Audio Over Lan

[Paulusuk]

Data protection Act 1998

" It is not permitted to make audio recordings of the public"

Do not comprimise your clients security by making their cctv evidence inadmissiable in a court of law.

"Does the boss really wanna know what the staff think of em...."

Regards

[ilkie]

Data protection Act 1998

" It is not permitted to make audio recordings of the public"

Do not comprimise your clients security by making their cctv evidence inadmissiable in a court of law.

"Does the boss really wanna know what the staff think of em...."

Regards

"Ilkie - can you listen but NOT record ?"

I was thinking about this myself. I would suppose that listening live in real time would be OK. I suggest that as no information is recorded the DPA does not apply, but I am open to arguments on this point.

"Do not comprimise your clients security by making their cctv evidence inadmissiable in a court of law."

Sorry Paul, although I agree with your sentiments 100%, you are incorrect here.

In the UK all evidence, however gathered is admissible in court, all is subject to the Court's direction on each matter.

So although if recorded in contravention of the DPA (or Human Rights Act or RIPA) it can be used.

This does not mean that the owner of the system would not thereafter be prosecuted for breaking the law.

Ilkie

[Doktor Jon]

"Ilkie - can you listen but NOT record ?"

I was thinking about this myself. I would suppose that listening live in real time would be OK. I suggest that as no information is recorded the DPA does not apply, but I am open to arguments on this point.

"Do not comprimise your clients security by making their cctv evidence inadmissiable in a court of law."

Sorry Paul, although I agree with your sentiments 100%, you are incorrect here.

In the UK all evidence, however gathered is admissible in court, all is subject to the Court's direction on each matter.

So although if recorded in contravention of the DPA (or Human Rights Act or RIPA) it can be used.

This does not mean that the owner of the system would not thereafter be prosecuted for breaking the law.

Ilkie

It's interesting that the more the ICO try and make sense of the DPA in relation to CCTV, the more they seem to inadvertently muddy the waters.

When I last carried out a written interview with a senior 'spokesperson' in the Commissioners Office, I was told that in relation to recent (at that time) court proceedings, CCTV was covered by the DPA "... when privacy is affected and this is when a particular person is the focus of attention and when you want to learn something significant about them." and also in relation to retail use ... "If the CCTV is used in a more proactive way by devoting resources to studying monitors in real time and intervening with individuals then this wouldn't fall outside the DPA.".

The implication being that simply studying a subject on a monitor and in so doing, learning something about them, would require compliance with the Act irrespective of whether or not anything is actually being recorded.

As Ilkie has correctly suggested, any material can be considered for submission as evidence, albeit that the defence may ar gue against its acceptance if it has been obtained unlawfully; ultimately it would be up to the judge on the day to decide whether individual recordings can be accepted into the courts proceedings.

The latest directive on the use of audio does throw up an interesting point for consideration (it's perhaps unfortunate that the ICO didn't see fit to consider this in a bit more detail before publication ).

If staff working in an office decide to stand by the front entrance door whilst having a quick cigarette, if the boss is able to watch and listen to them using the buildings audio/video door entry system, is this now considered unacceptable? after all, it is by technical definition a 'closed circuit TV' system, and it does allow someone to learn something about the subjects being viewed and listened to .... ?

If it's no longer acceptable (and subject to a legal test), then most commercial door entry systems would be unusable; and if it was considered acceptable, then it totally negates any suggestion of outlawing the routine use of audio monitoring

Who ever said life was meant to be easy

[sjonley]

Sounds like a software issue with the remote viewing software. Get the manufacturers to do a test to your unit. Please read the rules with regard to business advertising.

[barooga]

Sounds like a software issue with the remote viewing software. Get the manufacturers to do a test to your unit. If they cant, email me: stuart@securitydynamics.co.uk and i'll sell you a dvr that is "fit for purpose" at a competitive price.

Oh dear, the insinuation being??

And i take it you haven't read rule 5.

[Guest anguscanplay]

Sounds like a software issue with the remote viewing software. Get the manufacturers to do a test to your unit. If they cant, email me: stuart@securitydynamics.co.uk and i'll sell you a dvr that is "fit for purpose" at a competitive price.

send me one whilst your at it (one assumes its free then)

[sjonley]

Oh dear, the insinuation being??

And i take it you haven't read rule 5.

I'm not insinuating anything just saying that from a technical standpoint if audio to site does not work from one location, try another. Most installers do not have the facility to do multiple fault finding tests over a network but the manufacturer should have.

With regard to having audio over a lan or wan, I have no gripes about do a test to anyones site if the equipment i supplied does not meet the required specification. If you need clarification of one of my dvr's sending audio from a pc to a site dvr connected to a pa system I can provide that but not on a public forum. I would do it on a one to one basis.