examination surveillance

Published on January 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 22 | Comments: 0 | Views: 159
of 13
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

Introduction
Monitoring is the regular observation and recording of activities taking place in a project or programmed. It is a
process of routinely gathering information on all aspects of the projects, supervising activities in progress to ensure
they are on-course and on schedule in meeting the objectives and performance targets. To monitor is to check on
how project activities and progressing. It is observation; - systematic and purposeful observation.
Monitoring also involves giving feedback about the progress of the project to the donors, implementers and
beneficiaries of the project .Reporting enables the gathered information to be used in making decision for
improving project performance. To observe, supervise, or keep under review; to measure or test at intervals,
especially for the purpose of regulation or control, or to check or regulate the technical quality of something.
On the other hand, surveillance is a process of close monitoring of behavior. Ongoing close observation and
collection of data or evidence, for the specified purpose or confined to a narrow sector. In comparison,
environmental scanning is broad and includes all associated external factors.
Sur·veil·lance [sər váylənss] is French for to “watch from above “. Although the word surveillance literally means
(in French) “to watch from above” (i.e. a God’s-eye view looking down from on high) the term is often used for all
forms of observation, not just visual observation. However, the all-seeing eye-in-the-sky is still an icon of
surveillance in general. It is commonly used to describe observation from a distance by means of electronic
equipment or other technological means.
Surveillance is the art of watching over the activities of persons or groups from a position of higher authority.
Surveillance may be convert (without their knowledge) or overt (perhaps with frequent reminders such as “we are
watching over you”). Surveillance has been an intrinsic part of human history. Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, written
2,500 years ago, discusses how spies should be used against a person’s enemies. But modern electronic and
computer have given surveillance a whole new means of operation. Surveillance a whole new means of operation.
Surveillance can be automated using computers, and people leave extensive records that describe their activities.
Counter surveillance is the practice of avoiding surveillance or making it difficult, before computer networks,
counter surveillance involved avoiding agents and communicating secretly. With recent development of the internet
and computer databases counter surveillance has grown. Now counter surveillance involves everything from
knowing how to delete a file on a computer to avoiding becoming the target of direct advertising agencies.
Inverse surveillance is the practice of reversalism on surveillance. E.g. citizens photographing police, shoppers
photographing shopkeepers, and passengers photographing cab drivers, who usually have surveillance cameras in
their cabs, a well-known example is George haldays’s recording of the Rodney King beating. Inverse surveillance
attempts to subvert the panoptic gaze of surveillance, and often attempts to subvert the secrecy of surveillance
through making the inverse surveillance recordings widely available (in contrast to the usually secret surveillance
tapes).

Surveillance camera are often connected to a recording device, IP network, and /or watched by a security
personnel/law enforcement officer. These cameras may include features like pan, tilt and zoom; may be placed in
indoor or outdoor locations; and may include infrared recording options. Most cameras are used with recording
systems, either VCR’S or digital recorders. Using a digital recorder is the preferred option for easy storage, easy
recall, and easy viewing over different monitors
Background of the study
Students and lecturers behavior is a problem that cannot be regarded as trivial. The problems of students behavior
academically in the examination hall or during classes and lecturers involving in malpractices, security and not
coming for lectures is an issue that will not go away by itself. However deluding the quality of graduates produced
and the institution. The problems are particularly acute and are complicated by their prevalence, crime and despair.
Installing video surveillance system will help students focus on their studies and lecturers more dedicated to their
work and to checkmate insecurity in classes. These installations represent a huge amount of video to transmit, view
and archive, making it impossible for a human monitor to analyze all of these video recording in order to detect
suspicious behavior or events.
Over the past decade, activities of examination malpractices, lack of dedication of personnel to services they are to
render, security of individuals and property has become a global issues. Among the solutions proposed, video
surveillance is one of the oldest and most widespread security technologies. Although still mostly analogical, it is
undergoing a digital revolution with the ongoing transition to videos on ip networks. Sometimes integrating
hundreds of cameras, these new systems create a huge amount of video information that cannot be processed only
by security agents screen surveillance. To resolve this issue, intelligent video surveillance, by video analytic, can
process the information by software analysis in order to keep only the data relevant to what it was dedicated to view
on.
Video surveillance should be place at dedicated viewing areas such as entrances, hallways, stairwells or even
classroom environments, so that the best possible view can be achieved in relation to what the camera’s primary
focus should be. Schools can feature multiple entrances or exits and may span multiple buildings. It can soon
become hard to keep track of where potential risk that may occur at any given time. It is important to note that all
video surveillance will remain in a fixed position thus providing a dedicated view of what is most important. It can
be repositioned which may result in the camera looking in the wrong direction at the wrong time. Video surveillance
camera should only be used in school campus environments as a secondary means of security, checking examination
malpractices, and attendance.
A school campus may include a single building at one location up to hundreds of buildings spanning multiple
locations. One of the many benefits of video surveillance technology is the ability for centralized management. No
longer is surveillance limited to a building by building configuration. Also avoided is the cost of trying to bring all
cameras video feeds to a centralized location.

