Video-redaction software can make CCTV footage safer to share, but a blur is not a privacy policy. Before using Gallio PRO to prepare footage for a resident, insurer, contractor or solicitor, building teams need to know what it can detect, what still needs a person to check, and how the footage will be handled from export to deletion.
This guide focuses on the practical questions behind Gallio PRO face blur and Gallio PRO license plate blur. Product features can vary by version, settings and footage quality, so treat any specific detection capability as something to confirm in the current Gallio PRO documentation and test on representative clips. Do not assume that an automated result is complete simply because a preview looks convincing.
Start with the purpose of the footage
Before opening a clip, ask: What security question does this camera answer? A camera should support a defined, legitimate purpose, such as reviewing an incident in a lift lobby or checking a reported vehicle impact in a garage. If nobody can explain why a particular clip needs to be shared, the first step may be to narrow the request—not to blur and distribute the whole recording.
Data minimisation applies to CCTV disclosure as much as to camera installation. Share only the relevant time range, camera view and image detail needed for the stated purpose. A redaction tool can help conceal identifying information, but it cannot make an unnecessarily broad export proportionate.
What might Gallio PRO blur?
Gallio PRO is commonly considered for automated video redaction, particularly for faces and vehicle number plates. Those are important identifiers in residential and mixed-use buildings: faces may reveal who entered a lobby, while plates may link a vehicle to a resident, visitor or staff member. However, the exact features available, the detection rules and the level of automation should be checked against the version your organisation uses.
Faces
Gallio PRO face blur may assist with locating and obscuring faces in footage, but detection is not the same as guaranteed coverage. A face may be difficult for software to identify when it is small in the frame, partly hidden, turned away, poorly lit, blurred by motion or visible for only a few frames. A person entering at the edge of the image, reflected in glass or seen on a monitor within the scene can also be easy to overlook.
Even where a face is detected, check that the blur follows it throughout the clip. Movement, changes in scale, brief occlusion by a door or another person, and rapid camera movement can all create tracking gaps. Review the clip at normal speed and, where risk warrants it, frame by frame around entrances, exits and other moments when an individual becomes identifiable.
Number plates
Gallio PRO license plate blur can be useful when preparing garage or access-road footage, but plates present their own detection challenges. A plate may be angled away from the camera, overexposed by headlights, obscured by a tow bar, dirty, partly outside the field of view or visible for only a short time. Plates on motorcycles, trailers or vehicles with unusual formats may also need particular attention.
Check that the redaction covers the full plate as it moves, rather than only the area detected in a single frame. Inspect reflections and multiple vehicles in the scene, too. If a clip includes a plate on a vehicle display, a sign or another screen, decide whether that information is identifying in context and whether it should also be obscured.
What automated blur can miss
Face and plate detection are only part of a privacy review. People can still be identifiable through clothing, a distinctive uniform, a mobility aid, a name badge, a parcel label or the context of an encounter. A resident may be recognisable to neighbours even when their face is hidden. The right response depends on the request, the purpose of disclosure and the risk to other people shown in the footage.
Make a separate pass for information beyond faces and plates. A practical redaction checklist includes:
- Names, unit numbers, access codes and visitor details shown on labels, screens or notices. Signatures, delivery addresses, parcel barcodes and other readable personal information. People reflected in mirrors, polished surfaces, windows or lift doors. Identifying details on uniforms, badges, vehicles, mobility aids or personal belongings. Audio, if recorded, including conversations that may identify people or reveal sensitive information. Any bystander or background activity that is irrelevant to the incident but identifiable.
Blurring also does not remove every possible clue. A blurred person may still be identifiable from their route, timing or relationship to another person in the scene. Redaction should therefore be assessed in context, not just by checking whether obvious faces and plates appear soft.
Use a human review, not an automatic pass
Automated redaction can reduce repetitive work, but a responsible process includes a trained reviewer. The reviewer should confirm that redactions remain applied for the full duration of the relevant objects, that no new identifiers enter the frame, and that the exported file plays correctly. Keep the original separate and access-controlled; do not overwrite it with a redacted copy unless your retention and evidence procedures explicitly support that workflow.
For higher-risk disclosures, have a second authorised person check the redacted export. This is particularly sensible when footage includes children, sensitive locations, a dispute between residents, or a request involving multiple identifiable people. Record what was reviewed, who approved release and which version was supplied.
Camera placement is the first privacy control
Redaction is downstream of camera design. A camera aimed too widely may capture a neighbouring property, private interior, changing area or more of a public street than the building needs. Software cannot undo the collection of unnecessary footage after the fact.
