Potheads, Legally You Must Use IP Cameras

The legalized pot business is creating a mini-boom for security integrators in those regions, as laws typically require various security measures, including surveillance systems.

The State of Washington has created some confusion / controversy about how its marijuana / surveillance related statute is written, specifically:

“At a minimum, a complete video surveillance with minimum camera resolution of 640×470 pixel and must be internet protocol (IP) compatible and recording system for controlled areas within the licensed premises and entire perimeter fencing and gates enclosing an outdoor grow operation, to ensure control of the area.”

A surveillance distributor has a well thought out analysis of this law. The basic point being that, the way it is phrased, the cameras themselves must be IP, not just the system.

He points out that analog systems are still significantly less expensive but that if you buy them you risk violating the law and potentially having your pot business interupted.

What do you think? Carelessly phrased law or clever IP camera salesmen behind this?

Login to read this IPVM discussion.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts unique testing and research funded by member's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.

** ******** *** *** ** *** ************ ** *** ****, state **** *** **** ******, ******* ** ** **** ****** isn’t **** *** ** ** ***** **.

** *** *** ******* *** ******, * ***** **’* **** being ****** ** “****” *** **** ***********. * **** ***** the ******** ************ *** ***** * ****** **** *****.

*** *** * **** **, *** ***** ****** ***** ** analog ****** ***** ** ********* ******** *** *** ** *** hybrid ** *******/******** **********. *** ********** ********** ** *** ****** that ** ****** *** ** **********. *** ***** ***** ** long ** **** ***'* **** *** ********** ****** **** ***** you ***** ***** *** ********************* ** **** ********** **** **** **** *** ****.

*'* *** * ****** ******, *** ***** ** ******** ** be * **** ***** ************* **** ** **** ** *** technically **** *** ********* ** "**** *****" ******* *** ******* of ******* ** ********** **** *** ******* *** ****** ** the *** ***, *** ****** ** *******.

***** * ****** ****** ******* *********.

***, * ***'* ********* *** ********** ** ********* ** *******; just **** *** ****** ****** *** ** ** **-*******.

"* ******** ***** ************ **** ******* ****** ********** ** ***×*** pixel *** **** ** ******** ******** (**) **********.”

*'* **** ***** *** *********** ***** **** **** ***** ***** available *** ******** ** ********* *** ********* *** ******** ** recent ******.

*** ******* *** *** ****/***** ** */*** * ******? **** absurd ** ******* ** ******* **** **** ******* **********.

******** **** ************* **** **** ********* ** **** **'* **** impossible *** **** ** ****** ** **** ** ****** ** shut **** **** ** * ****. ******** * *************** **** ****** ***** ******** **** *** ************.

***** **** **** ********* ***** **** * ********* ********. ** might *** ** *** **** ****** ** **** ****** ******* have ******* ***** ******** *** ***** **** ******. *** **** going ** **** ***** ***** ****...**** ** * ******** *****. Proabably ***** **** *** ****** **** ** **** ** **** remote ******. ** ********* ** **** ****;*** ****** ** ** compatible, ********* ** *** ********* ** ** ******** **. * have *** ** ****** ****** **, ********* ** ** ***** a **** *** * **** ******, **** **** ********* ** analog. ***********, *** ***** **** ******* *** '*************' ***********?

** ******** *** ******* **** ** *** *** ******. *********, one ** ***** ***** *** **** *** *** ***** ***** the ******* **. ** ********, *** ** **** **-**** *** one ****** **** ***** ** *** *** - **** *** needs ** ** ******** *******. ****** ***** ***.