andersonsophie Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) Hi I live in a place where there is a row of houses, Behind our garden is a place where we all park our cars. I have idiot neighbours who have parties all the time and bring over friends to leave rubbish, vomit, and literally trash the place. I spoke to the people on all the neighbours behalf and I am sure I'm the target. I have people standing behind my fence making noises and when I look around back they are gone. My car has got damaged. There are a lot rubbish at the back of my house. Obviously I cant prove it is them, but it is a coincidence that all these things are happening to me, after having arguments with this particular neighbour. I have asked an CCTV installer to come to install a long range camera with microphone so that I can film who is making nuisance noise at the back of my house. The installer knew all this, and went to buy the camera kit and fitted it. Great night time view and quality of the image. I can see all my garden, and behind my garden, and see my car parked up. So I am not complaining about that. But the guy forgot to buy the camera with a microphone. He said it is illegal to have microphone on the camera and record sound on a surveillance system. Is this right? He has given me the receipt where he has brought the kit from. He said if I want to return, I have to pay extra if I want the kit taken down. I would have fought on that, but I really do like the image on the cameras, I wasnt sure if he was telling the truth, and I really dont want to lose time to get another installer in and wait for new cameras kit. I then went to Maplin and they told me to go on Swanns website to speak to their sales team, who told me to buy microphone to put on the camera. 1st- Is the installer right. Is it illegal to have a microphone on the CCTV system? 2- Here is my camera, what microphone do I get. 3- how would I attach the microphone onto the camera? 4- Is there a law that I can use, so that I can get the installer back out to fit on the microphone? link to my camera http://www.tradexguru.com/outdoor-waterproof-high-powered-nightvision-4-led-ir-array-700-tvl-cctv-security-surveillance-camera-ir-cut-6mm-wide-angle-lens.html Any advice would be great. Sophie Edited January 14, 2015 by andersonsophie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichL Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 This is a forum for technical matters, not legal advise, so my advise: 1 - No you can record audio. If the camera is on your property, viewing your property you can record pretty much what you like. Commercial properties are somewhat different. 2 - Dont know, not familiar with that kit. It looks like jonny 5 has got loose again. 3 - Again, not familiar. 4 - If he gave you a written quote listing audio as being included, then I would have thought sale of goods act to start with. Quote Originally said by Charles Babbage On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norman Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Lol @ jonny 5 Quote Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterJames Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 That said the question is about data protection and CCTV Hi Sophie The ico does not like audio recordings with CCTV system besides anything else it also breaks a few privacy laws, and unless your system is fully compliant with the DPA the CCTV would not be admissible in court anyway It sounds like you are having environmental problems you can get more information on what to do here https://www.gov.uk/local-environmental-quality I would swerve the swan kit like my life depended on it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.wilson Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Pete looks domestic though so that wouldn't apply? Quote securitywarehouse Security Supplies from Security Warehouse Trade Members please contact us for your TSI vetted trade discount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterJames Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Pete looks domestic though so that wouldn't apply? It would if they want the CCTV to be admissible though. Domestic can do what they like so long as they are not breaking any privacy laws. But if you want the CCTV to used as evidence it has to comply Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
datadiffusion Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 It would if they want the CCTV to be admissible though. Domestic can do what they like so long as they are not breaking any privacy laws. But if you want the CCTV to used as evidence it has to comply Suppose it depends if you are just trying to demonstrate an above average level of antisocial behaviour to plod / council rather than court as such. Still not the greatest kit though, even by budget standards. Quote So, I've decided to take my work back underground.... to stop it falling into the wrong hands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norman Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 BIL has had his CCTV used in court, he fitted it himself (to a reasonable std) and has captured lots of ASB, the latest being a neighbour keying another neighbours car, I've seen the footage and it's p poor but plod have taken it to court. Quote Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterJames Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 BIL has had his CCTV used in court, he fitted it himself (to a reasonable std) and has captured lots of ASB, the latest being a neighbour keying another neighbours car, I've seen the footage and it's p poor but plod have taken it to court. with audio? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norman Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 No Quote Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixwheeledbeast Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 @OP Do bear in mind the Swann person you spoke to on the phone was part of there "sales team" so his initial interest is pushing his cheap DIY gear, not the Data Protection Act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie6 Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 Hello, Just glancing at a few older posts, came across this one. I appreciate that this is not a forum for legal matters, but cctv installers are, or at least should be, aware of the issues. I have been a videographer for years filming in high streets, events, major theme parks etc. both here and in America. Since the 'paedophile' issue emerged some years ago I was reluctanct for a while to video just about anything, not even a sparrow. Frustrated, I telephoned the police to ask for their views...and this is the current status unless there are updates to the law. You can film anywhere in a public place, and since my cameras obviously have inbuilt sound