64 replies to this topic

[Doktor Jon]

Doktor Jon, on Nov 29 2007, 12:31 AM, said:

(that sounds so confusing, even I'm having to think about it ).

Be gentle with me luggsey, I'd just had a 19 hour day and that was my third one this week, so even I'm allowed to get confused occasionally, especially at my age

As it happens, the passage in the Liberty site which states "For example if you can show that the CCTV camera is being pointed deliberately at your garden so that your neighbour can spy on you this will come under the DPA. If this is the case, you should make a complaint to the Information Commissioner by telephoning 01625 545 740 for more information.", is at odds with what the Information Commissioners spokesperson has previously informed me in an interview.

Domestic / residential is exempt, end of ... if the suggested scenario were reported to the Commissioner, then they'd just as likely say that it's outside of the DPA and it should be reported to the "appropriate authorities", which is of course, the chaps in blue.

I'd have to agree with you that finding a police officer that is up to speed on what little relevant legislation there is, can be only slightly less difficult than finding the holy grail.

I have been asked on previous occasions to provide an opinion on cameras which were thought to have been installed in order to cause a deliberate harassment, and generally speaking, if it can be demonstrated that there are alternative or even preferable locations that better serve the owners stated requirement to provide security for their property, then it isn't usually that difficult to persuade the authorities that the camera/s should be relocated or even removed.

Unfortunately, persistent offenders will often take the camera down under police request, and then put it back up a week or two later, in a slightly different but equally offensive location.

The recourse to civil law / injunctions, is of course a viable option, but only for those that can afford to take that route.

If you do come across any specific case law / authorities luggsey, I for one would be very interested to read them; and if I come across anything useful, I'll post them here.

Happy hunting



Jon

Edited by Doktor Jon, 29 November 2007 - 11:40 PM.

[luggsey]

Doktor Jon, on Nov 29 2007, 11:40 PM, said:

Be gentle with me luggsey, I'd just had a 19 hour day and that was my third one this week, so even I'm allowed to get confused occasionally, especially at my age

As it happens, the passage in the Liberty site which states "For example if you can show that the CCTV camera is being pointed deliberately at your garden so that your neighbour can spy on you this will come under the DPA. If this is the case, you should make a complaint to the Information Commissioner by telephoning 01625 545 740 for more information.", is at odds with what the Information Commissioners spokesperson has previously informed me in an interview.

Domestic / residential is exempt, end of ... if the suggested scenario were reported to the Commissioner, then they'd just as likely say that it's outside of the DPA and it should be reported to the "appropriate authorities", which is of course, the chaps in blue.

I'd have to agree with you that finding a police officer that is up to speed on what little relevant legislation there is, can be only slightly less difficult than finding the holy grail.

I have been asked on previous occasions to provide an opinion on cameras which were thought to have been installed in order to cause a deliberate harassment, and generally speaking, if it can be demonstrated that there are alternative or even preferable locations that better serve the owners stated requirement to provide security for their property, then it isn't usually that difficult to persuade the authorities that the camera/s should be relocated or even removed.

Unfortunately, persistent offenders will often take the camera down under police request, and then put it back up a week or two later, in a slightly different but equally offensive location.

The recourse to civil law / injunctions, is of course a viable option, but only for those that can afford to take that route.

If you do come across any specific case law / authorities luggsey, I for one would be very interested to read them; and if I come across anything useful, I'll post them here.

Happy hunting



Jon

I think I'll have to ask big bruv, he's doing a law degree so he knows Tort pretty well, case law is the only thing I can think of right now so I'll keep looking.

[luggsey]

Here's an update on home CCTV, I had the local crime prevention officer round to see me today to have a look at my CCTV system after a complaint from a neighbour....had to happen! We have an on going complaint about drains!!! So they are complaining to all authorities now about anything they can.....

He looked at my cameras and agreed with me that what I am doing is within the law (and the spirit of it):

Camera pointing at your own vehicle outside your property is ok as long as the camera angle is suitable to restrict the veiw of surrounding areas as much as possible. I don't record anything outside the property so DPA rules don't apply.

Camera looking at your own gate from your property is ok, background is not important if it is unavoidable while looking at the gate, in my installation I have masked off the view above the gate where my neighbours house is as I had that ability. This is recorded . All access video intercom systems point outside your property anyway?

