Category: Feature

Milind BorkarStrategic Consultant, VICON Although only a small number of airports are using video analytics in a sophisticated manner, there is no question that the technology offers the potential for improving video-based security operations. The questions which the airport must address in considering whether and to what extent video analytics should be deployed are: The false alarm issue is fundamental. A single or even a small number of cameras which false alarm several times a day may be tolerated, but San Diego International Airport (SDIA) is looking at a population of some 400 cameras through the AMP2 expansion program. Even if 10 percent, or 40 cameras, are set up with video analytics, and if all or most of alarms make false alarm several times each day, the alarms would overwhelm the SOC and the system would be shut down. Exterior and interior opportunities for using video analytics at SDIA present different challenges, and have to be treated differently. The video cameras now being used for exterior perimeter surveillance are not suitable for video analytics at night for a variety of reasons including: Better cameras and lenses, and better and more controlled scene lighting, may enable video analytics to be effective for perimeter surveillance, but that needs to be demonstrated. Infrared and thermal cameras may be better choices, as they eliminate the problems of scene illumination and poor visibility, but they, too, must be subject to testing. The following images, recorded by Siemens Corporate Research, illustrate some of the scene variables that have to be dealt with in applying video analytics to exterior surveillance. Scene conditions at night, when target contrast is usually reduced and bright point light sources in the scene may be present (as in the cargo area of SDIA), can be especially challenging. Applying video analytics indoors should present fewer problems. Scene illumination should be under the airport’s control, wind and fog will not be issues, distances will be relatively short etc. That does not, however, avoid the need for careful planning and testing, both of which are prerequisites to realizing effective performance. The potential impact of false alarms from a large number of cameras argues for a minimalist approach in which a few mature video analytic functions are installed and then are subject to rigorous testing in the real airport environment before being extended. Each analytic function will present its own unique requirements. This process starts with defining the minimum functionality needed at each camera site, which is much an airport responsibility as a technical issue; the environment in which the function must perform (camera motion being a critical problem, since video analytics are designed to work with fixed cameras, along with scene illumination); camera placement and aspect needed to achieve the performance objectives; and the maximum false alarm rate that can be tolerated. In this context, being able to do one function very well is more important than doing several functions less well. Of the many offerings available from different vendors, the following list is representative of the video analytic functions that SDIA might consider adopting selectively based on the specific requirements of each situational condition: Variable lengths of time by passenger traffic flow and other objects of variable size and dwell time, and persons who move in and out of the ROI set for associating them with the targeted objects. The function is vulnerable to the presence of other objects of similar size in the camera field of view, target-to-background contrast, the movement of persons in front of and around the object that can grow quickly. Drawing a box (ROI) around an object is the easy part (and the object should occupy 25 percent or more of the field-of-view of the camera for best results). Defining what constitutes an ‘object of interest’ worthy of setting an alarm may be based on criteria such as the amount of time since the object last moved and on rules established for object behavior. Associating objects with owners can be very complicated, especially when other passengers are present and move in and out of the ROI. If a bag enters the terminal lobby with two persons and one or both leave the bag at different times, and one returns but other persons also appear in the ROI, the software will be challenged to associate ‘ownership’ with the proper person and establishing a rule for what constitutes an alarm will be similarly challenged. Heft Detection, Stationary Object Detection, and Loitering Object Detection are variations of the abandoned object function, each with its own peculiarities. Video analytics come in several ‘flavors’ including policy-based, rules-based, and behavior-based – these terms being relatively loosely defined. The classes will often overlap, with each new class increasing detection performance but also computational complexity (and cost). Behavioral analytics, for example, intelligently monitor all the standard detected features of moving objects and build up a concept, over a large period of time, of what motion can be deemed as typical, and thus can be ignored. Events then become triggered by abnormal behavior which the airport operator should define. A pedestrian loitering and/ or approaching a number of different cars in a parking lot in a short period of time, indicating potential criminal activity, could be viewed as abnormal behavior, and consequently generating an event. How the video analytics function is less important than what they deliver for airport security in the real-word environment, whether they be understood by the operators, and whether they be adapted to the moves/ adds/ changes typical of an airport operation. Video analytics are best applied to full resolution (4CIF) images at full frame rate (30 fps), because this presents the greatest amount of information in the shortest time for analysis. Proposals to apply video analytics to CIF images (quarter frame) and at reduced frame rates, typically 7 to 12 fps, are more susceptible to false alarms. The best place to perform live video analytics is at the camera, at the edge of the network, where the analytics can be applied to…

Sunjoy Nath, CSM Counter-Terrorism & Intelligence Anyalist OGWs refer to individuals who provide logistical, financial, informational, and ideological support to terrorist or militant groups without directly participating in armed combat. Indian security forces use this term extensively for sympathizers who offer shelter, cash, intelligence, recruitment aid, propaganda, and safe houses. In West Bengal, jihadist activities center on cross-border networks, primarily linked to Bangladesh-based outfits like Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) and its India chapter, with some Al-Qaeda or ISIS-inspired modules. Supporters here function similarly to OGWs – providing safe houses, radicalization platforms, document forgery, funding channels, and cross-border movement. Key characteristics in West Bengal Notable incidents and networks OGWs refer to individuals who provide logistical, financial, informational, and ideological support to terrorist or militant groups without directly participating in armed combat. Indian security forces use this term extensively for sympathizers who offer shelter, cash, intelligence, recruitment aid, propaganda, and safe houses Why called OGWs? (Over Ground Workers) These supporters operate within society – as locals, educators, or community figures – making them hard to detect. They enable: Without this layer, foreign or hardcore terrorists struggle to operate. In West Bengal, this manifests as a ‘terror blind spot’ due to political sensitivities, vote-bank dynamics, and challenges in regulating madrassas or border security. This pattern aligns with global jihadist strategies: blend into communities, build support networks, and use local facilitators (OGWs) as the enablers. West Bengal’s issues are more about infiltration and radicalization pipelines than sustained domestic militancy like in Kashmir, but the support structures play a parallel role. Security assessments emphasize strengthening border management, education reform, and deradicalization.

