Perimeter Outdoor & Nighttime Detection
September 30, 2008
From: Security Info Watch
Perimeter surveillance technology has changed significantly over the
last 30 years. The definition of a perimeter has evolved from the
physical approach of surrounding a property into incorporating the
virtual. While the technology has greatly improved for physical
perimeter monitoring and protection, a new component of protecting
virtual barriers as personal communications devices (which our society
has grown dependent on) has pushed the barriers to protection in a
limitless space.
When discussing the approach and technology
available during the 1970s, the idea was to monitor borders and the
facility’s perimeters. This involved both a day and nighttime approach
to security, by creating a watchful eye using guards or through imaging
technology, which was not that reliable and was prone to
misinterpretations. “Thirty years ago there was barely the beginning of
thermal nighttime imaging. In use were line imagers—a linear line that
would scan back and forth, not unlike a picture from a radar scan
wave,” said Randall Foster, chief executive officer (CEO), Vumii,
Atlanta.
The cameras, which required large amounts of voltage and current to
operate, also offered poor low-light sensitivity. “Thirty years ago
CCTV cameras were built with Vidicon tubes which needed replacement
every few years due to ‘burn-ins’ and other failures,” explained John
Monti, vice president of Marketing and Business Development, Pixim,
Mountain View, Calif. Basically, the imaging could only pick up a scant
amount of detail, leaving viewers little to work with.
Perimeter security relied on the use of cameras that, according to
Monti, often needed to be operated manually in the field by security
guards. “Sometimes the security guard needed to move the camera left or
right to get a better view of a suspect.” By placing these large
cameras on a relay-controlled pan-tilt mechanism, combined with the
eventual availability of a remote focus and iris controls, a solution
for these early problems became available. “Outside, these new PTZ
systems needed to be large and ruggedized which added to the cost of
the units as well as the installation time. The zoom lenses were
extremely expensive and large. A 4:1 motorized zoom lens for a one-inch
image sensor tube cost more that $1,000. Coupled with the camera, the
pan-tilt mechanism, weatherproof camera housing and relay interface box
and parts cost more than $4,000, this did not include installation. All
of these costs were in 1970s dollars for a black and white camera that
had poor light sensitivity of 50 to 100 lux,” Monti explained. By
comparison, he said, today’s color cameras are 100 times more sensitive
and are significantly less expensive.
While the need was there, the primary user of these cumbersome systems
was the government. “The early systems had limited access points. The
systems in place at the time were so limited. The approach was more of
a best practices theory to perimeter security,” explained Susan
Callahan, senior vice president of Business Development and Marketing,
Safend, Philadelphia, Pa.
While perimeter security was focused on performing security at the edge
of the protected premises, using a series of analog-type sensors,
during the 1980s, the sensors, according to Brian Holmes, director of
Government and Special Programs, Honeywell, Austin, Texas, began to
provide more contact information. “Perimeter security systems were now
capable of providing resolution up to 100 meters,” he said. Analytics
capability was still limited. “There wasn’t any real big technology
available to do anything beyond this.” The rapid change, he added,
came about 15 years ago when processor technology started getting
better and had an impact on every aspect of technology; “The more
processing power, the more analytics.”
The explosion of change happened in the 1990s as systems allowed users
to filter for nuisance and false alarms, a big bonus over earlier
counterparts which put those in charge of monitoring in a position of
reacting to everything. “In the old days there wasn’t the ability to
really figure out if the sensor went off because a bird was landing on
the fence or if it was an actual event. The key advantage was
processing,” said Holmes.
With the evolution towards more sophisticated sensors, relays,
processors and communications, Jerry Larsen, chief executive officer,
Pivotal Vision, Minneapolis said, “More on-site information could be
sent back to electric control centers. Data regarding opening of
circuit breakers and relay data was able to give more exact information
about an electrical event at a remote site so that people overseeing
the operation could make much more informed decisions.”
Looking to increase assessment, “Attempts have been made to start
automation of security surveillance,” according to Larsen. “Devices
such as fence shakers can detect intrusions and can be used to give an
approximation of where to send a pan-tilt camera to obtain video of the
event initiating the trigger.”
There are also virtual boundaries to be aware of which include the use
of personal devices loaded with storage and software capable of
retrieving corporate information at record speed. Companies need to
protect themselves from a different kind of perimeter intrusion
according to Susan Callahan. “Because of the mobile workforce
corporations need to be aware of all the ways to prevent data leakage,”
Callahan explained. With increased mobility, she said, comes increased
risk. “It is very easy to put things on the devices we all walk around
with today, as each holds massive amounts of storage. So when companies
look at protecting their perimeters they must also extend their
perimeters to cover mobile devices.”
