OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE C CTV USER GROUP Summer 2006

www.cctvusergroup.com

Turning the page An exclusive look inside British Library security Strategy, commitment key to Chester success Community Safety Partnerships and a forward looking CCTV team create positive spirit in this historic city

Blazing a trail for IP security in Enfield The London Borough of Enfield is getting known for its forward looking approach to security technology

Also in this issue • CCTV in Northern Ireland • How Wycombe gained ISO 9001 certification • Inside the Highways Agency • The national strategy for CCTV • And more…

Table of Contents

CCTVImage Editor-in-Chief: Peter Fry CCTV User Group Tel. +44(0)1992-442840 Fax +44(0)1992-471053 [email protected] To join the CCTV User Group, please see the membership application form inside the magazine. Editor: Tom Reeve Tel. +44(0)20-8255 5007 Fax +44(0)20-8255 5003 [email protected] Please fax or email press releases and articles to the editor or mail them to: CCTV Image, PO Box 795A, Surbiton, KT5 8YB United Kingdom Commercial Director: Peter Mawson Tel. +44(0)1543-250456 Fax +44(0)1543-415044 Mob. +44(0)7841-693979 [email protected] For a copy of our media pack, please contact the Commercial Director. For advertising enquiries, contact: The Marketing People Tel. +44(0)1543-421833 [email protected] Administrative office: CCTV Image Magazine Bournes Farm Binfield Heath RG9 4JT CCTV Image is published six times a year on behalf of the CCTV User Group by CCTV Media Ltd. It is sent free of charge to members of the CCTV User Group. For circulation details, please contact the Commercial Director. Subscriptions: If you don’t receive a regular copy of CCTV Image, you can subscribe by sending a cheque made payable to “CCTV Image” to the administrative office listed above. Annual subscription rates: UK – £25 Europe – £35 Rest of world – £45 The CCTV User Group does not endorse any product or service advertised or mentioned in this publication. While every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of the content, neither the CCTV User Group nor CCTV Media Ltd can be held liable for mis-statements or inaccuracies contained herein.

Summer 2006

No. 16

Welcome & News by Peter Fry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Rooms with a View British Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 CCTV in Northern Ireland . . . . . . 14

9 The British Library: We take an exclusive look inside one of the largest repositories of printed documents in the world.

Chester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Wycombe: ISO9001 . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 The Highways Agency. . . . . . . . . . 26 Enfield Public Safety Centre . . . . . 30

Features The National CCTV strategy. . . . . 32

14 CCTV User Group director Peter Fry tours ten CCTV systems as part of an assessment of video surveillance in Northern Ireland.

Digital drawbacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Prof. Martin Gill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Technology Talking Shop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Industry News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 CUG Membership form . . . . . . . . . 45

19 Strategy and commitment in Chester: We talk to CCTV manager Peter Johnson about building partnerships and community

Directory of member companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

32 National strategy for CCTV: A decade after the massive boom in CCTV systems in the UK, is it time for a comprehensive plan?

© 2006 CCTV Media Ltd/CCTV User Group. Printed by the Magazine Printing Company.

This issue sponsored by:

| CCTVImage

Summer 2006

3

1MVH
JOUP
UIF
GVUVSF
PG
$$57
#PTDI
%JOJPO
*1
$BNFSBT

*OUSPEVDJOH
#PTDI
%JOJPO
*1
5IF
POMZ
*1DPOOFDUJWJUZ
DBNFSB
XJUI
%JOJPO
JNBHF
RVBMJUZ
BOE
QFSGPSNBODF %JOJPO
DBNFSBT
DPOTJTUFOUMZ
XJO
BXBSET
GPS
UIFJS
PVUTUBOEJOH
QJDUVSF
RVBMJUZ
BOE
TUZMJTI
VMUSBDPNQBDU
IPVTJOH
/PX
%JOJPO
*1
MFUT
ZPV
QMVH
JO
BOZXIFSF
UIFSF´T
BO
&UIFSOFU

DPOOFDUJPO
¯
JO
1P&
OFUXPSLT
ZPV
EP
OPU
FWFO
OFFE
B
TFQBSBUF
QPXFS
TPVSDF
¯
BOE
TUBSU
TUSFBNJOH
%7%RVBMJUZ
EJHJUBM
BOE
BOBMPH
JNBHFT
UP
BOZ
MPDBUJPO
PO
ZPVS
OFUXPSL
%JOJPO
*1
VTFT
MPX
CJUSBUF
.1&(
UIBU
NBLFT
FGÜ
DJFOU
VTF
PG
OFUXPSL
CBOEXJEUI
"OE
%JOJPO
*1
DBO
JOUFHSBUF
JOUP
ZPVS
FYJTUJOH
TFDVSJUZ
TZTUFN
XJUI
OP
OFFE
GPS
BEEJUJPOBM

JOGSBTUSVDUVSF
4FF
%JOJPO
*1
BOE
UIF
XPSME´T
NPTU
DPNQMFUF
SBOHF
PG
$$57
TPMVUJPOT
BU
XXXCPTDITFDVSJUZDPN

CCTVImage

| Welcome and News

Welcome and News Peter Fry, Director, CCTV User Group ONE OF my regular tasks these days is the weekly look at the SIA website to see exactly how badly, from their own figures, the SIA is progressing with the licensing of Public Space CCTV Surveillance Operators. This time I was prompted by several of my members telling me of proposed inspections of their systems on the 7th July. When informed of the intended visit they had spoken at length to the SIA Compliance Officer detailing all their woes about waiting for the SIA to process their applications (some submitted way before Christmas) but still not having received a license, and asking what action the SIA would take. Apparently in all cases the compliance officer was reasonable and understanding and when asked what action the SIA would take for unlicensed operators we understand said a warning letter would be issued but no further action taken on it.. So what is the current situation out of what I believe is a potential 30-40,000 operators I believe might require PSS CCTV license? And deeper in the website we see the SIA explain this as the fault of the industry. “Licensing for Security Guards (other than Door Supervisors) came into effect on 20 March 2006

U SER G ROUP

UPDATE

Public Space Surveillance CCTV (correct at time of going to press) Number of qualified people

7,316

Applications on system

4,121

Licences granted

1,019

Licences refused

6

- a date chosen after widespread consultation with the private security industry. We made sure that the necessary systems were in place; however, the smooth implementation of licensing required the co-operation of the industry itself. We were assured by the industry that it would play its part and would work with us to phase in licensing over the period April 2005 - March 2006. The private security industry committed to submitting an agreed number of applications every month, starting from April 2005. Some security companies rose to the challenge; the majority did not. Industry suppliers are now significantly behind target in their submission of licence applications and are sending in a huge number all at once. We are doing everything possible to process this influx in a timely manner; however, the build-up has inevitably lead to an accumulation of applications waiting to be processed and a lengthening of processing times.” What they totally ignore is that until September