Review camera placement and field of view at installation and when the scene changes. Use physical positioning, lens choice, privacy masks and camera settings to limit the view to the security purpose. For example, a garage camera intended to document vehicle entry may not need to capture residents walking through an adjacent private area. A lobby camera should not be pointed into a home or office simply because that angle is convenient.
Document the purpose and intended field of view for each camera. If a camera is being proposed “just in case”, pause and ask what security question it answers, what less intrusive option was considered and who has approved the installation.
Who owns CCTV decisions?
In a managed building, responsibility can be split across an owners’ association or HOA, property manager, onsite team, security contractor and CCTV vendor. That does not mean accountability should be vague. The organisation responsible for deciding why footage is recorded and how it is used should be clear, as should the people authorised to view, export, redact and disclose it.
Agree a written governance process covering:
- Who approves camera locations, new uses and material changes to the system. Who may view live or recorded footage, and for what purpose. Who can create exports and who must approve external disclosure. How redaction is checked, documented and corrected if an error is found. How access, exports and disclosures are logged, including the recipient and reason. How suppliers access footage, what they may do with it and when their access ends.
Do not allow casual viewing out of curiosity. Limit permissions to role-based needs, review access periodically and remove access promptly when staff or contractors change roles. If a request is complex or contested, follow the organisation’s policy and obtain appropriate privacy or legal advice rather than making an informal decision at the reception desk.
Exports: where do the clips go?
A redacted clip can still create risk if it is saved to an uncontrolled location. Before exporting, ask: Where will this clip end up, and who can open it? Define an approved storage location, restrict access and use a secure transfer method appropriate to the recipient. Avoid emailing raw footage around or placing exports in a broadly shared folder.
Keep a disclosure log with the date, requester, purpose, footage range, camera, redaction method, reviewer, recipient and transfer route. Record whether the recipient received a redacted copy or another authorised version. If an export is placed in a temporary folder, set an owner and a deletion date rather than assuming somebody will remember to clean it up.
Retention and routine deletion
Retention should be set according to the building’s purpose and applicable requirements, not by how much storage is available. Establish a routine deletion schedule for ordinary recordings and a separate, controlled process for footage preserved because of a reported incident, claim or other legitimate hold. A hold should identify the clip, reason, owner and review date; it should not become a permanent exception by default.
Apply the same discipline to working files and redacted exports. Delete temporary renders, local downloads and duplicate copies when they are no longer needed. Confirm how Gallio PRO and any connected storage handle source footage, processed files, caches and project data, and who can access them. Product documentation or your realtytimes.com supplier should clarify those details; do not assume that closing a project deletes every copy.
What about the price?
No prices listed in the scraped article is a limitation of that source, not a reason to guess. Pricing may depend on the licence model, number of users, processing volume, deployment, support or other terms. Check Gallio PRO’s current official pricing information or request a written quote directly from the supplier. Ask what is included, whether there are usage limits, how upgrades and support are charged, and whether any storage or processing costs sit outside the licence.
For a fair comparison, evaluate more than the headline price. Include the staff time needed for manual review, the effort required to manage exports and retention, and the consequences of missed redactions. A low-cost tool that cannot fit your governance workflow may not be the least costly option in practice.
A practical pre-release checklist
Confirm the disclosure purpose and limit the clip to the relevant time and camera view. Check current Gallio PRO documentation for supported detection and export features. Run the available face and plate redaction, then inspect the entire clip for tracking gaps. Look for other identifiers, including reflections, labels, screens and contextual clues. Have an authorised reviewer approve the final export and record that review. Save the clip only in an approved, access-controlled location and log the disclosure. Set a deletion date for working copies and follow the retention schedule for the source.The bottom line
Gallio PRO may help with face and number-plate redaction, but a building team should verify the actual capabilities in its version and test them on real-world footage. Detection can fail at the edges, in poor lighting, during movement and wherever identifiers appear in unexpected places. That is why manual redaction needed remains a sensible operating assumption: automate the first pass, then have a person check the result and the wider context.
The strongest privacy protection starts earlier. Choose cameras for a defined security purpose, control their field of view, assign clear ownership for CCTV decisions, restrict access, log disclosures and delete footage routinely. Redaction is one safeguard in that system—not a substitute for it.
Share this article
- Share on Facebook Share on X (Twitter)
For the Facebook link, add this article’s URL after u= before publishing.