64 replies to this topic

[Doktor Jon]

Hi xquest and welcome!

If you are installing the camera in your home, then under Section 36 of the Data Protection Act, you are exempt from compliance (any residential cameras are not required to comply with the Act).

As such, you can cover the area you require, you do not need to provide any warning signs, and anyone 'caught on camera' does not have a statutory right of access to the recorded images.

Whilst Time and Date imprint would not be mandatory in this situation, it would be highly desirable if you were intending to provide any recordings for possible evidential use.

Just as a thought, were the holes created by the airgun pellets clean enough that you could look through both panes to see where the shot had originated from? That might help you to decide what type of camera / lens combination would be most appropriate to your needs.

D.J.

[jameswilson]

Quote

don't react too quickly as it might be seen as daring them to have another go

not sure i agree with that statement!
better leave the doors open then to stop em

[Doktor Jon]

xquest, on Nov 29 2006, 10:29 AM, said:

As my police sergeant son-in-law said 'don't react too quickly as it might be seen as daring them to have another go'.

Like jameswilson, I'd also not necessarily agree with that advice

You can react as quickly as you like, as long as you are not seen to react.
If you install a hidden (covert) camera, you won't be daring them to have another go, as they won't see the camera.

If, or should I say when you replace the broken glass, that can be all the encouragement needed for the 'perps' to have another go, and provided you have your hidden camera in place, then you should be able to record the suspects, if they're stupid enough to attack again.

Depending on whether there is a history of local problems, or if you think that you are being deliberately targetted, you have to remember that apart from Xmas rapidly approaching (lots of drinking!), the darkest winter nights are still ahead for the next couple of months, so you have to consider the level of risk, and whether you can afford the possibility of a further attack, without having taken any appropriate precautions.

[akpak]

Agree with James, Jon & Colin. If they do come back and have another go after you have decided not to take any action quickly, you are more or less giving them a free shot.......

I'd put some covert or "visible presence" equipment in place as soon as you can.

[RussS]

Peter James, on Nov 28 2006, 10:15 PM, said:

Information Commisioner

Click on the above link for the info you require

Wow, things there are really different than here. Here pretty much everything considered "Public Domain" or, "No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy" is fair game for CCTV. If you could place a cam from your window to see the street that's okay. No restrooms, bedrooms, etc. Where exists the "reasonable expectation of privacy."

[luggsey]

RussS, on Jan 19 2007, 06:07 PM, said:

Wow, things there are really different than here. Here pretty much everything considered "Public Domain" or, "No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy" is fair game for CCTV. If you could place a cam from your window to see the street that's okay. No restrooms, bedrooms, etc. Where exists the "reasonable expectation of privacy."

I have got cameras on my house with fixed focus lenses that look at the lane outside my house, it also looks (Indirectly) at the lounge windows of my neighbour. It only records movement in the lane not at my neighbours windows. If anyone complained I would simply point out that I can see more by looking through my window with a MK.1 eyeball then can be seen with a cheap camera.
I think if I ever got taken to court for having these cameras up that would stand up as defence, now having a dome with a big zoom at high level would be hard to explain!

[Doktor Jon]

luggsey, on Jan 19 2007, 06:30 PM, said:

I have got cameras on my house with fixed focus lenses that look at the lane outside my house, it also looks (Indirectly) at the lounge windows of my neighbour. It only records movement in the lane not at my neighbours windows. If anyone complained I would simply point out that I can see more by looking through my window with a MK.1 eyeball then can be seen with a cheap camera.
I think if I ever got taken to court for having these cameras up that would stand up as defence, now having a dome with a big zoom at high level would be hard to explain!

I hate to be a party pooper luggsey, but from what you've described, if the neighbour made a formal complaint to the police, they would probably have grounds to investigate under existing 'Harassment' legislation; if they requested you to stop monitoring (albeit passively) your neighbours property and you refused, I somehow doubt that your defence argument would actually be considered reasonable in a court of law.

The type of equipment being used is not as relevant, as the effect it has on the neighbour. So for example, you could fit an authentic looking dummy, and it's mere presence could have exactly the same effect on the 'peaceful enjoyment of their property', as it would if you fitted a £ 1000 dome camera.

[luggsey]

Doktor Jon, on Jan 19 2007, 10:03 PM, said:

I hate to be a party pooper luggsey, but from what you've described, if the neighbour made a formal complaint to the police, they would probably have grounds to investigate under existing 'Harassment' legislation; if they requested you to stop monitoring (albeit passively) your neighbours property and you refused, I somehow doubt that your defence argument would actually be considered reasonable in a court of law.

The type of equipment being used is not as relevant, as the effect it has on the neighbour. So for example, you could fit an authentic looking dummy, and it's mere presence could have exactly the same effect on the 'peaceful enjoyment of their property', as it would if you fitted a £ 1000 dome camera.

