How do I stand regarding this

realspeed

realspeed

Suspended / Banned
Messages
8,827
Name
Bazza
Edit My Images
No
I have security cameras around my home and business with activate on movement and digitally record to disc. One of the cameras shows the approach to my place down a public footpath which passes my home. Obviously children do cycle/walk this footpath and get recorded which can't be prevented,as well as grownups, horse riders and vehicles in connection with my business.
The other cameras are showing different parts of my premises as well which also show up the same.

These cameras are necessary for insurance purposes and for protection in my clients interests

So many houses and companies now have their own security cameras for the reasons I have given.

Out of interest I was wondering about members thoughts about this? does this have any reflection on photographing children?

Realspeed
 
I think as it's classed as a 'passive' recording device - i.e. it records everything, that it'll be exempt from any legislation regarding photographing minors...
 
Thank you both for your quick replies

Realspeed
 
Do you have a notice up stating that you are using surveilance equipment? I'm pretty sure you need a sign to keep you within the law. The wording requires you need a contact name/number for any queries.

Otherwise if you are covered that way, there isn't a problem. I know the old man has external cameras covering streets outside his premises without problems as there is the obvious legislation there which he is within.
 
the council (Leeds) in my case noticed my cctv pointed out into the street and my neighbours garden (neighbour is happy as it covers his access as well) and told me to put signs up that contained a contact number etc
what he said also was if it pointed at neighbours windows especially bedroom that there is a piece of software that blocks them out and that has to be used but as mine is pointed at the road i didnt need that.
 
Yes I have warning signs up like smile you are now on camera. As for tele numbers mine is the only property in the area so they is no doubt which property it refers to and we are here 24/7. so it only requires a ring on the door bell at the gate.

The link by MJ says

The use of cameras for limited household purposes is exempt from the DPA. This would
apply where an individual uses CCTV to protect their property from burglary,


So I believe I am within the law


again thanks you for your help and advice

Realspeed
 
The law is a lot clearer now than when I first put up camera covering our garages and the space in front. I had to make sure that the cameras only covered the private property and no shared access ways. There was some doubt as to whether a sign was necessary but I put up a large yellow sign as I wanted people to be aware that the area was under surveillance.
 
Mike Jackson said:
The law is a lot clearer now than when I first put up camera covering our garages and the space in front. I had to make sure that the cameras only covered the private property and no shared access ways. There was some doubt as to whether a sign was necessary but I put up a large yellow sign as I wanted people to be aware that the area was under surveillance.
Click to expand...
Can you tell us what legislation that is?
 
Yeah I was under the impression you could only record your own property and not the public areas? It's been a year since I looked in to it though!
 
There was a lot of confusion over the DPA at the time when I first put cameras up and the only guidance available made no reference to different requirements for domestic properties. The new guidance I've linked to now makes specific reference to limited household properties.
 
Voyager said:
You linked to a draft consultation paper from 2007(?)

You stated that -

Is that consultation now 'law'?

What law is it?
Click to expand...


Okay Mr Pedantic I should have said the guidance is much clearer now. When I first put up cameras there was no guidance available for home owners wishing to use CCTV. All the guidance was aimed at commercial use of CCTV.
 
From your post it appears 9to me anyway) that you might work from home. What you have mentioned in your further posts all meet the requirements for a commercial premises and you might also have to register your business with the ICO.

Now, if I have completely the wrong end of the stick I will divide my views into two:

For a private dwelling - no signs needed, no need to adhere to DPA and in fact no authority can request/force you to move your camera..within reason (i.e. not l0oking into neighbours bedroom, camera not on pole needing planning permission)

For business - need signange, have to abide by DPA (which includes correct storage and integrity of images), registrering with ICO. Can extend coverage outside business area as long as its relevant (ie like you are with covering people coming up to your entrance)..just think of corner shops/pubs who cover public area out front of their entrances.
 
^^^ In respect of the OP, that is, to my understanding, entirely correct.

Data Protection Act 1998, Part IV Exemptions, Section 36

Data Protection Act 1998 said:
36 Domestic purposes

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.
Click to expand...

Emphasis added. Since your recordings are not solely for domestic purposes, they are not exempt from the DPA.
 
Just for interest , here in NZ which has similar statutes to UK, I installed 4 cameras to deter a wandering nieghbour. A complaint was made to the police by a distant one re loss of privacy etc. I wrote to the privacy commissioner and the police advising them of my situation and invited the police to come and view the monitor as to the actual image area. The police did come and were ok with it The commissioner wrote back saying that if the camera picked up any inadvertant nieghbour activity, provided it was all in the pursute of my objectives to protect my dwelling , then so be it, as it is simply a by product of security. Just make sure that the camera isnt looking directly into a bathroom or bedroom. and write to the authorities just an advise of what your intentions are. Cameras are a very effective preventative tool.
 
Grayman
you are correct by business is on my own private land, however the cameras are there to see/ spot anyone comming onto my property unlawfully. I have 2 entrances, one of which, whilst sitting in my office in my home, is totally obscured from view so the need for a camera. We often get vehicles late at night also driving past, even though its a public footpath,sometimes even at 2am and then get stuck in the mud further along. There is nothing worse than having an unknown person leaning over a boundry wall at that time of night yelling for us to call out a tow truck or 4x4. hence another reason for stratigically placed cameras. On occassions the police have turned up and been notified that these incidents are recorded, and I been told they wished more people had security cameras to make their life easier .

Bear in mind I am in an isolated area with the nearest neighbour, bar two, are at least over a mile and a half away.

Thanks yet again for all your help and advice

Realspeed
 
It is illegal to point a video camera at a public place without authorisation and a sign that says that you are taking video.
 
If it is for a businesses it is not necessarily illegal. As long as you subscribe to DPA and ICO and have good reason to cover public areas then you have nothing to fear. If the signage is up (as it is in your post) then there are no problems. If you are confident that you can explain the reasons why you cover public space (and it seems you have good reasons) I would put this issue to rest.

For private dwellings you don't need to any signage and, like above, if you can argue that you have a good reason for public coverage (i.e. car parked on street etc) no-one can say anything. Not the police nor the council can ask a private resident to take their system down (except if obviously used for a crime..ie harassment etc) or contravening planning permission.
 
As I said in my previous post..'if you can argue that you have a good reason for public coverage', then you won't have anything to fear. Having read the link in the above post, it, like everything, is one person's perspective. I have previously consulted a police force solicitor on a similar issue, and his response was pretty much as my post. Yes, it is his (and the respective force's perspective) and ultimately it will be a civil court that would decide..per individual case, if it ever went that far. As for the OP..if I was in your shoes I would be satisfied with your current situation.
 
Arkady said:
I think as it's classed as a 'passive' recording device - i.e. it records everything, that it'll be exempt from any legislation regarding photographing minors...
Click to expand...

agreed and the photography isnt subjective in it execution...random and inert in intent
sort of non covert
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top