Why aren't convenience store security cameras at eye level?

On my neighborhood Nextdoorwebsite, the local police posted a picture of a guy who is wanted as a “person of interest” in a crime. A couple of weeks ago, they posted video of a convenience store robbery. In both cases, the pictures were inside the front door of the establishment, but positioned so high up (where they usually are) that naturally you couldn’t see the people’s faces.

I understand that when the camera is high, it scans more floor space. But these guys (don’t mean to be sexist, but they usually are guys) wear ball caps or hoodies pulled down over the top of their faces.

I think it would be more effective for capturing images that one could recognize if at least one camera was at eye level on the wall or shelf behind the cash register so you’re looking at it when you pay at the counter (or when you’re demanding money). The lens could be hidden among some products, but at least then you’d get a good picture of the person’s face instead of the brim of his ball cap.

Aside: BTW, the Nextdoor website is really great. Different neighborhoods set them up, you invite the people you know to join, and it’s a good way to share info about lost pets, stuff for sale, crime, suspicious persons, apts/houses for sale/rent, stolen bicycles, garage sales, etc. Sometimes when I hear lots of sirens, or fireworks (that I hope are fireworks), I’ll go on there and ask what’s up, and usually someone knows. It’s free. From time to time the site admin (I think someone in each neighborhood take on that responsibility) sends out requests to verify that people who’ve signed up really do live in the neighborhood. This might not work in some areas, but our neighborhood is VERY chummy and everyone knows everyone. This was NOT a paid promotional announcement.

Eye level cameras get blocked by the cashier, blocked by a thumbprint, blocked by a kid with chewing gum, etc. Any lens within reach will be taken out rather quickly, just by daily shoppers. The only way to get a full-face shot would be if the camera is hidden, and that limits location rather severely.

I’m guessing that having the camera up high also greatly reduces the odds of two things:

  1. Someone (inadvertently or otherwise) obstructing the camera’s view by being in front of it at an inopportune time, and;

  2. Someone (inadvertently or otherwise) damaging the camera.

ETA: What silenus said.

In the past crooks have been known to damage/block cameras, so up high is better for keeping a camera operational.

With that said, some banks now have additional cameras at eye level at each teller window. And Walmart has some at eye level at each entrance.

Note I’ve heard Walmart has facial recognition (like TSA). Someone can steal something, then come back a month later and that door camera will recognize them, then they will be arrested.

These camera systems are not cheap!

Having your store robbed and/or (God forbid) someone killed is a high cost, too.

Okay, maybe not at eye level, but how about a foot or so above the height of the average person? And it would be on a shelf or on the wall BEHIND the cashier and hidden in some way where no one would block it (unless you have a basketball player as a cashier) and no thumbprints would be anywhere near it.

It’s just that you see so many pictures (most, really) of crimes where all you get is the top of someone’s ball cap or hoodie.

Well with camera systems - the cameras ALONE used to cost over $1000.00 each!

So with well established companies which use CCTV cameras, they are just used to installing a minimum of cameras. Whatever their insurance company requires typically.

So may want to point out to their security honcho that cameras are CHEAP* these days (you can get an 8 camera system for $500 including 8 cameras!) And that they can easily add an eye level camera or two or three (at front door, at cash register, behind counter). And it would not cost them very much.

*The camera systems which are not cheap are “facial recognition”.

So yes this is a good idea. But people are just used to doing things the way they have always done things!

Here is an eye level camera…
http://store.northlandsys.com/product-p/tc232.9.htm?gclid=CLDF1a-xutACFQ6ZfgodA-cPZQ&Click=591&utm_source=googlebase&utm_medium=shoppingengine

I wonder if that has been tested in court.

I’m not an expert on retail security, but my wild ass guess is that it’s because it’s way easier/cheaper to install/wire cameras from the ceiling.

I think you’re right.

Walmart has damn near as much camera coverage as a casino. I do a good bit of public defender work in juvenile court, and I get to see a lot of the pictures/video. Usually of my clients doing exactly what they are accused of doing on sharp, clear pictures/video. Sometimes with their parents/older siblings being the lookout or telling them what to steal.