I havent looked at any case law to support my statement but I think you missed the point I was making. If "my" camera system was examined by an expert they would find no recording of movement in my neighbours windows which are looked at indirectly (45 degree angle about 10m away) and indeed it is not possible to see "any" detail day or night. Simply having a camera pointing in the direction of a neighbours house as a result of looking at part of your own property in my opinion would not result in a harassment conviction in any court. I do not want to be proved wrong of course!
Another similar situation is a camera fitted on top of a local high building in the middle of my town. It could look at any window within a one mile radius (massive zoom lens) any resident within a mile could have that removed if your point were to be correct. The law about being able to ask for the recordings is a bit of an ass as I heard that the request takes longer then the retention span of the recordings here! The same would go for any dome camera.......
I know areas can be masked but with big zoom systems this cannot work. Interesting stuff.

[Rich]

luggsey, on Jan 20 2007, 12:27 AM, said:

I havent looked at any case law to support my statement but I think you missed the point I was making. If "my" camera system was examined by an expert they would find no recording of movement in my neighbours windows which are looked at indirectly (45 degree angle about 10m away) and indeed it is not possible to see "any" detail day or night. Simply having a camera pointing in the direction of a neighbours house as a result of looking at part of your own property in my opinion would not result in a harassment conviction in any court. I do not want to be proved wrong of course!
Another similar situation is a camera fitted on top of a local high building in the middle of my town. It could look at any window within a one mile radius (massive zoom lens) any resident within a mile could have that removed if your point were to be correct. The law about being able to ask for the recordings is a bit of an ass as I heard that the request takes longer then the retention span of the recordings here! The same would go for any dome camera.......
I know areas can be masked but with big zoom systems this cannot work. Interesting stuff.

i think you have missed the point, your camera is capable of viewing inside yor neighbours window. Ptz cameras require dpa registration, the operators require training and licence. If they were ever to impose on an individuals private area they would be out of a job and possibly face imprisonment.

[luggsey]

Rich, on Jan 20 2007, 01:56 AM, said:

i think you have missed the point, your camera is capable of viewing inside yor neighbours window. Ptz cameras require dpa registration, the operators require training and licence. If they were ever to impose on an individuals private area they would be out of a job and possibly face imprisonment.

No I said you cannot see any detail in my neighbours window, just the shape of the window, as could be confirmed "if" it was looked at as part of a complaint. (The point is if my neighbour "did" complain there would be no grounds for upholding the complaint in my opinion, I would only be proved wrong in court)
As pointed out earlier you can fit a Dome /PT at home without having to comply with those regulations.
I'm glad you said "if" because that's the point, "If" I or anybody else "looked" into private householders windows with the intention of seeing what they could not reasonabley see at a casual glance that would be an offence, If you work up ladders long enough you end up seeing something you should not by accident at least onec in your lifetime! (with or without a camera!) my point was that just because a camera "looks" as if it can do this or a Dome/PT "could be" used for this that does not make it an offence for the camera to be there. Not until it was proved.......... How many of these regulations stand up to the scrutiny of criminal court where facts must be proved beyond reasonable doubt I wonder? Good debate this.

[Doktor Jon]

luggsey, on Jan 20 2007, 11:25 AM, said:

No I said you cannot see any detail in my neighbours window, just the shape of the window, as could be confirmed "if" it was looked at as part of a complaint. (The point is if my neighbour "did" complain there would be no grounds for upholding the complaint in my opinion, I would only be proved wrong in court)
As pointed out earlier you can fit a Dome /PT at home without having to comply with those regulations.
I'm glad you said "if" because that's the point, "If" I or anybody else "looked" into private householders windows with the intention of seeing what they could not reasonabley see at a casual glance that would be an offence, If you work up ladders long enough you end up seeing something you should not by accident at least onec in your lifetime! (with or without a camera!) my point was that just because a camera "looks" as if it can do this or a Dome/PT "could be" used for this that does not make it an offence for the camera to be there. Not until it was proved.......... How many of these regulations stand up to the scrutiny of criminal court where facts must be proved beyond reasonable doubt I wonder? Good debate this.

Just to clarify luggsey, the point I'm making (and indeed I think Rich too), is that with any domestic CCTV set up (which is of course exempt from the DPA), it isn't necessarily about whether someone's camera can see into their neighbours property or not, it's about whether the neighbour feels threatend by the mere presence of the camera.

Now if you think this is a hypothetical situation, I could invite you to discuss it with the dozens of private homeowners who have written to me about their NFH's antics. The latest one received yesterday concerns a property with about seven cameras on it, most of which are viewing neighbouring properties, and don't appear to have much to do with the safety and security of the individuals residence.

We'll have to agree to differ, simply because the abuse of an individual by a NFH using CCTV to intimidate their neighbour victim, is now becoming very commonplace, and until such time as any specific legislation is introduced to address that situation, it is undoubtedly likely to get much worse. The police can invoke the harassment legislation if they believe that a camera has been installed for a potentially anti social purpose or in itself has an anti social effect (whether intentional or not), and the owner refuses to comply with a reasonable request to address the affected parties concerns.

Still in your case, as long as you are on good terms with your neighbour and they are not fussed about your camera, then that's all that matters. Unfortunately for many other homeowners, sadly that is a situation they can't even imagine.

Incidentally, on a slight tangeant, there was actually quite a high profile case last year where a CCTV Operator working for a local authority, received a custodial sentence for using a town centre camera, in a less than gentlemanly way.

[luggsey]

Doktor Jon, on Jan 20 2007, 02:43 PM, said:

Just to clarify luggsey, the point I'm making (and indeed I think Rich too), is that with any domestic CCTV set up (which is of course exempt from the DPA), it isn't necessarily about whether someone's camera can see into their neighbours property or not, it's about whether the neighbour feels threatend by the mere presence of the camera.

Now if you think this is a hypothetical situation, I could invite you to discuss it with the dozens of private homeowners who have written to me about their NFH's antics. The latest one received yesterday concerns a property with about seven cameras on it, most of which are viewing neighbouring properties, and don't appear to have much to do with the safety and security of the individuals residence.

We'll have to agree to differ, simply because the abuse of an individual by a NFH using CCTV to intimidate their neighbour victim, is now becoming very commonplace, and until such time as any specific legislation is introduced to address that situation, it is undoubtedly likely to get much worse. The police can invoke the harassment legislation if they believe that a camera has been installed for a potentially anti social purpose or in itself has an anti social effect (whether intentional or not), and the owner refuses to comply with a reasonable request to address the affected parties concerns.

Still in your case, as long as you are on good terms with your neighbour and they are not fussed about your camera, then that's all that matters. Unfortunately for many other homeowners, sadly that is a situation they can't even imagine.

Incidentally, on a slight tangeant, there was actually quite a high profile case last year where a CCTV Operator working for a local authority, received a custodial sentence for using a town centre camera, in a less than gentlemanly way.

I think we agree that if a camera is being used for it's intended purpose, ie. in this case to deter criminal activity, then if while looking at the householders own property it also overlooks a neighbours property that is not an offence under any regulation. As always it could be taken to court under a raft of different regulations which now swamp us if a neighbour thought any invasion of privacy was happening (and frankley these rules are making this country a laughing stock in Europe.) as I said to start with if someone looked at "my" setup it would be obvious it was not breaking the rules, as always it's down to interpratation of the rules as most things are now.
There is without doubt those that would put up a camera just to annoy a neighbour, if these were examined in detail following a complaint again it would be obvious what their intention was to fit such a camera. In that case I would support an order to remove/relocate the offending camera.
Such rules and regulations are not "black and white" as people suppose they are, they can be tested in court and case law would follow.
On the subject of "rogue" CCTV operators, I know of a case recently of a operator filming in detail an "service for cash" shall we say, this recording was seen by many outside the CCTV room, were they commiting an offence by recording/watching this act which took place in a tucked away location on somebody elses property.....
Also knew of a operator who used a customers dial up camera link to watch what he should not......poo hit the fan over that one.

[markthespark]

Can anyone answer this before I start trawling around:

Does anyone know if the domestic exemption from the DPA applies in Scotland or is that now a devolved issue?

Thanks

[Doktor Jon]

As far as I'm aware, the DPA rules are the same throughout the U.K.

Easiest thing to do would be to contact the Office of the Information Commissioner, and they should be able to quickly confirm that for you.

If you do find that it is a devolved issue, please post back as that would be useful to know.

[cutwitt]

markthespark, on Mar 10 2007, 11:00 PM, said:

Can anyone answer this before I start trawling around:

Does anyone know if the domestic exemption from the DPA applies in Scotland or is that now a devolved issue?

Thanks

The DPA rules are the same in Scotland.

All domestics are exempt.

[JonTheBlue]

If anyone hasnt seen it - or just didnt know about it - please find attached latest DRAFT copy of the CCTV DATA PROTECTION CODE OF PRACTICE currently being finalised by the ICO.

Attached Files

•  ico_cctv_consultation_draft_final.pdf   304.61K   65 downloads

[tinnitus]

Doktor Jon, on Nov 29 2006, 12:59 AM, said:

Hi xquest and welcome!

If you are installing the camera in your home, then under Section 36 of the Data Protection Act, you are exempt from compliance (any residential cameras are not required to comply with the Act).

As such, you can cover the area you require, you do not need to provide any warning signs, and anyone 'caught on camera' does not have a statutory right of access to the recorded images.

Whilst Time and Date imprint would not be mandatory in this situation, it would be highly desirable if you were intending to provide any recordings for possible evidential use.

Just as a thought, were the holes created by the airgun pellets clean enough that you could look through both panes to see where the shot had originated from? That might help you to decide what type of camera / lens combination would be most appropriate to your needs.

D.J.

i dont agree, will post back when i check. gimme 10.

[advancedprotection]

i have never had to do this before but how do you register with the dpa?