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 - 14:26

      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.

      Covered here - "Only free for those with their own cameras."

      • tryagain on 11/11/2019 - 11:56

        So what if a neighbour put in a very cheap and nasty system the was virtually useless just to get access to your good footage, are you still happy to hand it over free?

  • Bonsaichop on 10/11/2019 - 14:57

    Make the footage free, but charge a service fee to retrieve it billed by the hour. After all it's your time and that's worth something.

    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 14:59
      -3

      Haha. That amounts to the same thing but if semantics is in play, I wouldn't want to charge for my time. I want the person requiring the footage to acknowledge that they are not lucky that someone else has a recording camera.

      There was no luck involved. Only expense.

  • kyoba on 10/11/2019 - 15:11
    +1

    You paid for the cameras for your own security. The cost of that should not be passed on to a buyer, instead, you should charge the time it's going to take you to retreive the relevant information. This is the time, including any editting and storage media you used to pass onto the buyer. You can explain to the buyer the costs involved and i think that should be fair and convincing for them.

    • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 02:04

      But that's not different to assigning a value relative to the cost of your investment.

      Presenting the cost as administrative solves a marketing dilemma, not a moral one.

  • FareEvader on 10/11/2019 - 15:15

    $10K on personal CCTV… do you live in the white house?

    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 15:21
      +1

      I run a Ubiquiti Unifi G3 system, all with IR extenders. Cost per unit is $325 when purchased in big packs.

      Then there is cabling, POE injectors, wallplates, NVR, NAS, switch…

      It adds up. The furthest camera from my NVR measures over 150m. My cost estimate didn't include trenching or install so it is easily more. I did the whole thing DIY so cost is hardware only.

      PS. Also wanted to point out that it is hardly the most expensive system. A friend installed what we now know to be a very average Swann system for $2k/5cams. I obviously went premium but glad I did but when looking, it wasn't close to the most expensive.

      • FareEvader on 10/11/2019 - 15:38

        For home security systems, would you say you get what you pay for?

        • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 15:42
          +2

          Almost anything in life really but don't forget, just because you pay more it doesn't mean you're indeed getting more/better.

          Hence OzBargain.

  • IPYF on 10/11/2019 - 16:13
    +4

    Giving over the footage would be the right thing to do, and probably you know this, but your perspective is that you feel that you're being forced to be charitable. In my view the correct course of action, if you must make your point, is to say that there is no footage, and abstain from helping. Saying that there is footage, and then withholding it for money (bearing in mind that I'm no legal eagle) does feel somewhat more 'extortion-adjacent' and even if it isn't technically extortion, it is definitely one step more callous than not getting involved.

    Interestingly, I think you're making a good case for having your own security, but I don't think it's the point you think you're making. Nobody is immune to getting into a bind and there might be a time when even the most confident rooster with the very best camera system may get into a totally unanticipated situation where the kindness of a neighbour or stranger might make all the difference. This thread is a very good reminder that there are countless people out there who probably could help in bad situations, who will willfully choose not to help, and do all manner of 4d mental gymnastics so they can feel that they were 'logically correct' to not help or take action. It is depressing, but that's just people in a nutshell.

    If you as a person do happen to choose to do the right thing every time, this thread, and numerous other similar conversations, evidence that it's completely naive to expect that others will do the same for you in return, so it is usually sensible to do your best to look out for yourself.

    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 16:32
      -1

      Thanks for your contribution. I don't agree with your points on multiple issues touched above but you are clearly able to see beyond the monetary argument.

      I've clearly been brought up to not depend on others, however, I'll admit I rely heavily on family. One could easily mistake us for gypsies but thankfully, we are not poor.

      Saying that there is footage, and then withholding it for money (bearing in mind that I'm no legal eagle) does feel somewhat more 'extortion-adjacent'

      I have actually considered this but needed, to some extent, shape the discussion.

      The primary comparison is still vaccinations. I considered the hypothetical scenario where I needed to "facelift" public property (ie. remove tax payer funded monstrosity) and how would I execute said heist without being identified. All hypothetical of course.

      Where I am, it would be all too easy. I simply needed two cars and a hoody. No accomplice, zero traceability. Virtually impossible with only several more surveillance units as enforcement would be able to trace the action back to me. Probably insufficient to satisfy a judicial system but nonetheless.

      Critical mass. Anything that involves society has a critical mass. If I simply provided my footage whenever asked, what incentive is there for anyone else to be inoculated. Perhaps through charity, I may be encouraging complacency and if I took a step back and consider the macro effect, I may be causing more damage.

      You certainly wouldn't hear many people saying, "don't worry about vaccinating your child. Everyone else in daycare is already vaccinated."

      • IPYF on 10/11/2019 - 17:30
        +9

        Ironically, I think your 'comparison' is incredibly illustrative, those sections of it that are comprehensible mind you. Your argument seems to be that by having bought great cameras you've done your bit toward 'vaccinating' your neighbourhood against crimes, while your neighbours are being willfully negligent, because they've grown spoiled by your digital benevolence, thus effectively making them CCTV-parasites that don't feel the need to contribute to the herd immunity. And why should you, the good person, be responsible for helping parasitic antivaxxers who are just seeking to exploit you amirite?

        So, this established as totally reasonable, you're thinking it might be time to be 'tough but fair' and set an example. You might actually be doing these people a favour by not helping them, so that once they're made to face the error of their ways, harshly, just maybe they'll become contrite, and view you as a shining beacon of what they should have been, to promote a future of CCTV-adequacy. No no, you're not just doing the right thing here…you might just be the real hero that the grubby moochers didn't even know that they needed or deserved!

        Ultimately, even if you don't accept that your silly false equivalence is silly or a false equivalence, or that it arguably borders on being weirdly masturbatory, your employment of it fully supports my point that many people, yourself clearly included, will go to great 'deep thinking' and 'intellectual' lengths to avoid facing up to the fact that they simply would prefer not to help anyone when there's nothing in it for them. But, if you came out and said that exact thing honest and straight, without all the rationalisations and bolded key terms, some people might accidentally mistake you for being selfish and a bit terrible. And obviously, you wouldn't want that unfortunate misconception to start doing the rounds would you?

        • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 17:36
          -2

          Okay. You've essentially paraphrased my analogy and added that it is a false equivalency.

          Would you care to expand as to why it is a false equivalency rather than sticking a label on it and moving on to declare my intentions?

          will go to great 'deep thinking' and 'intellectual' lengths to avoid facing up to the fact that they simply would prefer not to help anyone when there's nothing in it for them.

          I would say you're most incorrect about my intentions. I have at great expense made charitable trips to provide services overseas. These trips cost thousands of dollars in logistics let alone my forgone income. I did this when I was self employed and had absolutely nothing to gain, not even extra CV points.

          Your presumption of my character is fortunately very far from any facts.

          PS. If you're going to point out that vaccinations and CCTV are not the same thing, I am well aware.

          • IPYF on 10/11/2019 - 20:16
            +10

            @[Deactivated]: I'm not discussing a silly example put forward by someone experiencing cognitive dissonance, who is super determined to be perceived as logically correct and therefore broadly socially good, despite demonstrating a very clear desire not to help others unless rewarded. I also couldn't care less about supposed charity work as that's not relevant to the issue at hand, and is a fairly limp attempt at misdirection.

            The bottom line, despite all your wordplay and bluster, is that it seems clear that when it comes to your security cameras, you feel that because you spent money on them that you shouldn't have to be altruistic with anything they capture. ie. If your neighbours wanted footage they should have bought their own effing cameras. But, you also really don't want to have to deal with the connotations of holding that unpopular opinion, because you, like most people, perceive yourself to be quite a good person. Thus, there has to be a way of arguing your point to a place where you end up the sensible correct person, and the people who might hope to get a free ride are the ones being unreasonable, which is where you're going with your entirely nonsensical vaccination argument.

            Please don't mistake me. I'm not implying you're a bad person if you were to choose to withhold your CCTV footage or charge for it. In my view that would make you pretty normal, because (per my original comment) it is very very rare for humans to willingly step out of their lane and help others unless there's some direct benefit to them, and most people will concoct the most vivid excuses as to why they didn't stick their neck out during a flashpoint. That's not bad. That's just how we're wired and you're probably no more or less selfish than the average punter.

