Talk:Closed-circuit television/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

File:Intellinet Network Solutions NSC11-WN Home Network IP Camera.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Intellinet Network Solutions NSC11-WN Home Network IP Camera.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Outside the UK

It mentions New York City but cites a statistic from 1998. Seems a bit out of date to be in an article like this. MDuchek (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add a section dealing with the history of CCTV in the United States. As of right now there is mostly information only dealing with the United Kingdom. Shannahan15 (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on a contribution to the "Privacy" section.

On October 25th, 2011, I contributed to the "Privacy" section of the CCTV Wikipedia article. Two sentences had been posted in the second paragraph, the first of which brought up two points: 1) Positive views of CCTV argue that the cameras do not violate people's privacy, and 2) In public space, a person's right to privacy "can reasonably be weighed against the intended benefits of surveillance". The first point was responded to in the sentence that followed, but the second point was not addressed, so I contributed a scholarly response with the hope of making this part of the Privacy section more balanced, neutral and comprehensive. Any thoughts? I'd love to hear some feedback from contributors and administrators on this. W charbonneau (talk) 04:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

File:CCTV room.PNG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:CCTV room.PNG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:CCTV room.PNG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Privacy

This section could be improved. In particular, the reference to Katz is specious unless a notifiable source has made it - the Katz ruling was whether a conversation in a phone booth counted as private, and the verdict stressed that the main reason it did was because a closed phone booth gives a reasonable expectation of privacy compared to the street, so how could this be (mis)interpreted as meaning that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the street? Moreover, it only stressed his conversation was private, not anything that was clearly visible from outside the phone-booth e.g. his actions and behavior, which is all a CCTV camera would be able to monitor.

The statement about whether US courts have ruled CCTV unconstitutional is completely uncited. I'm removing it. If it is returned with a citation, I will not remove it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.158.16.33 (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

History / first deployment

This article currently says that the "first CCTV system was installed by Siemens AG at Test Stand VII in Peenemünde, Germany in 1942, for observing the launch of V-2 rockets". However, 1936 Summer Olympics says "To outdo the Los Angeles games of 1932, Germany built a new 100,000-seat track and field stadium, six gymnasiums, and many other smaller arenas. They also installed a closed-circuit television system and radio network that reached 41 countries, with many other forms of expensive high-tech electronic equipment".   — C M B J   11:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the criteria of "closed" should be adjusted. This instance of military CCTV was very much closed and secret. Olympic TV was the opposite, an open propaganda exercise. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

What is Closed?

The "Closed" part should be expanded on IMO. If it's online, but private, is it still Closed? (Is it the same as Private?) There's a paragraph:

In October 2009, an "Internet Eyes" website was announced which would pay members of the public to view CCTV camera images from their homes and report any crimes they witnessed. The site aimed to add "more eyes" to cameras which might be insufficiently monitored. Civil liberties campaigners criticized the idea as "a distasteful and a worrying development".

That doesn't seem to be Closed. There's also a paragraph:

Recently CCTV has been transformed by the shift towards internet-based products and systems, and other technological developments.

Is that still CCTV, or is that what the paragraph is saying: we're shifting from CCTV to ... something else?

Other names

This is a minor bit of feedback, but should we list other names that are used for CCTV? When I hear the term CCTV, I typically hear it from brits. I think terms like surveillance footage or surveillance videos are used more frequently in the US. I actually had to google the term CCTV a few months back because I didn't know what it was. Bali88 (talk) 05:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Article title (II)

I'd like to revive this topic (discussed long ago further up under "Article Title"), as this article seems to be mainly or only about "Camera surveillance" (and I believe the name of the article should perhaps be renamed, and a seperate article be created dedicated to CCTV technology). CCTV is a technology of which "camera surveillance" is only one application (using CCTV but also many other technologies nowadays). CCTV technology has much more (older?) applications like (but not limited to) Campus TV; rear-view camera's in vehicles; monitoring of production processes in plants and factories; (door) intercom systems with a camera (sometimes wireless); information screens in airports, hospitals, public buildings; information channels on hotelroom televisions, in many medical procedures and practises and then some. On the Dutch Wikipedia we've now split "Closed-circuit television" and "Camera surveillance" (Dutch: cameratoezicht), but it makes the interwiki links a bit odd/off. Also, the wikidata object for this article has an English description which doesn't really match the content of this article (in my humble opinion). Looking forward to views and opinions on this. Regards, Martix (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I second to revive this discussion and hereby submit a request for renaming this article to

