Re: store system w 4-8 cameras ?

["Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"G. Morgan" <alarmpro@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5il5i25t1iv2388sqvjdqqhgntet5uvca4@xxxxxxxxxx
> 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.

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
> 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. ;-))

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]

> > 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.

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.