January 18, 2012
*************
****************
CCTV Question
**************
Ken,
Is a hotel, that has monitors set up in the security office for their video surveillance cameras, required to monitor ie have someone viewing the live video at all times. A security director asked that question. He is concerned that the monitors should be in a room where no one is sitting.
Please advise.
Chuck Rinka
Stratagem Security
Elmsford, New York
**************
Answer
*************
I do not believe that live time monitoring is required, nor is it prohibited. Most likely most surveillance cameras are not live real time monitored, but data is recorded for viewing when needed. In some facilities, residential and commercial, real time live viewing takes place. I believe that the liability that attaches to either practice will depend upon a number of factors, such as 1) the reason the security measure was installed, 2) who is intended to be protected, 3) what reliance by others has been created, 4) what reasonable expectation can others have that they are protected, and 5) what reasonable response can others expect from the security protection.
High crime areas may demand greater protective measures. High crime residential; high risk secured facilities; visibility of camera protection; published intended use of the cameras and response to emergency situations.
You can't tell parents that the school has live monitored camera and immediate response intervention if you don't have it. Same with CCTV in an apartment building.
I don't believe there is any law that requires CCTV monitoring, at least in private public relationships. By contract you can create duties and liability for failure to reasonably perform those duties.
***********
On the lighter side - the good old days
************
Those were the days! That is the only conclusion that the erudite and secretive Editorial Board of the Thought for the Day could come up with after reading the musings of an unnamed grandfather. His remarks are shown below. In his short comments, he re collects how far a dollar once went at the grocery store, and bemoans that those days are long gone. Read on to see what has changed:When I was a boy, my Momma would send me down to the corner store with a dollar and I'd come back with five bags of potatoes, two leaves of bread, three bottles of milk, a hunk of cheese, a box of tea and six eggs. You can't do that now: there are too many darn security cameras!
Ari Greene
Arista Securirty Control Inc.
Brooklyn, NY
WWW.AristaSecurity.com
***************
Audio and video question
***********
Ken
We have a customer who wants us to install 40 cameras in a nightclub. He has now asked if two of these cameras can have audio recording.
The two cameras in question are outside the theater about 8 feet above the ground covering the front of the entrance lines where the security guards search bags etc before entry is granted. The lines form behind railings but conceivably these microphones could record people just walking past the nightclub.
Would signs stating that audio & video recording is taking place be OK, or should we not install microphones as the potential to record conversations from people walking past the night club exists.
Doug
Orange County, California
*************
Answer
************
You cannot record audio without consent of either one party or all parties to the conversation. Since your outside audio device will pick up conversation by patrons waiting to get in you will not have their consent. Signs will not help. Not everyone on line will have read the sign. As I have expressed in prior articles, the real problem isn't going to be the recording, but how it's used later. If it never gets published or circulated then no one is the wiser. If it gets out, you didn't have the authority to record the conversation. Violation of audio laws subjects you to criminal and civil liability.
************
Comment on CCTV in a house
*************
Just imagine the liability of false alarms triggered by the house keeper or babysitter. Perhaps they have a 'guest' perhaps people get naked, perhaps it gets pretty ugly when they find out they were getting naked on your not-so candid camera. Not so funny any more!
Bruce Boyer
**************this comment is in connection with this article:
video and audio - Visonic's "RealAlarm"
November 16, 2011
*************
Question
************
Regarding the email thread from Dusan discussing the hidden camera in Starbucks [Nov 5, 2011] I wanted to get some commentary from you regarding Visonic product.
Recently we launched a solution called "RealAlarm" that sends images via RF and GPRS to a central station for event viewing and priority response. Generally the product purpose is for a permanent security application using PIR Cameras, door/window transmitters, smoke and carbon monoxide sensors to detect and subsequently send images to the central station.
This in itself does not appear to have any legal consequences in or out of a home or business as the images are event driven and can not be viewed unless a detection or alarm has occurred. In this instance I don't believe there is an expectation of privacy. Bad guy breaks in and a PIR Camera sends images. I cannot imagine that even the craziest counselor would take that case based on an expectation of privacy.
Now my real question is about audio. The Visonic system is capable of transmitting audio clips with the video clips. Since I recollect a recent thread about audio and video transmitting together I would appreciate your opinion on this matter. I imagine it varies from locale to locale but perhaps a comment on the Federal law regarding this will be helpful to the readers and certainly the Visonic customers.
Thanks Ken, best regards and great to see you at the SIA Gala recently.
Mark Ingram, President,
Visonic, Inc
*************
Answer
*************
I'm not technical enough [or at all] to address a "permanent security solution" or video data via RF [which I guess is radio] and GPRS [cellular technology] but I agree with your analysis that once there is an alarm condition all bets are off for video and audio transmissions. I think the problem with looking for a statutory blessing is that the statutes I've seen have not kept up with technology. I think the issue will come down to expectation of privacy and how data is used, even if some video or audio statute is in fact violated. [I do have to disagree that even the craziest attorney won't be willing to cause some trouble - you know we're trained for that].
The new Visonic RealAlarm product is designed to transmit once an alarm condition is triggered. There are only two options in that situation: one, its a "false" alarm because there is no illegal activity - maybe the subscriber is home and sets off a motion detector in the middle of the night. Two, it is an illegal entry, and cameras and audio pick up intruders during a break in. In each scenario the central station receives a signal, video and audio [if the system is set up to transmit both].
Intruders have no expectation [only hopes] of privacy. The data, video or audio, will be used by the trained central station operator to verify a real alarm condition. This form of verification is perhaps the best technology presently has to offer. It should satisfy even the most stringent ECV [electronic call verification] standards, even though ECV regulations may call for one, two or more telephone calls to the premises for verification. The central station operators will call 911 and be able to confirm the alarm condition, emergency situation, by their visual and audio data. The use of that data should end there unless law enforcement subpoenas the data for use by prosecutors in a criminal trial. The data should be admissible because it was not set up by law enforcement without a warrant.
Where can there be some exposure of liability? Misuse of data. Let's say it's a false alarm. The homeowner is wondering around the house naked. Video and audio data confirms no actual illegal activity. No alarm condition is dispatched. The data ends up on the Internet or comedy central. That's not going to be good for the central station or dealer probably.
The analysis is not just whether there is an expectation of privacy, but how that data is used or abused. That's not an issue for Visonic, it's an issue for the central station. There must be standards and policy for how data is used and stored.
The RealAlarm system is obviously a tremendous advance in technology and should increase security as well as reduce false alarms.