Compulsory CCTV Registration

[Sally2000]

Are people generally aware that it will become necessary to register any CCTV system that looks outside one's own property, e.g. the street? And there will be an annual fee of £35.

I don't personally have any problem with the registration, but an annual fee seems unreasonable. How could it be enforced anyway?

There is a petition about it here:
http://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/122236

 

[secureiam]

not sure whats happening with it personally seem to be changing it all the time, good way to generate some revenue though.

you can mask out the public area and then its not looking/ recording, however as people park vehicles on the street many want to be able to see if anyone is tampering with the car.

enforcement will be difficult, however it may become a case of it cant be used because it wasn't registered?

something I need to look into but then again if we come out of the EU it could change again as we may lose some restrictions as a result. another reason to vote out in the referendum maybe?

 

[OwainDIYer]

"You must enter a postcode for the address where the CCTV is located"

That's impossible for non-postal locations such as allotments, bird-cams in woods, anti-fly-tipping cams in field entrances; and mobile cameras such as car dashcams, which presumably are included in the legislation.

 

[Sally2000]

Good points Owain. I wonder if the legislators have thought of them.

As I said, I have no problem with registering my home cameras. A central register would enable police to check quickly where there might be CCTV recordings near a crime scene. But an annual fee for a static system seems entirely unnecessary.

 

[HERTS P&D]

It's Big brother watching Big brother.

Andy

 

[PBC_1966]

Thin end of the wedge. What would be next - A license for any sort of camera because you might take a picture of somebody in the street?

Public places are just that - Public. You have no expectation of privacy in a public place. And it's a bit rich coming from a government which has turned the U.K. into one of the countries with the most state-run CCTV surveillance in the world in recent years.

 

[sparkymarka]

Ca---Ching ---- money making !

 

[SandyLyon]

Ca---Ching ---- money making !

If your CCTV system happened to catch some serious criminal activity, how about charging the police to view the footage.

The above comment was "tongue in cheek" as I think that a database of all CCTV cameras can only be a good thing so that police can review footage from registered cameras if there was a serious crime in that area.
Maybe a small one off fee to cover the admin involved but I don't agree with an annual fee.

 

[PBC_1966]

I think that a database of all CCTV cameras can only be a good thing so that police can review footage from registered cameras if there was a serious crime in that area.

If they wanted to set up a database so that people could register on an entirely voluntary basis in order to help the police in the event of something happening in the area, that's fine. I absolutely object to the idea that somebody should be forced to register just to have a camera on his own property which happens to take in part of a public thoroughfare as well, whether registration were free or not. There should be no need for a one-off fee to cover administration anyway, since such a scheme should make the police's job easier and reduce costs elsewhere.

Forced registration might even hinder in some cases. As it is, if something has happened the police can ask around the area for anyone who might have captured some useful evidence on tape (and often do where they know recording is in operation). A voluntary database could make that job a little easier by guiding them to homes where people might have collected evidence. But make it a forced registration system, and anyone with an unregistered system is probably going to be very reluctant to help lest the police suddenly lose interest in their original pursuit and decide they have an "easy cop" for this dangerous criminal who was operating a CCTV system without official permission.

 

[sparkymarka]

Best option .... They are just dummy cameras officer !

 

[secureiam]

An annual fee seems excessive as in once registeted whetes the cost.

if you catch someone on camera in a public area it not being registered could makr the footage illegal and not useable.

Out of the EU the issue changes again.

i will be checking with the ico againbon what the crack is but last time i checked it was a none issue.

 

[PBC_1966]

What are they claiming covers this - The Data Protection Act? If so, then section 36 states quite clearly that data processed purely for personal and family use are exempt.

 

[secureiam]

it clearly states on the ICO website that domestics are exempt as long as they are not viewing a public area, once viewing a public area it then it comes under the DPA and have to pay £35 a year to register your home system.

This has been done due to EU law is my understanding, thing is these change all the time, a £35 fee is bad enough but yearly is not acceptable by any means.

Whilst I think all CCTV should be registered a £35 tax year on year is not acceptable.

It also clearly states that you cant put up images obtained online and that has to be dealt with the police.

It does say that if your viewing part of a neighbours property you shouldn't be seeing inside their home, but should discuss with them what can/ cant be seen.

In order to protect on street parked vehicles you will need to monitor a public space.

 

[PBC_1966]

it clearly states on the ICO website that domestics are exempt as long as they are not viewing a public area, once viewing a public area it then it comes under the DPA and have to pay £35 a year to register your home system.

Section 36 of the original DPA says nothing about whether it's viewing a public area or not, only that it's being used for personal/family reasons. Has there been a revision to the actual legislation following this European judgment?

Whilst I think all CCTV should be registered

Why? Should every camera - film, digital, video - have to be registered and licensed?

In order to protect on street parked vehicles you will need to monitor a public space.

Or in order to protect anything on the boundary of your property from damage, e.g. vandals standing on a public footpath defacing a fence or wall.

 

[secureiam]

spoke with the ICO earlier today, if it's a public space then its covered by the DPA and was given a test case example, not checked out the test case mind you.

as for having to register and pay every year, I could only suggest that its for making money after the lengthy discussion via their chat service. You could argue that if anyone complained about their invasion of privacy from such systems, it is to help pay for the investigate the complaint.

DPA is only required for domestics if its a public space.

I am for registering all CCTV,this way the police can contact people that may have footage they want to look at.