The IP Revolution for CCTV systems which has been predicted for some years now has failed to happen. Given the many aspects of different technologies and standards involved in moving high-value, observation-critical applications ...

The IP Revolution for CCTV systems which has been predicted for some years now has failed to happen. Given the many aspects of different technologies and standards involved in moving high-value,observation-critical applications into a pure digital age, this is perhaps unsurprising.

The key enablers within the CCTV market over the next 5-10 years will be systems integration and convergence. Any future technology brought to market will need to improve both to genuinely develop the use and output from large scale CCTV systems. An essential element of this development will be the need for more detail within recorded images. Increasing the image quality and detail within the video likewise increases the requirement for larger amounts of video storage. This will become apparent to integrators and users alike as we begin to see the emergence of systems using mega-pixel resolution cameras.

Storing large amounts of CCTV recordings increases the risks associated with maintaining and accessing the information as time progresses. Redundancy and robustness are already now more frequent requirements. Hence, it’s now timely to look at how we build systems which are able to cope.

Traditionally CCTV system design has been focused on the parameters of resolution, frame rate and storage period. Very rarely is the extent nor the results of digital compression even considered. It is clear that the amount of compression you apply significantly affects the detail available within an image, as well as the amount of network bandwidth and disk storage used. Apply a lot of compression and you suffer from loss of the detail within the image, but gain with less bandwidth and storage needed. Moving forward it will become increasingly important to understand the effects of this trade-off between image detail and bandwidth/storage usage in practice. Image detail is essential especially when used for identification and/or evidence. A core reason for investing in a CCTV system in the first place!  

With the introduction of mega-pixel cameras into CCTV systems, there are practical considerations to be had. For a start, not every camera in every system need be mega-pixel. Many are under the impression that by moving all your camera technology straight to mega-pixel you can, in effect, replace 4 or 5 standard definition (SD) cameras with a single mega-pixel camera. I’d argue that’s a theoretical view that won’t hold up in practice. Using a single mega-pixel camera provides a superb overview with the ability to accurately identify detail retrospectively. But many CCTV systems, particularly observation critical applications, are used for real time monitoring. Mega-pixel cameras can provide higher resolution images covering large fields of view – ideal for post event investigation over a large area. However, you can’t have a camera (even a mega-pixel camera) covering a very large field of view while at the same time being trained on specific areas for real-time monitoring requiring shorter, narrower fields of view. Mega-pixel cameras can aid and improve the results of CCTV systems but, for the foreseeable future they are more likely to co-exist with existing analogue cameras within hybrid systems. In effect you have an overview camera with excellent post event detail but need alternative sources to provide live video for more immediate surveillance activities.

Consider the limitations
Unfortunately the focus of new or emerging technologies within the CCTV industry centres on product features in isolation. For example, consider a mega-pixel camera capable of streaming out video at 6Mb/s. The initial discussions on the cameras capabilities are focused on the image quality, detail and data rate. You see the quality of output from a demonstration using one or maybe two cameras. So far, so good. Now consider adding mega-pixel cameras to your network, say 16 of them. Like most organisations, you operate a typical 100Mb network. Adding 16 mega-pixel cameras to your 100Mb network will simply saturate it. In practice the throughput of an IP network is only 70-80% of the total available bandwidth. (There are ways around this but these involve more detailed network design and segmentation – a whole subject in its own right!) Taking a product in isolation and focusing on individual features or capabilities is fraught with risk in this new landscape of network video. Many manufacturers are pushing technology for the sake of technology – I caution end users to demand more focus on the practicalities and limitations as well as the benefits of the complete system rather than individual products operating in isolation.

Unless, there is a massive investment in the infrastructure bandwidth – and I can’t see that taking place any time soon – then logically, distributed video recording is the most practical way to design a CCTV system that uses networks. This is valid both for traditional analogue systems recording to DVR’s and IP-based systems recording to NVR’s. Bear in mind, that when you’re using an end-to-end IP system, the bottleneck within the overall system is the network connection between the cameras and the NVR. Once you go beyond that, you’re streaming video for the purpose of viewing or displaying, and that takes up much less bandwidth. Having a large number of cameras focused towards a single NVR increases the risk of network saturation, and then you have a serious problem. If you spread the recording points out in the network this will alleviate the bandwidth across the organisation and keep the points of concentration towards the edge of the network.

