Zak Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 I am sure I read something recently that said you do not need to have signs up unless you are particularly looking for an individual. i.e. if you had a camera in a locker room providing general cover you would not need a sign, but if you had one aimed at a particular locker to get a specific person then that comes under the DPA. I am sure that was in a recent DPA explanation in a trade mag. I say recent, could have been up to a year ago This was due to some historic ruling in a particular case......kind of put to bed a lot of the uncertainty. Zak Tankel - Managing Director - Security First (UK) - www.securityfirst.uk.com Disclaimer: Any comments or opinions expressed by me are my own as a member of the public and not of my employer or Company.
Guest Raymond Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 The issue they seemed (the Council) to be concerned about was that the camera was (a) on domesic property and (b)** if it was located close to any existing window(s). The reasoning for this is I cannot see any more with a camera than I could looking through the window. If I had no window on the side of my house but placed a camera there, the neighbour could complain I effectively opened a window facility because I could now view his property which I could not do so before. There does seem to be some logic to this. Where there appears to be NO logic, is the PTZ interpretation. I cannot see any mention of this in the DPA in relation to domestic users. It could seemingly apply to a wobbly mounting if I could pull on the power lead and make it rotate in a different direction Yes, I might be able to see my neighbour doing something he shouldn't, but then I could see that whether I had a PTZ or not - think of it as the modern day equivalent of the old lady behind the lace curtains. Since I started recording the output from my 4 cameras, I've only needed to view the output 5 times in the last 3 years, that means 99.98% of the images recorded were automatically wiped. Even if my street was full of philanderers, at those odds, I don't think they'd be too worried. **Dunno if this is really relevant, or simply their 'spin' on it.
Doktor Jon Posted October 26, 2005 Posted October 26, 2005 The bottom line is.... when it comes to using CCTV on a private dwelling (i.e. a domestic install), it doesn't matter whether it's a Micromark camera form argos, a day / night high resolution jobby, a PTZ fitted with a 20:1 zoom lens or a thermal imaging camera, they are all exempted from the provisions of the Data Protection Act. The only legislation that the Local Authority can successfully bring into play is related to planning legislation, specifically the "Permitted Development" control on the number and positioning of cameras.
norman Posted October 27, 2005 Posted October 27, 2005 The bottom line is.... when it comes to using CCTV on a private dwelling (i.e. a domestic install), it doesn't matter whether it's a Micromark camera form argos, a day / night high resolution jobby, a PTZ fitted with a 20:1 zoom lens or a thermal imaging camera, they are all exempted from the provisions of the Data Protection Act.The only legislation that the Local Authority can successfully bring into play is related to planning legislation, specifically the "Permitted Development" control on the number and positioning of cameras. QFA I looked into it quite intensely when I installed some CCTV at my mothers, as the neighbour concerned would most definitely complain to all and sundry. Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.