As body-worn cameras extend beyond law enforcement, security integrators face exciting opportunities as well as challenges when integrating this technology into broader security systems. The development of AI-driven features like redaction and video summary has made these devices even more valuable, offering new ways to increase situational awareness and improve operational efficiency.
Moreover, growing adoption in industries such as healthcare, retail and education reveals that these sectors have unique needs — like compliance and staff protection — that body-worn cameras can address. Adapting to these market-specific demands is key to success for systems integrators.
To gain deeper insight into this unique video solution niche, SDM consulted with four industry specialists from the manufacturing community. Ahead, we explore integration hurdles, cutting-edge advancements, and the growing interest from non-traditional markets that are driving the evolution of this unique security solution. A pair of sidebars delve into data privacy compliance and how the sales and support process can vary between wearable technology and standard video surveillance systems.
Integration With Other Systems
As body-worn cameras continue to gain traction across various industries, their integration with broader security systems — such as video management systems (VMS) and access control — has become a key focus for integrators.
Historically, integrators have not had the opportunity to sell body-worn solutions because these devices were not integrated with broader security systems — but that is changing, explains Steve Jussaume, solutions engineer, Axis Communications, Chelmsford, Mass. Now it’s important for integrators to understand how body-worn cameras can fit into various industry verticals in order to create new business opportunities for themselves and to effectively educate their existing customers about how body-worn camera technology can address their specific needs.
“Thankfully security industry organizations and some manufacturers offer excellent education and research. Additionally, other industry associations such as the International Association for Healthcare Security and Safety (IAHSS) and the Loss Prevention Retail Council (LPRC) put a lot of effort into education,” says Jussaume. “As a result, knowledge gaps will continue to close overtime, especially as body-worn cameras become more desired outside of the traditional law enforcement segment.”
Integrating body-worn cameras with physical security systems presents several challenges for integrators, suggests Erick Ceresato, product group senior manager, Genetec, Montreal. The large volume of video footage generated by body-worn cameras requires robust storage, search and sharing capabilities, which can strain systems not designed for these tasks.
“A digital evidence management system (DEMS) plays a crucial role in overcoming these challenges. DEMS are designed to streamline the handling of video evidence with centralized, secure storage and efficient retrieval,” Ceresato explains. “They also facilitate integration with other security systems, such as a VMS. It’s important to consider the integration options between security systems and a DEMS to make sure the data captured by body-worn cameras and other systems can be reviewed in the DEMS. Applications should provide documented APIs that offer the ability to integrate the DEMS with different systems used by end users.”
Ceresato adds, by incorporating a DEMS into a broader design of an organization’s ecosystem, integrators provide a solution that supports efficient evidence management of body-worn recordings, as well as files from other sources. “It also helps ensure compliance with privacy regulations and data protection standards.”
Stuart Boutell, director of product management at Motorola Solutions, Chicago, explains that live streaming from body cameras enhances situational awareness when integrated with fixed-camera systems. However, achieving this connectivity is crucial. To support body camera streaming, enterprises may need to upgrade Wi-Fi coverage or choose body cameras with LTE connectivity for remote users or those at the outer edges of their location.
“Enterprises should look for body camera solutions that can integrate with common fixed-camera infrastructure software, like ONVIF Profile S,” he says.
Integrators should also pay attention to local laws and customs when adding body cameras into a broader security system, explains Boutell, adding, “In some places there are specific requirements that need to be met. For example, local laws may dictate the use of audio or that signage should be added to reflect the use of body and fixed-cameras.”
Among the various challenges integrators confront when integrating body-worn cameras with broader security systems, data requirements such as bandwidth, compression and file size are particularly noteworthy, says David O’Connor, director, public safety product management, i-PRO Americas, Houston.
Unlike stationary cameras, which benefit from constant power and stable network connections for compression and bandwidth management, body-worn cameras move with the user, resulting in constant motion within the field of view.
“This limits the efficiency of compression technologies like H.265 and drains battery life, resulting in shorter runtime,” O’Connor says. “In addition, installed cameras typically stream back to centralized recording systems vs. wearable cameras which may store videos locally on the device. Locally stored videos will require docking and uploading or upload via wireless communications which need to be scaled for demand created by this work flow.”
While integrators may have adequate skills to support wired networking infrastructure demands of installed cameras, O’Connor notes that wireless connectivity requirements of wearable cameras may require additional skillsets, planning, equipment and support.
Compliance and data privacy can oftentimes create significant hurdles for body-worn camera users, particularly in non-law enforcement sectors like healthcare, education and retail.