Competing Standards
The traditional analogue CCTV system has worked very well on the basis of standardisation. All equipment meeting the PAL standard was instantly compatible with any other PAL standard equipment including DVR’s, matrices, displays etc. Moving to an entirely IP based CCTV system is a whole shift AWAY from standardisation. In terms of end-to-end network video you need to appreciate that ANY solution, so far, has in fact been a bespoke system. Manufacturers are all deciding on their own form of communication between each piece of equipment. The term IP network is really only the “conduit” of moving data across the wires. To date the format of information between products is a bespoke implementation used by each individual manufacturer. Because of that, users risk getting seriously high jacked or at the very least tied to a single manufacturer.

There is some light on the standards horizon with two loosely competing initiatives: ONVIF and PSIA. Both have their own merits but ONVIF is by far the most advanced with the largest community of manufacturers signed up. But we’re in an unsettling state and it doesn’t make sense to have two different organisations driving the process – there will only be one winner – and there is no guarantee the outcome will be the best technological solution. Unsurprisingly ONVIF seems to have taken the lead, but PSIA’s brief actually offers a wider conceptual proposal. Everyone agrees that we need to move to a point where we can make future product development compliant to a common standard and theoretically it’s a good idea. How far it will go in practice is another matter, and for that we’ll have to wait with bated breath.

I call for manufacturers to become much better at disclosing their standards and to offer Software Develop Kits (SDK) that are not only readily available but also updated on a regular basis. At least until we have a universal standard – and that seems to be some way off still. Unfortunately too many users have lost out because of the commercial conflict of manufacturers not wanting to make available the means to control, access or view video from within their equipment.

Battle of the ‘entrenched attitudes’
So, how do we ensure that specifiers, systems integrators and ultimately users have a progressive path to follow? The only guarantee we have is that things will continue to become even more sophisticated with multiple and overpowering capabilities. Which route to take to protect your existing investment, and more to the point, who to trust in terms of where to get the best advice with so much conflicting information available? Common standards will be the great steppingstone but meanwhile we have to make do without. It is the understanding of the system capabilities that is key, not so much of the individual product, although that will obviously become important as you start choosing products under your buying cycle. Even more important is the role of the consultants. I am unfortunately apprehensive if the consultants fully understand how to build resilient networks from the ground up. The really big question is; should security consultants - who typically originate from careers in the military or the police - really be specifying the complexities of network infrastructure products. There is reason to split the process into risk assessment and risk management on the one hand and the technological complexities required of the network on the other.

It boils down to an educational process. There are two key concepts to understand; how networks integrate and operate and how digital compression affects the final output of the system. Once you master those two concepts you are well on the way to understand how networked video products can and will work together.

For high value systems it’s not a question of ripping out an entire system and replacing it. You have to evolve your existing system through hybrid integration. We are now firmly within the realms of networked video technology. You need to consider the process on migration and which path to choose. Due caution must be taken to the progress and the understanding. See how products function together in practice, and if you feel an aspect of the technology will compromise your system, then it’s probably not worth using.

Examples of real world studies showing how we humans aren't very good at recognising unfamiliar faces - error rates as high as 25% are common. Read the attached article for a full explanantion.

Examples of real world studies showing how we humans aren't very good at recognising unfamiliar faces.

Clear information on the evidential aspects of digital images is vital, as some people tend to cast doubt about their acceptance in a court of law

A great deal has been written about the huge advantages offered by digital recording systems and other new CCTV technology, such as video transmission over IP. Whilst the debate over the technicalities rages on, driven by ...

Author:  Gary James

A great deal has been written about the huge advantages offered by digital recording systems and other new CCTV technology, such as video transmission over IP. Whilst the debate over the technicalities rages on, driven by the anorak-wearers in the industry (myself included), there is surely only one thing that really matters here – can we get the images into court and use them?

In recent times, we as a manufacturer have noticed that some of the old misgivings, prejudices and downright ignorance about the real implications of recording digitally are starting to fall away. However it’s probably appropriate to delve briefly into history, when the foundations of a clear legal direction for the digital recording industry were clearly laid down by the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee. In 1998 the government commissioned this committee specifically to look into digital recording techniques and processes to ascertain whether “digital images would present any problems for the courts”. Several specialist witnesses, many thousands of words and some really good lunches later, they produced the “fifth report”., Although by no means as well known as the Fifth Amendment, it is equally important to those involved in using digital recorders. Important because the report stated very clearly that, having looked into it, they could find no reason why digital images should present a problem for the courts. So – that’s all right then – no problem. So, what happened after this cataclysmic pronouncement?.

