September 14, 2010
************
Question:
************
Ken,
Hopefully a quick question or thoughts on ECV. A lot of the local authorities are going to ECV or some form of it. We were thinking of instituting this policy as a rule in our monitoring so that we are covered at all times. I want to get your thoughts on making this policy and then also incorporating the ECV into our contracts. AND if we do incorporate this policy, will we have to notify all existing clients of the change or have new contracts signed? Our past contracts, and I believe yours, have provisions about notifying the police but not guaranteeing their response. I believe this covers our liability as more jurisdictions add ECV.
Thanks
Leo Taylor
ESI Security
**************
Answer:
**************
Monitoring contracts provide for central station discretion regarding dispatching on signals. That discretion includes ECV, if that is the central's policy. Not all jurisdictions require ECV and a central should be careful imposing policies that may not be consistent with local tradition or custom, or police requirements. No contract changes need be made to any of the Standard Forms because of ECV.
If a central is changing its response policy there is no harm in letting subscribers know, particularly if there is a false alarm issue in the jurisdiction. Other than customer relations, however, I don't think there is any legal requirement that the change in ECV policy be communicated to subscribers.
Keep in mind that some ECV may require different contracts. CCTV or audio equipment may need different contracts.
*************
Comment on terminating monitoring and changing key pad display
*************
Ken,
FYI most systems that are set to communicate will display a Fail To Communicate, or, FC, or, Comm Fail or something to indicate that there is a communication problem. Anyone can easily tell there is no monitoring being done or at least a problem.
John Elmore
**************
Question: Is ECV required in Michigan?
**************
Hi Ken,
We have a potential customer that got information from a competitor that stated upon an alarm from a security system for a home or business that the first call from the monitoring company has to go to the home owner or "key holder" first (not the police first) because "it's the Law". I've been in the business over thirty years, read a number of legal documents on line from Michigan.gov, and can't find anything on this that stats this specifically.
Can you tell me if this is "the Law". I.e. "Michigan Law".
Thanks,
Stuart Hency
**************
Answer:
**************
It might be required in Lansing, MI. Does anyone in MI know if ECV is required and, if so, what ECV is required?
***************
Comments re video and audio
***********
Ken,
I am happy as anyone else for the success of Videofied and yes we monitor that platform in our office. But I am concerned about the message that your e-mail distributes and the unintended consequence for the 30 million systems that have been installed and are in service in which the vast majority is doing what they were designed to do, detect the actions of an unknown person or persons.
My direct issue with the message and content is that I believe that Mr. Jentoft is saying that those 30 million systems are sub-standard or in Lee Jones (another way left of center self proclaimed industry professional who pontificates) words, frauds.
While I believe that we should embrace new technology, we can not place ourselves in such a position that we devalue the more traditional technology that was just installed. We should not allow a new class of customer to be created to receive a higher level of response service from municipal authorities as a sales tool when a properly designed and installed system without video is just if not more effective for the purpose at hand, detection.
Members of the industry and your list SHOULD NOT endorse or perpetuate this marketing scheme all at the detriment of the system they installed yesterday or last year that was not a Videofied system.
Bart A. Didden
U.S.A. Central Station Alarm Corp.
A UL Listed Contract Monitoring Company
Offices located in NY, CT & MN
877-872-1266
*************
Ken
Ct is a two party notification state with regard to audio. We do systems in areas of public accommodation (((Airports, train station etc))) and always require that signage be in view anyplace that audio can be heard/recorded. Our policy is that EMPLOYEES will be notified of intent or right to record by placing a notice in the paycheck envelope, posting a sign on the board with the state and federal employment laws and with decals or signs
We use a generic sign by Maxwell I believe that says AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDING ON PREMISES.
I understand from George Congdon of Northeast Security Solutions in West Springfield MA that the new Mass law is more restrictive. Their law is NO COVERT AUDIO. I guess the reason how can a blind person read the notice of audio monitoring?
Joel Kent
************
Sure it would be nice to have undeniable evidence, but isn't the PI's job to investigate who goes in-and-out of the house and where is the "pool boy" at any given time? If covert surveillance was legal under all circumstances, I would become the PI and have evidence automatically emailed to me - selling it to the client for big bucks. That's not how things work.
Dusan
**************
Response:
********
I believe CT is a one party state. see https://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/vid-connecticut1.htm
Mass is all party state and statute can be found here https://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/vid-massachusetts1.htm