Should we sell CCTV/dashcam footage?

[Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 10:17
Last edited 13/11/2019 - 11:43 by 2 other users

Should CCTV footage be a communal privilege or should it be a commodity?

Over a couple of a weekends, I had a few guests who were interrupted by the police to provide CCTV footage for separate instances for burglary. One of them were contacted twice as two homes were broken into on two separate nights.

I have personally been asked for CCTV footage from my business to investigate break ins and vandalism, and my dashcam footage as a witness to a couple of minor vehicle collisions.

In all these instances, the directly affected parties did not have their own cameras.

Is it just me or does everyone feel like people who invest in added security are in essence vaccinating themselves for the benefit of everyone?

Is it okay for me to charge for footage? I have spent a tidy sum on personal CCTV and dashcams, even more on the business premises. My neighbours have yet to install any.

At this point, it seems those who have cameras are sponsoring video surveillance.

(We are not discussing the necessity to comply with a court order.)

TLDR
1. If someone without any security cameras/dashcam wants security footage, should you get them to pay?
2. How much?

Progression
It has taken a lot longer than I expected for the two most anticipated arguments to become emotionally charged - vindictiveness and greed.

Let's modify the premise - what if I didn't have the CCTV system and neither does my neighbour. I had a discussion with the neighbour and the result is that the neighbour will not install the CCTV as they perceive no value. I decided not to install for the specific reason I don't see fair value in being the only house with a camera. (Too many blind spots.) Is it now vindictive that I made myself unable to provide footage because of two very specific reasons.

I don't want to be the only one that buys a camera.
I don't want to spend the money where I don't see value.

(Interesting observation. Some are vehemently opposed to subsidising the cost of surveillance but are completely okay with paying administrative costs where no actual numbers are disclosed. Does marketing a fee a different way change the morality of the decision to charge a fee?)

Poll remains relevant to original question

Mod: Reverted previous revisions, to avoid confusion.

Home & Garden

Comments

Nugs on 10/11/2019 - 10:18

+3

poll?
.
- [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 10:18
  
  +146
  
  Yes, the cameras were mounted on them.
  - tds on 10/11/2019 - 10:28
    
    +2
    
    Lol
  - camellialady on 11/11/2019 - 16:03
    
    +4
    
    I understand your question.EG, we have recently had numerous burglaries in our street/area.We are the only house with CCTV, in our street.Advised neighbour/s of burglary's and to be mindful & careful,lock up, the reply from 1,'I do not have much to take'.This neighbour was burgled,& took no prior precautions, asked us,can we view cctv , no 'time frame given just between' 9-12hrs apx.I did not have the time to physically sit & watch. We did 'fast forward' ,but it was hard to know, as the 'frame' time,fast forwarding, potentially 'missed'the incident.At the time neighbour advised,not sure how much was taken, but 'tools/laptop, etc appeared to be still there.Advice we gave,secure everything,if your away take valuables to parents, reply was 'its not that easy'[parents live 10 mins away].We paid $25,for USB,so neighbour could view if they wanted.Neighbour did not collect.Apx 3 mths later,burgled again,still no precautions taken ,sadly everything taken.Neighbour was away, no 'timeframe' when incident took place.
    
    I have no issue in helping my neighbours whatsoever,It would have been nice to be reimbursed the outlay of $25.I feel there is an element of 'ownership & responsibility',to take precautions,especially when knowledge has been provided.My suggestion, is to mention to whomever 'requests' footage,for them to purchase a USB memory stick,it does not take to much time ,[if you know how to] would be the neighbourly thing to do.
    - camellialady on 11/11/2019 - 16:06
      
      +2
      
      oops, wrong person apologies meant for 'tshow', as you can see ,I'm not very 'good' with knowing how 'this works' ,let alone cctv.
    - [Deactivated] on 12/11/2019 - 12:30
      
      I have no issue in helping my neighbours whatsoever,
      
      What if your neighbour was your ex-boss that you perceive dismissed you for no reason?
      
      How do you decide the defining relationship of neighbour vs unfair boss?
      
      Should the relationship matter?
      - Zachary on 12/11/2019 - 20:28
        
        @[Deactivated]: hah thats easy - call it revenge served cold - if he had treated you nicer in the past, maybe you would have been more linient towards him now, but since that wasn't the case - hes screwed!
        
        [Deactivated] on 12/11/2019 - 21:37
        
        @Zachary: Hehe, I think you would be lynched for being vindictive based on the comments further down.
        
        … then they should be lynched for lynching you as they have been vindictive in the act of lynching.
        
        Circle lynch.
        
        AlexG on 13/11/2019 - 06:55
        
        @[Deactivated]: Circle Lynch. That's a great term. Maybe could be a band name.
        At least a user name on ozb!
        
        Zachary on 13/11/2019 - 13:22
        
        @[Deactivated]: Well that's just my personal opinion and act if I were in that specific situation. If I get mobbed afterwards for it - so be it(Of course I'll try to fight back if I can), but if I survive the mobbing, whoever mobbed me or and put up the task to mob me in the first place, will now be on my personal grudge list and will try to make some effort to get them back for it….unless I can't be bothered, no time for it, or wuss out, and leave it at that, but still remembering the scene, if said person or group ever comes near me again, then this scene will play again, and I will once again respond with revenge is best served cold.
        
