For those of us that saw it played out on the news, who could fail to have been moved by the recent story of a young couple who discovered that their daughter’s grave had been desecrated – the headstone and other memorabilia removed overnight. “The Council should put up CCTV” suggested a relative, and many heads in the crowd before the cameras nodded in agreement.
While incidents like this are appalling to any right-minded individual, I believe the notion that a CCTV camera can be the panacea for all known criminal ills is somewhat misguided.
As the representative from the local Council stated: “While we sympathise with the family, this is a very large site and the first known instance of grave desecration at this cemetery. We don’t feel that CCTV would have been of any value in this particular situation.”
How refreshing to find a local Government official willing to stand their ground over the deployment of CCTV, particularly at a time when Councils are deploying cameras like confetti in an effort to meet their obligations under the Crime and Disorder Act.
It’s said that there’s now anything between 4.5 and 6 million CCTV cameras in this country and, if you believe the ‘conspiracy theorists’, they’re allegedly recording our every move.
During a recent business trip from my home near London into the Capital, I counted no fewer than 68 cameras that may have – allegedly – captured my image. I say ‘allegedly’ because just how many of these cameras are actually working (let alone recording any meaningful data)?
Recovery of CCTV images
For a time, I used to work as the security and investigations manager on behalf of a large UK retail organisation. Our outlets were often robbed, burgled or the victim of fraud. I lost count of the number of times when, following an incident, I accessed the CCTV system to recover images of evidential value only to discover that there weren’t any.
The reasons for this were many and varied. Often, the system hadn’t been switched on. The tapes hadn’t been swapped over and so had overwritten themselves. There was no tape in the machine. The camera view had been obscured by merchandise. Most of the time, the picture quality was so poor that the images held no evidential value whatsoever. At certain outlets there was no CCTV as our franchisees had to fund the installations themselves and many refused to do so.
The frustration was made even worse by the sage advice of the local crime prevention officer who would suck his teeth for a moment or two, shake his head knowingly and then say: “You should have installed some CCTV”.
All well and good, but I’ve also been that apocryphal investigation manager who has provided good quality CCTV footage to the police service, only for them to turn around and give me any number of reasons why they couldn’t use it. The Data Protection Act was once cited for not following through on a designated investigation.
Poor deployment unmasked
Of late, I have been truly amazed at the ways in which CCTV has been deployed. Two examples spring readily to mind. One organisation uses CCTV to protect a certain area and, during a test of the system using Home Office Scientific Development Branch standards (complete with Rotakin technology), it became apparent that, of the cameras under evaluation, only half of them were visible on the monitors at a third party Control Centre.
Of those cameras that were being monitored, the automatic patrol function had been disabled. Therefore, the only time that the area was actually being checked was when the Control Centre operators occasionally scrolled through the 300-odd cameras on the system. In the ensuing ‘bun fight’, it appeared that there had been no operational specification provided to the contractor, who had subsequently ceased trading. There was no Service Level Agreement with the organisation providing the monitoring service.
Another organisation boasts an eclectic mix of sites and has invested heavily in CCTV. However, there’s no corporate strategy for systems deployment so individual site managers have given it their best shot with the Mark 1 Eyeball and Mark 1 Brain. The result? A disparate mix of different systems from several suppliers to accompany their eclectic estate. In addition, those same managers have neglected to make any provision for training.
Knowledge of the one
Many of the CCTV systems are monitored from the site administration office as this is where most people work. However, it wasn’t uncommon to find that only one individual knew how to operate the CCTV.
At some sites, the monitoring equipment has been consigned to store cupboards or server rooms. In one instance, a desktop monitor had been switched off because the constant flickering was distracting the typist!
Every month I leaf through the pages of Security Management Today and other journals full of adverts for digital recorders, domes, PTZs, low light, low cost, high resolution cameras, vari-focal lenses, DVRs and complete IP/CCTV solutions. A veritable feast of products which has spawned one of our biggest problems.
With all of this CCTV equipment available to the unsuspecting, often non-technical punter, what types of system should the security manager choose? Can they trust the installer to give them value for money?
Take the example of a local school. A fortune was spent on upgrading the CCTV. However, little or no thought was given to system specification or design. How could it have been when the responsibility for managing the project was taken on by the school governors? They simply visited the pages of the Thomson Local – I kid you not – and plucked out three companies at random to give them quotes.
