Adam Wiseberg reviews the critical role that the very latest remote monitoring and video smoke detection technologies can play in the ongoing protection of commercial, industrial and public sector buildings from both a security and fire prevention perspective.
In many areas of the UK, arson accounts for a worryingly high proportion of fires. For certain locations, up to 70% of all reported incidences of fire are caused by arsonists. Fortunately, technological advances in the past decade mean that protection against the threat of criminal attack can be provided by remotely-monitored CCTV – 24 hours per day.
The remote monitoring capability assumes particular importance when a given location is unmanned overnight or at weekends, but effective security cover still needs to be maintained. It’s also a hugely practical method of monitoring an extensive site where other potential solutions such as manned security simply wouldn’t be an economic proposition.
It’s the detection of unauthorised and potentially malicious intruders at the earliest stage (when they first seek to gain access to a site) where remote monitoring really comes into its own.
The reasons for arson are many and varied. It may simply be mindless vandalism, a wish to play with fire (literally), revenge or an attempt to conceal a crime. Whatever the motive, if the perpetrators are left undetected, they may attempt to set fire to whatever combustible materials are to hand immediately outside the building, or might try to gain access to inside areas where the consequences of their actions are – potentially, at least – a good deal more damaging.
Strategically-placed detectors
Using conventional alarms, a fire may well take hold before any effective action is possible. There’s little doubt that the resources of fire brigades operating across the UK were stretched throughout the 1990s by a doubling in the number of malicious primary fires they were called to attend, so anything that might prevent such fires from happening must surely be welcome.
In practice, if an incident should occur and you’re using remote monitoring, strategically-placed detectors are triggered and the relevant images from a series of on-site CCTV cameras adjacent to the specific event transmitted. Typically, this is via an ISDN line to a dedicated Remote Video Response Centre. Here, CCTV operators are able to visually confirm what’s happening and issue verbal warnings if necessary (via on-site speakers) to intruders.
Experience alone tells us that this step is a sufficient deterrent for over 90% of intruders. Where offenders are more determined, operators are able to alert the emergency services – and key holders – pretty rapidly such that they might take appropriate actions.
As we progress in the 21st Century, so does the technology available to the end user. It’s no longer just a question of capturing intruders who may commit arson or indeed theft. We must also consider the issue of fire detection before extreme damage is caused to buildings.
Recent developments in video smoke detection could be said to be the beginning of the end for fatal fires. They discover smoke in the early stages of a fire, triggering an alarm to inform the authorities and any relevant members of staff.
All of this is obviously going to be of considerable interest to the UK’s multitude of property owners and estates managers, all of whom are now faced with the reality of escalating insurance premiums in what is a much stricter insurance environment.
Smart video content analysis
The real attractiveness of video smoke detection lies in the smartness and accuracy of the system compared to other methods. This sophistication contrasts with a conventional smoke alarm which, even at its best, would tend to be something of a blunt instrument.
If a conventional alarm is triggered in an unoccupied building, the only option for the monitoring station – without any way of cross-checking the validity of the activation – is to call out the fire brigade. A process that frequently leads to their time being wasted on a false alarm.
There’s little doubt that the resources of fire brigades
operating across the UK were stretched throughout the
1990s... so anything that might prevent fires from happening in the first instance must surely be welcome
Thankfully, with smart video content analysis allowing operators to actually see the event which has caused the alarm, and so reach an informed decision as to whether the emergency services are really required, the potential for reducing the prevalence of false alarms – and thus keeping the authorities and insurers happy – is huge.
Looking at the current generation of false alarms in more detail, whereas a traditional beam-activated system may be set off by dust particles and birds (eg in railway stations) that sort of problem is eliminated with video content analysis.
The good news from a CCTV perspective is that such systems are able to take advantage of standard cameras to act as the ‘detectors’, the detection zones placed anywhere within a specific camera view on or around the items or areas to be protected. The cameras are then linked to a self-contained processing system that’s capable of using video content analysis (‘Technology holds the cure’, SMT, June 2004, pp38-39).
Video content analysis has the ability to automatically identify distinct smoke patterns by looking for small areas of change within an image at the digitisation stage (only passing these pixel changes to the main processor for further filtering). The system is then able to alert the local operator, who can visually confirm the alarm condition and its cause and take the necessary action.
Returning to remotely monitored CCTV for a moment, this event-driven method offers end users much greater cost-effectiveness, flexibility and reliability when compared with more conventional solutions like intruder alarms, manned security and continually-recording CCTV. The most basic and common option for securing a site is probably the intruder alarm. Most police forces quote false alarm rates as high as 90%, leading to the very real threat of a loss of police response and a knock-on effect on insurability.
Manned security patrols do provide some protection against attack (including arson), but a major drawback is that, by the very nature of patrolling, there are unavoidable and dangerous gaps as officers visit a number of sites. These ‘windows of opportunity’ can allow the determined vandal or thief to move in.
What about static manned security? The advantage here, of course, is that someone is always on site. The disadvantages include the cost, which can be rather high. Staff might be of poor quality, and forced to work long shifts. That may lead to limited attention span and incidents can be missed. Added to this are the lone worker and minimum wage legislation, which considerably bump up the costs of overnight security.
An alternative strategy for the end user is to install CCTV cameras that can have a deterrent effect for the opportunist. Unfortunately, the most common method is simply to continuously record camera images that will be viewed at a later date, which is really only of any use after an event has transpired in securing a conviction. It cannot prevent the damaging arson attack from occurring in the first place.
Of course, CCTV images may also be monitored on site by dedicated security officers, but this is every bit as expensive as what might be termed ‘pure’ manned security.
Intelligent CCTV in focus
With remote monitoring, provided the key tenets of BS 8418:2003 are followed, end users can look forward to the peace of mind which comes from knowing that their sites have been transformed into a secure, controlled environment. One that’s ready to meet the threat of an attack head on.
The emergency services will also benefit from significant reductions in false alarms. Already, they’re only responding to incidents reported by Remote Video Response Centres with a URN (Unique Reference Number) that meet their quality requirements. BS 8418:2003 should help to distinguish between good and bad practice and, crucially, support more effective prosecutions based on video evidence.
Source
SMT
Postscript
Adam Wiseberg is managing director of RemGuard Visual Management (www.remguard.co.uk)
No comments yet