Is It Illegal To Have Microphone On Camera/cctv Kit

[duffbeer2015]

No Charlie you are right, that is not an invasion of privacy because of the deemed acceptance of those entering the gig and the fact that it may also be a public place 'on payment or otherwise'. So there would be no reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to visual images. There is also an exemption from the DPA for journalistic purposes. However, the security guards that utilise cameras or any CCTV installed for the purposes of security at the gig will be covered by the DPA. if you are dancing away near the stage and you are captured by a security camera, you are quite within your rights to make a s.7 request for a copy of that image - however, if you are captured by a punter who is dancing next to you, he won't be covered so you can't ask him for a copy of your image. (Unless he is an undercover police officer) lol.

 

Jamie, it does not matter if you are filming public spaces so long as you fall within the domestic exemption - which is that you are filming for domestic purposes. Another way to look at it would be if you was to take your camera down from the wall of your house and or take your own personal camcorder out and film that very same public place which captures some of the public going about their business - you are still exempt if the reason for doing it is for domestic purposes.

 

If for example, whilst you are standing there as a personal domestic person with your own camcorder, Mr Blogs stands next to you doing the same thing filming the same public space but he is doing a traffic survey or (insert reason) as an employee or agent for the highways agency (insert company or organisation etc) he will be covered by the DPA because he does not film for domestic purposes, he is filming for some official purpose in an official capacity. If he then says stuff this I've had enough now I've got all of my official video, pulls out his own camera phone and says "I like it here I want to take some images for my own personal recollection as I love the views" he can then legally film the area for his own personal use.  So on any occasion you need to look at the status of the users (the data controller) and the purpose of use.

 

There could be a situation where for example there is a conflict. A good example could be Mr nosey neighbour has been using his own personal CCTV on his house for many years. One year he decides to set up a community home watch scheme and invites his neighbourhood to set up a video link system between his own CCTV and multiple neighbours CCTV so that they can all link in together and monitor around the neighbourhood real-time whenever they spotted

someone who they deem acting suspiciously. Whilst such a system may be for the purpose of prevention and detection of crime, because of the extent of the system and even though it is controlled by multiple domestic users, the fact that others can link live into other people's systems might deem it to be an organisation (even voluntary) where they are covered by the DPA. The same can be said of any shopwatch scheme that uses radio communications to speak with each other only if that system records what is being said and captures personal information such as the name of any alleged offenders or other personal information - potentially any recording which then captures personal information could be

disclosable. I suspect that most of those radio communications systems don't record what is being said through a repeater etc so it would not be covered by the DPA.

[datadiffusion]

Any time public space is included, even if it is a small overlap i.e pavement in front of garden, the domestic total exemption no longer applies.

[duffbeer2015]

Any time public space is included, even if it is a small overlap i.e pavement in front of garden, the domestic total exemption no longer applies.

 

I am sorry but that is an incorrect interpretation of the legislation. The Section 36 DPA exemption relates to the purpose of the data processing NOT the geographical area, where you film is wholly irrelevant. Otherwise, it would capture people that film in 'any time public space'  on mobile phones etc, but it does not.

 

You can film any location you like so long as the purpose is for domestic purposes. The only exception to that is court premises where it is illegal to film inside the building or some other protected land where the secretary of state has made an order - such places like Military establishments or MOD property, but there would have to be secondary legislation in the form of an order to cover that.

 

I am not sure when you talk about public space if you are referring to training or policy relating to SIA public space surveillance, if it is that you are referring to; then that does not apply to domestic people, only to data controllers who

provide public space cctv.

[sixwheeledbeast]

I am sorry but that is an incorrect interpretation of the legislation. The Section 36 DPA exemption relates to the purpose of the data processing NOT the geographical area, where you film is wholly irrelevant. Otherwise, it would capture people that film in 'any time public space'  on mobile phones etc, but it does not.

 

 

That is not how the ICO interpret it, since the exemption changes last year.

