The paper copy of the San Francisco Chronicle had a very different headline from the online version, but in either case the message seems to be the same. Surveillance cameras are useless if they are not supported properly by an enforcement system.

Larsen said the Housing Authority wants to pay staff to monitor the cameras at all times, but that the agency’s dwindling budget makes coming up with the money a challenge. Other immediate needs, including repairing decrepit public housing developments, are competing for the same pot of money, he said.

“It’s a balancing act,” he said. “What’s more important? Obviously, security is important, but so are the roofs and the sewer lines.”

Actually, more sophisticated camera control systems would avoid the need for constant monitoring. The latest systems can email video extracts to guards, only when a trigger is tripped, so they can review on an as-need basis only and on a mobile/cell. On the other hand, the story makes me wonder if things are so tight that money saved from not having any cameras at all would put more officers on the ground. That would be better, unless money is so tight it would still just go to sewer lines and roofs. But that’s a management decision not a failure of surveillance controls.

The article certainly points out some interesting problems with security if it is not budgeted in a manner consistent with expectations (e.g. management can not afford to operate the controls). Back to my point about control levels, this is a good example of a level 1 (documented) that is missing proper implementation and would never pass a test.