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
March 24, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Hi Doug,
Could you cite the cases where organization have been held liable for not monitoring security cameras?
I am aware of cases where dummy cameras were used and the organization was held liable for creating a false sense of security.
It seems hard to believe that organizations would generally be held liable for not monitoring live. As a practical consequence, almost everyone in the whole world would be liable for this (because almost no one monitors live).
I am skeptical of this and would appreciate supporting evidence and qualification of what specific situations create liability.
Thanks,
John
March 25, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Hi Doug,
Could you cite the cases where organization have been held liable for not monitoring security cameras?
I am aware of cases where dummy cameras were used and the organization was held liable for creating a false sense of security.
It seems hard to believe that organizations would generally be held liable for not monitoring live. As a practical consequence, almost everyone in the whole world would be liable for this (because almost no one monitors live).
I am skeptical of this and would appreciate supporting evidence and qualification of what specific situations create liability.
Thanks,
John
Oops, should have mentioned great post! Waiting for the next one!
March 27, 2009 at 12:10 pm
John,
I know exactly how you feel. I was just as surprised as you are about this. I was also just as skeptical and asked for examples. The CSOs told me some of the stories they remembered at the time. They didn’t give me case numbers, but they did remember the cases.
I’ve asked them if they could supply case numbers and more details, and I hope to hear back in a few days. But let me tell you what I heard.
First, this is not the issue with dummy cameras. Dummy cameras are certainly a problem, but I think this is fairly well known in the industry. The problem here is that when people see the dummy cameras, they can falsely believe there is security protection when there isn’t, and yes this can create potential liability problems. Most CSOs won’t use dummy cameras for this reason.
The same is true with covert cameras built into smoke detectors. This can give a false impression of fire protection. This is widely known by fire alarm experts. It can be a real liability problem.
But what the CSOs were telling me were the problems with real working surveillance cameras that weren’t monitored. Putting signs up that the area is protected by CCTV cameras doesn’t help with this problem. It might make it worse. The problem is that the public assumes that most cameras are monitored, so they can falsely assume these cameras are monitored as well, giving them a false sense of protection.
One story I remember was a case at a Walmart store. A lady wanted a place to park where she could rest, but was concerned about safety in the neighborhood, so she drove around until she found the Walmart store with cameras. She parked directly in sight of the cameras, thinking she would be safe there. Unfortunately, she was attacked in her car. She sued Walmart and won the case. I don’t know whether this was a judge or jury trial, but the opinion agreed with her that there was a “reasonable expectation of response” with those cameras.
I was told other stories very much like this. These were cases that the CSOs were aware of where the court awarded the victims because of the cameras there, and someone should have responded to stop the crime.
I’ve often heard retailers talk about not wanting to put up cameras to cover their parking lots because they were concerned about increasing their liabilities, but I never understood that comment before, and frankly I thought it was just a vague concern. Apparently it is a real liability issue. Which is a huge shame, because I’ve seen statistics that report from 60% to 80% of crime in retail, business and campus security happens in parking lots. And people aren’t putting up cameras because they can’t afford to monitor them.
So, Remote Guarding with video analytics is a real solution to this problem. It can have a huge impact on reducing crime, and it makes monitoring cameras far more cost effective.
One last comment on this: I think this is a USA problem. This country seems to have more lawyers per square inch that any other, and I think this is a problem created by the ability to sue companies for crimes in their parking lots or around their property even though the crimes were not committed by the company. I don’t think you will see this kind of extreme legal support of victims in the rest of the world.
Thanks. More later, when I hear back.
Doug.
March 27, 2009 at 12:23 pm
John,
I got an email from an industry consultant who read my blog. Here is what he said:
– Doug:
– “Expectation of reasonable response” guides most security practitioners and CSOs. Especially in connection with the following:
– Using dummy cameras
– Cameras installed that watch parking lots but cannot see properly due to darkness, weather, tree growth, blocked by large trucks, etc.
– Use in game rooms, nurseries, fitness centers, swimming pools–where response is critical and monitoring is necessary.
– On the other hand, it has been accepted in corporate security to design systems using cameras that watch public areas where there is storage of money or money counting, without fully monitoring these. In this case, there is a diminished expectation of immediate response, and there is an expectation that images will be used for investigation of fraud.”
John, I hoping for some more details later, and will post them as soon as they arrive.
Doug.
March 27, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Hi Doug,
I appreciate the elaboration and am looking forward to reading details of specific cases.
Part of my skepticism is that there are tens of thousands of municipal surveillance cameras across the US and almost none of them are actively monitored in real time. If this was a legitimate risk, all of those systems would be litigation time bombs. You would also expect there to already by dozens of cases with cities losing millions of dollars.
The analogy I would draw is the fear of using H.264 or MPEG-4 because of temporal compression. The reality there is that rarely if ever does anyone lose a court case solely on their choice of CODEC.
