Security camera systems are an important part of keeping any building safe whether it is a retail location or a private residence. More commonly known as closed-circuit television or CCTV these types of systems provide security on a variety of levels but certainly tend to be more applicable in retail settings. While more commonly utilized in retail settings security camera systems also prove useful in a variety of other situations including industrial locations that may easily become the target of thieves. Some people are particularly concerned about the over abundance of security cameras throughout the world, particularly in large cities within the United States and the United Kingdom. While these conspiracy theorists may have valid concerns about monitoring of their day to day movements the fact is that these types of security systems are invaluable in protecting assets of many large and small businesses worldwide.
The very first security system was built by Siemens AG, the largest engineering conglomerate in Europe. Siemens, founded in 1847 is based in Berlin created the first security camera to place in Peenemünde. Peenemünde airfield began service in April of 1938 an in 1942 the first CCTV system was placed at the airfield in order to monitor the launch of V-2 rockets. The V-2 rocket is a ballistic missile, in fact at the time it was the first long range ballistic missile in existence, and was used by Nazi Germany to fight back against the bomber planes that were attacking Nazi Germany and destroying many villages. This first security camera system was both designed and installed by the German engineer Walter Bruch. Installing the system at the Peenemünde airfield allowed for the Nazi’s to observe the launching of the V-2 rockets while allowing them to remain a safe distance away from the launch site. CCTV systems are still utilized at rocket launch sites as well as within rockets in order for activity to be safely monitored. Walter Bruch was not only responsible for designing and installing the system but he was also responsible for operating it. Bruch was not only known for his role in creation of the security system but he was also heavily involved in the television industry and he is perhaps most well known for his role in inventing the PAL color television in the 1960’s.
While the security camera system was first utilized in 1942 in Germany it was seven years until it became available commercially in the United States in 1949. The first available system was named “Vericon” and was intended to allow individuals to perform their own surveillance which, at the time, was such a significant event that the cameras were marketed as not needing a government permit for installation and activation.
One common use of security camera systems in the modern day and age is to surveille busy streets to guard against criminal activity. While this type of activity is common these days it was also utilized during the first twenty years of the introduction of the system when Olean, New York installed video surveillance on its main business street. At the time the use of video surveillance as a means to monitor criminal activity was not widespread and as a result Olean became recognized for its new use of the technology to maintain safer streets. It seems somewhat ironic that video surveillance was first utilized in monitoring street activity rather than business activity but it was not until later that security camera systems would be utilized in King’s Lynn, Norfolk in the United Kingdom for monitoring criminal activity in individual stores.
Retail LocationsWith the start of use of security cameras in retail locations in King’s Lynn the business of installing these systems in stores and banks across the world began to take off. Intended as a system for maintaining safety of businesses and banks these cameras were closely monitored for any evidence of criminal activity. While the application of security camera systems in these situations served to capture any potential criminal activity on film, as use became more widespread soon the presence of the camera alone became enough to deter many thieves from criminal activity.
In modern society things seem to have changed considerably as the potential for being caught on camera no longer seems to serve as a significant deterrent to criminals. As times have changed, rather than being afraid of their criminal activity being caught on surveillance camera, criminals have become concerned over their faces being caught on camera instead. Such changes have resulted in increased rates of crime from the time of the security camera debut as criminals become more brazen committing criminal acts assuming that they were safe so long as their identity was not captured on film. There are many reasons why criminals are less concerned over the use of security camera systems but some suggest that economic conditions prompt increases in such risk taking behavior.
As mentioned previously, the use of security camera systems in public locations preceded the use of camera systems in individual stores. It did not take long for the crime fighting trend of CCTV utilization in Olean, New York to spread and soon business districts worldwide would begin to implement this crime fighting technique. It could never have been predicted that such a technique would take off as much as it did; however, and Olean would likely be shocked to learn of the prevalence of such systems in London in the United Kingdom.
During the 1970’s and 1980’s the United Kingdom performed a variety of experiments to measure the efficacy of the CCTV system in deterring criminal activity and keeping the population safe. The results of the experiments were so successful that it prompted the government of the United Kingdom to increase the number of security camera systems placed in public locations. A recent estimation approximates the total number of security camera systems being utilized throughout the United Kingdom to be around 4.2 million. To put that number in to perspective that comes to around one camera for every 14 individuals living in the country which means that at any given time an individual in a public location will be caught on multiple cameras during one outing. Strangely enough, while the presence of such large numbers of cameras in the United Kingdom serves to make people feel safer, evidence is minimal that these cameras are actually effective in deterring crime in modern day society. It is possible, perhaps, that modern day respect of security camera systems is so low that these cameras no longer serve to deter criminal activity.
