Re: store system w 4-8 cameras ?

[G. Morgan <alarmpro@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 08:17:03 -0400, "Bob Worthy"
<securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>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.

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. ;-))

> 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.


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.


--

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