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

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

        100%

      • Zachary on 13/11/2019 - 13:06

        hahaha, pretty sure OP would resist in some way and stand firm on his principle.

  • backpaqer on 11/11/2019 - 10:17
    +3

    I would hand over footage freely in the hope that if I ever need it someone would do the same for me. Pay it forward.

  • OzHunterNSW on 11/11/2019 - 10:44
    -1

    You are a business. Sell your time. It takes time to go through video footage, then save on disc, etc.
    You have no obligation to provide this footage to anyone bar the police.
    Just tell people they are not connected, not functioning.
    Or, point to a sign which states your hourly rate, plus materials/disc, and charge this at $75 per hour.

  • jonkvh on 11/11/2019 - 11:30

    Had a mate ring me yesterday telling how he'd had a Channel 7 female reporter knock on his door, asking for his front camera footage. There was a massive police chase in his street that ended in front of his house. He didn't have the camera's on at the time.

    They would've aired it on the News. It's no different selling videos to Viralhog. Commercial entities should pay, but for criminal investigations etc, just hand it over.

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

      What if the commercial airing would contribute to apprehension of the perpetrators?

      • jonkvh on 12/11/2019 - 09:28

        Then you'd just hand it over. Think you're trying to find a 'contradiction' where none can be found.

        • [Deactivated] on 12/11/2019 - 09:49

          But you only have that knowledge after the fact.

          It's like saying should you release a petty thief? One's answer should not require knowledge of the consequence.

          What if I told you the petty thief was Jean Valjean?

  • geoffs87 on 11/11/2019 - 11:35

    i mean, what happens when you're broken into from an angle that your cameras can't see, but your neighbours cameras can… would you be happy to go and pay them for their footage. My thoughts are what goes around comes around. Be nice to everyone, and hopefully some people will be nice to you one day!!

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

      That is addressed with -

      "Only free for those with their own cameras."

      This covers the scenario of reciprocal and mutual assistance.

      • geoffs87 on 11/11/2019 - 12:49

        I see, sorry i may (or may not) have read post in full.

        OzFail.

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

          It's okay. I will admit the title does trigger a response and you're not alone there.

  • xabiso on 11/11/2019 - 11:47
    +2

    When I'm in a position to assist with security footage I own, I will always pay it forward. I understand that one day I might be in a position where I'll need security footage from others and would hope that I don't need to pay to have it. Put yourself in the shoe of others - if you are willing to pay in the future - then charge. I think in OPs case, the issue is with the people asking for it, not the act of sharing.

    • happirt on 11/11/2019 - 11:53

      I only wish this worked for everything else.

      With this logic, why not give them money too for the damage repairs, because in the future I would want someone to pay for my damages?

      So who defines where the line is?

  • trapper on 11/11/2019 - 11:58

    Man isn't it obvious that it is in your best interest to have criminals operating around your area caught and prosecuted?

    • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 12:16

      Yes it is.

      The question still remains. Is it ethical to ask for some form of fee.

      Again, I point out that some taking a moral stance against compensation for setup cost is more than accommodating to the idea of an arbitrary administrative fee.

      If you feel there is no need to question the morality of the latter, then okay. We are in agreement as to course of action.

      • trapper on 11/11/2019 - 12:42
        +1

        It would be similar ethically to demand a fee to provide a statement as a witness.

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

          I think it is ethical for me to compensate a witness for their time to provide a testimony in court.

          I'm not sure if that is legal but I in no way wish to alter the testimony by offering payment.

          After all, a day off work can be the difference between someone paying their mortgage on time or not.

          Obviously, there are different considerations with the example provided.

          • Blitz001 on 14/11/2019 - 14:43

            @[Deactivated]: Oh yeah let’s start paying witnesses that’ll keep things fair.

        • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 16:22
          +3

          The last time my wife was subpoenaed, she had to give notice to the issuing party that a substantial loss and expenses would be incurred in properly complying with the orders, including an estimate of the amount. The issuing party refused to shoulder the cost and the court ruled that my wife didn't have to comply with the subpoena.

  • lookingforTV on 11/11/2019 - 12:43
    +2

    I am a small business owner myself. I understand that you have installed and operating CCTVs with your own money, you have done it to protect your business. For me, that would be enough value received for the money I paid. If I can spread out the benefit to people around me, I'd be happy to.

    You talked about charging for an admin fee - for me, I don't think clicking few buttons is much of trouble. I'd rather help out where I can and increase my chance of getting good words of mouth. I can just imagine how furious people will be, after they had a bad incident and seeking for help, when asked to pay money if you want my help.

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

      As much as people can be furious, it can still be morally acceptable.

      Just as there is outrage with the issue of abortion and euthanasia, outrage is not a measure of morality.

      One can also have the moral option to charge and still choose not to charge.

      • lookingforTV on 11/11/2019 - 12:48

        I am not approaching it from morale perspective. I am approaching it from the perspective of benefit and cost. What is the potential benefit of charging for footage and how often would I be able to charge for it? Not much and not often. The cost? Potential malicious reviews on Google and FB from random strangers. To me, potential intangible benefits outweigh greatly.

        • happirt on 11/11/2019 - 12:58

          how often would I be able to charge for it? Not much and not often.

          this is why I'm telling him to go public and let the people who do have money and are willing to pay for it, pay for it directly or indirectly. It's way better than asking a victim of crime pay for it one time.

          not only will he be serving the victim with the footage, he will be providing entertainment and safety education and awareness value for society worldwide, for millions not just a selected few.

    • geoffs87 on 11/11/2019 - 12:52

      too right!

      Imagine Mr/Mrs Neighbour Business has a customer who wants a widget that only you sell, but Mr/Mrs Neighbour Business is still upset they had to pay you $29.99 admin fee for accessing footage that you recorded. They may not refer that customer to you, they may refer them elsewhere instead!

      Imagine you lose a sale/s because your neighbours harbour resentment to you because, well you could have just helped a brother out.

      I think a lot can be said for generating good will. Good will is extremely valuable.

      • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 13:05

        So the issue you have with the exchange isn't the exchange itself but what is offered.

        Instead of a tangible payment in form of money or beer, it is in the form of a sense of obligation.

        There's nothing wrong with that.

        Thanks for the discussion.

      • happirt on 11/11/2019 - 13:06

        I could pretty much say what is really your intentions? Is it really to help the victim out or is it secretly a selfish act to protect and look out for your own in the future? It sounds like the latter and you are expecting some kind of commission in the future anyway.

        As a third party, If someone was referring another business to me i'd prefer references strictly on the business performance rather than some personal obligation debt you guys had in the past, that I had no part in.

        And what happens if they don't agree with you after you gave them the footage in the past, and they ask you pay for it? there is no guarantee or legal obligation for the other party to reciprocate the same way. There might ultimately be risks associated in creating bad blood between you two anyway.

        • lookingforTV on 11/11/2019 - 15:03

          The business may be a separate legal entity but its reputation comes from people who run it. I personally do not want to imagine what kind of hassle the management will put up if my purchase has an issue when the owner is the type of person who would like to charge money for it.

          I suppose you can say that the generating goodwill is expecting some kind of commission in the future. But, at least, that has a higher probability of generating goodwill than pissing someone off for small amount of money to generate bad reputation (based on the survey results, there are more people who believe not providing CCTV footage is a self-centred move)

  • TimmyTims on 11/11/2019 - 13:00

    Should you charge for camera footage? I say no
    Should you charge for the time it takes you to find the file, save to USB, etc. Yes
    What should you charge? I wouldn't charge money. Maybe a 6pack of beer or a favor. (panel beaters across the road got broken into? "Sure, can you have a look at this ding on my car while I pull up the footage?")

  • tryagain on 11/11/2019 - 13:09
    +2

    Some thoughts, assuming your vaccination comparison (ignoring several shortcomings) and business/household cameras. If your desire is actually to build herd immunity, your response could be a fee that you will reimburse if/when they install a system. This would help ensure that your stated goals of a greater uptake.

    The vaccination comparison really requires drawing a longbow when it comes to dashcams though.

    Reading between the lines to me, it seems you are trying to dress up an "I don't like people getting some of the benefits of my cost" in a deeper argument

    • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 13:39

      reimburse if/when they install a system. This would help ensure that your stated goals of a greater uptake.

      I love this! Moving forward, this is what I'll do.

      Writing the contract may be difficult though.

      Reading between the lines to me, it seems you are trying to dress up an "I don't like people getting some of the benefits of my cost" in a deeper argument

      You may be reading someone elses' line. I have zero need for the measly sum I can ever get from seeking compensation.

      • tryagain on 11/11/2019 - 14:48
        +1

        You may be reading someone else's' line. I have zero need for the measly sum I can ever get from seeking compensation.

        Not implying that you are in it for financial gain, but that the underlying reason is more that you don't like the feeling of being taken advantage of, and you are then trying to justify that with other factual reasons.

        I get it though, I remember I was part of a group in my younger days when people were on the cusp of getting their licence and buying their first car. Those with cars and licences would often give lifts to those who hadn't got theirs yet (for free). One day someone in the group who was old enough to get their licence and buy a car said she wasn't going to so she could save money for overseas travel instead of paying for petrol/rego etc and was just going to keep getting lifts from others instead. I very quickly decided that it wasn't my job to subsidise her overseas travels and no longer gave her a lift anywhere.

        Personally I wouldn't have an issue of people benefiting from something that was a sunk cost (purchase and install price) but were happy to pay an administration cost for the out of pocket expenses, I would consider it as building goodwill. If I felt someone was deliberately trying to take advantage of it though as in the above example I would just say no, I think it's time you got your own system.

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

          If I felt someone was deliberately trying to take advantage…

          That requires one to arbitrate.

          But you're right regarding the feeling of being mooched off.

          • tryagain on 11/11/2019 - 23:43
            +1

            @[Deactivated]:

            That requires one to arbitrate

            I don't require someone to arbitrate to tell me what I feel ;)

  • Speckled Jim on 11/11/2019 - 13:58
    +2

    I've skipped to the end, for although I like reading, everyone has their limit. Please forgive any echoes among my musings.

    Back in the olden-days, people bought fire insurance and affixed a plaque to their external wall. If your property was engulfed, the fire department would do their best.
    No plaque? It sucked to be you.

    Today the commodity is information. There's win-win-win in the offing here. A security footage intranet of sorts.

    Somebody make a simple networking app. Client side would include a Public/Private-Cloud/Private-Local flags you could assign to each camera.
    Everything but Private-Local is uploaded to cloud. When someone requests footage, give them the URL for the app. If they ask why, just say "it's all cloud-based and encrypted for security" (it doesn't have to be, just password protected).

    They install the app. Then either "pay to see" or charge a small amount for the app up-front and include access to a few feeds.

    With such a system, you could have footage freely available to those within visual range of your cameras if they're also a member. If your neighbours have the app but no cameras, they soon will. Either way, no more awkward requests!

    It would be revolutionary. We could call it Society 2.0. Or something original and catchier — I'm no branding guy, just the idea-seed guy.

    Point is, it would make managing such requests easier. Sharing select footage could also warn other members of suspects.

    Lunch over, back to work.

    • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 14:04

      Back in the olden-days, people bought fire insurance and affixed a plaque(en.wikipedia.org) to their external wall. If your property was engulfed, the fire department would do their best.
      No plaque? It sucked to be you.

      I didn't know about this but this is exactly what I am thinking of.

      There can also be an abuse of power here since firefighting can be considered a natural monopoly. If I recall, there is a good story from Roman history.

      I wonder if the person that proposed this model was burnt on the stake. Probably not as he has extinguishers.

      • happirt on 13/11/2019 - 08:20

        https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/the-block-2019-s…

        Not just a historical reference. Still happens today. Different kind of plaque, but a plaque none the less.

        Not to mention crowe released (what seems like) his cctv camera footage to public on twitter. this is what people who know what they are doing, do :)

        • happirt on 13/11/2019 - 10:17

          “Get the app mate. It’s very helpful,” Crowe responded.

          I thought perhaps your perspective would change if it comes out of a famous celebs mouth :)

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

            @happirt: It wouldn't change.

            If a faceless person were to say the same thing, I'd take it on the exact same merits.

            The quality of a suggestion/argument is self contained. It is either a good one or a crap one and no amount of qualifications, authority or recognition changes squat.

    • brad1-8tsi on 12/11/2019 - 10:18

      I think this already exists. I'm sure i was reading about all the webcams in a community being linked and stored in the cloud for all to see.

      Of course there were those of the "I have my right to privacy" brigade and those of the "If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about." fraternity. It's a conundrum.

      • happirt on 12/11/2019 - 20:23

        many ip based cctv are cloud based and does this but everyone would need compatible devices (most likely from 1 company that runs the cloud service. camera has to know where to upload to). Works great for big corporates that can buy the same device to monitor multiple venues, but very unlikely it happening between a group of private business owners. Using online video service like YouTube eliminates that need for device compatibility as it is a common platform.

        • Speckled Jim on 13/11/2019 - 13:26

          Forgive my noobishness. The ideal scenario would be something along the lines of…

          Find (or coerce) a common format for upload. Say, H265 @ 1080P ~900kbps, roughly 600MB/hr per camera.
          Arrange an affiliate agreement with a host like Mega. Free accounts are currently 50GB. You'd skin a front-end and use their standard encryption and other features. If someone needs more storage, you'd re-sell one of their plans to the client.

          Problem would be reliability of host, given historical record of such places disappearing with little to no notice.

          • happirt on 13/11/2019 - 13:59

            @Speckled Jim: It's not about the video format.

            In this instance all the cameras in your group would need to know to upload to Mega, unlikely. They each likely own different make/model cameras and each camera would have it's own hardcoded or defaulted to their preferred cloud site to drive traffic to their own site.

  • Dr Prepper on 11/11/2019 - 14:30

    When you get a subpoena for CCTV footage the party issuing the subpoena have to pay you.

    • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 14:38

      I wasn't aware it was a requirement.

      • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 16:30

        Only if you're not a party in the proceedings. If you are, I believe, they only have to pay for your travel expenses, if it is more than $25.

        • Dr Prepper on 11/11/2019 - 17:14
          +2

          A subpoena is used if you require production by non-party to proceedings. A notice to produce is used in the case of a party to proceedings to request documents or other items such as CCTV footage,photos or audio recordings.

          Unlike a subpoena, a notice to produce does not require "conduct money". However, a person producing under a notice to produce may request reimbursement of their reasonable costs incurred for complying with the notice under Rule 34.3. Sometimes there can be a hearing determining what reasonable production costs are. E.g. review and editing of many hours of footage from archives etc.

          UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 2005 - REG 34.3
          Costs and expenses of compliance
          34.3 Costs and expenses of compliance
          (cf rule 33.11)

          (1) The court may order the party requiring production to pay the amount of any reasonable loss or expense incurred by the party required to produce in complying with a notice to produce.
          (2) If an order is made under subrule (1), the court must fix the amount or direct that it be fixed in accordance with the court's usual procedure in relation to costs.

          • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 18:21

            @Dr Prepper: Cheers :)

          • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 23:51

            @Dr Prepper: From the rest of the discussion, one could have easily believed that a warrant and subpoena is issued like toilet paper.

  • TEER3X on 11/11/2019 - 15:11

    Yep, set up a pay per view you greedy twat

  • kachi on 11/11/2019 - 15:40

    If you really don't want to help, just say no first (although police might request it officially later on)? It's kinda like if you notice someone that may need first aid and have the skills; you can choose to help or walk away from helping.
    But personally, I would just help. If I were in the same position as the person requesting footage, I'd be really appreciative and thankful if they did the same. I've received help when I least expected it and it's just nice to know there are helpful people out there. Plus, if its to help catch crime, why not. I believe people shouldn't get away with those things, otherwise it becomes worse..
    If it's not too often, it's not bad. If it's using a significant amount of your time, I'd probably request the council to put up some CCTV cams or something because it obvs would be a major issue..

  • Save Medicare on 11/11/2019 - 16:02
    +3

    It costs nothing to be a good bloke

  • newbiesh on 11/11/2019 - 16:07

    Nah that's not agood move,

  • Zondor on 11/11/2019 - 16:18
    +3

    Pretty Un-Australian

  • lonewolf on 11/11/2019 - 16:24

    Whats next, charging to be a witness as it was a financial burden on me and my parents to maintain my eyes and the rest of my body to be able to be at that location when a crime was being committed?

  • ozhunter on 11/11/2019 - 18:06
    +1

    At first, I was going to say you should provided it for free as part of being a good citizen.

    If it happens often enough, an administrative fee would be fair. It would also depend on the circumstance; eg. if someone was injured, it should be provided for free.

    Then again, to charge for it wouldn't be completely unreasonable. I don't mind helping someone out, but if everyone keeps coming to me for help because I chose to invest in certain equipment(even though it's a sunk cost), I can see how it could get annoying, depending how often it occurs.

    If it's neighboring business that don't have their own security, and have asked footage on more than one occasion, I say charge them a fee.

    As far as incentivising them goes, just explain to them you're lucky that you have footage of the incident but it would best for them to get their own in case it happens again, and you could even give them a link to a bargain.

  • kiwimex on 11/11/2019 - 19:04
    +2

    Doesn't want to help a neighbour out with a little CCTV footage unless he gets paid for his time…..spends days discussing the subject online….watch out folks we might get invoiced for his time!

  • Deridas on 11/11/2019 - 20:58
    +2

    tshow, thanks for the discussion, and replies. I enjoyed reading the comments It's actually quite a neat thought experiment with issues that are not easily answerable/justified.

    Should label it as a "thought experiment" so people don't give answers based on emotion.

    Cheers. :)

    • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 23:47
      -1

      I had a title and a way to phrase the same question but it lacked any conflict so I suspected the answers will all be the same.

      Had to stir the pot a little but I didn't expect the number of personal attacks, suggestion of violence and downright calls for conversation to be shut down.

      It has been fun.

    • [Deactivated] on 12/11/2019 - 13:41

      Circled around to reply again…

      It would be of great interest to me if I can post this question again as a thought experiment whilst trying to keep the parameters and examples similar.

      Would the perception that the question/discussion does not yield tangible results change the moral perception?

  • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 22:44
    +1

    have not done anything illegal except that which resulted in a minor collision

    I would offer a reward to whoever can get me out of that pickle.

    I would pay even more to destroy any incriminating evidence against me ;)

    • [Deactivated] on 11/11/2019 - 23:06

      Hahaha. I had a good debate on that IRL!

  • luffyex2010 on 12/11/2019 - 01:03
    +1

    Interesting topic, I got visited by a cop many years ago. He asked me for some video footage of my surveillance cameras as there has been an incident of theft near my area. I whispered to him "it's fake……" he was like ohh (he looks disappointed)

    Now I have actual working ones and its worth it. You get to see strange people doing weird stuffs at night/very early mornings especially when you can see the night like day.

    Anyway there is no right or wrong for this matter but more of a want, should or don't want to assist but if it was me and there is a police crime that needs to be solved I would 100% assist but that's just me.

    Just like Ben Parker said "with great technology powers, comes great responsibility"

    This is taken from Maddocks

    CCTV systems will no doubt continue to be used as a means for security and crime-prevention and detection purposes.

    If you receive a request for access to CCTV footage, relevant issues to consider include:

    what is captured by the CCTV footage? Specifically, does it identify individuals? Does it disclose any other kind of personal information?
    who is requesting access to the footage (e.g. the Police or an individual)?
    can you deal with the request informally or should you require an FOI request be submitted?
    can you consult with people identified in the footage?
    is disclosure of the footage unreasonable in all of the circumstances? For example, for what purpose is it sought? Will it be made publicly available?
    can/should you edit the footage (e.g. pixelate images to address privacy concerns)? What time/cost is involved?
    do you have a policy that deals with access to the footage? If so, what does it say?
    If CCTV has been installed for security purposes but is being sought for other purposes, then it may be appropriate to refuse access under FOI. This is so unless it is practicable to edit the footage so that people are de-identified (e.g. pixilate images).

