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 13/11/2019 - 14:55

            @Zachary: You're assuming that the victim is indeed a targetted victim and completely innocent.

            Maybe it was a mule vehicle. Maybe it was mistaken identity. Maybe they were trying to break open the door because they thought a dog was stuck inside.

            There can be multiple reasons ranging from probable to downright implausible but that shouldn't be relevant to our decision making unless we are in a position to be certain.

            • [Deactivated] on 13/11/2019 - 19:51

              @[Deactivated]: or maybe the victim was indeed the targetted victim?

              The victim had a sneaky suspicion that it was her possessive ex who wasn't happy that she had taken up with a new man.However, possessive-ex had fuel receipts and motel room charges to 'prove' that he was interstate at the time of the incident and the police were satisfied with those. The camera footages that she was able to obtain proved otherwise.

              Moral of the story: Don't wear distinctive clothing , cover your sleeve tatts with , erm, actual sleeves when engaging in nefarious activites and learn how to do a 3-point turn - the further up someone's driveway you go, the more likely it is that their security camera will get a clear visual of your car and your plate.

              Edit: Actually, true moral of the story is don't commit a crime and you won't have to worry about getting caught :)

              • [Deactivated] on 13/11/2019 - 19:58

                @[Deactivated]:

                The victim had a sneaky suspicion that it was her possessive ex…

                So she doesn't know. Her suspicion explicitly excludes her from knowing.

                The camera footages that she was able to obtain proved otherwise.

                That's knowledge after the fact.

                Actually, true moral of the story is don't commit a crime and you won't have to worry about getting caught :)

                That's the practical lesson, sure. There was no moral lesson though.

                • [Deactivated] on 13/11/2019 - 20:03

                  @[Deactivated]: My choice of words ; not hers. For all I know , she knew it was him and needed proof to convince others.

                  Moral of the story (pick one):

                  • Do not destroy other's property?

                  • Love thy neighbour ?

                  • Do not covet what is no longer yours?

                  • Treat other's as you would want to be treated?

                  • [Deactivated] on 13/11/2019 - 20:14

                    @[Deactivated]:

                    Do not destroy other's property?

                    Why? That is more a statement than a reason. If the reason is punishment, then that is the failure of morality since the only deterrent is threat of penalty.

                    Love thy neighbour ?

                    Why? That is again a statement. If the reason is to receive benefit, that's more a practical lesson.

                    Do not covet what is no longer yours?

                    That's simply not a moral lesson. It is purely practical as the ultimate conclusion is - it is pointless.

                    Treat other's as you would want to be treated?

                    Perhaps but there's a fine line from once again falling into the false morality of fulfiling social contracts with the expectation/anticipation of future gain, vs consistent application of principles one would apply for oneself as they would towards others.

                    One is in self interest, the other is pure.

                    • [Deactivated] on 13/11/2019 - 20:20

                      @[Deactivated]: What is your favourite fairy tale?

                      • [Deactivated] on 13/11/2019 - 20:21

                        @[Deactivated]: I was read the latest issues of TIME and NewsWeekly for night night.

                        • [Deactivated] on 13/11/2019 - 21:03

                          @[Deactivated]: What was the moral that you drew from those stories?

                          • [Deactivated] on 13/11/2019 - 21:12

                            @[Deactivated]: The moral of the story is that you don't learn morals from stories.

                            If you're told a story, you're given a scenario. You start with a premise, given an adversary/challenge, motivation and add heat. You get a conclusion.

                            That's a recipe to learn cause and effect.

                            Morals requires one to compare multiple stories and examine one's thoughts. "What would I have done in those scenarios?"

                            Without asking that question, there isn't any value in terms of morality.

                            Hence here we are.

                            • [Deactivated] on 13/11/2019 - 21:22

                              @[Deactivated]:

                              if you're told a story, you're given a scenario. You start with a premise, given an adversary/challenge, motivation and add heat. You get a conclusion.

                              The moment I take off my lab-coat, I become a dreamer and perhaps, that is my misfortune.

                              • [Deactivated] on 13/11/2019 - 21:27

                                @[Deactivated]: One can be a dreamer and still contemplate philosophy.

                                Perhaps your dreams will be darker or smaller for it but would you rather a grand dream so stuffed with paradox and void of even the tiniest semblance of reality, or would you rather have that dream molt and reveal the goals and purpose that one can indeed bring into reality?

                                • [Deactivated] on 13/11/2019 - 21:49

                                  @[Deactivated]: Which reality? The one where we are nothing more than an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star? That just won't cut it with my 3-year old. He demands fire-breathing dragons to heat up each and every one of his bedtime stories. Fire-breathing dragons and mermaids, with hair like his mother and a faint french accent. I must admit , I am quite into mermaids too. One mermaid in particular.

