5 ms·

Honestly > For example, footage from a doorbell camera was used as evidence in the fatal stabbing of a woman in Hengelo on 24 December 2019... A cop not seizi

Honestly > For example, footage from a doorbell camera was used as evidence in the fatal stabbing of a woman in Hengelo on 24 December 2019... A cop not seizing that recorded evidence is neglecting their duty full stop. If you're worried you might record a murder/attempt murder and then have to provide that evidence the answer is not to have the camera recording a public place then. I mean what's the reason for these cameras if not to provide evidence of crimes commited against the owner at the doorstep. You cant have it both ways.

berkes 3y ago
I know at least two people who bought such a doorbell for the sole reason of "being able to talk to the package delivery guy when I'm not at home". And not for security or to aid police in murder cases. I think these two people are naïve at best. But I think it's wrong to assume everyone who buys such a camera, thinks about "providing evidence of crimes".
- account-5 3y ago
  Unfortunately the law doesn't care whether you're ignorant of the law or not. Whilst it might not be a consideration for the purchaser the simple fact is that should you be required by law to provide footage you have to provide it, certainly for UK and, from the article, Netherland residents; like it or not. The article is clickbait as best. It's trying to make out standard police procedure is some kind of state overreach. Now I know it's fashionable to critique the police for everything so this sort of nonsense is commonplace but seriously if you were subject to sone form of crime where the only evidence/line of enquiry was on someone's doorbell cam and you pointed that camera out to the police, what would be your reaction if the police turned round and said: "yeah nothing we can do the owner said no"? You'd be on here rightly critising that truly ridiculous situation.

5 ms·

Honestly > For example, footage from a doorbell camera was used as evidence in the fatal stabbing of a woman in Hengelo on 24 December 2019... A cop not seizi

by account-5 3y ago

berkes 3y ago
I know at least two people who bought such a doorbell for the sole reason of "being able to talk to the package delivery guy when I'm not at home". And not for security or to aid police in murder cases. I think these two people are naïve at best. But I think it's wrong to assume everyone who buys such a camera, thinks about "providing evidence of crimes".
- account-5 3y ago
  Unfortunately the law doesn't care whether you're ignorant of the law or not. Whilst it might not be a consideration for the purchaser the simple fact is that should you be required by law to provide footage you have to provide it, certainly for UK and, from the article, Netherland residents; like it or not. The article is clickbait as best. It's trying to make out standard police procedure is some kind of state overreach. Now I know it's fashionable to critique the police for everything so this sort of nonsense is commonplace but seriously if you were subject to sone form of crime where the only evidence/line of enquiry was on someone's doorbell cam and you pointed that camera out to the police, what would be your reaction if the police turned round and said: "yeah nothing we can do the owner said no"? You'd be on here rightly critising that truly ridiculous situation.