Requested move 31 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus supporting the move. (closed by a page mover) (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Closed-circuit television → Video surveillance – Most info in this article seems to revolve around the use of video surveillance in cities. That's what the video surveillance article can thus be about; CCTV is not the correct term here as that's about a closed circuit video system, whereas most cities make the video feeds available via internet (to either police, or other city services or private citizens). The extra CCTV technology info Martix mentions can be put in an other article called say History of CCTV KVDP (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose: CCTV is the WP:COMMONNAME, and also the most accurate one. If there is any content in this article that does not fall under the remit of CCTV then it should be split out. This page should remain at CCTV. Ebonelm (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Is there an ENGVAR issue here? —  AjaxSmack  21:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• If the proposal is that Video surveillance is more common as a name for this topic than Closed-circuit television and this has consensus then happy to support the article move. This may be a simple difference in Engvar. There is already an article on surveillance which covers camera and video sureillance. Splitting this article would create a WP:POVFORK duplicating this article and the surveillance article. Whizz40 (talk) 08:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. May be an ENGVAR issue, as CCTV is certainly still the common term used in the United Kingdom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Neutrality

I think there may be some significant underlying neutrality issues in this article - the second paragraph of the lead was what caught my attention, but there is virtually no mention of significant media coverage about perceived downsides of surveillance, and other sections of the article read like advertisements or perhaps prospectus of manufacturers. In any case I will be doing my best to review the article, but anyone is welcome to assist. Triptothecottage (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

This paragraph has been removed from the lead and a summary added to the lead with cites about the significant public debate about individuals' right to privacy. There is a full section in the article on Closed-circuit television#Privacy. Other major issues are not apparent so the neutrality tag can be removed from the top of the article if there are no further comments or issues to address. Whizz40 (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 4 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Page split seems more appropriate per the consensus here. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane ^talk 22:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Closed-circuit television → Video surveillance – Closed-circuit television is not what this is actually about - first about it's about surveillance and not "television", and more importantly it's not closed circuit in most cases. It's all kinds of video surveillance (including webcams viewable over the Internet etc. It's 2017 the page should really be moved now!) Fixuture (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Just saw this listed at WP:RM, read the proposal, and the article intro, which includes this line: "Many sporting events in the United States use CCTV inside the venue for fans to see the action while they are away from their seats. This use of CCTV is not used for surveillance purposes." That says it all. CCTV is not the same as video surveillance. This article is about the former. I see CCTV as being more about the technology and "video surveillance" as being more about the purpose of surveillance with video. --В²C ☎ 00:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: Would you then say that the article should be split or restructured? --Fixuture (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, WP:SPLIT. CCTV and video surveillance are related but distinct topics. --В²C ☎

• Oppose. Closed-circuit video transmission is an important technology that should have an article. I agree with the above comment that this article should be split, however. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral on article title. Oppose split. If the proposal is Video surveillance is more common as a name for this topic than Closed-circuit television and this has consensus then happy to support the article move. This may be a simple difference in WP:Engvar in which case the article should not be moved unless there is broad consensus for this. There is already an article on surveillance which covers camera and video surveillance. Splitting this article would create a WP:POVFORK duplicating the surveillance article. Whizz40 (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The topic is also well defined in the first paragraph of the article:

Closed-circuit television (CCTV), also known as video surveillance, is the use of video cameras to transmit a signal to a specific place, on a limited set of monitors. It differs from broadcast television in that the signal is not openly transmitted, though it may employ point to point (P2P), point to multipoint (P2MP), or mesh wireless links. Though almost all video cameras fit this definition, the term is most often applied to those used for surveillance in areas that may need monitoring such as bars, banks, casinos, schools, hotels, airports, hospitals, restaurants, military installations, convenience stores and other areas where security is needed. Videotelephony is seldom called "CCTV" but the use of video in distance education, where it is an important tool, is often so called.

