printer friendly version

Moving pictures and talking cameras

The increasing digital capability of CCTV surveillance systems is bringing with it something slightly different to the expected visual emphasis – a capacity for audio monitoring and communication.

Remote monitoring has demonstrated this capability for industry and commerce for a while, but it is increasingly becoming an option for mainstream CCTV systems. The capacity for monitoring conversations or sound in an area is already an option and trials in Holland are being held to look at the potential for monitoring conversations and picking up the potential for aggressive behaviour via remote microphones.

I was at a discussion recently on the installation of a CCTV system for a Johannesburg residential area and the topic of voice communication via loudspeakers with cameras was raised as an option - with the idea of warning potential intruders that they had been spotted on camera before they did anything and hopefully scaring them off. The capability could easily have been incorporated into the digital system that was being installed and the discussion has moved from 'is it possible?' to 'should we have it?'

There has been an increasing installation of so-called 'talking cameras' in the UK over the last few months. Typically city centre orientated, having another tool in the CCTV system toolbox has been seen as a plus for some operations. In the line of increased system capabilities, not only is voice being seen as a deterrent, but the use of emitting a remote controlled light source onto the area is also being considered as a measure in some operations such as Glasgow. Similarly to a night watchman coming around a corner and highlighting some strange people with a torch and a gruff voice, CCTV systems are building in the capacity for intervention rather than just passive watching.

A new CCTV system using loudspeakers in conjunction with cameras, which has been trialled in Middlesbrough, is being expanded to 20 additional communities over the next few months according to the UK Home Office. These communities have submitted proposals and gained Home Office funding to create 'talking CCTV systems' of their own and include places such as Blackpool, Coventry, Norwich, Ipswich, Plymouth, Gloucester, Derby, Northampton, Nottingham, Derby, and the London boroughs of Southwark, Barking and Dagenham.

The camera has spoken

The support of the UK Government for the programme is clear, with home secretary John Reid earmarking nearly 500 000 to fund the expansion. The Home Office reports that the programme proved an immediate success in Middlesbrough earlier this year, bringing about a noticeable drop in anti-social behaviour.

According to Middlesbrough officials, over the last few weeks fights have been broken up, litterers have sheepishly picked up their rubbish and skateboarders have stopped rolling through traffic when told to do so by the camera-borne voice. The voice response with CCTV in Glasgow has had a similar effect.

The cameras have also been seen to counter drunk and disorderly behaviour, illegal drinking, gangs congregating, and abusive behaviour. Part of this includes stopping the escalation of issues such as street fights before they become major problems.

Certainly, some criminals are prepared to take their chances with CCTV in the hope that they will not be identified, are not being looked at or can get away before a response arrives. By intervening and letting the criminal know that they have been observed, and even that the police or security response is on its way, it may make a difference in the likelihood of a crime being followed through with. Just knowing you are being watched can also make a difference.

People can become accustomed to cameras and sometimes forget CCTV is happening around them. With voice instructions and commands issuing from time to time, everybody is likely to remember camera presence - some of the loudspeakers are said to have a range of up to 50 m.

Finding the words

The responses to the 'talking CCTV' schemes have not all being positive. Concern over privacy, excessive surveillance and control, and having commands 'barked' at you in the street have all been mentioned as issues. The voices used may well have an impact, both positively and negatively on the scheme. In Middlesbrough, for example, operators have strict guidelines on what they can say. With competitions reportedly being held at some schools in the areas for children to become the 'voice' of CCTV cameras in the areas where they are to be located, the gruff nightwatchman's or policeman's voice may not be present. The impact of having children's voices used to police behaviour has probably not been properly thought through. Indeed, given that voice is a key element in influencing people while implementing law enforcement, the use of tone and type of voice needs some consideration and training in use of voice is probably essential. As one Middlesbrough resident indicated in a comment: "I was told to get off my bike, it is easy to ignore them." Schemes run the risk of just having the voice ignored because it is seen as ineffectual, with the potential of a broadening of this view to the whole CCTV system. Balancing politeness with giving a command can also sometimes be a fine line to tread. It may also mean that operators will need to be selected for their verbal abilities as well as their observation skills.

There is also a danger of being seen as doing away with or replacing actual physical protection in the form of security or police officials in such areas. The home secretary was questioned about this issue and denied that this new scheme was being used instead of putting more police officers on the beat. According to John Reid, it was not seen as a substitute for having police on the beat, but another way of using the technology.

However, as the shadow home secretary David Davis indicated, while voice supplemented cameras can be a useful tool against anti-social behaviour, there is no substitute for having the real police presence in the communities. He was quoted in the Guardian as making the point that "people want real policing, not scarecrow policing".

CCTV cannot replace physical security, either in structural or human forms and the danger is that 'talking CCTV' will be used as an excuse to cut the costs of real protection. Also, CCTV systems themselves need a physical response unit to handle observed incidents in order to be effective. If the CCTV is not backed up by such a response, it is likely to be seen as ineffective and fail.

Human rights issues also come to the fore in such discussions amid concerns over an increasingly intensive surveillance society. While perhaps not an issue when telling a burglar climbing a wall that he has been seen and had better stop immediately, using expensive and all-seeing technology for minor offences can intensify the feeling that 'Big Brother' is watching you.

Public protection should be proportionate to the problems being dealt with. Police sometimes come under criticism for using too much force in subduing armed and difficult suspects. We need to maintain our perspective when looking at the suitability of electronic security to see that it is 'fit for purpose'.

More noise, less effect?

Perhaps most importantly, 'talking CCTV' can compromise the perceived effectiveness, and actual effectiveness of the CCTV surveillance system. For many operations, the camera to operator ratio means that much of what happens in an area of surveillance may never be seen. There are simply too many cameras for operators to view at the same time. Where people find that they are not corrected by a voice over a loudspeaker, they may start questioning whether people are actually looking at what is going on.

The more this happens and they are not corrected, the more the effectiveness of the system is going to be brought into question. This has the potential to undermine the belief in the systems among the public, or of the employees of a commercial enterprise. Of even more concern is the likelihood of criminals testing these kinds of CCTV systems with minor offences to evaluate the scope of coverage and effectiveness of cameras through the voice responses they get or do not get. Once this has been done a number of times, they may well have mapped out the coverage and effectiveness of the system and are in a better position than ever in knowing how to avoid or circumvent CCTV coverage when committing more serious crimes.

The bark vs the bite

Implementing a voice integrated CCTV system produces expectations and responsibilities that may be very difficult to live up to. It raises questions about resources, personnel, events that are monitored, priorities and the role of CCTV more generally.

Some of these issues are going to be answered and become somewhat clearer over the next few years as we see more and more 'talking cameras'.

Dr Craig Donald

Dr Craig Donald is a human factors specialist in security and CCTV. He is a director of Leaderware, which provides instruments for the selection of CCTV operators, X-ray screeners and other security personnel in major operations around the world. He also runs CCTV Surveillance Skills and Body Language, and Advanced Surveillance Body Language courses for CCTV operators, supervisors and managers internationally, and consults on CCTV management. He can be contacted on +27 (0)11 787 7811 or [email protected]

Share this article:

Further reading: