The Risks of AI Monitoring: Who Is Responsible When It Gets It Wrong?

Artificial intelligence is changing the security industry. AI-powered CCTV can monitor multiple cameras, detect unusual movement and alert operators to potential threats.

Used correctly, it can provide an additional layer of protection—but what happens when AI makes the wrong decision?

It may detect movement—but does it understand intent?
It may identify an object—but can it judge whether it presents a genuine threat?

A false alarm may cause disruption, but a missed alarm could have catastrophic consequences. A fire, intrusion, assault, theft or medical emergency could be incorrectly assessed or completely overlooked.
For a security provider, that could mean serious reputational damage, financial or legal exposure and the loss of a valued customer. More importantly, it could place people and property at risk.

Who is responsible when AI gets it wrong?

Is it the security company, customer, software developer, CCTV manufacturer—or the person who approved the system?
Suppliers may blame camera quality or system configuration, while developers may argue that their technology only provides recommendations. However, the customer will understandably look to their security provider for answers.

Responsibility cannot simply disappear into an algorithm.

AI monitoring also presents other significant risks:

• Cyberattacks that disable systems, manipulate alerts or interfere with footage.
• Evidence or system logs being altered, deleted or restricted.
• “Black-box” decisions that cannot be properly explained.
• Incorrect identification caused by poor lighting, weather or camera angles.
• Internet, power, software or integration failures.
• Privacy and data-protection concerns.
• Over-reliance on automation weakening human awareness and judgement.
• Dependence on suppliers whose pricing, support or ownership may change.
• Unclear escalation procedures when a genuine incident occurs.

A compromised system or dishonest individual could potentially conceal errors, change reports or blame the technology. Independent records, protected audit trails and human oversight are therefore essential.
At Veritech, we are not against AI. It may improve efficiency and help control-room operators manage increasing amounts of information. However, it should support trained professionals—not replace human judgement or remove accountability.

Before relying on AI for security decisions, there must be independent testing, robust cybersecurity, human verification, effective backup arrangements and a clear answer to one vital question:
Who takes responsibility when it goes wrong?