Thesis  my documentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,375
On Slideshare
1,374
From Embeds
1
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
49
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 1

http://www.slideshare.net 1

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND INTRODUCTION Surveillance Camera are video cameras used for the purposed ofobserving an area. They are often connected to a recording device, IPnetwork, and/or watched by a security personnel/law enforcement officer.Video Surveillance Systems consist of cameras placed in areas wherethey can monitor activity as it takes place. These cameras may includefeatures like pan, tilt, and zoom; may be placed in outdoor or indoorlocations; and may include infrared recording options. Most cameras areused with recording systems, either VCRs or digital recorders. Using adigital recorder is the preferred option for easy storage, easy recall, andeasy viewing over different monitors. The first Video Surveillance System was installed by Siemens AGat Test Stand VII in Peenemunde, Germany in 1942, for observing thelaunch of V-2 rockets. The noted German engineer Walter Bruch wasresponsible for the design and installation of the system. Outside government special facilities, Video Surveillance wasdeveloped initially as a means of increasing security in banks.Experiments in the UK during the 1970s and 1980s led to several largertrial programs later that decade. 4
  • 2. These were deemed successful in the government report and pavedthe way for a massive increase in the number of Video Surveillancesystems installed. Today, systems cover most town and city centers, andmany stations, car-parks and estates. Video Surveillance recording systems are still often used atmodern launch sites to record the flight of the rockets, in order to find thepossible causes of malfunctions. Video Surveillance System is one of themost effective devices that can be used for monitoring the behavioractivities or other changing information, usually of the people and oftenin surreptitious manner. In our school, it is important to increased safety and security forthe students as well its’ personnel. The schools are the place wherestudents should feel safe from harm, outside stimulus, and other threats.Sadly to say, in the past few years, there are some instances whereschools are not the safe haven we thought they were, take for instancewhat happened at Philippine Maritime Institute (PMI), where one of theprofessors was gun shot at the head inside the campus by one of thestudents. If only the management of the school strengthen its securitysystem, none of this would happen. Base on the above mentionedsituation, the researcher come up with an idea that could improve thesecurity system not only for schools and universities but for all theentities and establishment in the Philippines. That is: The incorporationof a surveillance camera to its security system. One of the features of thisresearch is that, an embedded system is incorporated by integrating a 4
  • 3. thermal scanner and an X-ray in the security system (for futureexpansion). One of the most popular Surveillance tools for Schools is theSecure View System. The system transmits images from cameras to adigital hard drive storage system. Output can be seen on a monitor thatdisplays four frames of video or on desktop computer monitors, whichare networked to receive video feeds from the cameras. 4
  • 4. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY Student behavior is a problem that cannot be regarded as trivial.The problem of students bringing weapons to school is an issue that willnot go away by itself. School children are harming each other withregularity. The problems are particularly acute and are complicated bytheir connection to the prevalence of poverty, crime, and despair. Installing video surveillance system will help students focus ontheir studies and not make them worry about outside violence. Theseinstallations represent a huge amount of video to transmit, view andarchive, making it impossible for a human monitor to analyze all of thesevideo recordings in order to detect suspicious behavior or events. This isespecially true since security control centre personnel are also required tomanage other tasks, such as access control, issuance ofbadges/keys/permits, handling emergency calls, following up on firealarms, radio communications control, etc. Over the past decade, the security of individuals and property, andthe security of information have become major global issues. Faced withproblems such as the fight against terrorism, enhanced national securityand the rapid development of cyber crime, our societies are increasinglyinvesting in protection. This sector therefore offers great opportunities forbusinesses, both with respect to technological development and services.Information and communications technologies in particular provide newand sophisticated solutions for physical and IT security. 4
  • 5. Among the solutions proposed, video surveillance is one of theoldest and most widespread security technologies. Although still mostlyanalogical, it is undergoing a digital revolution with the ongoingtransition to videos on IP networks. Sometimes integrating hundreds ofcameras, these new systems create a huge amount of video informationthat cannot be processed only by security agent screen surveillance. Toresolve this issue, intelligent video surveillance, by video analytic, canprocess the information by software analysis in order to keep only thedata relevant to security. Video Surveillance should be place at dedicated viewing areassuch as entrances, hallways, stairwells or even classroom environments,so that the best possible view can be achieved in relation to what thecameras primary focus should be. Schools can feature multiple entrancesor exits and may span multiple buildings. It can soon become hard tokeep track of where potential security risks may occur at any given time.It is important to note that all video surveillance will remain in a fixedposition thus providing a dedicated view of what is most important. It canbe repositioned which may result in the camera looking in the wrongdirection at the wrong time. Video Surveillance cameras should only beused in school campus environments as a secondary means of security. A school campus may include a single building at one location upto hundreds of buildings spanning multiple locations. One of the manybenefits of video surveillance technology is the ability for centralizedmanagement. No longer is surveillance limited to a building by building 4
  • 6. configuration. Also avoided is the cost of trying to bring all camerasvideo feeds to a centralized location. Video Quality and Video Frame Rates Schools can become verybusy places rather quickly. It is important that video quality be at a levelhigh enough so that identification of persons can be made easily.Cameras need both high video quality and a reasonable video frame ratefor this to occur. This was once difficult due to cost and bandwidthlimitations. With video surveillance applications over school campuses it isimportant to focus on areas that are of key importance. These are the keysecurity risk areas that should be monitored at all times without changingcamera position. It is also important that video surveillance cameras usedin these areas are of high quality so that proper identification can bemade easily. With the added benefits of video surveillance includingcentralized management capabilities and high resolution capablecameras, a safe and secure environment can be created where studentsand faculty can focus on education without the worry of feeling unsafe orunprotected. 4
  • 7. OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study is to achieve a general understanding ofthe technology implicated in using Video Surveillance System in School. This study identifies the security threats and concerns of aparticular place. This study can address possible actions with regards to the problemand to understand that video technology has benefits but at the same timecan have an effect on the privacy of individuals. 4
