As some will have read on another thread, I am having increasing problems with farm crime. The main issue with protecting remote areas with security equipment is the lack of a power source to run it.
12 months ago I bought three devices that seemed like they'd do a good job of protecting property and farm equipment. Since then, I have also bought one for leaving in the hangar to keep an eye on my aircraft.
What does it do?
It's a hand-sized box of tricks that runs purely off 8 x AA batteries - these last for 6 months easily. The unit has a colour 5 MP colour camera that is also infra-red so will take B&W pictures at night too.
The pictures are not only saved to an SD card that is slotted into the unit, but they are also instantly sent to your mobile phone via MMS or email - meaning that if someone who shouldn't be somewhere turns up, you know about it immediately. This is done by a standard SIM card being inserted in the relevant slot in the device, and, assuming you have mobile phone signal in the hangar, it'll send you a picture automatically whenever triggered. Up to five people can be programmed to receive the pictures, by MMS or email.
Some of the cleverest parts of the design are:
1. It can be set to only be active between certain times (avoids you getting pic's of your hangar-mates moving their aircraft around). 2. It can be set to send you MMS or email and as many pictures as you want to receive. 3. It can be set to take a short video clip of a length that you desire (although I have found this eats into the SIM card credit as mine is only a PAYG SIM card!). I should probably get a contract SIM card whn I have a spare moment. 4. It sends you a SMS if the batteries are low (although I haven't had one yet and they've been working for over 11 months!) 5. The sensitivity can be adjusted so it doesn't take pictures of a piece of paper blowing across the hangar floor for instance.
A sample picture can be seen here, and this one was received a couple of days ago by MMS. It is me walking in to the hangar (I forgot to switch it off when I went in).
The devices cost around £250 but I see there are a few places that are doing special discounts on them as I understand there is a new model out now - although I'm not sure what improvements have been made. This is a cheap place to find one, and I know of several other retailers if you are interested.
I can highly recommend them, and it's a nice peace of mind to know that you will be alerted instantly the minute some scum decides to try and nick your fuel or avionics in the middle of the night.
... and a biometric passport reader linked into the door control would identify thieves that wear hats/hoodies/balaclavas in case they are being filmed.
Are you required to have a sign on display to tell people they are in an area where they are being recorded?
GAFlyer4Fun wrote:... and a biometric passport reader linked into the door control would identify thieves that wear hats/hoodies/balaclavas in case they are being filmed.
Are you required to have a sign on display to tell people they are in an area where they are being recorded?
It's more about being aware that someone is in the hangar in the middle of the night, as opposed to being able to see their exact features and the colour of their nasal hair...
It might not suit some, I accept that. But it's peace of mind for those of us who might not hangar our aircraft at a big airfield with security gates etc.
As for a requirement to tell people they might be photographed, I don't really care to be honest. If they shouldn't be in there, and they are, what differnece would a notice do?
GAFlyer4Fun wrote:... and a biometric passport reader linked into the door control would identify thieves that wear hats/hoodies/balaclavas in case they are being filmed.
Are you required to have a sign on display to tell people they are in an area where they are being recorded?
It's more about being aware that someone is in the hangar in the middle of the night, as opposed to being able to see their exact features and the colour of their nasal hair...
It might not suit some, I accept that. But it's peace of mind for those of us who might not hangar our aircraft at a big airfield with security gates etc.
As for a requirement to tell people they might be photographed, I don't really care to be honest. If they shouldn't be in there, and they are, what differnece would a notice do?
To be clear, I fully support your reasons for doing it. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. As for the sign thing, I share your view, but respectfully suggest checking if it is a legal requirement. (Not camera related, but I have been on the receiving end of a trespasser having more rights than would seem fair).
Monocock wrote:As for a requirement to tell people they might be photographed, I don't really care to be honest. If they shouldn't be in there, and they are, what differnece would a notice do?
Here, here, it's a bad old world out there, you do what you have to do ...
A bit like the guy who made the news recently when he recorded calls regarding PPI claims, and then sent the company a bill for his time. During a media interview he said that he records all his phone calls. when asked if he had to tell people he was recording the calls he said no ... you don't have to tell them .. .same as taking their picture I would have thought.
That looks like an excellent piece of kit, especially the remote notification. It is a shame that most of the PAYG data SIMS have expiring credit now.
If you only have a temporary need or have mains power then it is also possible to re-purpose an old Android mobile phone (or a new one, they're down to £60 or so now) with various free applications :
When I walk along my high street and/or into a open area shopping precinct do I receive a notice that I am on CCTV = no. Will a CCTV inspector search every property in the UK = no. Game set and match to Monocock.
trinity 09L wrote:When I walk along my high street and/or into a open area shopping precinct do I receive a notice that I am on CCTV = no.
Are you sure about that?
My understanding is that if the camera picks up images only from Monococks premises, then no sign required, and is outside the data protection act as it is 'Domestic purposes'. Include public areas in shot, or property of a neighbour then a sign is required, as is compliance with data protection act.
High streets DO advertise the fact that CCTV is in operation. The sign is as much a deterrent as compliance with law.
I also don't think it can be used as evidence in court, as there are strict rules on gathering crime vids. Use it as a 'heads up' as you indicate.
IM. You will note from my location, and I can show you that I can enter from many directions and there are no signs to that effect. Likewise when you arrive by train (or car) in C London & elsewhere you step into an arena filled by CCTV cameras, without any notice visible or written, warning of the presence of CCTV and what there use is for. Also evidence can be used subject to PACE and Judges direction (viz 7/7). 09L
trinity 09L wrote:When I walk along my high street and/or into a open area shopping precinct do I receive a notice that I am on CCTV = no.
Are you sure about that?
My understanding is that if the camera picks up images only from Monococks premises, then no sign required, and is outside the data protection act as it is 'Domestic purposes'. Include public areas in shot, or property of a neighbour then a sign is required, as is compliance with data protection act.
High streets DO advertise the fact that CCTV is in operation. The sign is as much a deterrent as compliance with law.
I also don't think it can be used as evidence in court, as there are strict rules on gathering crime vids. Use it as a 'heads up' as you indicate.
It could indeed be used as evidence in court and would be treated in the same way as any other evidence. I was in the cctv business a few years ago when certian software developers were trying to get the law to only allow watermarked video to be used in evidence. There was a House of Lords study into this which concluded that CCTV would be used in the same way as any other evidence. i.e. the scrote would need to prove that his fizog had been photoshopped perfectly onto every one of the 30 frames per second recorded, rather than assume that was the case as the film wasn't watermarked. It was also reasoned that having such laws would mean that a murder captured on someones holiday video would be automatically excluded as evidence, so it was sensibly decided that cctv or video footage may be presented in the same way as any other evidence. Also regarding notices. Not required if you are filming covertly to capture someone committing a crime. Thats why benefits cheats get caught playing football whilst claiming they are wheelchair bound. You don't need to tell them you are having them followed around by a camera crew.
FLYER Exhibitions
Login / Register