Movement sensors are recomended (as I have installed) to let us know when anybody is outside our gate. I will link this to alarm presets on the camera later on.

I told the crime prevention officer I am going to upgrade the existing cheapo P&T to a PTZ using only presets (No keyboard) so I could do away with three cameras and have just one, he agreed it was a good idea. The lack of a keyboard I felt removed the risk of being accused of pointing it where I should not.

Where I park my car (away from our house the other side of a lane) I fitted a wireless movement sensor, this is what my neighbour complained about recently, crime prevention recomended fitting a camera as well and said what I was doing was what they would have recomended all along!

If a domestic CCTV system is installed and used in the correct way there should be no official problem with it, the Human Rights Act does not apply to households, the DPA rules don't apply if the recordings are on your own property and only supplied to the police and nobody else. The police can judge that a CCTV camera may be installed to hararras a neighbour in which case they could prosacute the owner.

luggsey 1
Neighbours 0

[NitroN]

Hi All,

Here are some interesting links
http://www.raeng.org.uk/policy/reports/pdf...ance_report.pdf

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/lib...vfinal_2301.pdf


Q: My neighbour has CCTV cameras overlooking my property. Is this in breach of the Data Protection Act?
If your neighbour is a private individual e.g. the cameras are on their residential property, it is unlikely that they will be breaching the Data Protection Act because there is an exemption for domestic/household processing of personal data as long as this does not involve putting personal information on a website or otherwise disclosing it to the world at large without good reason. They may however be breaching other legislation, such as the law about harassment or voyeurism, and so may be referred to another body such as the police to investigate.
You can find out more information on our CCTV page.
From: http://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/faqs/data_pro...A2-278DE2D7446C

[Welung666]

Sorry to drag this off topic but I was wondering if anyone is savvy with the UK laws on home CCTV systems and the DPA/Privacy laws. I don't really want to go into details on an open forum but it would be pointless omitting parts as it's all relevant. AFAIK I don't need to register my system with the ICO although it's worth the £35 just to be safe and I don't mind keeping records etc. as I do them for my works CCTV system. It's the privacy laws that are getting me so if anyone can advise I'll happily explain briefly (via PM) the circumstances.

folks.

Lee.

Edited by Welung666, 05 September 2008 - 09:44 PM.

[Chorlton]

Welung666, on Sep 5 2008, 10:43 PM, said:

Sorry to drag this off topic but I was wondering if anyone is savvy with the UK laws on home CCTV systems and the DPA/Privacy laws. I don't really want to go into details on an open forum but it would be pointless omitting parts as it's all relevant. AFAIK I don't need to register my system with the ICO although it's worth the £35 just to be safe and I don't mind keeping records etc. as I do them for my works CCTV system. It's the privacy laws that are getting me so if anyone can advise I'll happily explain briefly (via PM) the circumstances.

folks.

Lee.

Lee you can't PM on this forum until you have made 15 posts.
Join in with forum discussions and as you post count grows past 15 it will enable automatically.
Members can't post contact details either because "off forum" discussion does not benifit the community.
Hope you understand.
C.

[Welung666]

Chorlton, on Sep 5 2008, 10:56 PM, said:

Lee you can't PM on this forum until you have made 15 posts.
Join in with forum discussions and as you post count grows past 15 it will enable automatically.
Members can't post contact details either because "off forum" discussion does not benifit the community.
Hope you understand.
C.

Fair enuff on the PM/15 posts thing, however, I'm not prepared to go into the details of my circumstances on a public forum so I'll have to look elsewhere for my answers! I'll call the ICO Monday morning, no point going to my local police as they are part of the problem!

[Doktor Jon]

Welung666, on Sep 5 2008, 10:43 PM, said:

AFAIK I don't need to register my system with the ICO although it's worth the £35 just to be safe and I don't mind keeping records etc. as I do them for my works CCTV system. It's the privacy laws that are getting me so if anyone can advise I'll happily explain briefly (via PM) the circumstances.

folks.

Lee.

Hi Lee,

As domestic / residential CCTV is specifically exempt under section 36 of the DPA, you will not be able to register your use with the Information Commissioners Office; they just won't be interested.