  • 8. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The research paradigm that guided this study is shown in Figure.It follows the Input-Process-Output approach. INPUT PROCESS OUPUT Installation of Immediate Video response to a Surveillance possible/ actual Equipment incident Analysis after Observation Video an incident through Evidentiary Surveillance surveillance analysis after equipment an incident equipment Survey Conducive Questionnaire place for Distribution and teaching and retrieval of the learning survey process. Assessment of questionnaire the survey’s outcome Analysis and computation of 4
  • 9. The input of the study consisted of the typical Video SurveillanceEquipment like Video Cameras, Monitor and a trap. This study alsoconsists of a Survey Questionnaires. The process composed of Installation of Video SurveillanceEquipment, an observation through the Video Surveillance Equipment,the distribution and retrieval of Survey Questionnaires then the analysisand computation of all the data gathered. The output consisted of the immediate response to a possible /actual incident, analysis after an incident, evidentiary analysis after anincident, conducive place for teaching and learning process and theassessment/evaluation on the survey’s outcome. 4
  • 10. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM This study aims to evaluate how video surveillance system helps tosecure the school. Specifically, it sought answer the following questions: 1. What are the specific security threats and concerns of the school attempting to address by using a video surveillance system. 2. How will it help address those threats and how will the school actually use it on a day-to-day basis. 3. How does the school management accept and interpret data produce by the system? 4. How does the student accept the new system if implemented? 5. Is there a significant difference between the security personnel officer and the video surveillance system? 4
  • 11. SCOPE AND DELIMITATION OF THE STUDY This study focused on the security system of the individuals inschools by having a defense security system using video surveillance. This study, intended for a non-expert audience, discusses the insand outs of this technology and tries to characterize the market itrepresents, not for different places, but more specifically in schools. Itcontains information on video surveillance technology, its application,and leading edge video analytic techniques applicable to it, its needs, thedevelopments and trends in this field, the issues it raises, and the supplyand demand it generates. Furthermore it only attempted to identify the needs of the groupconcerned, explanations or reasons for these needs were not concerns ofthis study. 4
  • 12. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDYStudents This analysis/ research will help the students to feel safe inside theschool; they can concentrate/focus on their studies without bothering onwhat could possibly happen to them while they are in the school vicinity. With the help of this study the security of the students inside thecampus will be intensively monitored by the use of the security systeminstalled within the school campus. Students may be less inclined tocause trouble because of the solid documentation that the videorecordings provide.School Administrators / Universities When school campuses provide a video surveillance system fortheir security, it will become a peaceful, conducive and friendly schoolenvironment. It will maintain the peace of mind of the Schooladministrators or staff inside the school campus. School will easilysecure the safety of the students enrolled. Another thing is videosurveillance security system will help the school officials to find theperformance evaluation of their employee. This system will also use tolessen or decrease the property damages such as vandalism and theft; fartoo often the administration can only react to vandalism with time-consuming, seldom successful and often fruitless attempts to identify theperpetrators. 4
  • 13. Researcher This study serves as a major part of the course requirement as ithas developed their skills in terms of self-esteem, time management,practicality, strategic planning and patience. Hence, they are able toobtain the necessary information on time and reporting it in the mostpresentable manner they can. This study can be effective tool forreference to know how to make the schools safer. 4
  • 14. DEFINITION OF TERMS To understand and clarify the terms used in the study, thefollowing are hereby defined:Video Surveillance - is the monitoring of the behavior, activities, orother changing information, usually of people and often in a surreptitiousmanner. It most usually refers to observation of individuals or groups bygovernment organizations.Security System - a system that enforces boundaries between computernetworks. It is an electrical devise that sets off an alarm when someonetries to break inIP Network - is a computer network made of devices that support theInternet Protocol.Monitor - a device that displays images or symbols generated bycomputers.Law Enforcement Officer - is any public-sector employee or agentwhose duties involve the enforcement of laws.Vandalism - is the behavior attributed originally to the Vandals, by theRomans, in respect of culture: ruthless destruction or spoiling of anythingbeautiful or venerable. Such action includes defacement, graffiti andcriminal damage.Theft - is the illegal taking of another persons property without thatpersons freely-given consent. The word is also used as an informalshorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, 4
  • 15. embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting, fraud andsometimes criminal conversion.Digital Video Recorder - is a device that records video in a digitalformat to a disk drive, USB flash drive, SD memory card or other massstorage device. The term includes set-top boxes with recording facility,portable media players (PMP) with recording facility, recorders (PMR ascamcorders that record onto memory cards) and software for personalcomputers which enables video capture and playback to and from disk.Archived - is a collection of historical records, as well as the place theyare located. Archives contain primary source documents that haveaccumulated over the course of an individual or organizations lifetime.Algorithm - is an effective method for solving a problem expressed as afinite sequence of instructions. Algorithms are used for calculation, dataprocessing, and many other fields.Thermal Scanner - a thermal scanner takes a measurement of thereflection of electromagnetic energy emitted in the infrared spectrum. Ithas the ability to sense differences in temperatures of known objects.X-ray - is a form of electromagnetic radiation. It can penetrate solidobjects and their largest use is to take images of the inside of objects indiagnostic radiography and crystallography.HYPOTHESISThe hypothesis pursued and tested in this study was 4
  • 16. 1. There is no significant difference between the Security Personnel officer and the Video Surveillance Security System. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATUREForeign Studies Many European countries now employ public video surveillance asa primary tool to monitor population movements and to preventterrorism. The United Kingdom (UK) in particular relies extensively onvideo surveillance as a tool to fight crime and prevent terrorism.According to some researchers, the camera surveillance systems in theUK are discouraging and thus preventing crime. Public video surveillance in the UK began very unassumingly in1986, on a single square mile industrial estate outside the English town ofKings Lynn. Three CCTV video surveillance cameras were used andtheir impact was immediate. In the years before the cameras wereinstalled, there had been 58 crimes (mostly vandalism) recorded on theestate. In the two years following the installation, there were no crimesreported. Subsequently, cities and towns across Great Britain began usingthis crime prevention measure. By 1994, over 300 jurisdictions in thecountry had installed some form of public video surveillance. 4