Administration changes and modifications to the website

IN THE LAST ISSUE I INTRODUCED you to Ms Jean Chappell who is now helping me in the management and administration of the User Group, and many have also met her at the last conference. But today our staff increased by one more. Laurence Moineau is joining us part time to replace Roz who used to help with the admin when we were based in Farnborough. I deeply appreciate how patient many members have been with some delays and errors in the admin of the group in the past few months but with this new support I am confident we can not only get back to our previous levels of service but will be bringing in new approaches and procedures to improve still further our service to our members. In the last issue I also mentioned a membership survey we had undertaken and thought you might be interested in the responses. For me, all the results are extremely encouraging and the additional comments on the responses made it abundantly clear how much members valued the group. I must admit I was surprised the website scored so highly as frankly I feel it is a bit tired looking and not particularly user friendly, something which has been on my ‘to do list’ for a long while, but other priorities have always got in the way. But with the additional resources and skills Jean and Laurence bring, this will be a priority. In the

This issue sponsored by:

2005 there was no training course that had QCA approval and without an approved training course how could anyone apply for a licence? To then expect 30-40,000 individuals get the training, await in many cases months for the certificate or at least the certificate number, apply for the license, await CRB checks and then on top the massive length of time it is taking the SIA to process the application is appalling. It is not surprising so few licences have been issued but the fault is totally down to the SIA and this kind of enforcement is totally inappropriate, having been warned so many times that the 20th March was totally untenable and that systems would have to shut down, as many have done. So the current enforcement action has to be seen in the context that amongst all their failures they want to be able to shout their successes of the enforcement action they are undertaking as they have done with other enforcement statistics on their website. It is more a case of trying to give the impression of efficiency whilst blaming others for their failings.

CCTV USER GROUP - MEMBERS SURVEY PERCEIVED VALUE FOR MONEY %

CCTV USER GROUP - MEMBERS SURVEY Would a 10-20%increase in fees be 100

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

80 60 40 20 0

Excellent

Good

Fair

Essential

Poor

Acceptable

Unacceptable

CCTV USER GROUP - MEMBERS SURVEY Opinions on the Website %

CCTV USER GROUP - MEMBERS SURVEY CCTV Im age - Opinions % 60

80

40

60 40

20

20 0

0 Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

past few weeks we have updated, redesigned and replaced all our stationery. We are now looking at all our promotional activities and updating and re-designing them. We are talking to Hugh Barker of i-Comply about further improvements to the KPI website and are considering many other initiatives which will further improve the value for money members get from us. But we would welcome all your views on what additional services you would like us to provide so please let us know.

Summer 2006

5

Welcome and News

| CCTVImage

“Looking Backwards – Marching Forwards” 10th Anniversary Members’ Conference, Bristol, 2-4 October 2006

Confirmed speakers include Jonathan Bamford – The Information Commissioner’s Code of Practice Review Garry Parkins – The Home Office National Strategy for CCTV Lord Colville of Culross – The Office of the Surveillance Commissioner – RIPA Dr Craig Donald - Behavioral Recognition Case studies Prof Martin Gill – Perpetuity Research and Consultancy international Speakers Invited but to be Confirmed Home Office Minister to open the conference Graeme Gerrard – Deputy Chief Constable Cheshire – ACPO CCTV Group BT Research and Development - Foreseeing the Future! John Pond – The birth of the CCTV User Group Conference Fees (Please note attendance is limited to members of the Group) Delegate including all meals and accommodation for 2 nights - £360 plus VAT Exhibitor including stand space and all meals and accommodation 2 nights – £500 + VAT FOR A BOOKING FORM PLEASE CONTACT [email protected] OR PHONE 01992 442840

D IRECTORY

OF

C OMPANIES

The fastest growing directory in the industry—Tel. 01543-250456 LOCATED IN THE BACK of this magazine is an NÊ invaluable guide to CCTV User Group member companies ˆÀiV̜ÀÞʜvʓi“LiÀÊVœ“«>˜ˆià and the extensive range of CCTV services and products which they have to offer. • The Directory of Member Companies includes basic contact details for all members of the User Group, with more than 30% of companies so far opting to provide more details of their company with an enhanced entry. • Costing less than £75 per issue, an enhanced entry is great value for money. This month an additional six companies have signed up for enhanced entries, bringing the total to 50 listings. Can you afford to be left out? Ê

8dbeVc^Zha^hiZYVgZbZbWZghd[i]Z88IKJhZgc'%%'lZXZaZWgViZY &%nZVghVh^cYZeZcYZciXdchjaiVcih#

LZegdk^YZHZXjg^in>cYjhign6ji]dg^ina^XZcXZidegVXi^XZigV^c^c\[dg88IK deZgVidghVcYhZXjg^in\jVgYheajhdi]ZgVXXgZY^iZYXdjghZh#K^h^idjg lZWh^iZdgXVaajh[dgYZiV^ah#

8^inHncXAiY IZa/%&,%,"',*&+. ;Vm/%&,%,"',(-,+ :"bV^a/^c[d5X^inhncX#Xd#j` LZW/lll#X^inhncX#Xd#j`

9ZY^XViZYB^XgdhAiY IZa#%&+&",',('%% LZW/lll#YZY^XViZYb^Xgdh#Xdb ;Vm#%&+&",',((%% :bV^a/XjhidbZghZgk^XZh5YZY^XViZYb^Xgdh#Xdb :hiVWa^h]ZY[dg'%nZVgh!9ZY^XViZYB^Xgdh^hVc^ciZgcVi^dcVabVg`ZiaZVYZg ^ci]ZÒZaYd[heZX^Va^hi88IKXdcigdaZfj^ebZci#I]ZXdbeVcn^hgZcdlcZY [dgi]ZYZh^\cVcYbVcj[VXijgZd[gdWjhi!YZY^XViZY!bjai^eaZm]VgYlVgZ YZh^\cZYidbZZii]ZYZbVcYhd[Xdci^cjdjh')"]djghZXjg^inhjgkZ^aaVcXZ#

