store system w 4-8 cameras ?

There's no requirement that video be watermarked in order to be used as evidence. The whole watermarking routine is just a bunch of marketing crap dreamed up by the DVR manufacturers to sell product.

Want proof? Look at all the bank robbers who were sent to prison on the basis of 35mm film camera evidence. Any watermarking? No. How about all the VCR footage of crimes? Any watermarking? No. Any bad guy ever try to claim that Indusrial Light and Magic tampered with the video to insert him into footage of a crime he didn't commit? No.

How about network news footage, like the Rodney King beating? No watermarks there, either. And if a TV news crew happened to catch a murder on video, do you really think it wouldn't be admissible as evidence because it wasn't watermarked video? Of course not.

Watermarking is marketing bullshit, nothing more.

- badenov

Reply to
Nomen Nescio
Loading thread data ...

Way to go Babenov. No where is it written video MUST be watermarked to be admissable. Our custom-built DVR's do it, but it's not by any means a UL requirement... What business would UL have in video recording anyway?

Reply to
G. Morgan

Never said that watermarking was a requirement by UL or any other entity. I mentioned that the machine itself would need to be listed if installed down here because the inspectors are looking for it. However, I think that if watermarked recorded video is available in the market, as a way to detect tampering, an attorney somewhere, at some point will use the fact that it wasn't in place and that the prosecuting attorney cannot prove the evidence wasn't tampered with, possibly having it thrown out as evidence. I will choose to use it rather than not. Don't want the plantiff coming back at me for installing something that didn't work for him.

Reply to
Bob Worthy

Maybe, maybe not. That issue would be left up to the court and the presiding judge to decide what will be accepted and what won't on any particular case. It is happening more and more where law making bodies are not overlooking growth in technology and allowing for it.

That is the way it happens. Crap or not, it has been introduced.

Did anyone make an issue about it not being there leaving it a mute issue? We don't know? Do we know if they examined the film to see if it was edited? Again, we don't know.

Was it available or a common practice in the industry at that point? No. But, there are forensic examiners that could have looked at these tapes, if necessary.

I don't know? Lets find out why watermarking has become the new "must have" before we condemn it. There must be something out there other than a marketing sham. You don't think the industry, for once, is being proactive in this world of digital technology and litigation, do you?

Never said it couldn't be introduced as evidence. Simply implied it could be challenged. Up until now, because it hasn't been common place, a challenge may have never been considered, and most likely, due to lack of knowledge, that it even exsisted.

Watermarking, although initially used for identification, has been used for security purposes for years right down to our own currency. Now that it is a standard part of video recording, bullshit or not, you will see it in our courts. Trust me. The revolving door judicial system, we have today, does not care about the penny ante crime, they go to jail, get out, go back to jail, get out, go back to jail. The government has figured out how to make money on crime. Everyone gets paid over and over again. They probably don't care if someone put a horse head on the crook or not. Send him to jail, he was guilty of something. But, there is high tech crime, and high payed attorneys in court cases in which we know little about the nuts and bolts of the case, its evidence etc. And, it is probably not you or I that is involved in the installation of the equipment. All I know is that through some of the training I have been going through lately, which some in this group know about, watermarking is important and it is here to stay. Of course everyone has a choice and that is between you and your customer.

Reply to
Bob Worthy

That's ridiculous. It's a computer. Are you saying that every computer has to be UL listed? Every POS terminal? What are you saying, that just because I add a DVR card into my new Dell it suddenly must pass rigorous UL testing? Come on Bob -- bAss aint dead yet, no need to fabricate stories and take his place. ;-))

Coulda shoulda woulda.... Tampering with video is possible, yes, but if someone is going to go through all that they can probably fake a watermark too. It would make a great episode of LA Law.

Reply to
G. Morgan

UL listing on DVRs? None of what you posted on UL DVRs ever crossed my mind. I can't quite figure under what conditions a local inspector would have cause to be sniffing a DVR for its UL certification versus plain old computer UL sticker. I haven't met one that would know the difference anyway. It is not like a fire system inspection for a CO where you have to call them out and give them all the cut sheets in advance. If you have an inspection environment that is that brutal where you have to do submitals for DVRs I feel sorry for you. I tried to check on this UL deal from one manufaturer at the low end. General Solutions freely admitted their DVR units weren't UL, but assured me that theirs would soon carry the UL sticker. I didn't ask him, but what is the number they put on the UL sticker for a DVR anyway? I never bothered to look at one to see. At the high end there are COTS systems that are never intended to be complete box solutions so there is no UL there. Even ones that are purpose built like Intellex have an archive manager program to off load video to non DVR UL locations. Bosch has an iSCSI drive array from NexSan and now Promise I think that couldn't be part of the UL listing for the box itself. I am going to continue to work my way up the food chain price wise and see what stories I get handed from the manufacturers on this UL thing. This is most interesting. Thanks for the post.

"Bob Worthy" wrote in message news:358Ug.25255$ snipped-for-privacy@bignews4.bellsouth.net...

Reply to
Roland Moore

Ridiculous or not, if you want to pass your inspections, the equipment used better have a listing by an entity acceptable to the (I am going to use the term AHJ not to be confused with fire inspectors) AHJ, in this case the electrical inspector.