recording there is no obligation to Mute. Therefore video is complete with sound...obvious really, or else what is the point of a video camera. The area beyond the garden is, in this case, a public place so go ahead and video..complete with sound. You may not film the property of your neighbour without their consent, However, if you are experiencing problems, such as damage to your own fence or garden you may point a camera at your fence...if by some accident it happens to be sited such that perpetrators are observed offending...it is purely accidental that the camera happened to be wrongly positioned and filmed the offence being commited. Councils, Housing associations and the police are interested in footage of this nature. Take Care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterJames Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 Hello, Just glancing at a few older posts, came across this one. I appreciate that this is not a forum for legal matters, but cctv installers are, or at least should be, aware of the issues. I have been a videographer for years filming in high streets, events, major theme parks etc. both here and in America. Since the 'paedophile' issue emerged some years ago I was reluctanct for a while to video just about anything, not even a sparrow. Frustrated, I telephoned the police to ask for their views...and this is the current status unless there are updates to the law. You can film anywhere in a public place, and since my cameras obviously have inbuilt sound recording there is no obligation to Mute. Therefore video is complete with sound...obvious really, or else what is the point of a video camera. The area beyond the garden is, in this case, a public place so go ahead and video..complete with sound. You may not film the property of your neighbour without their consent, However, if you are experiencing problems, such as damage to your own fence or garden you may point a camera at your fence...if by some accident it happens to be sited such that perpetrators are observed offending...it is purely accidental that the camera happened to be wrongly positioned and filmed the offence being commited. Councils, Housing associations and the police are interested in footage of this nature. Take Care. Hi Charlie You are absolutely right, however, it is one thing for a person to stand in the street with a camcorder filming, it is obvious that sound is likely to be recorded and people observing this are unlikely to divulge any personal private matters in front of your camera. With CCTV on the other hand it may not even be immediately obvious that there is a camera present, and even so, there is still no reason to assume that audio is being recorded. Therefore if allowed, CCTV could capture audio that was intended as private but not unlawful. In the UK we put signs up to warn people that CCTV is in operation, if people ignore the signs and continue to break the law then they deserve everything they get. But people that are not breaking the law and going about their everyday business are entitled to have their conversations kept private. The whole purpose of CCTV is to deter or capture crime, not invade peoples private conversations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al-yeti Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 I see some couriers have notices saying cctv and audio being recorded for security reasons, all within there area of course , not sure if they do record though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norman Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 With all due respect if you ask 10 different police officers you will get multiple answers to the same question, I installed (with audio) CCTV at my mothers house for issues with a neighbour, the police that visited her over the course of a year or so did not have a scooby about the law and CCTV. Quote Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterJames Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 With all due respect if you ask 10 different police officers you will get multiple answers to the same question, I installed (with audio) CCTV at my mothers house for issues with a neighbour, the police that visited her over the course of a year or so did not have a scooby about the law and CCTV. I agree, Police officers seldom know the law regarding CCTV I had one try to tell me that I could not have a camera viewing the customers car as it viewed the street. I was so surprised that not only did she know the law that she was supposed to upheld, but she was spouting complete and utter rubbish to someone that is familiar with the laws regarding CCTV. I have many times had to explain to the Police how to use the evidence that we have recorded for them, if the system is not compliant then it has to be used to get an admission not as evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norman Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 The problem is PJ, rather than say 'I'm sorry I don't know /I'm unsure' they give out misleading information by winging it. Quote Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
datadiffusion Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 True, if I ever wanted a simple proscribed point of civil law clarifying the last person I'd ask is a copper. Quote So, I've decided to take my work back underground.... to stop it falling into the wrong hands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie6 Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Hi Admin2, Thanks for your comments (and everyone else's for that matter). You raise an interesting point regarding 'privacy of conversation' and I am not sure that I can a case on the matter for the moment. In principle therefore, I tend to agree with you..but my jury is still out..need time to think about it. Charlie6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie6 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Had to look back through quite a few recordings for this one.... and make a few enquiries into the bargain.. During a shoot of a school sports day I have a few private conversations (in part) recorded... The camera does not dwell on individuals 'chatting' when there are other scenes which need capturing..Two people having thier 'private conversation' in public is not, unfortunately, private..they are in a public place in the full knowledge that others may overhear them talking. These 'chats' are captured unintentionally and may or may not be used for 'cut in' to the next scene or else 'cut aways'... lasting all of three to five seconds. The remainder of that conversation is of no use and ends up 'on the cutting room floor'. Consider a situation where an argument is taking place between a parking warden and an irate motorist, this may be regarded as a private conversation between two people, nonetheless they are