  • 17. In 1995, the national government made available up to $3.1 millionin matching grants available to cities and towns to establish CCTV videosurveillance programs. According to the police superintendent of a largemetropolitan area, "public video surveillance has been very helpful inmaking arrests, and perhaps more important, helping to allocate resourcesto where theyre most necessary." Although most municipal systems havebeen operational since 1990, there is little longitudinal data indicatinghow effective CCTV surveillance systems actually have been in reducingcrime rates. Recent British government reports cite CCTV surveillance asa major reason for declining crime rates: in the small town of Berwickburglaries fell by 69 percent; in Northampton overall crime decreased by57 percent; and in Glasgow, Scotland crime decreased by 68 percent.25What Criminologists and Others Studying Cameras Have FoundNoam Biale, Advocacy Coordinator, ACLU Technology and LibertyProgramEXECUTIVE SUMMARY An increasing number of American cities and towns are currentlyinvesting millions of taxpayer dollars in surveillance camera systems. Butfew are closely examining the costs and benefits of those investments, orcreating mechanisms for measuring those costs and benefits over time.There is extensive academic literature on the subject—studies carried out 4
  • 18. over many years—and that research strongly indicates that videosurveillance has no statistically significant effect on crime rates. The principle studies on video surveillance have been conducted inthe UK, where surveillance cameras are pervasive. Those studies, whichhave been commissioned by the British Home Office, have found varyingresults when they look at individual camera sites in isolation. However,the best studies combine results from multiple camera sites in a meta-analysis, which eliminates anomalies. The two main meta-analysesconducted for the British Home Office show that video surveillance hasno impact on crime whatsoever. Video surveillance systems are more disparate and at variouslevels of operability in the United States. As such, fewer independent studies of their efficacy exist.However, preliminary studies of surveillance cameras in California showsimilar results to studies conducted in the UK: Cameras having little tono effect on crime reduction. This White Paper is based on a literature review of major studies ofvideo surveillance from 2000 to 2008. It examines the key meta-analyses from the UK, discusses themajor difficulties in determining the impact of video surveillance oncrime, and describes preliminary studies conducted in the US. The major findings of these studies should, at a minimum, be partof the debate around surveillance cameras. An increasing number of American cities and towns are currentlyinvesting millions of taxpayer dollars in surveillance camera systems. But 4
  • 19. few are closely examining the costs and benefits of those investments, orcreating mechanisms for measuring those costs and benefits over time.There is extensive academic literature on the subject—studies carried outover many years—and that research strongly indicates the following: • Meta-analyses (studies that average the results of multiplestudies) in the UK show that video surveillance has no statisticallysignificant impact on crime. • Preliminary studies on video surveillance systems in the US showlittle to no positive impact on crime. This White Paper is based upon a literature review of independentstudies on the effect of video surveillance on crime rates from 2000 to2008, particularly meta-analyses that aggregate data from several studies.It surveys what these meta-analyses have found, the methodologicaldifficulties of studying video surveillance systems in isolation, andpreliminary results from studies in the US. The major findings of these studies should, at a minimum, be partof the debate around surveillance cameras.DIFFICULTIES OF STUDYING SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS Measuring the success of public video surveillance systems iscomplex, because there are always innumerable factors that can explain arise or fall in crime rates. Simply showing an increase or decrease inreported crime in an area under surveillance does not take into accountgeneral trends in crime and crime reporting, additional police in the areas 4
  • 20. under surveillance, better lighting, and perhaps most importantly, thepossible displacement of crime to other areas not under surveillance. Several factors in particular make it difficult to assess theeffectiveness of surveillance cameras:• Displacement. Displacement complicates attempts to measure theimpact of surveillance cameras on crime rates, because it means that thecontrol area cannot be too close in proximity to the cameras. Forexample, in looking at a downtown district and comparing the number ofmuggings on particular blocks, one might reasonably assume that if therate of muggings increase near an area that is being monitored bycameras, and decrease in the area being directly monitored, then thecameras have been effective in reducing muggings. However, it couldalso be reasonably assumed that the placement of the cameras on aparticular block in fact pushed the muggings into surrounding areas, anddid not reduce crime overall. This is really a problem of interpretation,not data, and as a result, displacement can be extraordinarily difficult toshow.• Confounding variables. It can be inaccurate to extrapolate successfrom specific locations to general areas. For example, enclosed placessuch as parking lots tend to produce better outcomes than outdoor areas.In addition, other factors such as increased police presence and betterlighting in areas under surveillance make it difficult to conclude whichintervention is most effective. It is unclear in many studies that appear toshow success whether surveillance cameras had a positive impact incombination with improved lighting, or whether the improved lighting 4
  • 21. might accomplish the positive outcome on its own. Studies vary on thedegree to which they take confounding factors into account. Because of these problems, individual video surveillance studiesmay not be reliable on their own. In evaluating the merits of videosurveillance it is important to look at the overall trend of multiple studiesand place particular reliance on studies with rigorous methodology. Forthis reason, the UK Home Office has adopted the meta-analysis as thebest statistical tool for studying the efficacy of surveillance cameras.META-ANALYSES OF UNITED KINGDOM SURVEILLANCESYSTEMS The efficacy of public video surveillance as a crime-fighting toolhas been analyzed in a wide range of studies over the last decade. Themajority of research has been conducted in the United Kingdom, whichmore than any other country has embraced the widespread use ofcameras. The UK’s network of public surveillance cameras is the largestin the world (although China is quickly outpacing it).1 The number ofsurveillance cameras in England and Wales increased from 100 in 1990to 40,000 in 2002,2 and now stands above 4.2 million, or one for every14 persons.3 The center of London is surrounded by a “ring of steel,” anetworked video surveillance system that is intended to allow lawenforcement to track individuals moving through the city, observepatterns of behavior and respond immediately to threats. 4
