[Is It Illegal To Have Microphone On Camera/cctv Kit]

I don't want to confuse anyone - but I thought I would air my thoughts on this.

 

It sounds over complicated, but, like Charlie said above regarding EU law overriding UK law. You would expect on shared competency issues (i.e. agreement in what the EU courts and EU institutions can make policy on) would be agreed and be unified across the continent to help and assist member states meet there own obligations. But here we have a judgment which potentially creates an imbalance of Article 8 rights under the ECHR. This imbalance potentially creates a liability on the UK state for compensation or damages or rectification (or whatever other remedy) for simply following what the court of justice of the EU has told 'us' to follow. Potentially leaving the Information Commissioner and joe public in an uncomfortable and uncertain position. You would think by saying any and all public space is covered would simplify the situation, but I think it makes things worse. It fails to take account of the necessity that some people may have to film those areas because they are unable not to film those areas if they wish to protect their own property by way of cctv.

 

From one EU law book I have, it reads that (and I don't want to confuse anyone that hasn't got the foggiest of what I am talking about) it is possible for action to be taken at the European Court of Human Rights actually against an EU institution

(which includes the European Court of Justice or the Court of Justice of the European Union as it is called now). It says:-

 

'In.....Cantoni -v- France App No 17862/91 the court of human rights ruled that the fact that a national measure was adopted (here the interpretation of s.36 DPA because of the EU directive) in order to comply with an EU Directive, and indeed replicated that Directive almost exactly, did not affect the State's obligation to ensure that the measure complied with the ECHR...'

 

So, it is quite possible for the ECJ judgment on the facts of that case, where I believe it found that the appellant was filming a public space because he was filming the front door of someone else's property to be broken down into tiny fact based

results. The end result could be that when interpreting that judgment, the UK courts (because they have to interpret any and all legislation in a manner compatible - s.3 HRA 1998) could construe a 'public place' (for the purposes of s.36 DPA) as being any public place where it is not strictly necessary for the domestic cctv operator to film in order to meet his or her personal or family protection rights.

 

That to me would mean that if joe blogs is filming the 1x1 meter public street space at his front door, that he / she still falls within the exemption so long as it is necessary and proportionate to do so.

 

It also says in Article 6(2) of the Treaty for the European Union that:-

 

'The union shall accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Such accession shall not affect the Union's competences as defined in the Treaties.'

[Is It Illegal To Have Microphone On Camera/cctv Kit]

Think its over complicated, should be able to record anything that you could see or hear without any specialist equipment

 

Which for example means I can see and hear (usually with a window open) my neighbours in their yards, see roof (bungalow next door), but not inside their home from my own windows at my property without using any equipment. I can hear my neighbours through the wall when they raise there voices but that's rare.

 

I can also hear people walking/ driving past if a window is open, I am no more invading their privacy, so I would say those images and audio being recorded are not an invasion of their privacyas they are publically broadcast for anyone to see or hear in the vicinity.

 

The distribution of those images and conversations to anyone else is an invasion of privacy (my neighbour doesn't expect me to film them sunbathing in their back yard and publish on the net for everyone to see). In relation to capturing images and audio of a person or persons committing or believed to be committing a crime, the evidence should be submitted to the relevant authorities and they can deem with how that information is publically shared in order to capture/ eliminate the suspects from the alleged crimes.

 

 

May be I am thinking this too simply and missing some important points.

 

 

No, I completely agree. I think the narrow interpretation that the ECJ gave it was wrong. I think it was wrong to blanketly rule that any public space falls outside of the domestic exemption, like you say, it is what you do with it that counts i.e. if the purpose is still to protect your own home and your own family then it should still fall under the exemption. I mean, some people's property CCTV will have no choice but to film even a limited amount of public footpath (for example) because

there front door might lead directly onto the pavement/highway....

[Is It Illegal To Have Microphone On Camera/cctv Kit]

EU law overrides UK law (what's left of it}.

 

To be more precise, the court ruling has direct effect through the European Communities Act. Having said that, the ratio of the case deriving from the material facts makes binding the 'video surveillance' element only, so not much damage is done to items or devices not used for video surveillance purposes.

