Cctv & The Law.

[Service Engineer]

Can anyone verify if this article is still valid..?

DPA You and the Law

[Service Engineer]

Thanks Pete, i'll email Mr Brogan and ask him for an update then.

[Service Engineer]

David

Thanks for your email. I note you say that you have been told that it is now incorrect. Would you mind telling me which bit? I'm often getting second-hand information where people have said that what I say about Data Protection is incorrect, but these critics never tell me why.

Having said that, and having re-read the article, I would comment as follows. Since the leading case called Durant, the definition of Personal Data has been turned on its head, and the Information Commissioner has issued new guidelines on CCTV. The Commissioner specifically mentioned that where the shopkeeper only has one or two cameras, then he may not need to notify that he is processing personal data, hence there may not be the need to have the sign at the entrance to the shop. This has come about because of the Durant case. The Durant case recently went to the Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal would not allow it to proceed any further. However, the European Parliament is now questioning the U.K. government's interpretation of Personal Data, arguing that it is not in compliance with the EC Directive on Data Protection. We wait to see whether they will make the UK government revert back to the initial definition of Personal Data, which would then, one assumes, require the Information Commissioner to re-evaluate their advice with regard to shopkeepers and cctv.

The only other contentious bit that I think the critic might have mentioned was with regard to the ACPO advice. The last ACPO Guidance on Data Protection was in 2002. I know they are reviewing it in view of comments made by organisations, including ourselves, but I am not aware that their review has yet been published. I did check it just before Christmas.

Those are the only two areas where I can see there would be some movement. Perhaps whoever informed you that my article was wrong might like to get in touch with me direct and tell me where it is wrong. You might also want to alter the reference to our website; www.securitysi.com if you just put that will get them through to it. We have now changed the format slightly.

Regards,

Chris Brogan

www.securitysi.com

SECURITY INTERNATIONAL LTD

130 St John's Road, Isleworth TW7 6PL, United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)20 8847 2111

Fax: +44 (0)20 8847 1852

Email: info@securitysi.com

Registered Office: 11 Loveday Road, London W13 9JT

Registered No:1322074

Well the expert seems quite confident that all is still applicable.

What sections if any are supposedly incorrect..?

[Doktor Jon]

As the original question referred to the use of CCTV in a domestic context, this is specifically exempt from the Data Protection Act, and therefore does not require compliance (warning signs, record logs etc.)

Some time back, I actually carried out a written interview with the Office of the Information Commissioner regarding changes in interpretation, both for domestic and commercial CCTV systems. If you are at all interested, the piece can be read at:-

http://www.doktorjon.co.uk/news%20and%20vi...wsstories5.html

If a camera is being installed on a residential property, then from a Local Authority perspective, they will require it (and any others) to comply with the requirements of "Permitted Development" planning legislation. If you think 'Data Issues' are widely misunderstood, then Schedule 2 Part 33 of the Town & Country (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, is an even bigger barrel of laughs.

That story can be reviewed at:-

http://www.doktorjon.co.uk/news%20and%20vi...wsstories6.html

As far as I am aware, there have not been any further changes since both pieces were written, but it's certainly something I'll need to keep an eye on this year.

BTW, Happy New Year y'all!!

[baywatch]

In the last2 days, I have had 3 customers telephone me asking for ptz domes on the corner of their houses.

They were informed by the "new" police crime prevention officer that this was what they needed to be able to track the offenders (all victims of anti social behaviour, egg throwing etc) to get good evidence. The officer in question has seen some commercial ptz systems that I installed.

When I mentioned the DPA to the customers they were convinced that if the police told them to get this type of camera then they must be O.K.

I have told them to try to get the cpo to give them the recommendations in writing.

Will let you know what happens.

[Service Engineer]

Right, I have just received this email asking for advice over a neighbours cctv camera, I was gonna reply saying he has no right to be watching over your property but would appreciate other input;

My neighbours have recording cctv, it covers half of our driveway and also another neighbours driveway is this within the requirements? They have no noties up waring people that they are in a cctv area, it covers more of our properties than their own including where my children play. Could you tell me if they are within there rights to do this?

[Adi]

Domestics dont need signs but being intrusive on someone elses property is a no no, especially where kiddies might be playing. He is quite within his rights to tell his neighbour to move it.

[Guest Peter James]

Right, I have just received this email asking for advice over a neighbours cctv camera, I was gonna reply saying he has no right to be watching over your property but would appreciate other input;

How do they know what it covers have they seen the recordings?

I audited on of our own sites yesterday. looking at the positions of the cameras the 1st camera I thought had been positioned wrongly to view the area of coverage specified. I was extremley suprised when I looked at the monitor the camera view was not what i was expecting but was exactly as specified.

Personally I would pleased in this day and age that cctv may be recording whats going on in my street.

I would lay money that if anything nasty happened that they would be knocking on that nieghboors door to see if anything was recorded I know I would.

Pete

[Service Engineer]

So if I borrow some of ADI's reply and respond with this:

As I understand it, Domestics dont need signs but being intrusive on someone elses property is a no no, especially where kiddies might be playing. You are quite within your rights to tell this neighbour to move it. Or report him for invasion of your privacy.

Would that advice be correct, and if she wanted to report the offender, then whoom would she need to report to.?

[Doktor Jon]

Although domestic CCTV is exempt from the DPA, and therefore the requirement for signage, access to recordings etc., the problems associated with individuals placing cameras to oversee their neighbours, is becoming increasingly common (I'm getting about 4 -5 e-mails a week on this subject).

When a neighbour (for arguments sake I'll refer to them as an NFH or Neighbour from Hell) deliberately places a CCTV camera to monitor their victims property, if they refuse to relocate or reposition in response to a reasonable request, then the victim has every right to report the offending unit to the local constabulary, as this is tantamount to harrassment.

In practice, the response from individual police officers is extremely variable, although where there is a pre existing dispute or children under observation, it is far more likely to receive a reasoned response.

If the camera is in breach of "Permitted Development" legislation, then as an alternative, the Local Authority Planning Department can take enforcement action to have the camera resited or removed.