                                  p.s: I refuse to be dragged into philosophical discussions on ozb. Tell me more about hypothetical dashcam and sunk costs, or lack thereof, stories. I find them to be more conducive to a good night sleep :)

                                  • [Deactivated] on 13/11/2019 - 22:37

                                    @[Deactivated]: All discussions are philosophical.

                                    Should I eat that donut?

                                    First you need to ask yourself should you insert a comment?

                                    As soon as that word should is conceived, you're in philosophical territory.

                                    Everything is a philosophy donut. Some has extra jelly and some are simple good ol cinnamon dusted.

                                    • [Deactivated] on 13/11/2019 - 22:51

                                      @[Deactivated]: I can honestly say that I've never asked myself that question. I've distrusted donuts at first sight. 😂

  • T1OOO on 10/11/2019 - 20:49
    +1

    Can’t wait as a result of not assisting them catginh them they totchnyour place.

    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 20:51

      Join the "I wish misfortune upon you" camp.

      I do not wish anyone misfortune, merely not extending undeserved assistance voluntarily. I guess that is more apprehensive that wishing harm upon others.

  • bmerigan on 10/11/2019 - 21:45
    +2

    You don't have to supply the camera footage but why wouldn't you want to reduce crime?

    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 21:46

      I want to but I don't believe that an isolated incidence of charity solves the complacent attitude that enables crime.

  • bigbadboogieman on 10/11/2019 - 22:17
    +2

    I guess the easiest answer could be "Treat it the way you would want to be treated if the tables were turned".

    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 22:53

      What happened to 'WWJD'?

      • bigbadboogieman on 10/11/2019 - 23:29

        WWJD? I don't know if OP is a believer…;)

        • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 23:46
          +1

          What Would Jesus Do. It was a meme back in the 90s.

          • bigbadboogieman on 10/11/2019 - 23:58
            +1

            @[Deactivated]: So you think OP could play dead and disappear for 3 days everytime someone asks for CCTV footage? Guess that could work….

  • TheGiantTomato on 10/11/2019 - 22:20
    +8

    Every week I feel as though I read the stingiest thread on OzBargain and every week I am proved wrong.

    You obviously place a certain monetary value on your security equipment otherwise you wouldn't have bought it for your business. That equipment does what you need it to do. Helping others doesn't cost you anything. Helping others doesn't detract from your equipments use, the use you were happy to pay for. Yet you want to somehow benefit from situations where you help society by providing others footage?

    Really, what is the world coming to… it makes me depressed that there are such selfish people amongst our society who wouldn't dare help others unless they got something in return.

    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 22:21
      -2

      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.)

      • p1 ama on 10/11/2019 - 22:46
        +2

        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.

        This is just a bunch of words that make no sense.

        I get your point of view, you want to potentially withhold footage because it encourages others to install their own CCTV. If you care so much about that cause, why not just drop flyers in the mailbox of all your neighbours telling them about it? Or better yet, make the offer upfront - tell them you can charge them $10 per month or something and you'll give them whatever footage they need. There are plenty of better ways to actually achieve your goal of having people have CCTV.

        My point is that I don't think you are being honest. Basically you are hiding behind the guise of "wanting people to get CCTV" just to be a dick to people and kick them in the face when they're down. If you want to be a dick, that's fine - I actually support your right to be one, but at least be honest about it and don't hide behind a facade.

        • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 23:59
          -1

          There's so much presumption about intentions.

          It is a hypothetical question. It seems some people are fixated on first establishing me as this opportunistic guy that must be waiting behind some guise so that they can justify their characterisation and at no point consider the original question.

          • p1 ama on 11/11/2019 - 01:33

            @[Deactivated]: Yeah, but the question is already answered by the law.

            You own the CCTV tapes, so unless you're subpoenaed, you have no duty to give it to anyone and you can sell it. You already know that.

            Whether one should do something is a personal decision. Your question is no different to "should we help someone who fell over crossing the road?".

            • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 02:29

              @p1 ama:

              Your question is no different to "should we help someone who fell over crossing the road?".

              But that's very easy to answer without having to bend any principles.

              1. Someone is in mortal danger. Remove person from mortal danger if within ability and consider all other factors later.

              2. You could equally likely be in the scenario where you are on the ground and someone else has the ability to help you. If someone else is likely and able to help you, it would be immoral to withhold assistance based solely on who provides assistance first.

              3. Providing assistance is unlikely to negate any motivation to improve/correct oneself.

              With regards to the main subject, 1, 2 and 3 are not applicable. The subject is not in mortal danger, the subject would not have reciprocated if you were in need first, and by providing footage the other person is no longer lacking anything and would learn nothing from being caught unprepared.

