Nev.. wrote:
> I heard someone on talkback radio once who claimed to have beaten a speed
> camera fine. He contested it in court and the police produced the digital
> image as proof. The caller was in the real estate business pointed out to the
> magistrate that in his line of work when he was required to attend court,
> digital images were not accepted as admissible evidence... if it was good
> enough or him.. it was good enough for the police. Apparently the magistrate
> agreed and threw the case out.
This may have been some time back, and it would have been a technicality.
When I used to work for a CCTV firm, one of our kit was a digital
multiplexer, somewhat similar to the analogue units that recorded a number of
cameras time-lapse to VCRs, but this one recorded to internal HDD only.
At the time (some 5-6 year ago) it was the ONLY CCTV multiplexer on the
market in this country (that I knew of) that had data which was admissable in
court.
There are rules as to what can and can't be done digitally, frames must be
stored as individual images (compressed is ok), and not sequencial framing like
MPEG which bases one image on the previous image.
Also, the type of encryption comes into it.
As far as I was aware, you can't just rock up to court with a black box
saying it complies with whatever rulings are allowable in court, each unit has
to specifically certified for that purpose.
You'll never get away with claiming "digital" on one of today's fixed or
mobile cameras, they are indeed admissable in court.
Back to the cameras on the bikes, might be questionable depending on what
their recording mechanism is. If they're using portable DV camcorders, then
no, it's not encrypted, and it uses MPEG.
For this reason, IF they're doing it, it won't be with standard DV camcorders.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622 <http://counter.li.org>
|