Not much really, the majority of people we were speaking to at that time still had reservations about using the images for evidence, others felt that recording digitally was not an option because their local crime prevention officer had told them it was a legal requirement to keep the images for 31 days, so recording digitally would be too expensive without even starting to worry about the evidential aspects. Since then a lot has happened, digital recorders have come down in price and, perhaps more significantly, the thundering juggernaut of data protection has finally rolled over the last bicycle of ill informed crime prevention advice. People are now much more prepared to look seriously at digital recorders for almost all applications, but how are we doing as an industry when it comes to real world evidence?

To many, the clear message from the Science and Technology Committee’s report was enough – they had said there was no problem and that was an end to it. However, the fifth report, whilst well researched and very accurate, was actually dealing with the concept of presenting digital evidence and in the event, a lot more work needed to be done (and we’re not there yet!) to take the legal concept and turn it into a practical reality.

A full 4 years after the fifth report, the Home Office finally came up with some guidelines aimed at anyone in the criminal justice system faced with digital footage of a crime. Issued by the Police Scientific Development Branch, the document, entitled Digital Imaging Procedure, is commended as best practice to anyone involved in handling digital footage by the chair of a Steering Group known as the Digital Images in the Criminal Justice System Project. It has not, as far as the author can ascertain, been tested at law yet.

The document makes interesting reading and explores some fundamental questions such as what is evidence, is a picture a true representation, what effects do different sorts of compression have and in which formats images may be encountered in the field.

It’s obvious when reading the report that the basic legal requirements for digital images used in evidence are the same as any other evidence. This much was also made clear by the House of Lords report. But what makes the Digital Imaging Procedure document so interesting is it’s ability to make clear the actual steps which should be taken and in describing the methods by which evidence from digital equipment should be handled.

The key, according to the report, is the creation of a master reference copy at the earliest opportunity together with the establishment of an evidential chain. There are in reality many ways to go about this from a technical point of view and the report goes on to make some recommendations in this area. The report on Digital Imaging Procedure should therefore be viewed by industry as clear indicator of the requirements and expectations which everyone, from the end user to the various parts of the criminal justice system, should have.

There has been some talk within the industry of establishing a “standard” which all digital recorders should work within, but in reality this would be almost impossible due to the large number of manufacturers and the different recording methods employed. The opportunity does exist though, for manufacturers to take on board the recommendations of the report and ensure their equipment performs the most important function of all - that of how to deal with the recordings, which may become important evidence.

In this short article, we look at why there is so much interest in IP-based systems now, what the challenges facing the players are and what is needed to build a successful industry that can provide better systems and services ...

You may have attended IIPSEC recently, a completely new industry exhibition, but for what industry? This brings us to the first problem: what do we call it? Video-over-IP? IP Security Systems? Ethernet CCTV? Networked Video? IP Video Surveillance? These and several other terms are being used to describe the fledgling business of networked devices for non-IT security applications. Note the “non-IT” part – this is because the IT world is full of systems for protecting IT data and equipment, but this is NOT what IIPSEC is all about. It is dominated by networked video systems, but video is not the whole story. Alarms, control devices, intruder detection, access control, audio and other systems are all part of the networked systems or “IP” revolution.

In this short article, we look at why there is so much interest in IP-based systems now, what the challenges facing the players are and what is needed to build a successful industry that can provide better systems and services to meet the security needs of demanding end-users.

Why now?

It is easy to understand why digital video recording technology has so quickly become the established norm in CCTV systems over the past 2 years. Dramatic increases in hard disk capacity combined with equally dramatic falls in costs have made the systems more affordable, but this in itself is not enough. There had to be compelling reasons to switch to DVRs and the reasons are clear:

• Instant access to all recordings
• Full automation - no human intervention required (i.e. changing tapes)
• Flexible and appropriate automatic recording schedules
• Systems responsive to alarms (e.g. increase in recording rate)
• Evidentially robust recordings via digitally encrypted audit trails
• Remote access to recordings via ISDN or networks
• Easier compliance with the Data Protection Act

. . . and many others besides. DVR systems are now available from literally hundreds of manufacturers (although only a handful really meet the standards required).