    This is taken from UK
    "In order to request CCTV footage of yourself, you will have to send a Subject Access Request (SAR) to the owner of the CCTV system in writing. … The CCTV owner must by law provide you with this footage within 40 calendar days, although they can charge you up to £10 for doing so (the maximum amount set by Parliament)"

  • Euphemistic on 12/11/2019 - 05:41
    +2

    Where’s the option for charging for your time and effort to retrieve the footage?

    If you need to sift through a weeks worth of footage to find what they want and it takes a few hours surely you should be able to recover that time/cost. You can’t ask them to recover the cost of the system you installed for your own benefit.

    • [Deactivated] on 12/11/2019 - 08:36
      +1

      I thought it would he too hard to get a relative figure from time spent on retrieving footage as some people are more efficient at retrieving the footage and some people have very high incomes.

      I didn't foresee that people would apply such dissonance between a fee relative to cost of asset vs fee based on time spent.

      • Euphemistic on 12/11/2019 - 08:49

        ITs not that hard to work out a fair hourly rate for ‘admin’ staff. Something like $50-90 would be reasonable. The left asking for the footage needs to be aware that trawling through your footage takes you away from other tasks such as posting on ozbargain or making coffee.

        Then, you could also apply the ‘good neighbour’ rule something like if it is less than an hour it won’t cost you, or if you can provide an actual time of incident to narrow down the search you can have the footage for nix etc.

        • [Deactivated] on 12/11/2019 - 09:06

          My neighbour had a non debilitating illness and I offered them an appointment in my office, they refused. They want me to just give them a diagnosis as they're aware that I'm unlikely to charge for time outside the office.

          Would you say there are parallels there? Should my service in that scenario be free?

          I draw the parallel due to the sunk cost of my education/training and the value of my time is predicated on first having said education/training.

    • MrFrugalSpend on 12/11/2019 - 08:37

      Agree, poll is flawed. I work for a company with several commercial properties. We are often asked for cctv footage. I don't think it reasonable to try charge a large amount like it is a commodity or recover cost of cameras, but staff time is valuable, particularly for a business. A retreival fee covering the time to find relevant footage and extract is reasonable (it often takes a good hour or more, sometimes more if inquiry is vague and many cameras, usually involves a few people between inquiry with reception, management approval, IT or Property Manager review and extract, uploading or copying to usb for transmission). So this is just reasonable opportunity-cost recovery for staff charge out rates (e.g. $90 / hour?).

      If it happens to you every month at various sites, you'd start to see this is probably actually fair. However, we currently do it for free. Especially when you consider a lot of people are just fishing for something that may help in the distance / across the street from a camera, sending you on a goose chase through footage in a 2-5 hour timeframe (e.g. break-in overnight).

      Whereas holding footage to ransom for a large sum depending on value to a person to prove the truth, is NOT reasonable… reminds me of that girl who held the lost phone/photos to ransom.

      • [Deactivated] on 12/11/2019 - 12:22
        -1

        Logically, the course of action is uninteresting - release the footage so the criminal may be apprehended.

        Reasonable is entirely subjective and depending on how reason is applied, ie based on logic or morals, it can vary.

        Morally, the course of action one can take is more interesting.

  • Biskitt on 12/11/2019 - 06:54
    +7

    In the time that you've spent writing this post and replying to everyone, you could have probably gone through the footage and helped your neighbour out.

    Whatever happened to the concept of just being a good bloke and helping out your fellow man?

    Honestly, I find it a bit sad reading post like this but I suppose it's indicative of a society that in general, seems to be getting more self centred and selfish (that's probably for another discussion though)

    • [Deactivated] on 12/11/2019 - 09:15

      How about if someone else who didn't pose a forum question and deliberated the moral implications were to sell their footage?

      Would that be any different because he has spent less time examining his/her choices?

  • fadeinthemix on 12/11/2019 - 09:59

    Someone stole my girlfriends bike from a shopping complex.
    Asked to see anyone could check the cameras to see what happened to it.
    Got told to go the police, fair enough.
    Opened up a case with the Police and gave the serial number to the police.
    Lucky for us the bike was sold to Cash Converters and we got the bike back and that was the end of it from what we heard.

  • cloudy on 12/11/2019 - 13:12
    +3

    Well if breaks in occur near you, isn’t it also in your interest to see them caught? Hence your footage will help with that. As for car accidents, isn’t it just the nice thing to do? A bit like asking a stranger to lift a pram on or off a tram.

  • UFO on 12/11/2019 - 21:21

    Entirely up to you mate…. who gives a crap what others think.

    You use your best judgement in life and makes decisions that you can live with.

    If old nanna wants some footage to bust a hoon who road raged her, give her the footage.
    If some self entitled twat demands the footage in effort to get out of something, don't give the footage.

    Depends entirely on the circumstances, who's asking, and why they are asking.

    This is not about legality. If cops want evidence for an offence, there's no option… they'll just seize it- and rightly so.
    But this question is not about that, it's about willingness to help someone. And in my honest opinion some people are not to be helped!

