I think the whole legal system is entirely happy with moving forward with a mind to create as much conflict as possible. It's business to them. Look at the new road hierarchy/pedestrian/junction rules.
My son's one day old car was rammed by a large new SUV (only 20 registered on UK's roads). The police had CCTV of the incident and HD CCTV of him checking out of the Hotel/Leisure complex complete with his credit card details. The police sent a letter 4 weeks later stating they had closed the incident and no further action would be taken. My son had to pay out for his excess and drive for the whole year without gaining any no claims bonus, that is when I noticed two tier policing in action.
@@JimmyTheRake Since the VRM of the offending vehicle would have been known , this can be dealt with by insurers , using the video evidence as proof , and demanding a new replacement vehicle , due to the newness of the damaged car . Also , if the driver failed to report the incident to the police , that is a separate offence , and failure to prosecute is a subject for a formal police complaint , to be investigated by another force . Press will always be interested in such stories . Police are not above the law .
@@emmabaker4925 those rent-a-scooters are a spy device. A councilor in Newcastle Australia said they were going to get the cameras in street lights but a scooter firm contacted them saying the scooters have cameras front and back, scan all phones, facial recon for humans and dogs, reads car number plates etc, etc, etc..... so they got scooters instead.
There is no legal requirement to assist a Police Constable with their investigation. Connelly vs Rice case law 1966 applies here. Also, there is no expectation of privacy in a public place, and without the CCTV as evidence, the case would either fail at the point of preparation, or at the first court hearing. Since the Police have already broken the law in the past, by waiting until the CCTV has been deleted, ( and yes, I have proof of it ), then there would be no case to answer there. Let the neighbour sue anyone. They will lose every case, due to the lack of evidence.
@@secondchance6603 sadly these things happen every day, it only seems to be noticed when it happens to you. Ignorance of the law is NO excuse especially if it’s been weaponised instead of the pursuit of truth and justice.
Man removes Covid poster, gets arrested by police and changed Woman rips down vax protest poster, man objects and tries to remove poster from further damage and gets arrested by police for touchless assault for not allowing woman to rip it But the police are not biased at all 🤡🇬🇧
I have an anti-social neighbour (check my list!!) Who talks so loud that I can record her nasty obscene conversations in my livingroom when my patio doors are open. Camera in my garden, is tripped by her loud voice and music. Surely if you carry on like that, you do not have an expectation of privacy.
Not really. It would be the ICO which prosecutes for flagrant breach of data protection, not the police. I would imagine that most police are unaware of the obligations placed on CCTV users as it is not police which investigates a breach
@@geordiewishart1683 I think you missed the point of the comment. When the police make a public appeal for CCTV footage of incidents which happened outside your property, or even go door-to-door having identified a camera which they believe covers the area of interest, were it me my getout response to them would be "No, there would be no useful footage for you since the camera has a block filter in place to exclude the highway and any area beyond my boundary." IDGAF if there's a block filter in place or not, I am under no legal obligation to help the police by supplying CCTV footage whether it is likely to be useful to them or not.
Not only have we [in our house] been asked for footage from our CCTV - we were also told by a police community officer that our cameras were a very good idea and complied with the law [as far as he could see].
I have a ring door bell, it shows my neighbors gate and car . He's very pleased to have that covered. If he were to move i would certainly check with the new neighbours , if they didn't want that I would have to move my doorbell. But we have had less car damage and milk thefts since it was installed .
The Police actually asked me if I had C.C.T.V in connection with a burglary acroos the road. These laws made to favour criminality, if I had C.C.T.V given the police record of biting the hand that feeds them, I would not have told them anyway.
Police never asked you for the footage straight away - they need to establish is it operational, does it capture the area in their interst etc. I they do this, then can ask you for checking the footage. If they do it, you can ask them for official request with all details what, when and where (approx. time etc). When you would receive document like this, you have a time to check, verify and eventually release footage to the police. First question is when :) ? I had situation when police came to me and asked for the footage from the situation which happened 3 months earlier :) Nobody is obligated to keep records so long - typically 30days however private users can keep it 2 weeks/1week and then the footage is overwritten. If you have set 2 weeks keeping records and the police would sya it happened 3 weeks earlier there is still a chance the record exists. Rejecting police request about footage brings questions - why you do not want to check/share the footage (if exists)with he police and if its serious crime they will (probably) confiscate HDD (or whole recorder) for further examination :) . I have never had an issue with the police when they came - in one case the footage helped to find the young man who attacked and robbed on the street 74yo man who broke his hip during this crime. They will not confiscate anything unless you give them reason :) .
@@williamoates1754 Small mistake ??? However if they would see cams they would ask for possibility to check footage unless you would have hidden cams then you do not need to inform them. I do not want to assume what would happen if the police discovered you had a cam which could help them : -- obstructing the investigation ? 🤣
@@delta110aDoesn't really matter whether your CCTV cameras are visible or not: If you don't want to give the police (or anyone else) any footage, you can always say that they are "placebo" cameras; installed for the purpose of being clearly visible and therefore act as a deterrent, nothing more. Such products do exist and can be bought and installed for precisely that reason - not all of them are convincing enough, but there are some which look reasonably close to the real thing. So even if the police didn't believe you for whatever reason, they would then have to prove that you were lying when you told them the cameras were of a placebo variety. The only way they could do that would be to gain access to your home and search for whatever devices you were using to record the footage from the cameras. But I would find it very hard to believe that this would ever be sufficient grounds for them to be granted a search warrant, so there's not much chance of them being able to gain access to and search your home in that situation, unless you gave them explicit permission or invited them in yourself.
Yes! I'm just glad to hear a fellow Brit quote Dave Ramsey. I've followed his steps since 2018. I left the Army and became a successful Independent Financial Adviser all because of Dave.
My Mum's nextdoor neighbour who is a close family friend has set up his CCTV to cover her gate and drive, he asked first and we were happy for him to do so as it protects my Mum.
Unfortunately may neighbour is not a friend and has set up his CCTV to cover my house doors, windows, garden areas and drive. I consider it to be an invasion of privacy.
@rath6599 > We have way too many laws and way too many public servants > with nothing better to do but come up with new ones. We also have way to many ignorant f~~~wits with nothing better to do but come up with fatuous posts on social media about new laws.
@@anonnona8099 I did hit a nerve! Apologies. Here's the thing, comments on youtube, you can ignore. Stupid laws, you can't. That's the problem that I have. I'm sorry I offended you, you're clearly a public servant. Please don't legislate against me.
@@rath6599 > @anonnona8099 I did hit a nerve! Don't flatter yourself. > Here's the thing, comments on youtube, you can ignore. Stupid laws, you can't. > That's the problem that I have. No - the problem you have is that you aren't very bright.
If the only legitimate use for home cctv is your own security, then handing it over to the police to help with their enquiries does not fall into that category. How long before they come after you for trying to do the right thing?
there have been cases where burglars sue owners cos there were unsafe things in their house and they got injured. I think this is the US though, so crazy-town.
Yes I think I once read of an example in America where a burglar stole a car from a driveway. The car was getting work done to its brakes, meaning the thief crashed and hurt himself. He then successfully sued.
"A reasonable expectation of privacy in your own back garden": I've got terribly nosey neighbours. Staring out the window and ducking behind curtains - they don't need CCTV. I put a sign in my garden "would you please mind your own business". Didn't work, now I have a stuffed man sat on a chair in my shed with a halloween mask staring back at their main viewing point (back bedroom window). We also tailor our conversations in the back garden so the neighbours can hear (about the hostages in the dungeon under the garage etc.).
they also used to say "castrating children isn't something the government will do, and it's highly unlikely that will ever happen" Then they started calling them "trans" and castrated them. If your government does ANYTHING that makes you worried about the future, you need to put a stop to it, immediately.
Here’s a wee point, why when there is a murder in your street the police ask for door ring bell coverage or car video coverage. If you could be fined why would you give anything to plod. I am aware this is an extreme example but you get what I mean. There’s an other point when out and about in my wee car how am I not breaking the law by filming others out on the public highways. Just a thought.
It's the ICO which investigates breaches of data protection. Even if you gave police footage which clearly shows that your camera is in breach of data protection requirements, they would most likely not know, nor care.
Hampshire police told me I cannot put cctv up on my property because I MIGHT capture other properties in the background. I IGNORED the police & later I caught a criminal on tape! Yet no problem with police when they viewed the footage!
@@philipgeorgiev Oh, so you can stick a camera over someone's fence and film them in their back garden? Can you also point your camera into someone else's window if you're stood on the street?
My neighbour got extremely defensive when I requested he position his cameras so as not to capture me on my property or be alerted to me coming and going, as if I was making a ridiculous request. I am still disturbed by the fact he needs two cameras pointing at his back door, one of which is very close to my garden boundary and the area in which I entertain. I cannot guarantee conversations are not recorded so have to warn anyone spending any time in my garden about possible recording. It's very uncomfortable. He has now put signs up on the front of his house, but they cannot be read from public areas. How does adding signage, as per ICO, make any difference to those being captured in public places if they cannot be read the signs without venturing on to the property?
I have cctv which I make sure does not capture my neighbours property. If I was in your position I would get my own camera and point it right back at them and see how they like it.
I live in a flat and neighbour has his camera pointing down onto my back door they say it’s broke but in the night you can see the infra red lights up on it.
Got a friend with a nasty neighbour who openly points CCTV over the fence and into his garden and windows as harassment. Police and council, caled and do nothing. But what do you expect from officials these days.
The problem with things like this is in the very fact that they're saying it CAN apply to individuals, but they will CHOOSE to not pursue it. Or in other words, if you do or say anything the government doesn't like but isn't strictly illegal, they will be able to use their ABILITY to prosecute you under this law regardless, because fairness isn't the point. Scaring you into compliance and obedience is.
GDPR has always applied to individuals and rightly so especially so if you are making money of the information. In practical terms there is no difference between auditor scum and Mcdonalds when it comes to GDPR. Both are profit making entities - company status is irrelevant
Think of it like this ....the police can choose to not pursue a fine or penalty if you're doing 71 mph in a 70mph zone, but they're absolutely allowed to.
We have a camera that records the front of our driveway. Our neighbor across the street was concerned that I was recording her coming and going. When I showed her what the footage actually looked like, how small she looked, how indistinct everything in their front yard was, she wasn’t worried anymore. Then she asked me to try to record the person who was letting their dog defecate on her lawn! 😂
it could still be used by the cloud to determine when she is leaving and coming back, how small or blurry she looks is irrelevant, enough information can be inferred from it. breaking privacy laws.