I am happy to be proven wrong and learn something new.
Best,
John
March 27, 2009 at 2:57 pm
John,
None of the cases I heard about were related to public surveillance systems. They were all private corporations. The Fortune 500. Retail stores, hotels and resorts, mainly.
It does raise the question about why it would apply to commercial locations and not public areas. Perhaps a lawyer could help explain. But, just like you, I have never heard of a case like this with public surveillance systems.
And I’m with you 100% on the whole MPEG issue. It is bogus. I’ve talked with lawyers and reviewed lots of court cases and court opinions. That’s probably worth another blog post.
Thanks.
Doug.
April 10, 2009 at 1:50 pm
[...] Check out the top post. There’s an interesting discussion of the potential liability for corporations deploying cameras but not monitoring them. This isn’t something I’ve heard of before and I’ll be checking into it for a potential trends story. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Tags: Other industry blogs, VideoIQ [...]
April 10, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Sam,
Thanks for adding this to your blog.
I look forward to any further info you can dig up, and any discussion.
Doug.
December 4, 2009 at 3:11 am
Thanks for sharing information with us…….
December 14, 2009 at 9:19 am
I cannot really comment on liability issues but from an operational perspective I was interested to see you quote a figure of one operator per thousand cameras.
In your view, what cameras to operator ration should we compare this against if regular cameras were to used?
December 14, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Steve,
Good question.
A typical operator can watch about 10-16 monitors using traditional traditional cameras, but their effectiveness drops off dramatically after 20 minutes, and it is easy for them to miss critical events, especially if they are fleeting.
They can also do camera tours, where they go through cameras once per hour or every 4 hours. This means only seeing what it happening for a minute or two per hour or even less. It also is not very effective.
That’s the current state using traditional cameras.
The other thing to compare against is using other sensors to trigger alarms. For example, outdoor fence detectors or beam detectors and outdoor PIR motion detectors can be used. They all generate false alarms, so you need the cameras to verify. But in this case one operator can monitor about 100-160 cameras when combined with alarm sensors.
That’s still far short of what we are seeing with our video analytics cameras. The other disadvantage of the alarm sensor approach is that it costs a lot more to install them, especially when you need to run wires out to the perimeter.
On top of this, the problem with false sensor alarms, which are common, is that when you look at video without seeing the cause of the problem, you need to play it back over and over, just in case there might be something that you missed. Second, you then aren’t sure if the camera just missed it, or whether it was a real false alarm.
That’s another big advantage with video analytics – since you can quickly see exactly what caused the alarm from the red box around the person detected, and usually it takes only seconds to determine whether it was valid or not.
Thanks.
Doug.
July 5, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Take pleasure in your fantastic post. Extremely informative along with The spouse and i appreciated studying that ones some other articles. your own sharing along with keep on awesome work.
November 3, 2011 at 10:48 am
Found any actual cases yet, Doug? No, I thought not.
I’ve been searching Westlaw for hours. The camera liability cases you’re referring to were either all settled before they got to court, or they’re an urban legend made up by camera salesmen trying to sell more cameras.
November 7, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Zach, thanks for adding your input. There seems to be a growing response that no one can find these court cases, which means, as you say, that either they were settled first, or they are an industry myth.
None of my original sources, who I asked, could cite me an actual case, even though they felt sure there were some.
If this is all a myth, then it is surprising that it would be held by some of the best CSO’s in the industry at some of the largest companies. They were clear, when they shared this in our focus group, that they were not relying on myth but on actual court cases they heard about. None, however, were citing their own experiences, so it is still possible that the actual court cases grew in mythical proportions after being passed along by word of mouth.
I don’t know.
The point of my blog post was that there are many leading CSO’s who act as if it is true, and this means they are not using surveillance where it could help reduce crime, to avoid liability.
If someone could disprove this as a myth, that would be useful to the industry, but doing so would require more than searching through listings of published court cases. It would mean talking to the leading CSO’s in the biggest companies and tracking back stories they’ve heard until the sources can be found. That’s the only way of busting a myth that I know of.
My guess is that there is some truth behind these claims, but they may not have made it through court. Very few cases end up going to court. Only a few percent. The rest are settled through an agreement of some sort, and often these contain clauses that prevent disclosure of the details. In that case, word of mouth might have passed along the information in confidence, from CSO to CSO, which is why they couldn’t provide details. That would be my guess.
As I wrote, above, a source who was an experienced CSO of Fortune 500 companies, and consultant to other CSOs, stated: – “Expectation of reasonable response” guides most security practitioners and CSOs.
This was an old blog post of mine, but the point I was making still stands: If you want reasonable response, then a monitored surveillance system is best, and with new remote guarding solutions available, it is now cost effective to add this higher class of protection in many more places than was ever practical before.
It is also far more effective at preventing crime before it happens. That would certainly reduce liabilities as well.