The installer became the designer and, through some clever marketing based on ‘future-proofing’ the system, managed to persuade the client to go for a 20% increase in budget. This is money that a state school can ill afford, but there’s now a brand new CCTV system in place. Pity it’s not integrated within the network – the server and monitor are locked away in the storeroom and, as far as I can establish, only one person knows how the system works.
Surveillance is piecemeal
This school is far from alone in its piecemeal approach to CCTV. Many companies – from the corner shop through to small businesses and on to large-scale corporations – lack a cogent strategy for surveillance. When it’s installed, that’s it – the CCTV sits quietly in the background and, as long as it appears to work, all well and good.
Those fortunate enough to employ CCTV monitoring services – whether in-house or outsourced – often have an in-built process that quickly identifies when there’s an issue with the system. For those with stand-alone, non-monitored systems, the issue’s only raised when someone actually looks at the CCTV monitor and notices that something’s awry.
However, many of the faults – gradual degradation of picture quality, blocking of camera views or the changing of worn out tapes – pass by unnoticed. The problems only arise when the time comes to recover images in support of a prosecution or investigation. There are no images, or those that are there cannot be used. As a result, the whole purpose and value of the surveillance installation is called into question.
It’s at this stage the issue of ‘brand image’ and customer confidence may be affected. I’ve been present at a cross-business Forum held at a large shopping centre when the paucity of an organisation’s CCTV was openly commented upon – albeit unwittingly – by the local crime prevention officer. The comments made the local paper the following week.
Taking yet another swipe?
So, what’s the purpose of my discourse? Is it just another swipe at the CCTV industry? It does seem to be ‘open season’ at the moment as far as that’s concerned. No. It’s most definitely not another swipe. I’m a keen advocate of CCTV. Correctly specified, installed and managed, it’s one of the best tools in the security manager’s armoury. However, CCTV systems are like cars – they need regular checks and fixing to keep them operationally viable.
However, unless you pay for a five star maintenance contract then you could wait days or even weeks for your system to be repaired. Even in a high security environment, I have known cameras and systems to be ‘down’ for a considerable length of time. The reality is that many surveillance installations are not protected by maintenance contracts. The current financial climate doesn’t help, either. Security is nearly always looked upon as an expensive overhead. Ditching a maintenance contract for something that appears to work might seem like sound financial sense.
My view is that we ought to devise and employ some form of national operational certification for CCTV systems no matter what their size happens to be in terms of camera numbers. The certification could confirm that the system is working correctly, is technically sound and complies with the Data Protection Act. Cynics might feel this suggestion is but another ploy for consultants and installers to make money. Not so – if the procedure were to be approached in the same way in which the motor trade was engaged concerning the introduction of the MoT certification scheme back in the 1960s.
Three points of order
The purpose of this certification would be three-fold. First, it would give CCTV owners/operators confidence that their system is working to specification. Second, it would afford the insurers some degree of assurance that their ‘risk’ was being managed properly and, indeed, to some form of accredited national standard. Third, I believe it would give the general public confidence that CCTV systems are being properly managed.
For this idea to work, the certification scheme would have to be compulsory. In other words, supported and enforced by legislation. I don’t believe that a voluntary Code of Practice would work. Give someone the opportunity to opt out of something they don’t like for some reason and they will do so.
There also has to be greater buy-in from the insurance sector and not just the current ‘tick box’ method for obtaining cover. Insurance should only be granted on production of a certificate. This, in turn, might enable the insurance companies to offer lower premiums if they know a customer has a fully-functioning and officially certified system.
Next, there’s a discussion to be had over who would issue the certificates. That’s easy, really. CCTV installers could apply to become ‘Authorised Testers’ in much the same way that garages assume the role of Authorised Test Centre thanks to the blessing of the Vehicle Operations and Standards Agency.
How to ensure compliance
Of course, there would need to be a national inspectorate to authorise and regulate the ‘testers’ and, in addition, a body whose purpose would be the responsibility for administering and ensuring conformance to the certification scheme. I don’t think it would be appropriate to leave such a procedure in the hands of a trade body as this certification wouldn’t just cover CCTV activity within the security industry, but also many other sectors including sport, leisure and education.
A scheme of this size and importance would need to sit within a mainstream Government department or agency. Perhaps it’s a role for the Information Commissioner’s Office?
Until and unless something is done to address the situation, we shall continue to harbour surveillance systems that don’t function as they should – a situation that would continually serve to undermine the whole rationale that underpins CCTV.