 

It will be interesting to see where it goes.There may even be a conflict of laws due to the blanket nature of the ruling on the interpretation v-s the proportionality of state intrusion of persons exercising ECHR rights. Don't forget that whilst EU law is automatically applied through the EC Act, so is the convention through the Human Rights Act 1998 and that is also newer. I am thinking that there may be a conflict in the blanket effect of the ruling.

 

Saying all of that, maybe the ICO will introduce an easier and cheaper option registration system for individual users if an individual does wish to capture a public area whilst protecting his / her own property - that way the individual

cannot complaint that he has had a disproportionate interference.

[Is It Illegal To Have Microphone On Camera/cctv Kit]

Better take it up with the ICO then - it's very clearly laid out on the 'domestic CCTV' section of their website.

 

I'm not taking it up with them unless they decide to intrude on my own business. 

[Security Alarm System That Doesn't Provide Full Coverage]

If it's screwed up it is classed as fixtures and fittings.

 

It could be a chattel or a tenant's fixture, mainly because the alarm is wireless and it is a simple case of undoing some ordinary screws.

 

'An item which is loose, or that can be removed from a building without damage to itself or the fabric of the building will be more readily considered as a chattel'

 

'A tenant has the right to remove tenant's fixtures during the course of its lease'

 

'An item which is annexed to leased property for the purposes of the tenant's trade or for ornamentation or utility, and is capable of being removed without causing substantial damage to the land and without causing the chattel to lose its usefulness following the removal will be considered a tenant's fixture.'

 

'A tenant has the right to remove tenant's fixtures during the course of its lease'

 

There is an exemption though which says that the right to remove tenant fixtures can be restricted if this is clearly and unequivocally stated in the tenancy agreement.  Peel Land and Property (Ports No.3) Ltd v TS Sheerness Steel Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 100.

[Is It Illegal To Have Microphone On Camera/cctv Kit]

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=160561&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first∂=1&cid=17282

 

Thanks for that sixwheeledbeast that is greatfully appreciated. I have no idea and I am quite shocked why one of the main sources had not correlated that case with s.36, in fact it is only found as an independent case searching EU law.

 

The problem with that is that whilst the preliminary ruling has a legal effect, it does not change the position in how the UK has already transposed the 1995 directive into a domestic Act. Exemptions under Article 13 of the Directive, for example, are not specifically categorised the same in the Act, the Directive simply gives the legislator the leeway to implement exemptions according to the wording of Article 13 in whichever place it requires.

 

The problem with that is it then shifts people onto other exemptions and like some have said, licences for this and for that, it gets messy.

[Security Alarm System That Doesn't Provide Full Coverage]

I also doubt they'll let you remove it.

 

Well, as seen as it [the physical system] was a gift free of charge to the tenant, she is free to remove it as it is her own property. If I am wrong about that s.1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act does not apply as the tenant has a lawful excuse to remove it and to replace it with her own system.

[Security Alarm System That Doesn't Provide Full Coverage]

It looks like a telecare social alarm unit for the elderly with a security add on. At a guess i'd say its funded by the council or grant money from somewhere and ticks a box as far as social work responsibilities go for sheltered or amenity housing.

Since you are not paying why are you getting your knickers in a twist over it? if you require better get your hand in your pocket.

 

No that is true, but as the same goes - just because you go to a charity does not mean you should receive a lesser service. Both the paid and the non paid service take up a duty of care, and the standard is the same whether it is paid for

or unpaid.

 

But, yes, in the short run, I think i'l have it removed and replace it with a paid one.

[Is It Illegal To Have Microphone On Camera/cctv Kit]

I think you will find there are outstanding changes as of December last year.

ICO have updated there website to reflect these changes.

 

If you have any links to these changes I would be greatful, I have checked what sources I have and I cannot find anything which changes s.36 DPA.

[Is It Illegal To Have Microphone On Camera/cctv Kit]

I looked into the harassment side of cctv use some time ago and the thought was that a fixed camera cannot be counted as an harassment issue, it would have to be a person using a camera in a harassing way to be a criminal act.

 

Hi luggsey, because that would be a criminal matter it doesn't really matter whether it is a fixed camera, a PTZ or a  camcorder (although it must be possible for the device to actually do what the complainant is allegeding it is doing etc) all that matters for that is the physical and mental element to the crime - i.e. has or is the alleged carrying out a course of conduct (the physical element)  (2 or more occasions) which he knows or should know is likely to cause harassment. Obviously in what constitutes harassment the court has leeway to look at all of the circumstances of the case.