8^inHncXVgZi]ZaZVY^c\J@VcY>ciZgcVi^dcVaegdk^YZgd[6jidbVi^XCjbWZg EaViZGZXd\c^i^dc#6eea^XVi^dch^cXajYZAVl:c[dgXZbZci!6ci^"iZggdg^hb! =dbZaVcYHZXjg^in!=^\]HZXjg^inH^iZh!EVg`^c\VcYIgV[ÒXHnhiZbh# EgdYjXih^cXajYZi]ZGdVYGjccZgGVe^YYZeadnbZcihnhiZb!i]Z7aVX`W^gY gdWjhiXdbeVXidjihiVi^dcVcYi]ZLVhe&'k^ciZaa^\Zci6CEGXVbZgV#

8d\cZi^mA^b^iZY IZa# ))%-,%,"))'..) ;Vm ))%-,%,"))'..* :bV^a/^c[d5Xd\cZi^m#Xd#j` LZW/lll#Xd\cZi^m#Xd#j` 6]VcYh"dciZX]c^XVaXdchjaiVcXnheZX^Va^h^c\^cigV[ÒX Zc[dgXZbZciVcYXdbbjc^inhV[ZinhnhiZbh#8d\cZi^md[[ZghV]da^hi^XVeegdVX] ^cXajY^c\^c^i^VaVhhZhhbZci!hnhiZbYZh^\cVcYheZX^ÒXVi^dc!egdXjgZbZci :J!Eg^cXZ'egd_ZXibVcV\ZbZci^cXajY^c\Wjh^cZhhegdXZhhbVcV\ZbZci! XdcigVXiVYb^c^higVi^dcVcYbVcV\ZYbV^ciZcVcXZ#6Xi^kZ^ci]Z88IKJhZg G^aajb^cVidgh[dg^ciZgcVaVcYZmiZgcVa!adc\gVc\ZVcY h]dgigVc\ZVeea^XVi^dch#9ZglZci]VhYgVlcjedc^ihZmeZgi^hZ^c>c[gV"GZY idYZh^\cG:}i

E"WVhZYk^YZdVeea^XVi^dch [dghZXjg^inhjgkZ^aaVcXZVcYbdc^idg^c\#Djghd[ilVgZVcY]VgYlVgZhdaji^dch VaadlWjh^cZhhZhid^cXgZVhZdeZgVi^dcVaZ[ÒX^ZcX^ZhVcYVYYgZhhg^h`VcYVhhZi bVcV\ZbZcil^i]Vc^ciZ\gViZYhZid[k^YZd"WVhZY^ciZaa^\ZcXZiddahi]Vihjeedgi Zc]VcXZYYZX^h^dc"bV`^c\#I]Z>HD.%%&/'%%%XZgi^ÒZYXdbeVcnhZgkZhi]ZcZZYhd[ aZVY^c\WVc`h!gZiV^adg\Vc^oVi^dchVcYigVchedgiVi^dcVji]dg^i^ZhVgdjcYi]ZldgaY#

;dglVgYK^h^dc IZa# ))%-,%"%&&(&(& ;Vm ))%-,%"%&&(&(' LZW/lll#[kXXik#Xd#j` :bV^a/hVaZh5[kXXik#Xd#j`

;dglVgYK^h^dc88IKAiYYZh^\cVcYbVcj[VXijgZi]ZgZkdaji^dcVgnB^X&"(%% 88IKXVbZgV!Vahd`cdlcVhBZiVaB^X`Zn!d[l]^X]dkZg'%%%]VkZWZZc hdaY^ci]ZeVhi[djgnZVgh#

BZi]Vb6k^Vi^dc9Zh^\cAiY IZa# ))%&)'%"*+*+&;Vm ))%&)'%"*+*+':bV^a/HijVgib_g5Vda#Xdb LZW/lll#bVYXXik#Xdb

cigjYZg9ZiZXi^dc^chZXjg^inVeea^XVi^dchVhlZaaVhXjhidb"Wj^aihnhiZbh#8CA ]Vhldci]ZÈ7ZhiHd[ilVgZÉVcYÈ>ccdkVi^dcÉVlVgYhVii]Z>EHZXjg^in6lVgYh#

8899Zh^\c:g\dcdb^XhAiY IZa#%'%",*.('-)* ;Vm%'%",*.('.%. :bV^a/eVja#igVjW5XXY#dg\#j` LZW/lll#XXY#dg\#j`

8g^iZX8dchjaiaiY IZa#%&,%+"+'**,, ;Vm%&,%+"+'**.. LZW/lll#Xg^iZXXdchjai#Xdb :bV^a/^c[d5Xg^iZXXdchjai#Xdb

889heZX^Va^hZh^c]jbVceZg[dgbVcXZVcYjhVW^a^in[dghZXjg^inhnhiZbh# I]Z8dbeVcn]VhWZZcegdk^Y^c\ZmeZgi^hZidJ@cYZeZcYZciHZXjg^in8dchjaiVcih ™9Zh^\cVcYheZX^ÒXVi^dc ™EZg[dgbVcXZWZcX]bVg`^c\ ™I]gZViVcYg^h`VcVanh^h

LZegdk^YZHZXjg^in>cYjhign6ji]dg^ina^XZcXZidegVXi^XZigV^c^c\[dg88IK deZgVidghVcYhZXjg^in\jVgYheajhdi]ZgVXXgZY^iZYXdjghZh#K^h^idjg lZWh^iZdgXVaajh[dgYZiV^ah#

8^inHncXAiY IZa/%&,%,"',*&+. ;Vm/%&,%,"',(-,+ :"bV^a/^c[d5X^inhncX#Xd#j` LZW/lll#X^inhncX#Xd#j`

9ZY^XViZYB^XgdhAiY IZa#%&+&",',('%% LZW/lll#YZY^XViZYb^Xgdh#Xdb ;Vm#%&+&",',((%% :bV^a/XjhidbZghZgk^XZh5YZY^XViZYb^Xgdh#Xdb :hiVWa^h]ZY[dg'%nZVgh!9ZY^XViZYB^Xgdh^hVc^ciZgcVi^dcVabVg`ZiaZVYZg ^ci]ZÒZaYd[heZX^Va^hi88IKXdcigdaZfj^ebZci#I]ZXdbeVcn^hgZcdlcZY [dgi]ZYZh^\cVcYbVcj[VXijgZd[gdWjhi!YZY^XViZY!bjai^eaZm]VgYlVgZ YZh^\cZYidbZZii]ZYZbVcYhd[Xdci^cjdjh')"]djghZXjg^inhjgkZ^aaVcXZ#