            • Speckled Jim on 11/11/2019 - 13:13
              +2

              @IPYF: Read this in the voice of David Mitchell — gold!

  • mini2 on 10/11/2019 - 16:29
    +1

    I wouldn't say sell, I'd probably levy a fee to compensate for the inconvenience to retrieve and send the vision/footage to the requestor. Fair? At least you're not profiteering out of someone's misfortune.

    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 16:34

      I wouldn't say sell, I'd probably levy a fee to compensate for the inconvenience…

      Julia?

      Seriously though, I don't seek to profit from this. Nothing would make me happier than if I didn't have anyone request for my footage, paid or otherwise.

  • chasis on 10/11/2019 - 17:22
    +4

    Related story:
    My girlfiend who lives in a secure apartment block recent has a parcel stolen from the mailboxes in front of the building. The building has CCTV cameras and when she asked for strata to review the footage they said it would be $120 unless the police requested the footage (in which case it would be provided to the police free of charge). I would have thought that the strata fees included all camera costs. Not sure what the point is of paying high strata fees and having cameras without the ability to freely review tapes when an incident occurs.

    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 17:28
      +1

      Interesting case.

      In this instance, I believe the $120 fee charged is more to do with administrative cost rather than recouping funds. They may have to review, edit and only supply relevant footage as to comply with privacy standards either by law or bylaw.

      Obviously if the footage has been ordered, you're no longer financially involved.

      • chasis on 10/11/2019 - 17:46
        +3

        We ended up reporting it to the police and they got the footage (not that we ever saw it). But the package was only about $40, so not worth the $120 footage cost for us.

      • hhne on 11/11/2019 - 00:32

        Given there’s a free way to obtain the footage that is more effort for the provider of the footage and less effort for the person affected, do you have any reason why your premise even needs to be considered?

        Any attempt to charge will just result in you being compelled to for free, and they probably won’t take your word for it that you’ve given it all to them if you resist.

        • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 00:44

          Given there’s a free way to obtain the footage that is more effort for the provider

          Firstly, the police gets the footage. The resident will not be privy to the footage.

          Second, the footage supplied to the police needs to be unedited. Less work.

          they probably won’t take your word for it that you’ve given it all to them if you resist.

          What they believe is immaterial.

          • hhne on 11/11/2019 - 00:47

            @[Deactivated]: Outcome is the same regardless, the premise is immaterial.

            • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 00:49

              @hhne: Outcome for OP is the same but not for the administrative staff.

              If paid the $120, they need to review footage and provide only what is relevant.

              If ordered with a warrant, they just have to give access to the hard disk.

              • hhne on 11/11/2019 - 00:52

                @[Deactivated]: As someone pointed out earlier, charging for your time is fine.

                • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 00:57

                  @hhne: That's what I don't get. It's the cognitive dissonance!

                  What is my time worth?

                  I know how much my system is worth.

                  For arguments sake, if my time is worth $400 an hour and my system cost $500. The option of paying for a single camera, let's say it is $100 could actually be less than paying for an hour of my time. That would make the second option applicable.

                  The same people expressing moral outrage at paying $100 to contribute towards the cost of the CCTV seem to suspend their emotional reaction when it is presented as a levy, administrative cost, or a rose by any other name.

  • kiwimex on 10/11/2019 - 18:05
    +16

    Really cant fathom this post to be honest. Do the public a service for christ sake.

    IMO this is how stupid your posts is.

    1) I was wondering if I could charge for the oxygen my plants are putting back into the atmosphere, I did spend quite a few $1000 planting out my garden and all my neighbours have pretty poor gardens, so I feel justified in recuperating some of my costs for doing a service.

    2) Should I charge for witnessing a crime or an accident with my own eyes. You know I do spend a lot of money on sunglasses and reading glasses, then theres the cost of having them checked. Oh my son witnessed the incident as well and he's $100 per statement.