 

There are too many scenarios to list but for example, a good starting point for any harassment allegation is a warning letter. I suppose that is why police sometimes send a warning letter to people first before they take any action, that

way, even though the alleged offender has only committed an act once - he cannot then claim that he did not know that was he was doing was harassing someone because he had received communication telling him that it has caused

harassment to someone - if he then does it again (a second time) he might be nicked.

 

Obviously what constitutes harassment is a big open area. The camera in itself is not offensive.

[Is It Illegal To Have Microphone On Camera/cctv Kit]

That is not how the ICO interpret it, since the exemption changes last year.

 

Section 36 has been in force in it's current form since March 2000, there are no changes to that exemption. Maybe the ICO are keen to clamp down on those that are not domestic users but are not properly registered I can't comment on that. Of course the ICO are also free to publish guidance and policy documents but obviously whilst they may be useful, you will see that most of them will say that they are not an authoritative statement of the law i.e. they have no legal force.

as ive said before cctv was used in all ways to intimidate and view back and front gardens. also audio on the master bedroom one. Got no where must of been cos it was an odd number house

 

haha, yes, I've heard that one on the news - I for one hope that story was not true or that police force need a good kicking...

[Security Alarm System That Doesn't Provide Full Coverage]

Hi foalks thanks for getting back. Its a 'digiworxs' alarm

 

http://www.securecomlimited.co.uk/?page_id=366

[Security Alarm System That Doesn't Provide Full Coverage]

Thanks norman. They have replied that because of costs they can't fit another PIR. They have also said another PIR could not be added to the system, which to me seems strange - can some of these wireless systems only accept

2 PIR's added?

[Is It Illegal To Have Microphone On Camera/cctv Kit]

Any time public space is included, even if it is a small overlap i.e pavement in front of garden, the domestic total exemption no longer applies.

 

I am sorry but that is an incorrect interpretation of the legislation. The Section 36 DPA exemption relates to the purpose of the data processing NOT the geographical area, where you film is wholly irrelevant. Otherwise, it would capture people that film in 'any time public space'  on mobile phones etc, but it does not.

 

You can film any location you like so long as the purpose is for domestic purposes. The only exception to that is court premises where it is illegal to film inside the building or some other protected land where the secretary of state has made an order - such places like Military establishments or MOD property, but there would have to be secondary legislation in the form of an order to cover that.

 

I am not sure when you talk about public space if you are referring to training or policy relating to SIA public space surveillance, if it is that you are referring to; then that does not apply to domestic people, only to data controllers who

provide public space cctv.

[Is It Illegal To Have Microphone On Camera/cctv Kit]

No Charlie you are right, that is not an invasion of privacy because of the deemed acceptance of those entering the gig and the fact that it may also be a public place 'on payment or otherwise'. So there would be no reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to visual images. There is also an exemption from the DPA for journalistic purposes. However, the security guards that utilise cameras or any CCTV installed for the purposes of security at the gig will be covered by the DPA. if you are dancing away near the stage and you are captured by a security camera, you are quite within your rights to make a s.7 request for a copy of that image - however, if you are captured by a punter who is dancing next to you, he won't be covered so you can't ask him for a copy of your image. (Unless he is an undercover police officer) lol.

 

Jamie, it does not matter if you are filming public spaces so long as you fall within the domestic exemption - which is that you are filming for domestic purposes. Another way to look at it would be if you was to take your camera down from the wall of your house and or take your own personal camcorder out and film that very same public place which captures some of the public going about their business - you are still exempt if the reason for doing it is for domestic purposes.

 

If for example, whilst you are standing there as a personal domestic person with your own camcorder, Mr Blogs stands next to you doing the same thing filming the same public space but he is doing a traffic survey or (insert reason) as an employee or agent for the highways agency (insert company or organisation etc) he will be covered by the DPA because he does not film for domestic purposes, he is filming for some official purpose in an official capacity. If he then says stuff this I've had enough now I've got all of my official video, pulls out his own camera phone and says "I like it here I want to take some images for my own personal recollection as I love the views" he can then legally film the area for his own personal use.  So on any occasion you need to look at the status of the users (the data controller) and the purpose of use.

