@mattp I have run into this now a couple of times ("you don't have a problem until you do"). On the other hand, it is rather unlikely we get some murder or other serious crime at our house because our house has the most lights, the most cameras, our side gates have locks (most side gates in the neighborhood don't), etc. The most likely thing that would happen to us is that someone steals our front yard decorations, steals our plants (happened to my brother-in-law), breaks into our cars or something like that. Annoying and costly but nothing too serious. So if law enforcement and judges are ok with video evidence that has a timestamp embedded into the video by BI for such minor things then I think I am fine with this. Also it could be argued that if the time in the cam is off by 1 or more hours because the cam time wasn't updated properly then the evidence might also be thrown out. So now we are in the same position, i.e. evidence being thrown out because either time was embedded by BI or because of the cam time being off.
Overlap
- Thread starter rfj
- Start date
I think the threat is low, but if it is something that is high dollar/high profile like @mattp said like a murder, or arson, or DUI or something that could actually make it to court, the defense attorney (if good) will look for anything possible to get any evidence tossed out.
While we may agree having BI adding a timestamp seems silly and trivial, they can make that argument. They get paid big bucks to look for anything to try to get their client off. Heck they would probably toss out the video with audio if you are in a state that says no audio unless you have a sign on your property that clearly says video/audio is being recorded. Many states it falls under wiretapping - yeah again crazy and trivial and laws haven't caught up to these types of cameras.
Same with time being off. That is why it is important to make sure the cameras are set up properly so that they are showing the correct time and if that means making sure that DST is set up properly, then yes.
While we may agree having BI adding a timestamp seems silly and trivial, they can make that argument. They get paid big bucks to look for anything to try to get their client off. Heck they would probably toss out the video with audio if you are in a state that says no audio unless you have a sign on your property that clearly says video/audio is being recorded. Many states it falls under wiretapping - yeah again crazy and trivial and laws haven't caught up to these types of cameras.
Same with time being off. That is why it is important to make sure the cameras are set up properly so that they are showing the correct time and if that means making sure that DST is set up properly, then yes.
Flintstone61
Known around here
You would have to consult an actual law professional working in your jurisdiction. I recall hearing something about watermarks on the forum as well.
And that may or may not apply to in some parts of the country.
And that may or may not apply to in some parts of the country.
sebastiantombs
Known around here
I still think the simplest solution is to have a local, known, time source that all cameras sync to. It removes another possible problem when you don't want or need one.
Oh, great...Now I need to turn audio recording off! I've asked this before and would like to know a resource for what to set these cameras to by state. If it's admissible with BI stamp in some states, then so be it. Same with audio recording! But, I'd guess that in most states, since it's on your property audio recording would be okay.
@rfj,
As long as you understand the implications of your decision, what you do is up to you...And, everyone's circumstance is different.
To clarify for anyone reading this, there are 2 arguments here:
- When BI adds a watermark, the video file can be considered "modified". And at least in some jurisdictions isn't admissible (from my limited understanding).
- The time on the camera is incorrect because the camera's time is out of sync with wherever it syncs time with.
sebastiantombs
Known around here
It's not only a question of evidence being "thrown out", it also includes introducing "reasonable doubt" into the minds of the jurors.
I'm afraid I'm in this camp too. I'm returning all my cams to the BI overlays. A couple months ago I tried to do "the right thing" and within a week or two I noticed a few of my cameras were a minute or more off, and all random differences. I'm too naive to set it up in any of the ways aforementioned, and without a step-by-step tutorial with illustrations, it's another research and investigation session for a knucklehead like me to figure it all out.
Quote: BI overlays could get the video dismissed as that is considered altering the video. Altered when? Altered after the act was caught on video? Can't the metadata confirm or refute such a claim? Is there metadata for these videos? Is it only in the bvr file?
Quote: They can see its altered due to the difference in style of text. Difference compared to what? If there's no other text to compare with, wouldn't they need to see another source of text to compare against?
