REC 00:00:00
CAM 01 – Construction Site
Recording tells you what happened. It does not stop it happening and it does not bring anyone. For sites where the loss occurs in the twenty minutes before anyone knows, a recorded system is documentation, not security.
Cambridge is an automotive manufacturing centre, and the tier-one and tier-two suppliers clustered around it operate under customer security requirements that are frequently more demanding than anything the business would specify for itself. Intellectual property protection around tooling and process is a real concern, which puts weight on interior access control and on knowing precisely who was in a given area at a given time.
OEM-imposed security requirements and process IP protection. Interior zone control and access audit trails usually outrank perimeter coverage.
Unverified alarms are wrong the overwhelming majority of the time, and police services across Ontario have responded with verification requirements, priority downgrades and false-dispatch fees. An operator who can see a person in your yard before escalating changes both the response you get and the fees you avoid. Policies differ by service and change over time — confirm the current requirement with the police service covering your site.
Most trespass on a commercial yard is opportunistic. Being addressed directly — lights on, a voice from a speaker describing what the person is wearing and where they are standing — ends the great majority of incidents before anything is taken and before anyone has to attend.
It cannot cover cameras that were never positioned to see the approach, it cannot classify what the analytics were never tuned for, and it cannot compensate for a network that drops out under load. Monitoring is the last layer, and it performs only as well as the camera design, the analytics tuning and the connectivity underneath it.
Specified by pixel density, not by megapixels
Read more →
Retention you can actually prove, on hardware built for it
Read more →
Credentials that cannot be copied in a parking lot
Read more →
Alarms that mean something, so someone still answers them
Read more →
Protection on day one, before there is power or a fence
Read more →Typically yes for perimeter and after-hours coverage, and it does not take breaks or miss a corner. It does not replace a guard where a physical presence, gatehouse access control or an on-site emergency response is required. Many sites use both, with monitoring covering the hours a guard is not there.
Often, if they are ONVIF conformant, positioned to see approaches rather than only the aftermath, and reachable over a connection that holds up under load. We audit the existing system against those three things before quoting monitoring on top of it.
Reviews the triggered clip, confirms whether a person or vehicle is genuinely where it should not be, issues the audible challenge, and escalates according to your written procedure — to your on-call, your guard service or emergency services. Every step is logged and time-stamped.
OEM-imposed security requirements and process IP protection. Interior zone control and access audit trails usually outrank perimeter coverage. Cambridge is an automotive manufacturing centre, and the tier-one and tier-two suppliers clustered around it operate under customer security requirements that are frequently more demanding than anything the business would specify for itself.