 

There could be a situation where for example there is a conflict. A good example could be Mr nosey neighbour has been using his own personal CCTV on his house for many years. One year he decides to set up a community home watch scheme and invites his neighbourhood to set up a video link system between his own CCTV and multiple neighbours CCTV so that they can all link in together and monitor around the neighbourhood real-time whenever they spotted

someone who they deem acting suspiciously. Whilst such a system may be for the purpose of prevention and detection of crime, because of the extent of the system and even though it is controlled by multiple domestic users, the fact that others can link live into other people's systems might deem it to be an organisation (even voluntary) where they are covered by the DPA. The same can be said of any shopwatch scheme that uses radio communications to speak with each other only if that system records what is being said and captures personal information such as the name of any alleged offenders or other personal information - potentially any recording which then captures personal information could be

disclosable. I suspect that most of those radio communications systems don't record what is being said through a repeater etc so it would not be covered by the DPA.

[Security Alarm System That Doesn't Provide Full Coverage]

Hi all thanks for your replies, greatly appreciated. I've asked them for a decision on whether they will supply and fit another PIR or provide a price for an extra PIR that she can pay to have fitted and paired up with the alarm control unit. I will also get the manufacturer details so I can order one if they cannot do it.

 

It's free to the tenant but I believe the housing provider has paid the alarm company direct for the alarm to be supplied and fitted and monitored. If I had of known it was a basic system without covering the back I would have said something from the start and offered to pay something on top when the engineer was fitting it. It turned out that the paperwork was only given to the tenant when the system had actually been fitted on the day. The tenant is obviously thankful for it being free of charge (which includes the monitoring) and we appreciate it eliminates some risk,  but we had assumed it would cover the front and the back.

 

I agree, there is nothing much to steal in the bathroom - apart from a boiler and other usual bathroom equipment, it was mainly the loft that she is worried about incase she was to store anything up their.

 

Nothing is paid for it through the rent - or at least - they have said it was totally free of charge to the tenant and she hasn't agreed any service charge at all.

[Is It Illegal To Have Microphone On Camera/cctv Kit]

It will very soon, although have admitted enforcement will be few and far between at this stage.

 

Not sure where you got that from, if you have any info I would be grateful.  I have checked section 36 of the DPA and it is still current and in force. I cannot find any tabled amendments or any Bills before parliament and the latest case law

also supports the continuation of s.36 which says:-

 

'Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual's personal, family or household affairs (including recreational purposes) are exempt from the data protection principles and the provisions of Parts II and III'

 

I am not sure if you have confused the statement you posted above - which maintains that     '....if you cannot rely on the domestic purposes exemption...' - so the ICO does not have jurisdiction if a person asserts that he is processing

personal data for domestic purposes. Those purposes have to be construed widely so that if a person chooses to record the grounds of his property and by so doing he captures others then the prime purpose will still be for domestic

purposes. The ICO would have to be careful because if a person is using CCTV for domestic purposes any enforcement notice would be void because the principles do not apply to a domestic person. Similarly because the principles do not apply to a domestic person there is no powers to inspect and any warrant (presumably a circuit judge knows the law) if issued (which it probably would not be), would also be void. The worst case scenario is you would then have the ICO committing trespass and or criminal damage - which is the same actions taken against the police when it turns out they have a void warrant.

 

So in short, the ICO has no power to do anything about a domestic person. The powers they do have cover organisations, businesses, companies or other bodies which fall outside of domestic purposes.

[Is It Illegal To Have Microphone On Camera/cctv Kit]

Also Data protection may be relevant even on a dwelling /non commercial system if viewing areas outside of the land title

 

Land title has nothing to do with it - it is the status and purpose of the user(s) which is relevant .

[Security Alarm System That Doesn't Provide Full Coverage]

. I will ask them how much to supply and fit an additional sensor

[Is It Illegal To Have Microphone On Camera/cctv Kit]

_{The short answer is no -you can legally record voice and video / images.}

_.

