data protection act and fines

[Swwils]

The ICO guidance on domestic CCTV does mention that you should have a sign up like Secure says, however I seen no reference to any law that requires it.

As for putting your computer in a locked cupboard, where does it say that it needs to be?
Being inside the house which has locked doors is ample enough to cover "secure" storage.

My neighbour has a camera on the front of his house that points to where he would park his car on the street.
No one really cares about it, he does not tell anyone he is sending the data to the police or capturing audio, it's just sitting there.

We have cameras all around us when walking through a town centre etc, I never see any signs on them.

If your not recording but only watching a camera and it's capturing some public areas then it is no different to your being there and watching them or filming them with a hand camera.
There is no expectation or privacy when in public, you can film and take photos of almost everything when in public.

You have made serval assumptions that are not correct and your example of "no different than being there watching" is also not correct. It's been argued many times in various arenas.

 

[mattylad]

assumptions such as?

It may be argued but do any of those arguments actually provide a legal basis?

You say I'm not correct, prove it?

 

[Swwils]

You assume that the data gathered on systems around town is actually identifying information, often it isn't and those systems are just used based on a privacy impact assesment that justifies the requirement for detection only for follow up by other services.

Your neighbor is effectively a data controller and needs to follow the data protection act. It "just sitting there" can be seen as a failure of the guidance, because no justification has been given to the use or neccesisty of the system. The first and primary rule is to use other means to get the desired effect, rather than accepting data gathering (and potential privacy impacts) as the default stance and OK.

I believe quite a few examples of the distinction between gathering "a sketch" from a public place, rather than "into" a public place exist.

 

[mattylad]

You assume that the data gathered on systems around town is actually identifying information, often it isn't and those systems are just used based on a privacy impact assesment that justifies the requirement for detection only for follow up by other services.

Your neighbor is effectively a data controller and needs to follow the data protection act. It "just sitting there" can be seen as a failure of the guidance, because no justification has been given to the use or neccesisty of the system. The first and primary rule is to use other means to get the desired effect, rather than accepting data gathering (and potential privacy impacts) as the default stance and OK.

I believe quite a few examples of the distinction between gathering "a sketch" from a public place, rather than "into" a public place exist.

What a load of BS.
Don't you dare assume what I assume!
I assume no such thing!

There is no difference between a camera on the street and one on a house, if they both see the same thing.
None!

Oh, maybe the one on the street poles will have someone watching it 24/7, be recorded and used by the police, the one on a house is very very unlikely to have someone watching 24/7 and for the most part (unless something happens) will not be seen by anyone and will probably be overwritten within 24hrs or so.

All this hoohar over ring cameras is not because the camera was there but because the owner was being a dikhead about it rather than quietly leave it monitoring his property.

 

[Swwils]

What a load of BS.
Don't you dare assume what I assume!
I assume no such thing!

There is no difference between a camera on the street and one on a house, if they both see the same thing.
None!

Oh, maybe the one on the street poles will have someone watching it 24/7, be recorded and used by the police, the one on a house is very very unlikely to have someone watching 24/7 and for the most part (unless something happens) will not be seen by anyone and will probably be overwritten within 24hrs or so.

All this hoohar over ring cameras is not because the camera was there but because the owner was being a dikhead about it rather than quietly leave it monitoring his property.

You seem to confuse monitoring with the actual storage of data and the privacy impacts of both.

 

[mattylad]

You seem to confuse monitoring with the actual storage of data and the privacy impacts of both.

Actually...
Your assuming that I'm assuming that your assumption of what I assume it not what you assume...

I don't recall mentioning storage of data by the OP, ISTR the OP asked about viewing only, did you miss that bit? I'll assume so.
Then I assume that you do know that there is a big difference in what is allowed re businesses, public services etc. and the domestic sector?

Perhaps you should stop with the posting cryptic comments and actually explain something, don't forget to link the actual laws that apply

 

[Swwils]

Actually...
Your assuming that I'm assuming that your assumption of what I assume it not what you assume...