              Of course I can choose to provide the footage but then if everyone was so charitable, we wouldn't need the CCTV in the first place as we would have achieved utopia.

              • p1 ama on 11/11/2019 - 04:16
                +1

                @[Deactivated]:

                Someone is in mortal danger. Remove person from mortal danger if within ability and consider all other factors later.

                What if the crime wasn't a robbery, but a murder. Does that influence your decision? Murderer on the loose is pretty close to mortal danger for the public.

                You could equally likely be in the scenario where you are on the ground and someone else has the ability to help you. If someone else is likely and able to help you, it would be immoral to withhold assistance based solely on who provides assistance first.

                What if they have CCTV, but their cameras were pointer in a different direction or whatever the case is.

                Providing assistance is unlikely to negate any motivation to improve/correct oneself.

                This point I don't understand. You could easily say that helping someone who's fallen over will mean they're not going to be as careful crossing the road. Hey if nobody helps you up and everyone just let's you get run over, you'd be more careful right? That's literally your logic here.

                The point is that you're trying to teach people a lesson after the fact. The crime has already happened, so regardless of what you do, they can't change the fact that they didn't have cameras. If you really cared about this cause, you're better off putting flyers in people's mailboxes so they do set up the cameras before a crime.

                • [Deactivated] on 12/11/2019 - 13:35

                  @p1 ama:

                  What if the crime wasn't a robbery, but a murder. Does that influence your decision? Murderer on the loose is pretty close to mortal danger for the public.

                  That is an extreme example but a valid one. I would submit that the same principles should apply as if someone TPed the tree. However, as much as I aspire to be consistent, I can still fall short of my own standards.

                  What if they have CCTV, but their cameras were pointer in a different direction or whatever the case is.

                  That's why the option to only share footage with others with their own measure of surveillance is an option.

                  This point I don't understand. You could easily say that helping someone who's fallen over will mean they're not going to be as careful crossing the road. Hey if nobody helps you up and everyone just let's you get run over, you'd be more careful right? That's literally your logic here.

                  You've added an extra consideration into the scenario - irrecoverable damage and/or death. I covered this in a different comment. Where this outcome is evident, one should suspend all moral considerations and first remove/reduce the possibility.

                  If you really cared about this cause, you're better off putting flyers in people's mailboxes so they do set up the cameras before a crime.

                  Assume that I have. Wouldn't that make the issue of complacency a bigger issue?

  • wombat81 on 10/11/2019 - 22:26
    +1

    To me it's like asking any other favour. If my neighbour comes over once and asks to borrow my power drill, no problem. But by the third time I'm saying "how about getting your own?". No difference with this, IMO.

    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 22:30

      Interesting.

      So what would you do after the third time?

      You're justifying from a position that your neighbours are caught unaware and are ignorant. Essentially benefit of the doubt. Why third time and not second?

      What if you've already provided footage for your common neighbour hence ignorance is no longer a valid factor?

      • wombat81 on 10/11/2019 - 22:35

        I guess thats a personal preference. A drill is quite cheap compared to a decent CCTV system, so maybe after it happens once I'm telling them to get organised. I would definitely at least be making the point of how much this system costs and it wasn't installed for their benefit.

        After the third time with my power drill, honestly, I'd probably still say yes, but make it clear that it's the last time. It's pretty rude to keep asking, to be honest.

        If I was the person asking for the footage I would feel very awkward having to ask again the second time, and I would definitely not just assume the answer would be yes. But that sort of respect seems to be rare these days.

        • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 22:40

          But that sort of respect seems to be rare these days.

          Judging from the very emotional response of a few here weighed against the many civil ones, I am delighted to tell you I'm a bit more optimistic than you.

  • syousef on 10/11/2019 - 22:49
    +5

    Attitudes on display here make me want to throw up.

  • abuch47 on 10/11/2019 - 22:52

    Tshow I never tend to agree with your POV.

    That said ask the neighbour to get CCTV then you'll have a look for the footage. Also ask for whatever your time is worth to upload the footage.

    This is all reasonable but pointing out others havnt afforded the same you have is saying (profanity) you I've got mine. This is society, we are all supposed to get by and if occasionally that means helping others then do be a narcissist.

    • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 00:05

      This is society

      So shouldn't it be a social effort to ensure surveillance coverage is excellent?

  • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 23:02
    +1

    I went with "Only free for those with their own cameras" and on a case-by-case basis for everyone else. IMHO, it is the fairest out of all the options you've listed.

