Remote possibilities

Likely to become a fully-fledged British Standard (BS 8418) at some point during this coming summer, the British Security Industry Association (BSIA) is adamant that PAS 38 – the Publicly-Available Specification Standard for the Remote Monitoring of Detector-Activated CCTV Systems – "has the potential to improve the performance and effectiveness of CCTV technology". Indeed, this will be the first standard aimed at detector-activated CCTV, an alternative for end users looking at something other than continual live monitoring of images.

In essence, detector-activated systems alert a remote video response centre when an incident occurs (a detector is activated), at which point images of the site may be viewed and appropriate action taken. Some of the UK's 43 police forces will respond to such an incident, others will not. This is largely because no nationally-recognised standards cover the area, thus the perception is that false alarm rates could be high. A situation that obviously raises further dilemmas for insurers, who need guidance when specifying a system. BS 8418 is being introduced to solve these problems.

PAS 38 was initially created by BSIA Working Group GW-1-10 around 18 months ago. The revised document was then published as a draft document for public comment under a fast-track standards development programme. At present, the draft BS 8418 is available for further comment from all parties – including end users, installers and insurers (the deadline for submissions is 30 April). It was produced in conjunction with a number of bodies including the Association of Security Consultants, the Home Office Crime Prevention Centre, the Loss Prevention Council, SITO and co-opted experts in the field of CCTV.

Adam Wiseberg – managing director of RemGuard, chair of the BSIA's CCTV Section and the GW-1-10 Working Group – has stated that the Association of British Insurers (ABI) is now considering specifying detector-activated remote monitoring systems to PAS 38 once it becomes a British Standard.

"There haven't been many instances to date where police have issued URNs (Unique Reference Numbers) to CCTV systems," said Wiseberg. "Insurers have always had a major problem with how to specify CCTV systems because of this, and are looking at some kind of alarm system that's capable of generating a URN. They see that detector-activated CCTV can be a huge benefit in reducing the high false alarm rate that has accompanied intruder alarms." The ABI, it seems, is crying out for the standard.

Trialling in the West Midlands
The few instances where ACPO has issued URNs to CCTV remote monitoring systems were all during a West Midlands Police trial of visual remote monitoring. The BSIA Code of Practice (worked on by a cross-section of manufacturers, installers, operators and remote monitoring stations) that became PAS 38 was based on the results of that trial, which is why Wiseberg is confident ACPO will instruct police forces to demand PAS 38 when issuing URNs. Talks between the BSIA Working Group and ACPO with a view to this becoming a reality are still ongoing. "We're hopeful and confident that it will happen," added Wiseberg.

Making ACPO sit up and take notice of PAS 38 has not been easy for the BSIA. The hope was that the standard would have been referred to in the ACPO 2000 policy document, but the BSIA Working Group wasn't represented at ACPO in the early stages because of a fear of "too many talking heads" around the table (the BSIA's Tim Geddes sat in on the discussions, but was there to represent the general intruder alarms sector). Adam Wiseberg now fulfils the role.

End users will be keen to learn exactly what guidelines the new draft standard for detector-activated CCTV actually lays down for their appointed installers and remote monitoring stations. Essentially, there are five key points:

• Alarm Receiving Centres (ARCs) providing visual monitoring should be renamed Remote Video Response Centres (RVRCs);
  
• detector positioning is critical – detectors should only trigger within the field of view of the camera, and detector patterns must not overspill the site boundaries;
  
• multiple detectors should not be connected to a single input;
  
• the human target should fill an absolute minimum of 10% of screen height for verification purposes, and 50% for recognition to be possible;
  
• if cameras have to be positioned in such a way that they overlook public areas, they must adhere to the guidelines laid down by the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act.

Apparently, the BSIA has managed to win over the standard's fiercest critics – and there were plenty of them when PAS 38 was first published. Back then, a number of visual remote monitoring providers (Imigix, Visual Verification and Farsight among them) lined up to voice their concerns. They had two major complaints: first, they felt the standard produced did not go far enough in addressing issues related to visual remote monitoring and, second, these companies – all non-BSIA members – felt that they hadn't been given a chance to have their say on PAS 38. Those self-same companies are now full of praise for the draft standard, and are giving it their support.

