Re: store system w 4-8 cameras ?

["Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1c38861ccae4a644fd0434fff80cd32a@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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.

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.

>The whole watermarking routine is just a bunch >of marketing crap
> dreamed up by the DVR manufacturers to sell product.

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

> Want proof?  Look at all the bank robbers who were sent to prison on the
> basis of 35mm film camera evidence.  Any watermarking?  No.

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.

>How about all
> the VCR footage of crimes?  Any watermarking?  No.

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.

>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.

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?
>
> 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.

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 is marketing bullshit, nothing more.

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.