CUSM & Security monitoring.

Ben Millard (bmillard@interaccess.com)
Thu, 27 Oct 1994 15:12:58 -0400


Bob, you wrote...

>But it is overkill and too expensive for many situations. No formal
>security department will ever monitor all the places that other people
>feel are necessary. The ability to run a camera and attach it to a campus
>network anywhere is very powerful, and can provide up yo 8 images.
>
But wait, its NOT overkill relative to the cost of the computer, the
camera, the network, etc. We're talkking about the SAME camera, and a
single purpose-box (that is really pretty cheap, the receiver is where the
$ are, natch.) and the SAME basic wiring plant. So, the NET cost is much,
much lower. The initial investment appears a bit steep, granted, but...

Now, I know that for you--personally--the cost of the cu-SeeMe
implementation is much lower. And for most on this net/list that is true.
But I sneezed diet pepsi when I saw Ohio State contemplating watching a
parking lot!!! For the innovative "hacker"* I laud the cuSM solution
loudly and with a smile. But to even for a moment think that an
institutional application (where a /security office/ is contemplating this
as opposed to _all_ commercial solutions) is nuts. Think of the unused
computer capacity.

Like using the 15kW lamphouse on my movie projector to warm cheese sandwiches.

Grins, cheers, fun and risks
Ben

[] [] [] [] [] o [] [] [] [] [] o [] [] [] [] [] o [] [] [] []

| bmillard @interaccess.com
Ben Millard, Chief Projectionist | When you rip Estar
Museum of Science & Industry | you damage more than perfs:
I work for them, I don't speak for them. | you loose TEETH!

[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []
[]