Launch of Video Recording testing service, Press Release - Forensic Video Analysis Group - January 2008 Options

[Doktor Jon]

- Press Release -

Launch of national CCTV testing service endorsed by police

The UK’s first CCTV recording system quality testing service endorsed by a police force has launched.

The Forensic Video Analysis Group has been set up with its testing of digital video recording systems (DVRS) endorsed by North Wales Police.

It will analyse and assess the suitability of CCTV digital video recording systems for producing accurate good quality images that can be retrieved quickly and easily by the police, and ultimately used in court.

Digital video recording systems (DVR) that pass are given a grade and a logo to display.

The company has been founded by James Davies and William Pratt.

Between them they have worked for police forces and in the CCTV industry, looking at the recovery, analysis and presentation of CCTV evidence. The pair became frustrated at the varying suitability of footage captured.

James said: “After crime prevention, the purpose of any CCTV system is to produce evidence for prosecution. Our tests look at the ease and suitability of a system for this purpose and award one of three grades.

“There is no current scheme to assess digital video recording systems, making it difficult for CCTV buyers to pick the right one. We aim to quickly become the national standard for DVRs.”

The service uses a set of tests to analyse the suitability of a CCTV digital video recording systems against a set of key criteria.

They include:

Does it record good quality images?
Are the images accurate?
Can the evidence be presented in court easily?
How much modification or compression is added to the original image?

Assessed digital video recording systems will be given one of three grades: ‘Gold’, ‘Silver’ or ‘Tested’.

James added: “The move from tape systems to digital systems saw a degradation in image quality in some systems, which inspired us to set up this testing scheme and establish industry-wide standards.”

The Forensic Video Analysis Group can be found at http://www.fvag.co.uk.

- ENDS -

[Mick]

Interesting Stuff.

With my rose coloured spectacles on, I like to think that this sort of thing may be the first (small) step towards a national accreditation standard for PSS CCTV operations.

Something that, in adittion to checking on the technology and quality of CCTV product (i.e is it fit for purpose) - would also include the reviewing and validation of :-

• business processes
• staff training
• control room security
• vetting
• Code of Practice
• ........ etc .... etc (just in case I have missed something).

I have discussed this Accreditation matter with other CCTV practitioners in the past, because ideally the police don't want to waste their time picking up and then reviewing carp evidence.

During discussions we have often compared the present CCTV situation, with the problem the police had with the numerous false alarm activations, when alarms became flavour of the month.

That matter was sorted out via the introduction of the ACPO alarms policy (three strikes and your out).

Continuing along that line it would be nice for police to say - "as your CCTV system IS NOT accreditted. Police will not be collecting / reviewing the CCTV product"

However, the BIG differance with CCTV is - After an allegation of a crime, NO MATTER HOW POOR THE CCTV QUALITY, the police have a duty (in fact a legal responsibility) to collect all the possible evidence. This is particularly important come the more serious cases / terrorist incidents.

So despite lots of thinking around this subject, no-one can yet suggest anyway around this conumdrum.

[Doktor Jon]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/yes.gif)

Unfortunately Mick, it's the ....etc ... etc that causes many of the problems (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Providing an accreditation service for video recording is fine as far as it goes, but then of course for recordings to be fit for purpose, it doesn't matter how impressive the record system is on paper, if the cameras are incorrectly profiled and commissioned, and the imaging and transmission equipment are not up to the job, then the recordings will never be gold standard, even if the recorder has previously been assessed as such.

I won't say that I am specifically concerned, but I certainly won't be at all surprised if many of the recommendations contained in the "National CCTV Strategy", do not get fast tracked simply because there does not appear to be any momentum in addressing the present shortcomings.

Major problems can often be addressed at minimal cost, but it unfortunately requires somebody to identify that things are not quite right, before steps can be taken to address the technical issues.

Human nature being what it is, I don't see that changing anytime soon, unless legislation or political pressure is brought into the equation.

