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.

  1. I don't want to be the only one that buys a camera.
  2. 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

      • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 13:02
        +4

        I can pretty much guarantee you'll have your equipment seized via warrant and be a potential suspect if you make it difficult for police. You would be shocked how often the perpetrators are neighbors.

        • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 14:21
          -2

          I am not the perpetrator. Police cannot simply seize my assets.

          Warrants are no small matter. I am not a criminal. I just don't want involvement unless fairly compensated for my assistance which I can prove has a financial cost to myself.

          • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 14:23

            @[Deactivated]: Can you imagine in the future when your stuff gets knocked off AND you have the footage showing who it is, and the police just aren't interested?

            What good is your footage then?

            • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 14:29
              +1

              @[Deactivated]: My stuff won't get knocked off if my neighbours also had cameras hence creating a long series of footage covering multiple angles.

              A single camera in isolation is worthless just as a single vaccinated person is.

          • trapper on 11/11/2019 - 12:34

            @[Deactivated]: If your asset contains evidence of a crime the police can absolutely seize it, you will get it back… eventually.

  • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 11:02
    +7

    You raise an interesting question!

    Many government agencies charge various fees for obtaining a copy of CCTV data ie. application fee, hourly charge for work involved in reviewing the data in preparation for providing copy, etc. So, why should CCTV/dashcam data obtained by private citizens be any different?

    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 11:15

      The discussions I have had IRL have ranged from karma (which I am not a subscriber) to civic duty.

      The point on civic duty is hollow thus far. Perhaps someone can provide substance to the argument beyond "it is the neighbourly thing to do" because to me, the neighbourly thing to do is to set up the camera so our neighbourhood is unappealing to opportunists and we can share footage if something does occur.

      • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 12:30
        +2

        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.

        As you've already mentioned, the set-up & maintenance costs of a quality CCTV system are prohibitive for most people.

        I'm with UserNameAlreadyTaken - more than happy to pay to access CCTV/dashcam footage owned by someone else.

        • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 14:37
          -1

          That's a totally valid position from someone who wants footage. I guess the next question would be to what amount would you pay?

          Ie. If the cost of capturing that image was a $250 camera as part of a $10,000 network of cameras, what would fair be?

          Surveillance isn't an exercise in isolation. We cannot pay the security guard that nabs a shoplifter and call the other guards useless.

    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 12:58
      +2

      Charging for the effort required to provide it is a different thing to charging for the footage itself though. The effect might be the same but legally and morally they're actually different.

      One is 'I have evidence of a crime but you need to pay me for it' and the other is 'You would like me to perform work for which it is reasonable to be compensated'.

      • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 13:56

        I'm not disputing the separate charges just pointing out that there can be a range of fees that become applicable when requesting CCTV data from government agencies due to time & effort involved in providing a copy.

        Prior to tshow's post, I wouldn't have even considered what is involved.

    • vikvance on 10/11/2019 - 13:39
      -5

      Many government agencies charge various fees for obtaining a copy of CCTV data

      They do it because they have legal authority to do so & a regulated set of fees.

      A private citizen demanding a random amount of money in exchange for handing over evidence would be classified as extortion.

      • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 14:46
        +3

        A private citizen demanding a random amount of money in exchange for handing over evidence would be classified as extortion.

        Calm the farm !

        Extortion ? Really ? You need a dictionary !

      • R-Man on 11/11/2019 - 21:07

        They do it because they have legal authority to do so

        What a ridiculous comment

    • jaimex2 on 11/11/2019 - 23:11

      So charge corporations and government agencies only :)

  • Ocker on 10/11/2019 - 11:23
    +1

    So you provide the footage to the police who then show it to the perp. as part of the investigation/conviction process.
    The perp. will quickly work out where the camera was/is located and come back for revenge - goodbye camera.

    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 13:04
      +5

      If they don't get caught they'll assume your camera isn't working and come back for your stuff!

  • tight-ass on 10/11/2019 - 11:34
    +1

    I'm in a similar situation to OP.

    Spent big $$$ installing a good quality CCTV system around our house and whenever there's a burglary in the area the police/residents come to me knowing I'll have nice clear footage of them and the rego of the car.

    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 23:11

      How do you feel about it?

  • owli on 10/11/2019 - 11:57
    +2

    If you had information that could help prove an immoral criminal ie pedophile/rapist/murderer/thief/fraud etc committed their crimes, you're morally obliged to hand over that information freely. No charge.