Why, though, such a transformation in attitudes? Paul Bromley, IT director at Farsight (UK), is well placed to comment. "To be fair, the BSIA Working Group has been pretty good at consulting people and obtaining feedback from central monitoring stations, installers and end users," suggested Bromley. "If it does receive ACPO approval, the document as it stands will be a really workable solution for remote video response and surveillance."

Bromley also feels that a good deal of thought has gone into what's included in the document, particularly those areas concerned with detector over-spillage, system configuration and the number of pre-sets for dome cameras. On the systems side, the standard covers areas such as detector and camera positioning and configuration, lighting of the cameras' fields of view and the incorporation of tamper detection. On the RVRC side of the equation, it looks at areas like records and event logging, general security of the RVRC itself, the storage of images, incident response times and personnel screening.

More effective monitoring
Farsight's Bromley also believes that the standard will ensure sites are monitored far more effectively than has perhaps been the case, which will be one less headache for the in-house manager.

"Only recently we've seen one site where 15 detectors are linked to a single camera. That's just sheer madness," he stressed. "On that basis, if there's a faulty detector then you'll lose coverage of the entire site. The new document states that there should be a limit of three detectors attached to any one dome camera, which is far more sensible planning."

Another stipulation in the document is that there should only be one input for every CCTV camera that's being remotely monitored. "If you have a ten-camera site, you'll then need ten separate inputs," added Bromley. "The standard now states 'one camera, one alarm input'". This particular requirement is vital for all concerned – if an end user has more than one camera reliant on a single input, remote CCTV operators could well miss a critical security event. Bromley stated: "Say there's a dog running around on one camera, while a person being attacked is being monitored by another. You might have trouble viewing and reacting to the person being attacked because the lone input is continually flipping you back to the other camera."

Crucially, the BSIA Working Group has also managed to broaden the scope of the standard in relation to what CCTV systems can comply with PAS 38. According to Bromley, some of the earlier drafts appeared to be manufacturer-specific but now they're more generic.

Not everyone is happy, though. David Mackay, director of CCTV consultant David Mackay Associates, believes that the BSIA Working Group has failed to address the fundamentals of visual verification. Mackay – who managed NTL's CCTV remote monitoring arm until it was sold to Reliance Security Services last year – told SMT: "It's proper that the industry should have a recognised standard, but the standard needs to be about installation. They've only looked at the equipment side, but it's proper installation that's the real key here. They've missed the point."

Any SMT readers unhappy with the draft in its current state have some time to make their views known and influence the shape of the full British Standard. In any event, the BSIA has pledged that the standard will be subject to revision. It's a live document that will grow. It has to, as technology is so fast-moving these days.

Indeed, the rapid development of the CCTV sector in general is the very reason why the BSIA chose to fast-track its Code of Practice to British Standard status rather than go down the usual route. "In the past it would have taken five years," sighed Adam Wiseberg. "I don't think that would have benefited the industry at all."

Pressure from central stations
Colin Walters, general manager for Remote Video Response (RVR) – a leading provider of visual remote monitoring in the security sector – predicts that central monitoring stations will now begin to exert pressure on installers to install detector-activated remote CCTV systems to the standard. He said: "We'd like to think we're in a position where we can say... 'We want you to install to this standard in order for us to monitor the system. I'm certain that insurers will go that way as well."

The good news for end users who've had their fingers badly bitten is that the new document should benefit the better installers while, according to Walters, "putting an end to the rogues who install systems that cause no end of false alarms." It should also be borne in mind that the situation with respect to manned security will change dramatically in the years ahead. The pool of available security officers is likely to diminish as a result of the requirements of the Private Security Industry Act 2001. Costs and activities associated with regulation are also likely to lead to many contractors going out of business. Those remaining will concentrate their efforts on more sophisticated activities.

Put simply, both end users and their security contractors will have to think long and hard about the most effective way of combining technology with manpower.

In all honesty, the implementation of this standard should be welcomed by all parties in the industry (particularly in view of the fact that those involved in pulling it together work in the CCTV sector itself). With this document, the industry can help ensure that remote video monitoring has a realistic chance of becoming the preferred confirmation technology.