        [Deactivated] on 13/11/2019 - 13:29
        
        @Zachary: That's the difficulty with ethical considerations. To be morally absolute, you must apply the same principles consistently.
        
        Some people have principles that are consistent but they're consistently aligned with what we perceived to be "bad". I am yet to read and/or contemplate on that subject but from my very limited understanding, a racist could fall into that category. A racist doesn't have to be genocidal so they don't necessarily have to be what we consider "monsters".
        
        In response to your temptation to serve cold dishes, are you absolutely sure that you're not acting hypocritically, ie. suspending some of your principles for the sake of convenience/self-absolution?
        
        There is always the option to apply your standards consistently and recognise that you are acting against your self imposed standards this recognising thus accepting your shortcomings without making any concessions to your principles.
        
        Zachary on 16/11/2019 - 16:31
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        In response to your temptation to serve cold dishes, are you absolutely sure that you're not acting hypocritically, ie. suspending some of your principles for the sake of convenience/self-absolution?
        
        That really depends - because for me to be consistent in everyway possible would also mean I must also be self aware at all times, which unfortunately for both us, I can't guarantee such.
      - camellialady on 14/11/2019 - 21:11
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]: Mmmn, if it was an 'ex boss',whom I perceived, but did not know for certain,yes I still would say same, pay for the usb stick, and this time I will help, however my advice is 'purchase a cctv system' yourself, and that way we can both be extra covered.
        
        I have had a 'neighbour' whom,for want of a better word was a 'do as i say', person, that we did not get along with.When any incident in the street that occured ,I went over and advised to be careful,& advised to put a lock on the gate.Again a different neighbour to above, but words the same, 'I don't have anything much, besides if they want to get in they will'.I did my neighbourly duty.
        We witnessed 'someone',we perceived as'casing her home', and advised, but same response.
        Some time after, she could not find her car keys, and asked us if we would check our cameras,as she suspected, she had seen a lady enter her car, and then go into the 'house' which was the 'troublesome' one.We did 'help',spent the time checking, funnily later she came over & advised us 'she found them',No no-one had been in the car ,she had thrown them in her car, and they had fallen behind the seat.
        I mention this, as she has given us a lot of 'grief & angst' of the years,as she stated' for no other reason than she does not 'like' us, but I thought I would be helpful,& neighbourly,even though I could have ignored.
        We still do not get along,& I'm not sure if roles were reversed if she would do same.
        
        When viewing footage for another neighbour,whom had been burgled,to help them, we noticed suspicious activety, for another neighbour, again we advised other, be mindful & careful, they replied'are you sure it wasn't our son',? No, we know him and this definately was not him,but have chosen to not secure their property fully. However a car was doing 'burnouts' in the road very late at night which disturbed them, they then asked to view footage.We have gone to trouble of buying 'extenders' for better night vision, but could not clearly see.
        
        After 'helping', few neighbours, in future as mentioned they can have the footage to view themselves if they purchase usb,there is only so much help you can give /advise,& I daresay there may come a time when we do become bit 'peeved', but atm we are trying our best to 'do right thing'.
Ughhh on 10/11/2019 - 10:30

+20

Is it okay for me to charge for footage?

AFAIK, unless asked by the court or authorities, you don't have to share or release footage. Its your property and you can do whatever with it. So question is your own moral obligation and how those choices may or may not affect your business. Do you care if Bob is now also angry at you for not helping?
- [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 10:32
  
  +12
  
  I understand the legal position. You are spot on - this is a moral question.
  
  I don't give a crap about Bob's feelings. Bob laughs the condescending laugh when I answered his question about the cost of my added security.
  - Ughhh on 10/11/2019 - 10:48
    
    +14
    
    Bob laughs the condescending laugh when I answered his question about the cost of my added security.
    
    Maybe instead of stating the cost of the security as the reason for the charge, state the cost for the receptionist/your time to look for the footage and charge an hourly rate or something.
    
    For me, it would depend on how the person approaches me and how entitled they are. Perhaps they need reminding who needs whose help.
    - [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 11:05
      
      +3
      
      The cost of wiring, the up specced networking, power costs, the fact that the camera spoils the look of my building…
      
      … the camera isn't free. The affected persons know this hence why they don't have one yet they still expect to benefit from it.
      - [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 13:07
        
        +9
        
        @[Deactivated]: No one is going to pay for your sunk cost. It doesn't matter what you think about it. If you're charging them for effort you're yet to perform then you might have a shot at convincing them.
        
        [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 14:18
        
        +3
        
        @[Deactivated]: We'll call it contribution towards an asset they're benefitting from.
        
        [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 14:28
        
        +7
        
        @[Deactivated]: They probably won't benefit at all, they likely have insurance to pay for their losses, it's you that will benefit if the local thief is stopped before they steal your very expensive surveillance gear.
        
        Ughhh on 10/11/2019 - 14:31
        
        +3
        
        @[Deactivated]: How you respond to each other, as in the words and angle you use can give different responses, even though in the end its basically asking the same thing (ie. you getting money). $20 is $20, or do you really want to be stubborn and make sure they know its $20 for the cost of setup?
        