  • 22. The British Home Office, the agency in charge of security, spent78% of its criminal justice budget in the 1990’s on surveillancecameras,4 and is estimated to have spent over £500 million(approximately a $1 billion) in between 1995 and 2005.5 The Home Office has commissioned several key studies on theeffectiveness of these systems around the UK using meta-analysis. Meta-analysis combines the results of multiple studies that all have similarhypotheses and methodological criteria. This is important because itweeds out anomalies. For example, one installation of a videosurveillance system might coincide with a sharp drop in crime, but wecannot know whether it caused the drop without comparing it to otherscenarios (further explanation of the difficulty of measuring success fromisolated studies is below). A meta-analysis can provide a clearer sense ofthe impact of surveillance cameras by taking a variety of studies andaveraging their results. The individual studies show moderate successes in some sites,usually in parking lots, and for certain types of crimes, usually vehiclecrimes. However, the majority of studies show no effect on overall crime,and when combined in a meta-analysis, CCTV is shown to have nostatistically significant impact on crime rates at all. The following is a summary of the Home Office studies.Home Office Study, 2002 In the first Home Office study in August 2002, Brandon C. Welshand David P. Farrington6 surveyed 22 studies of CCTV (both in the UK 4
  • 23. and the USA) for a meta-analysis, and found that, taken together, thecameras had no significant impact on crime. Welsh and Farrington began with 46 studies, but whittled thenumber down to 18 based on the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis.7 Of the 18 studies, half showed some reduction in crime in thearea under surveillance, about a quarter showed an increase in crime, andthe remaining studies showed a null effect. Welsh and Farrington thencreated a meta-analysis for the included studies, by determining an odds-ratio for each study and then combining these ratios. An odds-ratio is anumerical expression of the net effect of an intervention, calculated bycomparing results in the experimental area with the control. An odds-ratio of 1 shows that there is no difference in crime rates between theexperimental (surveilled) area and the control. An odds-ratio greater than1 shows that the areas with cameras are experiencing less crime than thecontrol areas. An odds-ratio of less than 1 show that the areas withcameras are experiencing more crime than the control. When Welsh and Farrington combined odd-ratios for all 18 studiesincluded in the meta-analysis, they found that the average was just over1, showing a very small impact on crime, and when measured against thestandard deviation, this impact was shown to be statistically insignificant.The areas with cameras did not perform better than the areas without. It is worth noting that the two areas included in which cameraswere the only intervention used (no added police presence, increasedlighting, etc.) showed no effect on crime in one case,8 and an increase incrime in the other.9 Five of the eleven studies that showed reductions in 4
  • 24. crime looked at camera systems located in enclosed parking lots. Thesestudies showed an overall odds-ratio of 1.7, but included otherinterventions, such as improved lighting, fencing, notices about CCTV,and increased security personnel. This suggests that cameras can beeffective when used in specific environments and combined with otherpreventative measures.Home Office Study, 2005 Criminologists Martin Gill and Angela Spriggs published acomprehensive analysis of fourteen individual sites in the UK for theHome Office in 2005,10 which found, again through the use of meta-analysis, that the cameras had “no overall effect” on crime rates. Gill and Spriggs concluded that only one of 13 sites showed astatistically significant reduction in crime (one site was excluded forfailing to meet the crime statistics recording criteria). This site showed areduction far larger than any others—an odds-ratio of 3.34, indicating areduction in crime of over 300%, compared with the second-largest odds-ratio of 1.38, or just under 40%—and was also the most expensive site, ata cost of over £3 million (about $6 million) for the camera system. Thisarea also experienced several confounding factors including increasedfencing and improvements to security, though these were implementedonce the video surveillance system was fully installed and thus may nothave had a distorting impact on the outcome. Although Gill and Spriggs analysis found "that CCTV schemesproduced no overall effect on all relevant crime viewed collectively,"11 4
  • 25. the study did show overall better outcomes for vehicle crimes in seven ofthe sites. Violent crimes were different. In the four urban city centersincluded in the study, violence against persons increased in three sites.Gill and Spriggs hypothesize that these crimes may be impulsive andmore often influenced by alcohol.12 They also acknowledge that changesto parking regulations in at least one site may have contributed to thereduction in vehicle crime, by simply reducing the number of vehicles onthe street.13 In addition, burglary, a property crime that did showreductions in one site, showed the highest rate of displacement in an areaadjacent to the target area.14 Gill and Spriggs additionally found that fear of being victimized bycrime did not change significantly from before the cameras were installedand after, though 69-96% of individuals surveyed in the 14 sitesresponded favorably to plans to install camera systems.PRELIMINARY USA STUDIES SHOW LITTLE POSITIVEIMPACT Fewer studies of video surveillance have been conducted in theUnited States, where cameras have been erected in a piecemeal manner,and have not undergone an extensive process of networking (though Chicago15 and New York16 are beginning this process). Studiesare, at this point, insufficient to conduct meta-analyses based solely onstudies in the US. However, Welsh and Farrington’s 2002 meta-analysiscompared UK and US sites, and the two revisited this comparison in a2004 follow-up.17 4
  • 26. The American studies that met the criteria for the meta-analysisgenerally showed worse outcomes that those in the UK, showing anundesirable or null effect on crime. Welsh and Farrington point out a fewkey differences between the UK and US systems that might explain this.One possibility is a difference in reporting time, with the UK studiesgenerally taking longer to report findings. However, as Welsh and Farrington report, what is likely an even more important factor, isthat the surveillance sites in the US lack the confounding elements of theBritish sites. While nine of the 14 UK sites used several differentinterventions simultaneously, such as improved lighting and increasedfoot patrols, none of the US schemes used any intervention besidescameras. Thus, these studies provide a more unadulterated look at theeffect of surveillance cameras on crime rates than their UK counterpartsand show that cameras on their own have virtually no impact on crime.18 The following are two initial independent studies of small-scalesystems, both in California,19 that offer a preliminary view of the impactof video surveillance on crime in US cities.UC Berkeley Preliminary Study The city of San Francisco’s 68 cameras appear to have had a smallimpact on property crimes, but no impact on violent crimes. Jennifer King and colleagues at Center for Information TechnologyResearch in the Interest of Society (CITRIS) and the Samuelson Clinic atthe University of California, Berkeley, are currently in the process ofstudying the impact of San Franciscos small video surveillance system. 4
  • 27. In March 2008, they published preliminary findings.20 Looking ataggregate statistics on serious violent crime and serious property crimesbefore and after installation of cameras in high-crime neighborhoods,Kings group found a 22% decline in property crime occurring within 100feet of the cameras, but no statistically significant changes between 100and 500 feet from the cameras. This would seem to suggest that thecameras are, in fact, working to reduce property crimes. However,without the benefit of aggregated multiple studies in a meta-analysis, wecannot know whether this reduction is a fluke or not. Regarding violent crime, there appeared to be no statisticallysignificant change in the level of crime anywhere in the 500 foot rangearound the cameras. When violent crimes were disaggregated, a declinein homicide was observed within 250 feet of the cameras, however thisreduction was offset completely by an equal increase in homicidesbetween 250 and 500 feet from the cameras, suggesting displacement. The study also did preliminary analysis of crime statistics500-1000 feet away from the cameras, and thus, based on informationavailable from the San Francisco Police Department, out of the range ofsurveillance, and found an increase in property crime between 500 to 750feet from the cameras. This might suggest displacement from the areas directly monitoredby the cameras, though an off setting decline in property crimes in thearea 750 to 1,000 feet away makes a determination of displacementinconclusive. 4
