Re: Video alarm verification

[J. Sloud <jsloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 07:00:28 -0400, "Jackcsg" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>"Yongil" <disid386@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:dfg8b1$bji$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> I was told that there are some solutions about video alarm verification
>> to reduce false alarm.
>
>Yes, it's called the Internet. We recieve alarms in 50 to 70 mille-seconds,
>and use Network Based Cameras for video verification. Alarms are verified in
>as little as 3 to 5 seconds.
>

Aside from what you've mentioned, the other benefit is to the police.
In many cases, our operators communicate exactly what they see going
on inside the facility to the police before they arrive.  Police rank
calls on a priority system with normal alarm calls behind near the
bottom (99% are false).  With a verified alarm call, the priority
shifts to near the top.   Also, the inteliigence provided to the
responders such as number of perps, possible hostages, observed
weapons, etc.  is invaluable.

In fact, in some jurisdictions, the police dispatch center has remote
access to cameras placed in high risk areas and businesses for the
purposes I've mentioned.  Seal Beach, CA was probably the first, and
there are many others with systems that push video out to officers in
the field using in-car laptops or hand-held PDA's.

Aside from alarm verification, remotely monitored video can also
provide a virtual guard tour service, process auditing/ reporting, and
video escort service for righ risk employees walking to vehicles, etc.