DPA & Domestic CCTV

[Alexg]

I've done a search and found a few old posts about the DPA but nothing conclusive & some posted links don't work.

I've currently got 8 cameras around my house & I plan to add 2 more converts looking each way out on a public pavement, the cameras will be at head height, the aim is to get close up face recognition, 2 more cameras up in the trees will give general coverage of the area.

Obviously if something happens I want it to be used as evidence, what do I need to do to make this legal in court? I want to avoid signs unless I have to as if they know there being filmed they might try to find the cameras.

Many thanks.

[ian.cant]

Its a kind of grey area, ive never heard of any video evidence being disallowed because the set up didnt comply with the DPA but that certainly dont mean it wont happen. Realistically you are going to need to comply, check here for all the info.

[Rich]

Theres a helpline number on the DPA website, call that and explain your situation and they will tell you all you need to know.

As far as I am aware, only tracking cameras, i.e. pan tilt zoom cameras are currently covered under the DPA regulations.

[baywatch]

I think you will find that domestic use is exempt from the dpa

[robert99d]

CCTV for domestic use is exempt from the DPA

for everything else as a general rule if you can use a camera to track people (eg pan/tilt) then you need to register the system

[Alexg]

Thanks for the replys! It seemes as crazy as Part P on domestic electrical installations, you can do somethings without notifying, yet add something like a PTZ and you have to notify it. Reading the link posted above confirms that I do not need to bother with the DPA.

Thanks again.

[Guest Raymond]

I have a 3 cam set up, with day/night cams with build in IR LED's at roof level covering the froint and back garden. Not enough for identification, but fine as an overview. I then fitted a Sensormatic Ultra VI complete with external dome on the corner of the building. Swipe me, you thought I was a pediatrist . 2 neighbours wanting to know how it worked, 1 telling me it was 'illegal' and another saying he didn't want to be surveyed and would contact the Council! (FWIW, it's my own property/ground).

I got a call from the Council asking if the camera could view the street - and confirming that it could, I suggested that if someone was unhappy, I could always set up exclusion zones to stop neighbour intusion if this became an issue. There was no answer, but another 2 questions - were the images recorded? I confirmed they were, with the HD holding up to 28 days before overwriting. In the case of any incident (I'm located on a bad road bend) would I be prepared to make the images available on request to the police? Insofar as I could not promise 100% up time, I confirmed no reasonable request would go unanswered.

Their call back the following day was most illuminating. As a private residence, I'm exempt from the DPA and do not need to display 'Warning Recording' signs. Any image seen by the cameras could be seen also from the upper floor windows of my house, therefore no privacy issues attach. If I can provide an image file of print out of any 'incident' that may be captured that is possibly useful to the local fuzz, it would be greatly appreciated.

The icing on the cake was the neighbour who didn't want his privacy recorded for posterity, I showed him the scan and the detail the Ultra VI provided, confirming that he could also have a picture of any untoward activity the system caught - as long as he could give me a date/time. I've now got a friend for life!

[Guest deefadog]

That's good too know Raymond, i was going to ask that quetsion, but you have answered it in detail, thanks!

[Brian c]

I am very surprised. I'm sure your system is not exempt as it has a PTZ. Privacy zones should be mandatory at the very least and a warning sign should be displayed. The root of the issue is if the system can be used to monitor and track an individuals movements.

Your system could, for example, watch your neighbour entering and exiting his premises and car, routinely as he goes to and from work.

One day he takes his bit on the side at home and does a 'sicky'.

His suspicious wife rings you up and you confirm her suspicions, you even have it recorded.

In the wrong as he may be, this is an invasion of his privacy and he should, at the very least, be infomed that cctv is in operation in the area.

it may not be the best example but this is what the DPA is about in respect to CCTV....monitoring and tracking of individuals.

[robert99d]

I know what you mean Brian it seem strange but its true

It