        Its like how people are more likely to buy from your ebay listing if you have free postage, even if the total price is exactly the same.
        
        [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 14:33
        
        +1
        
        @Ughhh: Precisely my point.
        
        Call it what we want - sunken cost, administrative cost.
        
        Distill it to its most basic concept - I paid, someone else didn't. They want to benefit from something I paid for, they need to compensate me.
        
        [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 14:42
        
        +3
        
        @[Deactivated]: They don't 'need' to do anything, they can laugh in your face throw a brick through your windscreen. If you ask the right way you can get what you want.
        
        If your argument is 'I paid for this, and regardless of whether you get any benefit from it, it will still have cost me the same', then they're not going to be inclined to pay you anything, and they'll likely do anything in their power to make your life difficult. If you outline what it will cost you directly to comply with their request, most people would be happy to pay.
        
        [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 14:49
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        brick through your windscreen.
        
        That would be an actual criminal act.
        
        Your example paints a malicious neighbour who is malicious after being denied assistance to negate their complacency.
        
        I, however, have not been malicious nor criminal. Heck, I haven't even been opportunistic. Personally, I would give the footage for a slab of beer and a signed contract for the neighbours house to be fitted with CCTV of their own.
        
        The point I am trying to raise isn't, "how can I make money from my CCTV?".
        
        It is more to incentivize others to have CCTV and hence increase coverage, and for the relationship between neighbours to be mutual and not merely mooching.
        
        serideth on 12/11/2019 - 15:26
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]: Logically no. You paid for it for your own benefit (to secure your business, in case you get into accidents). The cost to you persoanlly to provide the footage in the examples that you've given is zero.
        
        Now do you have to give it? Absolutely not, you have no obligation to do so.
        
        But your statement about only charging to incentivize others to get cameras, don't you think being in an accident or getting robbed is incentive enough instead of someone asking for $20 for the footage from their camera.
        
        Personally I'd say just be a decent person and help your neighbors out. When our neighbors go oversees and asks if we can feed their dog once a day or pick up and parcels left for them you don't do it with the expectation of monetary exchange. You do it knowing that if you need a hand they'll reciprocate.
        
        But at the end of the day you do whatever feels right to you.
        
        [Deactivated] on 12/11/2019 - 16:12
        
        @serideth:
        
        Logically no. You paid for it for your own benefit (to secure your business, in case you get into accidents).
        
        I should probably make that comment more visible but we did cover this elsewhere. The logical conclusion is quite obvious.
        
        It's good that we can seperate the logical to the moral.
        
        Now do you have to give it? Absolutely not, you have no obligation to do so.
        
        And also seperate the legal.
        
        But at the end of the day you do whatever feels right to you.
        
        And here in lies the conundrum. What is right?
        
        I know what I'd do personally but if faced with a similar dilemma, would we apply the same principles?
        
        parsimonious one on 10/11/2019 - 17:22
        
        +7
        
        @[Deactivated]: Are you not benefitting if the police catch the criminals operating in your it area?
        
        [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 17:25
        
        -8
        
        @parsimonious one: By that logic, I shouldn't have to pay tax.
        
        After all, if everyone else is paying for roads and other infrastructure, wouldn't they benefit all the same without my contribution?
        
        parsimonious one on 10/11/2019 - 18:10
        
        +11
        
        @[Deactivated]: Presumably the reason you purchased and installed your camera system was to assist the police in apprehending criminals. (If this wasn’t the aim you could have simply installed fake ones)
        
        Having the cameras installed seems to also have some deterrent effect as your premises have not been violated whilst your neighbours have been.
        
        I would suggest you utilise the cameras for the purpose for which they were installed. i.e. to assist in the apprehension of criminals, lest your place be next.
        
        Also, given your attitude thus far indicates you are motivated primarily by self interest, here is something to consider; the continuation of a spate of burglaries or vandalism in your area will inevitably lead to higher insurance premiums and possibly lower property values thus it is YOUR financial interest to assist
        
        [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 18:20
        
        @parsimonious one:
        
        I would suggest you utilise the cameras for the purpose for which they were installed. i.e. to assist in the apprehension of criminals, lest your place be next.
        
        At least you're not suggesting throwing a brick through my window.
        
        My place will unlikely be next as there are plenty of homes without surveillance. If my home is burgled, it would be a bad choice for a target. I wouldn't welcome it but I'm prepared.
        
        parsimonious one on 10/11/2019 - 18:39
        
        +29
        
        @[Deactivated]: No man is an island.
        
        There will undoubtedly be times in the future that you may require the assistance of others. You should hope that when that time inevitably comes those whose assistance you require don’t use that occasion to opportunistically profit for your misfortune/ vulnerability.
        
        Your self centred approach to society is all the more concerning given you are apparently in the medical profession and it appears your instinct is to exploit the vulnerability and misfortune of others smh
        
        [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 18:56
        
        +1
        
        @parsimonious one: It seems you're fixated on the dollar value in the discussion.
        
        If you would refrain from making this personal, you'll see it has nothing to do with exploitation. It is about charity, shared costs, ignorance, diligence and negligence.
        
