CCTV

[Scrit]

Given that we are allegedly the most "watched" nation in the world (which is either sick, sad or possibly shows something definitely distasteful in the national psyche - maybe all three) does anyone know if it is a legal requirement for those who insist on having such devices on their houses to put up a sign stating something like "CCTV surveillance"?

Scrit

 

[Sailor]

I Hope not!

I have three cameras with movement sensors on the house/workshop/garage and don't have any signs.
It's private property, maybe on public property it's required, but saying that, I've never noticed any on the local council cameras.
However, I did see at Tesco's garage while spending the re-mortgage on petrol, a sign saying that all vehicles will be recorded.

Colin

 

[RogerS]

No..only required in a public place or workplace. See here!

 

[orangetlh]

Our neighbour has a few of these and i have to say i really dont like the idea of being filmed going about our daily business in our own home. The camera he has at the front of his house points directly into our garden and driveway as its in line with his front door. He had no signs and we didnt even know about it untill he produced a photo of another neighbour looking into his garden from the road, joking that he had been 'caught'. The other camera points straight out onto public land around the back of our house that looks at everyone going about there business walking up the lane. I have spoken to him but he just says that he is protecting his property, so what can i do?

 

[RogerS]

I think he is in breach of the data protection act as his camera is viewing public land. Maybe contact the information Commissioners dept?

 

[Scrit]

Our neighbour has a few of these and I have to say I really dont like the idea of being filmed going about our daily business in our own home.......

....I have spoken to him but he just says that he is protecting his property, so what can I do?

That's the sort of situation I'm concerned about. Whilst I have no beef with anyone protection their own property with cameras it's when they start to look into other peoples' property and into public areas that I am concerned. I feel that some of these private cameras can be a gross invasion of privacy and this matter certainly raises the issue of civil liberties.

Roger, that's an interesting observation and may be worth following up. Since I started looking into this I appear to have discovered a sizeable hole in the law whereby an individual's rights to privacy in their own home is not protected against the prying of other individuals whereas publicly- and commercially-operated CCTV schemes have some legislative controls being applied.

Scrit

 

[Mike B]

No..only required in a public place or workplace.

hmm, interesting. My old company in the UK had installed cameras everywhere when they built a new building and there were no signs evident (non that I can recall anyway). Quite scary now I think about it as I later met one of the guys who managed the system and discovered that the cameras even had the ability to zoom in and read what was on anyones computer screen...

Mike

 

[Pecker]

It's a bit of a grey area. When I worked at the hospital and school, we installed CCTV, but when it then spun round onto other peoples propetry it had to be screened. There are certainly instances where sins need to be displayed.

Interestingly, the police forbid me to film the idiot over the road who we all knew was damaging cars saying it was an infrigment...

one rule for one...

mark

 

[Scrit]

Mark, did they quote a law or was it just BS?

Scrit

 

[RogerS]

Since I started looking into this I appear to have discovered a sizeable hole in the law whereby an individual's rights to privacy in their own home is not protected against the prying of other individuals wheras publicly- and commercially-operated CCTV schemes have some legislative controls being applied.

Scrit

I think you'll find that this could be covered under the sexual offences bill..voyeurism bit.

 

[George_N]

At a recent meeting about setting up a neighbourhood watch in our area someone asked the police representative if they could set up a cctv camera to try and catch local school kids who had been throwing eggs or something at her windows. She was told in no uncertain terms that the police would take a dim view of attemprs to covertly film school children and that any camera that filmed a public area (the pavement in front of her house) would also require a prominent sign to say that a cctv camera was in operation. This is in Scotland and the law may differ from that in England. Also, the police aren't always the best people to ask about points of law, some are pretty ignorant of the laws they are paid to uphold.

 

[NickWelford]

As I understand it, it is not illegal to take pictures of a member of the public in a public place. Nor do you require their permission.

 

[Mcluma]

I have CCTV at my home, which is wireless, and hooked up to my pc, and can acccess via my mobile phone or internet when there is an alarm.



Works fine even in the dark!!!!

Needed it after some uninvited guests took my Dewalt SCMS with them and used my wheelbarrow to transport it :evil:

 

[Sailor]

Hi,
Funny how you come across things!

Was reading a pro photo site when this question of 'rights' came up. One pro photographer here in the UK posted the following

UK law is quiet clear, if you're in a public place, you have no rights to prevent your picture being taken.

In fact unless you can prove that there is some motive to discredit or profit from you by taking photos and or other illegal activity taking place in getting them you cannot prevent someone taking photos.

However image rights are another thing. In the UK you may not profit from using someones image, as strangely enough the subject has rights on their image from the commercial standpoint!

HTH,

Colin

(Edit)
Forgot to add:
A site I downloaded and printed a PDF from, which I carry in my bag.
It really applies to photography, but gives the principles.
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf

C.

 

[Paul Chapman]

Was reading a pro photo site when this question of 'rights' came up. One pro photographer here in the UK posted the following

UK law is quiet clear, if you're in a public place, you have no rights to prevent your picture being taken.

If I remember correctly, didn't Ken Livingstone try to make it an offence to take photographs in public places, such as parks, when everyone was getting paranoid about paedophiles and every bloke on his own with a camera was viewed as a potential paedophile. I remember there was quite a debate about this in Amateur Photographer magazine, but as I hardly ever buy it these days, I'm not sure how the debate ended (if it ever did) or if the law did actually change :? :wink:

Paul

 

[Pecker]

Scrit, I'm really not sure. Judging by their whole attitude BS.

There are some very grey areas as has already been pointed out. As somone said (Sailor I think) on photo forums there has been quite a lot about public photography/pictures over the past year or so.

However under data protection (yes!) as I said there are instances where you MUST doisplay signage which by the way, MUST have a contact number/address on it - even though this law is flouted by one and all. My school very nearly got hammerred over that.

mark

 

[RogerS]

This link to the Information Commissioner may not work but there is a document available on CCTV and the DPA. Just put CCTV into the search box. It's the second one down the Results list on my search.

 

[engineer one]

having come to this late, and read all the comments, i was under the
impression that if you had them on your property, they could only
shoot stuff on your property, unless you have the notices.

what is of more interest is this whole thing about nuisance, since to get
asbos, or nuisance orders you must document things how do the police
and local authority expect you to prove things without photos???????

regularly on tv cop programmes or rogue traders they show people
having film of their neighbours committing wrongful acts, and saying
it was used in court to prosecute someone.

interesting dichotomy ain't it????

paul :wink: