Warning Signs

[Cubit]

Driller,

For clarification. Can you confirm this is Domestic, your home??

[Doktor Jon]

... However you HAVE to fit them so the first is an added bonus

Just to very quickly clarify, you are only obliged to provide warning signage, if the CCTV installation requires compliance with the Data Protection Act.

If for various reasons it is exempt from compliance, then quite obviously there is no compulsion on fitting signs, although some may choose to do so anyway.

As for whether a warning sign will actually enhance the deterrent effect of a system, that may well have been the case to some limited degree perhaps ten years ago, but nowadays, in most situations I'd tend to think that notion is somewhat fanciful

[ian.cant]

Driller if your installing domestic cctv its not an issue, im sure i wouldnt put warning signs up on my house.

While im not disputing llkies adivce or suggesting it should be ignored, im wondering if anyone has ever been pulled or worse still fleeced for not comlying.

I mean just who polices this?

Who enforces this?

What are the penalties for not complying?

Have you ever heard of any action being taken, i know i havent!

[ilkie]

Driller if your installing domestic cctv its not an issue, im sure i wouldnt put warning signs up on my house.

While im not disputing llkies adivce or suggesting it should be ignored, im wondering if anyone has ever been pulled or worse still fleeced for not comlying.

I mean just who polices this?

Who enforces this?

What are the penalties for not complying?

Have you ever heard of any action being taken, i know i haven't!

Dear Ian,

Some answers...............

The way this is policed is the same a H & S issues.

An enforcement notice is issued and if this is ignored I believe a legal action is taken.

I mean just who polices this? The Information Commissioners Office

Who enforces this? The Information Commissioners Office and the DPP

What are the penalties for not complying? Scale 5 fine currently not exceeding

[DirectFS]

Dear Ian,

Some answers...............

The way this is policed is the same a H & S issues.

Yes, it is, but with some differences. The HSE has powers of desist and arrest. The ICO does not.

An enforcement notice is issued and if this is ignored I believe a legal action is taken.

Enforcement notices are issued, though seldom followed up, due to a number of reasons, including lack of resource, time, and funding.

I mean just who polices this? The Information Commissioners Office

Who enforces this? The Information Commissioners Office and the DPP

What are the penalties for not complying? Scale 5 fine currently not exceeding

[Driller]

Thanks for all the replies. I should have stated that this is for domestic use. So I won't put any signs up but will hope anyone trying to break in will not complain to the police that their human rights were being violated.

[Doktor Jon]

Nice if it works - unlikely to yield much beyond basic stats - the reply is likely to be along the lines of exempt as not in public interest - no irony, really, as they'd have to comply with the DPA first!!!

When I last conducted an interview with the ICO's office, they actually said that no legal action had at that time been forthcoming for any CCTV related 'breaches' of the DPA.

The legislation may be well intentioned, but it was never originally intended to cover the use of video surveillance, which I suppose is why amongst other things, there are a number of situations where the Act does not actually apply.

What I find interesting is that although the ICO will occasionally issue directives or interpretations on the legislation, for example regarding the use of microphones with cameras, or the recent argument over the obligation to fit CCTV in some pubs (this being a condition on their license application), the fact is that unless these directions are actually tested in a court of law, we're unlikely to find out whether (from a legal perspective) it is a reasonable and appropriate argument.

Given that these interpretations tend to be somewhat one sided, and rarely debated or discussed to any great extent, it does amuse / concern me that the role of the ICO could very well be extended to that of a far greater CCTV regulatory authority, even though they are not really equipped for that task.

Slightly off topic I know, but still something I thought worth mentioning ...