Private Reply to Ray Saugaato

Private Reply to John T

I have to challenge your initial assumption, Ray. The need for video surveillance is not a given. Like many perceived needs, the perception both drives and creates the requirement. I believe this is a fundamental issue behind many, perhaps most or even all, of our social problems. I do agree that such perceptions directly impact our security at all levels, although not in the way I think you mean.

But this is a technical forum, not a political or societal forum, so I'll stick to the technical discussion in this thread.

John is right that video surveillance is a limited capability. It is just one small aspect of information exchange. Within the video domain, there is also tremendous opportunity to expand beyond the visible light spectrum. Infrared has great potential in a number of areas. In manufacturing, the current temperature of various components, from bearings to motors to materials being modified, might prove valuable. A production engineer might spot a bearing wearing out before it fails, allowing for a scheduled maintenance action instead of a repair action. A food processing expert might use it to insure particular cultures are properly working in a yogurt, cheese, or bread production line. Or a brew master could use it to insure my beer is fermenting properly. The transportation industry might use it to inspect sealed containers. Already archeologists have used infrared satellite to identify ancient building sites hidden below jungle growth, using the differences in photosynthesis that occur when plants grow on limestone based soil versus natural jungle soils in Central America. In other parts of the spectrum, compacted soil from ancient roadways and canals appear even when visible light does not show them. Adding 3D enhancement algorithms to the images shows additional features hidden from our normal sight.

Just by expanding the amount of reflected energy we see applications in every field. Capturing that reflected energy (video or video like data) is the enabling technology. Processing that data into useful information becomes a value added aspect. Controlling which reflected energy is captured (remote control) becomes a value added aspect.

The limitations are essentially the human machine interface. The breakthroughs Apple has consistently pursued are in this area - the GUI environment versus the old DOS command line, the iPod, the new iPhone. Making the use of the technology an intuitive process is the Holy Grail.

And now I touch on the non technical aspects.

Advances in integrated human machine interfaces are occurring, primarily with the study of the human brain and in handicap aides. Making the computers respond to though rather than action is where this is headed. When a computer responds to my thoughts, and is in turn connected to a network of other computers responding to other individuals' thoughts, we might indeed be changing the nature of the human species. From individual cells combined into an advanced multi-cell creature, to individual multi-cell creatures combined into an advanced multi-creature entity. What will we be when we don't simply share words, sounds, and images, but can share thoughts? What will we mean by security at that point?

Private Reply to Ken Hilving

Private Reply to Ira Stoller

Video surveillance is an element of a technical solution. If it is specifically a requirement, this indicates poor legislation or a management failure to understand how to structure business objectives and business requirements. As for the use of video surveillance increasing our security, I have yet to see that.

We can use your bank scenario as an example. If the goal is to prevent bank robberies, it adds little value. A bank system in Detroit had an effective solution to bank robberies. Bank employees and vaults were behind bullet proof wall - metal plating below the counter, bullet proof glass above, and a bullet proof glass door controlled from those in the secure area. Even bank management areas (new accounts, business accounts, customer service) were protected, and also isolated from the money. A robber could not gain access by himself. A man trap customer door was also in place in some locations, which meant a robber could be held until police arrived.

The bank did not take advantage of this security. Bank policy was to cooperate with the robber and allow him to escape in order to minimize risk to customers in the lobby. The FBI was a bit frustrated with NBD since the silent alarm system meant police response was always just minutes away, yet the bank policy meant most robbers escaped before they arrived. The robbery was captured on video in all the bank branches.

Adding video piped live to the responding police or bank security personnel, would not have added value if the objective was to stop bank robbers. It might add value in a hostage scenario.

So what we have first is the objective, then requirements supporting that objective, and then technical objectives to support those requirements, and finally solutions. These all have to directly relate, or solutions will not work. In the real example above, the objective did not match the solution and meant millions were wasted on physical security.

The hostage scenario puts ordinary individuals in the role of victim. This is a direct result of governments acting to make people more secure. Rather than increasing overall personal security, it makes people dependent on the "authorities" capability to protect us, and its good intentions to serve us rather than enslave us. Historical evidence shows that such good will is not guaranteed. The ratio of good individuals to bad individuals does not change simply because individuals become "authority" or government. Increasing the ability of governments to control increases the ability to abuse power just as much as to improve security. 

Private Reply to Ken Hilving

Private Reply to Ira Stoller

Private Reply to Ken Hilving

Private Reply to Ira Stoller

The Verint site is quite interesting - gives an idea of just what governments are up to these days in the name of security. Thanks for providing it to us.

You point out a key difference between sales and consulting, Ira.

As sales or sales engineer, the role is to find or create a need that matches what I sell. If the customer comes to me and says "I need...", who am I to look any deeper?

As a consultant, the role is to provide expert opinion and options to the client even when that expertise runs counter to his or her initial beliefs. When the client comes to me and says "I need...", and then gives me a technical solution, it is my responsibility to validate that belief and when appropriate guide him back to business objectives and requirements so that the right technical solutions can be applied.

Which is why it is so important to bring sales along when going to the pub. I know that when I say "I need a beer" sales will provide, while my consulting pals will want to probe deeper, forcing me to buy my own beer!.

 ((☻))

Private Reply to Ken Hilving

Private Reply to John T

Private Reply to mark adams

Private Reply to Ira Stoller