        There's no sick infant being refused life saving treatment by a big bad doctor driving two Ferraris at the same time.
        
        parsimonious one on 10/11/2019 - 19:00
        
        +8
        
        @[Deactivated]: No sick infant, but there is still someone trying to leverage other’s misfortune for their own gain.
        
        But on that note, what if your cameras caught a driver who struck a child and drove away. Would you volunteer that footage or does that just command a higher price as the stakes are higher?
        
        [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 19:07
        
        @parsimonious one: I don't want to gain. I want others to be as diligent as I am, and if they are, I'm willing to be social.
        
        But on that note, what if your cameras caught a driver who struck a child and drove away. Would you volunteer that footage or does that just command a higher price as the stakes are higher?
        
        First part re child - the affected persons is a child. They cannot be held accountable so on that count, I would release footage.
        
        I don't expect someone to have footage of me with a body cam so the same standards apply, I don't expect someone else to have a body cam. On that count, I would release footage.
        
        Second question is actually an interesting one - should the price be in context of the severity/value?
        
        Personally, I think that presents more grey areas and if you know I'm a doctor, you'd also follow that I like definitions.
        
        parsimonious one on 10/11/2019 - 19:14
        
        +10
        
        @[Deactivated]: It’s interesting to see how you like to split hairs to try and justify your position.
        
        In the scenario of an injured child discussed above, if the child was that of your neighbour would you extract a price for the footage because you feel their parents should have be “diligent” and “responsible” enough to have their own camera system too?
        
        How much of your neighbour’s misfortune is enough for you to act charitably?
        
        A far more easily defensible moral stance would be to simply say that you’d assist willingly whenever you were able to.
        
        [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 19:23
        
        @parsimonious one: A hair to us is a home to something else, a clue that may solve a crime… It may be a hair to you, to me, there are serious implications in my principles. Similarly, some may find some of your dilemmas or actions to be insignificant but it may mean the difference between a clear conscience or sleepless nights.
        
        In the scenario of an injured child discussed above, if the child was that of your neighbour would you extract a price for the footage because you feel their parents should have be “diligent” and “responsible” enough to have their own camera system too?
        
        I view people as individuals and not subject to their parents. If I didn't, I'd have to consider that some child patients need less help because they have better parents. That would be detrimental to children with wealthy but abusive/absent parents.
        
        So on that count, the scenario is very well defined. It is a child, they could not possibly consent to installation of cameras. Without the ability to consent, they are absolved from responsibility.
        
        How much of your neighbour’s misfortune is enough for your to act charitably?
        
        It is not a question of "how much" but "why". There's a big difference between neighbouring losing his leg from police duty vs uncontrolled diabetes.
        
        parsimonious one on 10/11/2019 - 19:29
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]: I don’t understand the examples of “losing his leg”, are you saying as a doctor you’d provide care in one scenario and not the other?
        
        [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 20:10
        
        @parsimonious one: No. I'm a neighbour and he has already lost his leg.
        
        How much of your neighbour’s misfortune is enough for you to act charitably?
        
        I'm quite literally answering within the parameters of your question and expanding only to include that which is relevant and necessary.
        
        You're very fixated on this doctor thing.
        
        If my neighbour lost his leg during heroism, I'd roll his bins in/out for him every time. I'd buy him a donut if I'm ever at the shops.
        
        If my neighbour was a diabetic and I know he eats like crap, I'm not going to go out of my way to do jack shit. He is already a tax burden and all of that can be prevented with a measure of self control.
        
        parsimonious one on 10/11/2019 - 20:25
        
        +8
        
        @[Deactivated]: You are most definitely not answering within the parameters of my question as my previous post asked whether you'd render less assistance to someone in (medical) need based on your perception of their role in contributing to their misfortune (analagous to your CCTV footage scenario).
        
        You did not address that question at all.
        
        I am not fixated on the "doctor thing", just trying to give you examples of similar issues of moral responsibility that you might have already thought about.
        
        That being said, as I previously stated, it does concern me that as a doctor, your instinct is to try and think of ways to exploit (or atleast benefit from), rather than help those in need of assistance.
        
        Perhaps a career as a real estate agent would be more fitting?
        
        [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 20:29
        
        -2
        
        @parsimonious one: I apologize if I missed that question. Genuinely.
        
        Please quote that question and I will provide an answer.
        
        your instinct is to try and think of ways to exploit (or atleast benefit from), rather than help those in need of assistance
        
        "Only free for those with their own cameras."
        
        It's not about making any money, nor recouping any expense. It's about the expense that is there whether recognised or otherwise and the benefit that expense has for someone who hasn't contributed nor taken any action to be self sufficient.
        
        (Going to copy and paste that for those "omg profit" arguments.)
        
        parsimonious one on 10/11/2019 - 20:42
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]: I appreciate your argument regarding the expense which you incurred.
        
        IMHO, regarding the scenario in your initial post, the suggestion to charge for footage sounds like an attempt at profiteering because you are not incurring any expense in providing the footage.
        
        Regardless of whether your neighbour or police need your assistance you installed and operate the camera system for your own benefit and from what you've said you are benefiting as your home hasn't been targeted.
        
