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 14/11/2019 - 14:45

    What happened to the poll?

    • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2019 - 14:54
      +1

      It fell over. Too many cameras on it.

      • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2019 - 15:46

        With a little help from the neighbour with the non-debilitating illness? What a shame :p

      • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2019 - 17:18

        Too many cameras on it.

        • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2019 - 17:20

          Looks like the average power pole in Cambodia.

          …except the cameras have a visible tangle of cables… and instead of cameras, in its place is even more cables.

          • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2019 - 17:39

            @[Deactivated]: There are many instances of ill considered CCTV camera placement on both business & private residences in Aus !

            When we were looking to buy a property years ago, we inspected a house that had CCTV cameras affixed to the eaves, spaced what appeared to be every 30cms, around the entire building 😮

            • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2019 - 17:42

              @[Deactivated]: Haha!

              I'm guilty of that too (to a small extent).

              I wired a few not too long ago and didn't factor in cross beams. Now I have a cable through a hole where if I placed a camera, 25% would be dedicated to monitor the structural integrity of a crossbeam.

              • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2019 - 17:56

                @[Deactivated]: lol - that would have made for avid viewing!

                • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2019 - 18:01

                  @[Deactivated]: Lol. New business idea.

                  24/7 structural monitoring

                  Good selling point. Guilt people into taking up a plan.

                  "Wouldn't you feel horrible if you didn't do everything you can to ensure your home doesn't crush your family?"

                  • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2019 - 18:08
                    +1

                    @[Deactivated]: You may be onto something there - owners of potentially dodgy apartment blocks may be a ready market !

  • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2019 - 15:58

    We're facing a different conundrum to yours. We're thinking of getting an outdoor shower. We live close enough to the beach and have salt-and-sand-encrusted kids often enough to be able to justify getting one. Unfortunately the only suitable spot could be in the line of one of the neighbour's security cameras.

    We've kindly requested that he relocates that camera somewhere else and we'll be happy to freely share footage from our security system with him when/if it is ever required.

    Should we also offer some $ to sweeten the deal?

    • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2019 - 16:09
      +1

      Should we also offer some $ to sweeten the deal?

      You could but you're absolutely not obliged to.

      You are free to do as you please (STCA, lol) on your property. Your neighbour has to reposition his camera as the camera is now violating your privacy. Previously, the camera is recording footage of potential ingress points only. It was easy to demonstrate that it was reasonable to have the camera in that position.

      Now, whether intentional or not, is demonstrable that the camera is taking footage of people showering in their own property.

      Thank darkwater for providing us with a link to an excellent resource regarding legal implications.

      • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2019 - 17:42

        See, here's the thing…As another neighbour has pointed out, I do have a potential ingress point that could be well-served by installing a camera on top of my kids' treehouse. It would be fairly easy to justify, just as it would be fairly easy for my little Spiderman-wannabe of a toddler to 'accidentally' move it so that it catches a glimpse of the first neighbour's outdoor pool shower. He suggested I brought that to the attention of said neighbour if he insists on leaving his camera in its current position.

        I would rather not. An eye for an eye is not how I roll, especially when that eye could catch an erm eyeful of a naked, portly middle-aged gentleman who tends to turn bright red at the mere mention of the summer sun.

        I wonder what a true ozbargainer would do?

        • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2019 - 17:49

          I would find a way to shield the view of your neighbour from the camera and still place the camera in its most ideal position.

          It's worth contemplating how a a potential seasoned thief may approach CCTV equiped homes.

          Most of my cameras are also indirectly being watched by my other cameras. Then there are hidden cameras for when the thief let's their guard down.

          Of course, my ultimate deterrant is still a gun. Most of my neighbours also legally own guns. Also, the original post is doctored for the hypothetical scenario that may neighbours are complacent. I am the most complacent of all my neighbours. (Think remotely activated bollards level of security).

          I'm only revealing the last part now that I have actually reached a conclusion in my own little mind.

          • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2019 - 18:08

            @[Deactivated]: Which is?

            • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2019 - 18:24

              @[Deactivated]: A hedge?

              Or a bronze monument in your likeness.

              • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2019 - 20:44

                @[Deactivated]:

                Or a bronze monument in your likeness.