[Mick]

Some have suggested that the ICO's office shouldbe more pro-active around this matter. 'Fit For Purpose' IS one of the principles of Data Protection.

The SIA may also wish to get involved, especially if it could prove to be an income generator for them.

But when it comes to judging other peoples CCTV systems, I suppose the bottom line is - 'It's simply a matter of opinion'.

[Doktor Jon]

Some have suggested that the ICO's office shouldbe more pro-active around this matter. 'Fit For Purpose' IS one of the principles of Data Protection.

The SIA may also wish to get involved, especially if it could prove to be an income generator for them.

But when it comes to judging other peoples CCTV systems, I suppose the bottom line is - 'It's simply a matter of opinion'.

I have said many a time that with the best will in the world, the ICO does not have the technical experience or resources to take on a technically based regulatory role with regards to CCTV, after all, this is something that was never envisaged when the Data Commissioners Office was first set up. Likewise, I am not over enamoured with the prospect of the SIA taking on a vastly expanded and specialist role, when they have more than enough on their plate at the moment (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

At present, as you correctly suggest Mick the bottom line is very much based on "a matter of opinion", but that really does not need to be the case.

The 'Fit for Purpose' measure unfortunately falls at the very first hurdle, simply because the vast majority of systems have never been properly profiled to establish exactly what the purpose should be (or in many cases, profiled at all!!).

As a quick example, generally saying that "the CCTV cameras are intended to provide a deterrence, and also allow video recordings to be made to help identify suspects after an incident", actually tells us next to nothing.

The cameras may well produce usable pictures which could loosely be regarded as fit for purpose, but if the camera is pointing in the wrong direction at the right time, then the likelyhood is they will be 'Fit for Nothing' (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

If a system is correctly profiled, each camera should have a defined objective in terms of it's DISE assessment, and then the specific purpose clearly described to make sure that it is compliant; for example, a fixed camera looking at passengers entering a suburban train station, may have an assessment that states DISE as D. 20% I. 5% S. 15% E. 60%,

The stated 'purpose' could then be refined to suggest that (For example) "Camera 5 - The Main Entrance Camera is required to provide a small degree of deterrence merely by it's visible presence, whilst the major objective is to produce evidential quality images of individuals accessing the station, such that during working hours, each person is clearly visible on screen (normally moving directly towards the camera) ideally for a minimum of approx. three seconds, whilst occupying at least 50% of the picture height at all times. As it is unlikely that any 'incidents' will occur within view of this camera, it is not a significant consideration, and likewise any Site Management benefits will invariably be limited to providing a visual verification of passenger flow entering the station.".

Now if the systems profile clearly defines the objectives for each component, then the purpose is understood by everyone reading it - and incidentally, wherever possible it should be written in plain english and not technospeak.

IMHO, I see nothing different in applying this type of 'key performance indicator' to the practical use of CCTV, as indeed any other aspect of 'Facility Management'.

In fact, if the profiled DISE assessment is presented to the operator / client as a pie chart alongside the actual performance assessment of a camera, the difference is often immediately obvious to someone with absolutely no technical knowledge at all.

Been there, done that, wrote the article ... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Actually, joking aside, I recall having conversations with a couple of Met CPO's perhaps 7 years ago about precisely this issue; some things just never seem to improve (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

Coming back to your original point Mick about having accreditation, I would have thought that where a system has a defined profile and the individual components are assessed and found to be meeting those needs, then it should be possible (for example) to 'pass' that system and then make it a Category A (considered highly useful for police / evidential purposes - recordings are highest priority for review), as opposed to failing it into a category D ( images generally unsuitable for police use, recordings are a low priority to review).

That way, it's up to the system operators whether they want their CCTV to be a useful tool which is recognised and accepted, or whether they are content to have a system which is good for next to nothing, and which the police will not even bother to review except in response to the most serious incidents.

