You mentioned livestreaming is bad - but I know on several online council CCTV cameras broadcasting public images online that capture public areas. Being a public area is it no different to being captured on a video phonecall in the background? Also - some roads are private roads for the residents (most new builds the roads are supposedly privately owned).. does/can this help with these things (being co-owner of the road) or is it still considered 'public' ?
Given the number of times where criminals have been caught because of CCTV cameras they happened to walk past that had no relation to their crimes, we should assume that the people who are making these laws have some criminal connections they are working to protect. It's the same as '2 party consent states' in the US where you can be charged with 'wiretapping' for recording a phone call, are obviously working to prevent people from exposing fraud, extortion, corruption, etc., you only see these laws in the states where organized crime has the most power over government officials and police.
are you aware , the Ring Doorbell camera system is open to the Police whenever a Force ask amazon for access of a particular address , WITHOUT warrant or court order under the guise of Co-operating with the law, assuming they find something they want to use , i am sure they will follow up with the appropriate warrant , but this is served on amazon not the household,.
I live in a converted terrace house on the ground floor, the front door is shared with the upstairs flat and the new owner has put a ring doorbell on the front door, I’m not happy that she can record all my comings and going’s of me and my visitors. The device is about 10ft away from my lounge window and I’m not sure if she could hear any conversations I’m having if my window is open. She can also listen to any conversations I have with anyone at the doorstep, I feel it’s an invasion of my privacy and asked her to take it down, she said she’s changed the settings so there’s no sound, how do I know if that’s true? I’ve only got her word for it.
My security cameras are movement activated and have been set to exclude, as far as reasonably possible, triggering on movements outside the boundaries of my property. Any captured videos are uploaded to a cloud store and auto delete after 30 days. No audio is captured except the camera covering the immediate porch area so someone would have had to approach the front door to be recorded. All in all, I feel comfortable defending this as reasonable and proportionate to deter and detect criminality
But you need to establish a legal basis, (that is, actually have one that would satisfy a court judge) as defined in the legislation, for doing any of that outside of of your property in the first place. Without that, you have no defence at all. Simply saying it is to deter crime isn't good enough. You'd have to demonstrate there was actually an identifiable risk and explain how surveillance ourside you own property would prevent or minimise it.
My neighbour has at least four cameras on his home. Two cover my entire front garden, path and front door and one at the back of the property is pointed directly into my garage window and covers the back gate and side entrance of my property. The one at the back of the property, which is also about 10 foot from my kitchen door has audio functionality. My neighbour and his wife dislike me after I politely asked them if they would lower the volume of their music in the back garden. The level of hatred and revenge that has been directed at me since then makes me assume they are listening to my private conversations which have included discussing their behaviour with trusted people. I hate security cameras, I feel all of my privacy has been violated.
There is surely something of a conflict here if recording images and sounds in public places is swept up into this legislation. I have a dashcam installed in my car, and as far as I'm aware, that is a perfectly legal thing to do and also doesn't seem to require any form of justification as to the reason why I have it. Also, as far as I'm aware, it is also legal to take photos or make videos of public places, including anybody who happens to be passing by, without requiring any justification. These are places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. So if I take a photo or video in a public place, and happen to put it on a social media channel, and somebody loses their job, or maybe their marriage, because they weren't meant to be there, then according to you they might have a case against me? I will state that is surely absolute codswallop if it is in a public place. That is surely not the same thing as intrusive recording of where people do have a reasonable justification of privacy.
I have awful abusive neighbours that vandalise my vehicles & use my garden as their rubbish tip & give themselves full access to my garden whenever they like, so I have security cameras up now & I don't care what they say or do as I will record anything that supports my complaints about them over the years! I also have a CCTV licence but found your video interesting. Thank you.
@@G58 I've often thought of blackthorns, I have brambles but not on their side. If they don't treat them with weed killer I think I'll try the blackthorns. Great minds & all that. Thank you 😊
Don't keep footage of them unless they are committing an offense. If they argue with each other you might be tempted to keep it as it shows their character but this is basically none of your business.
Got exactly the same problem the neighbour hates the cameras because he and his wife can't get away with much no more. Now he has fitted a camera pointing directly at my property but turns it off when he is up to no good.
@@dwayne_dibley you are correct, but it's a distinction that is wrong in principle. It (the law) needs fixing. CCTV does not work as a deterrent it's not supposed to. CCTV is a tool for gathering evidence of events, in part in conjunction with other evidence or as a single source of evidence. It's incapable of doing this particularly well if you are unable to capture the events leading up to or after a crime in some cases. In most cases CCTV is incapable of being a sole source of evidence because the process of retrieving footage is subject to potential tampering, eg unless the CCTV can export footage in a formate that can demonstrate nothing has been edited and is of adaquate quality to confirm who is who and what was done, it's only good to state the person in it has a likeness to XXX unless other continuity of events can be used such as human observations or capture of number plate (oh wait - you can't do that unless that car is caught on your land) or capture of DNA (and for reasons beyond this comment it's possible to argue DNA found at a crime isn't yours no matter how close to yours it is). My point is CCTV should cover past your fence, your doorway or property boundary, into public space, but not into neighbouring land without their written consent. In a more neighbourly world, neighbours should ask their community to add CCTV together to cover a small village with as many as they can. Eg overlapping cameras capturing as much footage as is needed to secure a conviction, without doubt, or room to argue it wasn't them.