Security camera systems are not only utilized in retail settings or on busy city streets but they are also utilized in a variety of entertainment settings. The most obvious example of using CCTV systems in the entertainment industry is the use of the eye in the sky system throughout casinos in Las Vegas, Nevada. Overhead camera filled domes are utilized in these locations where theft and cheating are bountiful and while for some people they may serve as a deterrent, for casino owners they serve as both a monitoring system as well as a method for catching dishonest individuals in the act. For businesses like casinos where so much money is at stake, security camera systems are invaluable at controlling loss.
The types of security camera systems that are utilized in residences are generally much less complex than the camera systems that are utilized in other settings. For residences the important aspect of surveillance is generally to provide the ability to monitor property lines or monitor the entrance of the home in order to determine whether a threat is present. These types of security systems are generally much more affordable and much less complex since they usually involve fewer cameras and much more basic software to monitor the system footage. The exception to this case is the larger home of the more wealthy family who feel it necessary to install much more technologically advanced monitoring systems to ensure safety of their property and or individuals within the home.
As mentioned previously security camera systems seem to play a somewhat confusing role in crime prevention. Upon the introduction of these monitoring systems the cameras seemed to serve as some type of crime deterrent; however as time has progressed these systems seem to prove less of a deterrent to the more intent criminals out there. While the presence of these cameras tends to play a somewhat confusing role in more traditional crime prevention settings, one way in which they have had a rather significant impact is in regards to traffic crime. Red light cameras have become increasingly prevalent, as have speeding cameras and while criminals seems to be flirting with the justice system as far as CCTV goes, the everyday public seems to be much more cautious. Perhaps it is the demographic change when it comes to traffic crime but whatever the reason it seems that red light cameras and speeding cameras seem to have more of an impact on decreasing traffic crime.
While security camera systems were intended as a means of observation and developed in to a means of securing property and possessions, an increasing technological age brings a downside that never could have been foretold in 1942. As the population becomes more technologically savvy the potential for security camera systems to be utilized to the criminal’s advantage grows. One of the more commonly utilized methods of taking advantage of CCTV systems is the placement of small cameras at ATM locations in order to steal pin numbers and take money from the innocent public. Despite the fact that the authorities as well as the public have begun to take notice of this crime additional CCTV crime methods continue to grow. Another, somewhat less obvious crime to those reflecting on the illegal use of CCTV systems, is the illegal placement of these cameras in fitting rooms, tanning salons and public restrooms. While the intention of these criminals is somewhat different to those who wish to steal pin numbers from an ATM, the consequence is still the same – someone is being violated while someone else profits from that violation. While the authorities do all that they can to attempt to control the illegal use of security camera systems, like many technologically based crimes it can be exceptionally hard to detect such activity before at least one individual has fallen victim to the scheme.
The security versus privacy debate is a significant one and becomes even more talked about as the number of security camera systems continues to grow. For some people the very concept of being tracked on camera at every turn of a street corner is not only uncomfortable but it is also paranoia inducing. As the general public begin to focus more on the fact that “big brother” is watching their actions, by the very nature of human beings, their actions begin to change and for many people this feels like an extreme invasion of privacy. Feeling as though they are unable to be themselves and act normally individuals feel that they are being forced to change as a result of constant monitoring through security camera technology.
Then there are those who believe that the presence of so many security cameras is not necessarily a bad thing. Generally this group of individuals falls along the fence and while they are somewhat reluctant to support the use of such abundant monitoring, they are also reluctant to have the system dismantled as well. For these individuals, despite the lack of hard evidence quoting the deterrent effect of such intricate CCTV systems, the mere presence of so many cameras serves to protect them from the occurrence of criminal activity. It could also be, however, that these individuals are aware of the lack of data but instead believe that these CCTV systems serve to protect them through a somewhat less active role. While people may be aware that criminals will strike regardless of the presence of a security camera system, it could be that they feel much safer having any criminal activity that does take place caught on camera. Of course this type of assumption puts an awful lot of faith in the ability of the justice system, but given the choice it is true that most people would feel that they stood a chance in catching an offender if an event were captured on camera.