    Noisy CCTV footage I think could make it difficult to know if you have that information or not. I would listen to my gut and discuss it with my close family if I was really torn about handing the footage over.

    Other than that, what other footage would you have that others would want?

    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 12:17
      +1

      Both instances where my dashcam footage was requested was by the drivers. Presumably uninsured drivers trying to get concise judgement.

      I don't expect victims of "personal" crimes to have cameras on them. It is more directed at dashcams and home owners with regards to property damage.

      • owli on 10/11/2019 - 13:00
        +4

        It is more directed at dashcams and home owners with regards to property damage.

        Careless / Intentional property damage is immoral, you're morally obliged to hand over that information freely. No charge.

        Footage for genuine accidents… I am not really sure. I don't think morality comes into it.

        Not handing the footage over or asking for $ may just make you an arsehole.
        Which is fine, some arseholes have and follow the highest moral standards.
        However, like others have said, there is a bit of game theory involved in whether it's in your best interest.

        • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 15:13
          +1

          Careless / Intentional property damage is immoral

          Choir here.

          genuine accidents…

          I'm a cause and effect kinda guy. If someone's elbow knocks over a glass, I see it as careless placement of said glass.

          I do, however, acknowledge incalculable scenarios in which case, I would raise the scenario of a collision where footage is required to determine fault is and was entirely calculable.

          Just because something was unintentional does not equal accident.

      • seanj on 12/11/2019 - 01:17
        +1

        Yes I would always help out a neighbour in need with something as minor as "dash cam footage".

        This whole thread is just so American and sad.

  • p1 ama on 10/11/2019 - 12:23
    +5

    I'd say it's partly a civic duty, but it's also in your own best interest to make sure that the criminal is caught. If someone's ransacking your neighbours, then it's likely you're next, so it's probably a prophylactic move to get them caught first.

    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 14:22
      -4

      I'd say it is more so in my interest to have everyone incentivized to have operational cameras.

      • p1 ama on 10/11/2019 - 17:33

        Yes, but there's nothing you can do about that.

        • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 17:43

          That sentence could be equally effective if "reengineered".

          Yes, so you should do nothing about that.

  • whooah1979 on 10/11/2019 - 12:39

    Charging money is a pretty low act. It's right up there with keying.

    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 12:46
      +7

      I'm not damaging anyone elses' property.

      • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 12:50
        +3

        By preventing a crime from being solved you're potentially enabling further crimes.

        • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 12:52
          -1

          I'm not preventing. I'm merely not facilitating.

          One could easily argue that people without cameras aren't merely not facilitating, they are not detering.

          • seanj on 12/11/2019 - 01:18
            +3

            @[Deactivated]: It honestly sounds like you've already made up your own mind and you just want an excuse for what you deep down consider immoral behaviour. lol..

            • [Deactivated] on 12/11/2019 - 13:12

              @seanj: How do you reach such a judgement?

      • whooah1979 on 10/11/2019 - 12:55
        +12

        You should treat your neighbours the way you want them to treat you. Treat them like crap and they'll return the favour by doing nothing when the robber smash your car windows.

        • nfr on 10/11/2019 - 13:10
          +2

          Not saying I agree with it, but you are missing his point. His neighbours chose not to invest in surveillance, so his neighbours would never have footage. So in a way he's asking if he should return the favour by not providing footage when needed.

          • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 14:44
            +3

            @nfr: You don't need to have cameras to help neighbors out in other ways. On the other hand, if you're a dick about helping them out they might just come back and smash all your cameras.

            • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 14:53

              @[Deactivated]: So you are saying that reluctance to provide charitable assistance is equal to criminal and malicious destruction of property?

            • nfr on 10/11/2019 - 16:23
              +1

              @[Deactivated]: In the same vein he could help his neighbours in other ways, just not with the cameras.

              • hhne on 10/11/2019 - 23:51

                @nfr: If you’re the sort of person that doesn’t do the bare minimum when it has basically 0 incremental cost to yourself, you’re not going to win neighbor of the year. Sure I’ll collect your mail while you’re away, but you’re never finding out who broke into your place when you were away last time!

                • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 00:30

                  @hhne: You probably wouldn't know and I probably would because you do not have cameras and I do.

                  • hhne on 11/11/2019 - 00:34
                    +1

                    @[Deactivated]: I have the same UniFi set you do actually G4s and g3 flex but great total baseless assumption!

                    • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 00:37

                      @hhne: Then I would have given you the footage since you have cameras.