Whizz40 (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

References

There are already articles on Closed-circuit television camera and Video camera. Whizz40 (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

How would a split be a WP:POVFORK? What are the two views supposedly being split? As far as the Surveillance article, that's not just Video surveillance. And where is the source supporting the assertion that CCTV is "also known as video surveillance"? Closed-circuit television camera is just about the camera, as it should be. --В²C ☎ 16:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a fair point, there may not be a point of view split, but there are already articles on Closed-circuit television camera, Video camera, and surveillance (which has a section on camera/video surveillance that points here as the main article). How can there be another article on Video surveillance (which currently redirects here) as well as Closed-circuit television? That would inevitably result in duplication which would lead to a merge proposal and likely cause a mess to the article content. This discussion should just be focused on what should the title of this article be. Sources can be added to the article which support CCTV is also known as video surveillance [1] and [2]. Whizz40 (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Recommend splitting instead. Modern popular references to CCTV are anachronistic. Closed circuit, inherently secure, fed live to a local monitor or recorded locally, no connectivity, is what it used to be and is not what it is now. Well, the old version is still available and in use, but modern networked video surveillance should be covered separately. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Is CCTV also known as video surveillance?

The article introductory sentence currently declares that "CCTV [is] also known as video surveillance". Is that supported by sources? I think what this source says is more accurate: "CCTV (closed-circuit television) is a TV system in which signals are not publicly distributed but are monitored, primarily for surveillance and security purposes."[3] In other words, CCTV is a technology usually used to implement video surveillance - but they are not the same thing. Comments? --В²C ☎ 22:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Reliable, published, sources say video surveillance is also known as CCTV - the two terms have the same meaning. [4] [5] [6]. In general usage, the two terms are commonly used together or with the same meaning [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. Whizz40 (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• They are not exactly the same. CCTV is video surveillance, but not all video surveillance is by CCTV. There obviously is a difference, though it is seldom important. A bit like arguing that wood is not lumber. Pretty weird in most cases, no difference in a wood store, completely left-field if discussing the construction of a clarinet. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed splitmove to Video surveillance

In the above two discussions many have expressed support for a split / a needed distinction between CCTV and video surveillance:

User:Born2cycle said: [...] CCTV is not the same as video surveillance. This article is about the former. I see CCTV as being more about the technology and "video surveillance" as being more about the purpose of surveillance with video.

64.105.98.115 said [...] I agree with the above comment that this article should be split, however.

User:SmokeyJoe said Recommend splitting instead. [...] and They are not exactly the same. CCTV is video surveillance, but not all video surveillance is by CCTV. There obviously is a difference, though it is seldom important. [...]

I think a split should be done ASAP - the importance here is not just being precise and distinguishing different things but due coverage, relevant content etc that are work best or only when this article gets split.

--Fixuture (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Reliable, published, sources say video surveillance is also known as CCTV - the two terms have the same meaning. [13] [14] [15]. In general usage, the two terms are commonly used together or with the same meaning [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. There is little if anything which is video surveillance and not CCTV; there is little if anything that is CCTV and not video surveillance. A split would cause practical problems writing the articles because there is complete, or at least very significant, overlap between the two topics so each article would end up covering the same material, even if we intended them to be distinct, causing duplication and inconsistencies between articles. There are already articles on Closed-circuit television camera, Video camera, and surveillance, which has a section on camera/video surveillance that points here as the main article. On each of the split articles, page views and number of edits would drop because of the split of readers and editors; there would be reduced collaboration between editors on this topic and reduced article quality for readers. Even if it were possible to define clearly in the lead the distinction between the two topics (and I do not think it would be possible), editors who infrequently edit or read the article would be unlikely to notice and abide by the distinction (and the sum of the infrequent editors' edits is often a large part of the editing on this topic [22]). What would result is a WP:POVFORK because American English users read and edit video surveillance while British English users read and edit Closed-circuit television and thus we will end up with the American perspective on the topic and the British perspective on the topic. The design of Wikipedia is there is one article on each topic which presents a WP:Worldwide view. The underlying issue here is WP:Engvar. Although articles are not normally moved in Engvar cases, perhaps in this case we could discuss whether there is a broad enough consensus to move the article to Video surveillance. Whizz40 (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Whizz40: But as a matter of fact those are different things. And many sources say so as well. These actually include [2] of your given sources which lists CCTV and electronic video surveillance separately.

Also see the lead of IP camera:

An Internet protocol camera, or IP camera, is a type of digital video camera commonly employed for surveillance, and which, unlike analog closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras, can send and receive data via a computer network and the Internet.