We asked our neighbours if it was OK They asked if the one covering our drive could it cover theirs too Subsequently it's captured someone being naughty around their house
had something similar, had a polish family slap a motorized camera to watch their car, fine if they had their own driveway but not on street parking.. of which they would always insist on parking outside my home meaning everyone from my front door up the road had 0 privacy outside their own front doors! and as an added bonus it was also mounted in a way that can be used to look into the windows of the properties over the way.
this is mentioned in the video. Ask them to take it down, then if they reject, you can try and get a 'no win no fee' lawyer to get the camera moved/removed. it also depends how much it captures. have you seen the footage they have?
I'm going to repeat what someone else said in the chat. How do councils get away with street cameras, or shop camaras get away with it? I dont wish to be filmed 24/7 as that infringes on my right to live a quiet life, surely?
shops have signs up saying "cctv on these premises" and its private land. Your house however is not. Its why you need planning permission to do anything. And why, if you refuse to sell when (for example) the council want to build flats or a supermarket, they will get the police to remove you, while running the house prices down to a fraction of what they originally offered you.
Sorry to say but on the street as the public area , you can not expect the privacy :) . In a shop, as the private land, cameras are installed for the security reason (they follow rules and GDPR). If the shop owner would share video (i.ex. on YT - let's say with the title "Please help me find this shoplifter") from the shop he would be prosecuted for breaking the law . Shop owner can record everything (on his land) but can't share to everyone - only to the authorised organisations on request. My ICO cert has note to whom I can share footage if required (some part of the cert) : "...Where necessary or required we share information with: police forces, security organisations, central and local government, other business crime reduction partnerships, shopwatches ..." It was aproved by ICO without any questions. If you follow the rules, then you will not have any problems, even with GDPR and CCTV operations. What I remember , for private/individuals, the CCTV guidance contains 3-4 pages only where you can find exact information what was told above in the BBB video .
I have a notic on my drive gates telling passers-by that i have cctv cameras recording 24hours a day and the reason for them and a telephone number to contact should they like to view the content of the recording.Never been asked by any body to view it.
I have cctv which I deliberately make sure does not capture my neighbours. When playing back footage most of these cameras detect and pick out motion events otherwise you would have to watch 24 hours of playback everyday. I can also draw specific areas within the frame that I want it to detect motion in, avoiding moving trees branches for example. If I was in your shoes, depending on the size of your garden I would be looking to put up multiple moving things in different key places that set off the motion detection constantly. Flags, little stick windmills, bird feeders. You could also get your own camera and point it back.
If I am in a public space with a camera, I am allowed to film all day long. If I in my own home and film my home and public areas around my home, surely this is allowed! Yes, if I am filming beyond my boundary into a neighbour’s (private) property, then I understand this law as it’s no longer public. I hate the world now. Policing is terrible but we are still hamstrung protecting ourselves and property. It’s all too much!
Because you're not just filming in public. You're filming someone else's property repeatedly. If your doorbell or CCTV has someone else's property, i.e., front door, you are continually filming their property and recording their day to day activity. This isn't like being in public spaces where different people come and go all day long. It amazes me how so many people don't understand the difference. It's literally always been like that from an ICO point of view. These rules haven't changed.
Yep incidental inclusion 😊 how ever if you use it for the coming and goings of you neighbours etc and then apply it on social media for example then you are using it for the wrong reason. Just like my wild life camera collects data of everyone who comes in and out of my horse field. So long as I don't use the footage etc police yes if I have been robbed 😊
@@Ginge1164 that still wouldn’t matter, you have the right to film anything you can see from a public space, that includes other peoples property. At the extreme end you can film a restricted military site from a public road as long as you yourself are not upon the property. Systems like Google street view can only work because filming anyone and anything from a public space is lawful.
@@laceandwhisky again though as long as the filming is lawful ie the camera isn’t zoomed through their window then there’s nothing anyone can do. You also have the right to release any content for publication created lawfully, so you might have issues with copyright if you were doing it for commercial reasons but for any other it’s a free country (at least for now, though that’s quickly changing)
@@JohnDoe-lx3dtyou also have a right to a private life. If you're filming the comings and goings of your neighbours, whilst you are filming a public space, that can be considered harassment and a breach of data protection.
There are other uses for these cameras other than catching burglars. When my sister is away she uses it to spot when packages are delivered so I can hurry by and pick it up.
My doorbell, caught my neighbour damaging my metal railing with his car door, when sending him the footage for him to apologise, or at best offer to repair, he got the police round for this very issue, who said I was in my right to film my property and should raise a compliant for criminal damage he caused... Love it!! 🤣🤣
And ALSO why if anything untoward happens to his property or car ...... It will now mysteriously coincide with a blip in the video coverage. The man is a total 🐓 I hope you did file the complaint for Criminal Damage given those circumstances.
@@Farweasel you know, I hesitate at first as I don’t believe in wasting police time, however I did make a complaint, and he now moves his car away before him or his passengers get into their car, so a happy ending to a degree…
I turned mine off ages ago. The police always ask if people have footage after an incident, but they cannot have their cake and eat it. So mine merely now shows who has rung the bell, with no recording and no storage.
As all local authorities are registered as Businesses with Companies House, does this open up the possibility of members of the public suing the council for the mass installation and live monitoring of cctv cameras in City Centres and public spaces?
We have small (Amazon Tapo) CCTV front and rear. Both point out of ground floor windows. We don't have a driveway and have a small front garden. So our car is usually parked in the parking bay in front of our house. We are on a road, on a residential estate, with a secondary school further down the road. The front camera points towards our front gate/path but also picks up some of the footpath and road as well as our car. We have had a few incidents of petty vandalism on our car, scratches mainly, but the main reason for the camera was because we have had parcels stolen from next to our front door and the schoolkids often open our gate (just for fun) and have dumped rubbish and picked flowers etc. I don't currently have warning signs so I am going to buy some. We have lived here over 20yrs and the behaviour of the kids has deteriorated so badly in that time. Since getting the cameras there are fewer incidents but they haven't totally stopped. :(
@@suecharnock9369 correct, you don't have to be a brain surgeon, or rocket scientist to comprehend this. Yet this video is full of comments from 🤡's as per usual.
I have a ring doorbell. This isn't just for security, it's also because I work nightshifts so it's handy as I've slept through people knocking before I got the doorbell. I have though made sure my camera doesn't record my neighbors, set up where to record so that up so I wouldn't keep getting notifications plus wanting them to have their privacy.
My car is parked on the street in front of my residence. It has been broken into by thieves 3 times in the last 2 years. Does this mean I cannot record my car ( cannot avoid the pavement, passers by etc.when protecting my car)?
Good subject to cover well presented. I have been advising the public for 36yrs on this and other subjects. Poor communication is often what causes disagreements. You present this very well. 😊
Just to clarify what is actually the case for private individuals and UK GDPR, here is a quote direct from the ICO: "The UK GDPR does not apply to certain activities including processing covered by the Law Enforcement Directive, processing for national security purposes and processing carried out by individuals purely for personal/household activities."
@@AUDITADDICTa thug sent the police to my door and they asked to see my cctv footage and I said I didn’t want to get involved and the police officer put his foot in the door stopping me from shutting the door and he burst into my place. So I showed him that my telly didn’t work. He left miffed
We have had police knock on our door to ask if we have footage of someone or a vehicle passing our house, because we are the first and last house in and out of a big estate. If its illegal someone should tell them!. That being said ive disabled the doorbell passing recording. It only captures people coming up to the house and or ringing the doorbell.
someone on my street has a doorbell camera. But because they dont have a "cctv on this house" sign, their neighbour called the police on them and they got issued with a court summons and a fine was issued. Its getting crazy
that was a little harsh. I think I would let all the neighbours know that if any of their stuff gets stollen or broken into your camera wasn't working........ Actually sort of happened to someone I know. They had working dogs that had free use of the back garden. New neighbour moves in and complains about the dogs barking at them - so dogs get put into a pen (which they already had) at the far far end of the persons back garden. Someone was watching those properties, because two days later new neighbour got burgled - good and proper. New neighbour asked is person saw or heard anything - reply was "No and I wouldn't have looked out unless the dogs barked, but they dont now" New neighbours expression was apparently priceless.
The police did nothing to ours. Our neighbours n other neighbours committed child abuse, many times... Recoded on their cctv, of course they refused to hand it over... Nothing done apart from the police APOLOGISED to the neighbours for us reporting n wanting the child abuse n threats to kill dealt with!!! Oh yes VERY 2 teir.
I am curious to the legality in a block of flats, i am interested in investing in a ring doorbell as we have had many parcels stolen or saying we are not in when we are etc. Im more worried about the communal aspect, obviously it will capture my neighbours, and i would be more than willing to turn off motion detection to the option to only press button notification to capture video, any help would be appreciated.
My doorbell camera helped lock up a team of foreign burglars who targetted my neighbour's house (there was so much evidence between me and our other neighbours they had to plead guilty, the neighbour who was burgled now has lots of cameras and an alarm), I'll go to war before anybody tells me what I can and can't do with a camera :) The irony is, it would have caught them in the act if I didn't have privacy filters on my rear camera for the benefit of the same neighbour..
We live in a very small road that is a dead end with 3 houses across the end. One of the houses on the the dead end has wired up a camera that is pointing down the street.. They can see everyone going in and out their gardens and young children playing in the street. They aren't at all approachable . They didn't ask anyone if they minded and there are no signs. We have no idea if they are deleting footage or whether they could be selling it especially in regards to the children. I'm all for camera on your property but not when it is deliberately pointed in such a way that it is filming everyone's coming and goings for no ones benefit but theirs.
I pointed out to the ICO Facebook (as it then was) were in huge breach of Data Protection Act requirements because they were demanding far more biographical information than necessary. ICO were less use than a chocolate fireguard - Idiot ICO woman didn't know the law yet still insisted it was lawful!
I made a couple of complaints to them, one about the police refusing to hand over bodycam footage of an ex copper (Sam Bate), threatening to smash in my window, at the roadside. The police said they had deleted it, so there was nothing the ICO could do. 🤯 No proof required, obviously.
Congratulations on surpassing the 400,000 subscriber level Mr Shensmith 🎥🏆. Hard earnt through decent, educational, honourable pro bono wise counsel 🥇. This wee soul very much appreciates your work👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
The rules and laws are so confusing that in Málaga Spain ( where I now live ) A few years ago the council put up CCTV all over the town centre, I have no idea what rule or law they broke ? ,But Málaga got a fine from Madrid ( The capital) And Málaga had to make multiple changes...If the government doesn't understand the government what hope have we got ....
