The true lapse that this incident demonstrates is that security cameras were installed to provide a multiplier for one's ability to monitor an area, with the added bonus of being able to record what's monitored. Instead of having 100 workers walk the perimeter, strategically placed camera can multiply the effectiveness of a significantly smaller staff while securing the same area. But what's happened is that in many instances, cameras are being used as passive monitors. They're intended to either serve as deterrents or to collect footage that can be reviewed at a later date if-necessary ... disregarding the effectiveness multiplier they provided, and instead reducing the overall effectiveness of a facility's security.

I wonder whether technologies like Oculus might change the effectiveness of security cameras. A single man could theoretically "be" in multiple places at one time from a security perspective. And the sense of actually being on-location, as opposed to having something on a screen that can be ignored or missed, might return that multiplier to monitoring a location using a network of video cameras streamed to somebody's headset.