Networks, and specifically Ethernet networks have been around for a long time any self-respecting DVR has full network integration, but why is there the sudden surge in products for transmitting video over Ethernet networks? Is it a natural follow-on from network-enabled DVR systems? Is it simply that networks are now fast enough and image compression techniques efficient enough for many video channels to be transmitted over a single network? Is it just all driven by available technology, or are there clear market needs which are unsatisfied by existing non-networked CCTV and security systems? In truth, it is a combination of all these things, but one development has made all this possible: the availability of low-cost integrated circuits with video processing and networking capabilities.

Networked video systems would simply not work on older, slower networks as a number of companies have found to their cost. The cost of standard Fast Ethernet devices (switches, hubs, interface cards, chips etc.) has come down dramatically over the past 24 months. High capacity networks are now commonplace and are easily set-up and maintained.

Image compression methods have been around for a long time, but were always very expensive to implement due to the high levels of processing required, especially for real-time or near real-time video frame rates. The advent of specialist compression chips and even just higher power processors at low cost means that streaming of multiple video signals over high-capacity networks is not only feasible, but cost-effective.

For some considerable time, information technology has been creeping further and further into security applications. Most access control systems are PC-based and many communicate over standard computer networks. CCTV followed suit with digital video recording systems, PC-based CCTV control systems and computer-based video and alarm transmission systems. So over the last few years we can see that a new industry has appeared, built around the exploitation of digital processing technology for security applications, especially video surveillance. Now that surveillance video is firmly in the digital domain, it is a natural development to start moving video around over networks and benefits from the flexibility this offers.

Challenges

One of the biggest problems facing the players involved in networked video is that currently the industry is defined by its technology, not by it’s market. The markets are much more difficult to define, and therefore there is far more uncertainty (and indeed confusion) about the way forward and what systems and services are really required.

To put it bluntly, what are the compelling reasons for customers to buy into the networked video concept? This is the question manufacturers and installers are going to have to answer clearly and convincingly. Let us look carefully, therefore, at some of the pros and cons of networked video surveillance systems.

Advantages

Cabling	Existing structured cabling can be used if it is available. The cabling can be simpler and more cost-effective. The cabling can carry audio, video, control, alarm, time & date and multiples thereof on a single cable. This is a major plus and is very effective.
Flexibility	Input video, audio, alarms etc. anywhere on the network. Output anywhere on the network (i.e. to display, loudspeaker, recorder etc.). Combined the above provides enormous flexibility and power and will be extremely cost-effective.
Digital system	Signals digitised at or near cameras, so no further signal loss or interference, no termination issues, no earthing problems.
Better integration	In theory better integration with access control, digital recorders, transmission systems, fire & safety systems etc., but will only be valid in practice if manufacturers co-operate.
Better access	Local and remote access to live and recorded data from multiple points with standard desktop computers.
Highly scalable	Networked systems are very simple to expand and new devices (e.g. extra cameras) can be added at any time and at any point. This is in direct contrast to the relatively rigid structures and poor scalability of analogue systems.

Disadvantages:

Cost	High cost per camera or display to convert video to and from networked format for transmission. Such costs will come down and depend highly on the overall design of the system and what other systems can be cut out, due to the increased flexibility of the networked system.
Cameras	Use of cameras with built-in network port reduces application areas due to restricted choice of sensor and camera performance. Thus network camera servers which can connect to existing standard analogue cameras are a good option.
Software	The software available for control, management and recording is, so far, quite limited and requires considerable expertise to set up. This is a fundamental issue and development of better software and more highly integrated systems is critical to the eventual success of networked systems.

In summary (and at the risk of repetition), it is worth emphasising that networked video systems are still in the technology-driven phase and the needs of the market have still to be developed and understood by all concerned.

So what other challenges exist for manufacturers and installers of networked video systems?

To paraphrase the Estate Agents mantra, there are three hurdles facing would-be installers of networked video systems: IT managers, IT managers and IT managers. No, I am not having a go at them – far from it! They are doing their job and are rightly suspicious of outsiders wanting to add vast numbers of network devices to their corporate network – the very backbone of many companies. The typical IT manager will not let 3rd-party network devices and software (which could potentially eat up network bandwidth) near their corporate system without a great deal of planning, testing and measuring. This all takes a lot of time and is not the way the normal CCTV industry works. This is one reason why many CCTV installers are reluctant to get involved with networked systems.

Another major problem is that Installers have little or no experience of networked systems. In addition, we cannot reasonably expect installers to have an in-depth knowledge of many different manufacturers systems, and be able to properly integrate and support them - to say nothing of understanding their end-user customer’s IT system, network topology and all the internal politics that go with IT systems and personnel in any company.