    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 18:14
      -3

      I was wondering if I could charge for the oxygen my plants are putting back into the atmosphere, I did spend quite a few $1000 planting out my garden and all my neighbours have pretty poor gardens, so I feel justified in recuperating some of my costs for doing a service.

      If your aim is to name call, I'll point out your stupidity.

      Plants are naturally occurring and one cannot control the amount nor direction which the oxygen travels. I cannot quantify how much oxygen is mine therefore I cannot invoice someone for using something that may have had nothing to do with my investment.

      A camera has all those attributes. If I did not install my cameras, the footage would not exist.

      Should I charge for witnessing a crime or an accident with my own eyes. You know I do spend a lot of money on sunglasses and reading glasses, then theres the cost of having them checked. Oh my son witnessed the incident as well and he's $100 per statement.

      You can refuse to be a witness unless your statement is ordered by a judge or attorney. Thus is no different from camera footage. The difference between camera footage and being a witness is cost.

      I can verifiably demonstrate my cost to acquire footage. The purpose of surveillance cameras can be demonstrated to be primarily or solely for security. Can you demonstrate your glasses are solely for the purpose of witnessing crimes?

      • kiwimex on 10/11/2019 - 18:25
        +5

        You still don't make a valid point, one who witnesses an incident can do exactly the same to verify costs to be a witness! Cost is the same, you have already purchased the cameras…………the only additional cost is time and that would be fairly equal in both instances. It sure sound like you feel in same way or another, you need to cover the cost of your equipment.

        Still think you should be doing the public a service…but then again

        • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 18:30

          I point you to the option of "Only free for those with their own cameras."

          I still have the cost of time. I do not receive any compensation.

          The eye witness analogy is also flawed as everyone (unless disabled but that's another discussion) can reciprocate and can just as easily be an eye witness for you. A neighbour without surveillance cameras cannot. The decision to not have a camera makes the inability arguably "unwillingness" but I'll admit that unwillingness is stretching it.

          one who witnesses an incident can do exactly the same to verify costs to be a witness!

          I am sure you mean the cost to provide testimony. Unless your job was surveillance, you do not have a cost to be an eye witness.

          • hhne on 10/11/2019 - 23:31
            +1

            @[Deactivated]: If you’re an eye witness you may have to go to court and lose a whole days income. It’s much more demanding than handing over footage.

            • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 23:34

              @hhne: I agree, there is a cost associated with giving testimony hence why I said it.

              However, you don't have a choice in the matter where a testimony has been court ordered.

              Also, being an eye witness is something everyone else can do for you. No extra expense has been incurred by anyone to witness. If someone didn't install their camera, they can very predictably be unable to provide you with any evidence.

      • hhne on 10/11/2019 - 23:30
        +1

        Going to be shocking when you have to see a doctor overseas and you get a $200,000 bill for a couple of stitches and their response when asked to justify the charge is ‘well there was 7 years in medical school’……

        • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 23:47

          Insurance?

          Just like the cameras, it isn't retroactive.

          • hhne on 10/11/2019 - 23:59
            +1

            @[Deactivated]: Insurance won’t cover $200k for stitches. Apparently you want your setup costs to be covered so really not sure on your retroactive perspective here.

            • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 00:01

              @hhne: Surgery is a business.

              I thought it goes without saying that in any business, the cost of assets and investment is spread across multiple patients/clients/customers as there is a foreseeable need.

  • No Username on 10/11/2019 - 18:07
    +1

    There should be a fee as your personal time is being wasted.

    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 18:23
      +1

      I'm enjoying this. Perhaps I should be paying a fee.

  • Vote for Pedro on 10/11/2019 - 18:58
    +1

    There are soooo many considerations to this. This would be one component of your overall relationship with your neighbours/society. Also, If you say no to the the police or want to charge them a fee then you’ll be known as ‘that guy’ who didn’t want to help. While it shouldn’t impact their response if you need them, it will.

    Taking the issue in isolation, I would agree with you. Why spend money on your system so someone else can free load. A fee would be reasonable.

    I don’t know though. I’m going to fence sit a bit. Would you charge your neighbour to borrow your lawn mower once or twice over a few years?

    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 19:00

      Also, If you say no to the the police or want to charge them a fee then you’ll be known as ‘that guy’ who didn’t want to help.