8^inHncXVgZi]ZaZVY^c\J@VcY>ciZgcVi^dcVaegdk^YZgd[6jidbVi^XCjbWZg EaViZGZXd\c^i^dc#6eea^XVi^dch^cXajYZAVl:c[dgXZbZci!6ci^"iZggdg^hb! =dbZaVcYHZXjg^in!=^\]HZXjg^inH^iZh!EVg`^c\VcYIgV[ÒXHnhiZbh# EgdYjXih^cXajYZi]ZGdVYGjccZgGVe^YYZeadnbZcihnhiZb!i]Z7aVX`W^gY gdWjhiXdbeVXidjihiVi^dcVcYi]ZLVhe&'k^ciZaa^\Zci6CEGXVbZgV# 8d\cZi^mA^b^iZY IZa# ))%-,%,"))'..) ;Vm ))%-,%,"))'..* :bV^a/^c[d5Xd\cZi^m#Xd#j` LZW/lll#Xd\cZi^m#Xd#j` 6]VcYh"dciZX]c^XVaXdchjaiVcXnheZX^Va^h^c\^cigV[ÒX Zc[dgXZbZciVcYXdbbjc^inhV[ZinhnhiZbh#8d\cZi^md[[ZghV]da^hi^XVeegdVX] ^cXajY^c\^c^i^VaVhhZhhbZci!hnhiZbYZh^\cVcYheZX^ÒXVi^dc!egdXjgZbZci :J!Eg^cXZ'egd_ZXibVcV\ZbZci^cXajY^c\Wjh^cZhhegdXZhhbVcV\ZbZci! XdcigVXiVYb^c^higVi^dcVcYbVcV\ZYbV^ciZcVcXZ#6Xi^kZ^ci]Z88IKJhZg G^aajb^cVidgh[dg^ciZgcVaVcYZmiZgcVa!adc\gVc\ZVcY h]dgigVc\ZVeea^XVi^dch#9ZglZci]VhYgVlcjedc^ihZmeZgi^hZ^c>c[gV"GZY idYZh^\cG: } i

/6“>}iÊ

CJM!L^cYdlhBVXeaVi[dgbh

gZYXVgZk^h^dc^hi]Za^c`WZilZZci]ZXVbZgVVcYi]ZXdcigdagddb#I]Z]^\] fjVa^inVcYYZeZcYVWaZZcY"id"ZcY88IKhdaji^dc[dgWdi]adXVaVji]dg^i^ZhVcY igVchedgi#

4HISªISSUEªSPONSOREDªBY

ˆÀiV̜ÀÞÊ 6JIDB6I:9 CJB7:GEA6I: G:8DI>DC

GZbeadnBVcV\ZYHZgk^XZh IZa#%&&+"'()+%%+ :bV^a/gbh5gZbeadn#Xd#j`

?K8^hVbVg`ZiaZVYZgd[]^\]fjVa^in>EcZildg`XVbZgVh!VcVad\jZ XVbZgVh!9KGhVcYK8Gh!]^\]gZhdaji^dcÓVihXgZZcA89VcYhiVcYVgY bdc^idghVcYY^heaVnhXgZZch#?K8XVcegdk^YZVXdbeaZiZhnhiZbhdaji^dc [dgVkVg^Zind[hZXjg^inVcYhjgkZ^aaVcXZVeea^XVi^dch#

A: 6HE %&.')").*,'+ B:AHZXjgZHnhiZbh %'),+"(%+%+ HeZX^Va:kZcih 8dbbjc^XVi^dch %-)*&"(%)+&, Hign`Zg8dbbjc^XVi^dchAiY %-,%,",%*-&&

88IK8DCIGDA =6G9L6G: BZnZgiZX]AiY %&+&"+'-"-)%+

88IKA:CH:H EZciVm %&,*(",.','' GV^cWdl88IK %,-++"-%*()'

88IKHNHI:BH "HJEEAN!>CHI6AA! B6>CI6>C 6XXZhh8dbbjc^XVi^dc HZgk^XZhAiY %&),)"-()-() 6iZXHZXjg^in %&.''")**).+ 6jidbViZYHnhiZbhHZgk^XZh %&)-."**%&'% 7dhX]HZXjg^inHnhiZbh %&-.*"-,-%-8VbZgVK^h^dc %,.,%"'+'++, 8VgiZaHZXjg^inHnhiZbhEaX %&,%-",*+&%% 88IKHZgk^XZhAiY %&')-"(,'&&& 89HHnhiZbhAiY %&))(")%*%*' 8ZcigVaHZXjg^inHnhiZbh AiY %&&*."'*,.*( 8ZgiV^cin } i

88IKHNHI:BH

8DCHJAI6CIH

8dbejiZg^hZY9^\^iVa HZXjg^inHnhiZbhAiY %&))(")%*%*' 9ZaVlVgZ8dbbjcX^Vi^dch AiY %&'&+"(&),%% ?d]chdc8dcigdahAiY %'(.'"*+))() CdgWV^c %&&-."))%&'( DclViX] %-%%"%+-,%-+ E]didcIDCH 6Xi^kZ88IKHZXjg^inAiY %&+)'"'-++'ciZgad\^mJ@AiY %&&('"(-&++:H=>CG:9! H::69HDCEG:K>DJHE65 Years Normal Operation

MINIFLOOD LED

• IR up to 20 Metres • Solid State • >5 Years Normal Operation

ADVANCED NUMBER PLATE CAPTURE CAMERAS

SUPER LED™

• Developing a CCTV strategy • Organising Concierge services • Developing management best practices • Utilising new technologies This conference is aimed at Senior Representatives from Local Authority Housing Departments, Trusts and Associations, Community Safety Partnerships and the Police.

• IR up to 175 metres • Ultra Long Life • >5 Years Normal Operation

Thursday, 7th September 2006 at Chelsea Football Club, London

• Day & Night 24/7 Capture • Longlife IR Source • Very High Reliability & Capture

Are you interested in demonstrating your latest technology at this conference? For more information on exhibiting or attending this seminar and exhibition please contact organiser Andy Woodfield on 0116 222 5561, email: [email protected], or visit www.perpetuityconferences.com

www.DerwentCCTV.com Tel: +44 (0) 1670 730187

Fax: +44 (0) 1670 730188

* Savings calculated on consumption and bulb life. Uniflood consumes upto 60% less electricity and delivers upto 3 times the bulb life. Patent No. 6158879

| CCTVImage

Technology briefing

Digital drawbacks If not the answer to everyone’s prayers, digital technology seems to have a certain inevitability about it. If you aren’t switching to digital this year, then most likely next year, right? But even the most bullish of technophiles should be aware of the pitfalls and ask some hard questions before buying. DIGITAL CCTV technology has so many apparent advantages that most people no longer need convincing about the sense of upgrading from analogue equipment. Out goes VCR technology and out go all the problems of laborious tape management. DVDs are fool-proof when it comes to recording – set them up and vital evidence will never be missed again simply because somebody forgot to change the tape. Digital recordings don’t degrade, and hard-drives don’t fail. Only, of course, that’s not true. Digital systems don’t always work well, and poorly thought-out digital systems can be worse than the old tape-based equipment they were installed to replace. There are other drawbacks inherent in digital kit too – such as the difficulties the police can experience in retrieving data for use in investigations and prosecutions. And in the event of a major incident, where large amounts of footage are required by the police, the problems might become even more serious – what happens if investigating officers need to take the system’s hard drive? Once it’s not in use, the shelf-life of a hard drive is not all that long, either – 18 months at the outside before the mechanisms seize up.