    Yeah it sounds bad, but I can think of plenty of scenarios where someone asking for footage will definitely not get anything from me.

    If your opinion on whether to offer that footage can be swayed by money, then so be it… but that's YOUR prerogative and no one elses.
    Polls and opinions be damned… it's your footage to do with as you please.

    And if someone really wants that video footage, then maybe offering a case for your troubles in providing it is fair enough.
    I know if I wanted footage for something and I needed to offer a small amount of compensation to get it- I WOULD IN AN INSTANT!
    $50 to you to lock it in insurance wise is a no brainer!

    • [Deactivated] on 12/11/2019 - 21:31

      Entirely up to you mate…. who gives a crap what others think.

      That's true. I'm not seeking validation though. Seeking ethical discussion.

      Depends entirely on the circumstances, who's asking, and why they are asking.

      That would require one to judge what is appropriate what isn't. That can (not always) actually be an objective exercise but then it raises another question, can/should you believe them.

      I find it easier to remove the who and why considerations for the purposes of consistent application of principles.

      If your opinion on whether to offer that footage can be swayed by money, then so be it… but that's YOUR prerogative.
      Polls and opinions be damned… it's your footage to do with as you please.

      Au contraire.

      A third of the voters consider it okay to receive "market value" for their footage yet the overwhelming response from the comments have been moral outrage and/or charitable one upmanship. It's actually quite entertaining what can be observed.

      Thanks for your input. Even though such a response has been few and far between, the value of this post has far exceeded my expectations.

      • UFO on 12/11/2019 - 21:57

        But this has nothing to do with ethics (or lack thereof).

        Judgement from the spoken masses is hardly ever black and white accurate (just look at recent elections both locally and internationally as an example). There are many shades of grey that those judging you on here are missing. They are simply putting themselves in the position of the person requesting the footage, and as a consequence are demanding of your services and time (regardless of the cost to you).

        Because that's exactly what is being talked about here. CCTV footage that has not only been produced by you at your upfront cost, but then consequently edited and offered on a suitable medium for the person requesting it.

        People who demand you give that freely are delusional.
        You have exclusive footage of an incident. To the vast majority of people out there, that footage is valueless. Useless even.
        But for a select few, that footage is very valuable.
        They know it, and you know it.

        That being the case, securing that footage is on the onus of the person who values it. A kind request may do it. A small amount of compensation might do it. In a major event… even larger compensation is possible.

        Media outlets will pay big money for such footage if they deem it valuable enough (in other words they think they'll make more money having it than not). Same thing with these virtuous people demanding the footage. THEY ARE GOING TO BE FINANCIALLY BETTER OFF WITH THIS FOOTAGE! That's why they want it… it's not about having a fond memory captured in time. It's about money, plain and simple.

        And if they really want that money, then they should expect to pay SOMETHING for that benefit.

        Unless of course you are charity?

        It's not about ethics. It's about supply and demand.
        You have exclusive rights on video footage they seek.
        Offer it freely if you choose. Charge for it if you choose.
        They don't have to buy it, maybe someone else has a better angle ;).

        • [Deactivated] on 12/11/2019 - 22:06

          Unless of course you are charity?

          My goodness. You should read the number of comments that simply do not understand that charity is actually outside the scope of ethical consideration because it removes the discussion of withholding and is always about giving.

          It's not about ethics. It's about supply and demand.

          I fully agree that one can remove the ethical component in favour of that and still be able to apply one's principles consistently. I, however, am concerned I may be overlooking some of my own principles should I make that conclusion.

          The scenario I present in the original post is actually heavily doctored but in essence still completely true, however, I found this dilemma paralleling another one I have been having. I think I'll explore the ethical considerations further before starting a new discussion, perhaps even directly about said dilemma.

          Thank you. Your input is greatly appreciated.

  • 00 on 12/11/2019 - 23:39

    Hikvision - what a name.

    https://ipvm.com/reports/hikvision-uyghur

  • kaleidoscope on 13/11/2019 - 12:09
    +3

    Depends on the situation.

    I would not install cameras with an intention of charging money for footage. The main idea is to protect my property / act as a deterrent and not provide free service to someone else.

    At the same time if I have to dig through months of footage to obtain some evidence for someone, he/who is asking for it should be considerate of the time that I have to spend on it. If I have good relationship with my neighbours I won’t bother about the cost.

  • Zachary on 13/11/2019 - 13:15

    6 hours….think this one of the longest thread I've read…..a lot of big words that I had to google up…lol

    As for the question, that's really up to you. You do what you think is best, irrespective of yourself or others.

  • sakurashu on 13/11/2019 - 17:33
    +3

    My own two cents - if you have already decided that it is valuable for you to install surveillance for another reason (not for use by anybody else) and then a request comes along at no extra cost to you to provide some footage, I think it is morally reasonable that you provide that footage at no cost.