It's a computer. Are you saying that every

Oh God!!! Please.... the difference between bASS and myself, amoung other things, is that my info posts are easily checked. Call any jurisdiction here in the tri-county area (Dade, Broward, Palm Beach County) and talk with the chief electrical inspector. There are over 50 cities to choose from. Ask them about pulling permits for CCTV system installations and then ask about equipment on that system that is not UL or some other testing laboratory listed, approved, or labeled (everyone calls it something different). Better yet, call ADI Pompano Branch (954) 977 6818 and talk to the branch manager (Jim Trinchini) and ask him about cameras that are getting rejected, by inspectors, because of no listing and Dedicated Micros, since they were getting slammed for selling DVR's that did not carry the listing about a year and half ago. They have since obtained their listing. Right, wrong, stupid, idiotic, unnecessary or what ever, that is what we have to deal with and it could be something as simple as them interpeteing NEC. Who was it that said "Just the facts ma'am, just the facts". :o]

I am sure it is a proactive thing, on the manufactures part, and if it was never introduced to the market probably won't be an issue. And yes, out of the three different types of protection, watermarking is probably the least effective. But it has been introduced and if anyone has ever been involved in a court case or even a deposition should know the twists that these freakin attorneys can put on things. They will try to discredit your expertise in a heartbeat. Do you think "coulda woulda shoulda" would cut it? Do you think that badenov's comment of "thats all marketing bullshit" would cut it? Maybe, maybe not, but I would think one better have a better solution to combat the question because the comments are going to a jury that doesn't know any better. Again, everyone has choices and mine is to use it, but than again, I have been accused of operating only in black and white and never in the gray (another difference between bASS and myself). The customer is paying for it anyway, so whats the difference? But you are right, it would make a great LA Law.

Reply to
Bob Worthy

And you know what, as long as they see a sticker they are probably satisfied.

I haven't met one that would know the difference

Welcome to like in south Florida.

No submittals. The attorney general, here in Florida, now running for governor, made it illegal, after 9-11 for any municipality to require anything on security that would be made public record. However, we do need to pull an installation permit and get 2 inspections. One rough and one final. At the final, they naturally look at the equipment. NEC requires that all conductors and equipment "shall" be approved for its intended use. They are rejecting cameras as well. For those that use them, there goes the $29.95 camera off the internet. Depending on where the wire is run, the rating on the wire must also meet the approval for its location, ie; plenum wire in a plenum ceiling, riser rated wire in a riser etc.

I tried to check on this UL deal from one

The fact that they are getting it approved tells you something. If it wasn't being required or they didn't get questioned on it, why would they spend the money? As expensive as it is, I am sure it is not out of the goodness of their heart. It isn't cheap to get something listed and then maintain the listing. I am sure it will show up in the price tag of the unit after it is listed.

I don't know if this helps or not but the number right under the UL listed sticker, on the one I have in the office, is: 6 03064 80348 0

At the high end

It could be nothing more than in areas, that have tough inspection regs, are giving them and the dealers heartburn. The only thing is that the NEC requires listings and these inspectors sit on the toilet digesting everything in their bible. They may not know what they are looking at, which is sometimes the real problem, but they sure do know the code. They do have, through the code, the ability to make their own judgement calls in specific situations, waiving the code requirements, but try to get them to do it.

Reply to
Bob Worthy

I agree Bob....Some municipalities in Florida, especially in your area, read more of the NEC than is necessary. They go overboard, and make decisions that have nothing to do with reality.

By the way, get a "life"...... you wrote: "Welcome to like in south Florida."

Norm Mugford

I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you?

formatting link

Reply to
Norm Mugford

That is just coffee in the keyboard!

Reply to
Bob Worthy

You're making this way more complicated than it really is. If it's a video of a holdup, the victim can testify that the video, watermarked or not, accurately shows what happened. He knows, because he was there. If it's a video of a nighttime burglary, then the video better be able to show the perps well enough for the jury to be convinced the defendant did it.

Watermarking only enters the picture if there is some question that the video accurately shows what happened. That is a question for the judge, not the jury: the judge decides whether the video evidence is reliable enough for the jury to even see it.

The defense lawyer needs some reasonable basis for saying the video is wrong. He can't just say, "I think somebody edited the video, prove they didn't." He also can't claim that space aliens impersonated his client and robbed the bank, rather than his client, and then dare the prosecutor to prove it didn't happen that way.

So the only way watermarking is ever going to be an issue is if a defense lawyer can convince a judge that there is a reasonable possibility someone tampered with the video. Now, if George Lucas is out to get you, he can probably produce watermarked video proving that you shot JFK. But in real life, I don't see a bad guy getting off by claiming somebody altered the video. How would he prove that's a reasonable enough possibility for the jury to even consider?

- badenov

Reply to
Nomen Nescio

"Nomen Nescio" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@dizum.com...

Ok....so even though the watermarking tool would be looked at "prior" to the video even being intoduced as evidence, by both parties, to make sure no one ends up with egg on their face, is it your opinion that watermarking has no place in the world of video recording because it is useless, or is it based on your choice to use a device that doesn't produce a watermark? Recorded video is used for many other purposes than hold-ups and burglarys and there are many instances that people have access to the equipment where tampering may be a question. I am not talking convienence stores here. Think along the lines of major corporate security, the life of the rich and famous, exclusive hotels and resorts, casinos, the diamond districts, government, oh yes, government, millions/billions in asset protection, areas where internal theft is not out of the question, cover-ups that are becoming the norm, etc., to name a few. Where are the safequards, that extra layer of protection, the tools that may be needed? I know we don't all operate in these markets, so I guess the need equals the arena we are dealing in. Maybe you think I am watching to much TV but a little exposure to some of this (actual experience and there are those here that know some of what I do) will open ones eyes to how little we really know about what goes on out there. If you think this is over the top..that's ok too, just pointing out there is another world out there besides the eco line of 4 cameras and a recorder watching some steal some candy bars, where I agree, watermarking doesn't mean squat. :o]

Reply to
Bob Worthy

Reply to
mouath

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.