      Morality shouldn't be influenced by reputation. That would be the definition of lacking integrity.

      Would you charge your neighbour to borrow your lawn mower once or twice over a few years?

      I'd argue that the comparison is invalid. One is prophylactic - it is useless after the fact.

      • Vote for Pedro on 10/11/2019 - 19:06
        +1

        I agree that it shouldn’t influence. But the reality is that it does, and you know that.

        Re lawnmower, just semantics on your part. Yes, I suppose it’s like insurance or roadside assistance, can’t join after the fact. My point was more around neighbourly relations

        • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 19:12

          I agree that it shouldn’t influence. But the reality is that it does, and you know that.

          I can believe in something and still fall short of it's standards.

          Re lawnmower, just semantics on your part. Yes, I suppose it’s like insurance or roadside assistance, can’t join after the fact. My point was more around neighbourly relations

          I wouldn't say it is semantics but I get you're trying to make an equivalent notion.

          I like my neighbours and my workshop has an open door policy, however, I'd be pretty upset if they aren't vaccinated (by choice) and I wouldn't welcome them on my property if they weren't.

          • Vote for Pedro on 10/11/2019 - 19:20
            +1

            @[Deactivated]: That’s not unreasonable. Vaccines aren’t 100% foolproof. And, it is your property and you have the right to make that choice.

  • profar on 10/11/2019 - 19:15

    What about if OP had footage to solve a major crime if he voluntarily offered the footage to the police at the time 0 reward .

    Letting the footage age just like a fine wine OP may have a chance to redeem a substantial reward that police eventually will offer if unsolved :)

    • Vote for Pedro on 10/11/2019 - 19:25
      +1

      What if OP’s timely assistance could’ve prevented further major crimes from same perp?

      Do we charge for reporting things we know to Crime Stoppers? I completely understand the purpose of OP’s dilemma, but the community as a whole contribute to successful policing.

      Edit: though as I said earlier, I’m swayed either way on this one. Is fence sitting even allowed on OzBargain?

      • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 19:50

        If you damage the fence, you're going to post it on OzBargain and that gets pretty heated.

        Someone else will read that post and want to sit on the fence.

        Then someone else…

        • Vote for Pedro on 10/11/2019 - 19:54
          +1

          The question then becomes “I have a fence, some neighbours don’t, should I share it” ;-D

      • hhne on 11/11/2019 - 00:57

        What if, unidentified and uncaught, they break into another place a few weeks later. This time someone is home and get seriously injured in a struggle, they had cameras but it doesn’t keep them safe. If only OP had freely given the footage someone else might not have been hurt. Of course OP wouldn’t be ‘responsible’ for that other person getting hurt, but it would make most people feel pretty crap to know they could have maybe stopped someone being seriously hurt and didn’t.

        The thing is, you cannot know if that sort of thing will happen or not, so it’s best to be safe.

        • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 02:59
          -1

          The thing is, you cannot know if that sort of thing will happen or not, so it’s best to be safe.

          The same argument of uncertainty can conjure many creative scenarios.

          What if I provided footage and the perpetrator suspects I have been "nosy" and this person happens to be in a cartel. Perhaps being the only camera to provide footage has made me a target of brutal vendetta.

    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 19:51

      Interesting scenario. I haven't thought of that one but it raised another question.

      Wouldn't the police be a better judge of the value of apprehending said criminal hence would be held to a higher level of accountability regarding professional decision to pay a higher price for swift release of evidence?

      It's like a parent is held to a lower level of accountability for making poor medical decisions vs a paediatrician.

  • spoonmugen on 10/11/2019 - 19:30
    +1

    if you dont want to help out bob…just say ur system was down for maintenance at that time or there was nothing on the footage… easily solved

    but goes back to the moral of it all…

  • Vote for Pedro on 10/11/2019 - 19:52
    +1

    Thinking about this a little bit more, it’s the age old communism vs capitalism dilemma.

    Communism: You have it, we need it, we’ll take it
    Capitalism: I have it, you need it, get ready to pay for it

    The reality is, as with most things, the answer is somewhere in the middle.