Organizations must navigate complex regulations related to the storage, access and sharing of recorded footage, ensuring that personal and sensitive data is protected. There is also the issue of maintaining transparency while upholding privacy rights requires careful attention to policies and technological solutions, such as encryption and redaction, to mitigate risks and ensure regulatory compliance.
Employees using body cameras need to be adequately trained on federal and local data privacy and protection laws, explains Stuart Boutell of Motorola Solutions.
“In hospital settings, this could include HIPAA regulations and understanding when and how to obtain patient consent for recording as well as how to handle any protected health information (PHI) the body camera may capture,” Boutell says. “Motorola Solutions builds features and tools into our products that enable our customers to deploy our technologies responsibly.
Organizations should establish and communicate clear body camera policies and procedures to ensure appropriate use.”
Steve Jussaume of Axis Communications notes that compliance is a concern for all markets since body-worn cameras can record both video and audio.
“In my opinion, compliance challenges break into two categories: the human and the legal,” he says.
Human compliance entails a proper understanding of “the why” by those using the technology, he explains. Without that understanding, an organization’s employees may not see the value in wearing body worn cameras and thus fail at using them. No matter the sector, employee buy-in and training must be taken into serious consideration to ensure — among other things — that all employees know how the technology works, when to activate it and how video will be reviewed.
“Legal compliance is more obvious yet can be more complex since it varies by jurisdiction and also by industry. For example, the healthcare industry must address specific HIPAA and privacy requirements,” Jussaume says. “And, while law enforcement may have many clear-cut regulations, they also must address unique challenges. For instance, body-worn cameras may be worn in areas where a person has an expectation of privacy. Accordingly, to address this challenge, many law enforcement agencies have established policies stating that expectation of privacy is lost when they’re responding to a call for service during their normal course of duty.”
When it comes to compliance, Jussaume continues, information on jurisdictional laws are publicly available and other resources exist to provide guidance such as the U.S. Government’s Bureau of Justice Assistance Body Worn Camera Toolkit, as well as industry-specific resources through organizations like the International Association for Healthcare Security and Safety (IAHSS) for healthcare.
“Any organization looking to adopt a body-worn camera program must develop strong policies and procedures to ensure correct use, maintenance and storage,” he adds. “Among other things, developing a program requires stakeholder identification, vendor/technology evaluation, storage and maintenance planning, and of course compliance policies and user training. Ultimately, accountability is key.”
The compliance challenges associated with body-worn cameras, particularly in non-law enforcement markets, heavily depend on how the streamed or recorded video will be used, explains David O’Connor of i-PROS Americas.
“Since audio can be a key component of recordings generated by wearable devices, it is essential to consider that laws regarding audio recording and privacy differ from those governing video,” says. “Prior to implementation, it is crucial to engage with union or employee groups to build consensus.”
There may also be a need for extra disclosures to members of the public who are being recorded, weighing the benefits against the potential impact on customer relationships. Additionally, O’Connor cautions, the storage and retention of recorded audio and video must adhere to strict security and privacy protocols to avoid severe consequences.
Erick Ceresato of Genetec points out industry, regional and organizational guidelines typically govern compliance requirements for body-worn camera data. For example, law enforcement agencies in the United States must ensure their solution enables them to adhere to the requirements of the Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Security Policy. This covers a variety of controls, including encryption, authentication requirements and auditing. These are among many aspects the vendor must ensure as part of the solution.
“In the healthcare industry, providers in the U.S. must ensure that body-worn camera solutions comply with HIPAA privacy and security rules to safeguard protected health information,” Ceresato says. “This involves stringent controls on data encryption, system authentication, and access auditing.”
In Canada, he says, organizations must adhere to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), which governs the handling of personal data, while in the European Union, compliance with the GDPR requires strict adherence to data protection principles, including consent and data minimization.
“Also, in California the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) mandates and the right to data access or deletion,” Ceresato adds. “Due to these varied regulations, system integrators must carefully select body-worn camera solutions to ensure that their customers remain compliant.”
Considering AI and Analytics
As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to permeate security applications, its integration into body-worn cameras is driving new levels of functionality and value for security solutions. From real-time analytics to automatic incident detection, these AI-driven features enable more proactive monitoring and faster response times. By leveraging these advancements, sources tell SDM, integrators can offer their clients smarter, more efficient security solutions that reduce manual intervention and improve overall situational awareness.