Video quality and video frame rates schools can become very busy places rather quickly.it is important that video
quality be at a level high enough so that identification of persons can be made easily. Cameras need both high video
quality and a reasonable video frame rate for this to occur. This was once difficult due to cost and bandwidth
limitations.
With video surveillance applications over school campuses it is important to focus on areas that are key importance.
These are the key security risk areas that should be monitored at all times without changing camera position. It is
also important that video surveillance cameras used in these areas are of high quality so that proper identification
can be made easily. With the added benefit of video surveillance including centralized management capabilities and
high resolutions capable cameras, a safe and secure environment can be created where students and faculty can
focus on education without worry of feeling unsafe or unprotected.
Video surveillance was first utilized by the United States military in the 1940s. Closed circuit cameras were set up
during the testing of the V2 missile in order to safely monitor the tests. By using video surveillance systems,
officials were able to monitor the testing at close range without danger, watching out for defects and other problems
that might have otherwise gone undetected.
Statement of the Problem
1.

2.

What the said monitoring system may contribute and how will it meet the university needs particularly to :
a. Security and Awareness
b. Attendance Checking
c. Classroom Surveillance during exams and lectures.
How this class monitoring system can be operated by the user in terms of:
a. Accessibility
b. User friendliness, and
c. User interface?

Objective of the study
a)

The purpose of this project is to achieve a secondary backbone monitoring system using video surveillance

systems in schools.
b) It will checkmate security of staffs, students and property.
c) It will act as a medium to evaluate situations
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
1) This work is focused on the security, examination monitoring, attendance of the staffs and students in the
classroom by having a monitoring system using video surveillance.
2)
SIGINIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
School administrators/universities

LIMITATION
This project has the interest of implementing a monitoring systems on every aspects of the university student’s,
staff’s and facilities. However, the constraints such as financial, time and difficulty in getting relevant information
etc., are barriers. Hence the project covers only a classroom building in the department of information and
management technology

LITERATURE REVIEW
Video surveillance was first utilized by the United States military in the 1940s. Closed circuit cameras were set up
during the testing of the V2 missile in order to safely monitor the tests. By using video surveillance systems,
officials were able to monitor the testing at close range without danger, watching out for defects and other problems
that might have otherwise gone undetected.
In the 1960s, officials in the UK began installing surveillance systems in the public places to monitor crowds during
rallies and appearances of public figures. Installation of cameras became more popular, both in spaces and retail
stores, as the technology developed. Today in Nigeria, video surveillance system monitor roads, sidewalks and
squares in city centers, airports and buses, as well as in retail shops and other businesses . In 2008, government
spending on video surveillance systems accounted for three quarters of the crime prevention budget in some states in
Nigeria..
In the United States, the first video surveillance system set up in a public building was in 1969 in the New York
municipal building. This practice quickly spread to other cities and was soon widely implemented. Unlike the UK,
surveillance systems were rarely used. However in the 1970s and 80s, CCTV use became more common in
establishments prone to security threats, like banks, convenience stores, and gas stations. Security cameras were
installed in the world trade center as a preventative after the terrorist attack in 1993.By the mid-90s, ATMs across
the country were commonly equipped with video surveillance cameras, and many retails stores used CCTV to
prevent theft.
Personal use of video surveillance technology has become more widespread as the technology has become easier to
acquire. Many utilize surveillance systems in their own homes to catch cheating spouses, or to monitor the care of
their children.
Foreign Studies
Many European countries now employ public video surveillance as a primary tool to monitor population
movements and to prevent terrorism. The United Kingdom (UK) in particular relies extensively on video
surveillance as a tool to fight crime and prevent terrorism. According to some researchers, the camera surveillance
systems in the UK are discouraging and thus preventing crime.
Public video surveillance in the UK began very unassumingly in 1986, on a single square mile industrial
estate outside the English town of King's Lynn. Three CCTV video surveillance cameras were used and their impact
was immediate. In the years before the cameras were installed, there had been 58 crimes (mostly vandalism)
recorded on the estate. In the two years following the installation, there were no crimes reported. Subsequently,
cities and towns across Great Britain began using this crime prevention measure. By 1994, over 300 jurisdictions in
the country had installed some form of public video surveillance.

In 1995, the national government made available up to $3.1 million in matching grants available to cities
and towns to establish CCTV video surveillance programs. According to the police superintendent of a large
metropolitan area, "public video surveillance has been very helpful in making arrests, and perhaps more important,
helping to allocate resources to where they're most necessary." Although most municipal systems have been
operational since 1990, there is little longitudinal data indicating how effective CCTV surveillance systems actually
have been in reducing crime rates. Recent British government reports cite CCTV surveillance as a major reason for
declining crime rates: in the small town of Berwick burglaries fell by 69 percent; in Northampton overall crime
decreased by 57 percent; and in Glasgow, Scotland crime decreased by 68 percent. 25
What Criminologists and Others Studying Cameras Have Found
Noam Biale, Advocacy Coordinator, ACLU Technology and Liberty Program
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An increasing number of American cities and towns are currently investing millions of taxpayer dollars in
surveillance camera systems. But few are closely examining the costs and benefits of those investments, or creating
mechanisms for measuring those costs and benefits over time. There is extensive academic literature on the subject
—studies carried out over many years—and that research strongly indicates that video surveillance has no
statistically significant effect on crime rates.
The principle studies on video surveillance have been conducted in the UK, where surveillance cameras are
pervasive. Those studies, which have been commissioned by the British Home Office, have found varying results
when they look at individual camera sites in isolation. However, the best studies combine results from multiple
camera sites in a meta-analysis, which eliminates anomalies. The two main meta-analyses conducted for the British
Home Office show that video surveillance has no impact on crime whatsoever.
Video surveillance systems are more disparate and at various levels of operability in the United States. As such,
fewer independent studies of their efficacy exist. However, preliminary studies of surveillance cameras in California
show similar results to studies conducted in the UK: Cameras having little to no effect on crime reduction.
This White Paper is based on a literature review of major studies of video surveillance from 2000 to 2008.
It examines the key meta-analyses from the UK, discusses the major difficulties in determining the impact
of video surveillance on crime, and describes preliminary studies conducted in the US. The major findings of these
studies should, at a minimum, be part of the debate around surveillance cameras.
An increasing number of American cities and towns are currently investing millions of taxpayer dollars in
surveillance camera systems. But few are closely examining the costs and benefits of those investments, or creating
mechanisms for measuring those costs and benefits over time. There is extensive academic literature on the subject
—studies carried out over many years—and that research strongly indicates the following:

• Meta-analyses (studies that average the results of multiple studies) in the UK show that video surveillance
has no statistically significant impact on crime.
• Preliminary studies on video surveillance systems in the US show little to no positive impact on crime.
This White Paper is based upon a literature review of independent studies on the effect of video
surveillance on crime rates from 2000 to 2008, particularly meta-analyses that aggregate data from several studies. It
surveys what these meta-analyses have found, the methodological difficulties of studying video surveillance systems
in isolation, and preliminary results from studies in the US.
The major findings of these studies should, at a minimum, be part of the debate around surveillance
cameras.