Passionate interest One man who has particular reason to be concerned about the unresolved problems of digital is Dannie Parkes, who leads the CCTV forensics team at West Midlands police. In recent years Dannie has become a familiar face at industry seminars and those who have heard him speak are left in no doubt about his passionate interest in the subject. It’s no discredit to him to say that he is partly motivated by selfinterest too, because his four-man team is very much at the sharp end as far as police use of CCTV evidence is concerned. They are, in Dannie’s words, working at “100 percent capacity every day, week after week, to deal with what’s coming in”. Footage from the scenes of serious crimes is often either unretrievable or, if it can be transferred, it is of such low quality that it is next to useless.

Example He gives the example of an assault at a night club, where the main suspect cannot be positively identified by witnesses, and who denies being at the club. The digital system at the club is recording at such high compression rates that the file sizes are uselessly small. There are no multiple sequential images and although you can be pretty certain that one frame shows the suspect coming into the club, the recording wouldn’t stand up in court and so it won’t undermine his alibi.

The startling fact about this incident is that the camera was perfectly sited to record customers coming in. It was just four metres from, and facing, the entrance. With an analogue VCR it would have given perfectly useable images…had the tapes been running. And that is one of the big problems according to Dannie Parkes. Such has been the rush to get around problems with tape management that, encouraged by insurers, people have put in DVR recorders without realising that they are compromising on quality. So the unresolved questions about digital that in the wider industry may just look like a few clouds on the horizon are, for Dannie’s team, a real storm of day-to-day problems.

Strategy So are the problems just going to get worse, just when we seem to have the technology to do things so much better? Assistant Chief Constable Graeme Gerrard, the man leading the ACPO/Home Office CCTV Strategy project, is aware of these concerns and says they are very much on the agenda for the group’s report which is due to be published in the autumn. The CCTV Strategy group has been consulting widely with interested stakeholders, including the CCTV User Group, and among other things the report that it produces will aim to address the problems that have come with the switch to digital, and come up with some guidelines to solve them. “The question I put to the Home Office was ‘what is the long term strategy?’ CCTV has grown in an ad hoc manner, and a lot of public money has been put into it, but what do we want it to be doing in 10 or 15 years time?” Graeme told CCTV Image. “We know that difficulties are being experienced around digitised images and that we need to drive up standards. But how we do that has not been resolved yet.” The quality of images, the positioning of cameras and the ease of

Summer 2006

36

This issue sponsored by:

| Technology briefing

CCTVImage

Meanwhile, we return to the ‘sharp end’, the point where CCTV either proves valuable, or useless: the point where police come to use it.

acquisition post-incident are all areas where standards need to be raised, he agrees. But the question that his working group must wrestle with is, how?

Retrieve and process

Element of compulsion?

After any incident Dannie Parkes’ team has to retrieve and process CCTV evidence. They then give it to the officers working in the incident rooms. The job was in many ways more straightforward in the days of analogue because the VHS storage medium is a lot more uniform. There was less variety, and less chance of cheap low quality kit being passed off as fit for purpose. Today it’s different, and for the moment, with no national benchmarks, its very understandable if buyers try to cut costs by going for cheap solutions. “There are so many different types of recording system out there, and a lot of the stuff in use is frankly rubbish. The people selling these systems are very good though, and they make the recorders look great when they demonstrate them. The problems only come to light later on when we try to investigate an incident. “In the West Midlands area we estimate that we have around 50 percent penetration of digital systems now. But in our experience, at least 40 percent of those are useless for evidence.”

He is sceptical about the approach advocated by some, that an element of compulsion could be used, as it has in the intruder alarms sector where police forces nationally have set down standards for alarm installations to meet if police are to respond to alarms. Withdrawing response has proved an effective sanction and support from insurers has forced the alarms industry and its customers to reduce false alarm rates. But where CCTV is concerned there are “fewer sticks available”, Graeme argues. The police are under an obligation to investigate crimes and so they cannot simply refuse to look at CCTV recordings that aren’t of a high enough standard. “Very often we want to look at CCTV recordings that don’t relate to a crime on the premises concerned – such as with the London bombings – and the owners are doing us a favour. We can’t force them to change their systems.” And if mandatory CCTV standards were introduced, who would inspect and enforce those standards, he asks? It has been suggested that the Data Protection Commissioner might have a role to play because of the ‘fit for purpose’ requirements in the Data Protection legislation, but that seems an unlikely avenue. And even if the Commissioner’s office was interested, Graeme says that it would be totally wrong for local authorities or anyone else to be forced to spend money to meet compulsory recording standards. “The last thing I’m going to do is insist that councils have to spend thousands of pounds on storage equipment, because it’s not my money,” he says. Flexible thinking may provide a better answer. For example, perhaps one problem is the insistence on 31 day recording, which is in some ways a hang over from analogue. Perhaps 21 days, or even 14 days might be enough, especially if that meant less compression and better image quality. Further research and analysis in this area could certainly prove worthwhile he believes.

B ACK- UP

PL AN

Questions The question for Graeme Gerrard’s working group, for the Home Office, and for the wider CCTV industry is how can the digital transition be steered in the right direction? How can CCTV users – from local authority control rooms CCTV User Group companies – progress your to small businesses – be membership to the next level: p46 persuaded, and helped, to make wise investments in CCTV? The UK has taken a global lead in its use of CCTV but now how do we make sure that in 10 years time we keep that lead and don’t just stumble down a cheap, digital dead-end?

