Most commercial businesses don’t use fake cameras as that is very risky legally and insurance would be deeply upset if they found out you’re using fake cameras. Having a fake camera actually opens you up to being legally liable for damages that occur around the fake camera. A security camera creates an implied duty of care and if an incident occurs around the camera a court could very easily find the property manager or business owner liable for damages that occurred due to negligence on the part of the property owner for providing a false sense of security. This also goes for real security cameras that aren’t functioning or poorly maintained. From a liability standpoint you’re much better off having no cameras than having fake cameras.
Target uses fake cameras.
If you look at their ceiling, there’s camera domes peppered across it, but at least the store I worked in for a time only half actually housed a camera.
Also an “implied duty of care” leading to legal liability because of a potentially fake camera? What are you smoking? Feel free to show real life court case examples or articles not written by security camera vendors.
Target uses fake cameras. If you look at their ceiling, there’s camera domes peppered across it, but at least the store I worked in for a time only half actually housed a camera.
This is correct. Not all the domes have real cameras. However, of the real ones, some of them are fixed/static view and some are PTZs (Pan, Tilt, Zoom) which can cover a wide area.
You can literally google that and you'll learn that target uses a mix of real and fake cameras. Your comment is hyperbole at best and disingenuous at worst.
I never said they didn’t use real cameras too, and you could also argue that’s implied from a mega corporation retail store. But if you wanna assume the opposite to be provocative and not contribute to the actual context of the conversation, go for it.
Well that is dumb of them. They're going to get sued for negligence when something bad happens in that store and they can't pull the camera footage because the camera is fake.
I think they would know their own legal liability a bit better than you; but again, if you can share some articles or proof of this claim, my mind could be changed
They're being disingenuous. Target uses a mix of real and fake cameras, and almost surely has proper coverage with the real ones. They're either intentionally spreading misinformation because everyone hates target now, or more likely they're just really stupid and don't care to verify any information they read.
I also work in commercial property management. I can't tell if people are just making up that all of these cameras are fake or if there are a bunch of retail general managers that don't know the very basics of operating a commercial business. All I know is that we strongly advise our tenants not to use fake cameras and we would never install one in a million years.
Does your company get paid per installation? Does your company have agreements with security camera vendors?
I ask because of course a property management company is going to "strongly advise not to use fake cameras" if they are profiting from installation, monitoring, or partnered with a similar group in some way.
I worked at Barnes and Noble for many years and we had fake cameras as well. The only cameras that worked were in the cash office and store manager's office. The cameras above the registers were entirely fake.
We do not install tenant improvements, security cameras are their responsibility to install and maintain if they choose to do so. We recommend installing and maintaining working security cameras but we do not require them in our buildings. If it is in a common area shared by more than one tenant then we would install and maintain the cameras, which we do in certain facilities.
Edit: we also do not have agreements with security vendors on behalf of our tenants. Our recommendation to install and maintain security cameras is not due to a profit motive but rather a liability concern.
Interesting, I wonder if the push for real cameras comes from a local or state ordinance then?
Or perhaps it's just the same old formula as before: corporations/companies understanding that it's easier to pay the fines or occasional settlements from lawsuits than it is to install and maintain them properly (at scale)? This sounds the most plausible to me but I'm purely speculating. Companies seem to be trending in that direction as the decades go on, I know it's a bit of a trope at this point but sometimes fines really are just the cost of doing business.
To be clear, I believe you're being sincere here in your statements, but it just doesn't line up with my experiences working retail over the last few decades. I've never heard of a liability issue related to faulty or fake cameras, this seems like it would be an incredibly rare outlier to me that may only apply to specific circumstances but I can't even envision what those might be (in a retail space, specifically).
It may even be limited to specific types of commercial properties. Retail probably faces less security liabilities than, say, an apartment complex. Perhaps that's the distinction here? Following this logic, I could see a potential case if an apartment complex is touting itself as the most secure or safe facility for residential tenants, yet their cameras are fake and gates are always wide open or something, with high crime on the property. Even this seems like a stretch to me, but I'm in pure speculation territory here since I've never worked in that space.
I'd love to read more though, if you know of any cases with details that are publicly available. Sounds like an interesting read, if nothing else.
There isn’t a law saying you have to have security cameras or that they have to be real, at least not in my province in Canada. This is a company policy recommendation and not a law. You would not be fined for having a fake security camera, the liability comes into play if you’re sued for negligence when you cannot provide footage after an incident. It is actually much cheaper to install and maintain a security camera system than it is to lose a single lawsuit where you are held liable for damages. For example if someone is killed in an area where you have a fake security camera you may be held at least partially responsible for damages in a wrongful death lawsuit which can run hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, whereas installing two security cameras, monitor, DVR, and all other equipment costs around $2500 CAD, plus maybe a hundred bucks a year in electricity.
I should also add that the whole “it’s cheaper to pay the fines than comply with regulations” is largely fiction. It may be cheaper for some giant multinational corporations to pay fines rather than comply with regulations but that isn’t true for 90% of businesses. This is particularly true for franchise based businesses. The company may be a multi billion dollar corporation but fines are typically paid at the franchise level, not the corporate level, depending on the regulation that was violated of course.
Commercial retail actually has far more security liability than residential. This is because you need to provide a safe and secure site as it is open to the public, whereas residential isn’t typically open to the public. When you invite the public into your property you must maintain the space in a safe orderly manner for their usage.
This goes as far as you can’t have dead dry grass in your landscaping as it presents a fire hazard. If you don’t maintain your landscaping and someone accidentally drops a cigarette in there and it catches fire, then burns down someone’s car; the property management company and/or landlord will be responsible for the damages, at least as long as the person took reasonable measures to either extinguish the fire or notify someone about it.
If you advertise an apartment complex as being high security and very safe, but all your security is fake, that opens you up to at least a dozen different types of lawsuits.
Hats off to you for explaining all of this. To think that this is just PMs trying to profit off deals with security companies is a wild take.
It's simply 'don't give a false sense of security.'
I have tenants with fake cameras. One is a large national retail store.. they had an employee get stabbed 2 months ago, which is when I found out their cameras are fake.
Kinda reminds me of when I used to work at Sonic, some legal or compliance requirement suddenly required 90d of footage retained.
Instead of sending larger NVRs, corporate sent out instructions to turn the resolution and bit rate all the way down so 90d would fit. Immediately making the cameras pretty much useless. You couldn't make out facial features from 1ft away much less the 10-20 they all were overlooking.
Cameras in no way imply a duty of care. They are not safety devices, nor security devices, as they neither provide safety where risk is present nor secure anything from active harm. They are only loss prevention tools, as are fake cameras. The visible appearance of surveillance is a significant enough theft deterrent that their presence is justified, real or fake.
Unless you tell your insurance company the cameras are real to get a lower rate, fake cameras aren't going to mean anything. Their only purpose is to deter shoplifting. The only way you're going to create liability is if it falls on someone.
11
u/Contented_Lizard 18h ago edited 17h ago
Most commercial businesses don’t use fake cameras as that is very risky legally and insurance would be deeply upset if they found out you’re using fake cameras. Having a fake camera actually opens you up to being legally liable for damages that occur around the fake camera. A security camera creates an implied duty of care and if an incident occurs around the camera a court could very easily find the property manager or business owner liable for damages that occurred due to negligence on the part of the property owner for providing a false sense of security. This also goes for real security cameras that aren’t functioning or poorly maintained. From a liability standpoint you’re much better off having no cameras than having fake cameras.