                To be completely frank, posing for an artist is quite a bore. I did that ~~for a living ~~ to make ends meet as a uni student. I prefer to grow my own little human in my likeness now. He is so much me that sometime I need to be reminded that my beloved had some involvement in his conception.

                Might look into getting that hedge.

                P.s: Are you not enjoying your cruise?

                • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2019 - 21:02

                  @[Deactivated]: It's hard to when there's a parking fine waiting to put me in jail when I get home.

                  • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2019 - 21:09

                    @[Deactivated]: Hope you remember to post your misadventure , with the mandatory mspaint drawing, when that happens. Should be another riveting read and think of all the pleasure it will bring your detractors …Can't wait! :p

  • rinco on 14/11/2019 - 18:47

    I hate my neighbour… on the right side not the left, that guy is great. For either of them I would not hesitate to hand over my security camera footage if it helped solve a crime. Are your children starving and you need the dosh? If not, you are a bad person. TBH, you're a bad person in any case.

    • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2019 - 18:51
      -1

      Hm. It seems I am bad either case which means the conclusion is forgone.

      That means I am exempt from being judged as I am without a choice "bad".

      • rinco on 14/11/2019 - 18:55

        Deal… ps: quoting bad makes you an even worse person!

        • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2019 - 18:56

          You mean paraphrasing?

          • rinco on 14/11/2019 - 18:57

            @[Deactivated]: Am I going to have to pay for this lesson?

            • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2019 - 18:58

              @rinco: You could very easily have but I'm doing this out of charity.

              • rinco on 14/11/2019 - 19:00

                @[Deactivated]: Maybe do the same for your neighbour who needs your assistance?

                • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2019 - 19:00
                  -1

                  @rinco: Charity is a choice. Just because you did not give to charity doesn't make you immoral.

                  That is the premise of this discussion.

                  You're welcome to reconsider your response.

  • cloudy on 14/11/2019 - 22:45

    My neighbours house is burning, he doesn't have a hose. I have a hose, he is asking if I can use mine to help fight the fire, he hasn't offered any compensation.

    If I help, I am using my hose (capital investment) and water (not cheap) to fight this fire.

    Fire is really close to my house, I do have an interest in not letting crimes fires get out of hand.
    But he should really invest in a hose, not my fault he doesn't have one ey?

    What should I do?

    On a more serious note: doesn't doing a small deed to help others who have been affected by an unfortunate situation (such as a break in) make you feel better as a person? (ok to say no of course, just wondering)

    • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2019 - 22:51
      -2

      A burning house constitutes immediate mortal danger and the event is actively transpiring so consideration can be discussed for minimisation of loss.

      make you feel better as a person?

      If I was morally obliged to do it, ie. returning a cash laden wallet unpillaged, no.

      If I was not morally obliged to and I chose to do so out of charity, yes.

      If I chose to do it out of charity for the purpose of feeling better, I would feel disgusted with myself.

      • cloudy on 14/11/2019 - 23:20

        minimisation of loss is helping solve burglary, no? or do thieves just do it as a once off in your mind?

        my thinking is, once they get more of a taste of it with success,the more it will occur, and your place (full of security and all) must have something juice to protect.

        If I was morally obliged to do it, ie. returning a cash laden wallet unpillaged, no.
        If I was not morally obliged to and I chose to do so out of charity, yes.
        If I chose to do it out of charity for the purpose of feeling better, I would feel disgusted with myself.

        that's funny, If you were me you'd always feel disgusted in yourself.
        I regularly see people whom I know if I just offered a small hand it'll make their lives a multiple better off, yet "cost" me a faction of nothing to perform.
        And I'm happy to help, knowing I've helped make a real difference..

        example: I saw a man bog his car on a dirt road on a slope. He couldn't reserve his way out, I told a mate, all he needs a gentle push up or else he'd spin his wheels for hours and not get out of that bog. We went out, offered some grunt work in 30 seconds his car was free. He knew we wasted 2 mins of our time to save an uncalculatable amount of his. I felt good about it, and to be honest, 90% of people wouldn't notice or bother to help in the same situation. So I don't see why I should feel disgusted.

