Does video verification lead to more arrests? / video data as evidence / comments on video March 2, 2012

March 2, 2012

******************

NOTE: I do not have any paid advertisements here. If you read about a product or service it's because I decided to mention it or someone, often the manufacturer or provider of the service, sent in an article or comment. I appreciate everyone who participates in this forum and do my best to circulate all comments. [but that doesn't mean I have to !! ]

************

Ken,

A major reason that Videofied is different than home surveillance systems â€“ Videofied delivers arrests. Arrests mean greater value to police, insurers and consumers.

There are many very good companies like Alarm.Com, Napco ISeeVideo, TotalConnect and others who add CCTV cameras to their panels as an additional service, delivering look-in capability to their customers. But home surveillance systems are not designed for video verification. They are not really integrated video alarm systems. In fact, some of these providers of openly state that they are NOT video verification; the Central Station doesn't even have access to the streaming video. A few of these companies who claim to be video verification describe a customer-intensive verification process where the end-user can help the monitoring station use the cameras to verify an alarm. In reality this is neither easy nor Central Station friendly and is better as a sales concept than real life.

All of that to say that Videofied delivers arrests â€“ lots of them. Go on YouTube and search on Videofied and you will find hundreds of arrest videos, many television newscasts, and compilations of arrest after arrest. Compare. Do the same thing with the other video security systems and see what you find. Videofied was designed as an alarm system; only 1 signal that is sent from the panel to the Central station and it includes all the alarm data and the video clip of what caused the alarm no DVRs no call backs, no 3rd party servers. The alarm/video come in as one signal and are dispatched as an alarm, not a surveillance session. This is NOT surveillance and there is NO look-in because it is not home surveillance.

How well does it work? The March issue of Police Chief Magazine put out by the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police describes a case study in Detroit where Videofied protecting Detroit schools delivered an amazing 70% arrest rate! To put this in perspective, in 2011 the arrest rates for burglaries in Dallas was 5.2% and Minneapolis was 7.3%.

Dealers who want to sell thermostats, remote door controls with phone operated locks and other services by partnering with a manufacturer that shares their RMR â€“ they don't need arrests because security has become just one of many other services. That is a different business. Videofied is focused on verification so that we can deliver police response to a verified crime-in-progress. We sell greater security and we think that this is greater value for a security dealer and their customer.

Keith Jentoft, President

www.@videofied.com

*************

Response

************

I agree that video verification is great for deterring crime and even more importantly for providing an opportunity for alarm dealers to increase [and keep] RMR. By the way, the appropriate Standard Form Contract to use with a Videofied system is the CCTV Sales Contract, which is for commercial use. For residential use you can use the All in One Contract or the Monitoring Contract. Be sure you're not using an outdated monitoring contract - it should reference video data and monitoring video.

***************

Video data as evidence

**********

Ken,

I have to disagree with Daveâ€™s reply about digital video being unusable for criminal prosecution. I have been a criminal investigator for the last 16 years and have used digital video repeatedly. As does most agencies. If a defense attorney files some sort of motion regarding evidence tampering, which in 16 years I have had done once on digital audio but never video, then that is exactly what it i¦.a motion. Prosecution and defense will argue it and someone will win. Chain of custody is also mentioned. Chain of custody procedures are followed regardless of the type of evidence obtained. Again, I don't see an issue.

Tim Gray

******************

Comment from Napco

*****************

Hello Ken,

Keith Jentoft, from Videofied, makes a great point, that his companyâ€™s business model is not an incremental RMR builder for alarm dealers. Videofied is a video verification product which addresses law enforcement, non-response markets and offers no incremental RMR to the dealer. This is a valuable, essential model and has its place in the market.

The other, totally different business model, which we call Remote Control Services, marketed by NAPCO under the iSee Video and iBridge Brands, offers our dealers the ability to provide their customers with incremental services such as:

1) Looking in on their home or business video cameras, from any smart phone or PC, to see whatâ€™s going on

2) Internet accessing 24/7 recorded video of their premises

3) Operating alarm systems remotely

4) Setting and controlling HVAC systems remotely

5) Controlling lights from anywhere

Ken let me be clear on this, NONE OF THESE SERVICES CONSTITUTE SELF-MONITORING, NOR ARE THEY INTENDED TO REPLACE THE FUNCTION OF A TRADITIONAL, MONITORED ALARM SYSTEM.

Quite the contrary, all of these services enhance the end-consumerâ€™s value of their alarm system. The use of these services, in conjunction with a central station monitored alarm system, actually lowers attrition of alarm accounts to the dealer and creates what in the cable TV business is called a â€œstickyâ€ customer. The more services a customer subscribes to from a dealer, the less likely they are to cancel their total account. I can also add, that virtually 100% of NAPCOâ€™s tens-of-thousands of iSee Video installations are integrated with a central station, monitored alarm system.

What NAPCO pioneered eight years ago, with the advent of iSee Video, was based on extensive consumer research that told us people wanted â€œmoreâ€ from their alarm systems. Advances in technology have also made consumers require our industry to be more web and smart phone friendly, particularly if we want to appeal to younger customers as an industry. Our intention was to bring the industry more in line with todayâ€™s consumer and importantly, create a suite of services that generate new, incremental revenue for our dealers. We have accomplished just that! A typical residential consumer with iSee Video added to their alarm system pays an additional $14.95- $29.95 per month to our dealers. Itâ€™s even higher for small business accounts.

Finally, other industries (ie. cable, telephone companies) are hard at work identifying new service-based, income streams to provide future sales growth, at a time when the marketplace is more competitive than ever. They have engaged in extensive consumer research and testing to identify what â€œAmericaâ€ will value enough to pay a recurring service fee, reliably, month-after-month-after month.

Theyâ€™ve identified TV, internet service and VOIP already and are looking for more. We as the Security Industry must maintain control of the marketing of these new, exciting services or risk losing these potential business opportunities.

Best regards,

Jorge Hevia

SVP Marketing & Sales

NAPCO Security Technologies

www.@napcosecurity.com

****************