Maybe CCTV operator looked in citizens windows instead of patrolling streets :) I know few situations where cctv cameras were used not for a legit reason especially with 30x optical and 40x digital zoom :)) . Maybe the CCTV was streamed live , maybe penalty was for the data leak (unauthorized access to the cctv) or the cameras were installed on the private lands without permission ? Without details it is hard to say what could be a reason however installation and running CCTV , even in Spain, was not a reason for penalty
@@OAPHarmerHerrStarmlerWhether someone is small minded or not is irrelevant. This video and the associated discussion is about the laws in England, not Spain. Discussions by definition have to be about a specific topic, otherwise they would go on forever. Don’t you know that? If you want to take about something else, create your own video. Until then get back in your box and wind your neck in.
Malaga is part of the EU, or did that fly over your head, the laws that were in place prior to leaving Europe remain in place today..the law prior to 2018 was the General Data Protection Regulation..now known as the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation....you know that right.
@@OAPHarmerHerrStarmler Haha you cannot retort so you resort to pathetic insults! Who’s got a small mind and big gob now? You’re certainly not a winner. 👎👎👎
A neighbour has cctv which is on a 2nd floor flat which looks over all the street and road where they park there cars but it does face houses opposite, a ball camera that they can speak through, they had the cheek to speak through it and tell me to move my car because they wanted to park there. Its a public street with no restrictions. I find it obtrusive and unsettling. Are they breaking any laws?
i would recommend asking them politely if they are following GDPR regulations , if they don't know what you are talking about then recommend they have a look at guidance from the Information commissioners website or something similar...from memory the retention period must be no longer than is necessary for the intended purpose..(in this case its probably security).@@Hawkeye_360
Subscribed, thanks. As a matter of fact I have installed CCtV into homes for many reasons, mainly security as you say, but also to watch wild life, nesting birds, keep an eye of horses in foal, amongst others.
@@tony_w839the facility may prefer you not to film outside but most of the time I expect there is nothing to stop you. Even if you are on their private property, all they can do is ask you to leave.
the difference, I believe, is that the smart phone isn't "installed" ... isn't "infrastructure" . Or maybe the "purpose" of the recording makes the difference
@@miff227Great point. Info on ICO about domestic CCTV and data protection law refers to "capture images or audio recordings from outside their property boundary using a FIXED camera, such as a CCTV camera or smart doorbell" and "These rules only apply to fixed cameras. They do not cover roaming cameras, such as drones or dashboard cameras (dashcams) as long as the drone or dashcam is used only for your domestic or household purposes."
"This is highly unlikely to ever happen." That's the single worst excuse you can use for giving people in power the tools to abuse you. If there is the possibility for this to happen, then it's important to stop it.
Who exactly is being abused ? The laws mentioned are there to protect people's privacy, and the possibility of them going after a private citizen using a ring camera while low are still the same laws that they need to keep everyone else under check at the same time. Adding exceptions just to put people who are breaking the laws at ease could end up with loopholes protecting the people / companies that the laws are there to and try and stop, as well as reduce the amount of actions that can be taken against general invasion of privacy. A few examples of these abuses of cctvs by private individuals are given in this video, do you think having tools to aid in prosecution and at the very least having their cameras removed in cases like those are a bad thing ?
There was a rta outside my property the police asked me if I had it on camera I did and gave them a copy which resulted in successful prosecution for careless driving
Unfortunately cats are regarded as Wild animals, and not domestic so unlike Dogs they cannot be held accountable for their trespass. They really do rule us! 😻
@@Levantine68 if your garden is fenced off, and there's no gaps it can sneak through, then yes it might be seen as trespass. If it's open to the elements then it would be hard to claim trespass. Technically the owner is responsible for its dogs conduct and you would think in a built up area/near a road they would harness/leash the pet. However this isn't always the case. If it's a nuisance eg pooing on your garden, try talking to the owner first. Although it can be difficult, try not to be accusatory just have a polite conversation about the poop. Sometimes they aren't aware and other times you can spark a conflict just because some people 🤷. If there's no issue with the dogs behaviour eg non aggressive, no poop then it may be easier to let it roam. If you have a phobia, then try to approach the owner when the pet isn't around and politely, but firmly explain that it would be appreciated if they could keep the dog leashed. Most owners are good people and will happily comply with a polite request. Perhaps bring along a treat for the dog too? Otherwise you are in for a tough fight. Environmental Services are the ones to contact regarding dog mess. It's a hassle; I won't lie. If the dog is out of control - aggressive and snapping at people - call 101, or if you think it's seriously dangerous then 999. Good luck. Hope this helps.
What about communal areas of an apartment building? Packages and bicycles are being stolen from the building's foyer and communal bike rack. The landlord refuses to act, citing cost and all residents must consent (good luck when one is the thief). Can a resident set up CCTV as long as he posts clear notice and allows data protection enquiries?
You have a right to know what that CCTV is used for. If a business has CCTV, and that CCTV is apparently for security of the building, they can not use that same CCTV for say disciplinary proceedings towards staff for being late. That's just an example. I'd contact them via email and request in writing what that CCTV is for. You're entitled to know this given that you're more than likely on it.
@@Ginge1164 I think you misunderstand, or perhaps I wasn't clear. I want to know if a tenant can set up a camera in the communal areas to prevent ongoing crime, because the landlord refuses to take any action. I am in favour of the camera and would consider doing it myself if lawful.
you can read the regulations and find out yourself, its not that hard..just make sure you know the legal meaning of words and not just assume the meaning is the same as in common parlance.
@@Paul-ry5cx I've read the regulations, done research, and I'm educated in law. The answer remains unclear, so I thought I'd ask a barrister who just posted a video about it. If all legal issues were as simple as reading the legislation, we wouldn't need a judiciary to interpret.
ok, household cctv come under the exemption from GDPR "if it is for household or personal use" as long as the images captured are within the perimeter of your own home and are only used for your personal purposes... However, where your device operates in such a way as to capture images of people outside the perimeter of your home (in public spaces or in neighboring property), you are no longer able to avail of the domestic exemption. In those circumstances, you must either change the way you use the device to capture images only within your property or comply with data protection law. This follows from the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case of Rnyeš (C 212/13), which found that the household exemption did not apply where a domestic CCTV system captured images in the street outside the private property@@TheChocoboWhisperer
🤔 It has been said that doorbell cameras can also pick up conversations in nearby houses, which is extremely concerning, more so than the visual aspect, in my opinion! 😳
Yes. Studies have shown that an average Ring doorbell can pick up a normal level conversation up to 90 feet away and over heavy traffic at a distance of 60 foot. More than enough for your neighbours to listen to your summer evening of wine filled gossip... I find it more distressing than the filming. No one wants to see my old butt wandering my garden. But I don't like the idea of my neighbour recording my private conversation with my friends.
I use my doorbell for notifying me of deliveries to my flat, I’m disabled so it’s easier for me to speak to the delivery person to tell them where to put it, handy if your out as well and a delivery comes earlier than expected. I live in a terraced back to back so my neighbours door is opposite mine, although the camera is pointed up the yard as much as I could get it to it mainly points at my door. Her doorbell is pointed at my door which used to annoy me as it records every time I open my door, and any one who comes to the door etc,but I’ve got used to it now, just ignore it.
I have added aftermarket "dashcams" to my car with a view to security as I have had items from my car stolen on a couple of occasions and have had my car crashed into whilst parked (without me in it). Whilst reviewing the footage it seems that audio is also recorded. Do the same rules apply? What if my car picks up on my neighbours activities and records their conversations, or worse. Is this in any way different to a fixed CCTV system? Should I apply stickers to my car to warn the innocent public that they may be filmed? Should I be aware of where my cameras are pointing when I park, so as not to point at anyone's bedroom? I am not an IT buff, just an amateur trying to secure my car. I believe that you drive a Tesla and they have multiple cameras around them. Do these cameras capture only what is reasonably necessary? Is it stored securely, or uploaded to "the Cloud", or Tesla, or who else? Is it only stored for as long as is necessary (how long could this be - maybe 200 years for a historian to show how many people were killed by horse-drawn as opposed to cars) This just seems so ambiguous and not clear yet despite your videos. Thank you again for your input, you are appreciated for your "not Legal Advice"
I have never put up a notice for my CCTV - the camera in full view is enough! When I first put it up my neighbours noticed some shady characters crossing the road to walk past my address, before crossing back again when they thought they had cleared the camera! unless you come onto my property/ drive my camera will not record you, unless you are passing in the street at the same time that someone is at my door.
I bought little stickers to let people know the doorbell records movement and voice, just so people near my doorbell are informed. I have one on my door and one above the doorbell itself.
They don't want you to be able to catch them playing dirty at your doorstep, but they do want to incriminate you via THEIR totalitarian surveillance state.
My partners parents have neighbours that had CCTV installed. One of the cameras is fully facing in to their back garden/conservatory and has no view of the camera owners property. Always wondered if it was worth taking action or just leaving the weirdos to it.
We have installed CCTV because a dust cart reversed into our front garden , it took out our fence & gate & shoved our hedge up against our back garden. The garden has been completely trashed. The council was not interested unless we have video footage & an independent witness. The camera is capturing the road outside so if it happens again we can have footage of the vehicle & number plate .
I have heard of laws not used for decades but still on the books used against people. A law is always a law ready to be used if still on the books. Plus today we know there are people using laws against people for personal reasons.
The ICOs website confirms that "personal data processed in the course of a purely personal or household activity, with no connection to a professional or commercial activity, is outside the UK GDPR's scope."
i am suggesting there website is a bag of poo, and the website is for guidance..if you want far better explanation of what the articles mean then google "REGULATION (EU) 2016/ 679 OF THE EU" and you can read the regulations in full themselves and great explanations of its meaning.@@alastairharris1866
lol..sorry, i have just seen what you replied to...i quoted the the actual article of the UKGDPR 2018 that states.. Article 2 2. This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data: (c) by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity i wasn't disagreeing with you, i was giving you the actual legislation.@@alastairharris1866
Yes, but if it's recording outside the property, whether that be public space or a neighbours private space, it falls outside the household exemption. This was specifically mentioned in Fairhurst v Woodard.
Thank you for this its just what i needed to know at the moment having a neighbour pointing a camera directly into my back garden where my daughter plays. Appreciate this.
Where I live life is simple. If something is viewable in public then it can be recorded. Includes what can be seen through auto or structure's windows if physically entering private property is not required to see.