                      "Only free for those with their own cameras."

                      In which case I would have been a great neighbour because you're a prepared neighbour too.

                      Turns out it wasn't a baseless assumption after all…

                      • hhne on 11/11/2019 - 01:09
                        +2

                        @[Deactivated]: I’d want you to give the footage to our mutual neighbor that got robbed who didn’t have cameras so they can catch the perp before they rob or injure me.

                        So you’ve replaced the assumption I didn’t have cameras with the one that people who disagree with your stance are doing so because they think you would charge them?

                        I have cameras because I have both the money and the skills to set them up, I have set them up for other people as well. I’m lucky to be able to afford them, there are really disadvantaged people in society who simply do not have the money, skills or either to do this. They’re not choosing to be without them, they choosing a rent payment or a camera, a school excursion for their kids or a camera.

                        I enjoy helping people, if my camera system can help someone who doesn’t have one I feel not only is it my moral obligation but helping others is literally the only good thing most of us do with our lives anyway.

                        • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 01:17
                          -2

                          @hhne: Nice twist. Genuinely. I'm actually more interested in these hypotheticals than the actual answers.

                          Well, your answers seem consistently to provide footage without any further caveat. That's fine. That's what you want to do, you're certainly free to do it and it is very charitable.

                          The discussion I wish to explore is about the defining line but I don't think we'll get there if your response is highly geared towards charity.

                          • hhne on 11/11/2019 - 01:23

                            @[Deactivated]: There’s no defining line because no real situation can be summed up in a few paragraphs. You don’t know what is going on in other people’s lives, so if you want to avoid accidentally being a complete (profanity) to someone that was maybe just born unlucky you have to err on the site of charity. Otherwise you’re going to be a complete (profanity) at least occasionally.

                            • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 01:25

                              @hhne:

                              There’s no defining line because no real situation can be summed up in a few paragraphs.

                              I agree that it cannot be summed up in paragraphs otherwise the great philosophers of our entire human history have been woefully inefficient.

                              I think we will have to agree to disagree regarding the existence of said line.

          • Zachary on 13/11/2019 - 11:14

            @nfr: AHhhhh, now I see where tshow is coming from….thanks for explaining that point to someone who's not smart enough to see that… All I've gathered here was just a bunch of morale and ethical random battles in this whole thread comment chain…

            • [Deactivated] on 13/11/2019 - 12:33

              @Zachary: Sorry, the thread had a lot of tangents as there was too much outrage.

              As someone who is rarely in a position to be outraged, I am not sure how or why people feel that way so I thought I'd go down those rabbit holes.

              It didn't lead anywhere but the observations may be useful to me one day.

              (I can only recognise a consistent reason for my own personal "outrage". It is the perversion of the word science. Ie. "Scientific consensus, flat earth science"…)

        • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 14:22

          I'd like them to treat me to additional cameras.

          • [Deactivated] on 12/11/2019 - 12:07

            @[Deactivated]: I am no psychologist, but I enjoy making baseless accusations against people anyway. You seem to lack empathy and only do things which benefit your own self interest, you may be a sociopath.

            • [Deactivated] on 12/11/2019 - 12:13

              @[Deactivated]: One can have vast and in depth knowledge on the human mind without a formal qualification and one can make an educated guess.

              If I am indeed a sociopath, my decision is limited by my inability to relate.

              If your diagnosis is correct, my moral contemplation is now a major achievement for which celebration and encouragement should be the result. By the same logic, those who have not contributed to the discussion and instead directed their outrage at me would be distinctively unsympathetic, much less empathetic.

              • [Deactivated] on 12/11/2019 - 12:49

                @[Deactivated]: It is good that you have at least asked the question, though I haven't seen much agreeability with anything anybody has said despite the pole indicating that 80% of people think that you'd be kicking people when they're down. Imagine you have just had something bad happen to you, you're out thousands of dollars and someone wants more money from you for something (as indicated by the pole) most people would expect decent people to give freely. This is why you're getting a lot of responses that people would damage your property if you refused. It would be very upsetting in already extreme circumstances.

                • [Deactivated] on 12/11/2019 - 12:53

                  @[Deactivated]:

                  This is why you're getting a lot of responses that people would damage your property if you refused.

                  This response is deeply troubling and one I would never admit to even if I felt that way.

                  It requires one to feel entitled to the footage as if the owner of CCTV system has no right to withhold footage whatsoever. This is not the case as the owner of the system owns the footage. The state may subpoena the footage but that would also explicitly mean that they recognise ownership.