I don't recall mentioning storage of data by the OP, ISTR the OP asked about viewing only, did you miss that bit? I'll assume so.
Then I assume that you do know that there is a big difference in what is allowed re businesses, public services etc. and the domestic sector?

Perhaps you should stop with the posting cryptic comments and actually explain something, don't forget to link the actual laws that apply

What are you talking about. All 3 have to have ensure that the use is legitimate under the DPA.

CJEU already ruled that capturing images of individuals beyond the boundary of your own property, especially monitoring a public space - then the recording cannot be considered as being for a purely personal or household purpose. This means that cameras attached to a private individuals home may no longer be exempt DPA section 36.

 

[mattylad]

Home users are allowed to capture images beyond their property if that is what the system is designed for... simples..
It's what is done with that data that is important, what was done with the data is what got the guy that went to court in the poop.

The DPA gives exemptions to domestic systems as it is referring to organisations, not members of the public.

By the way, CJEU ? that's a europe thing - did you not notice brexit? lol

Cameras that are capturing images of the public are all over the place, a domestic user having one that does the same is no different, nothing says that they must no do so.
Lots of things say what they must and must not do with the data but not that they must not.

Your assuming again...

Here, I'll give you a link, go find the bit that says home users cannot..
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/contents/enacted

 

[secureiam]

The ICO states a distinction between inside and outside of property boundaries and so on

 

[Sally2000]

We live on a corner by a junction, and have cameras looking all round which in addition to our gardens cover the next-door neighbour's front garden with their agreement. They also cover part of the two roads and part of the pavements. The recordings are saved for about three weeks on devices that are made reasonably secure. This was all detailed to the ICO some years ago, and we paid the annual registration fee. Then the ICO told us that we no longer needed to be registered and they removed us from the register. Our recordings have been taken by police on several occasions, and on at least one occasion played in court. As far as I'm aware the law hasn't changed, but its interpretation may have done.

 

[gummy bears]

Our recordings have been taken by police on several occasions, and on at least one occasion played in court.

How interesting.
I had 2 detectives knock on my door inquiring about my camera, when I told them it had no hard drive they left. I only have the camera as I cant see who's at the front door from the living room as the as the porch blocks the view, so I have a monitor in the living room, never bothered to add a hard drive.

 

[gummy bears]

All this hoohar over ring cameras is not because the camera was there but because the owner was being a dikhead about it rather than quietly leave it monitoring his property.

I take it someone could not take you to court right away and try to sue you for 100,000? They would first have to ask you to remove the camera and only if you refused you could be taken to court?

 

[secureiam]

Sally2000 that's part of the problem, the police and ICO have different criteria.

The ICO also give conflicting advice week to week, depending on whom you talk to.

ICO contacted lots of self employed wanting to charge the fee as an organisation for CCTV, however they said at the time it only applies on business premises not on businesses run from home.

It comes down to being reasonable. The defendant was being total unreasonable if you believe the report.

@gummybears it's is indeed more complicated and more than one issue was raised, the claimant didn't win on all issues raised.

Councils also have CCTV rules which are often not obeyed this has also been raised on here before.

If your reasonable I doubt you will have any issues.

 

[Wayners]

Many in my close have cameras up pointing at each other and road. It's great and any odd behaviour we ask around and everyone looks at video. Just think you need to be open but if asked to point camera away from someone's property then do so. If my van gets done over there will be 2 neighbours filming with recordings I can look at. However some are using cameras for bullying and to be a pain which is where the law steps in

 

[Sally2000]

Sally2000 that's part of the problem, the police and ICO have different criteria.

The ICO also give conflicting advice week to week, depending on whom you talk to.

I mentioned the use of our cctv in court because I believe it confirms that what we do is legally justifiable.

If the CPS thought it was wrong they would not have used it in court, and if the defence counsel thought it was not valid for legal reasons they would certainly have objected to its use.