Is It Illegal To Have Microphone On Camera/cctv Kit

[datadiffusion]

The Data Protection Act does not apply to an individual person acting in an individual private capacity. You can legally record CCTV and Audio on your own property which covers your own property. The ICO has no jurisdiction to investigate a private person acting in a private capacity.

 

It will very soon, although have admitted enforcement will be few and far between at this stage.

[duffbeer2015]

Also Data protection may be relevant even on a dwelling /non commercial system if viewing areas outside of the land title

 

Land title has nothing to do with it - it is the status and purpose of the user(s) which is relevant .

[duffbeer2015]

It will very soon, although have admitted enforcement will be few and far between at this stage.

 

Not sure where you got that from, if you have any info I would be grateful.  I have checked section 36 of the DPA and it is still current and in force. I cannot find any tabled amendments or any Bills before parliament and the latest case law

also supports the continuation of s.36 which says:-

 

'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'

 

I am not sure if you have confused the statement you posted above - which maintains that     '....if you cannot rely on the domestic purposes exemption...' - so the ICO does not have jurisdiction if a person asserts that he is processing

personal data for domestic purposes. Those purposes have to be construed widely so that if a person chooses to record the grounds of his property and by so doing he captures others then the prime purpose will still be for domestic

purposes. The ICO would have to be careful because if a person is using CCTV for domestic purposes any enforcement notice would be void because the principles do not apply to a domestic person. Similarly because the principles do not apply to a domestic person there is no powers to inspect and any warrant (presumably a circuit judge knows the law) if issued (which it probably would not be), would also be void. The worst case scenario is you would then have the ICO committing trespass and or criminal damage - which is the same actions taken against the police when it turns out they have a void warrant.

 

So in short, the ICO has no power to do anything about a domestic person. The powers they do have cover organisations, businesses, companies or other bodies which fall outside of domestic purposes.

[james.wilson]

Land title has nothing to do with it - it is the status and purpose of the user(s) which is relevant .

Its not its coming if recording public spaces, by definition a public space roughly is a non gated environment, like the drink drive, posty, bin men rules etc

[charlie6]

I can look forward to purchasing my annual licence to use my video recording equipment then !! I'm not joking. So, I'm sitting watching the Isle of Wight(spelling ?) rock festival on television and the cameras pan to close ups of virtually hundreds present at that festival over the time period of the festival. Is this deemed invasion of privacy according to the various statutes...if not...why not ?

And how do you define "...the STATUS of the user.." ? landed gentry..MPs..and so on..please explain.

I hasten to add that I and virtually the entire population of that land can video freely in public in the USA. So yet another invisible tax is on the Horizon in this green and pleasant land of ours in the form of some sort of licence in order to use your few thousand quids worth of equipment..typical.

[james.wilson]

im not saying its right or wrong. Handheld isnt fitted to the wall though. Id does need some rules though but maybe this one isnt the right one.

But have you ever tried to stop nuisance views, ie audio next to a master bedroom and garden views of same neighbour?

[charlie6]

They (them that do govern) only need a chance and I'm paying an invisible tax, yet another one. Audio next to a Master Bedroom, views of the same neighbour, pointing a camera directly into a neighbours house are positively 'not on' and prison would be more appropriate than a fine for the offender..although he/she would then have three square meals a day, x box, television, sports hall, dental treatment, library, mobile phone (yep ! mobile phone although they shouldn't)...On second thoughts I would rather deal with the offender personally. 

[james.wilson]

ive had that exact happen, got know where with it

[secureiam]

interesting.

[charlie6]

"....ive had that exact happen, got know where with it..."  I know exactly what you mean, although there have been several times in the past when I almost succumbed to ' taking the law..' as it were.