                  The second troubling part is the threat of violence should one not comply with their demands. That's not just immoral, it is outright criminal.

        • Viper8 on 13/11/2019 - 14:07

          Or they'll do the window smashing themselves…

      • Whisper Quiet on 11/11/2019 - 08:05
        +1

        So are you wanting more than $100 for footage that you have? I would be thinking it might not be that bad, say if you charge maybe $30-$50 for an incident just because of the time it takes to go through the cameras, find it then copy it and edit. Then send it to the person. Say it's worth around an hours work.

        • [Deactivated] on 12/11/2019 - 12:19

          Let's assume two scenarios. I want $50 and I want $100. Split the scenario in two again, for each amount I reasoned that it was my cost for time spent and another as compensation for my investment made.

          How and why would that change the morality of the decision?

          • Whisper Quiet on 12/11/2019 - 14:19

            @[Deactivated]: I just think that if the charge is over $50 people will get angry or whatever and put yourself in a bad situation. You can try but I would think $50 and under would at least be somewhat acceptable. I've had to give evidence and even help out people a few times at my old store. So I can understand it is a hassle. I've also benefited from another's camera who showed me the footage and took down the details of an incident of my car for me. You're talking like you will have to do it for someone weekly when it seems like it would be a handful of times a year at most…

    • elgrande on 10/11/2019 - 12:48
      +1

      The person should be given the opportunity as to whether they should pay or get their car keyed in order to access the footage.

  • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 12:54
    +1

    does everyone feel like people who invest in added security are in essence vaccinating themselves for the benefit of everyone

    Yeah, sure if you like. But a vaccination can end a pandemic, which could mutate and make your vaccination useless.

    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 14:54

      A single person vaccinated does not have any measurable effect, much less end a pandemic.

      • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 22:23
        +1

        Same with your cameras, they're totally worthless if you piss off the local police and when you get robbed they simply prioritise you at the end of an infinite queue.

        • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 22:25
          +2

          My tax dollars pay the police. I surrendered my rights to effectively defend myself in exchange for the police to safely do their job.

          The police doesn't have a choice. They have a contract to fulfil. Failure to do so will easily see to it I have a bigger house built with better stuff inside.

          (My god. For someone trying to be self righteous, you are very vindictive.)

          • Ahbal on 10/11/2019 - 22:55

            @[Deactivated]: "My tax dollars pay the police. I surrendered my rights to effectively defend myself in exchange for the police to safely do their job."

            Exactly right. Well said.

          • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 23:02
            +2

            @[Deactivated]:

            My god. For someone trying to be self righteous, you are very vindictive.

            Not giving someone help because they don't have camera's is the definition of vindictive. I'm pointing out that if others were to behave as you, you personally would suffer.

            And no, it's ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS that you say police don't have a choice. They're humans that have the same choices you have to provide the footage or not. 'Yeah sure buddy we're looking into it'. Bottom of the pile. And gone. That's how people work, they judge you based on your responses to others and they treat you the way you treat them.

            This isn't even moral at this point, you're in a situation here where the outcome you want apparently (everyone to pay $10k to install cameras) is never going to happen, and if you try to punish people for not doing it, there's every chance you'll end up suffering in exchange for absolutely nothing in return.

            The result of such an action is going to universally be self-harmful. You can call me whatever names you feel like, but it won't change anything.

            • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 23:07

              @[Deactivated]: Uncharitable =/= vindictive.

              everyone to pay $10k to install cameras

              Whoa. Not sure how many stop signs you ran to get there.

              • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 23:10
                +3

                @[Deactivated]: Uncharitable is not giving them something for no reason. Vindictive is not giving it to them as revenge for them not having cameras.

                If you didn't want to give them $50 because they were down on their luck, that's uncharitable.
                If you don't want to help them at no additional cost to yourself because they didn't do something to help you first, that's vindictive.

                • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 23:14

                  @[Deactivated]: The reason is a red herring. Either I am providing something to someone they are not entitled to or I am not.

                  Vindictive is not giving it to them as revenge…

                  Hey… I see what you're trying there…

                  Just because I don't want give a hitchhiker a ride doesn't make me vindictive. I am already incurring the cost of travel. I am refusing them a ride because I don't want a stranger in my car.

                  they didn't do something to help you first

                  You mean because they didn't help themselves first? I don't need their footage.

