Whether events of September 11th, 2001 portend permanent or temporary changes in our nation, or around the world, local law obligation organizations around the country know that a seismic event of some magnitude occurred which will influence the way we do things for years to come. honestly the psyche of this and many other nations were impacted. Elections were influenced, relations between nations were altered, and general international discourse was dramatically changed - maybe permanently.
While so much changed in the way we approached our daily lives, the most fundamental turn may have taken place in the realm of security. "Business as usual" could no longer be tolerated at the local law obligation level as a very real and visceral reality hit home - that some of the world's most capable and redoubtable forces powers could find themselves vulnerable to far less sophisticated, asymmetric threats which could kill thousands without firing a singular round. Asymmetric warfare migrated from an intellectual exercise that planners in the Pentagon used to channel the directions of the Revolution in forces Affairs to one of practical consequence that seemed to throw all of the rules out the window.
When those two passenger jets slammed into the Twin Towers on 9/11 they had a galvanizing influence on how we escort our day-to-day activities and challenged conventional wisdom about how we deal with possible threats. Probably nothing in our lives changed more visibly than the explosion in guard capabilities and the willingness, albeit with some degree of objection, to accept greater intrusiveness by governments as they sought to prevent even more cataclysmic events. Securing the general habitancy became the mantra of governments and their leaders, and guard systems became a key means to accomplish that security.
Yet the need to fill the apparent gap in government as well as secret protection architectures has not in all cases been met by a concomitant suitable response from the market arena. Many associates rushed to fill the void without the commensurate caress needed to furnish the right customer solutions. Company size, financial deep pockets, and an army of engineers by themselves mean little without a deep bench of experienced technocrats who have put years in the trenches of the guard industry and have lived the complex challenges this industry poses.
Towards that end, there are some critical considerations when finding to obtain a guard system. These include, but are not little to, the following:
1. Surveillance systems are not naturally cameras on a pole: Potential users such as local law obligation agencies need to understand the broader applications and uses of all of the components in an integrated, "total systems" approach. honestly simple, and cost effective, wired Cctv solutions are a piece of the total solution. However, by themselves, they deprive a user of a complete explication - a fact that can go unnoticed until it is too late and a situation arises whereby more is needed.
2. Surveillance systems should be holistic in institute and defined by the user's specific needs and desired objectives: There are a myriad of factors that influence what a possible user will wish in a guard system. What is the objective or threat? Is it counter-drug, counter-terrorism, illegal immigration, criminal performance reduction, homicide reduction, etc.? Can the requirement be met solely by copper or fiber optic solutions? Is there a wireless component? Is the explication a mix of overt and covert platforms? How can a new explication be coupled with the existing inheritance theory in place potentially salvage the customer a lot? Is there an aerial component to the requirement? Are there low light camera needs? Is there a mobile requirement, a rapid deploy need? Is full frame rate video required? The answers to these questions will have a dramatic ensue on what is needed, decree the priority of needed functionality, and temper how and when to obtain discrete components of the desired system. Moreover answering these questions ensures the practical and measured acquisition of a theory commensurate with the fiscal resources ready to the user.
3. guard systems should be scalable: capable of beginning small, able to grow in adaptable stages, and anchored to easy-to-use and robust video supervision software: The term "system" should not be intimidating, for it can be something as little as a basic video sensor, a transmitter, a receiver, a consolidate of antennas, and a small box to view the video, operate the sensor, and narrative the video. The components should be modularized in such a way that the potential to grow the theory is seamless and rapidly expansible. Most importantly, the theory should be manageable via software that is flexible, agnostic (i.e., is capable of integrating with a host of different sensors and video supervision components regardless of the brand name of each component), and able to be worked by the user out of the beginning gate.
4. guard systems are tough stuff: It is not the size of a Company that matters - it is experience! It is not a company's deep pockets that count, but rather its exhibited skills in what is an incredibly complex niche industry. Knowing how to consolidate analogue with digital solutions, how to transmit large volumes of streaming video straight through different "pipes" for long distances, how to meld wired and wireless components, and do so in a inexpensive time are not skills resident in a lot of associates even if they do advertise that is what they do. So "buyer beware!"
5. guard systems are not cheap and they need care. Sometimes, the hardest thing is to convince a user that they must protect their investment with an extended assistance agreement. But doing so is not only smart - it is essential. Systems should be made so they can be operated easily. But they are a goods of industrialized electronics, complex sensors, and complex software and need a sustained assistance agenda to claim one's investment. This one element is the most overlooked yet most critical element in any system.
Surveillance systems are here to stay. They are imbedded in much of the fabric of our every day life. You have seen vestiges of such systems in London, heard about efforts to man the U.S. Border with them (although with mixed results to date), have seen them used as a means to bring down organized crime, and watched their proliferation throughout many of the major cities in the United States. There has been a lot of trial and error . . . A lot of successes and failures. But one end is unavoidable - they are here to stay and will grow in size and scope and, as they do, so too will the estimate of providers who say they can yield the right solution. The five considerations mentioned above may help in providing the right explication for a city, company, or branch seeking to obtain a theory to meet its guard needs.
Law promulgation guard Cameras for the Post-9-11 World - 5 Considerations
No comments:
Post a Comment