Is It Illegal To Have Microphone On Camera/cctv Kit

[charlie6]

I should imagine the changes would be on their website duffbeer. I'm still saving my sheckels for the 'licence to view' though. No smoke without fire as they say, so for my own part I believe there is a lot in what the site experts say or suggest..can't afford to be without my camcorder.

[sixwheeledbeast]

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.

 

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=160561&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first∂=1&cid=17282

[duffbeer2015]

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=160561&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first∂=1&cid=17282

 

Thanks for that sixwheeledbeast that is greatfully appreciated. I have no idea and I am quite shocked why one of the main sources had not correlated that case with s.36, in fact it is only found as an independent case searching EU law.

 

The problem with that is that whilst the preliminary ruling has a legal effect, it does not change the position in how the UK has already transposed the 1995 directive into a domestic Act. Exemptions under Article 13 of the Directive, for example, are not specifically categorised the same in the Act, the Directive simply gives the legislator the leeway to implement exemptions according to the wording of Article 13 in whichever place it requires.

 

The problem with that is it then shifts people onto other exemptions and like some have said, licences for this and for that, it gets messy.

[sixwheeledbeast]

 it gets messy.

 

I agree, this is a case that the ICO have been watching closely.

They are currently working with the MoJ on how this is to effect UK law, but no update has been given AFAIK.

[charlie6]

EU law overrides UK law (what's left of it}.

[datadiffusion]

I am sorry but that is an incorrect interpretation of the legislation. 

 

Better take it up with the ICO then - it's very clearly laid out on the 'domestic CCTV' section of their website.

[duffbeer2015]

Better take it up with the ICO then - it's very clearly laid out on the 'domestic CCTV' section of their website.

 

I'm not taking it up with them unless they decide to intrude on my own business. 

[duffbeer2015]

EU law overrides UK law (what's left of it}.

 

To be more precise, the court ruling has direct effect through the European Communities Act. Having said that, the ratio of the case deriving from the material facts makes binding the 'video surveillance' element only, so not much damage is done to items or devices not used for video surveillance purposes.

 

It will be interesting to see where it goes.There may even be a conflict of laws due to the blanket nature of the ruling on the interpretation v-s the proportionality of state intrusion of persons exercising ECHR rights. Don't forget that whilst EU law is automatically applied through the EC Act, so is the convention through the Human Rights Act 1998 and that is also newer. I am thinking that there may be a conflict in the blanket effect of the ruling.

 

Saying all of that, maybe the ICO will introduce an easier and cheaper option registration system for individual users if an individual does wish to capture a public area whilst protecting his / her own property - that way the individual

cannot complaint that he has had a disproportionate interference.

[al-yeti]

There's to Much kit out there for them to be able to effectively enforce there regs , so everyone doing pretty much what they want these days , unless someone knows who to complain to, no one cares man , ico don't know Jack what's going on in the grand scheme of things....imo

[secureiam]

Think its over complicated, should be able to record anything that you could see or hear without any specialist equipment

 

Which for example means I can see and hear (usually with a window open) my neighbours in their yards, see roof (bungalow next door), but not inside their home from my own windows at my property without using any equipment. I can hear my neighbours through the wall when they raise there voices but that's rare.

 

I can also hear people walking/ driving past if a window is open, I am no more invading their privacy, so I would say those images and audio being recorded are not an invasion of their privacyas they are publically broadcast for anyone to see or hear in the vicinity.

 

The distribution of those images and conversations to anyone else is an invasion of privacy (my neighbour doesn't expect me to film them sunbathing in their back yard and publish on the net for everyone to see). In relation to capturing images and audio of a person or persons committing or believed to be committing a crime, the evidence should be submitted to the relevant authorities and they can deem with how that information is publically shared in order to capture/ eliminate the suspects from the alleged crimes.

 

 

May be I am thinking this too simply and missing some important points.