  • 28. Notably when the preliminary findings of the UC Berkeley studywere reported in the San Francisco Chronicle, Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who heads the boardspublic safety committee, responded to the apparent null effect on violentcrime by asserting that the cameras provided “psychological relief” tocitizens, and were thus justified.21 The city has so far spent $900,000 onthe 68 cameras currently up and has budgeted an additional $200,000 for25 more cameras intended to target violent gang activity.22USC Study Preliminary studies of camera systems in Los Angeles show noimpact on crime. Students at the University of Southern California School of Policy,Planning and Development released a report to the California ResearchBureau in May 2008 on the effects of video surveillance on crime in twoareas of Los Angeles.23 The group looked at five out of 14 camerasalong a high-traffic section of Hollywood Blvd. and six cameras at theJordan Downs Public Housing Project in Watts. The study notes that,unlike San Franciscos public video surveillance system, cameras in LosAngeles have not been analyzed by the city or some other official body todetermine their efficacy. This may be because while San Francisco hasincurred substantial costs for installation and upkeep of the cameras,many of LAs cameras, including the clusters that the USC groupexamined, were installed through private donations (on Hollywood Blvd,for example, the cameras were donated to the city by the film industry) or 4
  • 29. federal grants through the US Department of Homeland Securitys GrantProgram. Another important distinction between the camera systems inLos Angeles and those in San Francisco is active monitoring of LAscameras “in real time,” vs. a decision by the San Francisco City Councilto allow only passive monitoring of the cameras for the purposes ofsafeguarding citizens privacy. Looking at the LAPDs COMPSTAT figures to determine pre andpost installation crime rates, as well as arrest records, the study found nosignificant impact on crime in either area. Violent crime went down inboth areas, but that reduction was offset by an overall crime reduction insurrounding control areas (though in the case of the Jordan DownsHousing Project, the group hypothesized that the cameras may haveplayed a role in preventing a substantial escalation of crime relative tosurrounding areas, since the housing project was the site of a gang warduring the period of the study). The group was not able to findstatistically significant evidence of displacement in either area.Local Literature The Philippines is known as the Pearl of the Orient, with its exoticand tropical islands, rare and valuable natural resources, stunning naturalwonders, warm and hospitable people, and rising national status in theworld. But with all these raves, the country is not exempt from the terrorsof the rest of the world. Despite its beauty, the country is also in dangerof relentless terrorist threats and terrorism incidences. Communications 4
  • 30. and Information Technology industries are also booming and theworkplace is getting larger and more complex as time progresses. Thecountry is not bereft of crimes, in the cities, suburbs, and rural areas. Thefact is that this is the harsh reality that goes hand in hand with thewonders and delight the country can offer. But the good side to this is that we are not left helpless to theselooming possibilities of insecurity. You have the choice of taking aproactive stance when it comes to securing your homes, your businesses,your country, and your future. Philippine Security brings you the latestand most reliable storage and security system technologies that can takeyour safety and security confidence to a higher level. Only PhilippineSecurity offers the complete set of security solutions that can meet thesecurity needs of various types of clients – from the government, to thebusiness sector, to academic institutions, to individual homes and to theschools and campuses. Our line-up of products and solutions include thetop-of-the-line surveillance cameras, access control and alarm systems. 4
  • 31. CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGYRESEARCH DESIGN This study will use the descriptive method of the survey type ofresearch which describe and interpret data and characteristics about thepopulation or phenomenon being studied. It involves some type ofcomparison or contrast and attempts to discover relationships betweenexisting and non manipulative variables. Moreover, Aquino describes the descriptive research as fact-finding methodology with adequate interpretation. He further claims thatthe descriptive method is something more and beyond just data gathering.He believes that the discussions of those data are carried up to the levelof adequate interpretation. The data must be subjected to terms of orderedreasoning.POPULATION, SAMPLE AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUES The purposive sampling will be used in the selection of therespondents only in EARIST, Nagtahan, Sampaloc, Manila will beutilized to answer the questionnaires. 4
  • 32. In this regard, Pagoso emphasized that purposive sampling wasbased on certain criteria laid down by the research such that therespondents within the population have meaning for the data that will begathered. The respondents of the study will be the students and faculties ofEARIST, Manila.RESEARCH INSTRUMENT The survey questionnaire was used as the main data-gatheringinstrument for this study. The questionnaire was divided into two mainsections: a personal data sheet or the profile and the survey proper. Theprofile contains socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents suchas age, gender, and the respondent’s knowledge about video surveillancesystem. The questions were structure using the Likert format. In thissurvey type, five choices are provided for every question or statement. Thechoices represent the degree of agreement each respondent has on thegiven question. The Likert survey was the selected questionnaire type as thisenabled the respondents to answer the survey easily. In addition, thisresearch instrument allowed the research to carry out the quantitativeapproach effectively with the use of statistics for data interpretation 4
  • 33. DATA GATHERING PROCEDURE Permission to conduct the study will be secured by the researcherfrom the school administrator of Eulogio “Amang” Rodriguez Institute ofScience and Technology, Nagtahan, Sampaloc, Manila. After which, theresearcher will go to the school under study to personally distribute thequestionnaire to the students and employees who has a knowledge orfamiliarity about the Video Surveillance System. The questionnaire willbe scored, tallied and tabulated.STATISTICAL TREATMENT OF DATA The information gathered were tabulated and processed manuallyand with the aid of computer to determine the precise interpretation of theresults. Matrix tables were made to organize, summarize, and analyze thedata gathered for easy determination of its difference from each other. Data were collated, tabulated, and analyzed. The followingstatistical tools were used in the analysis of data:1. Percentage 4
  • 34. To describe the profile of the respondents, the percentage will be computed. The measure of dominant quantity was utilized to determine the most probable scenario. Formula: P = F/N x 100 where: P = Percentage (%) F = Frequency N = Total Number of Population2. The responses to questions in the given variables were scaled using the “five-point-scale” or Likert Scale system and given weight as follows: Rate Verbal Interpretation Range 5 Strongly Agree 4.6 – 5.0 4 Agree 3.6 – 4.5 3 Moderately Agree 2.6 – 3.5 2 Disagree 1.6 – 2.5 1 Strongly Disagree 1.0 – 1.53. The process of finding the “Weighted Mean,” which is referred to as the central tendency was used, The formula is given below: WM X = ∑---------- 4