Quote: What if 2 of your cameras pick up a murder and the video gets thrown out because the video was "edited"? Edited when? After the criminal act? Is this possible? I guess it is. But I would think that experts would be brought in to analyze the evidence and then testify, and experts could determine whether it was truly edited. (Don't these files have metadata that can be analyzed?). Or would they be considered "edited" before the crime took place? If that were the case, it seems they would have to argue that you knew that such a crime was going to occur before it actually did, and that you deliberately tampered with the surveillance system beforehand to try and pin the act on somebody during a specific time frame, wouldn't it? When is it decided whether video evidence like this is admitted or thrown out? Before the trial and jury are involved? Or after? I know little-to-nothing about legal matters from an academic standpoint, but I would think a case being brought to a DA for murder charges would have a lot more to stand on than just the video evidence.
Can anybody refer me to a site or some resource(s) that analyzes this subject? Some sort of news story or other archived case file(s) of such a situations would be very informative to read. Does anyone know how often or how many times this has occurred (evidence being tossed for this specific reason, that reason being the source of the timestamp)? I'm just looking for something more than "someone says this" or "I heard that." Otherwise, it's largely anecdotal without some documented occurrences, isn't it?
I've done as much web searching as I could and can only find references to video being scrutinized as potentially inadmissible because the time/datestamp was incorrect due to DST errors or user input errors, but not because the source of the timestamp was questionable. And if the raw files can be analyzed by an expert, any post-editing to try and alter times can be identified. So it seems like if all the cameras were synced, and one stayed on top of the time and DST corrections, these risks are minimized.
looney2ns
IPCT Contributor
I don't know how much simpler it could be for keeping Cameras time synced correctly.
It's a 40 yr old method.
Install this:
NetTime - Network Time Synchronization Tool
Follow the directions on that download page.
Go into each of your cameras setup, and enter the IP address of the computer you just installed in the NTP time server on.
Click save, your done.
Don't over think it.
It's a 40 yr old method.
Install this:
NetTime - Network Time Synchronization Tool
Follow the directions on that download page.
Go into each of your cameras setup, and enter the IP address of the computer you just installed in the NTP time server on.
Click save, your done.
Don't over think it.
I'm afraid I'm in this camp too. I'm returning all my cams to the BI overlays. A couple months ago I tried to do "the right thing" and within a week or two I noticed a few of my cameras were a minute or more off, and all random differences. I'm too naive to set it up in any of the ways aforementioned, and without a step-by-step tutorial with illustrations, it's another research and investigation session for a knucklehead like me to figure it all out.
Unfortunately, the link in the Wiki for setting up an NTP server isn't as easy as it should be to find, here it is:How to Create a Standalone NTP Server With Windows | Interface Technical Training
Windows has taken this into account. The Network Time Protocol (NTP) service has been built into Windows since Windows XP and Windows Server 2003, and most Unix and Linux implementations have supported NTP since they were first built.www.interfacett.com
As posted above, your likelihood of being burned by this are low, but the consequences could be large. Quote: BI overlays could get the video dismissed as that is considered altering the video. Altered when? Altered after the act was caught on video? Can't the metadata confirm or refute such a claim? Is there metadata for these videos? Is it only in the bvr file?
If BI directly copies the video stream to disk, and you turn over the entire bvr file, then it is the stream from the camera, apparently legally...And yes they can tell if that's what took place digitally, as far as I understand. If however, BI adds a timestamp the argument is that the video is edited by the computer to add the timestamp. It may sound stupid, but that's the legal precedent. This isn't debatable, it appears to be fact.Quote: They can see its altered due to the difference in style of text. Difference compared to what? If there's no other text to compare with, wouldn't they need to see another source of text to compare against?