There is a lot of misunderstanding regarding "privacy laws", simply because the public perception of what the law should provide is actually significantly different from what the law actually provides.

If you want to drop me a line, I'm happy to see if I can point you in the right direction.



Jon

Edited by Doktor Jon, 05 September 2008 - 11:27 PM.

[Welung666]

Doktor Jon, on Sep 6 2008, 12:26 AM, said:

If you want to drop me a line, I'm happy to see if I can point you in the right direction.

10 more posts and I might! edit make that 9!!

[satsuma01]

Welung666, on Sep 6 2008, 02:08 AM, said:

10 more posts and I might! edit make that 9!!

you could always email me persoanlly at

[IPAlarms]

Doktor Jon, on Sep 6 2008, 06:26 AM, said:

As domestic / residential CCTV is specifically exempt under section 36 of the DPA, you will not be able to register your use with the Information Commissioners Office; they just won't be interested.

Jon,

What if the home owner decides to store the images on a remote server rather than on equipment within their own home ?

[satsuma01]

IPAlarms, on Sep 6 2008, 09:24 AM, said:

Jon,

What if the home owner decides to store the images on a remote server rather than on equipment within their own home ?

i still wouldnt think it would make much difference as its still classed as domestic use not commercial

[Welung666]

satsuma01, on Sep 6 2008, 09:20 AM, said:

you could always email me persoanlly at

Moderated?

IPAlarms, on Sep 6 2008, 09:24 AM, said:

Jon,

What if the home owner decides to store the images on a remote server rather than on equipment within their own home ?

I do, all my system is backed up to a remote site not just my CCTV!

I've posted my question elsewhere to so I won't be posting again here. I can't understand why you are so strict on moderation! I simply don't want to publish any of my personal circumstances on open forum!

[Welung666]

anguscanplay, on Sep 6 2008, 01:33 PM, said:

well? it stops people or firms becoming members just to price for work

I undertsand that part but I'm quite obviously not a company or in the trade! I came here for advice on a problem I have at home that I don't want to detail openly. So as I said I'll just go elsewhere and ask.

[Chorlton]

Welung666, on Sep 6 2008, 01:35 PM, said:

I undertsand that part but I'm quite obviously not a company or in the trade! I came here for advice on a problem I have at home that I don't want to detail openly. So as I said I'll just go elsewhere and ask.

What you are is not obvious.
You could be anyone from anywhere.
As you point out this is a public forum.
You signed up to this forum of your own free will & by doing so you agreed you had read and would abide by our rules.
Site rules are for ALL & not up for discussion.
You are free to go where you like.
Any further posts attempting to or questioning the forum rules will be deleted.
C.

[Cubit]

anguscanplay, on Sep 6 2008, 01:48 PM, said:

yeah but he`s got us all wondering what he`s been upto now ............

Google is your friend...
But maybe not for some

[Doktor Jon]

IPAlarms, on Sep 6 2008, 09:24 AM, said:

Jon,

What if the home owner decides to store the images on a remote server rather than on equipment within their own home ?

Hi IP Alarms,

The DPA being a less than sophisticated piece of legislation, is not so much concerned with the issues of technology, but rather the purpose for which the data is gathered, and how that data is used.

As "residential" is outside the scope of this legislation, in a practical sense it makes no odds what technology is used by a homeowner, or why indeed they want to use it, the bottom line is that the DPA is completely ineffective at regulating the use of CCTV / IP Video in this environment.

What is particularly galling is that in theory, inappropriate use of video surveillance would be covered if the neighbouring property were an estate office (for example a commercial estate management use), but if it is the caretakers flat then it probably counts for nothing.

Time and again I'm asked about situations that would be controlled by the Act (for example exporting data to another country, such as an ISP with a server in a country outside the EU), but mention the words 'domestic' or 'residential', and the Commissioner just ain't bovvered!

Quite frankly, given the huge number of systems that are not DPA compliant, but should be, the lack of any tangible enforcement does tend to make something of a mockery of the whole situation.

That aside, without wishing to state the obvious here, Welung666 has made clear that for personal reasons he does not wish to post any information that he would feel uncomfortable divulging on a publicly viewable forum. Curiosity aside, IMHO that doesn't sound in the least bit unreasonable to me, and I really can't see any reason why anyone would have a problem in gracefully respecting his wishes