I was the CCTV controller for our local village hall for many years. We operated to a strict control policy per the ico. The police regularly contacted me for access to our recordings (the police were approved for access under our policy). The police would also knock on doors of houses with cameras when trying to obtain crime information and they seemed to consider various household CCTV a great asset in combatting crime. I'm retired from the hall but my own premises have detailed coverage within my property boundaries
Tinfoil-Tip: almost all cctv cameras are overly sensative in the Infra Red range. So a baseball cap illuminated with the kind of LED's used in TV remotes will provide some measure of obscurity.
serve "your self" scum bag as we not paying someone to serve you, o yeah we going to record you in full 4K in your face video then stop you after to check your bags, gets right on my nerves, we doomed and the minions don't see it coming !
It's the big brother world that we live in sadly. Amazing how sensitive parents are about their children appearing on cctv or a photograph, but are then perfectly happy to distribute the same on social media for all and sundry to see!
Hardly comparable.. one scenario is a stranger doing it with unknown intent. The other is the child's guardians doing so to share moments with friends and family. Obviously some people are bad with knowing security setting on their devices.. but that's another issue.
@@nickjones7737 Hardly comparable indeed. One is doing it in a way which potentially allows the wrold and his dog to see them. The *other* is, oh ............... hang on sec..
@@nickjones7737 so, what about Joe public filming in the street, on the beach, hotels,fairgrounds (who blatantly take photos of kids on rides for them to purchase, dash cams etc, all capturing footage of their children without consent? 🤔
I wonder if this explains why, when my business was broken into and we got a clear image of the culprit’s face and the police recognized him, no further action was taken?
@slopp slagit I think it's to a judges discretion what film footage is used as evidence but usually the Police use the footage only to identify the person then find their own evidence by raiding their homes and or tracing stolen items.
@slopp slagit I think if they want to they can - we don't have the same 'admissibility' laws as the US about how evidence was captured. Pretty sure that once images exist and are known to the police they can be used - even if captured 'illegally' .
I understand all that you have said in this video. As far as video and photo capture I have always understood that permission is not required in a place where a person would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy (a public park or a public street etc).
This depends on the nation you are in and the specific area. However the general rules to follow is no that does not count. A crowd of people so individuals is blended together possibly you could get away with so a full public park is one thing but just because it is a public park no.
Most dvr's have an option to block out certain areas that each camera picks up. So if the camera picks up an area beyond my property there is the option to have a blacked out square that can be size adjusted to blank out that sensitive area. On the recording and remote live feed it simply shows a black square in these sensitive areas. My camera points out towards the road to keep an eye on my van but also picks up neighbours front of house. Where the windows and doors are I have covered these areas to afford them privacy. I have also spoken with my neighbours about it and shown them on my phone what is being picked up. They were all in favour of the cameras as it improves security and when shown that those sensitive areas were covered had no objections. I think if you are open about it with your neighbours and show them what is being captured then I don't see any reason you should experience any problems.
Mines the same. Nobody at the end of my road has cameras but I installed them when I moved in and nobody had an issue. I was very open with them and showed them what it captured and gave them the option to mask their property. I said if somebody broke onto their car one evening though I wouldn’t be able to help them as the camera wouldn’t catch anything under the mask. Nobody asked me to mask anything. My rear camera catches some of the neighbours patio so I’ve given them their privacy but they have recently cut down a tree so I need to go in and adjust this now.
i have cameras and dont care what my neighbors think...they arent paying my mortgage. i put them up for security. i can walk outside my home and see everything my camera sees...law gonna tell me where i can and cant look in my own yard?
Around 2010 a number of school kids were using the close I stay in, to smoke, and leave there rubbish behind. Our close was getting vandalised with graffiti, and with me staying on the ground floor, I could see all that was going on So one day I put up a cctv camera, but made sure it could be seen, as we wanted to catch the school kids. On one occasion there was around 20 kids in the close, and after they left, they left all there rubbish A few weeks later, we decided to tell the school kids to get out, and we began to take photos. The school kids weren't happy about this, telling us, you cant take a photo of us. A number of parents made complaints about this, but as soon as they seen the footage of the videos which we recorded, they went quiet These parents now learned that some of there kids have taken up smoking
I had my living room window put through I had CCTV up I knew who had done it but the quality of the CCTV recording was not clear enough. I am now in the process of having 4k day/nite CCTV put up and to be honest, I don't give a rat's arse what the police say. My neighbors are more than happy for the CCTV to be up and cover the front of their properties as they are predominantly elderly.
My wife is a goldsmith and we are required by her insurance to have CCTV coverage of all entrances and exits. Our neighbour across the street was very suspicious of this and complained that we may be looking inside his house - which was absolutely not the case. This year while he was on holiday his house was broken into by his rear door which is in sight of our camera; now he is a convert as the police could use our CCTV to identify the criminals
A friend of mine installed a CCTV camera because of problems with illegal drug use and selling in the neighbourhood. They did it to protect their property. The police simply didn’t want to help. Inadvertently they recorded a murder by stabbing. The police impounded the recordings and the recording device. The recording was used to help with a conviction. How does that work out if the accused objects to the use of CCTV? I can provide you with details if you are interested
@@StephenSwindells sure, if there’s any criminal activity _other_ than consenting adults buying or selling substances for personal use. You know, _real_ criminals, not just people being criminalised because of outdated political dogma used specifically to target ethnic minorities and the poor.