Im sick of the intrusive cameras in supermarkets... I didnt agree to be fimed so close up... The store has cameras and a security guard...why are they allowed to film my face and whole body length when i pay for my shopping...????
Good explanation and there is some sense to the law. For example I can see invasion of privacy with neighbours.I would like them pointed at the road to record any suspicious cars in the neighbourhood
what if your neighbour is a landlord of a house converted into flats ? who refuses to give his details . no sign up to say cctv in operation , at the front of the house and the side . i spoke with the IOC who say without the landlords details they can't do anything . i don't know if the tenants know the cctv is recording them , driveway and possibly the pavement. and the public green across from the house !,
How can they make a rule (it's NOT a law) about videoing in public, which is what a private CCTV is? Saying your cctv could be illegal is the same as saying looking out of your window at anything in view is illegal. Freedom to photograph and film "Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel." - MET police website Data protection is just that, protecting data, not images of people, in public.
The point of the article and this video is about recording other people's property without their consent, not about recording public areas outside your boundary (which my understanding is that there are no restrictions on), although that was never specifically addressed in the video.
@@doctor_gee yep but the BBB while mentioning that, also implied that it could be a problem if it caught a driveway, and that's not the case, driveways private , but road facing no expecation of privacy
@@doctor_gee Recording someone's property from a public place is not illegal. Basically, ANYTHING you can see from a public point of view, including private property, can be recorded.
As per the Gov website - GDPR is only applicable to a business not an individual - uses of personal data on social media fall under bullying, online trolling legislation unless again used by a business which it then becomes a GDPR issue, if a camera records directly into someone else's property this is under privacy laws but again as a individual and not registered business GDPR does not apply.
@@ChrisWijtmans So GDPR applies to the company retaining the data for you, but does not apply to you taking copies on your pc or device, also if you know anything about cameras you would know that not all manufacturers rely on cloud storage, such as Tapo/TP link.
This is incorrect. It doesn't apply to individuals who are processing for a purely personal or household activity. However, in the context of domestic CCTV, if you capture anything that is not within your property (e.g. you neighbour's property or the public street) then you are not processing for a purely personal or household activity and therefore fall outwith the exemption.
@@absolvitor3541 According to the Gov website it states that you are only liable to GDPR as a business, which as you stated is not personal use, so if you are a UA-camr and you use your property to vlog from you are by definition running a business. However if you are capturing data that is being overwritten and not used on social media and for your own use then GDPR does not apply to individuals unless the said cameras overlook directly into rooms or windows which would then make it a privacy law matter and again not GDPR as you are a individual and not a business.
@@eadweard. because in a public place , there is no expectation of privacy , and a public road is that public. In theory you could use this to claim against someone videoing by Tower bridge if you got captured as there is no fundamental difference. Sure don't have tour CCTV pointing in windows or back gardens, but the road is not a problem, driveways are not a problem, as driveways while private land, still are open and have no expectation of privacy
the old Data Protection Act had a specific clause to exclude recording for domestic purposes from the Data Protection Principles as scheduled. I used this to my advantage when I was practising law, this occasion just happened to be my own case: Me [holding up a pen]: Excuse me, what's this? Judge: a pen. Me: what is it used for? Judge: writing. Me: Specifically, recording data, don't you agree? Judge: ...in principle, yes. Me: So using that principle of recording data, what's the difference between me using a pen and a sheet of paper to record data, and me typing on an electronic device such as a laptop with a silent membrane keyboard? Judge: Practically speaking, no difference. However, not knowing the nature of the software being used I can't allow the use of a laptop in here. Me: What if I show you the laptop starting up, following which the software in use? Would that not satisfy you as to intent and method? Judge: I suppose so. Now? Me: Certainly. [proceeds to start laptop in native DOS mode (as in, single-tasking from the command line, no GUI, in fact it looks a lot like MS-DOS 6.22), then a plain Jane text editor that looks a lot like DOS EDIT.] Short version: I managed to convince a Judge in the High Court to allow me to use a laptop to take my own notes (I type a lot faster than I can write even shorthand), which I think may have also contributed to the adoption of e-tablets and laptops in the Court system as go-to references in place of trolleyloads of paper documents covered in post-it notes.
@@eadweard.because we are protecting our property rather than using the information for profit. Also the Police are often asking residents for CCTV copy.
I son't use it anymore but it feels like the app Nextdoor need to seriously consider this when it comes to their guidelines and rules as they have in my experience hosted plenty of content that has been captured on door cams
I have a ring doorbell for the following reasons Security Amazon leave parcels Willy milky on my garden. Litter being thrown by passers by on my property Unruly neighbour Surely this is not against the law as I want proof of the perpetrators doing it ???
I am a disabled person with limited mobility and had a Ring doorbell installed so I could see who is at my front door, and I could speak to whoever was at the door and for my security as I am a vulnerable person, I did use the record function to enhance my feeling of security, I put up the one sign saying cctv in use, unfortunately I can’t get the camera field of view so I am not looking at the bungalow opposite my flat or the walkway to other flat entrance doors, is that a potential problem under the law. Thanks.
Hi yes having cameras outside your property I know you have bought this subject up to give it debate anyway I don't have cameras outside my property so there's no problem with the neighbours anyway keep up the good work you're very informative 👍
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
It doesn't help and confuse things that if a crime happens in the street the police will often ask if anyone has CCTV to help their inquiry!
I think the whole legal system is entirely happy with moving forward with a mind to create as much conflict as possible. It's business to them. Look at the new road hierarchy/pedestrian/junction rules.
Wouldn't capturing that sort of thing - a car or a person passing by, for example - be within what's necessary?
Who's the fool that came up with this shit
Exactly!
Help the police in this way and they will prosecute you later.
This is all UK media keeping people fearful and disconnected.
My son's one day old car was rammed by a large new SUV (only 20 registered on UK's roads). The police had CCTV of the incident and HD CCTV of him checking out of the Hotel/Leisure complex complete with his credit card details. The police sent a letter 4 weeks later stating they had closed the incident and no further action would be taken. My son had to pay out for his excess and drive for the whole year without gaining any no claims bonus, that is when I noticed two tier policing in action.
what did the letter say though? That they couldn't identify the person?
Someone called in a favour or more likely bought one.
Your son's insurer should have demanded the offender's identity from the police.
@@JimmyTheRake Since the VRM of the offending vehicle would have been known , this can be dealt with by insurers , using the video evidence as proof , and demanding a new replacement vehicle , due to the newness of the damaged car .
Also , if the driver failed to report the incident to the police , that is a separate offence , and failure to prosecute is a subject for a formal police complaint , to be investigated by another force . Press will always be interested in such stories . Police are not above the law .
@@derekheeps1244 (said) " Police are not above the law."
Omitting the qualifier *'If there's ANYBODY watching'* 🙄
Why just homeowners. We've got cameras up our arse everywhere.
Theres cameras on most street lighting.
@@emmabaker4925 those rent-a-scooters are a spy device. A councilor in Newcastle Australia said they were going to get the cameras in street lights but a scooter firm contacted them saying the scooters have cameras front and back, scan all phones, facial recon for humans and dogs, reads car number plates etc, etc, etc..... so they got scooters instead.
Two tier laws
Steady on old chap, that's far too much information....
There is no legal requirement to assist a Police Constable with their investigation. Connelly vs Rice case law 1966 applies here. Also, there is no expectation of privacy in a public place, and without the CCTV as evidence, the case would either fail at the point of preparation, or at the first court hearing. Since the Police have already broken the law in the past, by waiting until the CCTV has been deleted, ( and yes, I have proof of it ), then there would be no case to answer there. Let the neighbour sue anyone. They will lose every case, due to the lack of evidence.
A neighbours property is not a public place.
Yes they delay so evidence gets overwritten , or just lose or delete it
@@RachelLondon Well said. Checkmate. @NomadicNight
The law and rights of individuals are ignored by the courts and police when it suits them to do so.
This is not likely to happen just as you're not likely to be jailed for two years for putting a sticker on a lamp post.
@@secondchance6603 sadly these things happen every day, it only seems to be noticed when it happens to you. Ignorance of the law is NO excuse especially if it’s been weaponised instead of the pursuit of truth and justice.
Man removes Covid poster, gets arrested by police and changed
Woman rips down vax protest poster, man objects and tries to remove poster from further damage and gets arrested by police for touchless assault for not allowing woman to rip it
But the police are not biased at all 🤡🇬🇧
Freemasons
I have an anti-social neighbour (check my list!!) Who talks so loud that I can record her nasty obscene conversations in my livingroom when my patio doors are open.
Camera in my garden, is tripped by her loud voice and music.
Surely if you carry on like that, you do not have an expectation of privacy.
It's funny that the police are happy to ask for doorbell footage to assist the investigation of a crime.
Not really.
It would be the ICO which prosecutes for flagrant breach of data protection, not the police.
I would imagine that most police are unaware of the obligations placed on CCTV users as it is not police which investigates a breach
Catch-22 system
@@geordiewishart1683 I think you missed the point of the comment.
When the police make a public appeal for CCTV footage of incidents which happened outside your property, or even go door-to-door having identified a camera which they believe covers the area of interest, were it me my getout response to them would be "No, there would be no useful footage for you since the camera has a block filter in place to exclude the highway and any area beyond my boundary."
IDGAF if there's a block filter in place or not, I am under no legal obligation to help the police by supplying CCTV footage whether it is likely to be useful to them or not.
Yes.... they are always doing that in our street
@BlokeOnAMotorbike I'm surprised at your delight in refusing to help victim of crime.
There should be a £100,000 Fine for reading The Express.
Or your comment. Wait...
People don't read it, they look at the pictures.
...and The Daily Wail ^
😋
Doesn't reading the Excess or the Snail come under the heading 'Cruel &/or unusual punishment' ?
Not only have we [in our house] been asked for footage from our CCTV - we were also told by a police community officer that our cameras were a very good idea and complied with the law [as far as he could see].
Exactly
Don't except the police to actually know and understand the law. I've seen many examples of them getting it wrong.
'PCSO' = I'd take it with a pinch of salt.
Never take legal advice from police. They have no legal training and are not expected to know the law.
plastic plods have even less knowledge of the law than real plods...............
I have a ring door bell, it shows my neighbors gate and car . He's very pleased to have that covered. If he were to move i would certainly check with the new neighbours , if they didn't want that I would have to move my doorbell. But we have had less car damage and milk thefts since it was installed .
That’s the reason I put in my doorbell milk being stolen they even took the little crate, also a parcel was taken before I brought it in.
The Daily Express telling lies? That's what they do daily.
Don't all MSM news papers😊
They once ran the headline "Electricity will be free by 1990" I think it may have been The Sunday Express, but you get the point.....
