CCTV

[EFLImpudence]

I am now confused

That will be the main intention nowadays.

 

[KenGMac]

All threads lead back to Brexit?

 

[securespark]

I am now confused

So am I!
What does

So?

mean?

 

[KenGMac]

Mean?? what

 

[securespark]

No,

When you wrote "So?", what did you mean?

 

[motorbiking]

Sorry chaps, you are getting confused. The Data protection act covers the use of personal and identifiable data and how you process it. It doesn't actually matter if you are using a video camera or cctv (continuous recording and storing is processing). The issue with cctv comes when you store and possibly share the data. However, there was a ruling in 2014.

see point 35:
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=160561&doclang=EN

I've no idea why the ICO and government websites have not updated their information.

The second indent of Article 3(2) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as meaning that the operation of a camera system, as a result of which a video recording of people is stored on a continuous recording device such as a hard disk drive, installed by an individual on his family home for the purposes of protecting the property, health and life of the home owners, but which also monitors a public space, does not amount to the processing of data in the course of a purely personal or household activity, for the purposes of that provision.

 

[^woody^]

What's the difference?

10m of RG59 cable?

 

[JP_]

if pointing a camera towards the road was illegal, then every dashcam would be illegal.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Perhaps they are.

 

[Yafo]

Perhaps they are.

From an article. Many of them around.


Yes, dash cam footage is admissible in court. Indeed, in North Wales, police have already announced Operation SNAP, which allows the public to put forward video evidence captured by dash cams and cyclist helmet cameras.

The footage can be used as evidence of reckless or dangerous driving, as well as to prove innocence or guilt in road traffic accidents.

However, while most people buy dash cams to protect themselves, they can also lead to the dash cam owner being prosecuted – incriminating evidence is very much a two-way street. The police have a right to demand the dashcam footage from a driver they have pulled over, and the GPS used to prove such things as speed and traffic infringements.

Prosecutions have also been successful using dahs cam footage for road rage incidents, hit and runs and car jackings. In many cases where a serious incident takes place, the dash cams if those involved are the first things the police will look at.

 

[motorbiking]

Almost. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 19-23
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/part/II/crossheading/seizure-etc

Yes they can seize it as evidence of wrong doing if you were involved. If you weren't their powers don't extend far enough as they'd have no right to enter the property to retrieve it. They can ask - however.

The footage is not tamper proof, so while it might be used to corroborate an allegation of an offence, it could be challenged as the primary source.

I remember when strava came out there was a site that you could upload your GPS data to for a "digital EPO", which would basically slow the time stamp down, so that you completed the leg faster than you did. You then upload the GPS file and claim your king of the mountains for dragging your lard ass up the hill in 3 minutes instead of 9.

If you were brave enough to defend your camara footage it would be on the basis that the footage was not tamper proof. magistrate would probably ignore you, unless they thought you might appeal.

 

[ellal]

The police have a right to demand the dashcam footage from a driver they have pulled over, and the GPS used to prove such things as speed and traffic infringements.

And yet telematics won't be provided to a driver to challenge a speeding ticket/traffic infringements...

Funny thing that!

 

[securespark]

Are you saying it doesn't work both ways?

 

[ellal]

Are you saying it doesn't work both ways?

As I posted in the 'speeding ticket' topic

"We will not provide you or your representatives with your driving information for use in civil claims or criminal investigations or proceedings."

 

[durhamplumber]

There is no requirement for signs and a lack of signage would certainly not prevent a criminal prosecution or even a civil claim. The only real issues to watch out for are :
Voyeurism - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/67
Harassment - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/contents

Nobody can stop you filming them in a public place - unless:
- it is the terms of your license to be there (e.g. a theatre)
- they have somehow manage to trademark their image (e.g. some very famous people)

If they are under 18 you might be in serious dudu