CCTV - Remote viewing Query

TheBadBadger

Hi All,
This may have been answered many times, but can anyone weigh in on the below ?


Wiring arrangement:

• · 4 no. analogue EL2000 IC realtime cameras installed to 1 No. 4 channel Serenty DVR.
• · Ethernet connection to the DVR

The client has a smart television in their home. The query is can they watch alive feed through their smart TV without paying for an IC Realtime APP and only getting a 10 minute live viewing limit.?

Note: There is no cable route to run a HDMI from the DVR to the TV.

2011

Thread moved from electrical.

fred funk }{

TheBadBadger wrote: »

Hi All,
This may have been answered many times, but can anyone weigh in on the below ?


Wiring arrangement:

• · 4 no. analogue EL2000 IC realtime cameras installed to 1 No. 4 channel Serenty DVR.
• · Ethernet connection to the DVR

The client has a smart television in their home. The query is can they watch alive feed through their smart TV without paying for an IC Realtime APP and only getting a 10 minute live viewing limit.?

Note: There is no cable route to run a HDMI from the DVR to the TV.

As far as I know there isn't a way to broadcast on a smart TV. Are there any sort of cables at all in place?

kub

TheBadBadger wrote: »

Hi All,
This may have been answered many times, but can anyone weigh in on the below ?


Wiring arrangement:

• · 4 no. analogue EL2000 IC realtime cameras installed to 1 No. 4 channel Serenty DVR.
• · Ethernet connection to the DVR

The client has a smart television in their home. The query is can they watch alive feed through their smart TV without paying for an IC Realtime APP and only getting a 10 minute live viewing limit.?

Note: There is no cable route to run a HDMI from the DVR to the TV.

OP Do you have a PSA licence?

TheBadBadger

kub wrote:

OP Do you have a PSA licence?

I do not. I didn't realise I require a PSA licence to query remote viewing of an existing system..!

TheBadBadger

fred funk }{ wrote:

As far as I know there isn't a way to broadcast on a smart TV. Are there any sort of cables at all in place?

fred funk }{ wrote:

As far as I know there isn't a way to broadcast on a smart TV. Are there any sort of cables at all in place?

I think there may be a spare RG59 at one TV.

kub

Well thoes of us who have to fork out thousands of euro to have one don't really appreciate assisting those who do not and do jobs for ' clients' and break the law.

It is immaterial whether the system is already installed, you are working on it without a licence.

kippy

kub wrote: »

Well does of us who have to fork out thousands of euro to have one don't really appreciate assisting those who do not and do jobs for ' clients' and break the law.

It is immaterial whether the system is already installed, you are working on it without a licence.

You need a PSA license to install and configure CCTV?

fred funk }{

kippy wrote: »

You need a PSA license to install and configure CCTV?

Yes. It's against the law if you don't have a PSA licence. It's also against the law for a person or company to employ someone without a licence.

2011

fred funk }{ wrote: »

Yes. It's against the law if you don't have a PSA licence. It's also against the law for a person or company to employ someone without a licence.

Does this apply to all CCTV systems or just the ones that are installed for security?

For example in the past I installed cameras in a sheep shed for a farmer show he could keep an eye on them when they were lambing.
No jokes about farmers and sheep please

2011

kippy wrote: »

You need a PSA license to install and configure CCTV?

Not generally, but always.

I just rang the PSA on 062-31588 and talked to their licensing division.

A PSA licence is not required for installing CCTV unless the system is being installed for security purposes.

KoolKid

That is correct.

dav32cs

2011 wrote: »

Not generally, but always.

I just rang the PSA on 062-31588 and talked to their licensing division.

A PSA licence is not required for installing CCTV unless the system is being installed for security purposes.

What is the definition of 'security purposes'?

Surely every person who has CCTV uses it for 'security purposes'???

KoolKid

Farming and the likes of lambing or calving cameras etc.

2011

dav32cs wrote: »

Surely every person who has CCTV uses it for 'security purposes'???

No, have a read of post #10

There are many other examples.

bucky08

kub wrote: »

Well thoes of us who have to fork out thousands of euro to have one don't really appreciate assisting those who do not and do jobs for ' clients' and break the law.

It is immaterial whether the system is already installed, you are working on it without a licence.

You go girl... P.S.A , P.S.A........

kub

Idiot

kippy

dav32cs wrote: »

What is the definition of 'security purposes'?

Surely every person who has CCTV uses it for 'security purposes'???

I put a few of the outside the house, yard etc to keep a watch out for neighbours animals going to the toilet on my property.
If for some reason it catches intruders on film then so be it......
Do people need licenses to put up dummy cameras?