A good AI redaction engine can significantly accelerate the ease with which body camera footage can be made actionable, especially in education or healthcare.
“AI is a powerful tool that is best applied to simplify tasks, accelerate decision-making and protect privacy and trust. One area where AI is adding value for body cameras is in redaction,” says Boutell, referring to the process of obscuring or removing sensitive information from camera footage, such as faces, license plates or other personally identifiable information. AI-driven redaction automates this process, making it faster and more efficient to prepare footage for sharing or public release, while ensuring compliance with privacy regulations.
“A good AI redaction engine can significantly accelerate the ease with which body camera footage can be made actionable, especially in education or healthcare,” Boutell says.
Jussaume also cites AI-enabled redaction as one of the most prominent tools currently used to assist in day-to-day tasks for body-worn programs.
“Video redaction is a major component of any body-worn camera program — the time-consuming task of video redaction is a challenge that security practitioners are all too familiar with,” he says. “AI is helping to reduce the demands of this task by performing a lot of the work upfront, thus only requiring end users to verify the work AI has done before sending the video out for public consumption.”
Another noteworthy tool of importance, Jussaume suggests: video summary. Report writing is a key aspect of any body-worn camera program because oftentimes incidents must be accompanied by a written report, he explains. Just like AI redaction, there are tools being developed that can assist in summarizing large chunks of video, only requiring the end user to review and edit what the tool has written.
“While these tools are currently available, developers are continuously improving them, so we are only seeing the beginning of their potential,” Jussaume says. “Suffice to say that advanced technologies can help security professionals gain administrative efficiencies, work accuracy and greater effectiveness in their job.”
When applying AI to body-worn cameras, several challenges arise due to the unique nature of wearable devices, notes O’Connor. Unlike installed cameras, which can rely on steady power and consistent streaming, wearable devices often record and store video locally due to power and connectivity constraints, making live AI processing difficult.
“These videos are then uploaded later, such as during shift changes, creating a surge in AI resource demand,” he says. “Additionally, AI features are CPU-intensive, and wearable devices must balance size, weight and battery life, which limits onboard AI capabilities.”
Adoption in New Markets
As body-worn cameras evolve beyond law enforcement, new markets like healthcare, education and retail are showing increased interest in adopting the technology. These sectors are driven by unique needs such as ensuring staff and customer safety, enhancing accountability and protecting sensitive environments.
For integrators, this shift opens opportunities to tailor body-worn camera solutions to industries with specific compliance requirements and operational challenges, enabling them to better serve a wider range of clients.
With the increase in violence directed to staff/employees, the introduction of body-worn cameras — especially open platform body-worn cameras that allow for seamless integration with existing software, systems and video data — is growing. More and more healthcare institutions are considering — and ultimately acquiring — body-worn cameras.
“Healthcare and retail are two segments showing the most interest in developing body-worn camera programs. The healthcare field has been using body-worn cameras for many years, primarily by their security staff,” says Jussaume. “With the increase in violence directed to staff/employees, the introduction of body-worn cameras — especially open platform body-worn cameras that allow for seamless integration with existing software, systems and video data — is growing. More and more healthcare institutions are considering — and ultimately acquiring — body-worn cameras.”
Selling and supporting body-worn cameras requires a different approach compared to standard video surveillance systems. Unlike fixed cameras, body-worn devices involve more complex factors such as battery management, mobile data handling and frequent maintenance.
Integrators must be equipped to address the unique demands of wearable technology, including providing training on data transfer, device docking and handling sensitive footage. This shift means integrators need to develop additional expertise in wireless connectivity, battery optimization and compliance with data privacy regulations.
The sales and support process for body-worn cameras differs from that of standard video surveillance systems in several ways, explains David O’Connor of i-PRO Americas. While standard video surveillance systems often focus heavily on technical specifications, wearables require additional consideration of the users and the environments where recordings will occur.
“For instance, the mounting or wearing of body-worn cameras must be considered in relation to the type of uniforms used, which may vary by shift, season, work assignment or body type,” O’Connor says. “Questions regarding who is responsible for uniforms, their acquisition costs, maintenance and expected lifecycle are also important, as these factors can impact the body-worn camera’s mounting and potentially damage the uniform over time.”
Robust Wi-Fi coverage is essential where livestreaming of body camera footage is required, notes Stuart Boutell of Motorola Solutions. Along with public safety and law enforcement, other use cases that may require wireless network infrastructure include healthcare and emergency medical services (EMS), security and surveillance in large venues, field-based inspections and investigations and educational settings for livestreaming training exercises or demonstrations.
