unique job coming up, multiple nvr vs wifi bridges

[vector18]

[h=2]Are Fake Surveillance Cameras Legal Or Illegal?[/h]
Since decoy security cameras have no active recording module to capture videos, suppose an illegal criminal incident happens where fake outdoor surveillance cameras are installed, then, it’s unfortunate that there will be no record of it.
In a workplace environment, if a crime goes undetected because fake security cameras were installed, that false sense of security may offer the basis for losing a lawsuit in the court.
Although, the vandal may break the law by actually committing the offense or trespassing on private properties, a court may fault a company for installing decoy surveillance cameras. A company may be prosecuted and lose a court trial for having dummy security cameras.

1. First, this could be considered a breach of contract for knowingly stating and giving false sense of security to staffs when there was none.
2. Secondly, negligence, for giving somebody a false sense of security such that an unpleasant situation takes the person by surprise.
3. Thirdly, failure to heed police recommendation, if a horrible incident had happened in the same area in the past.
4. Lastly, carelessness, because when an outdoor video surveillance camera has been identified as fake, the potential for repeated crimes at the same location increases. In fact, sometimes, at very devastating rates and consequences.

Ultimately, for business security camera systems, using dummy, simulated or fake surveillance cameras could cost more in legal fees and settlements that installation of true video surveillance security systems.

 

[networkcameracritic]

Are they all on the same power, meaning do they have one meter, one main breaker and that feeds each stable? If so, maybe you can use Powerline adapters. Also, if there's stables, I'm going to assume it's dirt of grass between then buildings, why not just rent a DitchWitch and trench between the buildings, put a small switch at each building and daisy chain them.

 

[nayr]

that wouldn't fly for a moment here in the real west; but NYC.. I do believe it... sounds just illogical enough to be true

so if you put up real cameras are your legally liable they stay operational at all times? That no recordings are ever lost? What happens if you have cameras but none could actually see the area where the lady got mugged? You instilled her with a false sense of security so somehow your committing a crime? Why the fuck do you guys allow the TSA in JFK!?

I fail to see how my security measures should be legally responsible for any random persons safety; fake or real...

/end rant

 

[nayr]

New Product Idea: 1 Pixel Security Cameras with 1 byte of storage... in true NYC Style it will consume about 800w of power...

According to Crime Drama all they have to do is say enhance over and over and that one pixel will expand into a HD image of the reflection of a universe off steven hawkings glasses.

 

[networkcameracritic]

There's a big difference with someone intentionally deceiving with fake cameras vs. a camera that worked but failed. That's why it's best to have a maintenance contract and shift any liability to the designer/installer/maintainer of the security system. They are deemed the expert, the owner of the camera is not an expert, hence the owner met any fiduciary responsibility by hiring an expert to design, install and maintain the cameras. Not a lawyer but this stuff comes up all the time with homeowners associations where life is a series of CYA.

that wouldn't fly for a moment here in the real west; but NYC.. I do believe it... sounds just illogical enough to be true

so if you put up real cameras are your legally liable they stay operational at all times? That no recordings are ever lost? What happens if you have cameras but none could actually see the area where the lady got mugged? You instilled her with a false sense of security so somehow your committing a crime? Why the fuck do you guys allow the TSA in JFK!?

I fail to see how my security measures should be legally responsible for any random persons safety; fake or real...

/end rant

 

[vector18]

Nayr, your private property is not a public area, so a dummy camera on your house wouldn't have the same liability as a dummy camera in a retail clothing store, or a common area of an apartment building. If the camera was blurry or out of focus or too dark, etc, the courts let that slide. The camera was recording, the camera had video, and the camera has at least one shread of evidence that law enforcement can work with. If, the camera was fake, than there's not one bit of evidence at all and the person had a false sense of security that the camera was actually working. Now, if the camera was working and stopped working and the owner failed to repair it, than I'm not sure the outcome of that. I'm guessing that they would not be held liable because it wasn't a fake camera to begin with.

 

[Shockwave199]

Actually, it's illegal to install cameras in a bathroom. Since the horses shit in their stalls, I suppose it would be infringing on horse privacy rights. You might want to look into that. :laugh:

All kidding aside, you have to take a look at the buildings themselves and how many stalls there are and such. More often than not, the client thinks they need less than they actually do, to see what they want to see. One or two cameras per building could balloon into 4 and up depending. Then, reality sets in.

 

[vector18]

Leave it up to Shock to bring up the shit, lmoa

 

[nayr]

just install broken cameras instead of fakies

I do not agree with such nanny laws; extrapolating the logic.. my front yard is a public space; the sidewalk surely is.. what if someone who walks there dog late at night decides to walk on my side of the street because she thinks I have cameras and signs saying I have cameras.. I take from this your better off leaving your business poorly lit and all the cameras invisible with no signage indicating anything other than trespassing, so nobody would mistakenly feel safe loitering outside your property.

Either way; fake cameras are mostly stupid... but laws prohibiting there use are vastly more absurd; but thats just IMHO.

Thats a very good point @Shockwave199, horses are people too! just not very good ones.

 

[pal251]

Ideally like Shockwave said if it's all on the same network then we can do it with just a 4 port switch. Easy peasy. We shall see

 

[vector18]

Nayr, your house is your private property, if there is a camera on your porch, it is hard to tell if it can see the sidewalk or not. I would say that the person who is walking on the sidewalk in front of your porch, if they feel safe from that, than their an idiot. I'm not exactly sure what the law says about dummy cameras on the private property of a house, but I do know if the dummy camera is installed in a public area it is telling people that have common access to this area that if something were to happen to them, they can feel safe that it has been recorded and that is wrong. And installing broken cameras is just the same as a dummy if there are no wires and/or DVR connected to them.