It is for this reason that specialist IT/Security system integrators are going to make the most headway in providing networked video solutions in the short-term. There are very few such companies around at the moment, but they are going to generate a lot of business!

Solutions

Given these challenges, what is the way forward for networked security systems? How do we turn the technology into solutions that give customers compelling reasons to buy, and how do we, as an industry, provide the services they will need?

First of all, manufacturers must better understand the customers needs and focus on providing integrated easy-to-install solutions, which maximise the benefits of the networked systems. This can be done by concentrating on specific application areas and providing highly integrated solutions. One example of this is integrating digital video recording with access control systems to provide far more complete information on events and incidents. Another might be combining networked video devices to provide transmission, camera control, digital video recording and a large video matrix in a single integrated system.

Networked systems, as we have already seen, are supremely flexible, scaleable and upgradeable – you can input data anywhere, access it anywhere, control it from anywhere. To expand a system you simply plug more devices into the network and expand the network where necessary. Successful manufacturers of security equipment will quickly realise that ALL security devices should be network-addressable (cameras, recorders, video motion detectors, lighting systems, acoustic or electric fence systems, video matrices etc.), and that this will increase the flexibility of the overall system still further. They must, however, grasp the need for open standards and protocols so that different systems can be easily linked together by system integrators and installers.

For their part, Installers will have to make major investments in personnel and training to cope with the new technology. As the security industry generally is under-financed, this is going to be very difficult for many companies. It’s likely that many installers will go under over the next few years.

The obvious answer to the natural (and justified) caution of IT managers is to use separate, but parallel networks. Install a separate security network, which may or may not involve the use of existing CAT5 cabling infrastructure, but not necessarily patched into the corporate network system. In due course, once the IT managers are more familiar with the systems, they might provide a bridge between the security network and the corporate network at tightly controlled points.

The end users want complete solutions. They want the simplest, most cost-effective solutions that are easy to use and will give them an integrated security system. They want the benefits of tighter security, more complete observation, better management information, full records of events, integration with alarm systems, intruder detection, fire systems, access control, EPOS, ANPR, facial recognition, video motion detection etc. Or whatever it is they need to secure their properties, protect their businesses, and provide them with the information they need to prosper. If we as an industry can give them these solutions, then we’ll prosper too.

CCTV bashing in the media has become almost as popular as politician-bashing these days. Let’s face it, politicians deserve what they get, but does CCTV?

CCTV bashing in the media has become almost as popular as politician-bashing these days. Let’s face it, politicians deserve what they get, but does CCTV?

There have been a number of studies over the years on the effectiveness of CCTV in reducing crime. Such studies have been carried out by the Home Office, academia, consultants, private market research and various other bodies, mostly based on police crime figures. Unsurprisingly, the results have shown a wide spread of effectiveness from the downright dire to the superb. Yet the TV, newspapers and other media generally concentrate on the negative of course, because everyone knows that bad news sells. Nearly all studies have been conducted around publicly-funded or supported schemes, so of course they will either want to justify the money spent, or if the study is independent (as they usually are), it will emphasise the negative aspects to get some publicity. I cannot recall any studies on industrial, commercial or private schemes, which is a pity, as I am sure these would give some excellent results for reasons I’ll go into later on.

Some studies quote extensively from other studies with no regard to the conditions under which the results were ”measured”, I recall one using results from a report so old it must have been done on installations with tube cameras and no video tape recording!

I have no doubt that some CCTV schemes have delivered incredibly poor results. However, putting things into perspective it could be the result of different factors such as – poor choice of cameras and lenses, bad siting of cameras, low-level lighting, zero maintenance, little or no operator training and strained relations with the local police. It could also be, of course, that in some cases CCTV simply isn’t the right solution and that other methods of security and crime prevention/reduction need to be deployed. CCTV is not a panacea for all security ills.

We are probably all familiar the comments from NACRO last June, about the latest academic report that stated the obvious, saying, “investment in better lighting might be more effective than CCTV”. How can you expect CCTV to be effective if you can’t see anything in the first place? Others have noted “a sharp initial reduction in crime”, followed by a slower “return to the original rates of increase in crime”. This always amuses me, because a simple graph consistent with the above statements illustrates that crime has been reduced – ad infinitum! We don’t need figures to illustrate the point – the shaded area indicates the relative amount of crime which has been removed because of the effectiveness of CCTV – even if the rate of crime rise returns to it’s original levels.

