Tim Lilleyman, Managing Director at Pinnacle Response argues why the various body-worn camera technologies available are essential to cater to a variety of uses.
Body-worn cameras are starting to take up a little bit more of the technology space year on year.
While the growth of these solutions is not much of an expression of confidence in society when public facing staff need to wear a recording device, this is the reality of the world we live in.
And if this technology can make our friends and family that work in these environments safer, what is there not to like?
How has this technology changed in recent times?
We always come back to our mobile phone as a reference point when we explain the direction things are going.
How many of us would purchase a mobile phone simply to make calls and send text messages?
Similarly, how many of us want a body-worn camera that only records video and audio?
There is still a market for basic functionality that works well, but there is also a growing market that demands much more.
What does this look like?
Let’s look at the practical aspects first.
Battery life is always a major concern.
The requirement to last a standard shift is a must and many look for batteries to last for an extended period in terms of charge and discharge cycles (years of service).
What about the ergonomic design of the product?
Size and weight of the product is key.
The more compact the product is, the better it is from a wearer’s perspective.
This is especially critical when it comes to those users that don’t wear PPE with body-worn camera attachments or where a body-worn camera harness would look out of place.
So, in summary we can say that the market demands a lightweight, compact unit that has a battery life comparable or better than standard size units.
The general response would be that battery technology improves so rapidly, so surely this won’t be too far off in the future.
If only that were the case.
Yes, battery technology certainly improves but usually the requirement for features stretches the power output of the battery pack.
Why is this the case?
Modern body-worn cameras aren’t really just cameras anymore, much as mobile phones aren’t really mobile phones anymore.
In fact, the latest body-worn cameras are more aligned with mobile phone technology than camera technology.
Even the system architecture mirrors mobile phone tech.
Rather than being a simple camera, we find body-worn cameras are hybrid technologies using shared operating systems that offer massive scope and functionality.
The latest body-worn cameras are really minicomputers with powerful processors, many of which operate a version of Android or even an Android hybrid.
Almost everyone has heard of Android and generally accepts it’s fine.
But here’s where some of the new challenges and opportunities arise.
The first and not always the obvious challenge is making the unit robust for everyday use.
Given that especially in the security sector body-worn cameras can get a reasonable amount of rough and tumble, packaging a small minicomputer into a case that’s rugged and reliable can be a challenge.
But good manufacturers have managed to do this successfully.
Now that the technology has advanced, what can we expect from the latest products and should we pay more for these features?
Do we really need it?
The answer to that is simple: no.
Nobody needs anything unless the cost justifies the complexity and the return in benefit.
Let’s put that to the test and weigh-up the return in benefit of one of the most common new features many manufacturers offer.
This feature is live streaming.
According to Google Analytics, this phrase is one of the most common search terms relating to body-worn cameras today.
Is it really necessary and does it make a difference in terms of return in benefit?
Let’s discuss two scenarios and consider the pros and cons.
The first user case is situated in a busy shopping centre with large amounts of footfall.
The user is employed as a security guard and wears their camera for a full shift each day.
Some customer purchased the body-worn cameras with a preconceived idea that live streaming offers a ‘live’ view of what the user sees during their shift and allows someone to monitor or dial into the feed in real-time.
They may expect to see the scenarios the user faces and respond accordingly to these.
That certainly sounds ideal and quite plausible.
Is this a realistic way to view live streaming?
There are some manufacturers that do offer a service like this.
In the UK, we are expected to consider the privacy of our staff and the law is very clear regarding members of the public – all of which are at complete odds with this misunderstanding of how live streaming operates.
Never mind the very real possibility someone in a control centre can dial into the camera at any point in time.
What if the wearer were in the bathroom?
The second case to consider is a little different.
The wearer is also a security guard and they work for a facility management company.
The staff member is a lone worker and wears a body-worn camera while inspecting properties throughout the night.
They travel from site to site in a van and make routine inspections of the sites on foot.
They have the support of a SOC (security operations centre) and their route is scheduled by location and time.
Would a live streaming camera be an asset to this user?
Yes, undoubtably, this user would benefit from the addition of these features.
Why do we say this with such confidence?
There are a number of significant factors that make this a good fit for the second case study.
A key benefit of the live streaming system is the ability to view what is happening in almost real-time.
When we say real-time, its as close as physically possible, but this is dependant on the signal strength the camera is using in the location.
There could effectively be a small lag in the video stream, but we generally understand and accept this to some extent now that many use video calls frequently.
In this scenario, the fact that the company already has a structure in place to monitor staff on patrol from a SOC is the very key to its success. In any emergency, the biggest factor is always time and accurate information.
This company will have the benefit of both those things and be able to make on-the-spot decisions that could have a huge impact on the security guard and their safety.
In addition to live streaming, which we already stated is a massive benefit in this scenario, we could also assume that if the camera has live streaming, it will usually have a PTT (push to talk) function.
In most cases, these two functions go hand-in-hand and give the wearer the ability to talk directly to the control room, updating the situation on the ground prior to requesting live streaming.
In summary, the SOC can monitor the location of the wearer on maps via GPS, they can talk to the person using PTT and see their situation in real-time using live streaming.
In this case the most important two results are timely and accurate information.
What about the first scenario, do we agree there is a positive benefit for the wearer to have these additional functions?
Yes and no.
From a positive perspective, these features may not be fully utilised at this time, but the camera is effectively future-proofed and if the company decides to add some sort of control room environment, they will certainly be able to use these functions effectively.
From a slightly negative perspective, if the company never plans to have any kind of control room for monitoring, then these generally expensive features may not return a cost benefit.
At the outset of this article we said that body-worn cameras are becoming more aligned with mobile phone technology.
This is very true and we can compare two mobile phone apps.
There are usually several common apps on almost everyone’s mobile.
In addition to these common apps, each mobile phone user downloads several apps that appeal to them.
Sometimes these are free and sometimes they can be expensive.
Ultimately, it’s down to each user’s personal requirements and how they in some cases justify the cost of purchased apps.
This is very similar to body-worn cameras; some users simply need the basics, but others can fully utilise the newer technologies from live streaming to AI supported devices.
‘One size’ is never going to work in the body-worn camera market.
Each use case needs to be viewed in a holistic manner and given the huge range of technology solutions available today, the right one will be the one that offers the user all the functionality needed to make work live safer and more secure for them.
This article was originally published in the May edition of Security Journal UK. To read your FREE digital edition, click here.