        It costs you nothing to help your neighbour/ police catch the perpetrators of the burglaries, so why not just help?
        
        [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 20:44
        
        @parsimonious one: The title is a bit provocative but hey ~~sex~~ outrage sells.
        
        It cost nothing for everyone to be vaccinated, that doesn't mean someone gets to enjoy a well inoculated society without being expected to be inoculated.
        
        It's about fair contribution.
        
        parsimonious one on 10/11/2019 - 20:55
        
        +2
        
        @[Deactivated]: It is an interesting point/ comparison to vaccination:
        
        Firstly, unlike vaccination, as you have gone to great lengths to emphasise, it would cost your neighbour/ the police to get cameras
        
        secondly, if someone wasn't vaccinated, but then became ill are you suggesting you wouldn't treat them? (For the record i'm not fixated on the "doctor thing", vaccination was your analogy)
        
        …The more I debate this with you, the more I think you are just stirring the pot, as I can't imagine you wouldn't treat someone just because you felt they contributed to their injury/ illness
        
        got skin cancer; should've worn a hat/ sunscreen
        
        got hypertension; shouldn't have eaten salt
        
        got a hip fracture; should've been more careful in the bathroom
        
        fell off your mountain bike; shouldn't have been riding so fast
        
        I'm sure you have and still would help in all those situations despite any perception of lack of diligence or responsibility
        
        [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 21:03
        
        +1
        
        @parsimonious one: The cost of vaccination in this country is free but you still have to go and get it…
        
        …and there are those who still refuse to get it.
        
        it would cost your neighbour/ the police to get cameras
        
        Indeed. I know because I paid. I bore the expense. Perhaps not a sting on the shoulder but equally as miniscule an inconvenience relative to owning a home/investment property, a CCTV system is nothing.
        
        secondly, if someone wasn't vaccinated, but then became ill are you suggesting you wouldn't treat them? (For the record i'm not fixated on the "doctor thing", vaccination was your analogy)
        
        I'd treat them but I'll charge them for it too. Just like the camera. The only reason why I'd be treating them is because Medicare wouldn't otherwise Medicare would have.
        
        As I know where the follow up is heading, yes, I'd treat them even if I knew they're gonna do a runner after if the consequence of withholding treatment is death. The same consequence doesn't apply for the CCTV scenario.
        
        got skin cancer; should've worn a hat/ sunscreen
        got hypertension; shouldn't have eaten salt
        got a hip fracture; should've been more careful in the bathroom
        fell off your mountain bike; shouldn't have been riding so fast
        
        You realise that our medical system does put patients who have contributed to their condition on lower priority right?
        
        If there was no one on the waiting list, we wouldn't throw a lung in the bin but put a smoker next to a non smoker, all else being equal, smoker is condemned.
        
        This system of priority will be relevant to your examples should our resources become scarce.
        
        parsimonious one on 10/11/2019 - 21:14
        
        +2
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        "You realise that our medical system does put patients who have contributed to their condition on lower priority right?"
        
        No it doesn't and this is why I like making your example analagous to medical ethics…
        
        If you get lung cancer you get the same treatment and treatment priority whether you are a smoker or not.
        
        If you are in a car crash you get the same care whether you were wearing a seat belt or not (or whether your car had air bags or not, or whether you were drink driving or not)
        
        That's why i'm surprised of your stance on the CCTV
        
        [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 21:18
        
        @parsimonious one: Sadly, you're mistaken. With "unlimited" resources, it appears so but given the finite choice to treat, there is a criteria to place priority.
        
        I have first hand experience delivering bad news. It wasn't my decision, in fact, I advocated for my patient but where a decision has to be made, contributing factors will be examined.
        
        parsimonious one on 10/11/2019 - 21:24
        
        +2
        
        @[Deactivated]: I'd be interested in the circumstances to which you are referring and would be very surprised if there was some policy or systemic directive considering perceived "negligence".
        
        As you know the "triage" system which is used to determine priority of treatment (whether that be in the emergency dept or on surgical waitlists) does not consider contributory factors to illness, only severity of illness and risks of deterioration
        
        From wikipedia:
        Triage (/ˈtriːɑːʒ, triˈɑːʒ/) is the process of determining the priority of patients' treatments based on the SEVERITY of their condition. This rations patient treatment efficiently when resources are insufficient for all to be treated immediately;
        
        No mention of whether or not the person might have responsibility for their illness ;-)
        
        The moral thing to do is to render assistance, when able, to those that need it.
        
        [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 21:35
        
        @parsimonious one: Triage is to determine speciality (if applicable) and urgency. Not who is deserving.
        
        There are further hurdles beyond triage.
        
        My most memorable decline was a Medicare sponsored hip. Patient has suffered multiple seperate incidents of man vs tarmac. Sans Kevlar/leather.
        
        No skin, can't live. The guy got the skin no questions asked but the patient was declined hip reconstruction under Medicare due to repeated contributory negligence. Can't divulge anymore as it was quite unique.
        
        Then there's transplant committees.
        
