Dummy cameras - and why not to use them

[rory 0]

post anymore info links you have on this, on both sides, pros and cons.

 

Rory

 

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

 

http://www.opkansas.org/_Bus/Business_Safety/cctv.cfm

 

Many CCTV situations promote a false sense of security. A good example is the use of "dummy" or false cameras. This may lead an individual to believe the area is being monitored and any criminal activity will generate an immediate response. Signage might also lead to a false sense of security. Signs which convey a message the cameras are utilized for the "safety and security" of patrons can lead to potential liability problems if the public believes cameras are monitored at all times and help is on the way if they become victimized. Use of "dummy" cameras, or not monitoring real cameras due to staff shortages or restrictions can create liability. It is important to determine the exact purpose of the camera and monitoring procedures. Share that information with those who may be impacted by it, generally the employees.

 

http://www.peelpolice.on.ca/prevention/cctv.htm

 

Doing anything is better than doing nothing.

Don't use dummy cameras. They neither help nor do they fool anyone.

[ChuckP 0]

I’ve also found that burglars are not swayed by cameras once they have entered an establishment, its too late they are already on camera. So if the camera is fake you do not get an image of them, and if its real you do, either way they are going to rob you.

[rikky 0]

Isn't dummy the same as fool.

So dummy cameras haven't got anything to do with professional CCTV.

[knightvision 0]

Dummy's can be usefull, just not on their own. Lets face it, a lot of clients can't afford to put a camera everywhere. But if you have a MIX of Dummy and Real cameras (provided they look the same) it can help deter shoplifting, etc, because the person walking in to the store doesn't know which cameras are real, and pointing at them, and which aren't. This is especially useful with smoked glass dome cameras.

[Silicon Sam 0]

Dummy's can be usefull, just not on their own. Lets face it, a lot of clients can't afford to put a camera everywhere. But if you have a MIX of Dummy and Real cameras (provided they look the same) it can help deter shoplifting, etc, because the person walking in to the store doesn't know which cameras are real, and pointing at them, and which aren't. This is especially useful with smoked glass dome cameras.

 

I love when stores hang dummy domes from poles. I look up at the mounting point and see no wires whatsoever coming out of the pole. And one store started puttin in a sinlge wire, and zip tying it once to the red iron. Just one zip tie, you could tell it was another fake one.

 

Raymond

[Cooperman 0]

If you use a toy dummy with a flashing LED on the front, you aren't going to fool anyone.

 

However, in the right situation a dummy camera can be worth its weight in gold (come to think of it, that's not a lot).

 

If you use an 'empty case' dummy from a respected manufacturer, it looks identical to a working camera. Put a low cost lens on the front, and the deterrent effect is the same as a working camera.

 

Now if you use a dummy sensibly, it can have some quite interesting results.

 

The standard "double deception" requires an overt dummy, perhaps in a normal weatherproof housing (outdoors), to be located as the visual deterrent, whilst the working camera is installed covertly, with the dummy in its field of view.

 

As an example, a couple of years back I caught (on camera) a golfer covering over the dummy with a hand towel, before stealing a load of 'Big Bertha' golf clubs from the storeroom. It kind of ruined his day when the police showed him the recording.

 

The golden rule is, assess the situation, and choose the right tools for the job.

[AVCONSULTING 0]

Below is a copy I took from a discussion on dummy cameras that I found of interest:

 

Question:

What are your thoughts on false cameras? We recently had a large retail alarm client who felt fake cams were as much of a deterrent as the real deal (or he was just too cheap to spend the money). We decided we wouldn’t risk our hard-earned reputation to provide a false sense of protection to his employees and customers. Although he found someone else to install the fake equipment for him, he respected our decision and continues to purchase other equipment/services from us. Could you address the legal implications of installing fake cameras? What if there is a real recorder and some real cameras but also fakes? I’ve heard of at least one national chain of stores that only has active cameras in a percentage of their domes and others are just empty shells.

 

 

 

+++++++++++++++++

 

Answer:

 

False cameras offer the similar issues as lawn signs, though the potential for expectation for a secured area is heightened. There are of course all kinds of scenarios that could influence the issue of reliance and liability. More than likely the alarm company would have less exposure than the subscriber.

 

Tenants in a building would naturally have certain expectations when they see cameras. The building owner could provide notice to tenants that cameras are not supervised; not even recorded; perhaps not even real. Tenants would not be able to rely on these installations, and it's not likely that third parties, such as guests could rely on the installations. This is of course a different issue than an owner's responsibility to provide proper security in a building known to have criminal problems. The issue here is reliance on fake cameras in an area that would not necessarily require a real camera or other forms of security.