I thought it was the Daily Mail which did that. To me the Express is just mindless drivel, kind of like the Daily Star but without the aliens.
Cool it with the antisemetim
@@loc4725Or tits.
The Police actually asked me if I had C.C.T.V in connection with a burglary acroos the road. These laws made to favour criminality, if I had C.C.T.V given the police record of biting the hand that feeds them, I would not have told them anyway.
No they are favoring the confiscation of your private propety....
Police never asked you for the footage straight away - they need to establish is it operational, does it capture the area in their interst etc. I they do this, then can ask you for checking the footage. If they do it, you can ask them for official request with all details what, when and where (approx. time etc). When you would receive document like this, you have a time to check, verify and eventually release footage to the police. First question is when :) ? I had situation when police came to me and asked for the footage from the situation which happened 3 months earlier :) Nobody is obligated to keep records so long - typically 30days however private users can keep it 2 weeks/1week and then the footage is overwritten. If you have set 2 weeks keeping records and the police would sya it happened 3 weeks earlier there is still a chance the record exists. Rejecting police request about footage brings questions - why you do not want to check/share the footage (if exists)with he police and if its serious crime they will (probably) confiscate HDD (or whole recorder) for further examination :) . I have never had an issue with the police when they came - in one case the footage helped to find the young man who attacked and robbed on the street 74yo man who broke his hip during this crime. They will not confiscate anything unless you give them reason :) .
@@delta110a What are you reading? they did not ask me for footage, only if i had C.C.T.V. I did not but if i had I would not have told them anyway,
@@williamoates1754 Small mistake ??? However if they would see cams they would ask for possibility to check footage unless you would have hidden cams then you do not need to inform them. I do not want to assume what would happen if the police discovered you had a cam which could help them : -- obstructing the investigation ? 🤣
@@delta110aDoesn't really matter whether your CCTV cameras are visible or not: If you don't want to give the police (or anyone else) any footage, you can always say that they are "placebo" cameras; installed for the purpose of being clearly visible and therefore act as a deterrent, nothing more. Such products do exist and can be bought and installed for precisely that reason - not all of them are convincing enough, but there are some which look reasonably close to the real thing.
So even if the police didn't believe you for whatever reason, they would then have to prove that you were lying when you told them the cameras were of a placebo variety. The only way they could do that would be to gain access to your home and search for whatever devices you were using to record the footage from the cameras. But I would find it very hard to believe that this would ever be sufficient grounds for them to be granted a search warrant, so there's not much chance of them being able to gain access to and search your home in that situation, unless you gave them explicit permission or invited them in yourself.
0:16 *Daniel, there is no such thing as 'highly unlikely' when the law is concerned. British police abuse laws through their mis-application DAILY*
Police don't apply laws.
Yes! I'm just glad to hear a fellow Brit quote Dave Ramsey.
I've followed his steps since 2018.
I left the Army and became a successful Independent Financial Adviser all because of Dave.
My Mum's nextdoor neighbour who is a close family friend has set up his CCTV to cover her gate and drive, he asked first and we were happy for him to do so as it protects my Mum.
I think this is a sensible approach if you have a camera, speak to your neighbour and explain you'd like it to help protect them too.
Snap!
Communication is always key
Unfortunately may neighbour is not a friend and has set up his CCTV to cover my house doors, windows, garden areas and drive. I consider it to be an invasion of privacy.
We have way too many laws and way too many public servants with nothing better to do but come up with new ones.
@rath6599
> We have way too many laws and way too many public servants
> with nothing better to do but come up with new ones.
We also have way to many ignorant f~~~wits with nothing better to do but come up with fatuous posts on social media about new laws.
@@anonnona8099 Hit a nerve? Lol. Hope you have a great day man.
@@rath6599
> @anonnona8099 Hit a nerve? Lol. Hope you have a great day man.
Sad that you laugh about parading your ignorance.
@@anonnona8099 I did hit a nerve! Apologies. Here's the thing, comments on youtube, you can ignore. Stupid laws, you can't. That's the problem that I have. I'm sorry I offended you, you're clearly a public servant. Please don't legislate against me.
@@rath6599
> @anonnona8099 I did hit a nerve!
Don't flatter yourself.
> Here's the thing, comments on youtube, you can ignore. Stupid laws, you can't.
> That's the problem that I have.
No - the problem you have is that you aren't very bright.
If the only legitimate use for home cctv is your own security, then handing it over to the police to help with their enquiries does not fall into that category. How long before they come after you for trying to do the right thing?
That’s the problem
They already do it
The time for compensating burglars for locking the front door is just around the corner
Just wait until a burglar can sue you for having your door locked.
there have been cases where burglars sue owners cos there were unsafe things in their house and they got injured.
I think this is the US though, so crazy-town.
Except it's not, the headline is from the Express and their ridiculous scaremongering
It already been that way for at least 19 years.
Fact of Kent corrupt woke, Racist anti white taxpaying Englishman police.
Yes I think I once read of an example in America where a burglar stole a car from a driveway. The car was getting work done to its brakes, meaning the thief crashed and hurt himself. He then successfully sued.
"A reasonable expectation of privacy in your own back garden": I've got terribly nosey neighbours. Staring out the window and ducking behind curtains - they don't need CCTV. I put a sign in my garden "would you please mind your own business". Didn't work, now I have a stuffed man sat on a chair in my shed with a halloween mask staring back at their main viewing point (back bedroom window). We also tailor our conversations in the back garden so the neighbours can hear (about the hostages in the dungeon under the garage etc.).
go sun bathe naked in your garden. they will soon stop looking.
Lol 👌
Sit in the chair for an hour then get up in front of them lol
😂😂😂
@@niv8880 sweet.
If you feel brave enough, parade around naked for a few days. I guarantee the net twitchers will stop looking. 😜
they also used to say "castrating children isn't something the government will do, and it's highly unlikely that will ever happen"
Then they started calling them "trans" and castrated them.
If your government does ANYTHING that makes you worried about the future, you need to put a stop to it, immediately.
You can't have gender reassignment until you are 18
@@phill6859 look up chemical castration.
The government don't do the castrating, you soggy bread.
@@phill6859 'Gender Reassignment' does not start with medical intervention, it begins with counselling.
A bit silly 😂😂😂
Here’s a wee point, why when there is a murder in your street the police ask for door ring bell coverage or car video coverage. If you could be fined why would you give anything to plod. I am aware this is an extreme example but you get what I mean. There’s an other point when out and about in my wee car how am I not breaking the law by filming others out on the public highways. Just a thought.
If you captured something that happened outside your door (as opposed to inside your neighbour's living room), then there's unlikely to be a problem.
Yes, I don't understand why house cctv is under question when a peado can sit outside a school with a dash cam.
@@ellerosse5471 Nonces do all kinds of funny things. Nor sure how it affects this issue though.
It's the ICO which investigates breaches of data protection.
Even if you gave police footage which clearly shows that your camera is in breach of data protection requirements, they would most likely not know, nor care.
@eadweard. Recording the public without concent, especially children via dash cam, but it's never brought into question.
Hampshire police told me I cannot put cctv up on my property because I MIGHT capture other properties in the background. I IGNORED the police & later I caught a criminal on tape! Yet no problem with police when they viewed the footage!
Very glad you IGNORED the police. That was such a stupid "request" from them (no surprise, sadly...)
Sorry...what? They told you you're not allowed to put one up before you put it up or they told you it was placed illegally?
You can film anything that can be filmed from a public property.
@@philipgeorgiev Oh, so you can stick a camera over someone's fence and film them in their back garden?
Can you also point your camera into someone else's window if you're stood on the street?
Hampshire Police.... I'm from Southampton so please don't get me started on these clowns in Police uniforms.
My neighbour got extremely defensive when I requested he position his cameras so as not to capture me on my property or be alerted to me coming and going, as if I was making a ridiculous request. I am still disturbed by the fact he needs two cameras pointing at his back door, one of which is very close to my garden boundary and the area in which I entertain. I cannot guarantee conversations are not recorded so have to warn anyone spending any time in my garden about possible recording. It's very uncomfortable. He has now put signs up on the front of his house, but they cannot be read from public areas. How does adding signage, as per ICO, make any difference to those being captured in public places if they cannot be read the signs without venturing on to the property?
I have cctv which I make sure does not capture my neighbours property. If I was in your position I would get my own camera and point it right back at them and see how they like it.
I live in a flat and neighbour has his camera pointing down onto my back door they say it’s broke but in the night you can see the infra red lights up on it.
Then they're lying to you.
Got a friend with a nasty neighbour who openly points CCTV over the fence and into his garden and windows as harassment. Police and council, caled and do nothing. But what do you expect from officials these days.
Laser......
@JohnSmith-pl2bk - asking for a friend of course; does a laser knacker them completely? 👀
They can sod off.The police wont protect my property so i will
I get that totally.
The police won't protect my property... so I'll put up cameras that record my neighbours' conversions?
Unsure of the logic here.
The installer should make sure they are not capturing your neighbours. Mine did he fiddled around for ages to get them so they didn’t.
@@OAPHarmerHerrStarmler Well if he meant anything else, then it was just irrelevant bloviating.
@@eadweard.What’s a neighbours’ conversion?
The problem with things like this is in the very fact that they're saying it CAN apply to individuals, but they will CHOOSE to not pursue it. Or in other words, if you do or say anything the government doesn't like but isn't strictly illegal, they will be able to use their ABILITY to prosecute you under this law regardless, because fairness isn't the point. Scaring you into compliance and obedience is.
GDPR has always applied to individuals and rightly so especially so if you are making money of the information. In practical terms there is no difference between auditor scum and Mcdonalds when it comes to GDPR. Both are profit making entities - company status is irrelevant
Think of it like this ....the police can choose to not pursue a fine or penalty if you're doing 71 mph in a 70mph zone, but they're absolutely allowed to.
@@RylanStorm Gotta catch you first .
@@InterdictionI’d drive at 72mph, just to be sure to get away.
Prosecution is one thing , conviction is quite another .
We have a camera that records the front of our driveway. Our neighbor across the street was concerned that I was recording her coming and going. When I showed her what the footage actually looked like, how small she looked, how indistinct everything in their front yard was, she wasn’t worried anymore. Then she asked me to try to record the person who was letting their dog defecate on her lawn! 😂
it could still be used by the cloud to determine when she is leaving and coming back, how small or blurry she looks is irrelevant, enough information can be inferred from it. breaking privacy laws.
If the video got into the wrong paws, dog could use it to time its defecations for maximum annoyance!