I got burgled 4 times in my last flat.the last time it happened I was in and grabbed one of them hold and threw him on the floor hurting his poor little thieving elbow and I had to pay him..disgusting our law is..law is only there for people that abid by it,but if yr scum and aren't ruled by law it doesn't apply..the police took 24 hrs to come to me the last time..but god forbid you park funny in yr car
Most of us would be prefer not to live in the hellish prison of surveillance society under the guises of safety. Have you ever heard the term "birds in golden cages" Freedoms always come with risk. Just lock up yourself and your family and never leave your house if you want want to live without risk.
Lets all make Subject Access Requests to the Council or organisations that operate the CCTV - the operators will soon get tired of responding withing the DPA's guide lines and, just maybe, the SPA will be reviewed and amended to something more reasonable.
Even if you pay a subscription images from a ring camera are only stored for 30 days hence by the time anyone goes through a process the subject matter will no longer exist.
As an advocate for privacy and freedom, I hate the CCTV surveillance state we live in where every house in the street has 3/5 cameras, tracking your every movement and listening to your private conversations.
My neighbour has at least four cameras on his property two fully overlook my front garden and one at the back looks directly into my garage window, additionally it is about 10 foot from my kitchen door and has audio recording. My neighbour and his wife dislike me purely because I asked them politely if they could keep the music down in the garden. The level of hatred and revenge directed at me since then makes me believe they have listened to my private conversations where I have spoken about them to trusted people. I hate the idea that my conversations are being listened to and I am 'punished' for what they don't like hearing.
The Ring devices only store for 30 days, and only capture if someone walks into the zones you set, or you live view. It does not record indefinitely like cctv.
Hi B B B, yet again you provide us with a lot of sensible advice and information, one thing I am still unsure of is while footage of the activities in the public domaine filmed and recorded from private premises will not conform to the domestic exemptions for GDPR how is this different from personal photography film and recording carried out in the public domaine for personal and private use where again GDPR does not apply, is there some legal distinction related to the position of the camera?. Cheers, Richard.
Having examined the legislation and the court judgment, I would say it is very important to stress that Art 6 of the GDPR is the starting point. That is, the lawfulness of the surveillance in the first place. Without being able to establish, by clear and credible evidence, (and this means in reality, not merely picking one of the options and simply saying it is so) that it is lawful to start with, questions as to reasonableness and proportionality and so on are completely irrelevant. Many people seem to believe that they can bypass that initial hurdle and by backwards logic assert that because the way they use their system is reasonable and proportionate, it is therefore legal. A great big big NO. It is quite possible (although unlikely) that surveillance of neighbours property could be judged as complying with all the reasonableness and proportionality and safety requirements of data capture and processing. But it if it is not lawful under Art 6 to start with, it is not lawful!
Hi BBB, what about the belief that you can have no expectation of privacy whilst in a public space ? I am asking as I have my CCTV cameras pointing up and down our sidewalks and street in an attempt at curtailing loitering, trespass, also petty theft of private property such as bustbins etc.
I have a Ring doorbell and have a yellow sticker to say they are being recorded if they come to my door. My neighbours also have doorbells, but not Ring ones. Ring has zones and I have set them up to not record outside my boundary.
I have Amazon blink cameras with cloud storage, we have one above the cat flap to see when the cats are in/out, one near the front door mostly to monitor parcel deliveries and one on the garden which captured an intruder who stole a bike from a neighbours garden which we uploaded to the police website.
What you are applying is that it’s perfectly ok for the Authorities to put cameras on a public street and film law abiding citizens. But ordinary householders can’t film anyone passing their house.
Yup. We had cars being vandalised in our street, so I said I was going to put up security cameras, was told by Police not to as there was a school in the street and if the cameras caught any minors they’d throw the book at me. So I put up fake cameras, even the Police were fooled until I told them to take a closer look when they came to arrest me, I was de-arrested within 5 minutes and we didn’t have any more cars vandalised either. Yet the school on the street, has 78 cameras covering it.
Where this makes no sense is that you can film people in a public place so if someone is on the street outside and you capture them how is that different to standing on the street filming them which is legal.
Very interesting. A follow-on for you: how does this apply to car dashcams which may be always on? Let's say you're parking your car in a regular area.
Just about to ask the same question. If the idea of a dashcam is to record incidents you are involved in for insurance reasons if you then post it online on one of the many dashcam channels on UA-cam are you then running a risk of ‘illegally’ posting about some third party?
@@davenunn7259 i note that in Poland for example the dash cam channels all blurr all faces and number plates... I also remember seeing on Hubnut's trip around Europe he was saying it's completely illegal to film in (I think it was) Germany
@@cockneyse I think they’re illegal in Luxembourg as well, seem to remember someone doing a road trip across Europe and saying they weren’t allowed to use it there
Normally a dashcam overwrites the oldest data, so if your car is sat outside your house constantly recording, you will be "in effect" deleting the data regularly. However, there is the ability to "save" data, and to swap out memory cards.
Very good information ,for what can be a grey or misunderstood area . I work for local government and local police supplying cctv for public saftey and law enforcement..We have to consult "legal" before installation of new equiptment.
The part about pointing it at next doors garden i get, the part I dont't understand is the part about the public walking past. How would me recording/Live streaming peolpe walking past in public view be any different to me Live straming/Recording on my phone out and about in public?
Here they do not differ and both can put you in the exact same trouble of being charged for breach of privacy and data protection. The means of how you captured the footage of people in a public place is irrelevant. But these laws can differ from country to country.
