Re: store system w 4-8 cameras ?

[G. Morgan <alarmpro@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue,  3 Oct 2006 04:40:07 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
<nobody@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Bob Worthy said:
>
>>What does that do for a defendants case, even if the
>>homebuilt is able to somehow produce a watermarked piece of evidence, other
>>than leaving a large hole for the defendants attorney to walk through?
>
>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


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?
--

-Graham
(remove the double e's to email)