Aditya KhemkaManaging Director, CP PLUS For years, surveillance technology evolved around a single assumption – that infrastructure already existed. Cameras were designed with the expectation that every location would have stable electricity, broadband connectivity, structured cabling, networking equipment, and the technical ecosystem required to support continuous monitoring. While this worked effectively in urban offices, malls, corporate campuses, and smart buildings, the reality across vast parts of India remained very different. Beyond city centers and organized commercial zones lie millions of homes, farms, warehouses, factories, construction sites, village establishments, and remote facilities where security concerns are equally urgent, yet traditional surveillance systems remain impractical. In these locations, the challenge was never merely about installing a camera; it was about enabling the entire ecosystem necessary to keep that camera functioning. This is where CP PLUS is driving a remarkable transformation with the integration of the CP PLUS EZ-S35T 3MP 4G PT Camera and the CP PLUS CP-SL06K Solar Panel Kit. Together, these technologies are reshaping the very philosophy of surveillance deployment by eliminating the two biggest barriers that have historically restricted security adoption in remote environments – internet dependency and electrical dependency. The result is a highly intelligent, self-sustaining, wire-free surveillance solution capable of functioning even in the remotest corners of the country where broadband connectivity may not exist, and conventional wiring becomes economically or physically impossible. The significance of such a solution becomes increasingly evident when one observes the changing nature of India itself. The country’s growth is no longer concentrated solely within metropolitan boundaries. Industrial expansion is rapidly moving toward Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities. Warehousing hubs are emerging along highways and peripheral industrial corridors. Agricultural modernization is accelerating across rural regions. Renewable energy projects are spreading into isolated landscapes. Small factories, workshops, poultry farms, retail outlets, telecom infrastructure, educational institutions, and temporary project sites are appearing far beyond the reach of conventional urban infrastructure. Yet despite this expansion, security vulnerabilities continue to grow in these areas due to inadequate surveillance capabilities. Traditionally, deploying CCTV systems in such environments involved enormous logistical complications. Extensive cabling had to be laid across large distances. Broadband installations required coordination with internet service providers. Network switches, routers, DVRs, or NVRs had to be installed and maintained. Continuous power supply became essential. In many cases, the cost of setting up the supporting infrastructure exceeded the actual cost of the surveillance equipment itself. Even after deployment, these systems remained vulnerable to wire damage, voltage fluctuations, environmental exposure, and recurring maintenance issues. For remote deployments, surveillance often became an expensive burden rather than a practical solution. The CP PLUS EZ-S35T changes this equation fundamentally by removing the need for conventional Wi-Fi or broadband infrastructure altogether. Instead of relying on wired internet connectivity, the camera operates using 4G LTE networks, allowing users to deploy surveillance systems virtually anywhere mobile network coverage is available. This seemingly simple shift carries revolutionary implications. It transforms surveillance from a location-dependent technology into a location-independent one. By simply inserting a SIM card, the camera can establish remote connectivity without requiring routers, LAN cables, or broadband installations. This dramatically simplifies deployment across remote homes, farms, offices, temporary facilities, and industrial locations where internet infrastructure may be weak or nonexistent. For years, surveillance technology evolved around a single assumption – that infrastructure already existed. Cameras were designed with the expectation that every location would have stable electricity, broadband connectivity, structured cabling, networking equipment, and the technical ecosystem required to support continuous monitoring What makes this development particularly important for India is the sheer scale of mobile network penetration across the country. In many rural and semi-urban regions, 4G coverage has expanded far more rapidly than wired broadband infrastructure ever could. The EZ-S35T intelligently leverages this reality, enabling users to establish surveillance systems in locations that were previously considered inaccessible for continuous remote monitoring. A warehouse located outside city limits, a farmhouse surrounded by agricultural land, a roadside commercial establishment, a mining project, a village school, or a factory under construction can now maintain live surveillance without the complexities of traditional networking infrastructure. Equally transformative is the integration of the CP-SL06K Solar Panel Kit, which addresses another longstanding challenge in remote surveillance – uninterrupted power availability. Across many parts of India, especially in rural and semi-urban regions, electricity supply can remain inconsistent, unpredictable, or entirely unavailable for extended durations. Conventional surveillance systems become ineffective in such environments because cameras cease functioning during outages unless supported by expensive backup systems. The CP-SL06K changes this reality by introducing energy independence into the surveillance ecosystem. With solar-powered charging capabilities and an integrated battery backup system, the solution enables continuous surveillance operations even in off-grid or low-power environments. This shift toward solar-powered surveillance is not merely an engineering advancement; it represents a strategic evolution in how security systems are conceptualized. Instead of surveillance depending upon infrastructure, the surveillance system itself becomes self-sustaining infrastructure. Powered by sunlight and connected through mobile networks, the combined EZ-S35T and CP-SL06K ecosystem creates an autonomous monitoring solution capable of functioning almost anywhere. This opens enormous possibilities for sectors where conventional surveillance deployments were once considered impractical or financially unviable. For homeowners with isolated properties or farmhouses, this solution introduces an unprecedented level of peace of mind. Families can remotely monitor entrances, boundaries, livestock areas, storage spaces, or vacant properties directly through mobile applications without depending on local internet connectivity. For small businesses and factories, the solution offers operational visibility without requiring major infrastructure investments. Shop owners, warehouse operators, workshop managers, and industrial site supervisors can oversee activities remotely, receive motion alerts, engage in two-way communication, and maintain visual records even in locations where traditional surveillance systems would have been impossible to deploy. Beyond infrastructure flexibility, the EZ-S35T also incorporates advanced intelligent surveillance capabilities that elevate its practical effectiveness. Features such as human detection, motion tracking, full-color night vision, active deterrence through built-in sirens, two-way audio communication, and remote pan-tilt functionality allow the camera to deliver comprehensive situational awareness rather than merely passive recording. Its ability…