@@ianstobie the camera could be defecated on therefore obscuring any images.
She can get her own!
@@ChrisWijtmans what privacy laws? HRA only covers against Governments not individuals
We asked our neighbours if it was OK
They asked if the one covering our drive could it cover theirs too
Subsequently it's captured someone being naughty around their house
What if the camera is angled purposely to cover a neighbours property, against the neighbours (me) wishes?
had something similar, had a polish family slap a motorized camera to watch their car, fine if they had their own driveway but not on street parking.. of which they would always insist on parking outside my home meaning everyone from my front door up the road had 0 privacy outside their own front doors! and as an added bonus it was also mounted in a way that can be used to look into the windows of the properties over the way.
this is mentioned in the video. Ask them to take it down, then if they reject, you can try and get a 'no win no fee' lawyer to get the camera moved/removed. it also depends how much it captures. have you seen the footage they have?
I'm going to repeat what someone else said in the chat. How do councils get away with street cameras, or shop camaras get away with it? I dont wish to be filmed 24/7 as that infringes on my right to live a quiet life, surely?
shops have signs up saying "cctv on these premises" and its private land. Your house however is not. Its why you need planning permission to do anything. And why, if you refuse to sell when (for example) the council want to build flats or a supermarket, they will get the police to remove you, while running the house prices down to a fraction of what they originally offered you.
They’ll have signs up. By you entering their property you are agreeing to the filming.
Sorry to say but on the street as the public area , you can not expect the privacy :) . In a shop, as the private land, cameras are installed for the security reason (they follow rules and GDPR). If the shop owner would share video (i.ex. on YT - let's say with the title "Please help me find this shoplifter") from the shop he would be prosecuted for breaking the law . Shop owner can record everything (on his land) but can't share to everyone - only to the authorised organisations on request. My ICO cert has note to whom I can share footage if required (some part of the cert) : "...Where necessary or required we share information with:
police forces, security organisations, central and local government, other business crime reduction partnerships, shopwatches ..."
It was aproved by ICO without any questions. If you follow the rules, then you will not have any problems, even with GDPR and CCTV operations. What I remember , for private/individuals, the CCTV guidance contains 3-4 pages only where you can find exact information what was told above in the BBB video .
@@AzguardMikethat's about as wrong as you can be. I'm hazarding a guess that you are not a lawyer.
I have a notic on my drive gates telling passers-by that i have cctv cameras recording 24hours a day and the reason for them and a telephone number to contact should they like to view the content of the recording.Never been asked by any body to view it.
So wouldn’t CCTV, dash cams on vehicles etc also have to pay fines too? This is totally unenforceable.
because the BBB is wrong on this , he has misread GDPR and confused about what is permissable in a public space
The news outlets have to exaggerate this non news story because the truth is very boring.
Good because my neighbours record all of our conversations in our back garden haven't used my back garden in two years it's like a prison
Maybe your a little paranoid!!, why would someone want to listen to someone else's boring conversation. for christ sake get a life.
Play obnoxiously loud & crappy music, if they choose to listen don’t make it easy for them 😉
I have cctv which I deliberately make sure does not capture my neighbours. When playing back footage most of these cameras detect and pick out motion events otherwise you would have to watch 24 hours of playback everyday. I can also draw specific areas within the frame that I want it to detect motion in, avoiding moving trees branches for example. If I was in your shoes, depending on the size of your garden I would be looking to put up multiple moving things in different key places that set off the motion detection constantly. Flags, little stick windmills, bird feeders. You could also get your own camera and point it back.
Neighbours, who needs them.
you sound like a cronically paranoid person.
If I am in a public space with a camera, I am allowed to film all day long. If I in my own home and film my home and public areas around my home, surely this is allowed! Yes, if I am filming beyond my boundary into a neighbour’s (private) property, then I understand this law as it’s no longer public. I hate the world now. Policing is terrible but we are still hamstrung protecting ourselves and property. It’s all too much!
So google earth filming private property is ok, also government cctv?
How would this apply anyway, we have the right to film in public and a stronger right to film on our own property.
Because you're not just filming in public. You're filming someone else's property repeatedly. If your doorbell or CCTV has someone else's property, i.e., front door, you are continually filming their property and recording their day to day activity. This isn't like being in public spaces where different people come and go all day long. It amazes me how so many people don't understand the difference. It's literally always been like that from an ICO point of view. These rules haven't changed.
Yep incidental inclusion 😊 how ever if you use it for the coming and goings of you neighbours etc and then apply it on social media for example then you are using it for the wrong reason. Just like my wild life camera collects data of everyone who comes in and out of my horse field. So long as I don't use the footage etc police yes if I have been robbed 😊
@@Ginge1164 that still wouldn’t matter, you have the right to film anything you can see from a public space, that includes other peoples property. At the extreme end you can film a restricted military site from a public road as long as you yourself are not upon the property. Systems like Google street view can only work because filming anyone and anything from a public space is lawful.
@@laceandwhisky again though as long as the filming is lawful ie the camera isn’t zoomed through their window then there’s nothing anyone can do. You also have the right to release any content for publication created lawfully, so you might have issues with copyright if you were doing it for commercial reasons but for any other it’s a free country (at least for now, though that’s quickly changing)
@@JohnDoe-lx3dtyou also have a right to a private life.
If you're filming the comings and goings of your neighbours, whilst you are filming a public space, that can be considered harassment and a breach of data protection.
There are other uses for these cameras other than catching burglars. When my sister is away she uses it to spot when packages are delivered so I can hurry by and pick it up.
I use mine to make sure my packages are delivered as packages have been stolen in the past.
My doorbell, caught my neighbour damaging my metal railing with his car door, when sending him the footage for him to apologise, or at best offer to repair, he got the police round for this very issue, who said I was in my right to film my property and should raise a compliant for criminal damage he caused... Love it!! 🤣🤣
That is how you find out whether your neighbours are decent,fair play types or utter twats.
And ALSO why if anything untoward happens to his property or car ......
It will now mysteriously coincide with a blip in the video coverage.
The man is a total 🐓
I hope you did file the complaint for Criminal Damage given those circumstances.
@@Farweasel you know, I hesitate at first as I don’t believe in wasting police time, however I did make a complaint, and he now moves his car away before him or his passengers get into their car, so a happy ending to a degree…
How would you raise a compliant?
@@S.Trades in the UK you call 101 for non urgent police complaints
I turned mine off ages ago. The police always ask if people have footage after an incident, but they cannot have their cake and eat it. So mine merely now shows who has rung the bell, with no recording and no storage.
As all local authorities are registered as Businesses with Companies House, does this open up the possibility of members of the public suing the council for the mass installation and live monitoring of cctv cameras in City Centres and public spaces?
We have small (Amazon Tapo) CCTV front and rear. Both point out of ground floor windows. We don't have a driveway and have a small front garden. So our car is usually parked in the parking bay in front of our house. We are on a road, on a residential estate, with a secondary school further down the road. The front camera points towards our front gate/path but also picks up some of the footpath and road as well as our car. We have had a few incidents of petty vandalism on our car, scratches mainly, but the main reason for the camera was because we have had parcels stolen from next to our front door and the schoolkids often open our gate (just for fun) and have dumped rubbish and picked flowers etc. I don't currently have warning signs so I am going to buy some. We have lived here over 20yrs and the behaviour of the kids has deteriorated so badly in that time. Since getting the cameras there are fewer incidents but they haven't totally stopped. :(
Remember the audio recording... these device record everything near them..
Yet the MET and most supermarkets use cameras to record you scanning your shopping to facial recognition crap..
Private property ...you don't have to be there, or you could try covering your face.
@@BaddaBigBoomOr even wonder if the recordings will ever even be looked at by a human unless there is suspicion of theft 😁
Thanks
Thank you so much!😊
I have a camera overlooking the street. It helps me 100% to know when delivery drivers are here. I often can't hear the door from my back kitchen.
So why isn't every local authority in the country being fined 17 million quid every week ?
These clowns film EVERYONE ALL THE TIME ...????
because they are licensed and comply with the law on data storage etc. Duh
@@suecharnock9369 correct, you don't have to be a brain surgeon, or rocket scientist to comprehend this. Yet this video is full of comments from 🤡's as per usual.
I have a ring doorbell. This isn't just for security, it's also because I work nightshifts so it's handy as I've slept through people knocking before I got the doorbell. I have though made sure my camera doesn't record my neighbors, set up where to record so that up so I wouldn't keep getting notifications plus wanting them to have their privacy.
Funny that because if a crime happens the first place the police go to is ring doorbells and private cctv for evidence!
My car is parked on the street in front of my residence. It has been broken into by thieves 3 times in the last 2 years. Does this mean I cannot record my car ( cannot avoid the pavement, passers by etc.when protecting my car)?
Good subject to cover well presented. I have been advising the public for 36yrs on this and other subjects. Poor communication is often what causes disagreements. You present this very well. 😊
So does that mean Dash Cams are also illegal.
No. They're not fixed and they don't automatically process the data
You need a sign/sticker to say that your car has a camera.
Also, some dash cams do record when the car is parked.
What about Teslas...@@RylanStorm
They're still not "fixed".
Half the serious crime in this country would never be solved without peoples personal cctv cameras on their homes.
Just to clarify what is actually the case for private individuals and UK GDPR, here is a quote direct from the ICO: "The UK GDPR does not apply to certain activities including processing covered by the Law Enforcement Directive, processing for national security purposes and processing carried out by individuals purely for personal/household activities."
That's what I thought. Did I heat him say u have to respond to requests from passers by ? It seems no one knows the laws now
Personal under no circumstances applies to commerical ie auditors, the police are exempt to much of GDPR auditors never are
@@AUDITADDICTI was told by ICO that if a person knocked on the door you had to oblige to give them footage because you are the Data Controller.
@@AUDITADDICTa thug sent the police to my door and they asked to see my cctv footage and I said I didn’t want to get involved and the police officer put his foot in the door stopping me from shutting the door and he burst into my place. So I showed him that my telly didn’t work. He left miffed
Thanks for the info, I have a blink camera and have deactivated the sound
We have had police knock on our door to ask if we have footage of someone or a vehicle passing our house, because we are the first and last house in and out of a big estate. If its illegal someone should tell them!. That being said ive disabled the doorbell passing recording. It only captures people coming up to the house and or ringing the doorbell.
someone on my street has a doorbell camera. But because they dont have a "cctv on this house" sign, their neighbour called the police on them and they got issued with a court summons and a fine was issued. Its getting crazy
that was a little harsh. I think I would let all the neighbours know that if any of their stuff gets stollen or broken into your camera wasn't working........ Actually sort of happened to someone I know. They had working dogs that had free use of the back garden. New neighbour moves in and complains about the dogs barking at them - so dogs get put into a pen (which they already had) at the far far end of the persons back garden. Someone was watching those properties, because two days later new neighbour got burgled - good and proper. New neighbour asked is person saw or heard anything - reply was "No and I wouldn't have looked out unless the dogs barked, but they dont now" New neighbours expression was apparently priceless.