‘Have hard drive contingency’ control rooms urged

EVERY LOCAL AUTHORITY CONTROL room relying on digital CCTV recording should be able to get back-up hard drives at short notice, warns Forensic Analyst Dannie Parkes, of the West Midlands Forensic Video Imaging Unit. Suppliers should be asked about the feasibility of rapid replacement of hard drives, and contingency budgets should be in place in case of a major incident, he says. “Every town centre manager should ask what would happen in the event of a major incident such as the 7/7 bombings in London in 2005, or the 3-day Handsworth riots in Birmingham in 1985. “If the police need to launch a major investigation, they may need to take all the hard drives as part of that – with digital systems it is simply not practical to download terrabytes or even 250Gb from hard drives onto CDs or convert them to VHS. “When it came to investigating the Handsworth incidents there was not such a problem because everything was on VHS recording. We would have been able to take the tapes immediately without interrupting the CCTV coverage and even issue replacements. But if they had been using digital, and we still needed all the recordings, there would have been problems. “Whilst the riots are going on, criminals would seize the opportunity of unrest to step up their actions relative to robbery, extortion and other serious crime – not a good time for

This issue sponsored by:

CCTV recording to be interrupted or suspended.” Any CCTV operation relying on hard drive recording should have a replacement plan in place, and ideally have suppliers aware of the need of specific size and make of drives at short notice he urges. Furthermore a contingency plan should be set in place between local aurthorities/agencies with large scale CCTV and the Police ready to implement in such a scenario. “The guaranteed shelf-life of a hard drive is not that long, because of its internal mechanisms, so it may not be practical for control rooms to keep ‘spares’. Consultation should take place between authority management and the installer in how best to prepare for such an incident,” says Dannie. Any local authority considering the transition to Digital should think hard about such scenarios and ensure they consult their local Police Imaging or Techinal Support Unit together with an appropriate independant consultant who needs to be fully aware of Police requirements in major incidents. This will ensure correct use of appropriate equipment which not only will enable large volume recovery by the appropriate agency but will also ensure the imagery is “fit for purpose” as defined by the Information Commissioner. It should also have the ability of allowing recovered drives or other media to be viewed away from the host site.

Summer 2006

37

SOLVING THE PUZZLE OF INTEGRATION

IP NETWORKS

ALARM SYSTEMS DIGITAL VIDEO

ANPR DIGITA L

FIBRE

TM

CCTV MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE

®

To solve your puzzle contact [email protected] or visit our website at www.meyertech.co.uk Tel: +44(0)161 628 8406 Fax: +44(0)161 628 9811 MEYERTECH IS A MEMBER OF THE CCTV USER GROUP.

VC R’S

C C T V I N T E G R AT E D H A R D W A R E

RADIO MICROWAVE

’S

®

ANAL & VIR OGUE MATR TUAL ICES

DV R

DOMES

S T N OI P P HEL SS E C AC TROL CON

CCTVImage

| CCTV research

Offenders’ views on CCTV Prof. Martin Gill discusses the implications of his Home Office research IT IS OFTEN SAID that ‘nothing works’ in criminal justice, that is, however you punish offenders at least some will not be deterred. More than 6 in 10 of adults released from a prison sentence return to custody within two years and amongst younger age groups the figure is higher than 7 in 10. Even when we had the death penalty it did not deter people from committing murder. So what is it realistic to expect from security Prof. Martin Gill measures? The answer, I think, depends on circumstances. Rather than arguing that nothing works I prefer the almost exact opposite view; that most things work albeit in some circumstances against some offences and offenders. The trick is to fully understand the problem through intelligence, assessment and research and then develop an appropriate response. It is clearly important to understand what works, and here there are studies to help although they do offer a somewhat mixed message. Surprisingly there has been little focus on what offenders think, which in my view has been limiting. In this article I want to redress that by offering an insight into offenders’ views on CCTV.

Only 3 of the 22 burglars believed CCTV existed in the place of the offence they discussed, although not all were sure. But cameras were not seen as a serious threat principally because they were not located ‘where it would make a difference’. Similarly there were 16 interviews with people who committed face to face frauds (all before the introduction of chip and pin) and none believed that CCTV was a deterrent. Their aim was to blend in like a normal shopper so there was nothing in their demeanour to suggest that they were doing anything wrong. Half of the face-to-face card fraudsters discussed an offence where there was collusion with store staff, and this further reduced the risk that they might draw attention to themselves. And the seven shop thieves were similarly dismissive although they conceded it was something to ‘work around’. They used disguises and blind spots (making use of high displays) to reduce the risks but some admitted that CCTV made them more nervous and two had been caught on camera. During the interviews the sample (which also included some card not present offenders) were asked a serious of general questions about CCTV. While the vast majority of interviewees did not believe that CCTV greatly increased risks, over half agreed that CCTV evidence was more likely to result in the police being called. No-one strongly agreed with the statement that CCTV made theft difficult or increased the chances of getting caught. Almost a third of interviewees agreed that town centre CCTV was an impediment, but more than half did not think so. Further analysis revealed that the biggest determinant in distinguishing between those who viewed CCTV as a threat and those who did not was whether people had previously been captured because of CCTV; those who had been On the positive side we do know that some offenders are unsuccess- caught knew it could be effective even if in practice image quality ful because a security measure has worked, and we know that some was often poor. A main reason why they did not consider CCTV a threat was offenders are caught because of security measures. CCTV is a good example; some people are in prison today because they were caught because they had seen images and knew they were generally of with a good image on camera. But what is less apparent is the extent to low quality. Indeed, some offenders had been shown images by the which CCTV plays on the mind of offenders as they contemplate and police of them committing offences, and while they knew it was them they were not inclined to plead guilty because they were not carry out offences, but some insights are possible. CCTV is one of the measures that offenders have to worry clear enough to support a prosecution. This was not a unanimous about. If the police have a clear image of an offender committing view, about four in ten 10 disagreed that picture quality was poor. an offence they generally consider it strong evidence. So from There is a real opportunity for crime prevention here: the better the an offender’s view this must be avoided. Making sure they wear image the stronger impact it is likely to have on offenders, and the disguises, taking care not to look at cameras, not being obvious one thing we know about offenders is that they learn quickly – ironiabout the way that they commit offences all have a role to play. cally, prisons facilitate that. We know that CCTV can be effective, but if offenders are to be Some offenders argue that CCTV has not made a difference to their offending because they always have to worry about being seen. believed it is not quite the silver bullet that it is sometimes made out to be. Cameras merely generate images, how good they are and how well they are used rests in the hands “There is a real opportunity for crime prevention here: the better the image of humans and human have to learn more about how best to effect the decision They argue that any witness is a problem and so they always have making processes of offenders if they are to get better results. The to worry about someone watching them, so why would a camera on opportunity is there, but we have to exploit it and that entails thinking imaginatively in our strategic approach. a wall or pole really change things? The research discussed here1 was based on interviews with 77 convicted male offenders in prison, a quarter were with young 1 Gill, M. and Loveday, K. (2003): ‘What do Offenders think about offenders and the remainder adult offenders. In the sample there CCTV?’ In M. Gill (ed) CCTV. Leicester: Perpetuity Press. were 19 street robbers, but just two purposively chose a place to rob • Martin Gill is Director of Perpetuity Research and Consultancy that was outside the view of CCTV. Eight more did discuss offences International (PRCI), [email protected]. where there was CCTV but did not feel that cameras affected what • Access to all nine Home Office reports is available from they did because they wore a disguise. As one said, ‘even if you are www.perpetuitygroup.com, where there is also access to other CCTV seen they have to catch you.’ publications.