As the world of technology continues to develop the possibilities for security camera systems are endless. Even as we speak today the technology exists to illuminate a home through a cellular device, something that never could have been imagined back in the 1940’s when the CCTV system was first introduced by Walter Bruch. Depending upon which side of the fence you stand on the potential for CCTV advancement can either be an awe inspiring possibility of a thought that strikes terror in to the very core. For those in support of the prevalence of video surveillance equipment there is the possibility that retinal scans will soon be built into many video surveillance systems resulting in much more secure technology to guard personal information. With that advance; however, also comes the possibility for criminals to develop increasingly complex methods of obtaining personal information that is assumed safe. For those in support of these technological advances though the potential pros always seem to outweigh the cons. For those in opposition of the continued use of video surveillance there remains a somewhat humorous connotation of the paranoid individual who believes that someday the world will be taken over by technology. It may seem humorous upon first mention; however, but for these individuals it is a very real possibility, particularly when observing many of the latest technological advances.
Regardless of an individual’s stance on the prevalence of security camera systems throughout the world today the fact remains that this is a technology that isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. While there may be objections to the methods in which some of this technology is utilized it should always be remembered that much of the time this type of technology is utilized for the good of society. It may be true that the CCTV system no longer deters criminal activity like it used to and it may be true that our privacy is being infringed upon by the prevalence of these types of systems; however, it is also true that these systems provide a wealth of evidence in a variety of other situations.
The perfect example of this positive element of security camera use is the case of James Bulger, a two year old little boy from Merseyside, England. James was kidnapped from a shopping mall by two teenage boys who proceeded to torture, mutilate and kill the young boy before placing his body on local railroad tracks where it was severed y an oncoming train. The two offenders hoped that this final insult would make the young boys death appear to be an accident; however, between the coroner’s investigation and photographic evidence taken from a CCTV in the mall from where James was abducted the two boys were found guilty. It is devastating that such a heinous crime should prove that the use of security camera systems are useful; however, it is one of the most powerful and compelling arguments for the use of this invasive technology in modern life.
For the majority of the population it is worth feeling slightly exposed by the presence of so many cameras if this technology serves to protect the younger members of our society from ever succumbing to the fate of James Bulger. For others the argument remains that this technology is simply an invasion of privacy but when it is their child that goes missing from a local mall it is inevitable that their opinion will differ.
If you plan to use your security camera footage in some sort of legal dispute, you need to cover all your bases to avoid having your evidence thrown out of court. There are several states who will not allow any type of recording to be used in a court of law unless those being recorded are aware that they were being recorded. You can avoid these types of problems by posting a visible notice that security cameras are in use. A simple sign upon entrance to your property will suffice. Entrance onto the property is an indication that the individual agrees to the use of video surveillance to record their actions.
An indirect benefit of posting a notice about video surveillance on the premises is that you might actually dissuade those that intend to do harm to you or your property before they actually do anything. Those that are concerned about facing the consequences o their actions might think twice before even entering a property that has a notice about video surveillance being in use.
Another benefit of having a posted notice of video surveillance is that it provides you with an opportunity to observe the response of individuals to this posting. Those that are swayed by the idea of facing consequences for their actions may still want to do harm to you or your property, but if it’s someone you know, they might simply try to learn the details of the system so that they can find a way to work around it. The best thing to do in this situation is to end the conversation as quickly as possible and never allow the person on your property again. Keep in mind that close friends and relatives who are homeowners may be asking questions in an effort to learn how they can increase security measures in their own home.
If you want to increase security in your home, but don’t want to buy more cameras than you can afford, you can always buy dummy cameras. These are cameras that are set up to look like working security cameras, but don’t actually have the ability to record any video. Set up the real security cameras in areas like the main entrance and area where you might have a safe or other expensive items. Sporadically place the dummy cameras around the property to give the illusion that the entire property is being recorded.
To use this method to its fullest extent, avoid telling anyie that you have dummy cameras up, even you’re your loved ones. Though your loved ones probably don’t plan to do you any harm, they might accidentally let the wrong person know that the property isn’t as protected as it seems.
Another benefit of dummy cameras is that they provide a decoy in public places. For instance, a video system in a local park might be a prime target for vandalism. In this case, the dummy cameras should be placed in obvious view while the real cameras are located in more subtle locations. If the system is subject to vandalism, the easier target is the one most likely to be vandalized.
