Expanded cellular and Wi-Fi capabilities have made streaming surveillance camera data more common in recent years, says Marc Pfeiffer, associate director of the Bloustein Local Government Research Center, part of the Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University.
“Places have installed more fiber-optic networks over the years. You can tie these remote devices in so you aren’t paying cellular or hardwired circuit charges. That lets users create local Wi-Fi nodes and move the data from there,” Pfeiffer says.
Cloud storage isn’t the ideal fit for every municipality; Lewiston, for instance, chose an on-premises option because the city couldn’t find a cloud provider able to fulfill the recording speed rate requirements to stream its camera data, Starr says.
A number of hardware vendors have introduced Storage as a Service elements, Pfeiffer says, which could potentially help state and local governments simplify video data administration.
“You can buy cameras, pay for them over a number of years and get storage along with it,” he says…
On-Premises vs. Cloud
As cities and states continue to add video surveillance, body-worn cameras, drones and other safety-oriented technology, their data storage needs will likely grow.
Some may address the demand with an on-premises solution — which is fine, says Pfeiffer, if they have the staffing and time to handle the corresponding tasks. These include:
- Determining how many servers are needed
- Keeping servers updated
- Managing authorized access
- Instituting cybersecurity controls
“Some would prefer to outsource it to third party such as Google, Microsoft, Amazon or other cloud service provider, whoever you bring in to do those things,” he says. “Backups can be automated, drives can be monitored remotely, and when they see a potential failure, those systems can lift the data and put it on another one. But there’s a cost; you pay for it by the gigabyte or terabyte.”