_{The Data Protection Act does not apply to an individual person acting in an individual private capacity. You can legally record CCTV and Audio on your own property which covers your own property. The ICO has no jurisdiction to investigate a private person acting in a private capacity.}

 

_HOWEVER;-

 

_{There are a number of criminal and civil matters to consider so that you do not fall foul of the law:-}

 

 

_{The Courts have the power and the jurisdiction under three strands - these are the common law principles of misuse of private information / Private nuisance and the right to privacy enshrined in domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998. The court as a public body has a duty to ensure that an individuals privacy rights are being maintained}

_{or are complied with or restored. Therefor, if you was to record images or audio in a way which the court would deem a disproportionate interference with the private and family life of another person it may issue an injunction. If the High Court issues such an inunction and that is breached that could lead to contempt proceedings and ultimately}

_{committal to prison. So you must generally make sure that what you are filming is either on your own property or directed towards your own property or covers a public place where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. A good example is setting a camera position to a neighbours front windows which can see through the windows therefore intruding into their private and family life - that would be something which would justify an injunction against someone to stop them from filming in such a manner.}

 

_{You have also to think about the Protection from Harassment Act where it could be deemed harassment to carry out a course of conduct (2 or more occasions) where a reasonable person with the same information would deem it to be harassment. The courts are likely to deem repeated filming into other peoples property}

_{which captures private or intimate moments as falling within the definition, for example, filming into someone's house. The defence for that is that anything filmed was for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime.}

[Security Alarm System That Doesn't Provide Full Coverage]

Hi all

 

Just a few questions if any engineer can help out with an opinion and whether my lay thoughts are justified.

 

Free security alarm with 24 hour monitoring giving full peace of mind.

 

A security alarm system paid for by a housing company on behalf of an end user (the tenant) - so essentially free of charge to the tenant (but probably with 3rd party contract rights for the tenant - but that's another matter) is allegedly fully 'fitted'. The property is a bungalow type with two main entrances the front door and the backdoor.  The property has 1x lounge/living room, 1x bedroom, 1 x kitchen and 1x bathroom. As of August 2014 there were 1 report of a burglary in the area where an intruder forced the way into a neighbouring property and made off with property. This property and similar neighbouring properties are designed for over 60's and house mainly elderly / disabled tenants.

 

The alarm is wireless (make and model unknown) where I presume that the equipment all links together through paring (like you would with a wireless router) and then the alarm system has a communication

device with a sim card fitted which is then monitored when activated by a monitoring facility 24 hours a day and incase of trigger a key holder or security response attends the property.

 

The alarm components consist of the following:-

 

1x Magnet door sensor fitted onto the main front door which leads into the living room / lounge - the door opens - it makes a buzzing noise - it knows when the other magnetic sensor moved away (I presume);

1x  wireless PIR sensor which is fitted in the living room / lounge covering the whole area;

1x PIR sensor in the kitchen covering the whole area of the kitchen.

 

BLANK SPACE

 

No PIR sensor or magnetic sensors at all covering the back door (also a main entrance point), the middle hallway space (if you want to call it that) which then leads into the bathroom (which also has no sensors at all) which then, from the bathroom floor leads right into the attic which obviously covers the whole of the house.

 

To test this, I set the system, waited sufficient time for it to activate properly and walked around to the back of the property. Opened the back door with the key, walked into the bathroom and up into the attic

without any detection whatsoever. Climbed out of the attic, walked to the front of the property and into the living room where only then it activated.

 

So essentially a full alarm system which doesn't cover a main access point, the bathroom or the attic.

 

I contacted the company who said an engineer would call out. Engineer calls out (who has no responsibility for doing anything allegedly) and states that "why would you need anything on the back door and why would anyone want to get into the attic" - the reply was because a) the back door is a main entrance b) the attic was intended for holding goods because there is no other storage space in the property and or

3) because potentially - someone hiding in the attic with ulterior motives could quite easily break in through the back, wait in the attic for a tenant to disarm an alarm though the front and then commit a further crime all without being detected. The engineer then says "if we give you one [an extra PIR / Sensor] we will then have the others asking for one" !!!

 

 

 

Doesn't this make the whole alarm system for peace of mind with 24 hour monitoring (free of charge) a fiasco i.e. defective? is it right to be alarmed that a number of tenants

supposedly protected are not sufficiently protected?.

 

I have suggested that I make a complaint in writing for the tenant and then if no joy ask them to remove the alarm system and have an ADT or similar one fitted for a paid for service - would you do the same?

 

 

 

 

Kind Regards