Different cameras use different fonts. A security expert would easily tell if the timestamp is the camera default or added by BI. It's irrelevant though because a good forensics expert would look at the source video and figure out whether BI added the timestamp, even if you successfully mimic the "camera" font.Quote: What if 2 of your cameras pick up a murder and the video gets thrown out because the video was "edited"? Edited when? After the criminal act? Is this possible? I guess it is. But I would think that experts would be brought in to analyze the evidence and then testify, and experts could determine whether it was truly edited. (Don't these files have metadata that can be analyzed?). Or would they be considered "edited" before the crime took place? If that were the case, it seems they would have to argue that you knew that such a crime was going to occur before it actually did, and that you deliberately tampered with the surveillance system beforehand to try and pin the act on somebody during a specific time frame, wouldn't it? When is it decided whether video evidence like this is admitted or thrown out? Before the trial and jury are involved? Or after? I know little-to-nothing about legal matters from an academic standpoint, but I would think a case being brought to a DA for murder charges would have a lot more to stand on than just the video evidence.
What we think about the process is irrelevant. If the legal precedence exists that timestamps added by software "taints" the video and it can be thrown out, then it can be. Motivation, what happened, how it happened, etc. are irrelevant. If the video is "tainted" it can be tossed.Can anybody refer me to a site or some resource(s) that analyzes this subject? Some sort of news story or other archived case file(s) of such a situations would be very informative to read. Does anyone know how often or how many times this has occurred (evidence being tossed for this specific reason, that reason being the source of the timestamp)? I'm just looking for something more than "someone says this" or "I heard that." Otherwise, it's largely anecdotal without some documented occurrences, isn't it?
I'm with you, I'd like some good guidance on what the rules are where I live to be able to make as educated decision that I can. But, I take the other side, I trust that @wittaj and others know what they are talking about and I'd rather be safe than sorry.I've done as much web searching as I could and can only find references to video being scrutinized as potentially inadmissible because the time/datestamp was incorrect due to DST errors or user input errors, but not because the source of the timestamp was questionable. And if the raw files can be analyzed by an expert, any post-editing to try and alter times can be identified. So it seems like if all the cameras were synced, and one stayed on top of the time and DST corrections, these risks are minimized.
Yes, better safe than sorry, set up an NTP and make sure the cameras stay synced is the best case scenario.
What? This is the internet...That's what the internet is here for...
looney2ns
IPCT Contributor
To be certain, consult an Attorney or two in your jurisdiction.
@looney2ns,
You're off your game today...That's terrible advice!...This is the internet, you should always take legal advice from some stranger on the internet over a trusted attorney!
aadje93
Getting the hang of it
Well BI needs to re-encode all streams to put the timestamp in, and ntp deamon is all ready running on Windows, it's just a small setting and a firewall rule you need to change so your cams can use the machine as NTP check if they don't have internet access. So actually it reduces cpu load.
Running a dedicated program is the easy way, but Windows pro has a NTP server service Intergrated, it just needs to be enabled with a few registry keys changed. Maybe even those dedicated programs do nothing different then changing these 2 or 3 registry keys..... Calling it "way to complicated for normal users" nah -> i could even make a litle batch script for this forum that does it for you, and then somebody needs a small video guide to make a firewall in rule for port 123 (NTP) so camera's can acces it.
Basically, "windows NTP" is allready running as client mode to check the time for the machine, you just change the registery to tell it to also do NTP requests from other clients in the network (with the firewall rule) Its neglible cpu usage compared to letting BI do it....
to answer your text difference, they could request the make and model of the camera, or even request footage direct view as rtsp stream from the camera (yes, lawyers go very long way to prove innocence, whatever it takes to make evidence inadmissable if i spell that correctly) BI overlay is just to "clear" camera overlays are allways a bit rougher edges
Running a dedicated program is the easy way, but Windows pro has a NTP server service Intergrated, it just needs to be enabled with a few registry keys changed. Maybe even those dedicated programs do nothing different then changing these 2 or 3 registry keys..... Calling it "way to complicated for normal users" nah -> i could even make a litle batch script for this forum that does it for you, and then somebody needs a small video guide to make a firewall in rule for port 123 (NTP) so camera's can acces it.