Kunwar Vikram SinghChairman, Central Association of Private Security Industry ( CAPSI ) How CAPSI’s Persistent Advocacy at MHA is Transforming the Sector A quiet revolution has begun On 2nd May 2026, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issued a notification that while understated in tone, carries profound significance for nearly 10 million private security professionals across India. With effect from 15th May 2026, two provisions of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 – Section 12 and Section 20(2) – stand omitted. In simple language – private security agencies and their personnel can no longer be criminally prosecuted for procedural lapses that were never truly criminal in nature. This is not a coincidence. It is the outcome of years of determined advocacy by the Central Association of Private Security Industry (CAPSI) – India’s apex body for the private security sector – and marks a turning point in the long journey to transform private security from a loosely organised trade into a respected, professionally governed industry. Understanding what has changed – And why it matters As for the security professional on the ground, legal language can be distant and irrelevant, let me explain here in the simple terms that what this amendment means. Until 14th May 2026, if a private security agency failed to display its licence at its office premises (as required under Section 12), it could be fined up to ₹25,000 – and face suspension or cancellation of its licence. The same penalty applied if an agency was found in violation of training norms (Section 9) or guard eligibility norms (Section 10). Earlier, these punishments were treated as criminal in nature. Let us think about for a moment: a guard deployment firm – struggling with delayed client payments, navigating 29 different state-level rules, managing thousands of guards across districts – could be hauled before a court and fined because a framed licence was not visibly hung on the wall – or because a guard’s training certificate was not updated on time. From 15th May 2026, this changes – the criminal sting has been removed from these procedural violations. The State Controlling Authority can still take regulatory action – suspend or cancel the licence – for genuine non-compliance. But the threat of criminal prosecution for technical lapses no longer hangs over agency owners and their staff. For the first time, the law recognises a crucial distinction – a regulatory failure is not the same as a criminal act. What still applies – and must be respected This is an important clarification for both industry professionals and the public. Decriminalization does not mean deregulation. The PSAR Act’s substantive obligations remain fully operative. Operating without a valid PSARA licence is still a criminal offence – punishable with up to one year of imprisonment and a fine. Training standards for guards and supervisors under Section 9 must still be met. Eligibility norms for guards – age, citizenship, character verification, physical fitness – under Section 10 remain mandatory. Unauthorised use of military or police uniforms is still a criminal offence – and the Controlling Authority retains full power to cancel or suspend licences for genuine non-compliance. The message is clear – the law trusts the industry more, but it still watches over it. Compliance is not optional – it is simply being enforced more intelligently. The force behind the change: CAPSI’s Role The amendment did not arrive on its own. It is the product of relentless, structured advocacy by CAPSI – an organisation that has been the conscience and voice of India’s private security sector for over two decades. CAPSI’s initiatives and relentless pursuit over the years played a decisive role in the Parliament enacting the PSAR Act itself in 2005, which was quickly followed by States adopting their PSARA Rules – taking the first step towards transforming the industry from an unorganised one to an organised sector. That foundational contribution was only the beginning. CAPSI has since been playing a leadership role in the formulation of global standards and best practices for the private security industry worldwide, and was invited by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) to participate in a planning meeting for civilian private security services at Abu Dhabi, where it was taken as a member of the Standing Committee to take that UN initiative further. Closer home, CAPSI has remained in constant touc h with MHA and State Controlling Authorities to modify Model Rules in order to ensure ease of business for private security agencies. More recently, CAPSI has been consistently raising the agenda of amendments to PSARA and its rules at the highest levels, including in direct meetings with senior MHA officials, where it was informed that a grand review of PSARA is being undertaken on the instructions of the Hon’ble Home Minister himself, with senior MHA officials assigned to complete the exercise within a stipulated timeframe. The decriminalization notification of 2nd May 2026 is a direct and tangible fruit of this sustained engagement. The March 2026 – A turning point The momentum behind this reform received further impetus from a landmark review meeting held at MHA on 13th March 2026. The meeting was held under the chairmanship of Joint Secretary (Police Modernization) R. Prasanna, IAS, with participation from CAPSI, FICCI and others stakeholders. The initiatives taken by MHA through issuance of advisories to State/ UT Controlling Authorities and inter-Division/ Ministry consultations to resolve various issues of private security associations were conveyed at the meeting. Stakeholders raised several critical operational challenges – delays in licence approvals and renewals with significant pendency across states; inconsistent implementation of PSARA provisions; non-uniform training requirements; challenges with GST – particularly the Reverse Charge Mechanism; repeated police verification processes; delayed payments to security agencies and guards; and operational inefficiencies including manual submission of guard data in some states. Acknowledging that licence pendency remains a major issue, the MHA emphasised alignment with the government’s broader vision of ‘Minimum Government, Maximum Governance.’ Key follow-up actions announced include – a joint meeting with…