 

[Razer]

I realize we are drifting off topic here, but almost every big box store has tons of fake cameras. Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and many others have tons of the fake black domes up that have no cameras at all in them, and never will. I know a wal-mart here with 28 domes covering the registers, but there are only two cameras in said domes total. If they send you as an employee to register 12 or 16 then they must think you are stealing.....

 

[nayr]

I would say that the person who is walking on the sidewalk in front of your porch, if they feel safe from that, than their an idiot.

I cannot agree more; though I would argue anyone at any time, in any location, for any reason thinks a camera makes them "feel safe" are also idiots.. Public Security is almost entirely theater to make people feel they are safe without actually improving safety.. If this were "wrong" behavior we'd of just put locks on cockpit doors after 9/11 and not a damn thing else.. That was the only measure taken post-911 that wasent the equivalent of a trillion dollars in fake security cameras... NYC Loves theatre more than the rest of the country; security or otherwise.. seems illogical to me that they specifically frown on this form of theatre.

Thankfully most of the world dont think the same way NewYorkers apparently do; where everyone else is responsible for my false sense of security but me.

A camera is never going to come to your rescue; it will heartlessly record you being slaughtered in the street without the common decency to call the cops.

 

[Shockwave199]

I wouldn't go so far as to label NY as 'theater', although we have some damn fine theater. You merely have to do a search to bring up articles on the subject of liability with dummy cameras installed in public areas. If anyone has a penchant for dramatics, theater, and litigation with big dollars awaiting, it's lawyers.

 

[nayr]

this kinda makes sense but not from the dummy camera standpoint; this would be the case if you said you had monitored video surveillance 24/7, and infact did not.. my signs just say 24/7 video surveillance; not that its monitored.

Should signage be installed, a problem with liability may arise. If the signage indicates that the camera is being monitored, then an individual may attempt to communicate with security through the camera—often a call for assistance. If the camera is a dummy camera, then a reasonable person test may conclude that the signage was misleading and that the individual, if properly informed, would have chosen other alternatives to preserve his or her safety. As a result, the property owner may face a degree of liability with respect to injuries suffered by the individual. In that case, the value of the dummy camera is almost certainly negated as a result of the lawsuit.

so yeah; if you put up a camera (dummy or not) and explicitly say a human is watching this 24/7 and this leads someone to think they have alerted the monitoring service to a crime; when infact they havent.. then you open your self up to liability from a civil suit; not criminal.

People can win all sorts of retarded civil suits with the right lawer; but in reality everyone has a phone in there pocket now days and who the hell thinks; oah crap I need to notify the authorities.. lets go jump and scream at this camera over here... maby 20 years ago when it could be difficult to communicate without a payphone nearby... Think i may have seen that happen in some action movies from the early 90's; if it ever happened in real life is another story.

Ive found a ton of speculation about it being liable in the US; have yet to find any evidence of anyone actually successfully being sued for it however... mostly just opinions from so-called experts, whom I suspect are trying to sling expensive camera setups... oah; like some of you guys.

There are a ton of valid reasons NOT to use fake cameras, there is really no need to add some BS that you may be breaking a law if you use them tho... if there is said law then that is BS. (hint loosing a civil case does not mean you broke a law, you can loose a civil case for being sick and not shoveling your sidewalk of snow before someone got hurt.. the law says I have to shovel it within 24h but someone could hurt them selves long before then)

The lesson here is not to use fake cameras for fear of civil liability; but choose your signage carefully.. This has been the case ever since a "Beware of Dog" sign made you liable in civil courts for knowing you had a dangerous animal (beware implies danger)... my sign says "Guard Dog on Duty", but now I fear someone might run into my back yard to with the intent of being guarded by my dog; and thats not whats gonna happen... oah well sign stays, its not my problem if someone fails to comprehend simple english.

 

[pal251]

Back on topic please. If the guy wanted fake cameras I'm sure he would be smart enough to install them.

I'm looking at getting either ubiquiti or engenius bridge's. I found out at least from google maps there are 5 buildings at least and they are about 100 feet apart with one being about 120 feet from the nearest building according to Google maps.
I could install a directional bridge on each building and daisy chain them all together or install omni directional bridge on eachbuilding. What do you think?

 

[Jim W]

I have a similar sprawling property with five buildings approx 50-60 yards apart. I ended up running cat5 cables inside MDPE water pipe along with a multicore phone cable and then I put a hub in each building.This was done mainly for internet access as its just out of range for wireless but I intend to increase the number of cameras from 2 to 6 and may even upgrade the hubs to PoE to make installing cameras easier. Can the experts see any limitations to this set up ?
Thanks

 

[bp2008]

Nah, as long as the cat5 runs are all within spec (100 meters max).

If you actually have hubs, you should replace them (all) with switches.

Here is the difference.

Also, for the sake of good network performance and future-proofing, I recommend you build as much of your network as possible with 1000 Mbps (gigabit) switches. It isn't strictly necessary if you aren't ever going to do a file transfer between PCs and if you don't go beyond about 8 cameras, but if you do then you will need the extra speed.

These are good choices: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001QUA6R0 or http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000N99BBC

And to power the cameras, http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003CFATT2 is a good option that is hard if not impossible to beat for price.

Those are the most cost-effective choices. You can of course get gigabit switches with PoE and/or more ports, at additional cost.

 

[Jim W]

I'm no expert and they may be switches and not hubs , I had a couple go bad and replaced them with gigabit versions although not sure my main router is gigabit it's a fairly old Linksys. File transfer between PC's is very fast so something must we working OK. My plan is to try out some Hikvision cameras and utilise the PoE one way or another. Thanks for the info