The police did nothing to ours.
Our neighbours n other neighbours committed child abuse, many times... Recoded on their cctv, of course they refused to hand it over... Nothing done apart from the police APOLOGISED to the neighbours for us reporting n wanting the child abuse n threats to kill dealt with!!!
Oh yes VERY 2 teir.
some next doors are too nosey keep to your own yard
Well that's a completely made up story.
Exactly what law did they break?
I am curious to the legality in a block of flats, i am interested in investing in a ring doorbell as we have had many parcels stolen or saying we are not in when we are etc.
Im more worried about the communal aspect, obviously it will capture my neighbours, and i would be more than willing to turn off motion detection to the option to only press button notification to capture video, any help would be appreciated.
My doorbell camera helped lock up a team of foreign burglars who targetted my neighbour's house (there was so much evidence between me and our other neighbours they had to plead guilty, the neighbour who was burgled now has lots of cameras and an alarm), I'll go to war before anybody tells me what I can and can't do with a camera :) The irony is, it would have caught them in the act if I didn't have privacy filters on my rear camera for the benefit of the same neighbour..
We live in a very small road that is a dead end with 3 houses across the end. One of the houses on the the dead end has wired up a camera that is pointing down the street.. They can see everyone going in and out their gardens and young children playing in the street. They aren't at all approachable . They didn't ask anyone if they minded and there are no signs. We have no idea if they are deleting footage or whether they could be selling it especially in regards to the children. I'm all for camera on your property but not when it is deliberately pointed in such a way that it is filming everyone's coming and goings for no ones benefit but theirs.
What if someone has cctv pointed in neighbours garden back door to view them ? For approx 5 years or more ?
The ICO barely ever take action against business, let alone the public!
I pointed out to the ICO Facebook (as it then was) were in huge breach of Data Protection Act requirements because they were demanding far more biographical information than necessary.
ICO were less use than a chocolate fireguard - Idiot ICO woman didn't know the law yet still insisted it was lawful!
I made a couple of complaints to them, one about the police refusing to hand over bodycam footage of an ex copper (Sam Bate), threatening to smash in my window, at the roadside. The police said they had deleted it, so there was nothing the ICO could do. 🤯 No proof required, obviously.
Congratulations on surpassing the 400,000 subscriber level Mr Shensmith 🎥🏆. Hard earnt through decent, educational, honourable pro bono wise counsel 🥇. This wee soul very much appreciates your work👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
The rules and laws are so confusing that in Málaga Spain ( where I now live ) A few years ago the council put up CCTV all over the town centre, I have no idea what rule or law they broke ? ,But Málaga got a fine from Madrid ( The capital) And Málaga had to make multiple changes...If the government doesn't understand the government what hope have we got ....
You know that Malaga isn't in England and Wales, which this video is about?
Maybe CCTV operator looked in citizens windows instead of patrolling streets :) I know few situations where cctv cameras were used not for a legit reason especially with 30x optical and 40x digital zoom :)) . Maybe the CCTV was streamed live , maybe penalty was for the data leak (unauthorized access to the cctv) or the cameras were installed on the private lands without permission ? Without details it is hard to say what could be a reason however installation and running CCTV , even in Spain, was not a reason for penalty
@@OAPHarmerHerrStarmlerWhether someone is small minded or not is irrelevant. This video and the associated discussion is about the laws in England, not Spain. Discussions by definition have to be about a specific topic, otherwise they would go on forever. Don’t you know that? If you want to take about something else, create your own video. Until then get back in your box and wind your neck in.
Malaga is part of the EU, or did that fly over your head, the laws that were in place prior to leaving Europe remain in place today..the law prior to 2018 was the General Data Protection Regulation..now known as the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation....you know that right.
@@OAPHarmerHerrStarmler Haha you cannot retort so you resort to pathetic insults! Who’s got a small mind and big gob now? You’re certainly not a winner. 👎👎👎
A neighbour has cctv which is on a 2nd floor flat which looks over all the street and road where they park there cars but it does face houses opposite, a ball camera that they can speak through, they had the cheek to speak through it and tell me to move my car because they wanted to park there. Its a public street with no restrictions. I find it obtrusive and unsettling. Are they breaking any laws?
if it overlooks the street and road then they have to abide by UKGDPR...
@@Paul-ry5cx thanks,do you know how long they have to keep the footage for in that case?
i would recommend asking them politely if they are following GDPR regulations , if they don't know what you are talking about then recommend they have a look at guidance from the Information commissioners website or something similar...from memory the retention period must be no longer than is necessary for the intended purpose..(in this case its probably security).@@Hawkeye_360
if you want some case law to have a look at then google Fairhurst v Woodard [2021] 10 WLUK...@@Hawkeye_360
Subscribed, thanks. As a matter of fact I have installed CCtV into homes for many reasons, mainly security as you say, but also to watch wild life, nesting birds, keep an eye of horses in foal, amongst others.
How does this apply, and what is the difference, to filming video on my smart phone outside my home?
even filming a video outside maybe prohibted, eg outside a medical facility where people entering the facility could be identified.
@@tony_w839No
@@tony_w839the facility may prefer you not to film outside but most of the time I expect there is nothing to stop you. Even if you are on their private property, all they can do is ask you to leave.
the difference, I believe, is that the smart phone isn't "installed" ... isn't "infrastructure" . Or maybe the "purpose" of the recording makes the difference
@@miff227Great point. Info on ICO about domestic CCTV and data protection law refers to "capture images or audio recordings from outside their property boundary using a FIXED camera, such as a CCTV camera or smart doorbell" and "These rules only apply to fixed cameras. They do not cover roaming cameras, such as drones or dashboard cameras (dashcams) as long as the drone or dashcam is used only for your domestic or household purposes."
"This is highly unlikely to ever happen." That's the single worst excuse you can use for giving people in power the tools to abuse you. If there is the possibility for this to happen, then it's important to stop it.
Who exactly is being abused ? The laws mentioned are there to protect people's privacy, and the possibility of them going after a private citizen using a ring camera while low are still the same laws that they need to keep everyone else under check at the same time.
Adding exceptions just to put people who are breaking the laws at ease could end up with loopholes protecting the people / companies that the laws are there to and try and stop, as well as reduce the amount of actions that can be taken against general invasion of privacy.
A few examples of these abuses of cctvs by private individuals are given in this video, do you think having tools to aid in prosecution and at the very least having their cameras removed in cases like those are a bad thing ?
There was a rta outside my property the police asked me if I had it on camera I did and gave them a copy which resulted in successful prosecution for careless driving
Blairite ambiguous law ie not law.
Can i take my Neighbours cat to court
keeps setting my ring doorbell off
and tresspassing on my drive lol
Unfortunately cats are regarded as Wild animals, and not domestic so unlike Dogs they cannot be held accountable for their trespass.
They really do rule us! 😻
@@LupaDominaIf a dog trespasses on to my path and into my garden is the owner breaking the law?
@@Levantine68 if your garden is fenced off, and there's no gaps it can sneak through, then yes it might be seen as trespass. If it's open to the elements then it would be hard to claim trespass.
Technically the owner is responsible for its dogs conduct and you would think in a built up area/near a road they would harness/leash the pet. However this isn't always the case. If it's a nuisance eg pooing on your garden, try talking to the owner first. Although it can be difficult, try not to be accusatory just have a polite conversation about the poop.
Sometimes they aren't aware and other times you can spark a conflict just because some people 🤷.
If there's no issue with the dogs behaviour eg non aggressive, no poop then it may be easier to let it roam.
If you have a phobia, then try to approach the owner when the pet isn't around and politely, but firmly explain that it would be appreciated if they could keep the dog leashed. Most owners are good people and will happily comply with a polite request. Perhaps bring along a treat for the dog too?
Otherwise you are in for a tough fight. Environmental Services are the ones to contact regarding dog mess. It's a hassle; I won't lie.
If the dog is out of control - aggressive and snapping at people - call 101, or if you think it's seriously dangerous then 999.
Good luck. Hope this helps.
Thank you for the explanation of the law regarding camera use for domestic use. All the best.
Does this mean we can’t give photographic evidence to the police or do they need a warrant to legally gain such
What about communal areas of an apartment building? Packages and bicycles are being stolen from the building's foyer and communal bike rack. The landlord refuses to act, citing cost and all residents must consent (good luck when one is the thief). Can a resident set up CCTV as long as he posts clear notice and allows data protection enquiries?
You have a right to know what that CCTV is used for. If a business has CCTV, and that CCTV is apparently for security of the building, they can not use that same CCTV for say disciplinary proceedings towards staff for being late. That's just an example. I'd contact them via email and request in writing what that CCTV is for. You're entitled to know this given that you're more than likely on it.
@@Ginge1164 I think you misunderstand, or perhaps I wasn't clear. I want to know if a tenant can set up a camera in the communal areas to prevent ongoing crime, because the landlord refuses to take any action. I am in favour of the camera and would consider doing it myself if lawful.
you can read the regulations and find out yourself, its not that hard..just make sure you know the legal meaning of words and not just assume the meaning is the same as in common parlance.
@@Paul-ry5cx I've read the regulations, done research, and I'm educated in law. The answer remains unclear, so I thought I'd ask a barrister who just posted a video about it. If all legal issues were as simple as reading the legislation, we wouldn't need a judiciary to interpret.
ok, household cctv come under the exemption from GDPR "if it is for household or personal use" as long as the images captured are within the perimeter of your own home and are only used for your personal purposes... However, where your device operates in such a way as to capture images of people outside the perimeter of your home (in public spaces or in neighboring property), you are no longer able to avail of the domestic exemption. In those circumstances, you must either change the way you use the device to capture images only within your property or comply with data protection law. This follows from the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case of Rnyeš (C 212/13), which found that the household exemption did not apply where a domestic CCTV system captured images in the street outside the private property@@TheChocoboWhisperer
🤔 It has been said that doorbell cameras can also pick up conversations in nearby houses, which is extremely concerning, more so than the visual aspect, in my opinion! 😳
Yes. Studies have shown that an average Ring doorbell can pick up a normal level conversation up to 90 feet away and over heavy traffic at a distance of 60 foot.