How AI voice cloning is changing the way we think about trust and identity. Your phone rings. You answer it and hear a voice you know very well. It could be your child, a family member, a close friend or even your boss. The person sounds worried and asks for urgent help. They need money, information or immediate action. The voice feels completely real. You recognize the way they speak, their tone and their emotions. Without thinking twice, you trust what you hear but what if that person never made the call? What if the voice was created by Artificial Intelligence? Just a few years ago, this would have seemed impossible. Today, it is becoming a reality. Artificial Intelligence (AI) voice cloning has developed so quickly that a computer can now recreate a person’s voice with surprising accuracy. A short audio sample is often enough for advanced systems to learn how someone sounds and generate speech that closely resembles the original speaker. It is one of the most fascinating technological developments of our time. At the same time, it raises a serious question. If a voice can be copied, how do we know who is truly speaking? For generations, a person’s voice has been one of the strongest signs of identity. We recognize people not only by their face but also by the way they speak. A voice carries emotions, memories and personal connections. It can make us feel safe, comforted and understood. That is what makes AI voice cloning so powerful and also so concerning. The technology works by studying the unique patterns of human speech. AI systems analyze tone, pitch, pronunciation, rhythm and other details that make every voice different. Once the system understands these patterns, it can create new sentences in that voice even if the person never actually said those words. There are positive uses of this technology. It can help people who have lost their ability to speak and create new possibilities in communication and accessibility. However, for everyday people, the bigger concern is not how AI voice cloning is used in laboratories or special projects. The bigger concern is how it can be misused. Most of us naturally trust familiar voices. When we hear someone we know, we usually do not stop to question whether it is really them. This trust is a beautiful part of human relationships but it can also become a weakness when technology can create realistic copies. Around the world, AI-generated voices are being used in scams and fraud attempts. Criminals can imitate family members, colleagues or business leaders to create panic and pressure. When emotions are high, people may react quickly without verifying the situation. So how can we protect ourselves? These situations feel believable because they are designed to trigger emotions before logic. What makes this issue more serious is that it does not affect only famous people or public figures. It can affect anyone. Every day, people share voice recordings through social media videos, voice messages, online meetings, podcasts and public content. These recordings become part of our digital presence. While technology helps us stay connected, it also creates new risks that we need to understand. How AI voice cloning is changing the way we think about trust and identity. Your phone rings. You answer it and hear a voice you know very well. It could be your child, a family member, a close friend or even your boss. The person sounds worried and asks for urgent help. They need money, information or immediate action. The voice feels completely real. You recognize the way they speak, their tone and their emotions. Without thinking twice, you trust what you hear but what if that person never made the call? What if the voice was created by Artificial Intelligence? The first step is simple, verify before trusting. If someone contacts you asking for money, confidential information or urgent action, take a moment before responding. Call the person back using a number you already know. If feasible send a message through another platform. Ask a question that only the real person would know. A few extra seconds/ minutes can prevent a major mistake. Families can also create a simple family code word or private phrase that only close members know. For example, parents and children can decide on a word to use only during emergencies. If someone calls claiming to be a family member after an accident or asking for urgent financial help, asking for that code or a personal question only they know can help confirm their identity. Simple steps like these may feel unnecessary today but they can become extremely valuable as technology continues to improve. Businesses should also create stronger verification methods instead of depending only on voice instructions for important decisions. A familiar voice should be a starting point for confirmation, not the final proof of identity. This does not mean we should fear technology. Innovation has always changed the way people live and communicate. The important thing is learning how to use new tools responsibly while understanding the risks they bring. Awareness is becoming one of the most important skills of the digital age. Technology companies, educators and policymakers also have a role to play. As AI voice cloning becomes more advanced, stronger safety measures and public awareness will be needed to protect people from misuse. The discussion around AI voice cloning is not only about artificial intelligence. It is about trust, identity and the way we understand reality in a changing world. For generations, hearing someone’s voice was enough to believe we knew who was speaking. Today, that certainty is changing. The future will bring many benefits from AI but it will also require us to become more careful, aware and responsible. Machines may learn to imitate our voices but human judgment will remain our strongest protection. Because the real challenge is not that technology can sound like us. The real challenge is learning to look beyond the voice and understand who is…

Overcoming the limitations of rolling shuttersensors in high-speed vehicle surveillance Chirakandathil JainZonal Business Manager – South, India for Vicon Industries The growing adoption of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), smart cities, tolling infrastructure, and automated access control has elevated Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) from a convenience feature to a mission-critical technology. However, the effectiveness of any ANPR system depends not only on software algorithms but also on the imaging technology behind the camera. While advances in artificial intelligence have significantly improved plate recognition accuracy, one fundamental challenge remains – capturing clear images of fast-moving vehicles. This is where Global Shutter technology is emerging as a game changer. While AI-driven OCR engines and deep learning analytics have significantly improved license plate recognition accuracy, the quality of the captured image remains the foundation of any successful ANPR deployment. Global Shutter technology ensures that AI algorithms receive distortion-free images, maximizing recognition performance. Understanding the challenge Capturing vehicle license plates may seem straightforward, but in real-world deployments several factors make the task extremely demanding such as high-speed traffic, sudden acceleration and braking, varying lighting conditions, headlight glare at night, multiple lanes of traffic, and/ or motion-induced image distortion, For ANPR systems, image quality is everything. Even the most advanced recognition engine cannot compensate for distorted or blurred images. Rolling shutter: The traditional approach Most conventional cameras use Rolling Shutter sensors. In this architecture, the sensor captures an image line by line rather than exposing all pixels simultaneously. Although suitable for general video surveillance, rolling shutter sensors can introduce several artifacts when imaging fast-moving objects including motion blur, skewed or stretched license plates, distorted vehicle shapes, reduced OCR accuracy, difficulty in multi-lane traffic scenarios and so on. These limitations become more pronounced when vehicles are moving at high speeds or when illumination conditions are challenging. How Global Shutter works Unlike rolling shutter technology, a Global Shutter sensor exposes every pixel simultaneously. The entire image frame is captured at precisely the same instant. This means the light reaches all pixels at the same time; the complete frame is exposed simultaneously; and the image is read out after exposure. Because there is no sequential scanning, moving