DIFFICULTIES OF STUDYING SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS
Measuring the success of public video surveillance systems is complex, because there are always
innumerable factors that can explain a rise or fall in crime rates. Simply showing an increase or decrease in reported
crime in an area under surveillance does not take into account general trends in crime and crime reporting, additional
police in the areas under surveillance, better lighting, and perhaps most importantly, the possible displacement of
crime to other areas not under surveillance.
Several factors in particular make it difficult to assess the effectiveness of surveillance cameras:
• Displacement. Displacement complicates attempts to measure the impact of surveillance cameras on crime rates,
because it means that the control area cannot be too close in proximity to the cameras. For example, in looking at a
downtown district and comparing the number of muggings on particular blocks, one might reasonably assume that if
the rate of muggings increase near an area that is being monitored by cameras, and decrease in the area being
directly monitored, then the cameras have been effective in reducing muggings. However, it could also be
reasonably assumed that the placement of the cameras on a particular block in fact pushed the muggings into
surrounding areas, and did not reduce crime overall. This is really a problem of interpretation, not data, and as a
result, displacement can be extraordinarily difficult to show.
• Confounding variables. It can be inaccurate to extrapolate success from specific locations to general areas. For
example, enclosed places such as parking lots tend to produce better outcomes than outdoor areas. In addition, other
factors such as increased police presence and better lighting in areas under surveillance make it difficult to conclude
which intervention is most effective. It is unclear in many studies that appear to show success whether surveillance
cameras had a positive impact in combination with improved lighting, or whether the improved lighting might
accomplish the positive outcome on its own. Studies vary on the degree to which they take confounding factors into
account.

Because of these problems, individual video surveillance studies may not be reliable on their own. In
evaluating the merits of video surveillance it is important to look at the overall trend of multiple studies and place
particular reliance on studies with rigorous methodology. For this reason, the UK Home Office has adopted the
meta-analysis as the best statistical tool for studying the efficacy of surveillance cameras.

META-ANALYSES OF UNITED KINGDOM SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS

The efficacy of public video surveillance as a crime-fighting tool has been analyzed in a wide range of
studies over the last decade. The majority of research has been conducted in the United Kingdom, which more than
any other country has embraced the widespread use of cameras. The UK’s network of public surveillance cameras is
the largest in the world (although China is quickly outpacing it).1 The number of surveillance cameras in England
and Wales increased from 100 in 1990 to 40,000 in 2002,2 and now stands above 4.2 million, or one for every 14
persons.3 The center of London is surrounded by a “ring of steel,” a networked video surveillance system that is
intended to allow law enforcement to track individuals moving through the city, observe patterns of behavior and
respond immediately to threats.
The British Home Office, the agency in charge of security, spent 78% of its criminal justice budget in the
1990’s on surveillance cameras,4 and is estimated to have spent over £500 million (approximately a $1 billion) in
between 1995 and 2005.5

The Home Office has commissioned several key studies on the effectiveness of these systems around the
UK using meta-analysis. Meta-analysis combines the results of multiple studies that all have similar hypotheses and
methodological criteria. This is important because it weeds out anomalies. For example, one installation of a video
surveillance system might coincide with a sharp drop in crime, but we cannot know whether it caused the drop
without comparing it to other scenarios (further explanation of the difficulty of measuring success from isolated
studies is below). A meta-analysis can provide a clearer sense of the impact of surveillance cameras by taking a
variety of studies and averaging their results.
The individual studies show moderate successes in some sites, usually in parking lots, and for certain types
of crimes, usually vehicle crimes. However, the majority of studies show no effect on overall crime, and when
combined in a meta-analysis, CCTV is shown to have no statistically significant impact on crime rates at all.
The following is a summary of the Home Office studies.
Home Office Study, 2002

In the first Home Office study in August 2002, Brandon C. Welsh and David P. Farrington6 surveyed 22
studies of CCTV (both in the UK and the USA) for a meta-analysis, and found that, taken together, the cameras had
no significant impact on crime.
Welsh and Farrington began with 46 studies, but whittled the number down to 18 based on the criteria for
inclusion in the meta-analysis.7 Of the 18 studies, half showed some reduction in crime in the area under
surveillance, about a quarter showed an increase in crime, and the remaining studies showed a null effect. Welsh and
Farrington then created a meta-analysis for the included studies, by determining an odds-ratio for each study and
then combining these ratios. An odds-ratio is a numerical expression of the net effect of an intervention, calculated
by comparing results in the experimental area with the control. An odds-ratio of 1 shows that there is no difference
in crime rates between the experimental (surveilled) area and the control. An odds-ratio greater than 1 shows that the
areas with cameras are experiencing less crime than the control areas. An odds-ratio of less than 1 show that the
areas with cameras are experiencing more crime than the control.
When Welsh and Farrington combined odd-ratios for all 18 studies included in the meta-analysis, they
found that the average was just over 1, showing a very small impact on crime, and when measured against the
standard deviation, this impact was shown to be statistically insignificant. The areas with cameras did not perform
better than the areas without.
It is worth noting that the two areas included in which cameras were the only intervention used (no added
police presence, increased lighting, etc.) showed no effect on crime in one case,8 and an increase in crime in the
other.9 Five of the eleven studies that showed reductions in crime looked at camera systems located in enclosed
parking lots. These studies showed an overall odds-ratio of 1.7, but included other interventions, such as improved
lighting, fencing, notices about CCTV, and increased security personnel. This suggests that cameras can be effective
when used in specific environments and combined with other preventative measures.

Home Office Study, 2005
Criminologists Martin Gill and Angela Spriggs published a comprehensive analysis of fourteen individual
sites in the UK for the Home Office in 2005,10 which found, again through the use of meta-analysis, that the
cameras had “no overall effect” on crime rates.
Gill and Spriggs concluded that only one of 13 sites showed a statistically significant reduction in crime
(one site was excluded for failing to meet the crime statistics recording criteria). This site showed a reduction far
larger than any others—an odds-ratio of 3.34, indicating a reduction in crime of over 300%, compared with the
second-largest odds-ratio of 1.38, or just under 40%—and was also the most expensive site, at a cost of over £3
million (about $6 million) for the camera system. This area also experienced several confounding factors including
increased fencing and improvements to security, though these were implemented once the video surveillance system
was fully installed and thus may not have had a distorting impact on the outcome.

Although Gill and Spriggs' analysis found "that CCTV schemes produced no overall effect on all relevant
crime viewed collectively,"11 the study did show overall better outcomes for vehicle crimes in seven of the sites.
Violent crimes were different. In the four urban city centers included in the study, violence against persons increased
in three sites. Gill and Spriggs hypothesize that these crimes may be impulsive and more often influenced by
alcohol.12 They also acknowledge that changes to parking regulations in at least one site may have contributed to
the reduction in vehicle crime, by simply reducing the number of vehicles on the street.13 In addition, burglary, a
property crime that did show reductions in one site, showed the highest rate of displacement in an area adjacent to
the target area.14
Gill and Spriggs additionally found that fear of being victimized by crime did not change significantly from
before the cameras were installed and after, though 69-96% of individuals surveyed in the 14 sites responded
favorably to plans to install camera systems.

PRELIMINARY USA STUDIES SHOW LITTLE POSITIVE IMPACT
Fewer studies of video surveillance have been conducted in the United States, where cameras have been
erected in a piecemeal manner, and have not undergone an extensive process of networking (though
Chicago15 and New York16 are beginning this process). Studies are, at this point, insufficient to conduct
meta-analyses based solely on studies in the US. However, Welsh and Farrington’s 2002 meta-analysis compared
UK and US sites, and the two revisited this comparison in a 2004 follow-up.17
The American studies that met the criteria for the meta-analysis generally showed worse outcomes that
those in the UK, showing an undesirable or null effect on crime. Welsh and Farrington point out a few key
differences between the UK and US systems that might explain this. One possibility is a difference in reporting time,
with the UK studies generally taking longer to report findings. However, as Welsh and
Farrington report, what is likely an even more important factor, is that the surveillance sites in the US lack
the confounding elements of the British sites. While nine of the 14 UK sites used several different interventions
simultaneously, such as improved lighting and increased foot patrols, none of the US schemes used any intervention
besides cameras. Thus, these studies provide a more unadulterated look at the effect of surveillance cameras on
crime rates than their UK counterparts and show that cameras on their own have virtually no impact on crime.18
The following are two initial independent studies of small-scale systems, both in California,19 that offer a
preliminary view of the impact of video surveillance on crime in US cities.