I really like the Defender SP301-C High Resolution Weatherproof Indoor/Outdoor Night Vision Color Surveillance CCD Security Camera. This camera does provide a good value for your money. It is a good, but basic model. There are a number of interesting features on this camera which make it worth a look. Now, admittedly, this is not for everyone. I offer this as a warning. If you are looking for something which is top of the line or something that can be the cornerstone of a system which you are constructing yourself, then this probably not the model you want.
On the hand, if you just want something simple and functional, this would be a great place to start. In fact, my own opinion is that most people probably start off with too much camera and then do not use it properly or do not think about further options for how to expand their system.
As a camera and optics reviewer, blogger and researcher, this is probably the biggest mistake that most people make. Ultimately, it all comes down to poor planning. If someone is not sure about why they want a security camera, or what they ultimately intend to do with such a system, then it makes much more sense to buy nothing at all, or to buy something basic which has a lot of functionality and flexibility.
That is the case here. The SP301-C is arguably a high resolution camera. I suppose one could argue that at a resolution of (only) 420 TV lines that it does not meet the technical definition of being high resolution. Honestly, I am not sure what the technical definition actually is, but the image picture is pretty darn clear. You can certainly do worse than this camera. Actually, 420 lines is pretty decent now that I am thinking about it. There are many cameras on the market that make no claims at all for their resolution level; I imagine these are quite low. They all look much worse than this Defender model.
This is a wired model which can be used either indoors or outdoors. That makes this a good option whether you are considering this for a home or business. If you have been reading my comments regularly, you know I am not a big fan of wired models. I would much rather have something that is wireless, or that does not rely on the electrical power system. I will not renew my general objection here. The nice thing is that with 60 feet of cable, you may install this camera just about anywhere. I wonder if you were to use the full 60 feet, whether you would get a reduction in the performance of the camera or the speed of the video play back. These are questions which I will explore in my next project.
If you already have a home security system, this camera could connect to it very easily.
Most solid cameras have a lot of good features along with a few disadvantages. Of course, finding a camera is like anything else. There is no model out there that is going to have everything you want without at least a few negatives. This is really a balancing act. Each person needs to figure out what features and options are important to them, and which are not.
My favorite unit is programmable and only activates on certain conditions, this should allow one to conserve batteries. Set it up to activate only on motion and then to take pictures maybe once a minute and video every couple of seconds. This would make it quite easy to eek out as much as a full year on a single set of batteries.
Another nice feature of this product is the price. I do not imagine this being an essential hunting tool, but at around 200 dollars (I was able to find it cheaper on certain sites), this could be a great investment for a hunter looking to improve their efficiency. It would be nice to hear some first hand reports of how this has helped with your hunting or other activities.
Actually, in my capacity as an optics reviewer, researcher and blogger, I think I might be in a better position than most individual readers to give advice about choosing a camera or home security system. The first step of this process should NOT be to start looking at a number of different cameras. In fact, that should probably come much later down the line.
Instead, why not sit down and do some thinking first. The first step should be to decide what you are trying to accomplish. If you are interested in establishing a system to guard and watch your home, this will lead you in a much different direction than if you are looking to protect a business. Of course, if you are looking to protect a business, then this leads to a whole number of additional questions. For example, a business would definitely need something which was able to take high quality images in the dark. This would entail something with night vision and LED sensors. Probably the more the better. Additionally, the images it does take must be clear. This footage may eventually need to be shown to the police and you want to be able to give them everything you can to help catch the grease ball that attempted (or actually did) to rob your business.
After determining what you are trying to accomplish, you need to think about what might be the options for achieving your goals. If you are interested in a full security system, you could certainly start calling up some security companies. They would be tickled pink to sell you a high priced solution. But is this what you really want? More importantly, is it really what you need? Many people, including myself, have created their own system by adding cameras and monitoring options gradually.
So much for potential business approaches. When it comes to a discussion of CCTV, I think the question really lies with future tech as much as current technology. Does anyone remember that futuristic movie Minority Report? The vision it gave of the future, fantastical elements aside, including iris-readers that picking up your vision and immediately identified you the moment you walked into a building. With security becoming such a booming industry, more research funding may be going to solutions just like that. Who knows what the market will come up with? Video security has its limitations, as London found out with that increase in masked crimes. Is there some type of security device, yet to be fully commercialized, that has the potential to replace video cameras?
