Something happening in 2012 ...?, This story will no doubt develop. Options

[Doktor Jon]

Well apparently there's some sporty event happening here in London in 2012, and if there was any doubt about the security implications for the U.K., this story reporting events at the ISNR show which opened today in Abu Dhabi, does make for interesting reading.

http://www.business24-7.ae/cs/article_show...HeadlineID=3198

The surprise for me isn't so much the number of video surveillance cameras quoted, but the actual budget for security.

Hands up all those that think £600m will cover it .... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

[MichaelC]

I find it amusing that a senior UK police officer has to reveal this information to an audience in the middle east rather than to the folks back home.

That figure does sound a bit light when compared to what has been spent on security in other host countries in the past. We will just have to wait and see what the figure is next week (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Mick]

Hmmmmmmmmmm ? 500,000 CCTV cameras ?


All new, or using some of what's already in place ?
IMHO, I think prudence dictates that partnership is the way to go.

Indeed this BBC link - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7278365.stm
........suggests that Mr Ghaffur may have been slightly misquoted in the original link posted at the start of this thread by the good Doktor.
And that PARTNERSHIP forms a key part of Mr Ghaffur's vision.

Also, I believe that working in partnership with no ONE organisation with complete control, would provide greater re-assurance for the public.
It would go further to ensure that the CCTV and ANPR systems are used legally and proportionately (very important with such an intrusive technology).
Checks and balances have to be in place when many crime and disorder / community safety partners, are all sharing facilities.

I am pretty sure Partnership is the right way to go about this.
Purely because of costs.


However, just for a moment, lets say the Met' elected to go it alone .............

Back Of A Fag Packet Calculations.

COSTS WOULD INCLUDE -

Installation of new Cameras (and Signs for those cameras) .

A control room capable of monitoring them all ! (and, say perhaps 1 - 10% of them simultaneously) would still be the biggest I have ever seen ! For example just thinking about staff numbers (24/7) .............. how many seats would you need in place, for staff to effectively monitor (simultaneously) just 5000 CCTV cameras? 1 person watching 50 monitors gives you a 100 seat CCTV control room (not including any supervisors / support staff)

Staff training !

Business Processes !

Network ? ........... Imagine the Bandwidth needed ?

Matrix ? (not quite a commercial off the shelf product (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink2.gif) )

Recording / Storage ? (Recovery of product)

-------------------------------------------------------
Even working in Partnership with others, the Met' will need to consider (perhaps to a slightly lesser extent) some of the stuff above.
Plus -

Integration (with many differant types of cameras, digital and analogue, plus the differant digital formats).

And PTZ ? ............. How many Hops before latancy becomes a real issue ?

Real Time Communications with All London's CCTV partners (Camera Owners).

And I haven't even mentioned how many differant stakeholders you need to get around a table to agree all of this partnership working !

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Then add ANPR to the mix ?

Plus fall back / business continuity.


600 million pounds (not including any other security costs) !
Now there's a challenge !

Never-the-less, Mr Ghaffur's job is to articulate (at a high level) - A Security Vision.
And he is certainly providing a firm steer so far.

Others have to take that Vision, and do their best to try and develop it into something operationally sound, and do-able, within the time scales and budget available.


I'll end this post with a Cut and Paste from the National CCTV Strategy Document -

9.2.4. OLYMPICS 2012

The 2012 Olympics will present a significant opportunity for partner agencies to ‘join up’ their thinking in the positioning and networking of cameras across London and the UK.

The magnitude of the event and subsequent planning will provide the impetus for setting standards and the need for greater integration of CCTV systems.

Busy times ahead.

[Doktor Jon]

........ that Mr Ghaffur may have been slightly misquoted in the original link posted at the start of this thread by the good Doktor.
And that PARTNERSHIP forms a key part of Mr Ghaffur's vision.

Also, I believe that working in partnership with no ONE organisation with complete control, would provide greater re-assurance for the public.

I have very little doubt that you're probably right Mick. Inspired guesstimates already put around 500k cameras in use in London right now ... whether that figure is accurate or not, well quite frankly nobody knows.

But in a practical sense, installing a further half a million cameras within four years, is probably a complete non starter, not just because of cost, but also as you correctly suggest, the logistics of operation.

