Our position

On video surveillance we say no more often than yes

Not because cameras are useless, but because the real question is usually a different one: what exactly has to be recognisable, and who is going to look at it?

Our position

A camera nobody reviews is decoration that comes with data protection duties — decide what has to be recognisable first, and let the technology follow.

When is a camera the right answer, and when is it not?

A camera is the right answer once three things are settled: what has to be recognisable, who will look at the footage, and what happens after that. We work through those three questions at NDVDL before quoting anything, and fairly often the conclusion is that a camera is not the right tool. A dark yard gets calmer through lighting than through footage nobody watches. A key with an unknown number of copies in circulation remains an open door, camera or no camera. Leave those questions unanswered and you end up with a system that costs attention every month and still tells you nothing on the day it matters.

01

The camera rarely reaches the cause

Requests for video surveillance almost always come with a concrete trigger: something went missing, someone was on the property at night, a door was found open. Keep asking, and the trail leads surprisingly often somewhere other than a camera — to an area that is simply too dark, to a door that falls shut rather than locking, or to a key register that stopped being accurate years ago.

Fixing those things is unglamorous and rarely feels like a security project. It does, however, act on the cause rather than on its documentation. A camera records that someone walked through a door that opens too easily. It does not change the fact that the door opens too easily.

02

Footage nobody reviews is not evidence

The distance between recording and reviewing is larger than it looks at the point of purchase. We regularly find systems that have been running for years where nobody on site can say how to export a clip, whether the clock is correct, or whether there is enough light at night for a usable image at all. That gets discovered on the one day it is least convenient.

Then there is the difference between seeing and identifying. A frame showing a person crossing the yard answers whether someone was there. It does not answer who was there. That second answer needs a different mounting position, a different angle and usually additional light — decisions made during planning, not later in front of the screen.

03

Purpose first, hardware second

The workable order is: which situation should be reconstructable afterwards? What level of detail does that require — is direction of movement enough, do you need a recognisable face, is it about a number plate? Position, angle, lighting and camera count follow from that. This order almost always produces fewer cameras in better places than the question of how many cameras a building of that size usually gets.

The second half of the same thought: the moment recording starts, obligations arise towards the people in the picture — staff, customers, suppliers. That is not an argument against cameras, but it is a good reason not to mount them casually. Anyone operating a system should be able to explain why each camera points where it points. We are not a law firm and give no legal advice, but we also do not install anything for which that explanation is missing.

The case against our position

The deterrent effect of a visible camera is real, and it works whether or not anyone is watching the screen — someone choosing a target will generally take the building without one. The heavier point is the second: an image that was never recorded cannot be produced afterwards. After a break-in or an incident, anyone trying to establish what actually happened is left with assumptions, and we have nothing to offer in place of that — better lighting does not create yesterday's footage. Our reluctance is therefore a judgement call rather than a rule, and in an individual case it can turn out to have been the more expensive one.

What this means in practice

  • We start by asking what you need to be able to recognise and who will actually look at the recordings — and if the conversation ends at lighting, access rules or key management, we say so, even though that means no cameras are sold.
  • When cameras are the right tool, we plan as few as possible in places we can justify individually, which regularly results in a smaller system and a smaller invoice than the one originally requested.
  • Before anything is mounted we put in writing who has access to the recordings and how long they are actually needed — without that, we do not build the system.

Does that sound like your situation?

Then let us talk about what it concretely means for your business.

Video surveillance
Follow-ups

What we get asked about this

For deterrence alone, a visible dummy can work for a while. It solves neither the problem that prompted the request nor gives you an image when something happens. We do not recommend it as a substitute for the decision itself; the better move is to settle what has to be recognisable in an incident, and the answer to that is either a real camera or none.

Two things. First, a brightly visible area changes the behaviour of people who have no business being there. Second, light decides whether a camera delivers a usable image at all; darkness is the same handicap for a sensor as it is for the eye. So in many cases lighting is either the alternative to a camera or the precondition for one.

Usually not. Systems get built for concrete reasons, and those reasons were real at the time. The more useful question is whether the system still does what it was meant to do: is the night image usable, is the clock right, does anyone on site know how to get a clip out? That can be checked without replacing everything.

When incidents repeat and the sequence of events stays unclear, at goods-in and goods-out points, at properties that are unstaffed for stretches of time, and where the absence of footage quickly turns into suspicion between people, which helps nobody. In those cases we are glad to plan a system — with a stated purpose per camera and a decision on who reviews the recordings, because recording brings obligations with it.

The question comes before the quote

Tell us what happened and what should be reconstructable in future. If the answer is not a camera, you will hear that from us.

Request a first consultation+43 800 007075