What would happen if we examined how effective CCTV is in the commercial world? I can assure you that we would get quite a different perspective! How can I be so sure? As a manufacturer, I know that our continued success and survival depends on just how good and how effective our products are. Banks, building societies, manufacturers, shops, transportation companies, water boards, power companies, universities, colleges – the list goes on– would not invest in CCTV and other security measures if they were not getting results and saving money. These organisations have shareholders, trustees and governing committees to answer to – they would not get the budget to spend on CCTV unless they could properly justify it. Sure, if one or two systems were being bought by each customer then this might not prove much (other than how good our sales pitch is), but this is not the case. We have a large and growing number of financially astute, highly commercial customer organisations who continue to roll out CCTV and digital recording to site after site after site – because they are getting the results time and time again.

Take local supermarkets for example: In the North of England we have Jackson’s Stores, Proudfoot and Bells Stores all using digital video recording and reporting huge reductions in crime and great savings on time and effort prosecuting offenders.

What about banks? Surely the most careful, cautious and conservative of customers when it comes to spending money, and rightly so. But Bristol & West, Newcastle, Northern Rock, Cumberland, Yorkshire and Dundee Building Societies along with Clydesdale, Northern, Yorkshire, and Barclays banks with Standard Life, Merrill Lynch and other financial institutions are all finding that CCTV combined with the enormous advantages of digital recording are proving to be a very efficient and vital part of their overall security systems.

One of our longest-standing customers, an electrical retail chain, has reported significant cuts in shoplifting, fraud and other crime in every single store fitted with a DVR. One-Stop Shopping centre in Birmingham is now a good deal safer after two years of operating an extensive CCTV system. One of our town-centre systems in Manchester has captured a murderer in action – how do you place a price on that when the culprit may have struck again if Digital CCTV had not provided the police with excellent evidence to identify the murderer?

I would argue that CCTV’s effectiveness could be measured by the following:

Effectiveness = crime deterrence + crime detection + successful prosecutions

Obviously the best effect CCTV could have is to deter crime in the first place. There are countless reports stating that the installation of CCTV has simply displaced the crime elsewhere. Surely the conclusion must therefore be that CCTV is highly effective, and that we simply don’t have enough of it? After all, we fit locks and bolts to the windows and doors of our homes, because we know that if we make it difficult enough, the burglar will try elsewhere. Why, therefore, should a town centre or a business not be entitled to take measures to reduce crime in their area – even if it does displace it?

It must be said that it is very difficult to measure the deterrence effect. One result of installing CCTV might be that more crimes are detected, so a before-and-after comparison will always be flawed. Detecting the crime includes being able to find it on CCTV recordings – if you cannot find the incident then there is little point in having the CCTV system in the first place. This is where hard disk-based digital video recording has made a dramatic and easily measurable difference to the effectiveness of CCTV systems. With a well-designed system, it is so fast and easy to access any particular recording and make exact copies with a full evidential audit trail. The measurable difference is in the number of successful prosecutions. As a manufacturer that works closely with installers (and therefore has a lot of contact with end-users), we have lost count of the number of customers who have reported increases in successful prosecutions. These are directly due to the ease with which they can find the right recordings, the quality of the images and the speed and ease with which the police can also view the images and build a case for a prosecution.

The UK used to be the CCTV capital of the world, but this is no longer so. Many parts of Europe are catching up fast (sales of CCTV in Germany almost equal that in the UK now), and the rest of the world is also gearing up with CCTV systems, especially in the USA. Is CCTV effective? If hard-nosed people who hold the financial purse strings of commercial organisations are investing in CCTV all over the world – then you bet it’s effective!

Conclusion

The advent of the digital video recorder is making a dramatic contribution to the power of CCTV. This is such a recent phenomenon that the results have yet to come through in the latest studies. However, CCTV is at best, a highly-effective treatment for the symptoms of high crime rates in many circumstances. None of us in the industry are under any illusions that to cure the illness of high crime rates requires changes more far-reaching and fundamental in our society than simply putting cameras everywhere. Better education, the means to maintain better discipline in schools, increased funding of police forces, effective (and rapid) punishment of crimes and a social and economic background in which business and individuals can flourish would all help to build a more crime-free society.

It would seem that we’re back to the politicians . . . . .. Oh well, I think the CCTV business will grow steadily for some time yet.