Basically, "windows NTP" is allready running as client mode to check the time for the machine, you just change the registery to tell it to also do NTP requests from other clients in the network (with the firewall rule) Its neglible cpu usage compared to letting BI do it....
to answer your text difference, they could request the make and model of the camera, or even request footage direct view as rtsp stream from the camera (yes, lawyers go very long way to prove innocence, whatever it takes to make evidence inadmissable if i spell that correctly) BI overlay is just to "clear" camera overlays are allways a bit rougher edges
Last edited:
looney2ns
IPCT Contributor
Editing the registry is way above many folks capability's.Well BI needs to reen code all streams to put the timestamp in, and ntp deamon is all ready running on WI does, it's just a small setting and a firewall rule you need to cha ge so your cams can use the machine as NTP check if they don't have internet acces.... So actually it reduces cpu load.
Running a dedicated program is the easy way, but WI does pro has a NTP server service I tergrated, it just needs to be enabled with a few registry keys changed. Maybe even those dedicated programs do nothing different then changing these 2 or 3 registry keys.....
Basically, "windows NTP" is allready running as client mode to check the time for the machine, you just change the registery to tell it to also do NTP requests from other clients in the network (with the firewall rule) Its neglible cpu usage compared to letting BI do it....
to answer your text difference, they could request the make and model of the camera, or even request footage direct view as rtsp stream from the camera (yes, lawyers go very long way to prove innocence, whatever it takes to make evidence inadmissable if i spell that correctly) BI overlay is just to "clear" camera overlays are allways a bit rougher edges
It takes less than five minutes to setup Nettime.
In addition to the whole altering video, Laws vary by state and local laws. One of the easiest things to do is post a sign that you are recording video and audio.
Many will place the sign so that people know the audio may be recorded as well. Some states that is an issue, although we haven't seen many instances in the USA of someone getting cited for a Ring doorbell. The laws simply haven't caught up yet. But we have seen it in the UK.
In general, if you can see the same thing you could standing on your property, it is fair game. Obviously do not have a camera zoomed and focused in on a bedroom or bathroom. But with so many having wide angle cameras, you would see more standing on your porch looking in your neighbors window across the street than with that wide angle cam LOL.
We have members here in law or attorneys that have demonstrated how it is considered altering video from a legal standpoint.
These links may help:
www.security.org
www.businessnewsdaily.com
Many will place the sign so that people know the audio may be recorded as well. Some states that is an issue, although we haven't seen many instances in the USA of someone getting cited for a Ring doorbell. The laws simply haven't caught up yet. But we have seen it in the UK.
In general, if you can see the same thing you could standing on your property, it is fair game. Obviously do not have a camera zoomed and focused in on a bedroom or bathroom. But with so many having wide angle cameras, you would see more standing on your porch looking in your neighbors window across the street than with that wide angle cam LOL.
We have members here in law or attorneys that have demonstrated how it is considered altering video from a legal standpoint.
These links may help:
Legality of Security Camera Usage & Placement in 2024
There are two types of laws that greatly influence the legality of security cameras: Expectation of privacy laws for video recordings and one- or two-party
www.security.org
Video Surveillance System Buying Guide
Video surveillance systems can protect your business. Learn tips for choosing the best video surveillance system and features for your security needs.
aadje93
Getting the hang of it
well in all honesty, changing those 2 or 3 registery keys/maybe adding 1 is also less then 5 minutes, and is 100% working, whereas a seperate program is also a risk of it not working.... I could even write a small CMD script for the IPcamtalk forums to just run as admin and then it will make the local NTP deamon a NTP server, and add the single firewall rule to enable port 123 UDP in so camera's can reach it
Since you are so adamant about it, please write that script and be ready to support it for many, many years down the road. I am sure many here would love to have it.
As far as the OP question on overlap, those stills are not the best shots to help us give realistic feedback. Really would like to see all of those cams with a person walking in them. That is the only real way to test the coverage. This would also help you decide on FOV to ID a person's face.
The legal topic is kind of interesting and I already made changes (no time recording in BI, though I am rethinking this again). I our city the police department is reaching out to residents to register their cameras for law enforcement purposes. I registered mine so I hope from a legal point of view that is sufficient. Our cams also mostly just record things around or in front of our property so I don't think there should be any privacy concerns. But who knows...
Anyways, I have one more camera to put up which I hope to do this weekend. Then I can provide some video footage walking along the property.