“Organizations planning to deploy body cameras should conduct a Wi-Fi coverage survey and, if needed, deploy Wi-Fi infrastructure in parallel to existing infrastructure as part of an operational technology network rather than leverage an existing business-critical IT network,” Boutell advises.
Steve Jussaume of Axis Communications explains a major difference in the sales process for any body-worn camera solution is the desire for a proof of concept or trial. This is significantly different from any security camera trial or demo.
“Most camera trials involve sending a camera for testing or installing one for the end customer to try,” he says. “Body-worn camera proof of concepts are usually 30-60 days and they involve integrating the hardware with a current VMS, configuring the system to the end user’s needs, and providing a training.”
Some customers, Jussaume says, may also require a policy and procedure to be put in place prior to a pilot starting. While this is the end user’s responsibility, guidance from the integrator is often required. Discussions will also involve mounting; and depending on the type of clothing a person may be wearing, different types of mounts may be needed.
“While body-worn systems can be stand-alone, they still require setup, configuration and user training,” he says. “Manufacturers can provide training for integrators, but an understanding of the body-worn camera market, the technology itself, and how body-worn cameras are generally used, is very important in order to be successful.”
The major difference between healthcare organizations and traditional police departments is that the same individuals who manage the security camera system for the hospital tend to manage the body-worn cameras as well, Jussaume explains. This has led to a greater desire for integration since these users have already invested in software, hardware, and most importantly, training. These customers also have different needs when it comes to video management workflows. Accordingly, they want something that lets them combine systems and manage body-worn camera footage with the security camera footage in the same software and field of view.
“When it comes to retail, the industry is still very new to body-worn cameras in the U.S.,” Jussaume says. “However just as in healthcare, retail has experienced a significant rise in violence toward staff — along with a surge in organized retail theft — so store management and loss prevention leaders are looking for tools to help mitigate these concerns. And just as in healthcare, a lot of these decision makers also manage their video management systems, so they are looking for easy integration.”
It’s important to remember, Jussaume adds, that healthcare and retail industries requirements vary significantly from the law enforcement space: They do not have to follow the same strict video retention standards; they do not have to access public funding; nor do their body-worn cameras have to integrate with various law enforcement specific technologies.
“Accordingly, system integrators must take the time to understand these industries and their requirements along with the needs of each individual organization,” he says.
Boutell of Motorola Solutions emphasizes that each day leaders in healthcare, retail, hospitality and education are tasked with ensuring the safety and security of people, property and places. Body cameras provide a means for protecting both employees and customers, while also serving as a reliable source of evidence in legal proceedings.
“Additionally, body camera footage can be utilized for training purposes, enabling organizations to identify areas for improvement and helping to enhance employee skills and response times,” he says.
With their ability to streamline processes, improve communications and enhance customer service, Boutell also stresses that body cameras are increasingly recognized as essential components of modern enterprise operations, contributing to safer, more secure and more efficient workplaces.
“By equipping customer-facing employees and security personnel with body cameras,” he adds, “organizations can proactively deter potential threats, document incidents in real-time and promote a culture of accountability and transparency.”
O’Connor of i-PRO Americas highlights applications where body-worn cameras are valuable in enhancing quality control, ensuring consistency, improving training, and supporting personnel management. “Other scenarios include interactions with patrons or the public where liability protection is desired,” he says.
There are fundamental differences in technology and expectations between wearable cameras for business and consumer applications. It is crucial to help customers understand the real limitations of wearable cameras, as business requirements differ significantly from those of consumer applications.
O’Connor also summarized the following non-law enforcement use cases:
Frontline workers, such as firefighters and emergency medical services
- Situational awareness on-scene, complementing views from other mobile cameras (e.g. vehicle-based)
- Post-event analysis for lessons learned, investigations and training examples
- Remote assistance and support from interpretation to medical specialties
- Liability protection via documentation of standard operating procedures and individual actions
Customer service across various verticals
- Hospitality, entertainment, food service, retail, etc.
- Remote assistance and support as above, plus management, mentoring and escalation
Manufacturing
- Safety documentation for review and prevention via training
- Safety investigations post-incident
- Quality assurance/quality control for materials, tool use, task performance
- Studies to improve efficiency
- Training and team management
“There are fundamental differences in technology and expectations between wearable cameras for business and consumer applications,” O’Connor says. “It is crucial to help customers understand the real limitations of wearable cameras, as business requirements differ significantly from those of consumer applications.”