    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2019 - 23:05

      Careful, admitting to that could land you in the unpopular opinion crowd ;)

  • idonotknowwhy on 10/11/2019 - 23:19
    +1

    I went with "Charge cost of setting up the relevant camera." because it had 0 votes.
    Could someone please vote "Charge cost of camera system." now to help get it started too?

    • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 00:02

      I'm actually surprised at the polarity of the answers.

      • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 00:26

        I'm more surprised that someone reported your post.

        • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 03:06
          +1

          Not sure if the comment was removed before you saw it but someone was convinced that asking the question itself is so wrong it was actionable.

          Talk about thought policing.

  • hhne on 11/11/2019 - 00:44
    +1

    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.

    On the totally new premise that’s fine, not vindictive . No one should force or coerce you into setting up cameras, no matter the reason.

    You obviously did see the value though…. The issue people have is that for basically no further effort, other than what you were willing to spend for purely your own protection, you wanted to place conditions on what is basically considered being a half decent human.

    People generally didn’t have cameras 20 years ago either, I have a neighbor that literally chased a bunch of teenagers who had broken into a third neighbor’s house and tackled the youngest one, and she was a woman in her late forties. The police had picked up the lot of them that afternoon.

    Once upon a time people would put their own safety on The line for their neighbors, now we won’t load an app without expecting something in return. Very sad.

    • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 00:47

      Times changed though.

      We wouldn't have expected everyone to be vaccinated a hundred years ago.

      So if I removed my ability to be of assistance, I am morally okay. What if I did not make known my ability to assist or my inability to assist (ie. All dummy cameras but I need to maintain illusion that they're real).

      • hhne on 11/11/2019 - 01:01
        +1

        I’m not going to entertain the vaccine comment because it’s a completely irrelevant scenario.

        The moral issue isn’t whether other people know you are doing that which is in your power to help, it’s whether you ARE. If, for whatever reason you cannot help, then that wasn’t a conscious decision on your part to not help and it’s fine.

        With regards to times changing, the biggest thing that’s changed is people make suggestions like these from behind the safety of their keyboards, the poll should show you what would happen if you asked everyone at the pub……

        • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 01:10

          With regards to times changing, the biggest thing that’s changed is people make suggestions like these from behind the safety of their keyboards, the poll should show you what would happen if you asked everyone at the pub……

          Are you suggesting I am mocking someone from safety by asking a question?

          it’s whether you ARE

          But I was able to. I could have installed the cameras which I wanted to in the first place.

          If ethics is predicated on one's ability than the ability to foresee the need for security should also be considered.

          • hhne on 11/11/2019 - 01:18

            @[Deactivated]: As you already pointed out, it’s the motivation that matters. You don’t get in moral trouble if something occurred that you didn’t know was going to happen and you didn’t do anything to prevent it. If you know it will happen and the ONLY reason you don’t prevent it is because you don’t think someone else deserves to be saved from it because they’re not saving themselves then sure, that’s an issue. But rarely is anything so black and white.

            The most outstanding humans donate a kidney while alive, the ok ones donate organs when they die. The worst decide they won’t donate because it might go to someone who didn’t perfectly look after their health with tissue for their entire life and they don’t ‘deserve’ it.

            • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 01:23

              @hhne:

              The most outstanding humans donate a kidney while alive, the ok ones donate organs when they die. The worst decide they won’t donate because it might go to someone who didn’t perfectly look after their health with tissue for their entire life and they don’t ‘deserve’ it.

              Couldn't have said it better.

              Thanks for the discussion. I think it started out patchy but we were able to find common ground - ie. What definitely good and definitely bad looks like.

              I've never been a D&D guy but I take it in good authority that Neutral is the hardest to understand and that's what I like exploring, whether it is here or in personal contemplation.

              • hhne on 11/11/2019 - 01:29

                @[Deactivated]: In real life hitting neutral is damn near impossible, so you have to decide, which side would you rather miss on?

                I’m not going to donate all my money to charity and live in a tent, but I’d like to think when the positive impact on someone else is that much greater than the negative on me then I do it, that is after all why we even have a society, millions of those ‘it helps more than it hurts’ transactions.

                • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 01:37
                  -1

                  @hhne: Of course I'd rather miss on the side of good but if there isn't a line, people can slip to the other side and carry on sanctimoniously all the while believing they are a force for good.

                  I don't believe many horrible people who have commited monstrous acts consider themselves evil. Especially not the ones that die of any other cause other than suicide.

                  If you haven't noticed, there are multiple hints at personal threats. To many, especially the self righteous, it can be justified.

                  I like lines. I do not ever consider personal threats to be acceptable. I don't ever wish people get burgled to know the pain. Not assisting after actually being burgled may seem like semantics to some but that's where lines are blurred. For some it is so blurry that a brick through a windscreen is justified.