More than enough for your neighbours to listen to your summer evening of wine filled gossip...
I find it more distressing than the filming. No one wants to see my old butt wandering my garden. But I don't like the idea of my neighbour recording my private conversation with my friends.
I use my doorbell for notifying me of deliveries to my flat, I’m disabled so it’s easier for me to speak to the delivery person to tell them where to put it, handy if your out as well and a delivery comes earlier than expected.
I live in a terraced back to back so my neighbours door is opposite mine, although the camera is pointed up the yard as much as I could get it to it mainly points at my door.
Her doorbell is pointed at my door which used to annoy me as it records every time I open my door, and any one who comes to the door etc,but I’ve got used to it now, just ignore it.
I have added aftermarket "dashcams" to my car with a view to security as I have had items from my car stolen on a couple of occasions and have had my car crashed into whilst parked (without me in it). Whilst reviewing the footage it seems that audio is also recorded. Do the same rules apply? What if my car picks up on my neighbours activities and records their conversations, or worse. Is this in any way different to a fixed CCTV system? Should I apply stickers to my car to warn the innocent public that they may be filmed? Should I be aware of where my cameras are pointing when I park, so as not to point at anyone's bedroom?
I am not an IT buff, just an amateur trying to secure my car.
I believe that you drive a Tesla and they have multiple cameras around them. Do these cameras capture only what is reasonably necessary? Is it stored securely, or uploaded to "the Cloud", or Tesla, or who else? Is it only stored for as long as is necessary (how long could this be - maybe 200 years for a historian to show how many people were killed by horse-drawn as opposed to cars)
This just seems so ambiguous and not clear yet despite your videos.
Thank you again for your input, you are appreciated for your "not Legal Advice"
Basically cctv misuse in not enforceable, so my neighbours doorbell camera which looks at my front door from less than 30 feet away is OK?
I have a ring doorbell and the police sometimes ask to view it. They said I didn’t have to put up a notice but Im wondering if I should now.
i dont believe the police controll these matters legal advice would be best or you could just put up a small sign.
@uksystems I must admit I hadn’t really thought about it since I last spoke to the police but I agree I think I will put something up.
I have never put up a notice for my CCTV - the camera in full view is enough! When I first put it up my neighbours noticed some shady characters crossing the road to walk past my address, before crossing back again when they thought they had cleared the camera! unless you come onto my property/ drive my camera will not record you, unless you are passing in the street at the same time that someone is at my door.
I'd tell them it's broken and does not work.
I bought little stickers to let people know the doorbell records movement and voice, just so people near my doorbell are informed. I have one on my door and one above the doorbell itself.
They don't want you to be able to catch them playing dirty at your doorstep, but they do want to incriminate you via THEIR totalitarian surveillance state.
*Can we complain to the council ?*
My partners parents have neighbours that had CCTV installed. One of the cameras is fully facing in to their back garden/conservatory and has no view of the camera owners property. Always wondered if it was worth taking action or just leaving the weirdos to it.
We have installed CCTV because a dust cart reversed into our front garden , it took out our fence & gate & shoved our hedge up against our back garden. The garden has been completely trashed. The council was not interested unless we have video footage & an independent witness. The camera is capturing the road outside so if it happens again we can have footage of the vehicle & number plate .
All dashcams would be illegal if what he says is true.
I have heard of laws not used for decades but still on the books used against people. A law is always a law ready to be used if still on the books. Plus today we know there are people using laws against people for personal reasons.
Absolutely yes
The ICOs website confirms that "personal data processed in the course of a purely personal or household activity, with no connection to a professional or commercial activity, is outside the UK GDPR's scope."
Article 2(2)(c) UKGDPR 2018
@@Paul-ry5cx The ICO is charged with policing UK GDPR. are you suggesting they are wrong?
i am suggesting there website is a bag of poo, and the website is for guidance..if you want far better explanation of what the articles mean then google "REGULATION (EU) 2016/ 679 OF THE EU" and you can read the regulations in full themselves and great explanations of its meaning.@@alastairharris1866
lol..sorry, i have just seen what you replied to...i quoted the the actual article of the UKGDPR 2018 that states..
Article 2
2. This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data:
(c) by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity
i wasn't disagreeing with you, i was giving you the actual legislation.@@alastairharris1866
Yes, but if it's recording outside the property, whether that be public space or a neighbours private space, it falls outside the household exemption.
This was specifically mentioned in Fairhurst v Woodard.
Thank you so much for making sense of these headlines❤
Thank you for this its just what i needed to know at the moment having a neighbour pointing a camera directly into my back garden where my daughter plays. Appreciate this.
Where I live life is simple. If something is viewable in public then it can be recorded. Includes what can be seen through auto or structure's windows if physically entering private property is not required to see.
Should make these doorbell cameras with limited focus. 2 meters should be adequate.
Im sick of the intrusive cameras in supermarkets...
I didnt agree to be fimed so close up... The store has cameras and a security guard...why are they allowed to film my face and whole body length when i pay for my shopping...????
Good explanation and there is some sense to the law. For example I can see invasion of privacy with neighbours.I would like them pointed at the road to record any suspicious cars in the neighbourhood
what if your neighbour is a landlord of a house converted into flats ? who refuses to give his details . no sign up to say cctv in operation , at the front of the house and the side . i spoke with the IOC who say without the landlords details they can't do anything . i don't know if the tenants know the cctv is recording them , driveway and possibly the pavement. and the public green across from the house !,
How can they make a rule (it's NOT a law) about videoing in public, which is what a private CCTV is? Saying your cctv could be illegal is the same as saying looking out of your window at anything in view is illegal.
Freedom to photograph and film
"Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel." - MET police website
Data protection is just that, protecting data, not images of people, in public.
The point of the article and this video is about recording other people's property without their consent, not about recording public areas outside your boundary (which my understanding is that there are no restrictions on), although that was never specifically addressed in the video.
exactly
@@doctor_gee yep but the BBB while mentioning that, also implied that it could be a problem if it caught a driveway, and that's not the case, driveways private , but road facing no expecation of privacy
@@doctor_gee Recording someone's property from a public place is not illegal.
Basically, ANYTHING you can see from a public point of view, including private property, can be recorded.
As per the Gov website - GDPR is only applicable to a business not an individual - uses of personal data on social media fall under bullying, online trolling legislation unless again used by a business which it then becomes a GDPR issue, if a camera records directly into someone else's property this is under privacy laws but again as a individual and not registered business GDPR does not apply.
these cameras record into the cloud by the company selling them duh.
@@ChrisWijtmans So GDPR applies to the company retaining the data for you, but does not apply to you taking copies on your pc or device, also if you know anything about cameras you would know that not all manufacturers rely on cloud storage, such as Tapo/TP link.
they still have copies. whether you have cloud acces or not. @@SHPR2013
This is incorrect. It doesn't apply to individuals who are processing for a purely personal or household activity. However, in the context of domestic CCTV, if you capture anything that is not within your property (e.g. you neighbour's property or the public street) then you are not processing for a purely personal or household activity and therefore fall outwith the exemption.
@@absolvitor3541 According to the Gov website it states that you are only liable to GDPR as a business, which as you stated is not personal use, so if you are a UA-camr and you use your property to vlog from you are by definition running a business.
However if you are capturing data that is being overwritten and not used on social media and for your own use then GDPR does not apply to individuals unless the said cameras overlook directly into rooms or windows which would then make it a privacy law matter and again not GDPR as you are a individual and not a business.
Domestic users of CCTV should be specifically exempted from GDPR regulations.
Why?
@@eadweard. because in a public place , there is no expectation of privacy , and a public road is that public.
In theory you could use this to claim against someone videoing by Tower bridge if you got captured as there is no fundamental difference.
Sure don't have tour CCTV pointing in windows or back gardens, but the road is not a problem, driveways are not a problem, as driveways while private land, still are open and have no expectation of privacy
the old Data Protection Act had a specific clause to exclude recording for domestic purposes from the Data Protection Principles as scheduled. I used this to my advantage when I was practising law, this occasion just happened to be my own case:
Me [holding up a pen]: Excuse me, what's this?
Judge: a pen.
Me: what is it used for?
Judge: writing.
Me: Specifically, recording data, don't you agree?
Judge: ...in principle, yes.
Me: So using that principle of recording data, what's the difference between me using a pen and a sheet of paper to record data, and me typing on an electronic device such as a laptop with a silent membrane keyboard?
Judge: Practically speaking, no difference. However, not knowing the nature of the software being used I can't allow the use of a laptop in here.
Me: What if I show you the laptop starting up, following which the software in use? Would that not satisfy you as to intent and method?
Judge: I suppose so. Now?
Me: Certainly. [proceeds to start laptop in native DOS mode (as in, single-tasking from the command line, no GUI, in fact it looks a lot like MS-DOS 6.22), then a plain Jane text editor that looks a lot like DOS EDIT.]
Short version: I managed to convince a Judge in the High Court to allow me to use a laptop to take my own notes (I type a lot faster than I can write even shorthand), which I think may have also contributed to the adoption of e-tablets and laptops in the Court system as go-to references in place of trolleyloads of paper documents covered in post-it notes.
@@BlokeOnAMotorbike Self-indulgent fantasy.
@@eadweard.because we are protecting our property rather than using the information for profit. Also the Police are often asking residents for CCTV copy.
I son't use it anymore but it feels like the app Nextdoor need to seriously consider this when it comes to their guidelines and rules as they have in my experience hosted plenty of content that has been captured on door cams
They don't want you to film the criminals, the color
Also, what about what cycling Mikey filming inside peoples cars and publishing it online. Isn't that a breach of gdpr too?
I have a ring doorbell for the following reasons
Security
Amazon leave parcels Willy milky on my garden.
Litter being thrown by passers by on my property
Unruly neighbour
Surely this is not against the law as I want proof of the perpetrators doing it ???
I am a disabled person with limited mobility and had a Ring doorbell installed so I could see who is at my front door, and I could speak to whoever was at the door and for my security as I am a vulnerable person, I did use the record function to enhance my feeling of security, I put up the one sign saying cctv in use, unfortunately I can’t get the camera field of view so I am not looking at the bungalow opposite my flat or the walkway to other flat entrance doors, is that a potential problem under the law. Thanks.
I have 2 indoor looking out cameras front and back but I don’t record anything just live, to monitor deliveries and keep an eye on my car
Hi yes having cameras outside your property I know you have bought this subject up to give it debate anyway I don't have cameras outside my property so there's no problem with the neighbours anyway keep up the good work you're very informative 👍