Strong evidence?

the stronger impact it is likely to have on offenders...”

This issue sponsored by:

Summer 2006

39

| CCTVImage

Talking Shop

Tips on buying digital recorders pt1 Talking Shop takes a critical look at CCTV, to demystify the jargon, and question what is happening and why, together with a round-up on subjects of current interest. If you need a straight answer to a difficult question, drop us a line. By Colin Greene FIRST A COMMENT ON the annual pilgrimage to IFSEC-2006, NEC Birmingham which was bigger and brighter than ever before. It’s a grand affair and one I view with mixed emotions. Awards were presented and the evening bash with your preferred supplier was there to be enjoyed. That said, this year there was a noticeable mode for serious business. For many exhibitors there is a lot at stake with the new release of DVR products. An exhibition is about bring-together a Colin Greene market sector within one arena so buyers can browse without having to travel to each supplier. It should be an enjoyable and rewarding experience, but increasing I find it’s hard work to cut through the gloss and get to the facts. There is almost a ‘man from orange’ desperation on the part of some exhibitors to get the latest product to the stand, but on close questioning you find bits missing or ‘ah, that function is planned for a later release’. As an end-user you face an even harder task when grappling with new technology – you also have a limited time window to observe, discuss and compare your products of interest. So, it’s all too easy to get information overloaded and then the fog index kicks in… Fiction becomes fact and vice versa. Often you’re not sure whom to believe when you are offered conflicting information.

Need for Change Although IFSEC is primarily a trade show it attracts many end-users. At the time of writing figures for 2006 were not yet published, but for 2005 the top three end-users formed: Central/Local Government 22%, Manufacturing/ Industry 19%, Retail 12%; with main area of interest: CCTV 59%, Access Control 51%, CCTV Monitoring 49% - a sizeable market sector. So my question is; are end-user interests being adequately served? Is something wrong with the format, or is that just the nature of the beast? There are many exhibitors with ever widening agendas serving different customer sectors. It has become harder to identify who is a manufacturer, distributor, supplier or installer, or all four. It’s important to know from whom you get your information. ‘Security Solutions’ was aimed at easing the pressure and offering a tailored outlet to end-users, but the big pull still seems to be IFSEC because that’s were you find new innovation. For the exhibitor the cost of attending is huge, but so to is the prize. If you’re not there it might be seen as a negative reflection on your position within the market. When you are there you are competing against many competitors. Like it or not the security industry has become a media world of presentation, performance and sales targets. Sadly though, I believe the core substance and reasons for visiting have become blurred.

Going Digital Hot on the heals of the S-VHS demise (not an tape player in sight) we now are faced with the daunting scenario that there are literarily 100’s of DVRs to choose from, most claiming compliance to a standard such as MPEG-4 but very few indeed offer any compatibility with other digital products boasting the same MPEG logo. Every manufacturer thinks they have the perfect algorithm by tweaking the Codec maths, when actually the image results look quite similar. On more than one occasion it was said to me the ‘UK DVR market is unique’, but I disagree - the recording requirements are simple, understandable and universal. We all want good image quality, quick access, reliability with affordable pricing. Compatibility is only an issue when submitting copy

to others like the police or courts, but that too must be universal? Why would you want to store security CCTV footage if not to use as potential evidence, whether it is a retail, industry or public space environment? Implementation of DVRs varies widely with little or no continuity between other manufacturers. It seems completely crazy and makes convergence virtually impossible. The likely outcome is it could drive users toward the simpler solutions or even copy digital back to VHS tape because it works – even with the resulting loss of image quality. With all respect, manufacturers’ often misunderstand the customers’ need – on many occasions I have witnessed operators override or defeat a complex task to avoid complexity. Operators are not stupid and if it takes excessive time or they find an easier way, they will use it. Technology must always serve the use otherwise it becomes pointless. The growth in IP and NVRs (Network Video Recorders) was also very evident, but again the choice of whose product you link with is limited unless you stick with one manufacturer. Just because the camera says ‘IP Ready MPEG4’ is no guarantee that it will be compatible with another MPEG-4 recorder.

MEPG-4, JPEG2000, H.264 MPEG-4 has become extremely popular because it is very flexible and can be implemented in a variety of ways to suit many video applications from mobile phone to broadcast TV. The core published standard is ISO/IEC 14496 with suffix parts 1-10. Part 2, coding of audio-visual objects standard has multiple named ‘Visual Profiles’ subdivided into 5 levels, each designed to meet a specific application. For CCTV applications the main Visual Profiles used are: ‘Simple’, mainly for mobile phones and low end cost camera products, to ‘Advanced Simple ‘ with definable resolution up to 4CIF (720 x 567 pixels) level 5. In general each Codec is designed to format to a particular Visual Profile, so the data will require its own viewer software, although some profiles are inter-compatible. Anyone with a technical interest should visit http://www.m4if.org/resources/profiles/index.php scroll down pass the maths bit to the tables for more information. We did find some products offering fixed formats such as JPEG2000 and H.264 (the later is also a derivative of MPEG-4). Both have clearly defined coding rules that can also be packaged in firmware chip so many JPEG2000 images will be compatible with other players. H.264, MPEG-4 (ISO/IEC 14496-part 10), is a digital video codec standard designed to achieve high video quality with very high compression by using two codec algorithms working in tandem. The MPEG-4 part10 standard was a joint project between the ITU-T Video Coding Experts Group and ISO/IEC Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) and one that could see increased popularity.