In answer to your question, I would not recommend fake cameras, and I agree with the position you took. I have not researched the issue, but that is my gut feeling. If a subscriber does insist on the fake cameras, and you can't resist the sale, then you should be extra cautious making sure the contract clearly specified the fake cameras. This is even more important than my advice to specify in the contract areas of protection that should be protected and are not because the subscriber doesn't want to spend the money. Here you are putting in equipment that is inoperable to begin with. It won't take a too imaginative subscriber or its insurance company to remember that you are the one who suggested the fake cameras when that is precisely the point of protection breached.

[knightvision 0]

I am not a lawyer, nor have I researched this thoroughly, but through speaking with dealers and end users in my area (Canada, may be different in the US, but probably quite similar) I have learned that the implications of Dummy Cams really depends on the application.

 

If it is to reduce shrinkage, it will deter, but it wouldn't take a sharp lawyer to ask where the video evidence damning his client would be, if there is supposedly a camera there. This can make prosecution quite a bit more difficult.

 

To deter vandalism, all a camera presence does is move the vandalism to another area, not believed to be under surveillance.

 

A camera, dummy or real, will almost NEVER deter violent crime. We have all seen the awful video from corner store robberies on TV. This includes potential offenders. They know that there is little chance of their being identified due to the footage. This leads to the real legal implications of dummy cameras.

 

In a public area, anyone who walks in and sees the camera has a certain expectation of sense of security. Courts in the UK and Canada (not sure about the States) have already ruled this is the case. There was a recent case here where a lady was attacked in a parking garage while standing under a dummy. She succesfully sued the parking company AND the installer for creating the false sense of security.

 

Dummy's for the most part are more hassle than they are worth. The only time I would use or recommend a dummy would be in conjunction with real cameras (I have had many interesting snippets sent to me when a covert was put in, watching the dummy. You'd be surprised what you can catch people doing when they think the "camera" has been eliminated).

 

Anytime someone asks me for Dummies, I tell them to speak to their lawyer first. Usually, the threat of a multimillion dollar lawsuit (any lawyer will be able to cite precedence) will quickly convince them to spend the extra dough

 

My 2 cents

 

Dave

[Cooperman 0]

A lot of what you say Dave is absolutely spot on. Not sure about the UK Court ruling though. Their is a 'legitimate expectation' in most situations that the owner / operator of any premises, has taken reasonable steps to ensure the safety of their 'guests'.

The problem in seeking legal redress for example with a person being hit over the head in front of a dummy camera, is a) was their an expectation that this could possibly happen, and in most cases the answer would be no, and b) would a working camera that was being recorded, but which reproduced an unusable image, be any more likely to have prevented the attack; again the answer is probably no.

Taking appropriate steps to address a whole range of risks, can (as we seem to agree) include dummy cameras as part of an overall strategy, but simply using a dummy on its own, isn't a terribly good idea, unless you deliberately want to 'relocate' a particular type of offence, into an adjacent location which is covered by covert CCTV.

I've always thought that if the client wants dummies, and you don't agree, its far better to agree to differ, shake hands and walk away. After all, you can't buy a reputation, and more often than not they will (eventually) respect you all the more for it.

[knightvision 0]

I think what the question comes down to is this: Where are the courts drawing the line between taking "reasonable steps" to ensure the safety of the guest, and creating a "false sense of security" i.e. the recent case, which was a prolonged/aggravated assault under the watchfull eye of a dummy. The judge stated that the "cameras" combined with signage that said the place was being monitored, led the lady to believe that if something happened, help would be on the way. I'll try to track down the actual ruling.

 

Cooperman, I am not totally positive on what UK courts have ruled on the subject, but I recently read an article in a South African magazine (of all places) that cited "recent UK Court rulings."

[Cooperman 0]

Judges in UK courts are rarely if ever asked to rule on specifics related to the use of security cameras. Most judges would prefer to sidestep making rulings on expert issues, preferring instead to concentrate on more established legal principles.

The explosive growth in CCTV usage in the UK over the last ten years, is very much a 'house of cards' which has created its own false sense of security. One leading criminologist recently estimated that there are 4.25 million (?) CCTV cameras being used in the UK, and therein lies part of the problem.

Their have been examples of CCTV failures resulting in loss of life, but not widely documented in the press. Public opinion is squarely based on 'anything is better than nothing', but should (or perhaps that ought to be when...) their is a serious incident which could have been prevented but for CCTV operational failures, then public confidence in the use of the technology will be dented.

It could be argued that if a sprinkler system failed and a fire resulted in fatalities, then their would be a clear legal case. Unfortunately with CCTV, unless its purpose has been clearly and publicly defined, it would be very difficult to build a case with the benefit of hindsight.