I don't have a particularly good understanding of the law but in the case of the fairly ubiquitous ring doorbells it does feel like there is a difference. I was walking to a friend's not long ago and realized that amazon could see my entire walk. I can't remember the name but there was some Amazon trial of a street wide network to link ring doorbells together for better coverage so Amazon is clearly interested in using these devices as a network rather than as isolated personal cameras. In 20 years when the hardware for computing facial recognition gets cheaper, I can see amazon using this data in ways that would make me uncomfortable. From the mundane like identifying that I may need better walking shoes if I was following a regular route. Then to maybe more seriously identifying that I am sick by the fact that I start walking more slowly or not as far, data that could be sold to insurance companies that might raise premiums. Or in the most sinister possibility, identifying what we would consider to be legitimate protestors and handing them over to the government in return for the right to trade or tax cuts. In conclusion, the difference I see is the potential of malicious use through centralizing such consistent data. A phone video or livestream on the other hand is a snapshot of a time and place that is presumably somewhat notable and it would be difficult to learn much about the individuals caught in that snapshot.
@@AUA-camAccountName Mornig Callum , Thre are some who would describe You as a '' Conspiricy Theroist '' , whilst most of us can see the writing on the wall , and would agree with you .
I've got a slightly serious question . My property is on the corner of a side street and a lane . The far end , from that corner , of the property , also on the lane , is the corner of my garage . In the 8 years we have lived here that garage corner has been damaged many times by refuse trucks and also flat bed hgv's ( scaffolding and building supply trucks mainly ) . There are two utility polls just before you get to the garage corner when coming from the direction of the side street . We have just renovated the garage , including a rather expensive rubber skin on the roof . The utility poles occlude points of view from the house where we might easily mount a camera to monitor that corner of the garage . Likewise , there is no obvious place on the garage to mount a camera . It is likely a matter of time before a high sided metal vehicle ( refuse truck , e.g. ) damages the new roof at the corner of the garage ( the lane at that point is a pinch point and with a camber angled so that the sides of such vehicles lean towards the corner of the garage roof ) . Council drivers are driving as well as can be expected , bless them , but mistakes occur eventually when accidents are set up to happen , regardless of the competence and attention of a driver ( in fact they have told us they would prefer not to have to drive down the lane for this reason ) . I can't mount a camera on the new roof as that would void the warranty for the roof . Can't mount one on the side of the garage with a vantage of the corner as the poles are in the way . Can I mount a camera ( e.g.a doorbell cam ) on to the utility pole without informing the relevant utility company ? If I didn't , would the footage still be relevant in a claim against for example , the council or registered owner of the vehicle ? For clarity , the camera must needs point down the ( public ) lane to capture any such incident . Would appreciate any comments . Ta
Question: How does this mesh with the concept of “auditing”? Seems that uploading a video to UA-cam of random people (not all of whom might be public officials) could have the same effect as recording random people just passing by your house. I’ve also seen quite a number of similar videos uploaded to UA-cam showing TV license goon visits too (which could be argued the same way as freedom auditors)
I think that is down to the type of recording device - CCTV or just a camera. As for the TV goons, they usually come to a private property to do their bidding so they can hardly moan about being filmed when they are aware walking onto private property will have them captured.
I might be wrong here but i do recall that privacy laws prevent you from filming people who do not want to be filmed and before you upload it to youtube you should either remove any regonizable things and the face or get their permission.
I don't believe that any recording device is illegal in England because if that were the case then every cctv camera and dash cam in the country is also illegal. We installed a cctv camera about 5 years ago on the advice of the police after having problems with a neighbour. A few months back we had a visit from plod because said neighbour had complained about the camera. My response was "so your dash cam is also illegal then". They left.
It's hard to understand where the line of privacy is versus being in a public place. Doesn't that make councils live cam footage of a high street or traffic cameras an invasion of privacy to some degree? If you do have a troublesome neighbour who is coming on to your property and damaging or stealing your assets. Would your own camera footage, be rejected as evidence in legal proceedings? Despite setting your camera up correctly to capture precise areas within your property boundary and have no sound recorded.
The right to a private life is a qualified right which can be overridden in the interest of public safety and crime prevention, the council will have considered this before installing CCTV, they have to prove this to the ico if questioned, you will also be able to do an foi to access this reasoning (hence bbs advice of writing out your reasons and keeping that record). Those that use CCTV that cover outside the bounds of their property must do the same if you can prove a need and that your recording is proportional and for a legitimate purpose and you are storing/using the data collected responsibly it's unlikely the ico will have an issue. (Check the website for the proper guidance) If you start sharing it on social media for an illegitimate purpose or start threatening to share things you have captured to wind up a neighbour for example then it becomes an issue.
Anyone who asks about my cameras including the police, I tell them it doesn't work... done. This seems like a load of bollocks anyway, what about ordinary cameras where people are in the background when you take a picture, is that also a violation of some random law? What about live TV news cameras on the street? can you take them to court if you are captured?
Most CCTV DVRs wrap around every 14 - 21 days in which case if you need to access any particular footage you have to download it within that time scale otherwise it gets overwritten. Not something you would normally have to concern yourself with.
Most DVRs/NVRs only wrap when the disk is full unless you specifically set the overwrite period. I believe licensed premises are required to keep recordings for 30 days.