Walmart is also very serious about prosecuting shoplifters, even in juvy. They will send a security officer, a supervisor, and sometimes a third person to testify.

I haven’t heard of a perp using (usually black) spray paint to obstruct a camera lens for a few decades now.

Anything at eye level will, as noted above, be obstructed accidentally or deliberately by about anyone/anything.
The technology is getting to the point that fiber-optic cameras will allow hundreds of feeds from simply everywhere, with the channels being recorded en masse; if something of note occurs, the relevant portion of the feed will be deciphered and output as distinct videos.

As to WalMart using face recognition - it is one thing to be confident of the ID to alert your in-store security. Trying to use it in Court will be a bit more difficult.
Unless there is a whole lot riding on the case, there are:

  1. Prove your system is infallible beyond reasonable doubt. Good luck
  2. Admit publicly that you not only have the tech, but that you are recording everyone who comes into the store and regard them as potential thieves. Every. Last. One. Of. You. Is. A. Thief.
    (and you think you get bad publicity about how you treat your employees?)

use the tech to catch the thief this time - in the act. Then you have a case that doesn’t need anything more than a “normal” security cam + testimony of your security people.

Did you see where I added this after the OP?

Note the federal government uses facial recognition.

Also it is the goal of loss prevention to keep thieves out of the store. So the biggest part of this is to recognize them and “exclude them” from the store. Keep previously excluded people from entering the store, etc.

Next would be prosecution. The video evidence would go before a judge or jury. It is quite obvious who did it! (They would have the original video of the theft.)

I think you’re probably misunderstanding how it’s used (although I’m just speculating here.

  1. Isn’t an issue because the output of the facial recognition system isn’t used as evidence. The original recording of them stealing something is. If that recording was good enough to convict if they’d got the person the first time, it’s probably good enough the second time, too.

  2. Isn’t an issue because, I mean, they already have cameras up everywhere. Of course they’re recording everyone who comes into the store. I’m not even sure I understand this point.

Again, still speculating. But my guess is that when there’s video evidence of a crime and they didn’t manage to catch the perpetrator, the facial recognition system is used to notify someone when the perp comes back.

This is sort of like a high-tech version of having pictures of known fraudsters by the checkout with “DO NOT TAKE CHECKS FROM THESE PEOPLE”.

Additionally, the store may not realize something was stolen until after the thief is long gone. Like when they check inventory and notice something is missing. Then they review the videos from that aisle - get the video of the thief. And also at that time find other videos from other cameras in the store which show other views of the person - their face!

Then they just set ALL THEIR STORE* entrance cameras to look for that person entering the store again. Simple as that.

*This could include thousands of stores nationwide/worldwide. And the thief could be found six months or a year later!

Actually, they are mounted at eye level. I’d like for you to meet our installation crew.

That 'splains it!

We have looked into security cams for our condo building parking areas.

At least in our state, the cheap stuff you see at Best Buy etc., doesn’t meet code to be installed in what’s regulated as a commercial building. Instead everything needs to be in proper weatherproof housings if outdoors, conduit for all power and data cabling everywhere, UL (or whatever) approved, etc.

To be sure the prices are going nowhere but down compared to 1980s CCTV tech. But you can’t assume a business, even small retail, can just go to Best Buy and solve all their surveillance needs on the cheap. We certainly can’t.
Ref the OP, it sure seems like the typical convenience store with checkout counter could easily have two cameras at eye level behind the counter flanking the cashier’s station. That way no matter where the cashier or perp was standing one camera would have an unobstructed nearly full-face view. This wouldn’t work for every imaginable plan of attack, but certainly would for the basic “bad guy walks up to counter, threatens cashier, and receives money.”

If they were at eye level, you wouldn’t be able to see anyone but the guy at the front of the line. A robber could easily conceal himself behind and innocent person at the front of the line, throughout the commission of the crime.

It’s about the widest field of vision.

And it’s not about an infallible system, it’s about getting a good enough photo to secure an identification, and hopefully, a conviction.

This is why they need eye level cameras.