                  One even thought that posing such a question was so wrong I must be stopped.

                  This line, unfortunately, remains blurry.

                  • hhne on 12/11/2019 - 02:41

                    @[Deactivated]: Just because people point out that being deliberately unhelpful is likely to illicit a some form of negative response doesn’t mean people were condoning that response or threatening you. That’s quite the paranoid victim complex.

                    • [Deactivated] on 12/11/2019 - 08:55

                      @hhne: Right. In a conversation about morality, apparently one can be condemned for asking a question but if they were lynched at a bar, had their car bricked, property confiscated and damaged,… those things are totally understandable.

                      Essentially, the suggestion of violence is applicable if I entertain the idea of personal choice. I am being convinced to abandon or even condemn said choice at risk of reprisal directly or indirectly.

                      PS. I never actually said any was directly threatening or iliciting violence. The term used was condoning. Someone can condone violence without infringing on protected speech.

                      • hhne on 13/11/2019 - 01:54

                        @[Deactivated]: Just because someone raises the likelihood of a negative outcome doesn’t mean they condone it, that’s a huge projection on your part. If someone says you’ll get imprisoned for insulting the king in Thailand that doesn’t mean they condone the punishment.

                        • [Deactivated] on 13/11/2019 - 08:56

                          @hhne:

                          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.

                          So you don't believe this person thinks the right way to ask for something is by threatening a brick through my window?

                          You clearly believe being uncooperative is interchangeable to being vindictive but somehow, you're ready to overlook multiple soft threats and some very obvious ones incidentally made against an opinion/comment you view negatively.

                          Cool. I've got no problem with you using this thread to further get internet back pats.

  • elcheapo1 on 11/11/2019 - 01:00
    +4

    Yes I think it is morally wrong. If someone needs help and you have the ability to help them(even though that ability cost you a large sum of money) and it takes you very little effort to help, you should help them.

    There certainly is some validity to your point and I definitely would feel aggrieved if I became the go to man to get the footage while they haven't bothered to install any security for themselves.

    In your case, if it's their first time asking for footage, I would give it them and strongly suggest them to install their own security.

    If you do indeed feel compelled to charge, anything over $20 is excessive in my opinion. Why $20? It's not a lot of money so they won't think that you're trying to rip them off but it's enough to get them to think about it and get your message across.

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

      Thanks for your opinion and preemptive boundaries.

      I would be in absolute agreement if burglaries are very common but for the same house to be hit twice is very unlikely therefore you may not know if your message has truly got across until either your neighbour asks again or they are unable to provide you with any footage should your time come.

      • hhne on 12/11/2019 - 02:43

        My neighbors were hit three times in four years. It’s almost guaranteed that if you’re burgled they’ll hit you again. Just the other week in the news someone was hit and had all their cameras stolen before being hit again a week later.

      • elcheapo1 on 12/11/2019 - 12:29

        My previous house was hit twice but yeah I assume the chance of that happening is pretty unlikely. It's possible that different burglars could sense the same weak spot for a certain house meaning that it's more likely to burgled multiple times.

        Regarding whether you will truly know whether your message has truly gotten across is somewhat besides the point I think. From your pov, you just have to get your message across. How that message will be taken is out of your control and you shouldn't really spend any time worrying about that. Some people will never be able to accept the message regardless of the lengths you may go to, that is their own problem, not yours. Some people just can't be changed. You did your part, hence you should move on.

        A question for you; what would your mindset be if someone replied to you with "I would like to install a security system but I just can't afford it right now"?

        • [Deactivated] on 12/11/2019 - 12:40

          A question for you; what would your mindset be if someone replied to you with "I would like to install a security system but I just can't afford it right now"?

          Thanks for the question. I'll try to describe my thought process.

          I'll have to apply the same principles/standards to the person as I do everyone else. Just because they claim they are poor shouldn't have any bearing on the way I treat them. I should not treat people differently just because of the size of their wallet.

          At this point, my decision is to not provide assistance to install the camera.

          Regardless of the person's finance, should I consider it an issue I should not dismiss should be based on how I categorise the issue and how I would approach the person's claim.

          I would consider the issue actionable since the issue of surveillance is very demonstrably security and not convenience.

          I would then have to define if the person's claim is truly inability or unwillingness.

          Since the person is soliciting my assistance, I do not feel I am infringing on one's boundaries to seek answers directly related to the ability to pay. (The specifics of these questions and ultimately my ability to make an informed decision is a subject for a different discussion.)

          If I can objectively conclude that someone is unable to pay for their own surveillance, then I should treat the person as if they had their own surveillance. If I were to share footage with others with their own CCTV, I should treat this person as if they had the CCTV as their lack of footage stems from inability and not unwillingness.