Partnership operation does offer a significant number of benefits, and is not without precedent. That said, the practicalities of providing efficient partnered systems, is about as challenging as it gets.

... just for a moment, lets say the Met' elected to go it alone .............

Back Of A Fag Packet Calculations.

COSTS WOULD INCLUDE -

Installation of new Cameras (and Signs for those cameras) .

A control room capable of monitoring them all ! (and, say perhaps 1 - 10% of them simultaneously) would still be the biggest I have ever seen ! For example just thinking about staff numbers (24/7) .............. how many seats would you need in place, for staff to effectively monitor (simultaneously) just 5000 CCTV cameras? 1 person watching 50 monitors gives you a 100 seat CCTV control room (not including any supervisors / support staff)

Staff training !
Business Processes !
Network ? ........... Imagine the Bandwidth needed ?
Matrix ? (not quite a commercial off the shelf product (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink2.gif) )
Recording / Storage ? (Recovery of product)

It's understandable to measure future requirements against what has gone before, but in a practical sense, there are many techniques and technologies coming on stream, which could radically alter the way 'CCTV' is deployed in the future.

For example, this week has seen the launch of an advanced IP Camera, which as well boasting a range of built in Video Analytic functions, also has on board a significant DVR capability. So if the primary record capability is localised, that significantly drops real time demands on the network in terms of transmitting images. Analytics are advancing rapidly, and some functions will be as robust if not more so than conventional human based monitoring options, within a couple of years.

Existing 'Town Centre' video links could be easily expanded at minimal cost to provide a significant expansion capability, and without all the usual disruption and time delays associated with conventional technology.

Add into that equation, a reduction in real time Control Room loading by distributing localised surveillance to the 'troops' on the ground, and suddenly the potential for integrating video surveillance into all aspects of front line policing, become far more efficient and affordable, although not necessarily without concerns from civil libertarians.

And I haven't even mentioned how many differant stakeholders you need to get around a table to agree all of this partnership working !

Plus fall back / business continuity.

600 million pounds (not including any other security costs) !
Now there's a challenge !

Never-the-less, Mr Ghaffur's job is to articulate (at a high level) - A Security Vision.
And he is certainly providing a firm steer so far.

Others have to take that Vision, and do their best to try and develop it into something operationally sound, and do-able, within the time scales and budget available.

Busy times ahead.

Partnerships work well when the various stakeholders not only have defined roles, but also a clear understanding of how their contribution provides a key component in the wider scheme of things.

Setting or even raising a budget is one thing, but making sure that achievable targets are realistically planned, is a whole different ball game.

A lot of work needs to be done very quickly, if the systems are to be in place and working well, by the start of the big event.
Can it be done ... probably, will it be done ... possibly, but then human nature is a strange beast, and getting large numbers singing from the same hymn sheet, and in tune, is a mighty tall order.

[MichaelC]

A lot of work needs to be done very quickly, if the systems are to be in place and working well, by the start of the big event.
Can it be done ... probably, will it be done ... possibly, but then human nature is a strange beast, and getting large numbers singing from the same hymn sheet, and in tune, is a mighty tall order.

I would agree, and it does occur to me that there is a very strong case for getting some major players on board even at this early stage if we are to have any chance at all of achieving the level and quality of security that will be required.

I think it will be interesting to see if the main driving force comes from commercial, local authority or police quarter.s

[Ilkie]

I would agree, and it does occur to me that there is a very strong case for getting some major players on board even at this early stage if we are to have any chance at all of achieving the level and quality of security that will be required.

I think it will be interesting to see if the main driving force comes from commercial, local authority or police quarter.s

What major players did you have in mind?

Ilkie

[MichaelC]

What major players did you have in mind?

Ilkie

It just strikes me that a security working group, perhaps including central and local government, police and security industry representatives working alongside security colleagues from some of the larger commercial companies that are planning to sponsor the games might be a useful start to help get working systems in place and on time.

Mind you I would not go so far as to suggest that it will be easy (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Ilkie]

It just strikes me that a security working group, perhaps including central and local government, police and security industry representatives working alongside security colleagues from some of the larger commercial companies that are planning to sponsor the games might be a useful start to help get working systems in place and on time.

