More on Audio/Video Recording 

Ken

    Everyone seems to be missing the “elephant in the room”. Nearly every cell phone made today does both audio and video recording of whatever the owner points it at. Isn’t it curious that no one is raising cain about those clips (including the major networks that show these amateur and sometimes professional submissions) on the news every night with no repercussions. 

    As has been repeatedly discussed, the laws have not kept up with the technology evolution. We see community policing that feels it is ok to record both audio and video (because it helps to tell the whole story), but everyone else is expected to follow the antiquated rules on the books. While I personally don’t want to see the country turn into a gestapo police state, I still feel the advantages of the audio recordings to be able to be included with the video recordings can add a defining verification of the actions on a screen. 

    The slippery slope becomes the unscrupulous collections of those recordings and their presentation in altered or shortened forms, to twist the meaning of the original recording when the clip is taken out of the context of the original conversation (ala the “Romney 47 percent” recording). And isn’t it curious that there have been no legal repercussions of that recording. Additionally, should we hold the re-distributors of these clips responsible for their distribution of these illegal clips (such as Facebook or the news media, etc.) as co-conspirators?  After all, if I was distributing meth or crack it would be a crime even if I didn’t cook it. Just as the dealers profit from their distribution of illegal drugs, the news media profits from the distribution of these illegal clips, looks awful similar to me.  Just say’n

Tom Doyle

******************

Response

******************

    A recent news article reported that a fellow secretly recorded sexual encounters with his girlfriend and when she broke up with him posted it on a popular social media website.  She was able to get it taken down from there but it appeared somewhere else.  I've opined many times that its not the recording, audio or video, that causes problems - it's how those recordings are used or misused.  Check audio video laws at https://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/page/alarm-law-issues

********************

Comment on 42 month verbal contract and ACH from August 30, 2013 article

*******************

Hi Ken,

    Regarding GC in Louisville, Ky...  (August 30, 2013 article)

    If is is true that, "They also won't let them drop their ACH  payment option...".  They need to get this in writing from the company if at all possible.  ACH is regulated by federal legislation.  It is a serious violation to not honor a cancellation notice from a customer.  Even if that customer owes you money, it is illegal to touch their account once they withdraw their authorization.

    The customer should contact their financial institution to file an ACH rules violation form on their behalf if the company does not honor the cancellation request.  If they have any questions they can write to NACHA-Ntwrk-Compliance@nacha.org .

    Thanks for the great articles Ken!

JBS

Sacramento, CA

*********************

More on ECV from August 29, 2013 article

*********************

Ken;

    I have given the ECV and VR a lot of thought.  And as much as I agree with Dave that a burglary is classified as a property crime, as opposed to a crime against a person, it can escalate out of control quite easily, as seen in the Monitronics case.  As you know, I too have some experience in law enforcement (25 years worth,) and had also been assigned to my department's Crime Prevention Bureau for six years.  In the Monitronics case, it seemed that anything that could go wrong, did go wrong.

     Here is my solution:  It isn't the least expensive way to go, but it solves several problems in one felled swoop.  I like adding several motion detectors to the interior of a home.  Anyone who was in this business way back when, when everything was hardwired, they remember the days of getting "swingers" where a zone could trip many times in a short period of time.  The industry addressed that problem by making it where you could program the number of times a zone could trip in a given arm/disarm cycle.  If one zone trips repeatedly, it is likely a faulty zone.  But if you get several trips from a perimeter zone, and then several interior zones, THERE IS SOMEONE OR SOMETHING IN THE HOUSE.  

    I instruct my customers to call the police to come check their home if the alarm has gone off.  In the Monitronics case, had the homeowner called the PD prior to entering her home, she would not have been attacked.  I also tell my customers if it appears that someone may be in their home or had been in their home, get the hell out and call the PD from their cell phone, in their car.  If you entered your home and found a large wild animal inside, would you try and "hold it there" while waiting for Animal Control?  I think not.  That is where a property crime can swiftly escalate into a crime against a person.  If you come face to face with an intruder, he may try to kill you because you can now identify him.    If nothing else, we have to learn from some of the hard lessons learned by companies in this business.  I no longer will just protect a sliding glass door with just a contact.  I insist on protecting the glass with a GB detector as well.  (That was from I think an ADT tort  from AZ or CA.)

    Sometimes the best solutions aren't always the least expensive.  But the best is still the best.

John from NJ

*******************************

Camera question

****************************

Ken,

    We have installed a 10 camera system on a residential home.   Keeping the view of the cameras on the home owners property. Now the home owner is requesting 6 more cameras with 2 cameras being PTZ controlled. I have informed the homeowner  of keeping the camera view on his property only, and laws prohibiting him from viewing neighbors’ homes.

    My question is if I install the added cameras with two being PTZ what can I do to protect our company from any issues that may arise with this home owner viewing what he isn’t legally support to…

Regards

Bill

***********************

Response

**********************

    You protect your company by not giving legal advice and using proper contracts - in this case - the Residential All in One - that covers all security, including cameras, in residential properties.

    Cameras do not necessarily have to be confined to the homeowner's property.  Viewing the sidewalk, street, and crossing over the property line into a neighbors property should pose no problem.  Of course you cannot set cameras to view into a neighbors property if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in that area - a bedroom window; hot tub; pool or sun deck.  Check audio / video laws at https://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/page/alarm-law-issues


**************************