    If you plant a beautiful rose garden for your own enjoyment and I walk over and have a good look at it, I don't see that you would need to charge me for it. Not everything has to or should be reduced to a commodity. If everything was then those already at the most disadvantage would be the ones punished (i.e. only those who couldn't afford to pay to get the footage wouldn't if it would save them greater cost)

    However I do notice that I reduced the time taken to retrieve the footage to "no cost", so if I was the person requesting the footage where the particular footage is of significant value to me (also thank god somebody has some) then I would have no issues with paying for this. I would be most comfortable with paying an amount equal to the time taken by the individual from whom I requested the footage.

    • [Deactivated] on 13/11/2019 - 17:50

      I point you to UFO's very well worded response.

      You have exclusive footage of an incident. To the vast majority of people out there, that footage is valueless. Useless even.
      But for a select few, that footage is very valuable.
      They know it, and you know it.

      A rose garden whilst it shares many parallels, has distinct differences.
      1. You cannot stop someone from looking at it. You do not have the rights that extends beyond your boundary. If you're taking about being in the garden, you could consider it trespass if you've made reasonable arrangements to make aware the boundary of free access.
      2. Roses smell nice.

      I think it is morally reasonable that you provide that footage at no cost.

      I agree but that doesn't morally exclude the option of withholding until fee is paid. Both can be moral under the same principles unless I have missed something (apart from the pointless dribble about duty, being "Australian" and a whole host of pointless rhetoric).

      I would be most comfortable with paying an amount equal to the time taken by the individual from whom I requested the footage.

      Would you say that it is fair to pay a doctor, say $50/hour and a drive through operator $25/hour because the value of their time is different?

      By extension of that answer, would you be agreeable to pay more for me to retrieve the footage factoring in the value of my investment?

      If the value of the investment should be discounted, would you consider it fair for me to retrieve footage from my hard disk knowing that I do no own any CCTV? (Ie. Paying me for my time to retrieve the footage without knowing if I even have CCTV or that you will receive usable footage since you are paying for the time only and you are receiving my time).

      • sakurashu on 13/11/2019 - 18:27
        +1

        I deliberately used roses because it would seem ridiculous to deliberately cover them from outside viewing - but again that's not a direct parallel as the action of covering them in itself would require effort - not providing footage requires no effort.

        Yes - I would have no problem with providing the value of lost time based on what the individual is losing by providing the footage (is this not exactly how lawsuits involving loss of work work?). No I would not consider it fair to pay for time only without the footage. I see it as paying reparations for the lost time involved in retrieving the footage for me. They are not and should not be making a profit out of my misfortune - but nor should my misfortune be partially foisted upon them in a cost to their time.

        Choosing one way or the other may be moral in the case of only financial burdens existing on the person asking for footage - but would your opinion change on the morality if somebody was hurt in the incident?

        • profar on 13/11/2019 - 18:39
          +1

          Lol so a $1k per hr barrister get paid 20 X more than a $50 per hr Woolies Manager getting the footage .

          You guys are in a ridiculous imaginary world .

          • [Deactivated] on 13/11/2019 - 18:58
            -1

            @profar: That's the problem with suspending all consideration for the cost of the surveillance system and arbitrarily defining the incurred expense as cost of a given individual's time.

            Who determines the value of that time?

            As the owner of a surveillance system, it is well within reason and rights to disallow any foreign access leaving myself the sole key holder.

            If I am earning $1000/hour and I'm perpetually employed due to the overwhelming demand for my skills, someone requesting my time should reasonably expect to remunerate me for lost income.

            Compound that with the fact I may suck at computers, this could become a costly affair.

        • [Deactivated] on 13/11/2019 - 18:49
          -1

          but would your opinion change on the morality if somebody was hurt in the incident?

          Aaaaa….

          I was hoping this question came up earlier. Now we're getting into fertile ground.

          Assume for a moment (as I'm sure most will automatically) that I am definitely going to charge for the footage. The sum is irrelevant. I am unsure if I can withstand the judgement cast upon me if there are ambulances and police outside, and I'm being asked for the footage on the spot. I'd probably surrender but I'd be no different to any self deluding self righteous person - my primary motivation would be compelled by convention ergo preserving reputation.

          A good deed for the wrong reasons a good person does not make. Of course, this doesn't make the person bad either.

          Conversely a bad deed self justified to appease one's own conscience a terrible person makes. That's how some of the worst criminals can sleep at night - they're able to pick and choose which principles to make themselves feel better.

          One can still argue that when a person has been injured, the footage isn't going to undo the damage.

          Hypothetically, say it was a snake bite and the footage would help identify the correct anti-venom… hmm… I guess one can still morally charge someone for the footage as all they're losing is money. Of course if no one is willing to pay and the result is death, the principle to prevent death overrides every other consideration.

          As UFO so eloquently worded

          It's about money, plain and simple.

          If we are going to claim one is greedy for charging, the other side of the same coin is the other person is equally protecting their self interest by refusing to incur expense.

          It seems like I have a prepared answer. That's because I have thought about it but just as with any self examination, one can miss/the mind can trick oneself to overlook contradictions out of convenience. I'd appreciate any discovery.

