Is It Illegal To Have Microphone On Camera/cctv Kit

[PeterJames]

The law on privacy is rather vague, and much of what is set down applies not to individuals, but to organisations. For example, Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides general protection for the privacy of an individual’s home and family life, and their personal correspondence, and this obviously extends to recording what people say among themselves. In a similar spirit, the CCTV Code of Conduct (revised 2008) from the Information Commissioner’s Office recommends that operators generally shouldn’t record conversations: CCTV must not be used to record conversations between members of the public as this is highly intrusive and unlikely to be justified. You should choose a system without this facility if possible. If your system comes equipped with a sound recording facility then you should turn this off or disable it in some other way. There are limited circumstances in which audio recording may be justified, subject to sufficient safeguards. -

[charlie6]

Hello Admin2, Thankyou for your reply.

[PeterJames]

Charlie lets look at some scenarios where audio would be an invasion of privacy.  

 

A couple walking down the street discussing the sex they have just had. People who they don't know that may overhear their discussion its not important, even you videoing and recording their conversation its not a problem because you don't know them. With CCTV its a different story the operator is likely to know the people. So what I hear you say, well what if that couple are married but not to each other, all of a sudden the CCTV operator knows something about two people that is none of the operators business. That information could have all sorts of consequences depending on the operators attitude. At worst there could be blackmailing or the information given to each of the couples partners. Again you could say well they should not have been up to no good, but they haven't broken any criminal laws, and the purpose of the CCTV is for capturing crimes. I cant think of hundreds of similar scenarios. The other problem you have is some CCTV operators are nice people some are not (Bit like the real world) if the recording of audio was fully allowed you wouldn't be able to say this person can record audio, but this one cant. So all those horrible people like racists and peados will be using audio recording to there own advantage

[charlie6]

Peter, thankyou for your valuable comments. I totally agree with everything you have said, and for that matter the observations of every contributor(too numerous to recall their names)should be applauded. If the implication is such that CCTV operators are not allowed to record audio according to the 'regulations' imposed upon that 'field' then you have reassured myself in some respects. However, it would be appreciated were you to accept that I have no intention of 'back-tracking'. My view is such that 'yobbos' congregating at the rear of the property (originating post)should, emphasis on should, be recorded complete with audio ... voice recognition is a favourable tool in the police armoury. Throughout these posts I have included actual and hypothetical situations where it is perceived that litigation is unlikely, and never has, arisen in the circumstances highlighted by myself. I am sure you are aware, however,that the industry manufactures cameras complete with audio facilities costing hundreds of pounds, and in so doing they recognise this 'need' in certain environments. As a member pointed out, this is not a forum for legal advice but perhaps it is worth adding that there are 'loopholes' within the legal environment which may be 'persuasive' although the audio may not be accepted as evidence inside the actual courtroom. I am not allowed to discuss the latter comment further.

[PeterJames]

Peter, thankyou for your valuable comments. I totally agree with everything you have said, and for that matter the observations of every contributor(too numerous to recall their names)should be applauded. If the implication is such that CCTV operators are not allowed to record audio according to the 'regulations' imposed upon that 'field' then you have reassured myself in some respects. However, it would be appreciated were you to accept that I have no intention of 'back-tracking'. My view is such that 'yobbos' congregating at the rear of the property (originating post)should, emphasis on should, be recorded complete with audio ... voice recognition is a favourable tool in the police armoury. Throughout these posts I have included actual and hypothetical situations where it is perceived that litigation is unlikely, and never has, arisen in the circumstances highlighted by myself. I am sure you are aware, however,that the industry manufactures cameras complete with audio facilities costing hundreds of pounds, and in so doing they recognise this 'need' in certain environments. As a member pointed out, this is not a forum for legal advice but perhaps it is worth adding that there are 'loopholes' within the legal environment which may be 'persuasive' although the audio may not be accepted as evidence inside the actual courtroom. I am not allowed to discuss the latter comment further.

 

And you would be breaking the law to do so

[Dick]

I agree, Police officers seldom know the law regarding CCTV I had one try to tell me that I could not have a camera viewing the customers car as it viewed the street. I was so surprised that not only did she know the law that she was supposed to upheld, but she was spouting complete and utter rubbish to someone that is familiar with the laws regarding CCTV. I have many times had to explain to the Police how to use the evidence that we have recorded for them, if the system is not compliant then it has to be used to get an admission not as evidence.

Peter, wasn't the DPA amended last December to prevent filming outside a domestic property? https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/cctv/

"If your camera covers, even partially, any areas beyond the boundaries of your property, such as neighbouring gardens or the street, then it will no longer be exempt from the Data Protection Act (DPA) under the domestic purposes exemption. This does not mean that you are breaching the DPA but it does mean that you are subject to it."

[PeterJames]

-

 

Peter, wasn't the DPA amended last December to prevent filming outside a domestic property? https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/cctv/

"If your camera covers, even partially, any areas beyond the boundaries of your property, such as neighbouring gardens or the street, then it will no longer be exempt from the Data Protection Act (DPA) under the domestic purposes exemption. This does not mean that you are breaching the DPA but it does mean that you are subject to it."

 

I wasn't aware of that change, thanks for that Dick, although my comments on the Police not knowing the laws/ regulations was still valid as the conversation was about three years ago

[datadiffusion]

 

If you cannot rely on the domestic purposes exemption you are subject to a number of requirements in the Data Protection Act. This includes a requirement to notify the ICO that you are a data controller. However, we recognise that individuals need time to adjust to these developments in the law. We do not propose to take action during the coming year against an individual for failing to register their use of domestic CCTV cameras following this judgement, except in exceptional cases. If the position changes we will update this guidance.

Many CCTV systems now come with audio recording facilities. Audio recording is particularly privacy intrusive and in the vast majority of cases where CCTV is being used on domestic properties it should be disabled.

[duffbeer2015]

_{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.}

[james.wilson]

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