In the latter half of the twentieth century, there began a phenomenon known as the information revolution. While the information revolution is a historical development broader in scope than any one event or machine, no single device has come to represent the information revolution more than the digital electronic computer. The development of computer systems has surely been a revolution. Each year, computer systems grow faster, store more data, and provide more applications to their users. At the same time, the cost of computing resources has consistently declined, so that information which was too expensive to gather, store and process a few years ago, is no economically feasible to manipulate via computer. The reduced cost of information processing drives increasing productivity in a snowballing effect, because product designs, manufacturing processes, resource scheduling, administrative chores, and many other tasks, are made more efficient.
Among the applications of digital data processing technology is the capture, storage, transmission and other processing of images, both in still and motion video forms. A large variety of applications now process images is some form or another. So large is the demand for image processing that standard computer systems are now equipped with special processors and other hardware for that purpose, and a substantial amount of digital data storage is devoted to the storage of still and motion video images.
One particular application for the processing of images is video surveillance. Early video surveillance systems were essentially analog in design, typically capturing video on one or more analog video cameras and conveying a video feed by wired connection (e.g. coaxial cable) to a central monitoring station, at which security personnel could monitor and/or record the multiple feeds, and switch among the various feeds. These systems were typically relatively expensive, were limited in range, and required trained personnel for monitoring and maintenance. As a result, they were typically used only by sophisticated enterprises, and then only where a strong need was established which would justify the expense.
Digital imaging and digital networking have generally supplanted these analog designs and reduced the cost of processing video information. For example, it is now possible to capture video images using inexpensive digital video cameras, to transmit video via low-cost limited range wireless networks, wired LANs, or at greater ranges via the Internet or other networks, to display video on mass-produced consumer devices such as desktop personal computers, laptops, notebook computers, smart phones, and other portable digital devices, and to store large amounts of video on relatively inexpensive mass storage devices.
The capabilities of modern digital data processing and imaging devices have placed sophisticated video surveillance technology within practical reach of the homeowner or small business. For example, off-the-shelf systems may now be purchased by the homeowner or small business owner for monitoring an area with one or several cameras, transmitting video from the camera via a local wireless connection such as an IEEE 802.11 “WiFi” connection, collecting the video in a local computer system, and accessing the video, either in real time or after the fact, from a remote digital data device via the Internet.
The relatively low cost of modern digital surveillance technology, particularly small, off-the-shelf surveillance systems intended for homeowners and small businesses, has greatly increased the number of such surveillance systems in use. Furthermore, it can be expected that as public awareness of such systems increases, improvements are made to their capabilities and ease of use, and additional cost savings are realized, many more such systems will be installed.
The reduced cost of individual digital video components, such as digital video cameras and transmission hardware, has led to some far reaching proposals for digital surveillance. In some cases, it has been proposed that entire cities or neighborhoods within cities be placed under surveillance by some central authority, for use by police, firefighters and/or other emergency response personnel. However, although individual components of a video surveillance system are relatively inexpensive, when these components are multiplied by the number of components necessary to place large regions of a city under surveillance, the cost of such a system is very substantial. This cost is a major factor constraining the deployment of widescale surveillance systems. The fact that such systems are under serious consideration, and in some cases have even been deployed (although not necessarily on a comprehensive basis), is evidence of the perceived need for such systems.
In addition to the cost of the hardware, its installation and maintenance, there are other barriers to the deployment of comprehensive surveillance systems. A municipality or similar government agency has unrestricted access to only a portion of the area which it may be desirable to place under surveillance. Much of the subject area will be under the control of various private entities, any of which may balk at giving a government agency unrestricted surveillance rights over its property. It is taken for granted that a homeowner will be reluctant to grant surveillance rights to areas within a home, but even a private business will often be reluctant to allow unrestricted governmental surveillance over areas under its control, whether for use by its employees, customers and/or the general public.
While private businesses and individuals are understandably reluctant to allow unrestricted surveillance of their property by others, there are circumstances in which they may not only be willing, but desirous, of such surveillance. A prime example of such a circumstance is the occurrence of an emergency requiring the intervention of emergency response personnel, such as a fire, a criminal act, or a medical emergency. In such an event, access to surveillance video in real time by dispatchers, emergency responders, and the like, may improve the speed and efficacy of the response, outweighing any concerns about privacy. There are other circumstances, although less compelling, in which surveillance by others may be deemed desirable or acceptable simply because privacy is of minimal concern. For example, a private business may be willing to grant surveillance rights over an area at a time of day during which the business is closed and nobody is authorized to be on the premises.
A need exists, not necessarily recognized, for improved methods and systems for managing and accessing surveillance video, and particularly for conditionally accessing, by others, surveillance video under the control of a property owner, tenant, or the like.