          • sakurashu on 14/11/2019 - 01:54

            @[Deactivated]: You're still looking at it as if it's always about money because that's where you perceive there to be the value - for footage of a crime for example, I would be more than happy to release the footage without monetary compensation. Not necessarily because I think that's the right thing to do but because of my own self-interest in there being value to me in punishing crime. For a crime I am more concerned about punishing the perpetrators than I am about some small monetary incentive. Whether that is the right thing to do is very gray; I am in a position where a monetary incentive holds little weight as I am doing quite well for myself so that's very easy for me to say (and probably do) but the same can't be said of everyone.

            What if they are willing to pay for the correct anti-venom but can't afford to pay such a princely sum that is asked for?
            If it's about charging for the cost of the equipment as well as time, why stop there? Surely it's just as fair to get paid as much as they are willing to pay in the circumstances?

            Should this just be the norm and insurance companies handle it as part of their ordinary transactions? Actually I don't think that would work as the cheaper option would just be to require the insureds to have their own cheap surveillance

            • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2019 - 09:03

              @sakurashu:

              What if they are willing to pay for the correct anti-venom but can't afford to pay such a princely sum that is asked for?

              Then the same consideration should apply to everything else otherwise that would be unequal application of principles or perhaps even discrimination.

              You wouldn't think twice charging for your professional services but why does surveillance footage forces a financial ultimatum but your regular invoices do not?

              If it's about charging for the cost of the equipment as well as time, why stop there?

              Precisely. If you noticed, there has been very strong responses against contributing towards the cost of cameras vs paying cost of time. Exact amounts were not discussed. It seemed arbitrary how much is too much, and what would you charge for.

              Why stop at any point if there is absolutely zero reference point.

              Surely it's just as fair to get paid as much as they are willing to pay in the circumstances?

              Some would say that is the most wicked answer of all. That is how capitalism works.

              You're still looking at it as if it's always about money

              All gain is gain. If one takes a bribe, let's say with sex, it is still gain as one saw value and one would have incurred cost for the value received if not for said gain.

              If I wrote a medical certificate so my patient is happy, it is also gain. Distilled to its most elementary motivations, it is still to retain the patient because the patient pays a fee. The fee is money.

              The reason why doctors dish out anti depressants is because it is better to be investigated for overprescribing than to be sued for adverse outcome of not prescribing. The basic motivation is to prevent financial ruin.

              All gain is gain.

              • sakurashu on 14/11/2019 - 16:45
                +1

                @[Deactivated]:

                You wouldn't think twice charging for your professional services but why does surveillance footage forces a financial ultimatum but your regular invoices do not?

                I think this is where I see a difference and I'm not sure if I've articulated it well previously. For my professional services I have the upfront expectation of value for my services, rather than initially not seeing that extra possible value and then capitalising on it. I don't think I would have the same issue with the situation if I had set up a surveillance system with the initial intention of selling the footage and had been transparent about that from the outset (to both myself and others).

                This has been a good discussion @tshow - I hope you've gotten something out of it

  • Wally on 13/11/2019 - 17:51

    I want to vote on/assess a multi-question Poll!

  • CandyMan on 14/11/2019 - 06:00

    Police should pay for it…. between $120 -500 depending on the infringement

    • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2019 - 12:20

      Good info there regarding the legality of releasing the footage/use of footage.

      Thanks for the resource.

    • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2019 - 17:02

      Thank you.

  • Darkness123 on 14/11/2019 - 13:43
    +1

    For arguments sake, lets assume that op is a business and the other guy is a business as well. They have no moral obligation to help each other.
    The neighbour had $10,000 worth of equipment stolen and op had the footage of them taking it as well as the faces of those stealing.
    Now the neighbour would claim this loss from insurance. This means that if the insurance company can recover the items, they save $10,000. OP on the other hand is giving this for free and getting nothing from it. Shouldn’t he be able to get a cut since he is saving the insurance company 10k?

    I see it like this.
    1. Charge for the time of recovering – eg. 120p/h . If the footage is useless than you should be able to at least charge for your time.
    2. Charge for value of the information. Insurance companies generally insure at about 1% of the value even though this is not claimed most of the time. I think a 5% cut isn’t bad to save them the money. So if its 10k then charge $120 + $500 = $750.
    3. For those that think this is unreasonable, think about it this way. OP has spent time and money securing his property but his neighbours have not. By charging a reasonable amount for this he starts to set a precedence to those around him. This flips the view from: “spending money on a security system is expensive” to “I can make money from my security system.” Once word gets out, hopefully other people in the street and neighbourhood will also see that getting security cameras can make them money too and will start investing in surveillance. This leads to an overall safer neighbourhood and less crime.
    4. On the flip side, not charging will lead to a less secure neighbourhood over time and encourage the free rider effect.

    • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2019 - 13:45

      Thanks. That covers practicality, philosophy and psychology. A good read.

      • Darkness123 on 14/11/2019 - 13:47

        Glad you found it useful :)

  • hippyhippy on 14/11/2019 - 13:55
    -1

    OP.. tell the haters to F OFF … you invested your time and money on it… they didn't do sh!t… God damn socialists…

    • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2019 - 14:03

      From the last few response, I got more useful observations…

      Socialist are earlier to the party. 😂

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join