    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 19:53

      Ugh. You went away, sat on the fence, came back and decided to sit on the fence.

      You're decidedly undecided.

      • Vote for Pedro on 10/11/2019 - 19:54

        100% Decision made to sit on the fence.

        • nfr on 10/11/2019 - 21:21
          +1

          IMO sitting on the fence is seriously underrated. It's actually a great defence against commitment bias.

  • mrvaluepack on 10/11/2019 - 19:52

    Just tell whoever who wants it that your system isnt working or the camera wasnt switched on, therefore you dont need to go through the trouble of providing them the video.

    • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 02:36
      -1

      I'm not comfortable with that although that does make interaction a lot easier. :S

  • Dont Care on 10/11/2019 - 19:57

    You have to provide if asked by police. No you can't sell it. You're dealing with footage of individuals who haven't consented you to use it in that matter.

    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 20:05

      What if it is a break in.

      I'm sure the burglars do not consent to the use of the footage for investigative purposes.

      (Again, the discussion does not include legal requirement to surrender footage.)

    • hunterhalo on 10/11/2019 - 20:27

      What if i said my system was down for maintaining, ups failed and such, will they take my word or they just come in and check for it anyway?

      • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 21:55
        +1

        I wouldn't lie to the police.

        I may refuse to speak or to answer but I wouldn't lie.

      • Vote for Pedro on 12/11/2019 - 06:00

        Police can't just come in and gather evidence without consent or warrant.

    • 2025 on 10/11/2019 - 20:33
      +1

      No worries charging for it.
      What would happen to the cinema industry if all video recordings were made free lol?

      The way I see it, the cameras are there for your peace of mind and protection. If anyone else wants to benefit from your investment, they can either compensate you or get their own. Its simple really.

      But Dont Care, you raise a good point. The way I understand it you can freely film in public, as long as it isn't for commercial purposes. Perhaps selling the footage for a negligible fee would be considered a commercial purpose…

      • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 20:36

        Perhaps selling the footage for a negligible fee would be considered a commercial purpose…

        Hmm… but the act of solicitation wasn't there. I would reference event photographers.

  • syousef on 10/11/2019 - 20:24
    +5

    Someone's home has been burglarize and you want to profit from it? Wow. I mean I guess they should be robbed twice, right?

    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 20:27
      -1

      Ugh. This line of argument again.

      "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.)

      • 2025 on 10/11/2019 - 20:36
        +1

        Think of it like insurance. The cameras are a type of insurance. Something to fall back on in a bad situation. If the do not want to pay the premium, too bad! They can suffer the loss. They cant benefit from the fund if they haven't paid.

        • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 20:38

          I like my vaccinations analogy better :(

          • syousef on 10/11/2019 - 22:46
            +4

            @[Deactivated]: Comparing owning security cameras to vaccination is a terrible, terrible analogy. Are you trying to tell me the OP wouldn't beasking whether he should charge if the victims had their own cameras and OP's footage was going to be used to supplement it?

            • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 22:49

              @syousef: Uh. Yah. Hence the poll option.

              • syousef on 10/11/2019 - 22:50
                +4

                @[Deactivated]: When someone is robbed, the community should pull together, not find a way to charge. I find this attitude absolutely disgraceful.

                I'm not talking about pulling together and replacing their stuff if they're not insured. I am talking about giving them or authorities footage that you have no other use for at very little trouble or expense to you.

        • syousef on 10/11/2019 - 22:48
          +2

          OPs footage might still be needed even if the victims had cameras. Punishing people when they have been robbed is ludicrous. Same line of thinking as user pays fire brigade and huge US style medical bills. I'd rather keep this a country where people help each other, than one where user pays and bugger the rest of you I'm alright thanks, Jack.

          • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 22:49

            @syousef:

            Punishing

            Whoa.

            • syousef on 10/11/2019 - 22:51
              +3

              @[Deactivated]: That is exactly what you are doing. You're punishing people for failing to install video cameras. And you're doing it when they may have lost a good portion of their physical valuables.

              • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 22:52

                @syousef: Uh, to punish, I must remove something from them which they have rightful access to or cause damage.