Could you see something like this becoming workable Mick ...?

Anyone else have any thoughts ...?

[Ilkie]

I suppose I should chip in.

I think that if there was an external body (and currently the ICO or Data Commissioner's Office are the only two candidates) conducting compliance checks, however basic, this would greatly focus the mind of system owners.

I suppose eventually we could move to licensing public space systems, starting with the largest and over a period of time working towards the smallest in terms of camera count.


Taking your example of the fixed camera by the entrance, this approach may suffice for the size of image, but needs to be extended to look at recorded frame rate, resolution and retained archive duration.

This leads us neatly to possible conflicts concerning the differing requirements of the Client and the Police.

The Client who pays for he system will have an eye on the size of the storage system (cost) and will pay for the minimum that is required (a view supported by the DPA) whilst the Police prefer the system to be specified with the maximum allowable archive length to give them the biggest window to seize evidence.

Two differing views on fit for purpose.

Even though, I think this (the Doc's) approach for predominantly fixed position systems has merit.


The second issue is the town centre system, where mostly PTZ cameras are used, establishing the purpose for the camera would be more difficult (but not impossible).

Now we come to the the management of the system. Where these PTZ cameras are parked has profound effects on the likelihood of recording anything of real use, and this sadly is an area where significant improvements can be made very easily and at virtually no cost to the public purse but often ignored.

These days Town Centre CCTV systems are mature with infrastructure/major components established.

Changing management of the systems would yield improvements in operational efficiency and begin to highlight the deficiencies elsewhere in the overall concept (speed and effectiveness of response, managemnt of evidence and efficiany of the crimminal justice system.

After all we are just a cog in a larger mechanism.


Mick's idea of accreditation also works for me, and will require external verification (again perhaps a beefed up ICO or Data Commissioner's Office).

If I can also through into the pot

1) Licensing of all in-house operators and management to ensure appropriate training is undertaken.
2) Licensing and vetting of CCTV installers and consultants
3) Better training of operational Police in the use of CCTV
4) Proper training for Police CPO's (or whatever we call them this week)
5) Police forces fully resourcing VIDO units and image circulation initiatives.
6) Bringing into the same licensing regime for CCTV systems and staffing as indicated above for transport and highway management surveillance systems (you know who they are!).

There you are, solved all the problems.

Ilkie

Hope this makes sense, late night and not yet firing on all barrels.

[Doktor Jon]

I think 'singing' and 'hymn sheets' generally spring to mind Ilkie (IMG:style_emoticons/default/yes.gif)

I'll just add a few comments into your comments (IMG:style_emoticons/default/huh.gif) if you see what I mean (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

I think that if there was an external body (and currently the ICO or Data Commissioner's Office are the only two candidates) conducting compliance checks, however basic, this would greatly focus the mind of system owners.

I suppose eventually we could move to licensing public space systems, starting with the largest and over a period of time working towards the smallest in terms of camera count.

Taking your example of the fixed camera by the entrance, this approach may suffice for the size of image, but needs to be extended to look at recorded frame rate, resolution and retained archive duration.

The Information Commissioner (formerly the Data Commissioner) would I'm sure love to have an expanded role in terms of regulating CCTV, but as I mentioned before, his office just don't have the resources or experience to take on a fairly technical role.

I don't think there's any disagreement amongst us that some form of regulation would be highly beneficial, but I suppose I'm in the minority here, because I've always believed that it should be a separate specialist "Public Surveillance Inspectorate", that is adequately resourced to carry out a number of essential roles, both in terms of raising standards, whilst also ensuring that systems are operated lawfully and responsibly with regards to both existing and future legislation.

I think the reason this thread started was on the back of the FVAG introducing an accredited method of recording analysis, so on the basis that I couldn't agree with you more Ilkie, I was just trying to approach the subject from the other end, namely the imaging part which is rarely considered at anything more than a superficial level.