KoolKid

It is a big loop hole. We have been here before with the PSA. But it's to cover the ridiculous scenarios where anyone operating a camera for work should require a licence.

2011

KoolKid wrote: »

It is a big loop hole. We have been here before with the PSA. But it's to cover the ridiculous scenarios where anyone operating a camera for work should require a licence.

There are so many webcams, baby cams, reversing cameras, etc. it is the impossible to regulate.

Anyone can go to PC world, DID, Power City and buy a camera that can be connected to some sort of monitor or viewed from a phone, how could it be expected to regulate this???

kub

They are known as The Private SECURITY Authority.
Their brief is therefore the Irish security industry, hence it is security cameras that they are interested in.

2011

kub wrote: »

They are known as The Private SECURITY Authority.
Their brief is therefore the Irish security industry, hence it is security cameras that they are interested in.

Yup! My point exactly.
No piint in attempting to regulate anything that cant be regulated.
If you intend to use recorded footage in court you better be licensed.

kippy

kub wrote: »

They are known as The Private SECURITY Authority.
Their brief is therefore the Irish security industry, hence it is security cameras that they are interested in.

What is a security camera?

2011

kippy wrote: »

What is a security camera?

A camera that is installed primarily for security purposes that records footage that will stand up in court?

kippy

2011 wrote: »

A camera that is installed primarily for security purposes that records footage that will stand up in court?

What is a "security" purpose?
What defines "footage that will stand up in court"?

2011

kippy wrote: »

What is a "security" purpose?

Open to interpretation.

What defines "footage that will stand up in court"?

Watermarked = PSA licensed

kippy

2011 wrote: »

Open to interpretation.



Watermarked = PSA licensed

So you are telling me if footage from cameras that have not been installed by a PSA licensed installer is submitted as evidence against someone - it won't stand up?
(Sorry, my "tone" may be interpreted as "hostile" here. I am genuinely interested to hear the details of this side of the legislation and I appreciate you explaining it to me as you see it)

2011

kippy wrote: »

So you are telling me if footage from cameras that have not been installed by a PSA licensed installer is submitted as evidence against someone - it won't stand up?
(Sorry, my "tone" may be interpreted as "hostile" here. I am genuinely interested to hear the details of this side of the legislation and I appreciate you explaining it to me as you see it)

If you want to be confident that what you recorded will stand up in court there are certain standards to be met. A PSA registered contractor will meet these standards.

kippy

For the record, this is the document on CCTV Installation on the PSA website:
https://www.psa.gov.ie/en/PSA/PSA%202006_12%20-%20Requirements%20for%20CCTV%20Installation.pdf/Files/PSA%202006_12%20-%20Requirements%20for%20CCTV%20Installation.pdf
In fairness it is extensive and easy enough to follow.
They also have two documents on (Security Guarding) CCTV Monitoring.
https://www.psa.gov.ie/en/PSA/Pages/standards

Also I've found this document (allegedly from the Gardai)
http://www.cctvireland.ie/pdf/Garda-Guidlines-on-CCTV-in-Ireland.pdf
Does the section under "Using CCTV" as evidence need to be updated? (no mention of PSA)

Also,
not one mention of PSA here:
http://www.dataprotectionschools.ie/en/Data-Protection-Guidelines/CCTV/Guidelines-on-use-of-CCTV-Footage-/

And again, not one mention of PSA here:
https://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/Data-Protection-CCTV/242.htm

It's interesting that none of the documents mention the PSA directly - perhaps because I have inadvertently googled older documents.

I don't really have any issues with the PSA as a body that ensures you don't have known criminals setting up alarm systems/working in the security industry in general etc and indeed standards are a good thing when it comes to installing kit,
However I do have issues where people are essentially "Afraid" or "Forced" into paying for the services of someone to do, what is nowadays, a relatively straightforward task for some people (Install a prebought CCTV kit) on their own premises for the purposes of monitoring their own property.

To add, some of the skepticism I have for these type of bodies and the people who are registered under them is my experiences on occasion in dealing with them over the years.

kippy

2011 wrote: »

If you want to be confident that why you recorded will stand up in court there are certain standards to be met. A PSA registered contractor will meet these standards.

So,
Could one be under the impression that if you get your kit installed by a PSA registered installer and recordings handed over to the Gardai by the PSA registered installer they will definitely stand up in court and if you install the kit yourself it won't stand up?

kub

Hi kippy we can only interpret the rules and regs as decided by the PSA. You mentioned above that some of those documents which you came across need to be updated.
Yes they do as technically the equipment on the market has advanced dramatically since those documents were released, in our last audit, the inspector actually mentioned that.