objects are captured without distortion. The result is a crisp and geometrically accurate image, even when vehicles are travelling at high speed. Why Global Shutter matters for ANPR Superior Image Integrity Global Shutter eliminates the motion artifacts commonly associated with rolling shutter sensors. License plates remain sharp and readable, improving recognition reliability. Enhanced OCR Performance Clear images directly translate into higher Optical Character Recognition (OCR) accuracy. This reduces missed reads and minimizes the need for manual intervention. Better High-Speed Capture Applications such as highways, expressways, toll plazas, and city traffic management require dependable performance at higher vehicle speeds. Global Shutter ensures that plate details remain intact under these demanding conditions. Multi-Lane Performance Modern transportation infrastructure increasingly requires cameras to monitor multiple lanes simultaneously. Global Shutter provides distortion-free imaging across the entire field of view, improving recognition consistency. Reduced False Reads By preserving image geometry, Global Shutter helps minimize errors caused by elongated or skewed characters, leading to more reliable database matching and event generation. Global Shutter and edge AI processing Modern ANPR systems increasingly leverage edge-based processing, where recognition occurs directly within the camera before metadata is transmitted to the VMS or traffic management platform. Global Shutter sensors improve the accuracy of these edge analytics by ensuring consistently sharp image acquisition. As AI capabilities continue to move closer to the edge, image quality becomes even more critical. By delivering distortion-free images, Global Shutter technology enables more reliable license plate recognition, vehicle classification, and traffic analytics at the point of capture, reducing server workloads and improving real-time decision-making. Beyond License Plate Recognition In addition to license plate recognition, Global Shutter technology enhances vehicle make and model identification, vehicle colour analytics, lane monitoring, traffic counting, and incident detection applications. The advantages of Global Shutter extend beyond ANPR. The technology is equally beneficial for traffic monitoring, enforcement applications, access control systems, logistics and fleet management, smart parking, industrial automation, machine vision applications. As cities become smarter and transportation systems increasingly automated, image integrity will become just as important as resolution and frame rate. Rolling Shutter vs Global Shutter Feature Rolling Shutter Global Shutter Exposure Method Sequential Simultaneous Motion Distortion Present Eliminated High-Speed Vehicle Capture Moderate Excellent OCR Accuracy Variable Higher Image Geometry Can be skewed Preserved Multi-Lane ANPR Limited Superior Intelligent Transportation Applications Suitable Ideal A leadership perspective From an industry standpoint, the future of vehicle intelligence depends not only on AI but also on the quality of the data being captured. As transportation systems become increasingly intelligent, image integrity becomes just as important as analytics. Global Shutter technology addresses one of the most fundamental challenges in vehicle identification – capturing fast-moving objects with absolute accuracy. We believe this technology will play a pivotal role in the next generation of ANPR and intelligent traffic solutions. The road ahead As smart cities, intelligent transportation systems, and automated security infrastructures continue to evolve, the demand for precise and reliable vehicle identification will only increase. Global Shutter technology represents a significant step forward in this evolution. By eliminating motion artifacts and preserving image integrity, it enables ANPR systems to achieve higher accuracy, greater reliability, and improved operational efficiency. In the coming years, the success of intelligent transportation applications will not simply depend on recognizing license plates – it will depend on capturing them correctly in the first place.

Designers Like Apoorva Avadhana are Rewriting the Approach India’s rapid expansion in IoT, smart surveillance, and AI-driven security systems has brought data privacy into sharp focus. From CCTV networks and biometric authentication to mobile-based identity verification, the country is building one of the world’s largest data ecosystems. Yet, within this transformation lies a complex paradox – the same data pipelines raising privacy concerns are also enabling unprecedented breakthroughs in accessibility. For millions of Indians with disabilities, especially those with visual or motor impairments, access to everyday systems such as banking, governance, and identity verification, often remains deeply uneven. Technologies like ‘Seeing AI’ demonstrate this tension clearly. Acting as a ‘virtual eye,’ such tools can read documents, detect objects, and even guide users to signature fields. But they also require processing sensitive personal data, often raising concerns around where that data goes and how it is used. This is not a new trade-off. Historically, accessibility has been a quiet catalyst for technological advancement. Alt text and captions that originally designed for people with vision impairments or low-bandwidth environments, have become foundational datasets for training computer vision systems. Today, those same systems power generative AI to enabling machines to create images from text. Accessibility, in many ways, has been the unseen infrastructure behind modern AI. Apoorva talking on Rural Inclusive Innovation Methodologies at The Invisabal Panel With The Tata Steel Foundation at The International Purple Fest 2025, Panjim, Goa. But in India’s current IoT and security landscape, the stakes are higher. For individuals with motor disabilities, even something as basic as writing or signing a document can be a barrier to accessing financial systems, government schemes, or legal identity. Increasingly, mobile cameras and sensor-based systems are being used to track facial movements, gestures, and expressions to enable interaction without touch. These systems, while powerful, operate at the intersection of biometric data, surveillance, and personal autonomy. It is within this intersection that Apoorva Avadhana’s work offers a critical alternative. At the International Purple Fest 2025, where global conversations on inclusion met grassroots realities, Apoorva emphasized a shift in thinking – accessibility is not about high-end solutions, but about enabling ‘survival, dignity, and participation.’ Speaking at the InviSabal panel on rural inclusive innovation, she highlighted how technologies designed for controlled, urban environments often fail in rural India – where infrastructure is fragile, maintenance is limited, and costs are prohibitive. Her work directly engages with one of the most overlooked barriers in India’s digital ecosystem – the inability to produce a consistent signature. Without it, individuals can be excluded from banking, welfare enrollment, and identity systems. While biometric solutions exist, they often introduce new privacy risks and dependencies on centralized systems. Apoorva Explaining Concept of Human-Centered Design & Receptive Design Methodologies Through her research with the NYU Ability Project, Apoorva contributed to the development of a low-cost, open-source assistive tool that reimagines this problem through a privacy-aware lens. Using AI-based face mesh tracking, the tool converts subtle neck movements into digital strokes, allowing users with severe mobility impairments including quadriplegia to draw signatures independently. Crucially, the system operates differently from conventional camera-based tracking technologies. It runs locally on the device, does not capture or store images, and instead relies on geometric relationships such as the distance between facial key-points like the eyes and nose to interpret movement. The output is stored directly on the user’s phone, ensuring that sensitive data, including signatures, never leaves the device. In an era where IoT systems often default to cloud-based data processing and continuous surveillance, this approach is significant. It demonstrates that accessibility does not have to come at the cost of privacy. Instead, through thoughtful design, it is possible to build systems that are both empowering and secure. Apoorva’s broader methodology, what she terms ‘receptive design,’ extends beyond technology itself. It is participatory in nature and receptive to people’s everyday way to living and working. Her work draws from India’s culture of jugaad, emphasizing adaptability, local materials, and co-creation with communities. Whether it is designing assistive tools that function without stable internet or leveraging everyday devices like smartphones as accessibility interfaces, her approach resists the notion that innovation must be expensive or centralized. Her professional experience with organizations such as IBM and MetLife further grounds her work in large-scale systems, where accessibility, security, and compliance intersect. Yet, her focus remains consistent – designing technologies that work in the real world, across diverse socio-economic conditions. As India continues to expand its IoT and surveillance infrastructure, the question is no longer just how to secure data but also how to ensure that the systems built on that data are inclusive by design. Accessibility and privacy are often framed as competing priorities. Apoorva Avadhana’s work challenges that assumption, showing that they can and must be designed together. Because in a data-driven society, true security is not just about protecting information. It is about ensuring that the systems we build do not exclude the very people they are meant to serve. About Apoorva Avadhana Apoorva Avadhana is a recognized design researcher specializing in accessibility, inclusive design, and assistive technology. Based in Mumbai and affiliated with The Ability Lab at New York University, she is CPACC certified and identified as a neurodivergent design researcher. With an MPS from NYU’s Interactive Telecommunications Program and a BDes in Human-Centered Design from the Srishti Institute of Art Design and Technology, Apoorva’s work bridges grassroots innovation with inclusive design, using low-cost and open-source emerging technologies to address accessibility in activities of daily living (ADL). She has professional experience as a UX researcher and Accessibility SME, for clients like IBM, TSB, and MetLife. Her research, residencies, and exhibitions have received international recognition, with her work presented at leading conferences and supported by numerous grants and awards. She has gained badges, honours and laurels and she led many important workshops and trainings in Accessibility and Corporate Design Thinking Frameworks. Her work spans a vast gamut of inclusive design, research, teaching, and interdisciplinary collaborations at the intersection of AI,…

Ashish BaliCountry Manager India, FireMon India’s enterprise technology sector has expanded at a pace that few markets can match. In banking and financial services, digital infrastructure that took other markets decades to build has been assembled in years – payment rails processing billions of transactions monthly, cloud environments layered onto legacy core banking systems, new digital services extended to hundreds of millions of customers. When you build that quickly, firewall rules rarely keep up. Access gets opened to support a new service and never closed. Exceptions get granted to keep a project moving and become permanent. Boundaries that made sense at design time get redrawn by operational pressure. For large organisations, including the Global Capability Centres now running significant security operations for global enterprises from Indian soil, the result is a divergence between access as it exists and access as it was intended. The pattern shows up reliably in firewall audits. FireMon’s benchmarking work shows that across large enterprise estates, close to 60% of firewalls fail at least one high-severity check. In environments that have expanded rapidly, that figure rarely surprises anyone. That it no longer surprises is precisely the problem. Nothing in day-to-day operations flags this. Indicators look stable, services run, and nothing breaks in a way that demands attention. Rules stay open and access stays excessive. And it accumulates that way until an audit makes it visible. The failure mode nobody plans for It is tempting to call these findings misconfigurations. That label implies a discrete mistake, something identifiable, correctable, closed. What audits actually uncover is different. The rules that fail high-severity checks are rarely the result of careless work. They are the residue of reasonable decisions – access granted because a project needed it, an exception created because something urgent could not wait, a rule that made sense in context and has simply never been revisited. Over time, policy stops reflecting decisions and starts reflecting history. The rule-base accumulates. Shadowed rules sit beneath active ones, creating the appearance of control while leaving effective access unchanged. Segmentation that looked defensible on paper does not hold under real traffic patterns. The result is a policy surface – every rule, exception, and inherited access decision across the estate – that no longer reflects deliberate decisions. This, as reflected in audit findings, is not an outcome anyone ever plans for. In almost every case, it happens because the environment kept changing and the governance around it did not keep up. Compliance evidence is not the same as governance Most large enterprises are responding to a significantly tightened regulatory environment. CERT-In requires organisations to retain ICT logs, including firewall logs, for 180 days and to report qualifying incidents within six hours of detection, one of the strictest windows anywhere in the world. SEBI’s Cybersecurity and Cyber Resilience Framework requires documented access policies, network segmentation controls, and mandatory audit submissions. The RBI places equivalent obligations on banks and NBFCs around continuous monitoring and independent audit. That investment in compliance tooling is necessary. But log retention and audit reporting answer a different question to the one that produces recurring firewall failures. Retaining firewall logs tells a regulator what happened. It does not tell you whether your policy reflects what you actually intended to permit. Similarly, a SIEM captures events; it does not govern the rules that determine what those events mean. Recurring high-severity audit findings are rarely a failure of logging. They are a failure of policy management. The organisation was capturing evidence of a problem it had not diagnosed. Security teams can usually describe architectural intent – where boundaries should sit, which flows should not exist. What they cannot consistently show is that enforced policy