Jump to content
Security Installer Community

james.wilson

Admin
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    30,642

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    287

 Content Type 

Everything posted by james.wilson

  1. james.wilson
    So as of April 2015 your findings are valid?
  2. james.wilson
    So 2013 firmware was in your report?
  3. james.wilson
    Good info
  4. james.wilson
    are there any dates on the versions you have or a list of firmware release dates?
  5. james.wilson
    How would one verify that?
  6. james.wilson
    http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/24/xandem-camera-free-security/
  7. james.wilson
    I would hope it was viewed more than a heating controller. Its a bit more serious. I suppose at some point it will be taken up by mainstream media?
  8. james.wilson
    so what do u use?
  9. james.wilson
    So what do U use?
  10. james.wilson
    Agreed Stayed away from what technology?
  11. james.wilson
    id of thought that security on a security signalling device is pretty damn important
  12. james.wilson
    till the alarm co gets sued for a fail to perform. Logs will show detection but with no confirm, or a faked open it wont be actioned im assuming they have moved on from the units you tested.
  13. james.wilson
    np
  14. james.wilson
    technically its down to installer as thats the final cert issued if you 'test' systems like that then its a criminal offence, ie testing your system without permission. But would you like to know you have an issue or just assume you dont cos it hasnt happened to you yet?
  15. james.wilson
    nsi dont get into product. so no nsi wont
  16. james.wilson
    no i personally dont. But would you fit another knowing the above?
  17. james.wilson
    something like this in a fence? http://geniecctv.com/product/door-view-camera-with-integrated-fixed-lens/
  18. james.wilson
    i know as an approved installer any approval falls onto them on all kit installed. ie your nsi cert makes you liable for all approvals, assuming what you fitted is compliant at the very least puts that compliance claim back on the installer
  19. james.wilson
    agreed
  20. james.wilson
    id of thought insurers and installers would be. end users less so as they are relying on someones insurance. their own or the installers
  21. james.wilson
    do you think insurers, end users or installers will be concerned with your findings?
  22. james.wilson
    probably a good idea now?
  23. james.wilson
    ah i see shame be interested in the tests on that side too
  24. james.wilson
    the law?
  25. james.wilson
    why cant you test it further? self certed i believe
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept