the article says the software that comes with these surveillance cameras is smart enough to spot people who are doing things that are considered suspicious activity and can tell a human cop. but still it seems like the amount of money it costs to monitor the lots 24 hours a day is too expensive to make it worthwhile. also reporting a crime is a waste of time. this idiot waited for an hour for the cop to show up so he could report a theft from his car. the dummy was at least smart enough to know that the cops will probably never recover the stolen stuff or bust the theives, but he was still dumb enough to waste over an hour of his time to report the theft. last it is interesting to know that the DPS at ASU has a policy which requires ALL surveillance cameras which are video taping people to have signs on them telling the people they are montioring that they are being taped. it is also interesting to know that the DPS also routinely breaks this policy. Original Article A sense of security Cameras could make parking lots safer, but it'll come at a cost by Kristi Eaton published on Monday, April 24, 2006 Business sophomore Michael Ryback received a shock when he approached his red sedan in Parking Lot 63 one Sunday night in March. Ryback was planning to meet his friends for dinner and was walking to his car when he noticed something was wrong. "When I approached the car, everything looked normal until I looked through the front driver's side window and saw broken glass all over the front passenger's seat," he said. "I remembered thinking, 'What the hell is that?'" Ryback's sedan had been broken into and several possessions were taken, including his silver iPod mini and iPod adapter. Before he had even arrived to find the car broken into, the ASU Department of Public Safety had noticed the car and left Ryback a note to call its office. "I called DPS, and ended up waiting around [for] an hour for an officer to arrive," he said. "The officer was quite helpful, and I just gave him all the information for his report." There have been no leads in the case. Ryback's situation is not uncommon. There were 33 instances of burglary, theft or criminal damage in Lot 63, located near Cholla Apartments, alone between November 2004 and January 2006. ASU officials say increased revenue through higher decal prices will give them the funds they need to implement methods to combat such thefts, including a planned security-camera system. However, such a system is still a long way off. Construction comes first During the winter break of 2004, 16 cameras were removed from lots 58 and 59, said Linda Riegel, director of Parking and Transit Services. She said the cameras were removed for several reasons. The first and foremost reason was because the cameras were outdated, she said. PTS used closed circuit television, or CCTV, to survey the parking lots. CCTV cameras can pan, tilt and zoom. They are linked together and can be monitored from a central location. "Closed Circuit TVs of yesterday are very obsolete," she said. "It's similar to how cameras are becoming obsolete every three years." But the cameras were not removed strictly because they were dated. In the last few years, ASU has undergone several projects to expand the University that have required extensive construction. As a result, the lines that transmitted the camera feed were constantly cut, causing the cameras not to work, Riegel said. "Rather than give a false sense of security and have people lower their guards, [PTS said], 'We are going to remove them so that we are not giving a false impression to anybody,'" she added. But even when they were supposed to be working properly, the cameras might have given a feeling of protection that wasn't really there. In 1998, Parking and Transit Services hired the Scottsdale-based security consulting company Dunlap & Associates, Inc. to study the effectiveness of the 16 surveillance cameras in lots 58 and 59, the only lots equipped with cameras. Dunlap used site surveys, interviews with key personnel, evaluations of the CCTV system and a review of a security survey by ASU personnel in their study. Dunlap & Associates found that "the current CCTV system is in poor repair and that it does not meet the stated goals," the study said. The main goal of the surveillance cameras was to provide an aid to criminal investigations, and DPS officials had also hoped it would deter criminal activity, the study said. But tapes were only kept on file for seven days, and after that time they were reused. So if DPS officials were investigating a crime that occurred eight days prior, they could not use the tapes as evidence. From November 2004 to January 2006, lot 58 had three incidents of burglary, theft or criminal damage. Lot 59 had 126 incidents. Smart solution Riegel said PTS is hoping to install new Smart cameras, a newer version of CCTV. Images and details are much clearer on Smart cameras compared to older CCTVs, she said. "Smart cameras can identify aggressive actions," Riegel said. "If I raise my hand or someone goes horizontal, it will show." Steve Ossmus, investigative lieutenant for Campus Safety and Security at Johns Hopkins University, said Smart cameras are useful because they have a behavior-recognition device. Johns Hopkins has used the cameras for a little more than a year. The cameras recognize up to 12 different body movements and four vehicular movements, he said. "It's state of the art," he added. Stewart Adams, a specialist for ASU's DPS Crime Prevention Unit, said Smart cameras could alert officers of any suspicious activity. "If you have a gathering of people rushing in or even rushing out, it could be programmed in and the camera would say 'Hey, look, this is happening,'" he said. The person monitoring the system could then determine whether the situation merited a response from an officer, he added. Stewart said this would help the effectiveness of officers because they would not be sent to areas that did not warrant their attention. The Smart cameras could also help protect officers, Stewart said. "It would help patrols so they don't enter into blind areas," he added. Riegel said ASU hopes to eventually have a camera system similar to the advanced one at Johns Hopkins. In March 2005, 47 Smart cameras were installed on the Johns Hopkins campus, Ossmus said. The university plans to install 30 more by June, he added. The cameras would add "77 new pairs of eyes" to the "most frequented parts of campus," Ossmus said. He said the cameras were installed in parking structures, walkways and some buildings. Ossmus declined to give the cost of the cameras, only saying it was "very expensive." But a story in The JHU Gazette, the school newspaper, listed the cameras as part of a $2 million security-action plan implemented by JHU President William R. Brody. The plan also included adding additional guards and off-duty police officers around the campus. So far, the surveillance cameras have worked well, Ossmus said. There has been a 22 percent drop in the crime rate since the 47 cameras were installed, he added. Paying for safety One of the main problems with installing Smart cameras at ASU is money. A monitoring room would either have to be built or an existing space would have to be renovated. Plus, monitors must be hired to actually watch the cameras. Stewart said this could be the main setback to installing the new system. "It's a big undertaking to run a monitor[ing] room," he said. "You have to have staff to run it for 24 hours [a day]." According to a time study conducted by the U.S. Secret Service, approximately five full-time employees are required on staff to fill one 24-hour, 365-day monitoring position. The time study takes into account 40-hour weeks, sick leave, holidays and other days off. But PTS believes it has come up with a way to increase revenue so security measures, such as surveillance cameras, and other parking improvements can be implemented. A task force, commissioned by PTS in October 2005, found security was a major issue for students, faculty and staff on campus, Riegel said. "What we heard from the people attending ASU is that 'We want you to pursue this,' so we are," she said. "They are the ones paying the bills." To pay for the improvements, the rates for parking decals will increase for the 2006-07 year. The decals will range from $150 to $540. Decals rates currently range from $75 to $240. The rates will continue to rise for the following two years. By the 2008-09 school year, it will cost between $210 and $780 to park on campus. More than $4.5 million in revenue will be brought in from next year's rate increase, Riegel said. The money would go toward a plan to improve the parking system, including installing cameras, she added. Riegel said the improvements should cost about $4.6 million, so PTS will dip into its reserves to cover the costs next year. PTS does not yet know how much money will go toward installing new cameras, and when or where the cameras will be installed, said Mark Krug, spokesman for PTS. Other options Other universities, including UA, have decided not to install cameras. Patrick Kass, director of Parking and Transportation Services at UA, said the university has never had surveillance cameras in the parking lots and decided to keep it that way for now. "We have decided that we will use other active and passive means to create a safe environment within our parking garages," he said in an e-mail. Kass said UA police and PTS employees actively patrol the parking lots. Passive measures include white lighting, open staircases, glass-backed elevators and emergency phones at each staircase on every level, he added. The current rates for parking decals at UA range from $115 to $450. Campus surveillance While the parking lots and structures might not have cameras, there are plenty of surveillance systems around campus in and outside of buildings that might make up for it. No one knows exactly how many cameras are on campus because there are no formal procedures, departments or buildings they must go through if they want to install one. But a report by ASU Property Control, which manages all of the University's capital assets, lists every camera on campus valued at more than $5,000. The report, obtained through a public records request, lists more than 400 cameras on campus. But in reality, there are a few reasons why the number could be wrong. The list was compiled by searching for the word "camera" in the asset description of the report, Terri Shafer, a spokeswoman for ASU, said in an e-mail. The University does not have a way of simply searching "security cameras," she added. Consequently, many of the cameras listed could be handheld cameras or video cameras used for classes. But there could also be surveillance camera systems not listed on the report. Shafer said Property Control only tracks systems that cost more than $5,000, and many systems on campus are purchased at less than that. This is not the first time the inconsistencies in the surveillance camera policy on campus have come into question. A 2004 story in The State Press revealed there is no University-wide standardization for surveillance cameras and DPS does not enforce its own rules regarding the cameras. Two days after the story was published, ASU police Cmdr. John Sutton said DPS would review and rewrite the policy during summer 2004. The policy change never occurred. In a November 2005 interview, Adams said the department needed more time to thoroughly look into the technology. Adams said January 2006 was set as a target date for the policy review. "We'll work to meet that deadline," he had said. "It is one of the many things we deal with." That target date was not reached, either. Adams had said technology might keep the Crime Prevention Unit from making a new standardized policy. "Technology is moving so quickly it's hard for us as crime prevention people to keep up on it," he had said. "We'd have to go to conferences and trainings just like the industry does." Instead, Adams said CPU relies on the contractors who install the cameras to keep them up-to-date on changing technology. Contractors are not the only people the Crime Prevention Unit relies on. They also rely on other ASU departments to notify them. Adams said someone in the purchasing and goods department of ASU must sign off on the purchase of any camera system more than $29,000. The purchasing department usually notifies DPS when a department or building is looking to install a camera, he added. That way, Adams said, DPS could look at the installation plan before the purchasing department signed off on it. Systems that cost less than $29,000 do not have to go through the purchasing department, Adams said. "But they still seem to call us quite often to say, 'Come over and look at this and give us a hand,'" he added. Being monitored Tim Wilson, president of ASU's chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the organization has some reservations about cameras on campus. "What concerns our chapter is not that the cameras exist," he said. "Our concerns are in the details behind the camera. Why aren't cameras marked and why are there not signs warning people that cameras are recording?" Surveillance cameras help keep the campus secure, but they can also invade on privacy, Wilson said. "It's important that ASU lets people know they are keeping us safe, but it is questionable that so many cameras are hidden," he said. "The students and faculty have a right to know who is watching and where." The DPS policy on the books now states signs should be on display when a camera is filming, and Adams said the Crime Prevention Unit would work on improving the number of cameras with signs on campus. But it might be a difficult task, he added. "A lot of times the campus doesn't want to put signs up," he said. "They don't want to over sign [the campus]." For now, there's eBay Ryback, the student whose iPod was stolen from his car in Lot 63, said cameras might have deterred someone from breaking into his car. Or at least it could have provided a record of the event and person, he said. "A camera could have offered a video of the person committing this crime, and that would include what the person looked like -- or just basic features like height, weight and race," he said. "Also if they were driving a vehicle, the characteristics could have been caught by the camera." But the possibility of new Smart cameras doesn't help Ryback. He said he doubts he'll ever find out who broke into his car. "I figure, why would the police follow this up when there are much more important things happening?" he said. "Who knows? Maybe I will get lucky and find my iPod on eBay." Reach the reporter at kristi.eaton@asu.edu.