          Would I loan them the money to buy the CCTV? I certainly feel that I am not under any moral obligation to provide said loan. Charitable intentions are again a different discussion.

          I hope this contributes to our discussion.

          • elcheapo1 on 12/11/2019 - 13:43

            @[Deactivated]: No you are definitely not under any obligation do to so. That wasn't really the direction of the question I was aiming for. I meant more as in if they were to ask for your CCTV footage multiple times and you've suggested them to get their own CCTV but they claimed they couldn't afford it, would you still be open to giving it to them freely seeing as their intention aligns with your sentiment?

            Your response saying "If I can objectively conclude that someone is unable to pay for their own surveillance, then I should treat the person as if they had their own surveillance. If I were to share footage with others with their own CCTV, I should treat this person as if they had the CCTV as their lack of footage stems from inability and not unwillingness" is reasonable.

            • [Deactivated] on 12/11/2019 - 13:44

              @elcheapo1: Thanks.

              I welcome any scrutiny of principles applied.

  • hhne on 11/11/2019 - 01:40
    +1

    Food for thought: the most successful people I have ever met, never ask for anything in return, but always manage to have an absolute army of people willing to do them favours, the kind worth way more than any money they might have received.

    The number of knows a guy who knows a guy things that result in a high paying job or a new whale of a customer I have seen is staggering. From what I can gather the secret to success is to collect favours, informally.

    • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 01:44

      That's very true.

      A favour to me would be a neighbour willing to consider the neighbourhood security and install some cameras.

      The world wouldn't need favours if everyone was considerate. Unfortunately, just as reality dictates that there will be thieves, it also gives us an opportunity to deter them.

      • hhne on 11/11/2019 - 02:27

        If you try and pressure people into doing things they generally will not do them, in fact often people will not do something they were going to do, precisely because they think you’re unfairly pressuring them. You’re much better off showing them how useful your cameras are to make them want to pick up some for the blind spots.

        Favours are really likely to be something you don’t even know you need until years later. Like your place is flooding and they have some extra sandbags….

        • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 02:32
          -1

          Paid in advance

          I understand the concept.

          This is more to do with what is minimum payment. Not legally but ethically.

          Yes, I'm fully aware one can go above and beyond but that's not the point.

  • PAZMAT on 11/11/2019 - 01:44
    +1

    Alright so I've read a bit of this post and some of the comments and I think I see your issue/point of view. Wihtout trying to make an emotionally motivated argument, I'll try share my thoughts lol.

    You are annoyed that other people don't take the initiative to get their own security while freely expecting to benefit from yours. This I can understand. However, I think I'd personally still provide footage for free, however I'd probably also really try to make a big point about increasing security for the neighbourhood and maybe recomend some sercuity systems or something? Afterall, your hope is to increase the security of the neighbourhood right? People might be more likely to install cameras if they are offered some helpful guidance or positive encouragement idk.

    Maybe somewhere down the line someone might do the same for me. Let's say I go to a friend's house and while I'm there my car is broken into or stolen and someone in that neighbourhood has footage of it or something. Not that I believe in karma or anything coz, you know, science and whatnot.

    I think my bigger issue is let's say you charge them for the footage. What happens with the money you collect from them? Is this a profit to you? Does this help you to subsidise your security investment? Or is this seen as like a fine or deterrent? Is this to hopefully make them think "oh shit I don't want to have to pay to get footage if something happens again in the future, maybe I should get my own security"? Would you find some way to use the money collected from providing footage to help promote others getting security themselves? Or is it more of a "you are irresponsible and should've had your own security, but I'm also not responsible for you not having your own security".

    Sorry if this is incoherent and messy it's late and I'm a bit drunk lol. Hopefully you get the point(s) I'm trying to raise?

    • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 01:53

      Hopefully you get the point(s) I'm trying to raise?

      I can almost hear the hiccup mid sentence but I get it.

      You're saying that how much and what happens to the money is a loose end. Poorly defined.

      May I also apply the same degree of scrutiny to the standard which you propose we make a point, educate and advocate basic neighbourhood safety?

      Because the monies collected is so poorly defined, I had to include some reference point, ie. Cost of camera vs system but I also included a harsh option which is essentially complete refusal to help (by extension of the existing options) or capitalist "market value".

      The statistical likeliness of collecting small sums to turn the investment into a net profit is absurdly unlikely.

      Sorry, you're no help since your answer mimics my own opinion and questions.

  • JungliChilli on 11/11/2019 - 06:32

    Initially didn't realise I would need popcorn when I opened this thread. Guess what I'm having for breakfast today!

  • Wonka on 11/11/2019 - 07:45
    +1

    Forget morals for a second; it’s in your personal interest to assist to reduce overall crime in your area. Think of their stuff getting broken in to and then the perp getting caught, because of your equipment as the best deterrent.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_Pattern_Theory

    • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 08:55
      -1

      But the morals is essentially the entire subject. If we suspend that, we are left with one obvious course of action. That requires no further discussion.

      However, faced with a faceless request where the only thing you know is someone else needs footage because they don't have any device to obtain their own would you feel like you're being asked to give/share your preparation with someone who clearly didn't do any.

      If you feel that way, what would be the deciding discovery that would change your mind between charging a fee and giving the footage for free.

      If you did decide to charge a fee, how much or relative to what would you charge said fee?

      Morality is a very interesting question because there are a few very outraged responses here that have absolutely zero problems with a fee but only if presented in a certain way.

  • gyrex on 11/11/2019 - 08:29
    +3

    Charge for dashcam footage to help another citizen in their time of need? What the hell is wrong with people. There's no difference between this and someone who's witnessed serious assault or murder demanding to be paid to provide their testimony - bloody disgraceful.

    • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 08:44

      What if the dashcam footage would change the verdict in favour of a driver who collided with an uninsured single mom? The case is complicated and for the purpose of this discussion, would have yielded mixed consensus.

      Would you get involved or pretend you didn't have the footage?

  • WT on 11/11/2019 - 09:11

    kinda off topic, how much are you asking for bedroom cctv footage?

    stuff like this just give the footage and accept the karma

    • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 09:17

      Heh. I see the giggity part of the question.

      The better question would be if I were to share it, who would I share it with. If I were to sell it, what would influence the amount being set.

      However, to entertain discussion, imagine you were the neighbour asking for security footage for a $1,000 damage. What implications are there if I charged $1, $1,000 or $10,000?

  • happirt on 11/11/2019 - 09:17
    +1

    straight up asking for cash won't work. you will get backlash. look for new opportunities instead. video edit and stick an advertisement banner for your business on the video and give it away for free. you are not tampering the video, just adding a watermark.

    chuck it on youtube as well if its an eventful footage for extra monetary gains. might go viral lol.

    start a Aus-Streetcam Owners site.. much like https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvfqpaehdaqtkXPNhvJRyGA

    • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 09:54

      Would you say that this person is benefitting from the misfortune of others?

      • happirt on 11/11/2019 - 10:48
        +3

        I could, but I could also say it's raising awareness. Aus Dash cam owners Mission is "Spread Dash Cam awareness and safer driving/ riding." and they are not getting much backlash from it. as you can tell from their video views and comments, millions embrace it. Gives them a platform to name and shame and educate safety.

        I'm pretty sure I could say people benefit from others misfortune all the time. Does a fireman benefit from others misfortune? Does a technical support rep benefit from others misfortune (ignorance/stupidity) .. etc It's not. It's an exchange of services so that both parties benefit.

        I guess it depends on your intentions and what you do with those benefits. Morally speaking, thats what counts at the end of the day. You could even donate some of your proceeds to a charitable cause to market your moral righteousness.

        • [Deactivated] on 12/11/2019 - 13:03

          Morally speaking, thats what counts at the end of the day. You could even donate some of your proceeds to a charitable cause to market your moral righteousness.

          That's one thing I learnt that I was completely unaware of - marketing changes the moral implication for some.

          It would be interesting to dive into the principles behind such a conclusion.

  • ilikecheap on 11/11/2019 - 09:21

    Free if its an ozbargain member.

    • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 09:28

      What if it is a member since 1 hour 49 minutes ago and/or is an uninsured driver?

  • Ozpit on 11/11/2019 - 09:32
    +1

    I think all ratepayers should be compelled by law to have their property fully covered by CCTV. Moreover, cameras placed on every pole in every municipality pointing in all directions, and 360 degree dashcams in all vehicles, including cameras covering the vehicle occupants.

    What’s more, I’d have cameras in every room of every public building (I draw the line at compulsory cameras in all rooms within homes, but I’m still thinking about that).

    Just think, everyone and everything would then be fully covered. If you are a law-abiding citizen, why would you have any reason to complain? It can only lead to a peaceful and harmonious society.

    Let’s stop crime and law breaking dead in its tracks. Let’s not wait for 2084; bring it on now.

    • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 09:34

      Okay. I acknowledge your sarcasm and attitude towards the cameras.

      If you were robbed under the watchful eye of this surveillance system, would you like to have access to the footage or have the police have access to the footage?

      • Ozpit on 11/11/2019 - 10:17
        +2

        I’m tempted to say just the police and other authorities who have the unenviable responsibility of overseeing our wellbeing and bringing recalcitrants to justice - or at least re-education.