  • 35. N where: X = weighted mean w = weighted factor Σ = summation N = total number of respondents x = score4. To test the level of significance between the assessments of the respondents the Chi-Square were employed to determine the relationship of factors as given. The formula of chi-square is presented as follows: Where: X2 = Chi – Square f (a) = Actual Frequency or number of observations in a cell f (e) = Expected Frequency or number of observations in a cell in the theoretical distribution ∑ = Symbol for “summation”5. Rank Method 4
  • 36. Rank consists of arranging number of decreasing or increasing order of size. The highest occurrences of behavior or the class with the greater number was given the highest rank. CHAPTER IV Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data This Chapter presents, analyzes and interprets the data gatheredbased on the questions posited in the study.DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE For the profile of the respondents, the questionnaire asked for theparticipants’ age, gender and their Knowledge in Video SurveillanceSystem. Below are the tables summarizing the gathered values for eachprofile category: TABLE 1 Age Distribution of 50 Respondents AGE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE21 years old and below 20 40%21-25 years old 23 46%26-30 years old 4 8%31-35 years old 2 4%35 years old & above 1 2% TOTAL 50 100% It can be seen in table 1 that majority of the respondents belong tothe age bracket of 21 – 25 years old with the frequency of 23 or 46% 4
  • 37. followed by the age bracket of 21 years old and below with thefrequency of 20 or 40%. 4 or 8% of the respondents are in the age bracketof 26 – 30 years old. TABLE 2 Gender Distribution of 50 Respondents GENDER FREQUENCY PERCENTAGEMale 32 64%Female 18 36% TOTAL 50 100% Table 2 shows the Distribution of respondents by age. Based on thedata in the table, majority of the respondents are male with the frequencyof 32 or 64% and only 18 or 36% are female. TABLE 3Knowledge in Video Surveillance System Distribution of 50 RespondentsKnowledge in Video FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE 4
  • 38. Surveillance SystemAdvance 5 10%Moderate 32 64%Knowledgeable 11 22%New 2 4% TOTAL 50 100% All of the respondents are separated according to their Knowledgein Video Surveillance System. Almost 32 out of 50 respondents or 64%of the respondents have a moderate knowledge in video surveillancesystem. While 11of them or 22% are moderately knowledgeable aboutthis system; 5 or 10% of the respondents have advance knowledge andthe 2 or 4% left are new or not familiar about this system. SURVEY ANALYSIS Likert Scale System Rate Verbal Interpretation Range Strongly Agree 5 4.6 – 5.0 (SA) Agree 4 3.6 – 4.5 (A) 3 Uncertain 2.6 – 3.5 4
  • 39. (U) Disagree 2 1.6 – 2.5 (D) Strongly Disagree 1 1.0 – 1.5 (SD) Chi-square formula and degrees of freedom table Where: X2 = Chi – Square f (a) = Actual Frequency or number of observations in a cell f (e) = Expected Frequency or number of observations in a cell in the theoretical distribution ∑ = Symbol for “summation”SURVEY RESULTS TABLE 4 4
  • 40. Specific security threats and concerns of the school attempting to address by using a video surveillance system W.M V.I. RANKa. EARIST Security Personnel has less security 3.96 A 5 gadgetsb. Most of the EARIST Security Personnel 3.4 U 1 doesn’t know how to use a security camerac. Most of the EARIST Security Personnel doesn’t know how to install and operate 3.5 U 3 video surveillanced. EARIST Security Office doesn’t fit the installation area of the Video Surveillance 3.54 U 4 Systemd. Security threats are not address properly 3.44 U 2 3.56 Total A 8 Based on my computation using weighted mean, table 4 shows thatletter A got the highest rank among the five problems with the weightedmean of 3.96. It could be noted that majority of the respondents agreethat EARIST Security Personnel has less security gadgets. TABLE 5Video Surveillance System will ease threats and will help the school on a day-to-day basis W.M V.I. RANK 4
  • 41. a. EARIST Security Personnel cannot actually determine threats inside or outside school 3.78 A 1 premises.b. A routine check to all students and visitors 3.9 A 4 going in and out of the institutec. A routine check on all vehicles going in and 3.88 A 3 out of the Instituted. A real time monitoring of all the Students 3.88 A 2 and visitors of the Schoole. A real time recording of what is happening 3.94 A 5 beyond the scope of the surveillance camera 3.87 Total A 6 As shown in the table, majority of the respondents says agree that areal time recording of what is happening beyond the scope of the videosurveillance camera are one of the most important benefits of videosurveillance in school campus with the weighted mean of 3.94. A routinecheck to all students and visitors going in and out of the institute wasranked fourth with the weighted mean of 3.9. Ranked third and secondhas an equal weighted mean of 3.88 and 3.78 of the weighted mean alsoagree that EARIST Security Personnel cannot actually determine threatsinside or outside school premises. TABLE 6 Accepting and interpreting of data produce by the system W.M V.I. RANK 4
  • 42. a. Student database will be used in monitoring 3.88 A 4 the students b. A faculty and employees database will be 3.98 A 5 used in monitoring faculty and employees c. A print out will produce for manual 3.76 A 2 checking d. An automatic logging system will be 3.82 A 3 adopted e. On the spot data report can be easily 3.5 U 1 produce. 3.78 Total A 8 It can be seen that 3.98 is the highest computed weighted mean onhow does the school management accept and interpret produce by thesystem. Based on the table, letter (b) got the highest rank followed byletter (a) with the weighted mean of 3.88, the third ranked has a weightedmean of 3.82. Letter (d) got the second rank with the computed weightedmean of 3.76 while the calculated weighted mean for the first ranked is3.5 for letter (e) TABLE 7 Students’ acceptance on the system W.M V.I. RANK a. Accredited Students organizations will be 3.92 A 4 consulted before applying the system b. Institute student government will be the first to summon on proper orientation of the 3.92 A 3 system c. Comments and suggestions will be properly 3.96 A 5 4
  • 43. entertainedd. A survey on the entire students will be 3.9 A 2 conducted to get their pulsee. A computational analysis will be conducted 3.82 A 1 to determine the acceptability of the system Total 3.904 A Based on Table 7, it could be seen that 3.96 of weighted meanagree that comments and suggestions will be properly entertained for theacceptance of the system; respondents agree that accredited Studentsorganizations will be consulted before applying system and also theInstitute Student Government will be the first to summon on properorientation of the system with a weighted mean of 3.92; a weighted meanof 3.9 also AGREE that a survey on the entire students will be conductedto get their pulse; Moreover, 3.82 of the computed weighted mean agreefor the computational analysis that will be conducting to determine theacceptability of the system. 4
  • 44. CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION The tables below are the distribution of the data gathered from thesurvey questions. Each of the table consists of the Actual Frequency ornumber of observations in a cell, the Expected Frequency or number ofobservations in a cell in the theoretical distribution and the values for (O- E)2/E under its Verbal Interpretation. (5) Strongly Agree; (4) Agree; (3)Uncertain; (2) Disagree; (1) Strongly Disagree. The tabular chi-square is attained by computing the degree offreedom (df) with the formula df = (C - 1) (R - 1) which is equal to 16 at0.05 level of significance. The computed chi-square value is thencompared to the tabular chi-square value which is equal to 26.30. 4