IP cameras are not a "little" part of video surveillance but are becoming the major implementation of it.

Also see the quoted statements of other Wikipedians in my post.

If this page doesn't get split into video surveillance and CCTV it needs to be moved to video surveillance.

A split would cause practical problems writing the articles because there is complete, or at least very significant, overlap between the two topics so each article would end up covering the same material, even if we intended them to be distinct, causing duplication and inconsistencies between articles. There are already articles on Closed-circuit television camera, Video camera, and surveillance, which has a section on camera/video surveillance that points here as the main article. On each of the split articles, page views and number of edits would drop because of the split of readers and editors; there would be reduced collaboration between editors on this topic and reduced article quality for readers.

You have a point here. Probably it indeed would be better to have the page moved to video surveillance instead and clarify CCTV in the lead and/or a dedicated section.

CCTV equating video surveillance is not accurate and up to date, however it is important that we on Wikipedia make necessary distinctions and remain highly accurate and up to date.

--Fixuture (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

There have been no sources provided supporting the split and no definitions clearly stated. The citation at the end of the first paragraph of IP Camera does not support the definition in the first sentence of that article, nor is it a published source. That article is tagged with an orange-level tag requiring additional citations, nonetheless, the web link source in its lead provides another example of CCTV and video surveillance being discussed as one: "video encoders were a huge milestone, allowing users to integrate their existing analog CCTV system with the latest IP technology." [23]. This article already has a section on '§ Technological developments', including a subsection on '§ IP Camera' which describes it as a "growing branch of CCTV" and the article of that name is linked as the main article; so it does seem there is more than one point of view on the definition making it likely a POVFORK would develop if the articles are split. Rather than counting responses, WP:RFCEND requires us to consider "The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies." And if it comes to it, WP:NOCONSENSUS requires "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." However, hopefully we can reach a consensus to improve the article together. Where is the current article lacking or inadequate and what needs improving in the current article? We can make improvements in the normal way. For example, to get the right title for the article, the right structure of sections and the right summary in the lead. There are plenty of steps we can take toward writing a good article, which may resolve the points which have been raised. If any of the sections gets too long and detailed, it can be spun out with a summary in this article per WP:summary style (but no one is saying this is an issue yet, beyond the existing summary style in the article). As you mentioned above if "IP cameras are ... becoming the major implementation of it" then we can reflect this by updating the existing article and then summarising in the lead. Agree the article needs to "make necessary distinctions and remain highly accurate and up to date", and also maintain due weight, a worldwide perspective, and avoid WP:Recentism .Whizz40 (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I drop the proposal for a split now and instead strongly recommend a move to video surveillance. I've been researching it and found this:

While some refer to CCTV systems as including only analog cameras

here. As well as (less relevant but still worth noting):

as the security market shifted from proprietory, closed-analog closed-circuit television (CCTV) systems toward open and fully digital IP-based network video

here. And this one is also relevant.

This is also what I got from my research online: that CCTV used to refer to analog surveillance systems only and then gradually got upgraded with digital technology which didn't provoke a clear cut/distinction of analog-only and digital-only and hence some people now specify it by saying "analog video surveillance" or "digital video surveillance" or use the term "CCTV" with it either also including fully digital video surveillance systems or not.

Because of this and simply to avoid the problems of the old term "CCTV" sometimes only referring to analog video surveillance systems (and being incorrect for many digital systems per se) I propose to have the page moved to the broader term "Video surveillance" that includes all of these (and some technological developments that are so far away from both "closed-circuit" and "television" that they never get reported on in that context).

Rather than counting responses, WP:RFCEND requires us to consider "The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies." However, hopefully we can reach a consensus to improve the article together.

I very much agree with that and hope that my arguments for a move will be considered. I changed the title of this section.

--Fixuture (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, let's see the updates to the article first. Whizz40 (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

CCTV at Peenemünde

@BurritoBazooka: I've removed two names from the list of Peenemünde CCTV engineers; they were added by 209.87.206.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in 2015. I've left Walter Bruch in place even though he's not mentioned in the NASA citation. A Google Books search for "Walter Bruch" Peenemünde returns several results, some pre-dating Wikipedia. Google doesn't show me enough of the text for me to use them as citations, though. I've reworded your "verification failed" note. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@John of Reading: Thank you. --BurritoBazooka ^Talk Contribs 07:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 17:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)