        Anyway, the finite resources we have for medicine is a whole seperate discussion. The well recognised fact is doctors have the power the choose who gets treatment when a choice absolutely has to be made. I have always advocated against arbitrary (well considered but ultimately still arbitrary) nomination of such a commitee in favour of a blind system. Of course, this is seen as evil capitalism because medical aid cannot be free if everyone is to truly have equal (not equitable) access.
        
        (I'd request removal of this comment if it starts a political argument. I think I have presented the two options fairly.)
        
        parsimonious one on 10/11/2019 - 21:45
        
        +3
        
        @[Deactivated]: I agree…we digress
        
        Back to the question at hand:
        
        1) you have the resources to provide assistance to your neighbour/ police
        2) it costs you nothing (beyond what you have already spent and would have spent regardless) to provide said assistance
        
        I think morally, you should provide the requested assistance
        
        We can agree to disagree
        
        [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 21:50
        
        +1
        
        @parsimonious one: I believe we can agree to disagree.
        
        I do challenge you to suspend empathy - do not think about what you wish others would do nor what you would do. Consider purely the principles of the decision and how it can be absolutely defined.
        
        Doctors are presumed to be oozing with empathy but the truth is, empathy makes us better carers but worse doctors. It is the reason why we avoid treating family and friends.
        
        parsimonious one on 10/11/2019 - 20:50
        
        +2
        
        @[Deactivated]: Also, to extrapolate the principle that you should charge others because you spent money and they are attempting to benefit from your purchase, would you expect a fee in any of the following situations:
        
        1) someone asks you for the time? (they could have bought their own watch/ phone)
        2) asks for directions? (they could have bought their own map/ phone)
        3) asks to borrow your pen? (they could have bought their own pen/ pencil)
        
        [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 20:57
        
        @parsimonious one:
        
        someone asks you for the time? (they could have bought their own watch/ phone)
        
        I wouldn't because I get the time from my phone, an instrument I bought primarily for the function of a phone. Secondly, the information they seek isn't there only because I have a phone. The footage OTOH is exclusively in existence because of the expense I have shouldered.
        
        Same response for the second.
        
        3) asks to borrow your pen? (they could have bought their own pen/ pencil)
        
        We all had that friend who used his money elsewhere. To that friend I say, "stop mooching".
        
        hhne on 10/11/2019 - 23:42
        
        @[Deactivated]: You have thousands of dollars in camera gear, that’s a bloody excellent target. Balaclava on, crowbar and spray paint out.
        
        [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 00:18
        
        @hhne: Exactly.
        
        Imagine the exponential increase in difficulty to get away with the crime if the whole street has surveillance.
        
        You can't get from home to the target in a balaclava that draws too much attention. You can't expose your face and attire near the target, they'll easily compile the footage with all other surveillance systems.
        
        In essence, if my home is the only one that has surveillance, I'm a sitting duck. My expense would then be for that one footage that someone else can benefit from.
        
        hhne on 11/11/2019 - 00:20
        
        @[Deactivated]: You really made an error buying security cameras then, you should have just paid your neighbours to install them.
        
        [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 00:25
        
        @hhne: Perhaps from a financial exercise point of view, that may be better.
        
        I don't need to have those ugly things all around my property and I still get the benefit of the cameras.
      - Zachary on 12/11/2019 - 20:32
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        the fact that the camera spoils the look of my building
        
        Then get ones that can easily be hidden within walls or attached inconspicuously to things that won't be noticeable at first glance, like maybe a camera inside a flower pointed towards a particular section….
  - SBOB on 10/11/2019 - 14:04
    
    +6
    
    I don't give a crap about Bob's feelings.
    
    You cut me deep, Shrek. You cut me real deep just now
    - [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 14:17
      
      +1
      
      I make special exceptions for Sbobs. ;)
  - abb on 11/11/2019 - 09:22
    
    You should approach all potential 'Bobs' within visual range of your cameras pro-actively.
    
    You might phrase your approach something like "Nice business you have here, would be a real shame if something were to happen to it. Lucky for you I am able to offer the protective services of my surveillance system for a low monthly fee"
    
    :)
    - [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 09:26
      
      I have actually had a business in a busy street and been asked to compensate a 24/7 eatery because they provide added security for the entire area by trading through the night.
      
      Of course there were obvious flaws with that argument. Most obviously being that their clientele were the actual problem.
      - abb on 11/11/2019 - 09:33
        
        @[Deactivated]: For a serious response, I would supply the footage in the first instance as a "neighbourly" thing to do, with a request that they install their own system to share the load in future. Subsequent requests would receive a request for an administration fee.
        
        Your position seems to me to boil down to "they should already know everything I know and made the same judgements I have", which is unreasonable. Chances are they simply had not thought to install cameras / thought it was too expensive / some other process of thought which differed to yours.
        
        Don't forget that helping to catch the law-breakers has a positive effect on you also. Next time it could be your car that is involved in a crash or your business that is robbed (don't fool yourself into thinking cameras prevent this).
        
        [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 09:41
        
        @abb:
        
        Your position seems to me to boil down to "they should already know everything I know and made the same judgements I have", which is unreasonable.
        
        Your position is entirely reasonable.
        