reflects that intent today, across data centres, cloud environments, and the legacy infrastructure running core operations. When regulators examine that gap, the audit does not create the problem. It simply makes it visible. Policy stops being a control when it loses its meaning A firewall rule-base can be technically operational and still not express a coherent access model. When it reflects years of exceptions and inherited decisions rather than current intent, teams lose confidence in their ability to test the impact of changes. Change control becomes conservative because nobody can reliably say what a given change will affect. The firewall becomes something that must not be disturbed. From there, the deterioration is predictable. Rationalisation gets deferred and access widens because tightening it feels riskier than leaving it alone. Audits become reconstruction exercises – explaining after the fact what findings mean – rather than evidence of a security posture that is understood and in control. A periodic review can describe that state. It cannot fix it, because the problem is produced every day by ordinary operational change. What continuous oversight actually looks like Network Security Policy Management addresses this by connecting intent, enforced policy, and observed dependencies in a single, continuously updated view. Used as an operational discipline rather than a reporting layer, it gives teams the means to see where access has expanded beyond what is justified, where segmentation has softened, and where exceptions have become the default. Crucially, it also allows teams to test changes before deployment, rather than discover their impact afterwards. What security teams need is a current, accurate picture of what their policy actually permits – not the intended state, but the enforced one – across firewalls, cloud controls, and the on-premise infrastructure that continues to run core operations. When a change is proposed, it can be tested before deployment – what it will affect, whether it complies, whether it stays within the intended access model. When drift occurs – and in any active environment, it will – it is surfaced before it becomes a finding rather than after. Our tech, for example, maintains the audit evidence trail that regulators ask for – what policy was in place at any point, what changed, and whether those changes remained aligned to stated business intent. That is the difference between compliance as a reporting exercise…

Sumit SharmaSr. Director – Pre Sales, Echelon Every network engineer knows the feeling – something’s wrong, the alerts are firing, and you’re bouncing between multiple management consoles trying to piece together what’s actually happening. It’s not that the tools are bad, each one does its job. It’s that none of them can see past their own vendor’s edge, and the problem almost certainly lives in the gap between them. Today’s enterprise networks have sprawled across cloud environments, remote offices, IoT deployments and data centers and to manage it all, organizations naturally turn to multiple vendors, each offering something the others don’t. It makes sense on paper. But every new vendor added to the mix is also another blind spot added to the map. That gap between what each tool sees and what your team actually needs to see is a visibility problem and it’s quietly become the defining challenge of modern network management. The rise of the multi-vendor network Modern enterprise environments are built incrementally over time. A single organization may use routers from one vendor, switches from another, wireless infrastructure from a third and cloud networking services from multiple providers. Mergers, acquisitions, regional deployments and evolving technology needs further contribute to heterogeneous infrastructures. In industries such as transportation, manufacturing, smart cities and telecom, the challenge becomes even more complex. Critical systems like surveillance, passenger information systems, IP telephony, IoT sensors, access control and data communication networks often rely on devices from different manufacturers operating simultaneously. This diversity creates interoperability and management challenges that traditional monitoring approaches were never designed to handle. Multi-vendor isn’t a problem we can architect our way out of. It’s the reality of every enterprise we work with. The only practical answer is visibility that works across all of it, not just parts of it. Why visibility matters in network management Visibility is the foundation of effective network management. IT and operations teams depend on real-time visibility to understand device health and availability, network traffic patterns, faults and performance bottlenecks, security anomalies and unauthorized access, bandwidth utilization, and service dependencies and application performance. When visibility is fragmented across multiple management consoles and vendor-specific tools, teams lose the ability to view the network holistically. Instead of operating proactively, organizations become reactive, responding to incidents only after users experience disruptions. In mission-critical environments, this lack of visibility can directly impact operations, customer experience and business continuity. The problem with vendor-specific monitoring tools Most networking vendors provide their own management platforms designed specifically for their devices. While these tools work effectively within their individual ecosystems, they often fail to integrate seamlessly with devices from other manufacturers. As a result, enterprises end up managing multiple dashboards simultaneously. For example – one platform monitors routers, another tracks wireless access points, a separate tool handles firewalls, and yet another manages IoT devices. This fragmented approach creates several operational issues. Operational Silos Different teams often manage different technologies using isolated systems. This leads to fragmented workflows, inconsistent monitoring practices and communication gaps during incident resolution. Without centralized visibility, correlating issues across systems becomes difficult. Increased Mean Time to Resolution (MTTR) When a fault occurs, engineers must manually switch between multiple platforms to identify the root cause. This slows troubleshooting and increases downtime. A simple network outage may involve checking logs, traps and alerts from several systems before identifying the affected device or link. Alert Fatigue and Noise Vendor-specific tools generate alerts independently without understanding broader network context. This creates duplicate alarms, false positives and excessive notification noise. IT teams become overwhelmed with alerts while critical incidents may go unnoticed. Inconsistent Data Formats Different vendors use different telemetry standards, reporting methods and management protocols. Even when SNMP or APIs are supported, data normalization becomes challenging. This inconsistency prevents organizations from building unified operational intelligence. Limited End-to-End Correlation Modern services rely on interconnected infrastructure. A failure in one subsystem may impact several downstream applications. Without unified visibility, identifying service dependencies and correlating events across vendors becomes extremely difficult. The impact on modern enterprises The consequences of poor multi-vendor visibility extend beyond IT operations. Reduced Network Reliability Incomplete monitoring creates blind spots. Issues that could have been detected early often escalate