Mind you I would not go so far as to suggest that it will be easy (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

The problem can be considered to be that:-

a) It may be already too late

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) Any commercial organisation seeking to influence the design will of course try to slant the system towards their solution, this in advance of confirming the operational requirement.

I think we need to get out of the mind-set that crime and disorder issues caused by the Games are all about 2012. Resulting problems are already being experienced.

Ilkie

[Doktor Jon]

The problem can be considered to be that:-

a) It may be already too late

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) Any commercial organisation seeking to influence the design will of course try to slant the system towards their solution, this in advance of confirming the operational requirement.

I think we need to get out of the mind-set that crime and disorder issues caused by the Games are all about 2012. Resulting problems are already being experienced.

Ilkie

There's a lot of truth in what you say Ilkie (IMG:style_emoticons/default/yes.gif)

Ever the eternal optimist, I think a lot could be done if the will is there (just think about what happened after the government provided £ 170m in CCTV funding for Public Space CCTV ... things kinda took off, although not entirely in the right direction (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ).

Where CCTV / IP Video manufacturers are involved, then yes they would perhaps understandably want to see their products on an extremely short, short list.

There will be some quite serious security issues to address in the build up period, and can I honestly say I'm confident that it will be done well ? .... well .... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/whistling.gif)

It's a reasonable assumption that given the profile and investment proposed for the games, organised crime and terrorism will be particularly hot potatoes, but then if as you suggest Ilkie, existing issues of criminality are not currently being tackled effectively, the situation will undoubtedly get worse before we even dare to hope it will eventually get better.

A week may be a long time in politics, but four years will just fly by for those poor souls faced with the challenge of keeping the games safe and secure.

[Mick]

.................. And if I can just add -

That having worked in the public sector for many years now (and it is my understanding that the ODA / LOCOG are psydo public sector organisations) there are always concerns about public sector representatives getting involved too closely with individuals and companies from the private sector ......................... BEFORE (sometimes quite large) tenders go out, to often those same individuals / groups.

Although I fully accept (and strongly support) the need for integrity and transparency when it comes to business transactions, specific Procurement Rules and Regulations are things I have never totally understood.

It must be complicated because my organisation has an ever-growing procurement department.

From my very narrow operational perspective, it sometiimes seems to me, that all these rules and regs, just result in us in the publc sector, having to wait longer, then pay more for a generally lesser quality product.

But then again, when many millions are at stake, I am the first one on the phone to Procurement ! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/yes.gif)

[Ilkie]

.................. And if I can just add -

That having worked in the public sector for many years now (and it is my understanding that the ODA / LOCOG are psydo public sector organisations) there are always concerns about public sector representatives getting involved too closely with individuals and companies from the private sector ......................... BEFORE (sometimes quite large) tenders go out, to often those same individuals / groups.

Although I fully accept (and strongly support) the need for integrity and transparency when it comes to business transactions, specific Procurement Rules and Regulations are things I have never totally understood.

It must be complicated because my organisation has an ever-growing procurement department.

From my very narrow operational perspective, it sometiimes seems to me, that all these rules and regs, just result in us in the publc sector, having to wait longer, then pay more for a generally lesser quality product.

But then again, when many millions are at stake, I am the first one on the phone to Procurement ! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/yes.gif)

I think term is risk adverse.

Procurement is getting to be an industry in its own right (like H&S)

Increasingly, procurement is taken out of the hands of the end user's who (normally) know what they need and put in the hand of procurement professionals whose job seems to be minimise risk to the Client organisation.

Being really able to do or being qualified/resourced to do the job in hand is no longer a criteria for contract award.

But as long as standing orders seem to be observed (whether or not the rules apply to the job in hand) that is OK.

Any one heard of data mining in respect of undertaking CCTV maintenance works.

An example from a high profile organisation's PQQ just completed.

What about Business information strategy, Marketing intelligence, commercialising of IPR???

Now you owe me a beer Mick, I came into the office this morning to do some work and you have pushed the button that gets me on my soap box (again).

Happy Easter all

Ilkie

[Doktor Jon]

..... there are always concerns about public sector representatives getting involved too closely with individuals and companies from the private sector ......................... BEFORE (sometimes quite large) tenders go out, to often those same individuals / groups.

Although I fully accept (and strongly support) the need for integrity and transparency when it comes to business transactions, specific Procurement Rules and Regulations are things I have never totally understood.