Which Codec? From a technical view point MPEG-4 (Parts 2 and 10) offer all the requirements for image quality in public space CCTV: the real issue is which Visual Profile is best and why have manufacturers adapted so many derivatives? If it’s good enough for broadcast then there is certainly a defined Visual Profile suitable for our use. In my view it would be better for our industry to adopt one or two profiles that allows cross compatibility between products, viewers and users rather than the abundance of 100s of Codec formats. I have long campaigned that interoperability is an advantage, not a limitation and the sooner we reach that status the better for all. Users will purchase with confidence in the knowledge they are not buying into a ‘black art’; manufacturers will benefit in higher sales through added product features rather than reinventing the proverbial wheel. Until then the best advice is to select by comparison between various products shortlisted from your criteria.

Summer 2006

40

This issue sponsored by:

CCTVImage

Top Ten Tips 1. Image Resolution: comes first on the list. Your cameras will probably have 460TVL horizontal resolution (approximately 657 pixels in PAL, Kell x0.7), so 2CIF format with 756-(720) x 288 or 4CIF 756-(720) x 576 will deliver the best results. Using this format it should result in a 25% improvement over S-VHS quality, 400TVL (571 pixels). Note: refer to CCTVImage 07 & 08 for articles on TV lines verses pixels. 2. Frame or Field – 4CIF or 2CIF? In old money a scanned CCTV image consisted on two images called ‘fields’ each consisting of vertical 312.5TVL (262.5 NTSC). Each field is scanned 20ms (16.6ms NTSC) apart. Full frame consists of two fields totalling 625TVL, (525 NTSC). Many DVRs offer full frame 4CIF but in reality what you often get a blurred image of moving objects unless the DVR employs some cleaver software that works out how to merge two ‘fields’ - where the object has moved to. 2CIF is a safe option as it uses one field but only uses half the vertical resolution; 4CIF, if it works, is best quality. Note: this rule can be ignored when you use IP cameras with progressive scan, so opt for 4CIF if the cost is acceptable. 3. Which Codec? We can’t change what the industry offers – we can only select by comparison. Spend time examining still and moving images using different Codecs, select the Codec that offers the least amount picture breakup or artefacts. Ensue you take stills of fixed and moving objects and compare these side by side using MS Paint (Ctrl + Page down gives you 400% magnification) and view to pixel level. For comparison tests always save still images in bit format *.bmp not *.jpg, as bit format is uncompressed - what you see is what you get. 4. Fixed or Variable Bit Rate? Most DVRs offer a choice of ‘quality’ setting or ‘bit rate’. In simple terms the more bits you sample the better the image quality. Some DVRs offer fixed and variable rates. Fixed means you use the same amount of hard drive space per sequence of images; Variable is dynamic – when the image is still or lacks detail it uses less bits and more vice versa. The percentage key (if fitted) fixes the variable ceiling. Both have applications, but Variable is best for public space CCTV when you have lots of movement or if used with pan tilt zoom. A Codec sampling below a rate of 2Mb/sec is unlike to deliver acceptable results of moving objects, 4 to 6Mb/s is probably about right, but 2-3Mb/s with a variable key +/-100% is more flexible. If compatibility is an issue between users consider fixed formats such as JPEG2000 or H.264. MPEG4 is not cross compatible unless the Codecs use to the same Visual Profile. Consider carefully before using motion activated recording, variable image rate or VMD, as a means of lengthening recording time or reducing storage. A balance must be agreed - if you want continuity of evidence you need consistent image rates, not 1 image every 10 seconds jumping to 12/sec when there is movement. VMD will however force higher recording image rates when unattended and during the incident. The issue is how do you prove you have not lost vital evident between 2-9 seconds prior to the movement being detected? All VMDs are triggered by a base level that must be set. If it is too low then motion recording is permanently on and if too high small movements will be ignored – one person entering a scene at 20%R (Rotakin) may not trigger VMD and so their position and presence will be lost. 5. Image Rate. Unless you loads of money you simply could not afford to record all cameras in real time so you have to timelapse (record one or more images every second) rather than 50 or 60 every second. Most DVRs offer scalable rates from 1-25(30)ips, one being the minimum for public space CCTV. You can achieve acceptable results for event recording down to 6ips but 12 or 25ips is best. Archive recording does need to be Triplex, (record, view and download), but if they have their own hard drive, and not a central server, they do need to be duplex, (record and replay). Event DVRs need to be triplex as record, search and reply are often used during a live incident. Some DVRs have a tendency to slow down at critical moments, so always put it to the test and view the results after you force the DVR to do complex tasks whilst recording at 25ips. Check for lost frames or image break-up by recoding the master clock with a second (or 1/10) counter display imbedded on the image. 6. Storage Size Whatever they say check it out by recording for at least

This issue sponsored by:

| Talking Shop a whole day and night and preferably one month in your environment. Download sample files to see if the total file size in 24 hours is 1/31st of the hard drive capacity. I have yet to find a manufacturer’s DVR calculator that is accurate because there are many variables, so allow for +1020% spare capacity or select the largest drive capacity you can afford. Alternatively schedule cameras to record at low ips during quite period, say 0300-0600. This could save 10% of hard drive capacity if all images were recorded 1 every 5 seconds rather than 1ips. 7. Search Engine: Spend a lot of time using each search engine. Many products have major failings in the way you are forced to search – they are designed by engineers who rarely see the inside of a control room and don’t appreciate just how pressed the job can be. Time yourself and compare that with what you’re used to. How many mouse clicks were needed? Did you find the incident quickly? Could you ‘mark it’ so you can retrieve it later? Can you load the video clip to a ‘shopping basket’ or bin and download all clips to CD? These are common universal tasks, which many DVRs fail to deliver in usable form. 8. Protecting Evidence & Copy: Ask for a demonstration on how they export video to a CD. View all clips to ensure it is not cropped or filled with PC screen information that is irrelevant to viewing the picture information. Is the video watermarked, (not essential but desirable)? Many quote the House of Lords Select Committee report that watermarking is ‘essential’, but the committee also said the paper audit trail is equally if not more important. If you hold the master copy then it can always be compared with the evidential copy at trial – better to have evidence that replays at the trial than a distressed Clerk struggling to load a viewer and program the PC! 9. Catastrophic Failure: Ask if you can ‘pull the mains plug’ to see if the recorder restarts and how long it takes to reboot. Be aware of the difference between PC based recorders that use Windows as the OS platform over embedded systems, which often use Linux www.linux.org. Ask how they manage the hard drive to check for errors or failures. Are error and faults reported and how? DVRs all use vast amount of disk storage. One month of video recording is more than you or I will use in a lifetime of computer use! Remember, hard drives do fail and potential error rates will increase as a percentage