Cctv

[buzby]

Depends. If there was a mugging and the CCTV saw it, the police would use the image to identify then prosecute. The resolution of the CCTV systems you refer to would not be of a high enough resolution or have the required timecode/framecount to sustain this as the sole proof of guilt.

 

As to your last question - read up the thread, this was already answered. A judge can view it and either accept or reject an application by the defence counsel that it should not be used. This was the situation with the Jill Dando trial. The video was allowed.

[MARTIN3030]

Q: My neighbour has installed a CCTV camera and it is pointing towards my house/garden. Is this a breach of the Data Protection Act? If your neighbour’s camera is installed on their residential property and being used for their own personal domestic use, they are unlikely to be breaching the Data Protection Act. This is because the use of CCTV cameras for domestic security purposes is exempt from the data protection principles. This applies when a person uses CCTV to protect their home from burglary, even if the camera overlooks the street or other areas near their home. If your neighbour is using CCTV for business purposes they will need to comply with the Act. If you are concerned about the use of domestic CCTV it may be worth contacting your local police. For more information, contact our helpline or read our CCTV code of practice.

[Startkey&Clutch]

I know rules are different for domestic but Im asking about businesses.

[buzby]

Q: My neighbour has installed a CCTV camera and it is pointing towards my house/garden. Is this a breach of the Data Protection Act?

 

Already linked to in Msg 18 - keep up at the back!

[Bookworm]

No argument from me.

 

Just pointing you were misreading of the rules (and misdirecting the OP). The link provided confirmation the the householder's right to use CCTV without registration.

If you say so, dear.

[cctv engineer]

just some little help. dpa does not cover homes at all. so you can install cameras were you need them. but it does upset neighbours. so please dont point cameras in others gardens. but as far as the road its fine and can also be used in court. also cctv can be a very big expence so i would look at other home systems and i think this will do the job.

Edited May 4, 2010 by MARTIN3030
Sorry no commercial links.

[MARTIN3030]

Already linked to in Msg 18 - keep up at the back!

 

 

Ah you are so quick.

 

Ok then heres some more-although it does not answer all the questions-it gives some insight into expectations.

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/170875-data-protection-cctv-your.html

[buzby]

The trouble is your 'face' isn't personal data in any meaningfyl sense. The populous is being fooled into believing that there is protection to be used as and when required. Look at the number of times 'mis-sold' comes up as a complaint, when the more accurate term is 'mis-bought'. This doesn't satisfy as it usually means the complainant made a mistake and has to suffer the consequences, so this term is trotted out instead.

 

Where your quoted link falls apart, is that it may well form part of law, but the chances of pressing a button and getting satisfaction are slim. Transgressors will squirm or hide behind incompetence, AND get away with it - always assuming the ICO actually does something about it, something more than sending a letter saying your points have been noted.

 

Do they care? Of course not.

[MARTIN3030]

Transgressors get away with it because people let them.

 

Lets not forget that there is recourse for people to pursue in the County Court if the ICO wont do the job.

[buzby]

Would YOU do it? I don;t have the funds to pursue a speculative action, and I doubt many would believe that funding 'm'learned friends' is a useful way to spend their money. The ICO similarly will not take on cases simply because there is a transgression - they have budgets too.

 

Sure, pick your battles - but since most get a slap on the wrist for incompetence (for those cases that DO get some attention), it's all sham. Give consumers the right to raise the actions where there is a provable case, and let the transgressor pay... but that isn't going to happen, and we both know it.

[MARTIN3030]

If I believed I had a case Raymond yes of course I would do it.

[buzby]

You must have a better job than me. We're not talking about ideals - this is real world issues where your costs are £15k to start with, and if you are unsuccessful you lose your home. Too rich for me simply for a 'point of principle'.

 

If the ICO's not interested, then that's as far as sensible people go. Risking brinkmanship simply because you are annoyed is always a bad move.

[MARTIN3030]

I take your point,and obviously costs have to be a consideration in any cause of action,but the transgressors rely on apathy and fear of costs from those they walk all over-which to some extent allows them to continue unchallenged.

[buzby]

Agreed - which is why places like these are so useful!

[REDDRAGON]

quick question a little off topic but I'd like your views. A works colleague of mine went off sick from work with food poisoning two days before a local football derby of which he is an avide supporter. On the morning of the match he felt better so decided to go and see the game.

 

Now he works in the emergency services and one of his managers was at the game working in the control room at the ground whilst there he got the cctv camera operator to scan the away fans end of the ground to see if he could find my colleague. He was spotted in the crowd and a photo of him was printed out and used as evidence in a disciplinary against him.

 

Question is was this action in breach of any codes?.

 

Thank you for your time..

[buzby]

Bad luck?

 

It was a stupid thing to do, especially these days. He's not disputing the evidence, only the collection of it. Since he knew the ground had CCTV, then there was an expectation his image could be captured. It was, and he was found out.

 

The disciplinary action would therefore be correct. As for breach of codes... fraud or feigning illness to an employer come to mind.

[cctv engineer]

if the footage was taken from the control room at the ground then paperwork should be with the footage as to why it was collected. by who and why. (control room SAI licence) but it still will not save his job. he was spotted by a manager. if it was a day he was to be in work but was well enough to go to a match then he has a problem.

[REDDRAGON]

Thanks for the replies.

 

Yes he was supposed to be in work that day however, when he was first struck down with this his whole family was also affected. This was confirmed by his gp who he called he also had a sick note coroborating this.

Now the main problem is that our employers policy is that if you suffer from any gastro problems like this and also d&v etc then you should not return to work until after you have been symptom free for a min of seventy two hours. He started to become symptom free the night before so the time of the match he was still in the time frame of being unable to return to work.

This was his argument at the disciplinary but they ignored their own policy and he got a written warning.

 

Thanks for your time.