        Did I do it out of charity? or out of feeling better about myself? I can't honestly distinguish between the two. How do you distinguish it when you do something selflessly?

        • [Deactivated] on 14/11/2019 - 23:30
          -2

          minimisation of loss is helping solve burglary, no? or do thieves just do it as a once off in your mind?

          The burglary has already happened so no, it cannot be applied the same way.

          To apprehend the thieves would be a fair practical conclusion but has nothing to do with morality.

          that's funny, If you were me you'd always feel disgusted in yourself.

          Perhaps. I wouldn't judge.

          I felt good about it, and to be honest, 90% of people wouldn't notice or bother to help in the same situation. So I don't see why I should feel disgusted.

          There is nothing wrong with feeling good about it but to do it with the intention of feeling good would be doing it for gain.

          To do something for gain and to manipulate your principles as if you did it for charity is… well… not good like.

          Did I do it out of charity? or out of feeling better about myself? I can't honestly distinguish between the two. How do you distinguish it when you do something selflessly?

          By asking questions like these.

          • cloudy on 17/11/2019 - 21:48

            @[Deactivated]:

            There is nothing wrong with feeling good about it but to do it with the intention of feeling good would be doing it for gain.

            To do something for gain and to manipulate your principles as if you did it for charity is… well… not good like.

            I’m confused, so you do good, good occurs, you feel good, but this is bad because you do it to feel good…???

            Sorry, I must be dumb, please help me understand this further. I really can’t understand your logic, or what it seems to me as illogical.

            Also, can you explain how helping to apprehend thieves is not a question of morals?

            • [Deactivated] on 17/11/2019 - 21:54

              @cloudy: Legal, social and moral obligations are different subjects.

              I can't help you understand the first part. It is purely self examination and inconsequential to most.

  • rinco on 15/11/2019 - 07:35

    Everyone needs to pay for security and everyone has a budget. But not everyone needs to buy the same security as you. Maybe your neighbour invested heavily in other forms of security such as top of the line doors and window locks. After all, preventing the crime is superior than detecting it after the fact.

    Let's say the neighbour has invested more in their physical security than you, just without any cameras. Still no good?

    Or is the requirement that some of their security investment must somehow benefit you? For instance instead of buying a security camera they could be paying for something like a Wilson mobile patrol.

    What type of ethical code are you using to make this decision?

    • [Deactivated] on 15/11/2019 - 08:23
      -1

      What type of ethical code are you using to make this decision?

      I think the most reasonable conclusion is that I could be charitable and provide footage but I am not under any moral obligation to provide footage.

      Should I feel that there is a moral obligation under the reciprocal code, ie. Neighbour has a CCTV system also, the relevant moral code is to attempt being the first chronologically in a reciprocal system. That's not a moral standard I think everyone needs to follow but it is mine.

      If the neighbour cannot demonstrate capacity to directly reciprocate then that last principle is not relevant.

      • rinco on 15/11/2019 - 08:57

        I suspect many would assume that the community has already given to you, and your description of this specific situation suggests you are not reciprocating to the community. The logical conclusion is that you never reciprocate to the community. Your original post does nothing to deter this conclusion.

        I suggest that when describing how you choose to reciprocate, it should not include any irrelevant caveats that will fail various fundamental ethics (virtue, duty, etc). This creates a perception that you are lacking in morals, at least without knowing who you are or having any other context. Maybe you aren't a bad person, just a person who is bad at explaining their moral position.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/11/2019 - 09:08
          -1

          I've actually had this discussion elsewhere but worded differently.

          In that discussion, I noted a problem - complete lack of emotional response. This is highly indicative that either the wider population did not understand the premise, or that it was already pre-concluded.

          This version of the discussion in this forum actually feels truer to the wider population (though I feel it is still biased to younger opinions).

          Unlike a hypothesis, there were multiple aims, some only realised after the post was made. The most interesting unintended observation was - people make moral concessions if marketed correctly.

          At least that is news to me.

          How would you have structured the question or would you have used a different analogy entirely?

          Thanks for your input.

          • rinco on 15/11/2019 - 09:26

            @[Deactivated]: When describing a lack of reciprocation it is customary to reference previous reciprocation. When a charity asks for money the answer is not a simple no. The answer is no, because I have already given elsewhere.