Just in response to your query about self installs, there is nothing in the regs stopping someone from buying their own equipment and installing it on their own premises.
With regard to the query as to whether the data will stand up in court, well that is up to The Gardai.

kippy

kub wrote: »

Hi kippy we can only interpret the rules and regs as decided by the PSA. You mentioned above that some of those documents which you came across need to be updated.
Yes they do as technically the equipment on the market has advanced dramatically since those documents were released, in our last audit, the inspector actually mentioned that.

Just in response to your query about self installs, there is nothing in the regs stopping someone from buying their own equipment and installing it on their own premises.
With regard to the query as to whether the data will stand up in court, well that is up to The Gardai.

Thanks Kub.

I suppose my observation wasn't necessary in relation to the "equipment" as such but in relation to the lack of mention of PSA registered installers, PSA "Watermarked" video etc etc. Surely if this was so "regulated" the Gardai and indeed the data protection guidelines etc would mention the requirement for using PSA registered installers/data processors etc etc.
I also note that in the PSA documentation there is no mention of being a "Data processor" and what that actually means for PSA registered installers.

Is there anything in the regs for a Joe Soap like myself, assisting the OP's client resolve the issue with the CCTV system for no fee? (I've spent thousands on IT related courses over the years and I like to help people out every now and again)

I've found some actual definitions of CCTV and installation and maintenance of same here:
http://www.psa.gov.ie/Website/psa/psa.nsf/01E319614E6AA76680257A9A0051FB24/$file/CCTV%20(PSA%2022A).pdf

The relevant portion:
"The definition of CCTV as defined in S.I. No: 144 of 2012 states:
“installer of security equipment (cctv)” means a person who installs, maintains, repairs or
services security equipment that consists of electronic or other devices, which through visual
images, warns of, monitors or records potential or actual unauthorised entry or misconduct on
or in the vicinity of premises where such equipment is situated.
Any contractor who installs, maintains, repairs or services CCTV systems as part of a
business, trade or profession must hold a PSA licence. Licensing applies to CCTV systems
used solely or partially for security purposes.
HOW CCTV APPLIES IN PRACTICE
What is licensable?
• any CCTV system used solely or primarily for security purposes including the installation
and maintenance of the hardware and software components of the system,
• any programming, commissioning or system support provided by a manufacturer or
retailer to an installer as part of the installation or maintenance process.
What’s not licensable?
• any CCTV system used for environmental purposes such as pollution control, illegal
dumping/littering,
• any CCTV system used to monitor cattle, drains, processing lines or other such purposes
which does not involve security,
• any system installed in a domestic setting by the householder.
"


There is no mention whatsoever, that I have seen of a requirement in court for CCTV recordings to be "PSA - Watermarked"


Also, back to the OP's conundrum - they may or may not be operating outside the law depending on your interpretation.

But can anyone help them out?

kub

Is there anything in the regs for a Joe Soap like myself, assisting the OP's client resolve the issue with the CCTV system for no fee? (I've spent thousands on IT related courses over the years and I like to help people out every now and again)

You seem to know what you are talking about so lets get to the point. In my own understanding if a friend of yours brought CCTV equipment and you did him a favour and installed the system without payment then you are not as such employed by him therefore you would not be breaking the rules.

I took issue with the OP as he mentioned the word client and said he did not have a PSA license.

Also it is no secret that as far as most of us installers are concerned, the PSA are nothing but a revenue raising arm of The Department Of Justice. Therefore they have no need to be bothering themselves too much about technicalities in our profession.

With regard to 'Watermarked', the onus is on us to ensure that our clients systems have this, defence solicitors etc would firstly check that out.

TheBadBadger

kub wrote:

It is immaterial whether the system is already installed, you are working on it without a licence.

kub wrote:

Well thoes of us who have to fork out thousands of euro to have one don't really appreciate assisting those who do not and do jobs for ' clients' and break the law.

I agree kub.. The PSA is there for a reason and should be adhered to . The same reason RECI and ECSSA are there to regulate the electrical industry. I presume every so often you have to provide a 24v or 230v supply for analogue gear , are you also registered with one of the above ??

I have never installed a cctv security system and don't appreciate being (indirectly) accused of breaking the law.

kub

In your opening post you mentioned the word 'client', now that suggests to me that you are working for them and being payed accordingly.

I then asked you were you PSA licensed? To which you said No, therefore both you and your 'client' are breaking the rules as you are working on a CCTV system for payment.