        But no, all footage would be saved to the cloud (OK, that would be a lot of growing yottabytes) and all citizens would have full access to all footage of all public spaces everywhere. It could be called EveryoneTube. What greater deterrent to crime if you knew your mum and dad, children, friends, neighbours, police, whoever, could see what you’ve been up to all day every day?

        How often do you hear of police officers getting mugged in the street? Never? Well, it would be (sort of) like that but grown large. Anyone’s thoughts of law breaking or infringing on the rights of others would be somewhat dampened. It can only be a step in the right direction.

        • rompastompa on 11/11/2019 - 13:23
          +1

          You would need to implant a GPS tracker on everyone for the greatest accuracy, too. Trial it with anyone jailed, then once successful, a mandatory implant for anyone above 6 months of age.

          With Inductive Charging, you could recharge the GPS tracker while you sleep.

        • Zachary on 13/11/2019 - 13:03

          Looks like some episodes of blackmirror is about to come true…..

    • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 09:44
      -6

      Congratulations. In recognition of your moral outrage, the Commitee of Righteous Thinking decree upon you our most prestigious award…

      Morally superior by default.

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

          I will readily admit that I am still exploring my morality and setting principles I can apply universally.

          How can one be sure they are doing the right thing if right and wrong are subjective?

          • Ozpit on 12/11/2019 - 10:43

            @[Deactivated]: You can’t be sure if you ‘know’ your beliefs/opinions are always subjective; conversely, you can be sure if you ‘know’ your beliefs/opinions are always objectively determined. The world is largely inhabited by the latter. Thus the great divide. What a piece of work is man.

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

              @Ozpit: You can always know if you morality is objective but it is an inconvenient way to live.

              The great divide is between objectivity and practical objectivity as there isn't the degree of subjectivity in "practice objectivity" is subjective.

              The human mind is indeed amazing. Without the ability to ask questions, we would not have advanced beyond any other primal creatures.

              What we take as a forgone conclusion today may be unforgiveable in the future.

  • haemolysis on 11/11/2019 - 09:57

    I think it’s fine morally to charge for your “services” so-to-speak… but do we really want to live in a world where we let wrong-doing go unpunished if we can help it within our means? When you let an at-fault driver get away with their crimes because the victim couldn’t “afford” proof, then you are keeping more threats on the road for all of us. I’d just front up the footage. Serving justice is payment in and of itself. It’s what you got the camera for.

    • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 10:01

      So the immorality of supplying the footage for payment is because it is acting on self interest.

      If I subscribed to the concept of karma, wouldn't I still be acting on self interest?

      • haemolysis on 11/11/2019 - 10:37

        That’s somewhat the opposite of what I’m saying.

        I’m trying to say that is IS in your self interest to contribute to a safer society of which you will benefit.

        • [Deactivated] on 12/11/2019 - 13:06
          -1

          Then the logical conclusion is apparent.

          It still leaves the moral component unexamined. It may be insignificant if viewed in isolation but morality is based on principles. Principles should not change just because the scenario changes.

          Some people are happy to live an unexamined life. Many will not be required to make an ethical decision. This discussion will have a different meaning to those who do.

  • bobz79 on 11/11/2019 - 10:06

    What is next, people want to be paid to be a witness or for reporting a crime?!

    The primary purpose of you installing the CCTV system was to protect "your assets". You recover your cost when it serves that purpose.

    You are not going to get rich selling the footage! So give it away and rather collect the satisfaction and good karma you get in return ;-)

    May be someone else might do the favour back, when you need the most too.

    Also Police may not go thru all the effort of getting warrant/court order etc depending on the severity of the crime. The case will go dormant and the society lose (happened to me!)

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

      Also Police may not go thru all the effort of getting warrant/court order etc depending on the severity of the crime. The case will go dormant and the society lose (happened to me!)

      I know this. It has happened to me. I'm not cooking this up out of convenience but historical comments (most recent was a few weeks ago), I did describe my car being broken into. It even had a dashcam in parking mode but alas, I was not the driver I didn't park in plain view of CCTV and no other car had footage.

      I find it morally uneasy to pass a decision based on karmic gain vs financial gain. Wouldn't the same set of principles apply regarding trading for gain?

      Also, taking the path of least resistance so someone else may provide you the same slack seems equivalent to being polite to someone so someone wouldn't be critical of you.

    • trapper on 11/11/2019 - 12:02
      +1

      If police are forced to get warrant or court order to get the footage I wouldn't be surprised to see them take a lot of pleasure in dragging off his servers and other equipment instead of just a simple copy of the files.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join