into major outages. In sectors like metro rail, airports, utilities and healthcare, even minor disruptions can affect public safety and critical operations. Higher Operational Costs Managing multiple tools requires additional licensing, training and maintenance. IT teams spend more time manually consolidating information instead of focusing on optimization and innovation. Operational inefficiencies also increase staffing and support costs. Slower Digital Transformation Organizations investing in AI, IoT and cloud adoption require intelligent, scalable monitoring systems. Fragmented visibility limits automation and prevents organizations from achieving true digital transformation. Without centralized insights, advanced capabilities like predictive analytics and autonomous operations become difficult to implement. Security Risks Security visibility gaps are among the most serious consequences of fragmented network management. Different devices may report events differently or not at all. This creates opportunities for threats to remain undetected across distributed environments. A lack of centralized monitoring also makes compliance reporting and forensic analysis more challenging. Why traditional NMS platforms are struggling Traditional network management systems were designed for relatively static environments. They focused primarily on uptime monitoring, SNMP polling and basic fault management. However, modern networks demand far more – such as real-time telemetry, multi-cloud visibility, IoT monitoring, AI-driven analytics, automated remediation, unified dashboards, and cross-domain correlation. Legacy NMS platforms often lack the scalability and intelligence needed to handle today’s heterogeneous infrastructures effectively. The shift toward software-defined networking (SDN), edge computing and distributed architectures further increases the need for adaptive, vendor-agnostic monitoring solutions. The need for unified multi-vendor visibility To address these challenges, organizations are increasingly adopting centralized and vendor-neutral NMS platforms capable of integrating diverse infrastructure into a single operational view. A modern NMS must provide: For example, transportation networks rely on interconnected communication systems including surveillance, passenger information displays, signaling, telephony and emergency communication systems. If each subsystem is monitored independently, operations teams lack a unified understanding…

Atul GoyalPresident, United Residents Joint Action of Delhi-URJA Gaps and compromises in RWA-managed security due to residents non-cooperation and legal vacuum While RWAs attempt to provide colony-level security, the absence of legal mandate and universal contribution mechanisms forces dangerous compromises. Unlike State police, RWAs have no power to enforce payments, discipline residents, or direct security personnel. This leads to critical operational gaps. Funding gaps = Coverage gaps With 20-40% residents routinely defaulting on security dues, RWAs are forced to reduce guard strength, cancel night patrols, or skip CCTV maintenance to balance budgets,¹ Many colonies operate with 1 guard per 200+ houses at night, violating basic perimeter security norms. The RWA cannot deny entry to defaulters or recover arrears, so paying residents subsidize non-payers, breeding resentment and eventual collapse of voluntary collections. Guards treated as personal servants = Security dilution A significant section of residents treats RWA-hired guards as personal attendants – directing them to carry groceries, wash cars, walk dogs, or open gates for individual guests. When guards comply to avoid conflict, they abandon post, leaving entry points unmanned. When they refuse, residents complain to RWA or threaten to stop payments. The guard, paid ₹12,000-15,000/ month with no job security, is caught between losing income and compromising the colony’s security protocol. RWAs have no service rules or legal authority to protect guards from such misuse. No enforcement power = Protocol violations RWAs cannot penalize residents who tailgate vehicles, refuse visitor entry logs, park across boom barriers, or abuse guards. Without statutory backing, security SOPs become ‘requests’ that non-cooperative residents ignore. Drunk/ violent residents cannot be restrained; unauthorized hawkers/ vendors allowed by influential members cannot be removed. The RWA’s only recourse is ‘persuasion,’ which fails when 5-10% of residents actively undermine the system. While RWAs attempt to provide colony-level security, the absence of legal mandate and universal contribution mechanisms forces dangerous compromises. Unlike State police, RWAs have no power to enforce payments, discipline residents, or direct security personnel. This leads to critical operational gaps. Liability without authority If a theft occurs due to a guard being on personal errand, the RWA faces blame but has no power to have punished the resident who misused the guard. If a guard is assaulted by a resident, the RWA cannot file an institutional FIR or suspend resident privileges. The RWA absorbs legal, financial, and reputational risk for a security function it cannot control. Result: RWAs deliver a compromised, part-time, legally vulnerable version of policing. They are forced to choose between unsafe gaps and confrontational enforcement they are not empowered to undertake. This proves the need for formal recognition under the 74th Amendment – with defined RWA powers, devolved security funds, and a legal interface with Delhi Police for beat-level discipline and cost-sharing. Security management by RWAs amid state policing deficit Delhi’s sanctioned police strength remains structurally inadequate when measured against both national benchmarks and global norms. As per the Bureau of Police Research & Development’s Data on Police Organizations, the all-India sanctioned Police Population Ratio (PPR) stands at 195.39 police personnel per lakh population, while the actual PPR is only 152.80 per lakh.¹ This is significantly below the UN-mandated norm of 220+ police per lakh.² For Delhi specifically, with an estimated population of 2.2 crore and a sanctioned strength of 95,000 personnel, the ratio translates to 1 policeman for 230+ citizens on paper, and worse in practice due to 20-25% vacancies and diversion to VIP security.³ The Model Police Manual prescribes 1 police station per lakh population and adequate beat staff to ensure coverage of 10,000 residents per beat; in reality, Delhi beats routinely exceed 30,000+ residents per constable, violating the Manual’s operational thresholds.⁴ This deficit has compelled RWAs to assume de-facto policing functions without statutory sanction or State funding. With no share in municipal taxes or government grants, RWAs levy voluntary contributions to finance private guards, CCTV systems, boom barriers, and night patrols – core law-and-order duties of the State. The average RWA security spend ranges from ₹40,000 to ₹2 lakh per month, yet office bearers lack powers to enforce payments or recover dues. Beyond funding, RWA members verify guard antecedents, maintain visitor logs, coordinate FIRs with overstretched SHOs, and respond to resident distress calls – effectively subsidizing a public safety shortfall created by the State’s failure to meet BPR&D’s own manpower norms.⁵ This arrangement is unsustainable and inequitable – RWAs perform State functions but receive no devolution of funds, no legal immunity, and no institutional interface under the 74th Constitutional Amendment framework. Refer Footnotes: Read More