In late February 2017, Oklahoma City Police Officers responded to a call of alleged illegal activity, where, soon after their arrival a foot chase pursuit began of a suspect who fled the scene. The suspect pulled out a gun while running. The officers clearly instructed him to drop the weapon. When he refused one of the officers shot him, non-lethally. He was then arrested, taken to the hospital and then sent to jail. 

The entire incident, however, was filmed using officers’ body cameras and was subsequently released to a news outlet, posted online, only eight days after the shooting.

Body cameras are part of a growing mix of alternative surveillance devices and technology that builds on a growing network of stationary surveillance cameras. Such alternatives include audio surveillance, chemical surveillance and even heat and thermal sensing technology.

There are also numerous wearable gadgets, with multiple surveillance and emergency response devices, that may be placed on purses or worn by cyclists, drivers, industrial workers and others to send out alarms should a violation occur.

Such alternate surveillance technologies are emerging as tools for added transparency. In fact, such new and emergent surveillance technologies are redefining the meaning of transparency in the context of security nowadays. This is only the beginning.

Growing Popularity

“Both body cameras and audio surveillance are areas that are seeing rising interest,” says Kathryn Brink, an industry analyst with the Freedonia Group. “Body cameras are already being used throughout a growing number of law enforcement agencies and have also seen some use among guard companies. Audio surveillance, on the other hand, has seen much more limited use.”

She notes that despite recent debate about body camera use by law enforcement, they are very effective surveillance tools and are gaining momentum by other entities and in combination with other technology.

“This is particularly true in law enforcement agencies, but these best practices are important for guarding companies and other end users to establish as well,” she says. “Enterprise security executives need to know when they are expected to turn the cameras on or off and how they need to document any recorded incidents. After all, a body camera is only effective if the user turns it on at the proper times, and it is logistically impractical to leave them on at all times due to privacy concerns and the large amount of data that must be stored. In addition, it’s important to remember that body cameras are best utilized when used as part of a larger surveillance system in order to provide a well-rounded assessment of a situation.”

Brink says that concerns with audio surveillance largely come down to the legality of its use. Undoubtedly, there is much uncertainty and misunderstanding regarding when it is, or is not, appropriate to utilize audio surveillance. “Because of this, it seems that many end users have shied away from audio altogether,” says Brink. “Nonetheless, audio capability is relatively easy to incorporate into existing video surveillance systems and utilizes far less bandwidth than video does. It can be a helpful addition to surveillance systems and provide additional opportunities for analytic capabilities when used correctly.”

But the benefit of alternate surveillance methods and tactics provide many flexible options for security professionals who have different needs at different times to implement a means of gathering intelligence data and information.

Enterprise security executives can be proactive in using surveillance by being sensible about the use of many different types of surveillance technologies – both wearable and otherwise. They can use such technologies in a way that won’t conflict with the operational tempo of the communities and enterprises that they serve.

“Be open and transparent about new technology and seek input from those impacted as to how best deploy it and ensure robust compliance and audit and review functions,” says Danny Linskey, former Superintendent-in-Chief of the Boston Police Department  and now managing director of the Law Enforcement and Public Safety Consulting practice at Kroll Associates in Boston, MA. “Engaging stakeholders as new technologies are being considered and evaluated before any decision is made can go a long way in addressing concerns that may arise. Educate individuals on what the technology is and how it will be used before the rumor mill shapes the narrative.”

Moreover, the technology needs to be able to fit with other technology with which it interacts. Thus, an open architecture is important.

And there’s also more to the equation than just the technology. It’s the interpretation of the data it affords.

“From my experience the recent traction gained in the surveillance industry is not a result of new hardware or collection methods but more how surveillance is being interpreted and turned into actionable intelligence,” says Steven Muntean, a security consultant in Atlanta.

Muntean points out that there are an estimated 30 million surveillance cameras deployed in the United States shooting roughly four billion hours of footage per week. “With new technologies the data gathered from surveillance cameras across the country can be pulled remotely and monitored live to prevent crimes before the happen,” he says. “This real-time remote monitoring is using pre-existing surveillance cameras and integrating new technologies to interpret threats and disseminate actionable information to appropriate security stakeholders.”

Alternative Surveillance Technologies Come in Many Forms, Shapes and Sizes

View From The Top with Houston PD Helicopter