[luggsey]

_{The short answer is no -you can legally record voice and video / images.}

_.

_{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.}

 

_HOWEVER;-

 

_{There are a number of criminal and civil matters to consider so that you do not fall foul of the law:-}

 

 

_{The Courts have the power and the jurisdiction under three strands - these are the common law principles of misuse of private information / Private nuisance and the right to privacy enshrined in domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998. The court as a public body has a duty to ensure that an individuals privacy rights are being maintained}

_{or are complied with or restored. Therefor, if you was to record images or audio in a way which the court would deem a disproportionate interference with the private and family life of another person it may issue an injunction. If the High Court issues such an inunction and that is breached that could lead to contempt proceedings and ultimately}

_{committal to prison. So you must generally make sure that what you are filming is either on your own property or directed towards your own property or covers a public place where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. A good example is setting a camera position to a neighbours front windows which can see through the windows therefore intruding into their private and family life - that would be something which would justify an injunction against someone to stop them from filming in such a manner.}

 

_{You have also to think about the Protection from Harassment Act where it could be deemed harassment to carry out a course of conduct (2 or more occasions) where a reasonable person with the same information would deem it to be harassment. The courts are likely to deem repeated filming into other peoples property}

_{which captures private or intimate moments as falling within the definition, for example, filming into someone's house. The defence for that is that anything filmed was for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime.}

I looked into the harassment side of cctv use some time ago and the thought was that a fixed camera cannot be counted as an harassment issue, it would have to be a person using a camera in a harassing way to be a criminal act.

[james.wilson]

as ive said before cctv was used in all ways to intimidate and view back and front gardens. also audio on the master bedroom one. Got no where must of been cos it was an odd number house

[duffbeer2015]

That is not how the ICO interpret it, since the exemption changes last year.

 

Section 36 has been in force in it's current form since March 2000, there are no changes to that exemption. Maybe the ICO are keen to clamp down on those that are not domestic users but are not properly registered I can't comment on that. Of course the ICO are also free to publish guidance and policy documents but obviously whilst they may be useful, you will see that most of them will say that they are not an authoritative statement of the law i.e. they have no legal force.

as ive said before cctv was used in all ways to intimidate and view back and front gardens. also audio on the master bedroom one. Got no where must of been cos it was an odd number house

 

haha, yes, I've heard that one on the news - I for one hope that story was not true or that police force need a good kicking...

[duffbeer2015]

I looked into the harassment side of cctv use some time ago and the thought was that a fixed camera cannot be counted as an harassment issue, it would have to be a person using a camera in a harassing way to be a criminal act.

 

Hi luggsey, because that would be a criminal matter it doesn't really matter whether it is a fixed camera, a PTZ or a  camcorder (although it must be possible for the device to actually do what the complainant is allegeding it is doing etc) all that matters for that is the physical and mental element to the crime - i.e. has or is the alleged carrying out a course of conduct (the physical element)  (2 or more occasions) which he knows or should know is likely to cause harassment. Obviously in what constitutes harassment the court has leeway to look at all of the circumstances of the case.

 

There are too many scenarios to list but for example, a good starting point for any harassment allegation is a warning letter. I suppose that is why police sometimes send a warning letter to people first before they take any action, that

way, even though the alleged offender has only committed an act once - he cannot then claim that he did not know that was he was doing was harassing someone because he had received communication telling him that it has caused

harassment to someone - if he then does it again (a second time) he might be nicked.

 

Obviously what constitutes harassment is a big open area. The camera in itself is not offensive.

[sixwheeledbeast]

I think you will find there are outstanding changes as of December last year.

ICO have updated there website to reflect these changes.

[duffbeer2015]

I think you will find there are outstanding changes as of December last year.

ICO have updated there website to reflect these changes.

 

If you have any links to these changes I would be greatful, I have checked what sources I have and I cannot find anything which changes s.36 DPA.