                • syousef on 10/11/2019 - 22:54
                  +3

                  @[Deactivated]: That isn't anything like any dictionary definition I've seen. You've intentionally narrowed the definition of "punish" to suit your argument.

                  I'm done with this. I can't teach you manners or empathy or the benefits of community pulling together. It's not my place or my job.

                  • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 22:55

                    @syousef: Literally first result from google

                    inflict a penalty or sanction on (someone) as retribution for an offence, especially a transgression of a legal or moral code.

                    • syousef on 10/11/2019 - 22:57
                      +4

                      @[Deactivated]: Refusing to give someone something you can easily provide - withholding it. That is a sanction and the penalty is your refusal.

                      "1.a threatened penalty for disobeying a law or rule."

                      I really am done with this. It's a question of morality not sophistry and semantics. Humans have been so successful because at times we have been able to band together and help each other. That is what community is all about. Not "charge what the market will bear". This isn't a product you have brought to market to sell. This is a question of being a decent human being. I'm not your parent. I'm not going to change your mind or your attitude.

                      • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 23:03

                        @syousef: To sanction I must first withhold what would be yours through natural progression.

                        The footage isn't.

                        If I do not give someone my lunch, I am not sanctioning them from my lunch.

                        This is a question of being a decent human being.

                        I'm challenging your notion of what decent is.

                        I don't disagree that one can/should be charitable but what has peaked my curiousity is that when it comes to surveillance, suddenly people get so emotionally entitled to someone elses' property.

                        • syousef on 10/11/2019 - 23:26
                          +3

                          @[Deactivated]: No sanctions have nothing to do with "natural progression". They have to do with penalizing someone for not following a rule. See my def above, taken from google. Or see any good dictionary.

                          People aren't getting upset about the survellience per se. It's about people being vulnerable after losing all their stuff and having their homes violated. it's an emotional and expensive time. People lose valuables and irreplacable belongings and those things that can be replaced have to be replaced slowly and selectively. Kids and adults alike are known to have trouble sleeping and with stress after the event. Under these cirumstances the victims don't need some dodgy neighbour trying to slug them for $100 on the side. As I said before this is when you're suppose to pull together, not take stock of who owned cameras!

                          • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 23:56

                            @syousef: I sanction myself from any further comment about the definition of sanction.

                            It's about people being vulnerable after losing all their stuff and having their homes violated.

                            I find it morally abhorant that one can select from a range of moral standards based on one's judgement of another's circumstance.

                            If we expanded on our policies towards others based on a sliding scale of vulnerability, it raises the question of at what point does the policy change?

                            Do we not consider that the criminals could do with us cutting them some slack? Perhaps not the criminals but their children may need their parents around.

                            How about trains? Should we turn a blind eye to fare evaders since the cost of running the service is already set?

                            • syousef on 11/11/2019 - 00:46
                              +1

                              @[Deactivated]: That's quite the non sequitur - to suggest that cutting a neighbour who has been robbed some slack in the spirit of community building is a slippery slope to letting criminals run free with no consequence is just utter nonsense. Honestly did you actually think about what you wrote? If you can't tell the difference between a criminal and a victim who is also your neighbour, I have no words!

                              • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 00:52

                                @syousef:

                                Perhaps not the criminals but their children may need their parents around.

                                • syousef on 11/11/2019 - 01:02

                                  @[Deactivated]: If the parents are criminals are they fit to raise their children?

                                  • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 01:04

                                    @syousef: I don't know. Do the children know their parents are criminals?

                                    • syousef on 11/11/2019 - 01:14

                                      @[Deactivated]: What? Are you just trolling?

                                      Children raised by criminals tend to repeat the cycle and become criminals. Violent criminals tend to be violent with their families as well.

                                      Children who are old enough aren't blind or stupid so yes they tend to know if their parents are in trouble with the law.

                                      And again this is no slippery slope. You can give a neighbour your camera footage of their house being robbed secure in the knowledge it isn't going to mean society falls apart an no criminals will go free. In fact your footage may be able to put some behind bars. Even if you don't slug them with a bill for the footage while they are distressed and trying to replace their stuff.