This leads us neatly to possible conflicts concerning the differing requirements of the Client and the Police.

The Client who pays for he system will have an eye on the size of the storage system (cost) and will pay for the minimum that is required (a view supported by the DPA) whilst the Police prefer the system to be specified with the maximum allowable archive length to give them the biggest window to seize evidence.

I think that first point is very well made Ilkie (IMG:style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif) , and I would perhaps suggest that based on Micks idea of having an accreditation for video surveillance systems, to help raise standards, the client will undoubtedly be able to identify their purpose for using the CCTV / IP Video (right down to a macro level - i.e. individual components in the system), and that could then be compared to the requirement for use within the Criminal Justice System (i.e. Police use), to see what if anything needs to be done to raise the standard to achieve accreditation.

It could be up to the system operator to decide whether they want to be compliant or not, and consequently whether they want the police to take their system seriously or not. If they want to 'do it right', then a "programme" could be put in place to enable them to do so. If they are not bothered, well then if something happens and their recordings are a very low priority for review, then they only have themselves to blame.

I would imagine that the vast majority of private system operators would be more than grateful for something to help them achieve a recognised standard, but I'd be interested to hear what others think on this.

The second issue is the town centre system, where mostly PTZ cameras are used, establishing the purpose for the camera would be more difficult (but not impossible).

Now we come to the the management of the system. Where these PTZ cameras are parked has profound effects on the likelihood of recording anything of real use, and this sadly is an area where significant improvements can be made very easily and at virtually no cost to the public purse but often ignored.

I think this is where you've somewhat hit the nail on the head (IMG:style_emoticons/default/yes.gif)
Personally, I don't think it's at all difficult to establish the purpose for existing TC PTZ cameras, but having said that, it is somewhat at odds with the police' evidential record requirements, which are often best served by fixed and optimised cameras (this being the key part of a Town Centre system, which is rarely if ever considered as necessary - in my view, it's system design based on ignorance and not Operational Requirements).

Again Ilkie, your comments about how PTZ's are almost always left parked on wide angle views with little if any evidential merit is brutally accurate in my experience. This could so easily be addressed to some degree, but again, it ain't sexy, so it ain't getting done (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wallbash.gif)

TBH, If that's what your like on a late night Ilkie .... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/notworthy.gif)

[MichaelC]

I cant help but agree with much of what has already been said.

The major problems have been around for years in fact probably getting worse as time goes by.

There seems to be quite a bit of scope for developing a practical way of grading CCTV systems, perhaps with both the operators "purpose" and the police "purpose" graded next to each other on the evaluation forms, that would cover both bases (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

It certainly sounds like something could be put togethor quite easily just from whats already been discussed.
Isnt it strange that a handful of interested people can produce some thoroughly useful ideas in no time at all whilst the industry can go on for years compounding problems without anything getting resolved fast (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink2.gif)

[Doktor Jon]

There seems to be quite a bit of scope for developing a practical way of grading CCTV systems, perhaps with both the operators "purpose" and the police "purpose" graded next to each other on the evaluation forms, that would cover both bases (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

It certainly sounds like something could be put togethor quite easily just from whats already been discussed.

That sounds like an interesting idea, Michael (IMG:style_emoticons/default/yes.gif)

The main problem is always likely to be the mistaken perception that in order to meet the criteria for accreditation in terms of police requirements for evidential recording, it's by implication going to cost an awful lot of money to achieve compliance.

My experience has almost invariably been of inadequate systems that are poorly designed, not through any specific lack of funding, but rather a general lack of knowledge.

I've always thought that the trick (if there is such a thing) is in being able to present some relatively complex ideas and objectives, in a simple way that most non technical people can easily understand.

In that respect, I'm sure that developing an 'accreditation' for CCTV System suitability (for evidential recording) is not in itself a difficult exercise to undertake.
Whether anyone in the CCTV / IP Video industry would be prepared to support or endorse it, is of course another matter (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)