  • 45. Note, that if the computed chi-square value is greater than thetabular chi-square, the null hypothesis - there is no significant differencebetween the old and the new system - is rejected. 4
  • 46. TABLE 7 Specific security threats and concerns of the school attempting to address by using a video surveillance system 5 4 3 2 1 (O-E)^2/E O E chi O E chi O E chi O E chi O E chi Totala 11 7.2 2.006 27 21 1.714 11 15.8 1.458 1 5 3.2 0 1 1 9.378b 4 7.2 1.422 21 21 0.000 16 15.8 0.003 9 5 3.2 0 1 1 5.625c 5 7.2 0.672 23 21 0.190 15 15.8 0.041 6 5 0.2 1 1 0 1.103d 6 7.2 0.200 19 21 0.190 21 15.8 1.711 4 5 0.2 0 1 1 3.302e 10 7.2 1.089 15 21 1.714 16 15.8 0.003 5 5 0 4 1 9 11.806 Total 31.214 4
  • 47. From the table we can see that: = 9.378+5.625+1.103+3.302+11.806 = 31.214and df = (C - 1)(R - 1) (5 - 1)(5 - 1) = (4)(4) = 16 Our null, for the chi-square test, states that there are no differencesbetween the observed and the expected frequencies. The alternatehypothesis states that there are significant differences between theobserved and expected frequencies As usual we will set our alpha level at.05. = 31.214 df = (C - 1)(R - 1) (5 - 1)(5 - 1) = (4)(4) = 16 Reject H0 if >= 26.3. Since our calculated value of (31.214) is greater than 26.3, we reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. 4
  • 48. 4
  • 49. TABLE 8 Video Surveillance will ease the threats and help the school on the day-to-day basis 5 4 3 2 1 (O-E)^2/E O E chi O E chi O E chi O E chi O E chi chia 10 10.2 0.004 24 27.2 0.376 12 9.6 0.6 3 2.2 0.2909 1 0.8 0.05 1.321b 10 10.2 0.004 29 27.2 0.119 8 9.6 0.2667 2 2.2 0.0182 1 0.8 0.05 0.458c 11 10.2 0.063 26 27.2 0.053 10 9.6 0.0167 2 2.2 0.0182 1 0.8 0.05 0.201d 11 10.2 0.063 27 27.2 0.001 8 9.6 0.2667 3 2.2 0.2909 1 0.8 0.05 0.672e 9 10.2 0.141 30 27.2 0.288 10 9.6 0.0167 1 2.2 0.6545 0 0.8 0.8 1.901 Total 4.552 4
  • 50. From the table we can see that: = 1.321+0.458+0.201+0.672+1.901 = 4.552and df = (C - 1)(R - 1) (5 - 1)(5 - 1) = (4)(4) = 16 Our null, for the chi-square test, states that there are no differencesbetween the observed and the expected frequencies. The alternatehypothesis states that there are significant differences between theobserved and expected frequencies As usual we will set our alpha level at.05. = 4.552 df = (C - 1)(R - 1) (5 - 1)(5 - 1) = (4)(4) = 16 Reject H0 if >= 26.3. Since our calculated value of (4.552) is less than 26.3, we accept the null hypothesis and reject the alternative hypothesis. 4
  • 51. 4
  • 52. TABLE 9 Accepting and Interpreting of data produce by the system 5 4 3 2 1 (O-E)^2/E O E O E O E O E O E chia 13 9.4 1.379 20 23.6 0.5492 15 14.6 0.011 2 1.8 0.0222 0 0.6 0.6 2.561b 11 9.4 0.272 27 23.6 0.4898 12 14.6 0.463 0 1.8 1.8 0 0.6 0.6 3.625c 9 9.4 0.017 21 23.6 0.2864 19 14.6 1.326 1 1.8 0.3556 0 0.6 0.6 2.585d 7 9.4 0.613 30 23.6 1.7356 10 14.6 1.4493 3 1.8 0.8 0 0.6 0.6 5.198e 7 9.4 0.613 20 23.6 0.5492 17 14.6 0.3945 3 1.8 0.8 3 0.6 9.6 11.956 Total 25.925 4
  • 53. From the table we can see that: = 2.561+3.625+2.585+5.198+11.956= 25.925and df = (C - 1)(R - 1) (5 - 1)(5 - 1) = (4)(4) = 16 Our null, for the chi-square test, states that there are no differencesbetween the observed and the expected frequencies. The alternatehypothesis states that there are significant differences between theobserved and expected frequencies As usual we will set our alpha level at.05. = 25.925 df = (C - 1)(R - 1) (5 - 1)(5 - 1) = (4)(4) = 16 Reject H0 if >= 26.3. Since our calculated value of (25.925) is less than 26.3, we accept the null hypothesis and reject the alternative hypothesis. 4
  • 54. 4
  • 55. TABLE 10 Students’ Acceptance on the System 5 4 3 2 1 (O-E)^2/E O E O E O E O E O E chia 11 12 0.083 26 24.2 0.134 11 11.2 0.004 2 2.2 0.018 0 0.4 0.4 0.639b 11 12 0.083 27 24.2 0.324 9 11.2 0.432 3 2.2 0.291 0 0.4 0.4 1.530c 11 12 0.083 28 24.2 0.597 9 11.2 0.432 2 2.2 0.018 0 0.4 0.4 1.530d 14 12 0.333 21 24.2 0.423 12 11.2 0.057 2 2.2 0.018 1 0.4 0.9 1.732e 13 12 0.083 19 24.2 1.117 15 11.2 1.289 2 2.2 0.018 1 0.4 0.9 3.408 Total 8.840 4
  • 56. From the table we can see that: = 0.639+1.530+1.530+1.732+3.408= 8.840and df = (C - 1)(R - 1) (5 - 1)(5 - 1) = (4)(4) = 16 Our null, for the chi-square test, states that there are no differencesbetween the observed and the expected frequencies. The alternatehypothesis states that there are significant differences between theobserved and expected frequencies As usual we will set our alpha level at.05. = 8.840 df = (C - 1)(R - 1) (5 - 1)(5 - 1) = (4)(4) = 16 Reject H0 if >= 26.3. Since our calculated value of (8.840) is less than 26.3, weaccept the null hypothesis and reject the alternative hypothesis. 4
  • 57. 4
  • 58. CHAPTER V Summary, Conclusion, RecommendationSUMMARY The main objective of this research study was to make adescriptive survey about the technology implicated in using VideoSurveillance System in Eulogio “AMANG” Rodriguez Institute ofScience and Technology. Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions.  What are the specific security threats and concerns of the school attempting to address by using a video surveillance system.  How will it help address those threats and how will the school actually use it on a day-to-day basis.  How does the school management accept and interpret data produce by the system?  How does the student accept the new system if implemented?  Is there a significant difference between the security personnel officer and the video surveillance system? 4
  • 59. The descriptive method of the survey type of research was used inthis study. Students and employees of EARIST served as the respondents,out of (50) fifty respondents, (32) thirty-two of them are male while theother 18 are female. To analyze and interpret the data, the study utilized the followingstatistical tools: Percentage, Likert Scale System, Weighted Mean, Chi-Square and Rank Method. The study reveals the following findings: Majority or 64 percent ofthe respondents are male and 36 percent are females. Most of therespondents belong to the 21-25 age brackets with a moderate knowledgeabout the video surveillance system. 4
  • 60. 4
  • 61. Below is the table summarizing the results of the survey responses given by the selected respondents: TABLE A 1. Specific security threats and concerns of the school attempting to address by using a video surveillance 5 4 3 2 1 W.M CHI system a. EARIST Security Personnel has less security gadgets 11 27 11 1 0 3.96 9.378 b. Most of the EARIST Security Personnel doesn’t know 4 21 16 9 0 3.4 how to use a security camera 5.625 c. Most of the EARIST Security Personnel doesn’t know 5 23 15 6 1 3.5 how to install and operate video surveillance 1.103 d. EARIST Security Office doesn’t fit the installation 6 19 21 4 0 3.54 area of the Video Surveillance System 3.302 d. Security threats are not address properly 10 15 16 5 4 3.44 11.806 3.56 Total 36 105 79 25 5 8 31.214 4
  • 62. Based on my computation using chi square, it is evident that letter (e) on table A shows the highest rank and clearly visible that securitythreats are not address properly, while using the weighted mean computation, letter (a) on the said table shows the highest rank that EARISTSecurity Personnel has less security gadgets. TABLE B 2. Video Surveillance System will ease threats and will 5 4 3 2 1 W.M CHI help the school on a day-to-day basis. a. EARIST Security Personnel cannot actually determine 10 24 12 3 1 3.78 1.321 threats inside or outside school premises. b. A routine check to all students and visitors going in 10 29 8 2 1 3.9 0.458 and out of the institute c. A routine check on all vehicles going in and out of the 11 26 10 2 1 3.88 0.201 Institute d. A real time monitoring of all the Students and visitors 11 27 8 3 1 3.88 0.672 of the School e. A real time recording of what is happening beyond the 9 30 10 1 0 3.94 1.901 scope of the surveillance camera 3.87 Total 51 136 48 11 4 4.552 6 4