            The issue here is that the small amount of time it takes to give a copy of the camera footage pales in comparison to the time spent in this forum. There's really no way to recover other than telling us you're an Australian of the year 2019… You don't happen to be Dr Richard Harris SC OAM or Dr Craig Challen SC OAM?

            • [Deactivated] on 15/11/2019 - 10:00
              -1

              @rinco: I actually used the example of a CCTV footage for something else. The example is real but the scenario I need to apply to is not a CCTV footage.

              Also, the time spent in this forum is gainful in and of its own. If it was validation I sought, it would have been naive to start here and it would truly have been poor returns.

              The answer is no, because I have already given elsewhere.

              I would just say no. The reasoning serves no one but your perception of being judged.

              • rinco on 15/11/2019 - 12:17

                @[Deactivated]: The judgement is as real as the perception. Your perception of your neighbours is that they are moochers: they wish to depend on your CCTV (or whatever) instead of investing in their own. So you deem their charity unworthy and refuse to donate. Your charity is conditional on them giving back. But your mistake is prescribing how they will do this i.e. according to your terms they must buy a CCTV (or whatever), non-negotiable. This solution presumably benefits you as well, which seems tit-for-tat, and does not align with the ethics of reciprocity. Which then leads to the question as to whether you have scrupulous, perceived or otherwise.

                • [Deactivated] on 15/11/2019 - 12:24
                  -1

                  @rinco:

                  Your charity is conditional on them giving back.

                  My moral obligation is conditional on their ability to give back.

                  My charity remains unconditional.

                  If they had the ability to reciprocate in like, I must assume they will and they may very well have the opportunity to give first. In that scenario, I must give first if the opportunity arises.

                  The only presumption is that others will reciprocate or give first. That assumption isn't necessary if the other person does not have the ability to give.

                  • rinco on 15/11/2019 - 13:59

                    @[Deactivated]: I cannot see how your conditional moral obligation can coexist with your unconditional charity. Your charity is only on offer when your neighbour demonstrates giving back by purchasing a CCTV else pays you a fee. You may separate this out in your head as a conditional moral obligation. But to us lay-people, that charity is very much conditional.

                    In any case I am no ethics professor. I just occasionally watch the Good Place and I haven't seen this episode yet.

                    • [Deactivated] on 15/11/2019 - 14:46
                      -1

                      @rinco: Charity is not bound by obligation. Morality is.

                      They're mutually exclusive.

                      If you're morally obliged, you cannot be charitable.

  • apenman on 15/11/2019 - 13:58
    +1

    Wonderful thread here @tshow, way too many posts for me to get through. One suggestion I have not seen which is probably worth considering .. selling the cctv as a service. So that your neighbors can opt in .. they have seen how it is useful for the police.. you could say well pay me $10 a month and I can provide you a full cctv solution without you spending a cent. Add another camera to cover some more spots in their yard and watch cash roll in. The $ amount is really up for negotiation .. to test the market and see what happens. It would be sold as peace of mind for a small amount each month …

    • Ughhh on 15/11/2019 - 18:23

      At that price of $120 a year for part of your front yard or parts of side/backyard, you might as well buy your own Gucci cameras, or pay an actual security company . At least you don't have to worry about privacy and you get immediate access 24/7.

  • tryagain on 20/11/2019 - 11:42

    I think this thread has now been immortalised into Ozbargain folklore.

    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/7990178/redir

    • [Deactivated] on 20/11/2019 - 12:13

      Hehe. I should charge those tech retailers. Stir up some dashcams conversations in automotive forums, CCTV in home improvement forums…

      Use TSHOW code for 5% off CCTV/dashcam purchase. 2% kickback my way.

      (Insert Monty Burns greedy finger gesturing gif here)

  • Zachary on 20/11/2019 - 12:43
    +1

    You know what this thread reminds me of? The alignment system from DnD. This author, whoever it is, explains it pretty well. I'll let you read it, as it should give you some insight on what the alignment system is and where you belong if you were restricted to the nine categories.

    • [Deactivated] on 20/11/2019 - 12:51

      Haha! I think I covered that somewhere here (unless I confused it with my parallel discussion elsewhere).

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join