Continued from previous page
The New Jersey Police Chief Magazine | June 2017
will find themselves at risk of having legacy solutions and processes which don’ t scale. Joining up these processes with clear security, digital signatures and audit trails avoids the risk of defense questions about evidential integrity undermining a case.
Device and data challenges
Every force must ensure that the DEM solution it chooses can operate free from major constraints around data formats; there are 3,000 + video formats in the CCTV industry alone.
Although a force isn’ t likely to encounter anywhere near as many as this, they will have to manage a great number of formats and codexes. This will be an ongoing issue as, even with standardisation, legacy systems will remain in place for many years.
Not all data is the same, and not all data should be handled in the same way. For example, the process for managing BWV files and the associated metadata will differ from that associated with an evidential interview. A DEM solution must therefore have the capability for maintaining different sets of evidential metadata for each evidence source.
The limitations of device-specific DEM solutions
Forces do of course have an alternative to sourcing a single DEM solution. They can instead use a number of data management solutions that are provided by device manufacturers, and somehow try to integrate these into a seamless system.
Our observation is that they routinely fall short of the DEM solutions that are independent of devices. Even if a device provider’ s system looks great in terms of a user-friendly front end, the back end and overall functionality is much more limited than independent DEM solutions.
An enterprise system is about much more than the ingestion and storage of media. A full DEM solution must have the security and audit capabilities to ensure integrity, and to be configured with the necessary workflow and rules for the review, retention and disposal of media.
Not all device-specific solutions provide this advanced level of management. It’ s also the case that not all suppliers have the experience and knowledge to implement such business rules.
In addition, device-specific solutions will inevitably lack the ability to manage a wide range of evidence from other devices and sources. They may be very good at managing data from the supplier’ s BWV itself, but can they also effectively manage CCTV footage, interview audio and so on?
Another factor at play is that devices tend to have relatively short shelf lives- and that is perhaps truer of today’ s digital tools than their analogue predecessors. For example, the‘ best’ BWV camera in use today may not be the best or the same BWV device in use in three years’ time. When a force switches to another camera, its DEM solution must have the flexibility to still support the previous camera’ s output, as well as the new device which may come from a different vendor.
Usability- from the perspective of multiple user groups
A DEM solution must be able to meet the needs of different users. For example, transcribers may need the solution to accommodate foot-pedals to pause and play audio as they type. Users in a specialist video unit will need all of the functionality they are used to. Officers will need a simple interface so they can quickly upload evidence without having to spend more time than is necessary away from the front line.
7