        I would argue from a position of one that also does not cast any judgement so the universal approach but the polar opposite of your judgement. Ie. Instead of noone would have had the foresight, everyone had the foresight.
        
        Don't forget that helping to catch the law-breakers has a positive effect on you also. Next time it could be your car that is involved in a crash or your business that is robbed (don't fool yourself into thinking cameras prevent this).
        
        A car crash wouldn't be from an apprehended victim as a result of my dashcam. It would likely be a different driver. If my dashcam footage is inconclusive, I would need someone else with a dashcam.
        
        So it comes back to, how far would you go to encourage dashcam use? Charge a fee for yours? Withhold yours?
        
        abb on 11/11/2019 - 09:58
        
        @[Deactivated]: I don't understand the first half of your comment sorry, but in the interest of doing some productive work today I'm gonna let it go ;)
        
        A car crash wouldn't be from an apprehended victim as a result of my dashcam. It would likely be a different driver. If my dashcam footage is inconclusive, I would need someone else with a dashcam.
        
        What I was getting at is that every driver that you help catch who would have otherwise gotten away with it is one bad driver punished, but also you've helped raise the hit rate of law enforcement. Perceived risk of being caught is the prime factor in rate of criminal behaviour (yeah, citation needed, no time!). So helping catch other bad drivers helps you (in a small way).
        
        So it comes back to, how far would you go to encourage dashcam use? Charge a fee for yours? Withhold yours?
        
        Depends on the circumstance of course, but generally I have an interest in law-breaking drivers being caught, so I would lean towards sharing.
        
        The marginal cost is minimal, a few minutes of my time to upload the footage. I only spent the ~$100 as a personal insurance policy for myself, if someone else happens to get a side benefit that's cool. Further, from a game theory perspective, if I was in a position of needing someone else's footage, I would want them to share, so encouraging a society of free footage sharing helps me in that prospective scenario (but encouraging a culture of dashcam ownership helps too, I don't have time to do the game theory analysis on the optimal move!).
        
        The equation is a bit different for a fixed system in a commercial district too.
        
        [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 10:05
        
        +1
        
        @abb: You are considering a single possible outcome - use dashcam footage end result fewer bad drivers. Don't use dashcam footage must results in more bad drivers.
        
        What if there is a non-linear perspective - don't share dashcam footage results in more dashcam?
        
        encouraging a society of free footage sharing helps…
        
        That's actually why I am exploring this line of discussion. How could there be a society of sharing when I'm the only one supplying?
        
        abb on 11/11/2019 - 10:59
        
        +2
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        What if there is a non-linear perspective - don't share dashcam footage results in more dashcam?
        
        Indeed, that is the hard question to solve. (But you can foresee a situation where that philosophy leads to a society of many cameras, none of which will give you footage)
        
        I suspect positive interactions are better at shaping behaviour than bad (a possible line of thought: that guy had a dashcam but didn't help me, what a jerk, therefore dashcam owners are jerks, I'm not a jerk, I won't get one).
        
        I would play it like "here's the footage, cameras are great, you should get one for next time, here's a (referral) link for 10% off"
        
        [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 11:09
        
        @abb:
        
        Indeed, that is the hard question to solve. (But you can foresee a situation where that philosophy leads to a society of many cameras, none of which will give you footage)
        
        Ah. That's a valid one. At what point to we incentivise/discriminate for ownership of cameras and actually start sharing.
        
        It's not dissimilar to regimes that sacrifice to build a nation. At what point does the sacrifice end and the welfare of the citizens become the primary goal?
        
        Thanks for the discussion.
        
        abb on 11/11/2019 - 14:05
        
        @[Deactivated]: We should write a book "On The Philosophy of Dashcams" haha
        
        [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 14:08
        
        @abb: All philosophy is connected.
        
        The most dangerous people are those that have seperate principles applied based on emotional convenience.
        
        Either way, I'm glad this discussion didn't follow one trajectory.
        
        Thazza on 12/11/2019 - 12:50
        
        @[Deactivated]: …that was an interesting journey to follow!
        
        [Deactivated] on 12/11/2019 - 12:55
        
        @Thazza: Thanks. I hope it is the good kind of interesting and it would invoke more examination.
  - patriedacher on 11/11/2019 - 11:55
    
    If you are asking if extorting someone for money if you have evidence of crime on your dashcam is a dick things to do? Yes Yes it would.
    - [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 16:02
      
      Unless I am withholding something that belongs to someone else, it isn't extortion.
      
      What if it isn't evidence of crime? What if it for the convenience of establishing blame between two drivers that did not have dashcams?
  - subywagon on 11/11/2019 - 12:22
    
    Bob laughs the condescending laugh
    
    If this is the case then I'd say tough titties, get your own camera system.
    - [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 12:44
      
      Hehe. Wouldn't that weigh on your conscience that your decision was made in spite?
      - subywagon on 11/11/2019 - 14:28
        
        @[Deactivated]: Not at all. If they are being rude and condescending I'd tell them where to go especially when they are asking you for a favour. You'd be giving them a free life lesson on how to treat people, especially if you need their help.
        