From my very narrow operational perspective, it sometiimes seems to me, that all these rules and regs, just result in us in the publc sector, having to wait longer, then pay more for a generally lesser quality product.

Business is what business does, and unfortunately too often the whiff of a juicy contract is all it takes for any semblance of impartiality and common sense, to go flying out the window (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

The thing I've always found seriously confusing about procurement rules, is that too often they are structured in such a way as to completely negate any notion of a 'level playing field'.

Transparency is fine and commendable, but unfortunately it should not be considered a valid substitute for insight. It may be one thing to buy 100,000 toilet rolls at the best possible price, but it's something quite different when it comes to purchasing a complex technical system, which is often a complete mystery to those tasked with obtaining the best solution at the keenest price.

In general, I don't think procurement is necessarily that much different between public service, and large private commercial operations. The public agencies may indeed be slower, but then I've known of big private companies that have quite willingly acted in obscene haste, and then repented under the cloak of almost total ignorance (IMG:style_emoticons/default/huh.gif)

[Doktor Jon]

Procurement is getting to be an industry in its own right (like H&S)

Increasingly, procurement is taken out of the hands of the end user's who (normally) know what they need and put in the hand of procurement professionals whose job seems to be minimise risk to the Client organisation.

Being really able to do or being qualified/resourced to do the job in hand is no longer a criteria for contract award.

An example from a high profile organisation's PQQ just completed.

What about Business information strategy, Marketing intelligence, commercialising of IPR???

I'm guessing that the problem may not in itself be the simple fact that purchasing is taken out of the hands of the end user, but rather that the end user doesn't have any feedback mechanism available, to ensure that some inexperienced jobsworth isn't wasting the organisations limited resources on a steaming pile of technological crepe.

Many many moons ago (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sleep1.gif) , I actually lost out on a significant contract which was eventually awarded to a supplier that didn't even hold any distribution agreements, for the products on the tender. The procurement department thought they'd done an absolutely sterling job with their sealed bid approach, whilst the engineering group thought that one too many manilla envelopes were involved in the process ... as if such a thing could happen (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Pardon my ignorance folks, but what is a 'PQQ' and come to think of it, ditto an 'IPR' ... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)
Us self employed types lead such a sheltered existence (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

.. and I'll just also quickly add my best wishes to you all for a Happy Easter (IMG:style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

[Ilkie]

I'm guessing that the problem may not in itself be the simple fact that purchasing is taken out of the hands of the end user, but rather that the end user doesn't have any feedback mechanism available, to ensure that some inexperienced jobsworth isn't wasting the organisations limited resources on a steaming pile of technological crepe.

Many many moons ago (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sleep1.gif) , I actually lost out on a significant contract which was eventually awarded to a supplier that didn't even hold any distribution agreements, for the products on the tender. The procurement department thought they'd done an absolutely sterling job with their sealed bid approach, whilst the engineering group thought that one too many manilla envelopes were involved in the process ... as if such a thing could happen (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Pardon my ignorance folks, but what is a 'PQQ' and come to think of it, ditto an 'IPR' ... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)
Us self employed types lead such a sheltered existence (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

.. and I'll just also quickly add my best wishes to you all for a Happy Easter (IMG:style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

PQQ = pre qualification questionnaire

IPR = intellectual property rights

As with most PQQs these days, most don't ask if you have any qualified engineers or the tools or resources to do the job!

Which doesn't seem to be a criteria for awarding a contract these days.

I have even been told by a very senior procurement professional that Public space CCTV maintenance procurement should be approached on a commodity basis, just like buying toilet paper!

Ilkie

[Doktor Jon]

PQQ = pre qualification questionnaire

IPR = intellectual property rights

Aaaahhh thanks for that Ilkie,

Now I remember the IPR bit, that was the problem I was having with keeping TRUSTED intact (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

As with most PQQs these days, most don't ask if you have any qualified engineers or the tools or resources to do the job!

Which doesn't seem to be a criteria for awarding a contract these days.

I have even been told by a very senior procurement professional that Public space CCTV maintenance procurement should be approached on a commodity basis, just like buying toilet paper!

Ilkie

.... hmmm, toilet paper, maybe they're trying to tell us something .... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)