Here's a little brain teaser: Is it OK to put up fake cameras on your commercial property to deter crime?

This is the type of question that property owners increasingly are forced to consider as the technology of camera surveillance has become better and cheaper and as video surveillance systems crop up everywhere -- in office buildings, manufacturing facilities, shopping and resort venues, schools and universities, industrial complexes and residential developments.

The answer to the brain teaser is not so much a matter of illegality, but of liability. As is often the case with the adoption of new technologies, the issues of liability are often murky at first. Today, the liabilities inherent in using surveillance technology are nabbing the attention of attorneys, risk managers, insurers, insurance brokers and employers as they face tests in the courts.

Sean Ahrens, project manager in Security Consulting and Design Services with Schirmer Engineering, a subsidiary of broker Aon Global, said camera surveillance for purposes of security is an emerging area of liability because there is so little settled in the law. "There is a lack of standardization in the security industry as a whole, primarily because we're dealing with a threat that works outside of a formula," he said.

A certified protection professional and certified security consultant, Ahrens has hundreds of clients throughout the country. He advises clients on a case-by-case basis, but he offered three liability issues that always deserve attention: creating a false sense of security, failing to conform to expectations of privacy, and failing to create a written policy that explains why video surveillance is needed and identifies how it will be used.

That is particularly true given the dearth of legal guidelines on the use of such equipment, said Ahrens. Written policies can be an important part of a defense in court when plaintiffs raise questions about surveillance in that they can show a property owner or business owner had a plan in place before the incident at issue. A written plan is usually better when more parties are involved in preparing it, Ahrens said.


Privacy is probably the issue that really hits home. It depends a lot on cultural norms. For example, Harrah's Entertainment deploys cameras in public rest rooms in its hotel casinos in the United Kingdom. Lance Ewing, vice president of risk management for Harrah's, said rest room surveillance helps to curb drug trafficking and terrorist acts. Video surveillance is more tolerated in the United Kingdom than in the United States, where there is a higher expectation of privacy and where Harrah's does not place cameras in public rest rooms.

However, casinos in the United States use a lot of surveillance equipment in most other locations, with the exception of private rooms, and Ewing said the gaming commission of each state may require use of cameras. In fact, laws may require that everything cameras see from above gaming floors be recorded and retained for an extended period.

When such systems are in place, companies have staff members monitoring what shows up on the screens so that they can respond to cheating, but also to fires, medical emergencies, fights or other dangers. However, if a staff member isn't paying attention, and the recording plainly shows the occurrence of an event, the company could face liability for a failure to respond, Ewing said. And according to Ahrens, at least one study showed that a human operator's attention span could be as little as 20 minutes.

Another common issue of liability is foreseeability. Ahrens said an owner of a facility with a large parking garage, for example, installed a camera system to protect employees. However, the owner failed to maintain the system and, concerned about liability, ripped it out when it stopped working. Doing so did not eliminate liability, said Ahrens, because the owner had already acknowledged a need to protect against crime.

Similar thinking affects the answer to the brain teaser. One of the worst things owners can do is install dummy cameras while pretending the cameras are real "because they are saying there's a perception of security that actually doesn't exist," Ahrens said.

(By Ron Panko, senior associate editor, Best's Review: Ronald.Panko@ambest.com)