  • 63. As gleaned in the table, the respondents gave almost the same highest rank for letter (e) using the computation for weightedmean and chi-square. It can be noted that a real time recording of what is happening beyond the scope of the surveillance camera will easethe threats and will help the school on a day-to-day basis. TABLE C 3. Accepting and interpreting of data produce by the 5 4 3 2 1 W.M CHI system a. Student database will be used in monitoring the 13 20 15 2 0 3.88 2.561 students b. A faculty and employees database will be used in 11 27 12 0 0 3.98 3.625 monitoring faculty and employees c. A print out will produce for manual checking 9 21 19 1 0 3.76 2.585 d. An automatic logging system will be adopted 7 30 10 3 0 3.82 5.198 e. On the spot data report can be easily produce. 7 20 17 3 3 3.5 11.956 3.78 Total 47 118 73 9 3 8 25.925 4
  • 64. Looking at the table, it can be seen that letter (b) is considered the highest ranked in computing the weighted mean, it reveals that afaculty and employees database will be used in monitoring faculty and employees. The same table also reveals that on the spot data can beeasily produce as it computed using chi square. TABLE D 4. Students acceptance on the system 5 4 3 2 1 W.M CHI a. Accredited Students organizations will be consulted 11 26 11 2 0 3.92 0.639 before applying the system b. Institute student government will be the first to 11 27 9 3 0 3.92 1.530 summon on proper orientation of the system c. Comments and suggestions will be properly entertained 11 28 9 2 0 3.96 1.530 d. A survey on the entire students will be conducted to get 14 21 12 2 1 3.9 1.732 their pulse e. A computational analysis will be conducted to 13 19 15 2 1 3.82 3.408 determine the acceptability of the system 3.90 Total 60 121 56 11 2 8.839 4 4
  • 65. Based on the weighted mean computation, letter (c) got the highest rank with the average of 3.96; it was worth noting that commentsand suggestions should be properly entertained in the acceptance of the video surveillance system. While on the chi-square computationletter (e) was ranked first that in determining acceptability of the system, a computational analysis will be conducted. 4
  • 66. CONCLUSION Due to increased terrors and crimes, the use of the videosurveillance camera system is increasing. It has been operated for publicinterest such as prevention of crimes and fly-tipping by the police andlocal government, but private information such as faces or behaviorpatterns can be recorded in CCTV. When the recorded video data isexposed, it may cause an invasion to privacy and crimes. This paperanalyses conventional methods of privacy protection in surveillancecamera systems and applied scrambling and RFID system to existingsurveillance systems to prevent privacy exposure in monitoringsimultaneously for both privacy protection and surveillance. Theproposed system adjusts the intensities of privacy according to accesslevels to reduce invasion of privacy by people who are not concerned. 4
  • 67. RECOMMENDATION Video surveillance should only be considered where less intrusivemeans of deterrence, such as increased monitoring by teachers, haveshown to be ineffective or unworkable. In its consultation with the schoolcommunity, the school administration should outline the less intrusivemeans that have been considered and the reason why they are noteffective. Before implementing a video surveillance program, a schoolshould be able to demonstrate. Video surveillance programs should only be adopted wherecircumstances have shown that it is necessary for the purposes ofproviding the safety of students and staff, or for the deterrence ofdestructive acts, such as vandalism. The school administration should provide justification for the useand extent of a video surveillance program on the basis of addressingspecific and significant concerns about safety and/or the theft ordestruction of property. They should also conduct an assessment into the effects that thesurveillance system will have on personal privacy and the ways in whichsuch adverse effects may be mitigated. They should consult openly withparents, staff, students and the broader school community as to thenecessity of the proposed video surveillance program and its 4
  • 68. acceptability to the school community. Consultation should providestakeholders with an opportunity to comment on the actual location ofcameras on school property, should the project proceed and they shouldensure that the proposed design and operation of the video surveillancesystem minimizes privacy intrusion to that which is necessary to achieveappropriate goals through lawful activities. 4
  • 69. BIBLIOGRAPHYInternet  www.yahoo.com  www.google.com  www.wikipedia.com  http://www.qualityadvisor.com/sqc/formulas/chi_square_f.php  http://www.mnstate.edu/wasson/ed602quiz14.htm 4
  • 70. APPENDICES SURVEY QUESTIONNAIREPart 1: PERSONAL DATA SHEETAge: 21 years old and below 21-25 years old 26-30 years old 31-35 years old 35years old and above Rate Verbal Interpretation Range 5 Strongly Agree 4.6 – 5.0 4 Agree 3.6 – 4.5 3 Uncertain 2.6 – 3.5 2 Disagree 1.6 – 2.5 1 Strongly Disagree 1.0 – 1.5Sex: Female Male Knowledge in Video Surveillance System Advance Moderate Knowledgeable NewPart 2: Check the appropriate box, which you believe applicable to the givenvariables. LEGEND 4
  • 71. A. Specific security threats and concerns of the school attempting to address by using a video surveillance system 5 4 3 2 1a. EARIST Security Personnel has less security gadgetsb. Most of the EARIST Security Personnel doesn’t know how to use a security camerac. Most EARIST Security personnel doesn’t know how to install and operate video surveillance.d. EARIST Security Office doesn’t fit the installation area of the Video Surveillance Systeme. Security threats are not address properlyB. Video Surveillance System will ease threats and will help the school on a day-to-day basis. 5 4 3 2 1a. EARIST Security Personnel cannot actually determine threats inside or outside school premises.b. A routine check to all students and visitors going in and out of the institutec. A routine check on all vehicles going in and out of the Instituted. A real time monitoring of all the Students and visitors of the Schoole. A real time recording of what is happening beyond the scope of the surveillance camera 4
  • 72. C. Accepting and interpreting of data produce by the system 5 4 3 2 1a. Student database will be used in monitoring the studentsb. A faculty and employees database will be used in monitoring faculty and employeesc. A print out will produce for manual checkingd. An automatic logging system will be adoptede. On the spot data report can be easily produce.D. Students acceptance on the system 5 4 3 2 1a. Accredited Students organizations will be consulted before applying the systemb. Institute student government will be the first to summon on proper orientation of the systemc. Comments and suggestions will be properly entertainedd. A survey on the entire students will be conducted to get their pulsee. A computational analysis will be conducted to determine the acceptability of the systemE. Significant difference between the security personnel officer and thevideo surveillance system 5 4 3 2 1a. There is no significant difference between the old and the new system
  • 73. APPENDIX BEQUIVALENT FOR THE DEGREE OF FREEDOM Alpha value = Alpha value = 1% 5% DF Value DF Value 1 3.84 1 6.63 2 5.99 2 9.21 3 7.82 3 11.3 4 9.49 4 13.3 5 11.1 5 15.1 6 12.6 6 16.8 7 14.1 7 18.5 8 15.5 8 20.1 9 16.9 9 23.2 10 18.3 10 24.7 11 19.7 11 26.2 12 21 12 27.7 13 22.4 13 29.1 14 23.7 14 30.6 15 25 15 30.6 16 26.3 16 32 17 27.6 17 33.4 18 28.9 18 34.8 19 30.1 19 36.2 20 31.4 20 37.6 21 32.7 21 38.9 22 33.9 22 40.3 23 35.2 23 41.6 24 36.4 24 43 25 37.7 25 44.3 26 38.9 26 45.6 27 40.1 27 47 28 41.3 28 48.3 29 42.6 29 49.6 30 43.8 30 50.9
  • 74. CURRICULUM VITAEPERSONAL DATAName : Anna Marie Magallanes LuceroDate of birth : February17, 1990Place of birth : San Juan CityAddress : 4929 r-32 Pina St. Old Sta. Mesa, ManilaAge : 20Height : 4’11Weight : 49 kilosNationality : FilipinoCivil Status : SingleReligion : Roman CatholicFathers Name : Federico L. LuceroMothers Name : Dolores M. LuceroEDUCATIONAL BACKGROUNDCOLLEGE Eulogio “Amang” Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology Computer Engineering 2006 – PresentSECONDARY Bagong Silangan High School 2002-2006ELEMENTARY San Juan Elementary School 1996-2002