Using Video Technology


It is an unfortunate reality that security concerns have become an important part of the public mindset. While it is very important to protect the safety of children, members, guests, and staff that enter our facilities, it is sad that our limited resources must be utilized for protection instead of programming.

One method of protection being used by many camps is the placement of interior and exterior security surveillance equipment to help safe-guard both their patrons and their patrons’ belongings. Such action has its pros and cons.

Pros of installing security cameras

  • Provides evidence for criminal or civil action that would not be available otherwise
    • Constant video monitoring and/or recording gives detailed evidence of any suspicious or criminal activity
    • It is important that equipment be of sufficient quality – adequate pixel count for clarity of image and adequate storage capacity to accommodate the data created
  • Acts as a crime deterrent
    • It is a proven fact that people who know they are being watched and/or recorded are less likely to commit a crime
    • Violent crime, theft, and vandalism may all be greatly reduced by the presence of video monitoring and/or recording
    • Jurisdictional authorities are greatly assisted when they have a recording of the crime
  • Instills a sense of security for both members and staff (this may also be a con)
    • Many are comforted knowing that their camp is being monitored and/or recorded
    • It is important that the cameras actually are monitored, not just recorded for review if necessary – no Y wants to dedicate an employee to just watching surveillance screens, but monitors must be placed so that (preferably multiple) people can easily observe them during their normal duties – a sense of security is dangerous if the security protocols are not being regularly followed

Cons of installing security cameras

  • Purchase, installation, and maintenance costs can be prohibitive
    • Research is important – investigate all the options before dismissing the idea because of cost concerns.
    • Equipment costs have dramatically dropped and many systems require only minimal installation and maintenance effort or expense
  • Invasion of privacy rights may pose legal liability questions
    • Prudence requires the investigation of any potential legal concerns your camp may face by installing surveillance equipment in your state; understanding where and how security cameras can be installed removes the risks of potential privacy violations


video camera

Use of a security signs similar to the one adjacent, coupled with a notice letter to all members and notices on all registration material probably constitute sufficient notification; however, choose your sign wisely – if you are not actually monitoring, the sign maybe should say “all activity in this area is digitally recorded” – don’t create false expectations.

Legal “Stuff”

An interesting story surfaced about a San Francisco man who was robbed at an ATM. He asked his bank to show him the surveillance video of the incident but was told that the videos are private property and are only released to police upon subpoena.

WOW! This certainly raises questions that could arise for monitoring companies, camps using surveillance, and even installing dealers. Who owns the surveillance video? What liability might arise from releasing surveillance video to others?

Other potential questions include:
* Should camps willingly release video to police or other jurisdictional authorities without a subpoena (simply as professional courtesy)?
* What are the possible implications and liability issues if the camp shows surveillance video footage to crime victims?
* Does it matter if the crime was committed off their property instead of on their property?

Some answers

Video recording is not subject to regulation like audio recording. Federal statutes, plus statutes in most states, specifically restrict audio recordings (e.g., cannot do without proper notice or consent or for quality assurance). However, except in certain jurisdictions video recording is largely lacking legislation. That absence of specific statutes means that the video recording is the property of whomever recorded it, e.g., the camp, or the surveillance company providing the service if independent of the camp. The camp would have no obligation to provide the recording to anyone voluntarily, though it would need to be available to law enforcement agencies if requested as possible evidence of a crime. There is no real reason why a camp should insist on a formal subpoena or court order before providing the video footage to the appropriate law enforcement agency. Since withholding or tampering with evidence of a crime is itself a crime, the camp would be wise to release the video to the authorized entity.

Releasing a video recording to law enforcement exposes the camp only to doubtful civil exposure for several reasons:
* Video recording is probably not prohibited.
* As long as the camp is not using the video for commercial purposes such as advertising it does not violate privacy rights.
* There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public areas where there is a clear notice of video surveillance or where video surveillance is known or should be expected to exist.

Video surveillance is discoverable in a civil case. A camp probably could not support a claim that the tapes were confidential. The camp would be wise to release the tapes pursuant to subpoena rather than insisting on a court order that would not be difficult to obtain in the course of civil litigation.

Practical applications

So, if you decide to employ video surveillance, where should cameras be installed? Possibilities include:
* Parking lots
* Building entrances and exits
* Sidewalks/walkways
* Membership and front desks
* Hallways
* Outside locker room doors (never inside even with notice posted)
* Pools – at deck, not water; not to replace lifeguards

Once recorded, videos should be retained for a minimum of 30 days, with provisions for saving the original video and for producing duplicates of meaningful footage.


It comes down to the expectation of privacy and the use of the videos. Civil rights laws prohibit the use of any living person’s name or image for commercial purposes without their express consent. That restriction does not apply to this utilization of video technology; surveillance videos are a viable tool in protecting our camps from the dangers of violent crime, abuse, and theft.


Submit a comment