Certified Video Surveillance Systems for More Resilient Urban Societies

  • Simone WursterEmail author
  • Irene Kamara
  • Thordis Sveinsdottir
  • Erik Krempel
Part of the The Urban Book Series book series (UBS)


Resilience and security are prominent elements of twenty-first century European and international political agenda. The focus on resilient systems that are able to respond to threats, as well as to anticipate and recover, plays an important role in this regard. Increasingly sophisticated video surveillance systems form a part of security and disaster response mechanisms. In addition to technological advancement of surveillance systems, there are also concerns about the potential trade-off with human rights and freedoms of citizens. Thus, there is a need for means that allow for the protection of freedoms and human rights, while also ensuring security. One such solution, which deals with the potential of a new pan-European certification scheme for video surveillance systems, is presented in this chapter. This scheme focuses on evaluation according to the social dimensions of Security, Trust, Efficiency and Freedom infringement (S-T-E-Fi). Based on a description of the evaluation methodology and its criteria, two scenarios and how the methodology would be used for the purposes of evaluation of installed video surveillance systems operating within these scenarios are presented. The article finishes by outlining the future development of this scheme as well as further research needs.


Public security Conformity assessment Standards Certification scheme Privacy 



This research has been funded by the European Union’s 7th Framework Program for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 607941.


  1. Birnstill P, Pretschner A (2013) Enforcing privacy through usage-controlled video surveillance. In: 10th IEEE international conference on advanced video and signal based surveillance (AVSS), IEEEGoogle Scholar
  2. Campbell C, Van Brakel RE (2015) Privacy as a line of flight in societies of mass surveillance in ethical space. Int J Commun Ethics 12(3/4):39–46Google Scholar
  3. CEN-CENELEC (2017) CEN/CLC/WS CRISP—Guidelines for the evaluation of installed security systems, based on S-T-E-Fi criteria. [Online]. Available:
  4. DhS (2007) What is security and resilience?
  5. Dönitz EJ, Shala E, Leimbach T (2014) Future threat scenarios for identifying societal security needs–the methodological approach based on European project ETTIS. Future of SecurityGoogle Scholar
  6. ECORYS (2011) Security regulation, conformity assessment & certification final report—volume I: main report, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  7. Engelbach W, Kloyber C, Rigaud E Wendt W (2015) Experimenting towards civil security resilience. In: 10th future security 2015. Security research conference. proceedings, Stuttgart, Fraunhofer Verlag, pp 17–24Google Scholar
  8. European Commission (2009) Communication from the commission—A European security research and innovation agenda—Commission’s initial position on ESRIF’s key findings and recommendations (COM/2009/0691 final),”
  9. European Union (2016) Shared vision, common action: a stronger Europe. [Online]. Available:
  10. Fischer Y, Krempel E, Birnstill P, Unmüßig G, Monari E, Moßgraber J, Schenk M, Beyerer J (2014) Privacy-aware smart video surveillance revisited. In: Proceedings of the 9th security research conference (Future Security), Stuttgart, Fraunhofer Verlag, pp 91–99Google Scholar
  11. Frenz M, Lambert R (2013) The economics of accreditation. Birkbeck, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Guasch JL, Racine J-L, Sánchez I, Diop M (2007) Quality systems and standards for a competitive edge. The World Bank, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hempel L, Hirschmann N, Haponava T (2015) Validated CRISP methodology. Deliverable 5.2 of the CRISP projectGoogle Scholar
  14. Hildebrandt M (2013) Balance or trade-off? Online security technologies and fundamental rights. Philos Technol 26(4):357–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hollnagel E (2011) Prologue: the scope of resilience engineering. In: Resilience engineering in practice, Ashgate Studies in Resilience EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  16. IEC (2010) IEC 61400-22:2010-05 Wind turbines—Part 22: conformity testing and certificationGoogle Scholar
  17. ISO (2012) ISO 9712:2012–06 Non-destructive testing—qualification and certification of NDT personnelGoogle Scholar
  18. ISO/IEC (1996) ISO/IEC Guide 2:1996 standardization and related activities—general vocabularyGoogle Scholar
  19. Labaka L (2013) Resilience framework for critical infrastructures, Navarra UniversityGoogle Scholar
  20. Lookabaugh T, Ryan PS, Sicker DC (2006) A model for emergency service of VoIP through certification and labeling
  21. Lovell E, Bahadur A, Tanner T, Morsi H The big picture. Top themes and trends.
  22. Raab CD, Jones R, Szekely I (2015) Surveillance and resilience in theory and practice. Media Commun (Special Issue on Surveillance), 3:2Google Scholar
  23. Roßnagel A, Desoi M, Hornung G (2011) Gestufte Kontrolle bei Videoüberwachungsanlagen. Datenschutz und Datensicherheit-DuD 35(10):694–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Solove DJ (2011) Nothing to hide: the false tradeoff between privacy and security, Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
  25. Teichler T, Berger F, Heimer T, Stroyan J, Schlüter I (2013) Entwicklungsperspektiven der Konformitätsbewertung und Akkreditierung in Deutschland,” BMWi,,property=pdf,bereich=bmwi2012,sprache=de,rwb=true.pdf
  26. United Nations (2009) 2009 UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, United nations international strategy for disaster reduction (UNISDR), Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  27. United Nations (2015) Sustainable development goals. [Online]. Available:
  28. United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security (2009) Human Security in Theory and Practice. [Online]. Available:
  29. Webster W, Raab C, De Hert P (2013) The Theoretical framework on surveillance and democracy. IRISS projectGoogle Scholar
  30. Wright D, Rodrigues R (2012) A report on resilience in ‘democratic’ surveillance societies, Deliverable D6.1, IRISS project. [Online]. Available:
  31. Wurster S, Burnik J, Tomšič A, Hirschmann N, Lau Y, Haponava T, Golyardi S, Hortensius D, Wadhwa K, Sveinsdottir T, von Laufenberg R, Kreissl R, Kamara I, De Hert P, Pauner C, Viguri R, García R (30 June 2016) Final roadmap and implementation plan. Deliverable D 6.1 of the CRISP projectGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simone Wurster
    • 1
    Email author
  • Irene Kamara
    • 2
  • Thordis Sveinsdottir
    • 3
  • Erik Krempel
    • 4
  1. 1.Institut für Technologie und ManagementTechnische Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Vrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  3. 3.Trilateral Research LtdLondonUK
  4. 4.Interaktive Analyse und DiagnoseFraunhofer IOSBKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations