Almost every car lot in the nation has some sort of video surveillance. For some video surveillance is only used as a deterrent or as a means of catching criminals after-the-fact. Is that all video is good for?
One recent evening a carload of men arrived at a local car lot. This is normally a salesman’s dream, except these potential customers arrived after-hours. These men walked throughout the lot, not only checking out the wonderful selection of vehicles, but also checking to see if any happened to be left unlocked.
With typical security solutions, the best one could hope for is to get a good picture of the criminals stealing the car – after the fact. The video could then be handed over to the police with the hopes of catching him.
However, the “I” (what Iverify calls its intelligent video systems) was closely watching this particular car lot. When these men were observed (in real-time) looking for a car door that had been left open, Iverify was able to make an announcement to the men on-site and notify the police at the same time. When the police arrived, they questioned the men who eventually left the car lot.
While some might see this as anti-climactic to some, that is exactly the point: nothing was stolen from the lot that night. While it is always great to be able to catch a criminal and put them away, it is a lot cheaper to prevent the theft from ever occurring in the first place.
In addition to preventing the crime, these men will never try to steal a car from this lot ever again. In fact, they might even tell others not to bother as well. That is a deterrent that traditional video surveillance just cannot provide.
In your experience, how much more expensive is prosecution than prevention? Do you have any stories about video surveillance failing as a deterrent? We’d like to hear from you in the Iverify LinkedIn Group.
The Inside View is a blog chronicling Iverify’s thought-provoking perspective on business, technology and the security industry.