                  • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 23:17
                    +2

                    @[Deactivated]: You've used multiple times the defense that you'd give it to them for free if they had their own, so that's very much like giving a hitchhiker a ride if they had their own car.

                    But great straw-man.

                    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 23:32

                      @[Deactivated]: Oooo. The straw man.

                      (Ps. A camera is a prophylactic. It is useless to apply after the event. The car has predictable utility. Hence why the vaccination and insurance analogies were drawn.)

                      • hhne on 10/11/2019 - 23:39
                        +2

                        @[Deactivated]: A camera prevents nothing, they’re no deterrent at all, criminals have adapted and conceal their faces and take out the cameras first. They’re used to prevent the next event by possibly identifying the person doing the last. If your place is knocked off and you provide great footage to the police that leads to an arrest you’re only going to be stopping the next potential theft by that person.

                        • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 00:35

                          @hhne: Referencing the Australian Institute of Criminology

                          The Victorian Department of Justice (2009) notes three main applications of CCTV and security cameras in entertainment districts to date.

                          As a deterrent to committing a crime: Use of surveillance cameras as a criminal deterrent is most likely to succeed as part of a broader crime reduction strategy with active monitoring and where police are able to respond quickly to a developing incident.

  • Blue Cat on 10/11/2019 - 13:06
    +2

    Can't you tell them "sorry, the cameras were off for maintenance repairs"?

    • owli on 10/11/2019 - 13:35
      +2

      And the guards just happened to be asleep at the time too.

      • Blue Cat on 10/11/2019 - 13:54

        I think guards are safe from any drama.
        I heard something like guards or security team hired by you (or your company) can not (and don't have to) help anyone else in danger, as their help for strangers might give a chance for an attacker to harm you.
        The attack on the stranger can also be staged so you become vulnerable for a few seconds.

        A security guard at the bar told me once, not sure if this is 100% true.

        • Nuggets on 12/11/2019 - 11:32

          I think it's an Epstein reference.

  • bongom on 10/11/2019 - 13:19
    +16

    Why are people so selfish these days?

    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 14:23
      -5

      That's my thought exactly.

      They don't want to install cameras yet they want to benefit from it.

      • Blitzfx on 10/11/2019 - 18:02
        +2

        If, for example, your camera recorded a homicide where someone was killed in their car, you're telling me you wouldn't release your footage to capture the killer because they didn't have rear-dash cam unless the surviving family paid up?

        • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 18:04

          I think the issue of owning a camera is no longer relevant when the person is deceased as a deceased person cannot retain ownership of any cameras nor benefit from any life lessons regarding owning cameras.

          • Blitzfx on 10/11/2019 - 18:08

            @[Deactivated]: hmm okay fair enough

            • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 18:08

              @Blitzfx: For the purpose of discussion, do you believe that the consequence of the accident should have any bearing on the personal responsibility to have your own dashcam?

              Would you feel more or less inclined to offer footage if the accident was between two unlicensed uninsured drivers? Should the degree of consequence have any bearing on your course of action? Would you rather not know the outcome of those involved and make your decision to intervene based solely on more objective factors?

      • Ahbal on 10/11/2019 - 22:57
        +1

        lol you are being downvoted but you are right.

        I would absolutely charge for it in your case, with such an expensive system. If it was a regular sub 500 dollar system? No. But one that costs thousands? Absolutely.

        • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 23:10

          I don't think my question would be any different if the system cost $10k or $500.

          Principles shouldn't be malleable much less for $$

          • Ahbal on 10/11/2019 - 23:17

            @[Deactivated]: Well thing is how much would you charge?

            • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 23:18

              @Ahbal: That's another ethical dilemma I rather ask than answer ;) that's my act of selfishness for the day.

              I already know my answer and I reckon it makes for better discussion for people to assume the worst of me.

              • Ahbal on 10/11/2019 - 23:33
                +1

                @[Deactivated]: Thing is the value of your system would play into how much you charge.

                i.e charge like $20 for a cheap system but in your case $100 might make more sense etc.

                But yeh most here are just assuming the worst. Its like they didnt already read you spent 10k on the system….even if you charged $100 id say thats fair….no different to any other service.

                • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 23:36

                  @Ahbal: Eh. Perhaps it wasn't in the best interest of the discussion to put a dollar figure anywhere as it is easy to skip the philosophical question and move straight to accounting.

                  My bad.

                  • Ahbal on 10/11/2019 - 23:44
                    +1

                    @[Deactivated]: yeh i see your point.