UC Berkeley Preliminary Study

The city of San Francisco’s 68 cameras appear to have had a small impact on property crimes, but no
impact on violent crimes.
Jennifer King and colleagues at Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society
(CITRIS) and the Samuelson Clinic at the University of California, Berkeley, are currently in the process of studying
the impact of San Francisco's small video surveillance system. In March 2008, they published preliminary
findings.20 Looking at aggregate statistics on serious violent crime and serious property crimes before and after
installation of cameras in high-crime neighborhoods, King's group found a 22% decline in property crime occurring
within 100 feet of the cameras, but no statistically significant changes between 100 and 500 feet from the cameras.
This would seem to suggest that the cameras are, in fact, working to reduce property crimes. However, without the
benefit of aggregated multiple studies in a meta-analysis, we cannot know whether this reduction is a fluke or not.
Regarding violent crime, there appeared to be no statistically significant change in the level of crime
anywhere in the 500 foot range around the cameras. When violent crimes were disaggregated, a decline in homicide
was observed within 250 feet of the cameras, however this reduction was offset completely by an equal increase in
homicides between 250 and 500 feet from the cameras, suggesting displacement.
The study also did preliminary analysis of crime statistics 500-1000 feet away from the cameras, and thus,
based on information available from the San Francisco Police Department, out of the range of surveillance, and
found an increase in property crime between 500 to 750 feet from the cameras.
This might suggest displacement from the areas directly monitored by the cameras, though an off setting
decline in property crimes in the area 750 to 1,000 feet away makes a determination of displacement inconclusive.
Notably when the preliminary findings of the UC Berkeley study were reported in the San Francisco
Chronicle, Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who heads the board's public safety committee, responded to the
apparent null effect on violent crime by asserting that the cameras provided “psychological relief” to citizens, and
were thus justified.21 The city has so far spent $900,000 on the 68 cameras currently up and has budgeted an
additional $200,000 for 25 more cameras intended to target violent gang activity.22

USC Study
Preliminary studies of camera systems in Los Angeles show no impact on crime.
Students at the University of Southern California School of Policy, Planning and Development released a
report to the California Research Bureau in May 2008 on the effects of video surveillance on crime in two areas of
Los Angeles.23 The group looked at five out of 14 cameras along a high-traffic section of Hollywood Blvd. and six
cameras at the Jordan Downs Public Housing Project in Watts. The study notes that, unlike San Francisco's public
video surveillance system, cameras in Los Angeles have not been analyzed by the city or some other official body to
determine their efficacy. This may be because while San Francisco has incurred substantial costs for installation and

upkeep of the cameras, many of LA's cameras, including the clusters that the USC group examined, were installed
through private donations (on Hollywood Blvd, for example, the cameras were donated to the city by the film
industry) or federal grants through the US Department of Homeland Security's Grant Program. Another important
distinction between the camera systems in Los Angeles and those in San Francisco is active monitoring of LA's
cameras “in real time,” vs. a decision by the San Francisco City Council to allow only passive monitoring of the
cameras for the purposes of safeguarding citizens' privacy.
Looking at the LAPD's COMPSTAT figures to determine pre and post installation crime rates, as well as
arrest records, the study found no significant impact on crime in either area. Violent crime went down in both areas,
but that reduction was offset by an overall crime reduction in surrounding control areas (though in the case of the
Jordan Downs Housing Project, the group hypothesized that the cameras may have played a role in preventing a
substantial escalation of crime relative to surrounding areas, since the housing project was the site of a gang war
during the period of the study). The group was not able to find statistically significant evidence of displacement in
either area.
Local Literature
The Philippines is known as the Pearl of the Orient, with its exotic and tropical islands, rare and valuable
natural resources, stunning natural wonders, warm and hospitable people, and rising national status in the world. But
with all these raves, the country is not exempt from the terrors of the rest of the world. Despite its beauty, the
country is also in danger of relentless terrorist threats and terrorism incidences. Communications and Information
Technology industries are also booming and the workplace is getting larger and more complex as time progresses.
The country is not bereft of crimes, in the cities, suburbs, and rural areas. The fact is that this is the harsh reality that
goes hand in hand with the wonders and delight the country can offer.
But the good side to this is that we are not left helpless to these looming possibilities of insecurity. You
have the choice of taking a proactive stance when it comes to securing your homes, your businesses, your country,
and your future. Philippine Security brings you the latest and most reliable storage and security system technologies
that can take your safety and security confidence to a higher level. Only Philippine Security offers the complete set
of security solutions that can meet the security needs of various types of clients – from the government, to the
business sector, to academic institutions, to individual homes and to the schools and campuses. Our line-up of
products and solutions include the top-of-the-line surveillance cameras, access control and alarm systems.

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close