luggsey, on Nov 27 2007, 11:49 PM, said:
I know the DPA question has been covered many times already and is clear on domestic use having an exemption if the data is processed for private use, this assumes a recording system is in use.
I was more interested in any facts about lawfulness of fitting a PTZ dome where it "could" be used to monitor private property, not record and how this is checked if a complaint is made. If a customer of mine says they have had a police visit after a complaint and for example have been asked to mask an area like a window in a neighbours house for example, is this a lawful request from the police or would they/should they have to proceed with a court action? I can't really see how the police could claim or prove harrasment if a dome is in use on a private property for monitoring only? A fixed camera looking at a neighbours windows is of course going to look like harrasment but the dome...... How can it? As you say does it depend on the opinion of a police officer or is there a "test" applied to it? I wonder??
luggsey,
The DPA equally applies to video surveillance whether it incorporates a recording system or not.
The commissioners test is whether you can study the behaviour of an individual (and in so doing learn something about them), in an area that is not immediately visible to the observer without the use of video monitoring equipment (that sounds so confusing, even I'm having to think about it
). To put it another way, if the camera is watching someone in an area that is not within your unrestricted view, then the DPA applies.
There are a few exemptions, of which domestic / residential is a fairly major one.
The point about siting a camera of whatever design, which is thought by a neighbour to be capable of monitoring their private property (in other words, they think it is invading their privacy, even if it isn't), would in theory be sufficient for a complaint about harassment.
A couple of points to consider; if the camera were mounted on a non residential premises, with residential neighbours, then a complaint could be made to the Information Commissioner about harassment under the DPA. If the premises were purely residential, then as previously mentioned, the DPA does not apply; but the Protection from Harassment legislation could apply in either situation.
Even if the camera were a dummy (which the neighbour would of course not be aware of), then as long as they feel that they are being deliberately harassed, they would in theory have a reasonable basis for complaint to the police.
If privacy masking or movement restrictions were in place to prevent the neighbouring property from being monitored, it would probably be down to the investigating officer or their superior, to satisfy themselves as to that fact, and then decide if any further action needs to be taken.
As far as I'm aware, there is no specific standardised test in these situations, although if you can find a police officer that actually understands the relevant legislation then you're off to a flying start
TBH, common sense best practice suggests that in the vast majority of situations, problems can easily be avoided, either by consulting the neighbours (to allay any pre / potential post installation worries), locating cameras in non contentious locations (if possible), installing covert cameras, or involving the neighbours as part of a larger 'community' type system - maybe even using 2.4GHz video senders so that they also have access to a specific image (should they wish).
I've lost count of how many totally p****d off neighbours have written to me this year, with insensitive or downright malicious NFH that are using CCTV to deliberately harass them. Unfortunately until we get some proper legislation in place (don't hold your breath), this will remain a constant source of unease and distrust for some
0
