Spot On Security

Over the last year, we met with dozens of Chief Security Officers from some of the largest companies in the US. We wanted to hear their opinions about our new iCVR camera, which includes video analytics and a built-in DVR.

They gave us excellent feedback, which we’ve used to make the iCVR better.

Besides the extremely positive responses, however, we heard something that surprised us: Almost all of the CSOs we talked to said that they would love to put up more surveillance cameras, but they were concerned about the liabilities. Could the iCVR reduce the liabilities inherent with video cameras?

What they were referring to is the potential lawsuits that can arise when a camera is installed, if it isn’t monitored. The public can see the camera and imagine that it is being watched. If something should happen, they expect a response.

The problem is that less than five percent (5%) of surveillance cameras are monitored today, because it has been too expensive to have people watching cameras all the time. The general public doesn’t realize this, however.

The CSOs weren’t raising a needless concern. They could each recite the lawsuits that had already proven this is a real problem. They could tell you how big the settlements were for.

Apparently, there are a number of cases where the courts have ruled that when people see cameras, there is “a reasonable expectation of response.”

In other words: Yes, there is an increase in liability for any cameras you have installed that aren’t being monitored.

These CSOs were from the Fortune 500, so they knew the danger of increasing their company’s risks. However, they also knew that adding cameras could make their properties safer for employees and customers. So, they weren’t happy about not putting up cameras. In many cases, they accepted the risk simply because they felt safety and security was just too important.

The minute they saw the iCVR with its built-in video analytics, they saw it as a potential boon for increasing protection without increasing liabilities. They could each think of a dozen locations where they wanted to add cameras if they could solve the liability problem.

This is just one of many examples showing how video analytics are changing the equation for security.

The cost of monitoring, which can now be managed remotely from anywhere in the world, has been reduced by 90% or more with the iCVR. One person can now monitor up to 1,000 cameras, and do a much better job.

So, a person sitting in one office, for example, can monitor the cameras for all of their company’s buildings at the same time. And if they use audio over IP, they can respond immediately to prevent a crime or defuse a situation. Or, they can contract with a number of Remote Guarding companies who are glad to offer this service.

Yes, when you do have monitoring, you do indeed reduce your liabilities for the cameras you have installed, because you can respond. This improves the safety and security for your employees and customers, as well. And yes, the iCVR makes it cost effective to both monitor, and using audio you can respond immediately.

The iCVR was especially designed for Remote Guarding, thanks to feedback we got from the CSOs.

If you want more info on this, check out: www.remoteguarding.org

Video analytics performance is all about accuracy of detection.

Any technology requiring calibration or tuning has an accuracy problem. I’m surprised this isn’t mentioned more often.

Why do you need to tell a system what the size of a human or a vehicle is before it will work accurately? The reason is simple: The technology can’t distinguish humans and vehicles from other false alarms accurately enough.

A bird doesn’t look much like a person. A tree branch doesn’t either. Humans don’t have a problem telling the difference. But this is what calibration is doing – it is trying to eliminate these kinds of false detections.

The only reason that VideoIQ’s technology needs no calibration or tuning to work reliably in even the toughest outdoor environments is because it is accurate enough. The difference in accuracy is astounding compared to all others. It’s not just a little bit better. You won’t often find such a big discrepancy in a field with so many players.

Even the best of the best analytics products require size calibration to work reliably. Comparing uncalibrated systems against the VideoIQ iCVR shows how dramatically better the accuracy is. Even the best systems aren’t close.

When it comes to comparing advanced motion detection systems (http://spotonsecurity.com/2009/02/06/the-big-video-analytics-lie/), that sometimes try to pass themselves off as video analytics, the contrast is even more dramatic. They are unusable outdoors without calibration. That’s how bad their detection accuracy is.

Eliminating the need for calibration and tuning is not just about ease of set-up. That’s a huge benefit, but accuracy becomes an issue everywhere: Where you can use it, who can install it, how many problems will it generate.

For example, over a year ago, one of the largest video analytics companies advertised partnering with a company who wanted to use their technology for protecting a particular residential and commercial application. It was supposed to be a nationwide roll-out. There was one limitation: The system needed to be installed by untrained technicians and therefore calibration could not be used. So, they limited the range of detection, turned down the sensitivity and tried to detect only static scenes, mostly areas of cement – not where other moving objects might be present, such as bushes or trees, etc. In other words, just looking at an area of cement with everything else masked off.

Even those limitations weren’t enough. Shadows from nearby trees would often fall into the detection areas. Reflections from the sun or headlights would cross into the regions of interest. Leaves, paper or dead branches would cause false alarms. After some extensive testing, it became obvious the technology simply wouldn’t work.

The question isn’t how well does the technology work when installed and continually re-tuned by a trained professional, but how well it performs when anyone uses it.

It all comes down to detection accuracy.