                                      You must just be trolling because your arguments are getting less sensible.

                                      • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 01:19

                                        @syousef:

                                        Children raised by criminals tend to repeat the cycle and become criminals. Violent criminals tend to be violent with their families as well

                                        So that justifies removal of children?

                                        My answers are getting further away from relevant as the principles, such as being judgemental, is also moving the conversation further away.

                                        I'm not opposed in the direction it is going, merely that your answers leaves me with more questions.

      • syousef on 10/11/2019 - 22:44
        +4

        You decided to put the camera in place. You decided to incur that expense for your own needs. You didn't do it with selling footage to others when they are robbed. Now you're opportunistically trying to recoup those costs because someone else might be able to make use of them without having paid. These people have already been knocked to the ground and you are kicking them.

        Do you also bill the organizations you volunteer for? Oh who am I kidding, with an attitude like that I doubt you volunteer for jack.

    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 23:24

      I wonder if there could be a reason why OP didn't get burgled but his neighbour did…

      • syousef on 10/11/2019 - 23:27
        +5

        Perhaps OP spent all his money on a fancy security system leaving him with no money to spend on items worth stealing. ;-)

        But seriously, a good security system is one good deterent, but so are good neighbours who check on your home if something strange is noticed. Not the kind of people who'd try to make a quick $100 from footage from their neighbour.
        https://www.safety.com/8-burglar-deterrents-to-consider-and-…

        • Zachary on 13/11/2019 - 12:44

          Hahaha, I can imagine a thief break into OP's house to find something to steal only to find out there is literally nothing of worth to the thief to steal that would be fenceable for a quick buck, or if there is something worth stealing, it'd be in many layers of security as to prevent it from being removed in the first place requiring the thief to go into more effort to get the thing out….

  • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 20:43
    +6

    We were offered $75 for security cam footage by someone who's car was gutted while parked in our street overnight. We gave it for free as did other neighbours.

    About 4 days later, my car was keyed at the local shopping centre. Witnesses came forward unsolicited, including 2 shop owners. In the end, I didn't need the witnesses nor their cctv/mobile footages but if I had , I would have offered to pay them for their kindness, whatever the going rate for 'kindness' was at the time.

    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 20:48

      I think it is very noble of you to offer it for free and I have a feeling the person making the monetary offer recognizes your expense to obtain the footage.

      I would likely give it for free too but with a stern and unfriendly (for a reason) warning to get a dashcam.

      The reason I'd give it free isn't some form of charity but because it has served the purpose to get other people aware of the value of cameras and it is harder for me to be liable for any misuse of the footage provided as I have not accepted anything for it.

      • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 21:41

        TBH, we all were quite intrigued by the incident. There was a Jag and at least 1 BMW parked on the street that night as well as an Alpha Romeo just round the corner. Yet, only the beat-up camry was broken into. They took everything they could carry , including a cd-player, a child booster seat and condoms that were in the glovebox and left the stench of urine behind.

        Out of curiousity, if someone went into cardiac arrest in a shopping centre and you were there, would you provide assistance? That happened not so long ago and no one responded to the "Is there a doctor in the house?" call.

        • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 21:43
          +2

          I maintain, if the consequence is irreversible and/or cannot be recovered from (ie. Death), I would assist first and consider all else after.

          Also, in a case where time is of the essence, urgency takes precedence over ethical contemplation.

        • Zachary on 13/11/2019 - 12:48

          TBH, we all were quite intrigued by the incident. There was a Jag and at least 1 BMW parked on the street that night as well as an Alpha Romeo just round the corner. Yet, only the beat-up camry was broken into. They took everything they could carry , including a cd-player, a child booster seat and condoms that were in the glovebox and left the stench of urine behind.

          It must have been a personal grudge, no other reason why they wouldn't go after the more expensive cars, unless said expensive cars don't actually have anything worth to steal or take…..or they have a loud alarm system that would be too ear piercing to bare…

          • syousef on 13/11/2019 - 14:45

            @Zachary: Assuming people will behave reasonably and in their own interests is a rookie mistake. Plenty of people with mental health issues and addictions to substances that make them behave erratically.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join