                    Personally for me it depends how much it cost me. If it was financially difficult for me to install it, I would charge for it.

                    Furthermore, it encourages people to not just "oh we will just rely on our neighbours cctv".

                    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 23:45

                      @Ahbal: Thanks for your honesty.

      • R-Man on 11/11/2019 - 21:10

        Perfect reply

  • serpserpserp on 10/11/2019 - 13:20
    +1

    10k on home CCTV solutions? Your place must be a fortress!

    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 14:24
      +2

      Over 10x POE with IR extenders. The cost of dragging cables underground to sheds and entrance, cost of upspecced networking, server and storage.

      It adds up.

      • nfr on 10/11/2019 - 14:36

        I've been wondering about the point of onsite storage. After they break in surely they will take away all your HDDs. Seems that the footage is only useful for your neighbours?

        • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 14:40

          That would compound to the argument but a smart setup would prevent that to a significant degree.

          Ie. Cloud.

          In my setup, all cameras and network runs on a big UPS and there are dummy NVRs as well as a raid-1 on a different part of the house. If all else fails, there is compressed cloud footage.

      • AustriaBargain on 15/11/2019 - 00:49

        Sounds like you regret spending it now. Can you sell any of it back?

    • Zachary on 13/11/2019 - 11:56

      I can just imagine a huge ass mansion with 10 meter high, 1 meter thick, concrete walls that too slippery smooth to rock climb up, with electric razer wire across the top if someone does manage to climb up or throw over one of those grappling hooks and climb up that. Spot lights in every nook and cranny. A security gate of which cannot be cut through by anything shot of a wolverine's adamantium claws, that only you and your family have access to and no one else unless you explicitly give permission. You will also have spike strips at the ready in case someone you invited turns out to be a thief in disguise and managed to get out and into the get away car, you would spring those strips up near the gate and they would flat tyres unable to speed away or as well. And of course your signature 8k resolution cameras so you have a crystal clear view of anything around your estate.

      Your front door is basically equivalent to a bank vault's door, nice, thick and resistant to grinding and cutting. Bars and smash proof screen protectors on all windows of the place. Rooftop is also electrified, in case they decide to go through the roof to get into your house which turns out to be a bad idea because they'd get electrocuted with 10k volts of power, enough to make those heavy duty insulation gloves and gear, practically useless.

      Probably have auto-targetting 50 cal 12.7x99mm BMG minigun turrets too, to mow down invaders that don't have your explicit consent to enter the property. Oh and if the invaders happen to come by air because your ground setup is just that impenetrable(Or wish to have less causalities), you have hidden SAM sites, and AA guns of various sizes so they match suitable targets, to shoot down helicopters, planes and any other flying (or falling, except rain drops and other natural occurring stuff that I'm sure you've probably got configured to ignore) objects, however small or big they are in the sky within your boundaries of say 50 meter radius from your tall walls and the highest point of your premise.

      What else you got that could add to this draconian security setup I'm imagining?

      EDIT: Oh yeah, an electrified 10 meter water moat around the outside of your walls too, so if someone were to try to climb over the walls with a grappling hook, they'd first need to somehow get pass that moat, which means you would need a draw bridge to get to your front gates to drive over the moat. You will also have a ha-ha wall somewhere in the mix just for the added lol and ooh, what are you going to do if they decide to go underground to get to you? I guess you could reinforce your premises' foundations to the point that they are drill, vibration and brittle proof somehow so they can't dig through from the ground up to inside your estate….

      • [Deactivated] on 13/11/2019 - 12:30

        I am on a huge block with varying challenges.

        I could also sustain an attack by sea!

        It's actually quite fun to create a hypothetical scenario of bushfire, civil breakdown and disease outbreak, then try to prepare for it.

  • AdosHouse on 10/11/2019 - 13:21
    +5

    I would have no problem with paying like $50 to grab some footage from someone to help my case.

    On the flip side, if I am the person with the footage, I wouldn't charge in every case. As has been covered if the police have a court order for it, no probs. But to a private person, either pay for use of my equipment or buy your own. Unless it was like a mate or someone I got on well with, in that case I'd just give it to them.

  • lost in transit on 10/11/2019 - 13:23
    +2

    Cameras usually have black spots so what if the business over the road had to supply footage for you in future at a higher cost.

    Leave it free.

    I like to believe if you do good by people you’ll be rewarded somehow, doesn’t have to be monetary just the fact you’ve helped out can be rewarding enough sometimes.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join