I have no need to be registered by RECI or any other electrical contractors association as we are not in the electrical business, never claimed to be and never want to be.
However as responsible installers we insist on our clients getting their electricians to install appropriate electrical spur units for various equipment that we may be installing on their premises.
Or alternatively, should the electronic security apparatus which we are installing have a plug top on it, then we simply plug it in, like i would a bloody kettle, or are you suggesting i need to be registered with RECI to do that as well?

kippy

kub wrote: »

Is there anything in the regs for a Joe Soap like myself, assisting the OP's client resolve the issue with the CCTV system for no fee? (I've spent thousands on IT related courses over the years and I like to help people out every now and again)

You seem to know what you are talking about so lets get to the point. In my own understanding if a friend of yours brought CCTV equipment and you did him a favour and installed the system without payment then you are not as such employed by him therefore you would not be breaking the rules.

I took issue with the OP as he mentioned the word client and said he did not have a PSA license.

Also it is no secret that as far as most of us installers are concerned, the PSA are nothing but a revenue raising arm of The Department Of Justice. Therefore they have no need to be bothering themselves too much about technicalities in our profession.

With regard to 'Watermarked', the onus is on us to ensure that our clients systems have this, defence solicitors etc would firstly check that out.

As I said above, I have no issues with some of what the PSA do (ensuring those with criminal records and "dodgy" backgrounds dont work in certain areas etc - this is only a good thing.
However some of it, in my and indeed your own opinion, goes too far.


What is a PSA Watermarked piece of video, as a matter of interest and what does it actually mean, and again, why is it the key determination of whether the video will be admissible?
I'd just like to hear/see what this actually means in the real world and again, am genuinely interested.

kub

DVR's. NVR's whatever recording equipment which is used has to have a way of as such stamping the original recording so that if it is tampered with, ie altered, that it will be noticed.

Does that make sense?

TheBadBadger

TheBadBadger wrote:

I agree kub.. The PSA is there for a reason and should be adhered to . The same reason RECI and ECSSA are there to regulate the electrical industry. I presume every so often you have to provide a 24v or 230v supply for analogue gear , are you also registered with one of the above ??

kub wrote:

In your opening post you mentioned the word 'client', now that suggests to me that you are working for them and being payed accordingly.

kub wrote:

I then asked you were you PSA licensed? To which you said No, therefore both you and your 'client' are breaking the rules as you are working on a CCTV system for payment.

kub wrote:

I have no need to be registered by RECI or any other electrical contractors association as we are not in the electrical business, never claimed to be and never want to be. However as responsible installers we insist on our clients getting their electricians to install appropriate electrical spur units for various equipment that we may be installing on their premises. Or alternatively, should the electronic security apparatus which we are installing have a plug top on it, then we simply plug it in, like i would a bloody kettle, or are you suggesting i need to be registered with RECI to do that as well?

I am a consultant...! Who endeavors to design and specify with the help of specialists like yourself these systems which hopefully the client (WHO WE JUST CONSULT WITH) is satisfied with.. This case was no different only it was already installed!
I will go elsewhere with future queries on this subject

kippy

kub wrote: »

DVR's. NVR's whatever recording equipment which is used has to have a way of as such stamping the original recording so that if it is tampered with, ie altered, that it will be noticed.

Does that make sense?

Someone above mentioned something about the video needing to be watermarked and this meant it needed to be "PSA Licensed".


What does being PSA registered have to do with that?
(Are you talking about a time and date stamp? Or some kind of a PGP key or some kind of checksum?)

Is the watermarking specific to PSA registered installers?

I am genuinely lost here.

fred funk }{

kippy wrote: »

Someone above mentioned something about the video needing to be watermarked and this meant it needed to be "PSA Licensed".


What does being PSA registered have to do with that?
(Are you talking about a time and date stamp? Or some kind of a PGP key or some kind of checksum?)

Is the watermarking specific to PSA registered installers?

I am genuinely lost here.

Water marking has nothing to do with being PSA registered. Water marking is an added feature on some recorders (normally higher end gear).

Water marking is an added piece of evidence that helps prove that a segment of recorded footage hasn't been digital modified.

kippy

fred funk }{ wrote: »

Water marking has nothing to do with being PSA registered. Water marking is an added feature on some recorders (normally higher end gear).

Water marking is an added piece of evidence that helps prove that a segment of recorded footage hasn't been digital modified.

Ah okay, so there is no requirement for video evidence in a legal case to be created by equipment that was installed by a PSA registered installer or indeed handled by a PSA Registered data processor etc.
Good.

fred funk }{

TheBadBadger wrote: »

I am a consultant...! Who endeavors to design and specify with the help of specialists like yourself these systems which hopefully the client (WHO WE JUST CONSULT WITH) is satisfied with.. This case was no different only it was already installed!
I will go elsewhere with future queries on this subject

I'm surprised, if you're a consultant, that you don't have a number of PSA registered contractor's numbers in your phone that you could have asked your initial question.

