Quote:
Originally Posted by Schroeder
What I find frustrating is that we live in the year 2016 and still all CCTV footage of suspects that I've ever seen is blurry and low res. That could be anyone.  |
Newer High quality surveillance camera systems are expensive. One also has to keep in mind the original purpose of these older systems. They were to alert the on-duty security personnel that something unusual was occurring that would trigger deploying of security personnel. These older systems were never designed, nor intended to be used, to collect forensic evidence to help identify an unknown suspect. At best they could provide an image that could be used in court with a known suspect.
There are newer systems available that have higher resolution. These are usually a mix of video and still cameras. Video cameras are better at showing suspicious activity, still cameras are still better at the higher resolution "for evidence" collection.
But it is not just an expensive replacement of equipment, the newer systems need to be relocated. Usually lower. In the past, there was a tradition that surveillance cameras be mounted up high looking down. Makes sense when you are trying to surveil a large area for suspicious activity. Not so good for collecting forensic evidence to attempt to identify the suspect. Banks and stores are already learning this.
Newer surveillance cameras need to located lower to get a more horizontal image of the person's face. That makes human and machine identification a lot easier. There is, however, a trade-off. Lower mounted cameras don't cover as much area so you need more cameras and the related infrastructure. For an airport, this could be a serious investment.
Airports were designed to move a lot of people quickly within a secured protected area. They were not designed to make it easy to surveil the people. I suspect that future airports (and other buildings) will be designed with surveillance in mind.
Sadly another way the terrorists are willing.
