Some would make money from terror?

  peter99co 20:53 15 Jun 2008
Locked

This does not seem right. The Police budget is not supposed to cover this is it?

click here

Is the equipment so badly designed it has to be removed to get at the recordings?

  laurie53 08:05 16 Jun 2008

There is nothing to suggest that they are making money, simply regaining the standard which applied before the police investigation started.

If the police dug up my garden looking for a body they thought was there, I would expect to be paid the cost of restoring it to its previous condition.

  interzone55 09:19 16 Jun 2008

All I can say is that First Bus must have pretty poor CCTV equipment if they can't export the footage without removing the equipment.

We supply cctv equipment to bus & rail companies that automatically uploads footage by WiFi every night when the vehicle is in the depot. This footage can be burnt to DVD in such a format that it is acceptable as evidence in all courts.

I suggest that First Bus take a look at some of the new CCTV equipment available and therefore avoid bills like this in future.

Nobody here knows who I work for, so the above comment cannot be construed as advertising.

  interzone55 09:26 16 Jun 2008

On the other hand, a former colleague of mine works in the CCTV control room for one of the London boroughs. One morning after a murder the police went round to the CCTV control room and said they needed to seize all the hard drives so they could check all the footage.

So my mate says "of course, there's over 200 terabytes on a couple of thousand drives - you'd better bring a truck round. By the way, this lot covers 200 cameras for 30 days, I hope you know what your looking for."

In the end they came to a sensible compromise which involved them choosing the cameras they needed, picking the time frame they wanted and exporting the evidence to DVD. This involved no seizing of equipment, and only cost the police about 10 blank DVDs.

So in the first bus case, maybe the Police needed training on the proper seizure of CCTV footage.

Without knowing more about the equipment used on the buses we don't know which scenario applies.

  spuds 11:39 16 Jun 2008

Considering that 'First' bus company in my hometown, have recently introduced Revenue Protection Officers (Ticket Inspectors) who are twinned up with a security guard. Then they must have funds to back this double staff move.

I was on the bus the other day with about 20 other senior citizens (all with 'free' bus passes)and a couple of mum's with children. Not sure whether I and the others were terrorists, but our tickets came under very close scrutiny.

  laurie53 20:03 16 Jun 2008

If this stuff is being used as evidence there are very strict rules about making sure that it has not been tampered with.

Presumably this includes sealing the cameras, hard drives etc.

  peter99co 20:11 16 Jun 2008

It still sounds like the equipment is badly designed if it ALL has to be removed to be used.

They do not seem to have any problem with speed cameras.

  interzone55 20:25 16 Jun 2008

There's no need to do that, digital CCTV equipment generally digitally signs the recordings to show they've not been tampered with.

Software based systems for IP cameras goes one better and exports the images in a database format so the footage is identical to that originally recorded, including syncing between different cameras.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

OnePlus 5 review

Alice Saey's mesmerising animation for Dutch singer Mark Lotterman

iPad Pro 10.5in (2017) review

Comment booster votre iPhone ?