        Anyways, they aren't your friends. You are running a business. Costs are costs. Add some attitude tax to it :P
        
        [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 16:03
        
        @subywagon: Now, if they had CCTV installed and is otherwise a good neighbour from a functional sense, would you still withhold footage if they are simply chronically rude.
        
        subywagon on 11/11/2019 - 17:00
        
        @[Deactivated]: Of course. Why reward rudeness?
        
        [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 17:02
        
        @subywagon: I wouldn't call providing someone with equal diligence for surveillance with additional footage is a reward. Equally, I wouldn't call ignoring the demands of the complacent to be punishment.
thatonethere on 10/11/2019 - 10:31

+6

I reckon if the police are asking best to comply. Hate to have karma when something happens to you and you are known as the guy who wouldn't help.

For private citizens charge what you want or deny what you want. Unless they have a court order - for a court order you can charge reasonable costs. Karma may apply down the track of course.
- [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 10:33
  
  If I was as thrifty/ignorant/complacent as the affected persons, I wouldn't have a camera to provide footage.
  
  Karma would be for the footage to be withheld.
  - [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 12:50
    
    +10
    
    Karma would be to withhold the footage to have the same thieves take your property at a time when you had a technical issue preventing your cameras from working….. That, that would be Karma.
    - [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 14:18
      
      The neighbour wouldn't have footage to withhold.
      - [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 14:19
        
        +3
        
        @[Deactivated]: Read that again.
        
        [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 14:28
        
        @[Deactivated]: I wouldn't have withhold the footage in the first place if my neighbour has cameras.
        
        Covered under - "Only free for those with their own cameras."
        
        Ie. If my neighbour was also being proactive, I'd be more than happy to share because they wouldn't be mooching.
        
        [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 14:29
        
        +4
        
        @[Deactivated]: Read it AGAIN!
        
        [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 14:31
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]: I see what you mean. The Spiderman Uncle Ben version of karma.
        
        The problem with this version of karma is the logical flaw… karma didn't apply to the thieves.
        
        capslock janitor on 10/11/2019 - 21:46
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        The Spiderman Uncle Ben version of karma.
        
        💀💀💀
profar on 10/11/2019 - 10:39

+5

Too much Nightcrawler Bud lol .
UserNameAlreadyTaken on 10/11/2019 - 10:47

+1

Personally I wouldn't have an issue paying a "reasonable" fee to access yours or anyone elses cctv/dashcam footage. Court/police requests not sure?
- [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 11:07
  
  If the court requests/subpoenas the footage, compliance it becomes a matter of legality, ie. choice is removed.
  - DashCam AKA Rolts on 10/11/2019 - 12:14
    
    +7
    
    I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that if you have evidence of a criminal activity and withhold it, you are committing an offence. Likewise, demanding money for evidence would amount to extortion.
    In civil disputes, you may be summoned to provide evidence. Failure to do so would we see you being held in contempt, which carries a variety of penalties.
    - goegge on 10/11/2019 - 13:42
      
      What about the people who have information of crimes committed but do not pass on the information to the police but are happy to come forward when a large reward is offered that results in the arrest of the offender(s). Are they not committing an offence as well?, but we reward them for their ”crime”.
      - whooah1979 on 10/11/2019 - 14:44
        
        +1
        
        @goegge: https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/criminal/legislatio…
    - factor on 10/11/2019 - 14:48
      
      +2
      
      Correct - you are not a lawyer and are talking out of your arse.
      - DashCam AKA Rolts on 10/11/2019 - 15:24
        
        @factor: Check out the link posted by @whooah1979 immediately above.
    - HighAndDry on 10/11/2019 - 23:56
      
      Should've just stopped at "I'm not a lawyer".
pegaxs on 10/11/2019 - 10:48

+7

Yeah, good idea. Tell the police that you wont release the footage to them until they come to the party and cough up the $$'s. Tell them that you have an exclusivity deal with Today Tonight, and they will have to seek it through them…

Or you know, they could just get a court order and seize all your equipment as evidence…

If it is anyone else wanting the footage that are not the police or court system, you know you could always just say "no".

If you want to get paid for it, start your own YouTube channel and post up all the stupid shit people do for a laugh. Put some ads on it and enjoy your YouTube money…
- [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 11:02
  
  -1
  
  The question is directed as a moral one, hence the choice.
  
  If the police requests for footage, I will ask for a court order. If the court orders it, obviously compliance isn't the question.
  
  they could just get a court order and seize all your equipment as evidence…
  
  Seeing as I haven't broken any laws, this opens the state to a whole lot of liability.
  - DashCam AKA Rolts on 10/11/2019 - 12:27
    
    +3
    
    Obligatory, I'm not a police officer/lawyer.
    Doesn't need a court order to seize evidence, police just need a warrant. In some cases that can be signed off by a magistrate, judge or if I recall correctly, a justice of the peace. Warrants can be organised very quickly, and at any time. The police don't need a court hearing to issue a directive to recover evidence.
    
    Material required as evidence in criminal cases can legally be seized. It is, if lawfully owned, returned after a) investigation leads to a decision not to prosecute b) legal avenues for the defence have been exhausted c) reviewing of the evidence yields it immaterial to the matter.

Should we sell CCTV/dashcam footage?

Comments

New Forum Topics