What’s the law on filming on public road

[Sally2000]

Going back to the original post, it sounds like that area is a shared one and not really public. In that case you would need the agreement of the other user/s.
In our case we have a shared access and the other users were happy to agree.

 

[cwhaley]

Going back to the original post, it sounds like that area is a shared one and not really public. In that case you would need the agreement of the other user/s.
In our case we have a shared access and the other users were happy to agree.

As in my original post, you are asked to be mindful when positioning the camera and you can do this by attaining the agreement of a neighbour. If you were not given position, privacy filters are acceptable. I was told this by Derbyshire Constabulary.

 

[secureiam]

the ico https://ico.org.uk/ covers the law on privacy and this includes cctv systems.

Unfortunately they rarely will give you any direction on if a situation is allowed or not.

If you need to film a public space you need a legitimate reason and need to register the cameras with the ico, this is constantly changing.

You do not need agreement of your neighbour to film a shared area, you need to have good reason.
Your neighbour may not agree if they are the ones causing the damage.
You should review whether you still need to cover a certain area on a regular basis.

My opinion, if damage is occurring without cameras in place, having them is reasonable to find out the cause/ stop the damage from occurring.
If you found it was a person doing the damage and having a camera stops the damage from occurring then the use of the camera is justifiable
If the damage is done by a wild animal, then having a camera won't stop the damage from occurring? and therefore questionable if actually needed.

You cant film from your property into your neighbours property, even if you suspect they are planning to kill you(not likely), but I would suspect anyone going to do that to a neighbour would make sure you couldn't see or hear them anyway???
You could use your privacy filters or have an agreement with your neighbour to cover their property, but you would probably need to outline why this is being done, should your neighbour fall out with you or move then you would probably need to review your agreement.

Audio, the concern is eaves dropping, but say a neighbour has been verbally threatening you, it wouldn't be unreasonable to gather evidence which is what the police would ask for, and recording of audio like the CCTV images themselves aren't going to be looked at unless there was some kind of incident and wouldn't be kept.

I have customers with shared access straight through their gardens, damage was occurring cameras went up and it stopped, completely justified.
Have customers filming the road leading up to there house, reason they have had several vehicles crash into the wall and damage it and then they leave the scene and someone has to have their wall rebuilt.

one particular case the customer is looking at traffic coming from a certain direction as it is from this direction that those crashing into the wall come from.

It hasn't stopped people crashing into the wall unfortunately, but it has stopped them from fleeing the scene without leaving their details. saved them a small fortune in repair costs.

Looking at the footage it can be seen that the vehicles are travelling too fast and lose control, especially in cold weather.

 

[Sor]

You are right, they apply to countries, but they must be transposed into national law.

"Directives require EU countries to achieve a certain result, but leave them free to choose how to do so. EU countries must adopt measures to incorporate them into national law (transpose) in order to achieve the objectives set by the directive. National authorities must communicate these measures to the European Commission.
Transposition into national law must take place by the deadline set when the directive is adopted (generally within 2 years)."

As such, I believe that the provisions that led to the decision mentioned in my previous post were applicable in the UK, since yours Data Protection Act 1998 is the same: "36. Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual’s personal, family or household affairs (including recreational purposes) are exempt from the data protection principles and the provisions of Parts II and III". So the court decision would also apply to the UK.

But, actually, it is not a new Directive, it is now Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (UK's Data Protection Act 2108), and "Regulations are legal acts that apply automatically and uniformly to all EU countries as soon as they enter into force, without needing to be transposed into national law. They are binding in their entirety on all EU countries."

 

[secureiam]

there has been test cases in recent times, as long as you have a good reason and register with the ico you should be fine if later challenged.

 

[Handymanjo]

Go into the ico website and start the self assessment and this will tell you if you need to register.


Domestic cctv is exempt

 

[Sor]

Go into the ico website and start the self assessment and this will tell you if you need to register.

View attachment 150347
Domestic cctv is exempt

My understanding is that domestic CCTV is exempt of registering and paying fees. Not necesseraly exempt of the provisions of the Data Protection Act 2018. The Registration Self Assessment concludes:
"You are under no requirement to pay a fee
Organisations or individuals who only process personal data for judicial functions, to maintain a public register or for domestic or recreational reasons are exempt. You therefore do not have to pay a fee to the ICO
However, it is important that your organisation adheres to the principles of the General Data Protection Regulations and understands best practice for managing information. To help ensure you are complying with the GDPR, we have produced a range of training materials including practical toolkits, training videos and more. "


ICO's "In the picture: A data protection code of practice for surveillance cameras and personal information", dated 20170609, although warning that

"The following information has not been updated since the Data Protection Act 2018 became law. Although there may be some subtle differences between the guidance in this document and guidance reflecting the new law – we still consider the information useful to those in the media.",

says (page 7) that:

"The use of surveillance systems for limited household purposes can be exempt from the DPA. (My comment: can be, not is)
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its judgment in the case of Ryneš on 11 December 2014. In this judgment, the CJEU concluded that where a fixed surveillance camera faces outwards from an individual’s private domestic property and it captures images of individuals beyond the boundaries of their property, particularly where it monitors a public space, the recording cannot be considered as being for a purely personal or household purpose.
This means that cameras attached to a private individual’s home may, in certain circumstances, no longer be exempt from the requirements of the DPA under section 36. Those circumstances are likely to include where the camera monitors any area beyond the interior and exterior limits of that individual’s home. This would include any camera to the extent that it covered, even partially, a public space such as the pavement or street. It would also cover cameras which captured areas such as neighbours’ gardens. (Underline is mine)
This decision does not mean that using such a camera is not possible but it does mean that individuals will have to ensure that its use is legitimate under the DPA. The CJEU made clear that use of cameras to protect a property in this way can meet the legitimate interest condition in the legislation. The ICO has produced a short complementary piece of guidance for the public on how to ensure the use of a surveillance camera on a private domestic property complies with the DPA. (Didn't find it)
The ICO will continue to assess the potential wider impact of the CJEU’s decision on other surveillance technologies and may add further updates to this code.


In Portugal the 2018 new Regulation ended the need of registering and paying fees but the national commission explicitly says you can't film public or neighbour areas, including common accesses or continously film your employes. The images can only be used for criminal purposes.
Some years ago, a guy wanted to use images of his wife with a lover inside his house, in a divorce lawsuite, but the judge denied it, because even though his wife might know there were cameras, the lover didn't enter his house ilegally and wasn't aware or warned of the cameras.


You should also see this:
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01803/SN01803.pdf

https://www.staffordshire.police.uk...rom_the_Information_Commissioner_s_Office.pdf

 

[secureiam]

It is changing all the time, check with the ico for latest.

If it isn't covering your land then you need to register, if you view inside of someone else's home you are a peeping tom and it just isn't on.

as for lovers and adultery and inside the home and crime, well no idea on adultery being legal or not these days in various countries. Think the husband was short changed, he cant reasonable warn all males that cameras are in the home, they knew what they were doing was wrong, so the fact they were caught doing wrong on camera should be adequate? should have claimed he broke the bed, and that's criminal damage????

 

[Sally2000]

I assume that in the quoted case the husband had fitted covert cameras, which is rather different to normal domestic security cctv.
But if there are clear warning notices by the external doors that cameras are in operation, he may have got away with it.