[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Message Index][Thread Index]

Re: cameras/security

Subject: Re: cameras/security
From: G. Morgan <usenet_abuse@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 14:08:58 +0000 (UTC)
Newsgroups: alt.security.alarms
References: <4a4c1696.142545@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <e5V2m.9485$ml7.6623@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <4a4c2a41.145570@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <b323m.62277$b9.54477@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Bob Worthy wrote:

> Secondly, a court is more than likely going to want video that is
>watermarked if it is going to be used as evidence. Think about that before
>selecting recording equipment.

Bob, have you ever personally known of a case where video was denied
admissibility or it's authenticity was in question because of a lack of a
watermark?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: cameras/security
  - From: Bob Worthy
- Re: cameras/security
  - From: Matt Ion

References:
- cameras/security
  - From: anonymous
- Re: cameras/security
  - From: Jim Rojas
- Re: cameras/security
  - From: anonymous
- Re: cameras/security
  - From: Bob Worthy

Prev by Message: Re: Jungle Fever
Next by Message: Re: A Crying Shame
Previous by thread: Re: cameras/security
Next by thread: Re: cameras/security
Index(es):
- Message
- Thread

alt.security.alarms Main Index | alt.security.alarms Thread Index | alt.security.alarms Home | Archives Home