Cctv Footage On Website

[james.wilson]

while i agree that putting kids on a website is a bad idea, lads c'mon

this paranio is a bit ott isnt it.

From how this started we are talking about putting video on a website, not creating a voyeur cctv system in a boarding school with free for all public access.

While i commend you for taking precautions, a lot of the issues that cctv captires are of minors ie 16 yr olds and younger damaging things, nicking things etc.

The dpa relates to storage of footage. Not the live view of it. AFAIK this would be an invasion of hum,an rights and naff all to do wit hthe dpa unless you were playing back digitally recording infomation.

If you control access to 'authorised' ie use a password and username to control access i cant see a mojor issue. ie im not talking kids im talking normal cctv

James

[arfur mo]

hi Colin,

i'm not that good using multi quote routines so done it this way, i think it pertenant as both private individuals and buisnesses to concider the angles.

what i am saying in a round about way is all people wether adults or children have a right to privacy. unless of course they are up t no good then it will deslt with by the police.. I also have a right to privacy and would not like my younger sister on anyone video unless they had asked me first.

regards

colin

i do fully support you views basic thrust, ideally i too do not want my family to be recorded out of hand, as it's an invasion of their privacy. so for the schools concert, lets concede that restriction is correct (if only to stop determined grandpaparatzzies fighting for the best vantage points).

but open spaces such as parks or playgrounds where we accept we will share space with strangers before entering, the line can not be so clearly drawn. our indevidual right to privacy has to be balanced with our rights to take photo's or video of our familly, freinds or a flowe bed. i personally think we unconciously accept this when we leave our front doors, as we do with people using loud radio's, mobiles or running through loud ringtones.

when i go to the gkids Sunday match, 5-a-side or karate, as long as whoever is with the camera is not intrusive or taking inapropriate pictures while they change for instance, that is where control should stop.

at the last 5-a-side competition they had a real professional comapany taking excellent shots of the kids in action, big van signs all over it, quality A4 digi pics produced within minutes. the crazy thing was they had 4 people walking around with clip boards all day, getting concent forms signed. and thats on top of those forms issued to the team managers to get signed by players perants. it must have been paperwork mahem and we had constant announcements over the tanoy's every 10 minutes advising anyone objecting to register there complaint.

i think about 4 people did so in the day, so it was their rights against several hundred others, its a vexed question, before long ken livingstone will design a tax on on it i bet.

James point -:

The dpa relates to storage of footage. Not the live view of it. AFAIK this would be an invasion of human rights and naff all to do with the dpa unless you were playing back digitally recording infomation.

being a 'devils advocate' perhaps placing live images on a web site also allowing viewers a possibility to record them, i wonder if the site operators or installer could be held to blame for such recordings, that would be a legal presedent to be set some where down the line, in the near future i expect.

interesting chat this one imo guys.

regs

alan

[james.wilson]

well then every single city webcam, birmingham bull ring etc, any site using say a wethercam is up fo shutdown.

placing live images allows them to be recorderd yes but you could record bluie peter if you really wanted. We need to get some sense here, im not saying we webcast the local orphanage but i think wide angle unidentifiable shots for gen observation is fine.

What i think is more interesting is 'should a monitor show to the public areas of coverage not seen from the viewers viewpoint' ie cornor shop cctv, off licence, most petrol stations. That is probably against the rules.

Also we must bear in mind the laws and regulations we are quoting are for cctv 'CLOSED circuit television'. Now with all this web casting, remote viewing without passwords, its no longer closed. Its now open circuit and as such i feel comes under completly different rules, and i must say i know naff all about em. Maybe one of you does?

[cutwitt]

well then every single city webcam, birmingham bull ring etc, any site using say a wethercam is up fo shutdown.

placing live images allows them to be recorderd yes but you could record bluie peter if you really wanted. We need to get some sense here, im not saying we webcast the local orphanage but i think wide angle unidentifiable shots for gen observation is fine.

What i think is more interesting is 'should a monitor show to the public areas of coverage not seen from the viewers viewpoint' ie cornor shop cctv, off licence, most petrol stations. That is probably against the rules.

Also we must bear in mind the laws and regulations we are quoting are for cctv 'CLOSED circuit television'. Now with all this web casting, remote viewing without passwords, its no longer closed. Its now open circuit and as such i feel comes under completly different rules, and i must say i know naff all about em. Maybe one of you does?

You are not alone - no one knows the rules. Until cases appear in court and decisions are made we have no case law to go on. Human Rights law is very much a general cover-all-angles-affair.

It would only take one person to complain about a public webcam and succeed in winning their case on Human Rights grounds and every public webcam capable of an identifiable shot of a member of the public would be unlawful.

Many years ago a women in Glasgow complained that putting Fluoride in the water supply infringed on her rights

[arfur mo]

Hi James,

i'm not being combative here in any way, i beleive as installers we need to be prepared for anything that might be thrown at us by the PC crowd, although we are not lawyers we are expected to be well grounded in legalities.

well then every single city webcam, birmingham bull ring etc, any site using say a wethercam is up fo shutdown.

placing live images allows them to be recorderd yes but you could record bluie peter if you really wanted. We need to get some sense here, im not saying we webcast the local orphanage but i think wide angle unidentifiable shots for gen observation is fine.

i actually wonder how Tv Progs get on legally, often you see an item on the news and they show schoolchildrens feet, out of focus views or muzed faces, so what about shows that have child perticipation, if it is so bad or PC incorrect to show childrens faces in general, how come it can be done in detailed close up?.

so it all depends how far these privacy laws actually get stretched or missused for the purposes of the mouthy luny politically correct, those with genuine concerns for privacy and what used to pass for commonsense..

