Re: store system w 4-8 cameras ?

["Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

"G. Morgan" <alarmpro@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:rrr3i2tqnc18urbhvaqm7l7ut8mjgf1gdh@xxxxxxxxxx
> 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)