in a public place and being filmed. The parking warden tells me to stop filming, I refuse and he attempts to 'grab' my camera... He is committing an offence..I am not. The subsequent film may be produced in evidence or may be uploaded etc... see Stone's 'Unseen History of America' dvd set. However, if I intentionally film a personal conversation carried on by perfectly innocent people with the prospect of uploading, using in a derogatory manner, for personal gain, and so on then it may be construed as an offence..For action to be taken on this wise.. the resultant film content of two apparently innocent members of the public must be of a duration where there can be no doubt that my actions have infringed their rights viz; data protection, human rights etc. In conclusion, where I choose to film a public place from a position within the boundary of my property whilst any persons present therein are not aware of my actions, as a general rule of thumb no offence is seen to take place...so go ahead and use audio... Finally, 'secret filming' (of say a person's bedroom) is a criminal offence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterJames Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 The law on privacy is rather vague, and much of what is set down applies not to individuals, but to organisations. For example, Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides general protection for the privacy of an individual’s home and family life, and their personal correspondence, and this obviously extends to recording what people say among themselves. In a similar spirit, the CCTV Code of Conduct (revised 2008) from the Information Commissioner’s Office recommends that operators generally shouldn’t record conversations: CCTV must not be used to record conversations between members of the public as this is highly intrusive and unlikely to be justified. You should choose a system without this facility if possible. If your system comes equipped with a sound recording facility then you should turn this off or disable it in some other way. There are limited circumstances in which audio recording may be justified, subject to sufficient safeguards. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie6 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Hello Admin2, Thankyou for your reply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterJames Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Charlie lets look at some scenarios where audio would be an invasion of privacy. A couple walking down the street discussing the sex they have just had. People who they don't know that may overhear their discussion its not important, even you videoing and recording their conversation its not a problem because you don't know them. With CCTV its a different story the operator is likely to know the people. So what I hear you say, well what if that couple are married but not to each other, all of a sudden the CCTV operator knows something about two people that is none of the operators business. That information could have all sorts of consequences depending on the operators attitude. At worst there could be blackmailing or the information given to each of the couples partners. Again you could say well they should not have been up to no good, but they haven't broken any criminal laws, and the purpose of the CCTV is for capturing crimes. I cant think of hundreds of similar scenarios. The other problem you have is some CCTV operators are nice people some are not (Bit like the real world) if the recording of audio was fully allowed you wouldn't be able to say this person can record audio, but this one cant. So all those horrible people like racists and peados will be using audio recording to there own advantage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie6 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Peter, thankyou for your valuable comments. I totally agree with everything you have said, and for that matter the observations of every contributor(too numerous to recall their names)should be applauded. If the implication is such that CCTV operators are not allowed to record audio according to the 'regulations' imposed upon that 'field' then you have reassured myself in some respects. However, it would be appreciated were you to accept that I have no intention of 'back-tracking'. My view is such that 'yobbos' congregating at the rear of the property (originating post)should, emphasis on should, be recorded complete with audio ... voice recognition is a favourable tool in the police armoury. Throughout these posts I have included actual and hypothetical situations where it is perceived that litigation is unlikely, and never has, arisen in the circumstances highlighted by myself. I am sure you are aware, however,that the industry manufactures cameras complete with audio facilities costing hundreds of pounds, and in so doing they recognise this 'need' in certain environments. As a member pointed out, this is not a forum for legal advice but perhaps it is worth adding that there are 'loopholes' within the legal environment which may be 'persuasive' although the audio may not be accepted as evidence inside the actual courtroom. I am not allowed to discuss the latter comment further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterJames Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Peter, thankyou for your valuable comments. I totally agree with everything you have said, and for that matter the observations of every contributor(too numerous to recall their names)should be applauded. If the implication is such that CCTV operators are not allowed to record audio according to the 'regulations' imposed upon that 'field' then you have reassured myself in some respects. However, it would be appreciated were you to accept that I have no intention of 'back-tracking'. My view is such that 'yobbos' congregating at the rear of the property (originating post)should, emphasis on should, be recorded complete with audio ... voice recognition is a favourable tool in the police armoury. Throughout these posts I have included actual and hypothetical situations where it is perceived that litigation is unlikely, and never has, arisen in the circumstances highlighted by myself. I am sure you are aware, however,that the industry manufactures cameras complete with audio facilities costing hundreds of pounds, and in so doing they recognise this 'need' in certain environments. As a member pointed out, this is not a forum for legal advice but perhaps it is worth adding that there are 'loopholes' within the legal environment which may be 'persuasive' although the audio may not be accepted as evidence inside the actual courtroom. I am not allowed to discuss the latter comment further. And you would be breaking the law to do so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.