The term “video verification” generally applies to the use of a camera to verify whether an intrusion alarm is genuine, false, or a nuisance alarm. A false alarm would indicate an alarm generated by a system that is a result of a malfunction in the alarm system. A nuisance alarm is indicative of a system working properly, but is generated by some kind of user (human) error. Video verification, often hailed as a solution to nuisance alarms, can be a tool in reducing nuisance alarms but within the limitations of video and human decision-making.
Video has limitations? Of course it does, and we know all know it, right? Video of strangers and especially disguised strangers are nothing less than frustrating to investigators. Nuisance alarms are typically the result of user error – human error. A video window opening on a monitor in your central station due to an intrusion alarm is presented to a human who will make a decision based on what is viewed in that video stream. This is another opportunity for human error. Throw in time-tested audio verification and we’re creating a potentially costly combination of good technology controlled by humans capable of drawing incorrect conclusions. So why is it that I advocate the use of video verification? Because it is, like any other solution, a tool – and the old expression of the right tool for the job is applicable with any type of technology.