Just because you can face your accuser in this case doesn't make what he's doing any WORSE than other surveilance. Video is video, and that's the point this guy is trying to make. Thus, over time, it's likely the worst people you'd want to have access to video footage of you will have it and the people you'd most want to have it won't. But what people don't take into account is that the kind of people who are attracted to the job are also the people who enjoy having that relative advantage. Unfortunately this, from an economic prospective, puts security guards with access to surveillance footage at a relative advantage to everyone else as far as having access to video. Whereas on the street, you are afforded more of a choice and so you take it. ![]() You can't see the security guard watching the surveillance camera video, so you assume it's fine. Right, it's classic cognitive dissonance due to imperfect information. The rest equals upwards of a year+ of one very expensive living hell for the gent in TFA.ĭo you understand what I was getting at now? Fact is, he's still flirting with a long expensive legal process that, even if innocent/non-liable, will cost him a shitload of money, time, and possibly freedom.Īll it takes is someone with an axe to grind with the guy, and who can find a lawyer dumb enough to do it on contingency. Doesn't matter one whit if he's perfectly legit or if he's flirting with a long stint in PMITA prison. Seriously - in your rush to 'win' a 'debate', you missed the point entirely: It doesn't matter if it applies to him or not. while awaiting trial) would be more than enough to make his life a living hell." "Even if he were perfectly non-liable in civil court and perfectly innocent of any criminal charges, the time, effort, money, and potential loss of freedom (e.g. Analyze it to your heart's content, but know that you're missing the point of the exercise - read on and you'll see why. That was the the result of 5 seconds poking around on Google. Want an example of that? Okay, here you go (and mind that it's PDF). While I think this guy's actions are assholish at best, he does raise an excellent point.įunny you should mention FUD. I can cover my neighborhood with cameras just to be a nosy ass, without any real contribution to security. Believe me when I say that the level of detail offered here, and what you can look at is fairly impressive (I've seen a nice demo setup where a single camera with a fairly wide lens is set up on a video wall offering a couple of dozen discrete views).Īlso, I would argue with the logic that "to spot crimes and identify perpetrators" holds any real water. ![]() One extreme example is Avigilon, which offers a 29MP digital camera. PTZ cameras abound, also high megapixel cameras offer digital PTZ, so just because it's pointed at a fixed area doesn't mean that it's somehow limited. "Fixed in place" is (mostly) true, but "predefined area" does not have to be. A prosecutor and possibly a judge may argue that his actions differ from security cameras in the sense that a security camera is fixed in place and watches a predefined area to spot crimes and identify perpetrators.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |