are
needed, the evidence at this point suggests that security cameras rarely prevent
crimes from occurring and almost
certainly don't deter crime to the degree
that is implied by many sellers and installers of video surveillance equipment.
The following should be considered
when contemplating the deterrent
effect of video surveillance cameras:
* Most people who engage in criminal behavior don't have the same
thought processes that honest people
do and don't consider the long-term
consequences of their actions.
* Many people who commit crimes
aren't thinking rationally at the time
they commit them. They may be
drunk, high on drugs, or suffer from
some form of mental illness.

* Smart criminals are well-aware of
the limitations of video surveillance
systems and may plan their crimes
around them. They may commit
crimes just outside of the range of
cameras or wear simple disguises to
conceal their identity.
* People become desensitized to the
presence of video cameras after a
short time. While there may be an
awareness of cameras when they are
first installed, they soon become part
of the environment, making regular
occupants of the area almost oblivious to their presence.

Most Recorded Video
Is Useless as Evidence

The goal of most video surveillance
systems is to provide recorded evidence
when a crime has been committed, allowing the suspect to be quickly identified, captured, and prosecuted. Ideally,
the video would show the criminal in the
act: stealing the computer, vandalizing
the car, or assaulting the victim. Images
on the recorded video would provide a
good picture of the suspect, allowing his
facial features, clothing, and any distinguishing marks to be clearly recognized. When the suspect is captured
and brought to trial, the video evidence
would be compelling enough that a jury
would be convinced of the suspect's
guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt."
While this type of scenario is often
played out on TV shows, it rarely occurs
in the real world. Most users of commercial video surveillance systems are
disappointed when they discover their
system can't provide recorded video that
is useful as evidence. This dissatisfaction
usually comes to light when the user
reviews recorded images in an attempt
to investigate a crime after the fact.
Complaints frequently heard include:
"I can see the person, but I can't identify
who it is"; "I can see the person, but I
can't see what he is carrying"; "I can see a

car, but I can't tell the make or model or
read the license plate"; "when I enlarge
the picture, it is nothing but a blur"; and
"the view of the camera is blocked in
exactly the area that I want to see."
Most problems related to the quality
of recorded images can be attributed to
the following:
* Too few cameras with too wide a field
of view: Cameras can view a wide area,
or provide a high level of detail, but
not both. Many cameras are set to
view an excessively large area, which
makes it impossible to positively identify people at most points within the
scene. A study by the FBI suggested
that, in order for a person's face to be
positively identified, the person must
equal approximately 120 percent of
the vertical height of the video image.
To get this type of image requires an
extremely narrow field of view, allowing each camera to cover only a very
small area. While not everyone agrees
with this study, almost everyone admits that most cameras installed today
have fields of view that are set too wide
to allow facial recognition throughout
most of their coverage area.
* Improper viewing angle: To best
identify a person, a camera needs
to have a relatively straight-on shot
of the person's face. Many cameras
are installed too high, at the wrong
angle, or pointed so that they only
see the side of the face or the back
of the head. For example, at building entrances, it is common to only
have a camera inside pointing out
toward the door. While this camera
can provide a good view of someone
entering the building, it can only see
the back side of a person exiting.
* Blind spots in coverage area: There
are lots of obstructions in settings
such as parking garages or warehouses. Cameras can't see through
Condo Media * June 2014

Condo Media - June 2014

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Condo Media - June 2014