Any consultants I know do.

fred funk }{

kippy wrote: »

Ah okay, so there is no requirement for video evidence in a legal case to be created by equipment that was installed by a PSA registered installer or indeed handled by a PSA Registered data processor etc.
Good.

Of course not. Evidence can be used from any source, even some crappy phone footage can be used in court. Now, the defence might argue against its legitimacy but ultimately it can be used as evidence.

By having a digital water mark embedded in the image, it rules out the image being falsified and proves that's what was actually recorded at that paticular time and that can be a very important thing.

2011

kippy wrote: »

So,
Could one be under the impression that if you get your kit installed by a PSA registered installer and recordings handed over to the Gardai by the PSA registered installer they will definitely stand up in court and if you install the kit yourself it won't stand up?

There are no "definites" when you go to court.
It would be better to direct these questions directly to the PSA.

kippy

You stated above in a response to me that the video had to be watermarked and the direct comment was:
"Water marked = PSA registered".

-It turns out watermarking has nothing to do with being PSA registered and is a feature of the equipment. Indeed it turns out that ANY video CAN be submitted and USED in court - whether it is admissible is down to any number of factors none of which have anything (from the research I have done myself in the past few hours) to do with whether the video was recorded by a system installed by a PSA registered installer.
It makes me wonder whether there are "PSA Registered" people out there going round telling businesses and individuals that one of the benefits of getting stuff installed by them is that the evidence can be used in court - because that is the impression I have got from this thread.

Now I don't know if you are PSA registered yourself but there were at least three people (myself included )on this thread who didn't appear to know that watermarking and the use of evidence in court have absolutely nothing to do with being PSA registered.
It also turns out that there is absolutely nothing in data protection and gardai guidelines that mentions anything about the connection between PS registered folks and either of those guidelines (these need to be updated badly)

Again, it leaves me asking if there are people "paying thousands" to become registered with the PSA (especially to become "installers of CCTV") what are the PSA actually telling them in relation to the areas discussed here and is the information that these installers are giving customers correct (This is my pet hate when dealing with tradesmen, installers, IT Support type things - you expect to deal with an expert who gives you correct information especially if that expert is a registered member of a certain oversight body - all too often when you dig deeper however with some of them you realise no, they are just trying to make more money for themselves or cut corners.)

2011

kippy wrote: »

You stated above in a response to me that the video had to be watermarked and the direct comment was:
"Water marked = PSA registered"

Yeah that was a bit misleading, sorry.
Oktoberfest and an accurate concise answerer may not always work

Indeed it turns out that ANY video CAN be submitted and USED in court - whether it is admissible is down to any number of factors none of which have anything (from the research I have done myself in the past few hours) to do with whether the video was recorded by a system installed by a PSA registered installer.

Agreed.
What I really meant was that the chances of footage being admissible is greatly increased if a professional installer is used. In Ireland all professional installers (with almost no exceptions) are PSA registered. In all probability footage recorded on a system installed by a PSA registered installer would be of higher quality, would be watermarked, the lighting would be superior, the system would have better features, cameras would be better positioned etc.

Now I don't know if you are PSA registered yourself

Never was and never will be.
I don't install CCTV either.

In fact if you read posts 10 & 11 you will see that I was the first person on this thread to highlight the fact that it is not always necessary to be PSA registered to install CCTV.

I am not a "fan" of the PSA.
In my opinion it is a body that extracts money from people that install security systems that gives nothing back. The cost of being registered with the PSA has to be passed onto the customer. Those that do not "join the club" are threatened with prosecution. Non-PSA registered installers have reduced overheads gaining a competitive advantage, so those that comply and join the PSA are understandably annoyed.

kub

TheBadBadger wrote: »

I am a consultant...! Who endeavors to design and specify with the help of specialists like yourself these systems which hopefully the client (WHO WE JUST CONSULT WITH) is satisfied with.. This case was no different only it was already installed!
I will go elsewhere with future queries on this subject

We get a lot of chancers on here who are not PSA licensed, go and take on an installation and get into to technical difficulties, then come on here seeking advice.
Now i will admit to assuming you were the same and will apologise also.
But to be fair you could have mentioned at the very start that you were a consultant, by the way, why couldn't you consult with the original installer?

Stoner

In all fairness his point is relevant, maybe he didn't want to be under a complement to a supplier.

Maybe the original installer turned out to be a PSA license holding flake who wanted a large call out fee.

I don't think we need to ask the op so many questions tbh.