Of course, the nice thing about video camera security is that it is very unobtrusive itself. You can wander around and do whatever you want whether or not a camera is picking it up. Other technological solutions that construct sound barriers or similar "fences" to discourage crime are far more intrusive, and that can make the public very nervous. Another advantage to security footage is that it can be used in a court of law in many cases, whereas newer technologies may have limited applicability in the realm of justice.
Overall, I suspect people will become more comfortable with video camera systems, as long as local governments show that the systems can be used effectively and properly…and federal governments do not start using them for purposes of their own. This temptation is difficult enough for the American government to resist, with the NSA collecting all the data it can find. Other governments might prove far less judicious with their use of the camera systems.
Another thing that has just recently crossed my mind is that the future is already here. Think of the high tech systems that certain places are using right now, like casinos for example. From the moment you walk in, you are identified, recorded, tracked and compared against a number of databases (to determine if you are an undesirable or not I suppose).
These systems are using advanced features such as facial recognition and even biometrics to perform all of their functions. Some of these things have a huge number of potential applications to security and systems that we are likely to see in the not so distant future. A perfect example of this would be using retina scans at places like ATM machines or even for access in certain high security locations (think certain areas of Government buildings). I have also seen some research that indicates there is current work being done in the areas of voice printing (a high tech way of saying voice recognition) and signature verification.
To me, this all sounds like some very cool stuff. The number of practical applications for these ideas and features literally stagger the mind. However, I still come back to my original thoughts about control and what kind of rights are people willing to give up in order to feel more safe and better protected?
One major concern with this private security system idea is the data space necessary. While it may seem like data space is unlimited, this really only holds true for home computer users. Businesses, especially businesses that have servers or at least run their own websites, often have to manage their data space very closely in order to ensure proper running speeds, efficiency, and room for new incoming data. The move over to digital was a lifesaver as far as video security systems were concerned. It allowed all kinds of businesses (instead of just major financial institutions or stores) to invest in video cameras and easily place them in relatively unobtrusive places without worrying about things like running wires through the walls or using up video tape.
This said, the move to digital still left businesses with the data space problem. Imagine how much old-fashioned videotape would be produced just by keeping track of office space throughout working hours and most of the night, every day. It would be both ridiculous and incredibly expensive. Digital cameras do not use up physical resources, but those hours and hours of data need to be place somewhere, at least for a few days, in case they are needed for reference later on. Video files tend to be large, so all in all it's no surprise that smaller companies prefer their dummy cameras. The fear of the law is often enough to avoid small-time crimes.
But many businesses install their cameras in order to deal with a specific crime that has already occurred, and others may actually plan on using the footage if necessary. These companies need real cameras and immediately run into the digital space problem. The market has developed several solutions for this problem. One potential solution is a compressed video file that records video in a form of metadata that can be easily stored in a small size until it is needed. While not the perfect solution, it does make a large difference. Another common method of dealing with space is to use an image capture system that does not require constant camera tracking. If you've ever seen surveillance camera footage in a show or movie, it often shows this "skipping" or "jumping" footage. Instead of actually recording video the way we think of it – with 30 to 40 frames per second or even more – these cameras slow down the frames per second until they are only taking a snapshot only one second or so. This allows cameras to still capture basic movement, profiles, and faces, but keep video files very small at the same time.
This article was interesting and made me think of new things.
I wonder how expensive it is for government to implement and maintain these systems? That would be an interesting cost analysis: The start-up cost for a city to adopt a CCTV system, plus maintenance in coming years. This could easily be compared with the potential savings resulting from such a move regarding vandalism and similar acts. A ROI study comparing these costs to an equal investment in the current police force and other techniques to see what results are the most promising would also be helpful.
Unfortunately, such studies would be difficult or impossible to fully complete, because local governments can make very few secure cost decisions, especially when you stretch out time periods to look years into the future. One project is simple enough to study. Spending on any unknown law enforcement task versus spending on a single project is much more difficult to compare.
However, no matter what the results would be, local governments could easily offset their costs by encouraging companies to buy their own video camera systems for their offices and front buildings. Banks, of course, already tend to protect their premises with a watchful camera eye, and larger chain stores use cameras as a matter of course. But if smaller businesses also adopted video cameras as a core office/store practice – taking into account the multiple state laws affecting such things – then most places where crime occurs will be actively monitored and the city may see the benefits without heavy investment in CCTV systems itself. As an added bonus, citizens will get less of a Big Brother vibe if private companies installed their own security systems instead of giving the video task over to the government.
All Content © 2012 Contract Web Development, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Disclosure | Powered by Drupal