cameras/security

[anonymous]

We have a real problem down here in North Florida (Holmes Country and
surrounding area). According to some locals with connections to the
police, the federals have sent a bunch of 'drug warriors' down here to
solve the drug problem.

So far, people have encountered drug warrior "ninjas" trespassing on
homesteads in full blackout camo while looking for drugs or something
else (at night). Still other people have had their property broken
into with nothing stolen. Others have managed to obtain partial
surveillance video.

I have my property set up with interlocking video feeds but a few
holes were exploited leading to a "break in". Technology changes so
fast today so I'm looking for suggestions on gear to secure my
homestead. The main goal is to capture some useable footage for the
web and the courts.

So........ what's the best value in black and white hi-res vid cameras
today? What's the best value in infrared illuminators? What's the
best value in desktop computer-based DVR cards?

Is there anything else you can recommend? Sure would appreciate any
suggestions.

 

[Jim Rojas]

We have a real problem down here in North Florida (Holmes Country and
surrounding area). According to some locals with connections to the
police, the federals have sent a bunch of 'drug warriors' down here to
solve the drug problem.

So far, people have encountered drug warrior "ninjas" trespassing on
homesteads in full blackout camo while looking for drugs or something
else (at night). Still other people have had their property broken
into with nothing stolen. Others have managed to obtain partial
surveillance video.

I have my property set up with interlocking video feeds but a few
holes were exploited leading to a "break in". Technology changes so
fast today so I'm looking for suggestions on gear to secure my
homestead. The main goal is to capture some useable footage for the
web and the courts.

So........ what's the best value in black and white hi-res vid cameras
today? What's the best value in infrared illuminators? What's the
best value in desktop computer-based DVR cards?

Is there anything else you can recommend? Sure would appreciate any
suggestions.

I would install low light cameras instead of IR. You can spot IR rather
easily.

Jim Rojas

 

[anonymous]

I would install low light cameras instead of IR. You can spot IR rather
easily.

Could you recommend some brands/models? Thanks.

 

[Bob Worthy]

Could you recommend some brands/models? Thanks.

Infrared is not what it is cracked up to be unless you spend some extra
bucks. Most "best value" cameras with built in IR will only be good for
about 30-35 feet. Be very selective with low light level cameras. Some look
very good in low light conditions as long as everything is still. Once there
is movement, the object leaves long trails causing the object's movement to
blur out. Secondly, a court is more than likely going to want video that is
watermarked if it is going to be used as evidence. Think about that before
selecting recording equipment.

 

[G. Morgan]

Secondly, a court is more than likely going to want video that is
watermarked if it is going to be used as evidence. Think about that before
selecting recording equipment.

Bob, have you ever personally known of a case where video was denied
admissibility or it's authenticity was in question because of a lack of a
watermark?

 

[Bob Worthy]

Bob, have you ever personally known of a case where video was denied
admissibility or it's authenticity was in question because of a lack of a
watermark?

The only one I know of off the top of my head was the federal murder case
right here in Florida. Sarasota I believe. It was when a young girl was
abducted at a car wash and murdered. It was the watermarking on the video
that squashed that part of the defense's case. If the video would not have
been watermarked who knows how the court would have looked at it and that
video was a huge part of the prosecutor's case. It was a great picture of
the guy grabbing the girl and carrying her away. I know this was a little
off point but I will look and see if there is something to answer your
question about being denied into evidence.

 

[Bite Me]

The only one I know of off the top of my head was the federal murder case
right here in Florida. Sarasota I believe. It was when a young girl was
abducted at a car wash and murdered. It was the watermarking on the video
that squashed that part of the defense's case. If the video would not have
been watermarked who knows how the court would have looked at it and that
video was a huge part of the prosecutor's case. It was a great picture of
the guy grabbing the girl and carrying her away. I know this was a little
off point but I will look and see if there is something to answer your
question about being denied into evidence.

I think the distinction would be chain of custody of evidence and reasonable
possibility of deliberate tampering or fabrication. Given my ability to
come up with creative solutions I would have hard time making a prosecutor
happy with my testimony. LOL.

Is it possible to have been tampered with or farbicated?

Yes.

Even with a watermark?

Yes.

Is it possible this video was tampered with?

Not directly, but it could have been setup prior if this was a premeditated
situation, and they had all the equipment available that I have on the
shelves in my warehouse.

Do you think its likely?

There's the rub. Depends who is involved, what they know, and what they
have at their disposal...

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Bob Worthy:

watermarked

I think I get the basic idea: superimpose a logo or something on
the video.

What I'm missing is why that makes the video more believable.

Sounds like something else is being done too.... but what?

 

[G. Morgan]

I think I get the basic idea: superimpose a logo or something on
the video.

What I'm missing is why that makes the video more believable.

Sounds like something else is being done too.... but what?

The watermarks are invisible on the screen. It is digital metadata that is
encrypted with the video that makes it tamper resistant.

 

[G. Morgan]

. It was when a young girl was
abducted at a car wash and murdered. It was the watermarking on the video
that squashed that part of the defense's case. If the video would not have
been watermarked who knows how the court would have looked at it and that
video was a huge part of the prosecutor's case.

But was there even a question if it was authentic? I mean, let's get real for
a second. Someone would have to go through a lot of trouble to actually
"fake" a surveillance video. On the other hand, I can see where it would help
investigators and prosecutors to know definitively if the time/date stamp was
100% accurate (in conjunction with the DVR logs).

 

[Matt Ion]

Bob, have you ever personally known of a case where video was denied
admissibility or it's authenticity was in question because of a lack of a
watermark?

Bob didn't say a thing about it being admissible or not. A watermark
(visible or otherwise) certainly helps if there's a challenge of the
video's authenticity, but I hardly think any court would rule it
inadmissible simply on the lack of a watermark.

 

[G. Morgan]

In this case the time stamp was inconsequential since there never was a
question that the video showed Carlie being abducted. The defense tried to
question whether the perp was Smith or someone else, but not the authenticity
of the recording itself.

What was the outcome of the case? I hope they fried the bastard.