.....................remote viewing without passwords, its no longer closed. Its now open circuit and as such i feel comes under completly different rules, and i must say i know naff all about em. Maybe one of you does?

your point on 'open circuit' CCTv is a very good one, so exsplore it further and make say the cameras at Regents Park into a web service, using your 'acid test' could it then allow theses operators to say "as they are 'open circuit' we are not covered by the DPA"?

given the advances in technology, especially to the home computer use, having wide angle views may not be protection enough, image correction/enhancing software as used in many home video suites allow images to be cleaned up easily.

while writting this a news item has just announced 8 coppers in London will be issued with head cam's in order to help combat anti social behaviour, hope the will wear those camera warning signs too like on the ones on the bus in the bus lanes.

i assume the camera's will record sound, mics can be used to pic up conversations from some distance, so it is likely you could say something under you breath like 'all traffic wardens are...' and be recorded. you won't have the chance to check yourself or to a defence of silence, as its already recorded - ASBO Street Cred her we come.

regs

alan

[james.wilson]

given the advances in technology, especially to the home computer use, having wide angle views may not be protection enough, image correction/enhancing software as used in many home video suites allow images to be cleaned up easily.

can you let me know this software as i would find it damned useful!

AFAIK enhancemants cnat do the tricks its believed to be caperble of, you just cant resolve much more detail from 280000 pixels, now while you can bicubic interpolate, it wont give the results you speak of, but i cant wait to try this software you speak off?

I odnt know about the open circuit laws and this maybe covered by dpa but i think open circuit streaming via password or not and cctv are 2 totaally different subjects. I cant get drawn into an argument or discussion over open circuits laws as siad before im not a broadcaster and i dont know them, or what they may be

[arfur mo]

can you let me know this software as i would find it damned useful!

AFAIK enhancemants cnat do the tricks its believed to be caperble of, you just cant resolve much more detail from 280000 pixels, now while you can bicubic interpolate, it wont give the results you speak of, but i cant wait to try this software you speak off?

I odnt know about the open circuit laws and this maybe covered by dpa but i think open circuit streaming via password or not and cctv are 2 totaally different subjects. I cant get drawn into an argument or discussion over open circuits laws as siad before im not a broadcaster and i dont know them, or what they may be

hi james,

i'm not saying software will turn an out of focus foggy image into one of a portrait quality, but given in our discussion we are using a section from a good clear image and enlarging it. this will cause pixalisation, software cane give good results in correcting this (i'm not claiming broadcast quality). tinkering with hue's and saturation, noise removal tools and the like can 'recover' many an image a long way, depends on the skill and the tools available to a point of the users acceptability.

i don't own a high level home video studio suit, but you must have seen the old 35mm films of wartime for instance, as used in documentry processed and cleaned up to an unbeleivable degree of clarity, even adding colour to a monochrome film, so yes it exists but would be obviously affected by target size.like you i'm no legal eagle, just wary of legislation that is such a blunt instrument.

the balance between indevidual privacy and the right to protect property imo might have been better served had we got an ombudsman type setup instead of legislation. intrusive camera's commercial or otherwise could be properly challenged. most reasonable people would alter a camera's view if a legitimate complaint was made, an ombudsman could act if it could not be resolved, imo that would be nearer to common sense and operating within a varied society.

regs

alan

[cutwitt]

can you let me know this software as i would find it damned useful!

AFAIK enhancemants cnat do the tricks its believed to be caperble of, you just cant resolve much more detail from 280000 pixels, now while you can bicubic interpolate, it wont give the results you speak of, but i cant wait to try this software you speak off?

I odnt know about the open circuit laws and this maybe covered by dpa but i think open circuit streaming via password or not and cctv are 2 totaally different subjects. I cant get drawn into an argument or discussion over open circuits laws as siad before im not a broadcaster and i dont know them, or what they may be

James,

Fully functional demo here

[arfur mo]

James,

Fully functional demo here

nice one cutwitt,

could be brilliant for the shaking hands camera holding person, i bet costs a few bob though. will it make my wife look beautiful again? will it put the heads back on those photo's of my mother-in-law, mind you a couple od whiskeys doe's that

regs

alan

[cutwitt]

nice one cutwitt,

could be brilliant for the shaking hands camera holding person, i bet costs a few bob though. will it make my wife look beautiful again? will it put the heads back on those photo's of my mother-in-law, mind you a couple od whiskeys doe's that

regs

alan

Why on earth would you want to put the mother-in-laws head back on!!

The Topaz Moments is not expensive and does a reasonable job but as James suggests there are limits to what it can do. Best results I have had are with high frame rate video - if you get a fairly still head shot you can integrate over several frames and improve the image. I guess this is why forensic chaps like high frame rate video.