@@pling2 The point of wrapping is to prevent the disk from becoming full. There is a default set in the software to prevent the disk from running out of space. You can of course set that to what you want. But if your software allows you to configure a setting that will ultimately mean your disk runs out of space then it's crap software.
We should all make Subject Access Requests to our local Authorities for the images of us as we go about our daily business walking in town. What bigger abuse of 'Personal Data' is there than an organisation with probably 100's of cameras all recording our every move, being monitored by no one knows who, behind closed doors. If it's OK for the Council to have cameras intentionally capturing us, with high resolution, and probably facial recognition, across the town, why can't I have a camera monitoring the street outside my house to capture exactly the same images from my window?
Would be Interesting to know how it stands for narrowboat owners live streaming the canal path and public areas surrounding their boat, especially ones that "constant cruise" and have to move every 14 days - Ive seen a few around, that also record sound, and seen a lot posting recorded video for a UA-cam post...would this be any different with the boat being residential but in a public place? - thanks
Indeed it's the most stupid thing going. We have this issue where i live. had a CCTV system setup when the building was made. we could legally share the footage of people trespassing. but now if we did that we'd be breaching the criminals rights to privacy despite them breaking in! Typical red tape getting in the way of common sense.
was t h inking exactly this AND also thinking why bother as sending the info to the police will achieve nothing...unless you're asking them to dance the Macarena while wearing a rainbow sheet
did you listen to the video? Capturing the image of a burglar is a "legitimate reason" for recording, plus you would be recording images within the curtilage of your property.
We had someone breaking into a property with an Angle grinder, Motion sensing didn't capture it but the excessive audio alert did. Prevented them from driving off with our trailer as we called our neighbours and they set the on site Sirens off. Bit of a shame, police were only 2 minutes behind them for a change (the response times have been improving).
From a non legal position I think using audio to electronically trigger a recording, much the same as movement detectors, is no problem - it's when the system also records the audio content that the DPA will kick in.
The data is encrypted and on my ring doorbell the neighbours property is blanked out. Audio is only recorded when triggered by the motion sensor. That's a darn sight more privacy than public cctv camers that are all over the place in the UK.
How is this different then to people that walk around in public filming, saying their auditing a building or area? Normally involving a security or police officer and put it out on Facebook etc.
I am in an interesting situation. The "front door" of my house is actually in the shared pathway between my house and the neighbour's house. (Their front door is in the more traditional position, at the front of their house, facing on to the street). They also use the shared pathway frequently as access to their property. Not only do they use it but often visitors do, too. If I were to use a door camera, I would capture every person who visits next door using the path. I've no idea how I'd pick the bones out of GDPR.
I had this issue. I'd had an attempted break-in, so wanted to get a security camera. I asked the neighbor if they were ok with this, given it'd also give some protection to their property as well. They said 'no'. So I ended up moving instead, and installing a decent CCTV system that supported masking off public areas. Not long after I'd moved, neighbor's house got broken into, so they decided CCTV might have been a good idea. Burglars often come back. This time, their new neighbor objected, and I laughed. They were kind of the neighbor from hell anyway, which was one of the reasons I'd moved. Makes me curious if Ring, Nest or other cloud-connected cameras can actually fully comply with DPA and GDPR rules in the first place given the user isn't really in control of their system, even if they would be liable for using it.
@@stevefox3763 True, but my neighbour was a PITA who objected to pretty much everything on general principle. Rest was really a de-risking exercise in case of any future problems. So I got a nice Panasonic system that does tracking, capture, masking etc. Best tip I got though was mounting discrete, low level cameras. So if an intruder sees the ones dummies in the eaves, they should end up looking right at the real ones.
@@stevefox3763 I think that's a problem with the law(s). I remember recently suggestions that all CCTV should be registered, so in the event of an incident, police could request footage. Mine's set up so that wouldn't work, ie it won't record images outside my property. So it complies with one aspect of the law, but doesn't help law enforcement. It's also why I don't like a lot of 'consumer' systems because if they're 'cloud' based, the consumer doesn't, and can't control the footage.
I did advice on this once; short version: you’re ok generally but avoid audio. Keep a note that there’s no way to avoid it but do your best to avoid their doors
What if a home cctv camera only points onto the owners land and is shown to the police as doing so would that be within the law? Also what if a camera is moved periodically to view a certain area of a street but also for a short space of time looks over an ajoining neighbours garden would the time it looks over be relevent?
How does capturing the image of passersby relate to the fact that there is no expectation of privacy when you are in public? Does this mean that any images I have taken in public in a city street that very obviously contain images of people fall into this category, as I store them digitally on my PC? I can't see the difference between CCTV images and still images (those I take?)
Years ago our neighbour had a visit from the old bill telling him he had to remove the cameras as they were filming the road and your not allowed to do that. Reason being was children as he could have been recording them and that was a big no no, but guess it's ok now...
In a public space, you can photograph, video anything and anyone regardless of age. If a kid walks past your door cam, and is captured on video by your door cam, so what?
Some months ago we had a knock on our front door, it was a police officer asking if we had a cctv system. Apparently next door had had a break in and they were hoping we may have some footage that may help identify who they were. We did not have a cctv system.
This is what gets me... they don't want you to encroach on neighbours or property outside of your boundary but do when it could help solve a crime! Imagine being prosecuted by an offender running past your house on a public footpath because you shouldn't have been recording there! 😂
DPA does apply to Councils and installations tun by, or for, them - they will have the installation registered at the Information Commissioner - make a Subject Access Request to your council to find out what they hold/have recorded about you.
There's no privacy in public. Audio of next door captured - the proportionality comes down to where the frig else am I going to put the doorbell if not by the door.
This business of recording video / audio outside the boundaries of your property remindes me of another question that you might be able to cover, security lighting: what's the legality of people having outside security lighting, movement detection activated or otherwise, when the light shines directly into neighbouring properties? Very high powered security lights are very common and it doesn't seem to be a requirement to 'hood' them in such a way as to only light your own property... Do the neighbouring properties have any legal position to ask for these to /not/ be directed onto their properties?
I always aimed my security lights downwards to limit light spill onto the neighbouring properties and the street as much as possible. The PIR sensors were aimed/adjusted so that the lights were only triggered when people were on my property or within a few inches of being so.
I'm next to a well used ally way had them decades no-one has complained got neighbours all around you just use common sense passers by seem to feel safer.
Civil action can be taken by an individual to tackle a lighting problem. He or she would have to be able to prove that a nuisance exists. The statutory nuisance dealing with light is defined as "artificial light emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance". Nuisance, in this context, is anything that would be regarded as an unreasonable interference with someone's use of their property, or prejudicial to their, or someone else's, health. The statutory nuisance regime will not be available in certain instances, in particular, in relation to premises used for transport purposes, and other premises where high levels of light are required for safety and security reasons.
What about if someone has an allotment 25-30foot away from your back garden and they have a camera pointed your way. I also have 2 young boys playing in the garden
I like the use of language "It absolutely certainly MIGHT". that made me chuckle. I'm intrigued - if someone walks past your CCTV and then starts a Subject Access Request, how could you know that you have captured them?
They would have to submit the subject access request within a reasonable time and give you rough times and dates that they believe they were filmed. It's hardly reasonable to say to a data controller "I walked past 104 times this month and I want a recording of every instance" - I also don't think you can include any other 3rd parties in the footage of the original requester.
@@ssss-df5qz if it was busy you couldn't be sure who the person is. They could give you a photo of themselves I suppose. When we respond to Subject Access Requests at work we have to be certain we have found every instance of their details. You could find 5 images of them walking past but they could sue you because there was a sixth. Sound recordings would be even harder to manage.
How does home cctv differ from the use of a dashcam (especially if it also captures sound)? Furthermore, what about auditors that share video & audio on UA-cam etc?
Ironical when the police often need footage from a cctv camera to solve many crimes, yet we're getting prosecuted for it also? Sometimes the law really is an ass.
I would really appreciate it if you could tell me the difference between an Auditor (after the fashion you have dealt with in a previous video) filming police stations, councils, security firms and the like all around the U.K., posting thousands of hours of content online for potentially millions of people to view - and a private citizen recording a few feet outside their home in the interest of crime prevention? Auditing channels also have audio of conversations with the police, councils etc and members of the general public, as well as passers by - I’m just interested to know the difference, if there is one. Many thanks
What is the position on this BBB as is 100% true in this case. A police officer knocks on my door as has seen I have a camera & would like the footage as a crime happened just round the corner? I agreed but could that come back to haunt me from the defendant not including a brick through the window. Please reply for a change.
Hi, so in regards to the CCTV recording, what would be the case if you just replied that the cameras do not record the footage? Do they have to take your word for it?
There is no expectation of privacy on public land therefore anyone filmed on public land has no claim. If you want privacy you need to create it yourself. There are plenty on PINAC videos on youtube which prove this
I film people every day with my dashcam but I'm not allowed to film beyond the boundary of my home when my car is on the street? My car can film but I can't film my car. 🙄 Madness
How would the law apply to someone recording a public area beyond their boundary for the purposes of recording the children playing, concluding recording other property gardens across the street from their house, to record images and audio of neighbours and conversation, we have this problem.
Am I right in thinking there is no law forbidding the taking of photographs or video in a public place? In which case captured images outside the boundary curtelige would be no issue?
I’m in a neighbourhood watch scheme and we are constantly asked by the police if we have any cctv or door camera for information about car crime or burglary in the neighbourhood so how on earth does this work ( your dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t ) what do you think of this about what our police are asking .?
Things are getting stupid in the UK with drone law and people whinging about CCTV. My mate had the same problem with his neighbours, until one of them got burgled, then they could not wait to get the footage, which unfortunately he did not have.
Cameras are everywhere. If its OK for the state then its OK for me. My neighbours like my cameras, which overlook their driveways. My only rear camera is low down and used only as a wildlife camera I dont record audio. They've been up 7 years and no one complains.They did once catch a pitbull savaging a neighbour and plod were happy to have the recording.
Also, I've got a webcam set up on my window so I can see who is going up and down my street. I saw a guy trying car doors, called the police and they came out (they grabbed the wrong guy up the street 😂) . He asked how I knew and I explained about my camera setup and asked if he wanted to see it and he said no, it was fine.
My camera records the whole street, and I was told to get it by the police after my car was vandalised and it couldn't be proven who did it. It hasn't been vandalised since. Someone did crash into it (drunk driver) though and the police came out and asked for a copy of anything showing the driver. They had no problems with me having the camera, and could easily see it covered the whole street. I don't review the files and they're automatically overwritten every few days as it's all on internal storage, but they'd have a job on getting me to take it down. It catches all kinds of criminal activity I already knew was going on, but it doesn't impact me so I stay out of it. Rather not make myself a bigger target than I already am.
So if plod shows up asking if they can view my front door footage which cannot help but catch people on the street, as they are tracing someone, am I protected from gdpr legislation?
I adjusted my CCTV so as not to overlook my neighbours rear garden, she (in her 80s) had a fall and lay there for 8 hours because I could no longer keep an innocent eye on her.
Me and my neighbour both have cctv overlooking each other’s property and we happy share footage if needed. And his camera came in handy for something that occurred at my property.
I wouldn't be too bothered about this. I reported a location to the Information Commissioner's Office regarding a CCTV system (several cameras) that was being used to record a public footpath adjacent to a farm. There was absolutely no reason for this to be done; rural Scotland - nil crime in the area. The ICO were not interested.
I thought photography in a public place (the street in front of the house) is allowed, and does not include any breaching of gdpr, as example the numerous auditors that go around the city etc ( for example Auditing Britan)
Black Belt Barista, I find some kind of cognitive dissonence when I think that you're not allowed to record the people walking in the street with a Ring door camera, and post the video online, because of data protection laws - but you can walk down the street with your camera recording, and then post that video on UA-cam or fakebook live or whichever site. What the hell....does that mean that one could pursue legal proceedings if one asked someone filming, to stop recording them under the data protection laws? Cheers 👍
Question, mentioned CCTV and door bells with recording capabilities, does this extend to vehicles with dash cams and inbuilt cameras such as Teslas as they can record any movement?
How do I stand recording a neighbour's entrance to the side of my property over which I have right of way and out to the road. My neighbour doesn't live there, it is an unused agricultural building. This entrance poses a clear security threat to both my neighbour's and my property, in fact I do have footage of people coming in and stealing things. The camera only records when it detects movement around the gate.
Please consider covering the Ellie Williams case, victim of grooming gangs locked up for talking about it publicly, first day of her trial started today.
She’s charged with making false claims, perverting the course of justice and falsifying evidence. Sounds like she tried to get two men prosecuted for acts that they didn’t do and she’s not locked up she’s out on bail. The fact that they are prosecuting her means that they have evidence that she tried to frame innocent men, and they are usually very reluctant to prosecute women for even blatantly false claims of being a victim of these sort of offences.
@@Szlater there have been thousands of girls that have made these claims and was ignored by the police , the whole grooming gang scandal ? The whole victims need to be silent for the sake of diversity bs .
Would that be the same Ellie Williams who made false accustations and provided false evidence ? The same Ellei Williams who repeatedly breached her bail conditions ?
@@Szlater . "they are usually very reluctant to prosecute women" Figures show that only about a third of known cases of false accusations, are prosecuted
I have a better one. Buy a camera that has *no* audio capabilities and direct it towards your own property. As simple as that. If you don't tell them that you have a camera installed that can record video and audio of them and you get sued, you automatically lose. If they know you have a camera but you don't tell them that it also records audio and they find out, they might sue you and they'll win as well. "A few days and it gets deleted" is not a sufficient excuse. During those few days, who know if you saved the video for later use or not. Audio is useless if your goal is to film your front door like in those videos about retarded delivery people throwing packages so they don't have to walk up to your door or those who come back later to steal it.
How does that work with dash cam? When people post that on the internet? Or someone walking along live streaming? I have cctv that doesn’t record audio I have a doorbell camera set up but it doesn’t record and is only active when someone rings the bell for communication to my phone..
This raises an interesting conundrum. I've recently seen a number of You Tube videos where drone users are flying over both public and private property capturing video and yet claiming that they are not in default of data protection.
Very good question, I believe you are referring to the antics of so 'auditors', sometimes calling themselves citizen journalists. They claim and seem to be completely immune from all liability regarding filming in public or indeed private land which is publicly accessible. Not just drone footage (which is governed by its own regulations) but hand held devices too.
In general. Private individuals have no duty to gdpr when recording in public places. This video is specifically about houses and cctv. Drone law is a bit different. If gdpr was the case for individuals in public, then that means every tourist who takes a selfie in London is liable to gdpr complaints. Which is thankfully not the case.
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.
How does this not contradict the rules you previously paid out saying you are allowed to record in a public place as there is no right to or expectation of privacy? I get not being able to record others on private land in some contexts or it could be stalking but everything you just outlined would make it impossible to record in public as well especially if you get a single frame with a private property somewhere in shot in the background
To me it should be simple, same rules as recording in public. With the additional consideration of stalking or someone taking surveillance. But if your recording primarily your own land and everything you catch can be seen from public land aka you would be allowed to have it incidentally in a recording if you walked a few meters onto the road it should be allowed. just because it's taped to a wall and has a more obvious purpose shouldn't make it suddenly banned
@@BlackBeltBarrister thanks for clarifying I don't agree in principle with the law here then, if it's public land and your recording is not intended for that. it makes CCTV impractical and too challenging in many cases but goes along with UK in general your right to protect yourself in this country is overwhelmed and destroyed by other laws
Once accused by a neighbour of videoing their kids playing in the street. Except I was taking still photographs of a sewerage leak during the middle of a school day. Sewerage water through which their children could be walking or even playing. The embarrassed neighbour kept their distance after that.
Does this also apply to vehicle dashcams? There are many UA-cam videos where the owner of the dashcam captures other drivers crashing or doing "stupid" things. I suspect the owner did not get the subjects permission before publishing it on UA-cam.
So The BBC can record me and the kids watching the London Marathon and broadcast it live, but I can't record the BBC film crew going past my house on my CCTV and post it online?
As usual thanks for your take on a tricky legal subject. However, you have raised a question in my mind which I will be very grateful if you will clear up. I have watched many 'auditors' recently all of whom argue that photography in public by members of the public in pursuit of their 'hobby' is not covered by data protection law and that no member of the public, when in public, has a right to privacy. If this is the case, then how is a CCTV camera different when it is in essence doing the same thing as an auditor's video camera. I am sure that there is a perfectly simple reason for this. Many thanks.
How would this work in a flat block (2×4) where the neighbour on the bottom floor puts their Ring doorbell beside the buzzers outside the entry to the flat block?
My neighbour constantly uses her camera on my door or bottom of drive. She also follows me up and down the drive going to bin or speaking to anyone on street.. Police have been called and said its harassment but they called and said its OK and so did Ico despite my finding it an invasion of privacy. It does have audio too. So no, they won't do anything
Necessary, justifiable, proportionate. Reasonable duration for storage. Take care with audio. Use for appropriate purpose only. Keep long term only if for clear reason
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Follow-up: ua-cam.com/video/EIKOingA5Zo/v-deo.html
You mentioned livestreaming is bad - but I know on several online council CCTV cameras broadcasting public images online that capture public areas.
Being a public area is it no different to being captured on a video phonecall in the background?
Also - some roads are private roads for the residents (most new builds the roads are supposedly privately owned).. does/can this help with these things (being co-owner of the road) or is it still considered 'public' ?
Given the number of times where criminals have been caught because of CCTV cameras they happened to walk past that had no relation to their crimes, we should assume that the people who are making these laws have some criminal connections they are working to protect. It's the same as '2 party consent states' in the US where you can be charged with 'wiretapping' for recording a phone call, are obviously working to prevent people from exposing fraud, extortion, corruption, etc., you only see these laws in the states where organized crime has the most power over government officials and police.
are you aware , the Ring Doorbell camera system is open to the Police whenever a Force ask amazon for access of a particular address , WITHOUT warrant or court order under the guise of Co-operating with the law, assuming they find something they want to use , i am sure they will follow up with the appropriate warrant , but this is served on amazon not the household,.
I live in a converted terrace house on the ground floor, the front door is shared with the upstairs flat and the new owner has put a ring doorbell on the front door, I’m not happy that she can record all my comings and going’s of me and my visitors. The device is about 10ft away from my lounge window and I’m not sure if she could hear any conversations I’m having if my window is open. She can also listen to any conversations I have with anyone at the doorstep, I feel it’s an invasion of my privacy and asked her to take it down, she said she’s changed the settings so there’s no sound, how do I know if that’s true? I’ve only got her word for it.
My security cameras are movement activated and have been set to exclude, as far as reasonably possible, triggering on movements outside the boundaries of my property. Any captured videos are uploaded to a cloud store and auto delete after 30 days. No audio is captured except the camera covering the immediate porch area so someone would have had to approach the front door to be recorded.
All in all, I feel comfortable defending this as reasonable and proportionate to deter and detect criminality
Same here
Common sense would agree but the law doesn't respect common sense. Still I think the benefits outweigh the risks in your case.
Most professional CCTV installations from Hikvision record only for 7 days ,
But you need to establish a legal basis, (that is, actually have one that would satisfy a court judge) as defined in the legislation, for doing any of that outside of of your property in the first place.
Without that, you have no defence at all.
Simply saying it is to deter crime isn't good enough. You'd have to demonstrate there was actually an identifiable risk and explain how surveillance ourside you own property would prevent or minimise it.
Are things really permanently deleted from the cloud?
My neighbour has at least four cameras on his home. Two cover my entire front garden, path and front door and one at the back of the property is pointed directly into my garage window and covers the back gate and side entrance of my property. The one at the back of the property, which is also about 10 foot from my kitchen door has audio functionality. My neighbour and his wife dislike me after I politely asked them if they would lower the volume of their music in the back garden. The level of hatred and revenge that has been directed at me since then makes me assume they are listening to my private conversations which have included discussing their behaviour with trusted people. I hate security cameras, I feel all of my privacy has been violated.
They are obviously infringing on your right to privacy, seek professional help
There is surely something of a conflict here if recording images and sounds in public places is swept up into this legislation. I have a dashcam installed in my car, and as far as I'm aware, that is a perfectly legal thing to do and also doesn't seem to require any form of justification as to the reason why I have it. Also, as far as I'm aware, it is also legal to take photos or make videos of public places, including anybody who happens to be passing by, without requiring any justification. These are places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. So if I take a photo or video in a public place, and happen to put it on a social media channel, and somebody loses their job, or maybe their marriage, because they weren't meant to be there, then according to you they might have a case against me? I will state that is surely absolute codswallop if it is in a public place.
That is surely not the same thing as intrusive recording of where people do have a reasonable justification of privacy.
I have awful abusive neighbours that vandalise my vehicles & use my garden as their rubbish tip & give themselves full access to my garden whenever they like, so I have security cameras up now & I don't care what they say or do as I will record anything that supports my complaints about them over the years! I also have a CCTV licence but found your video interesting. Thank you.
@@G58 The great thing is being plants they wont come under laws preventing you from deploying traps.
@@G58 I've often thought of blackthorns, I have brambles but not on their side. If they don't treat them with weed killer I think I'll try the blackthorns. Great minds & all that. Thank you 😊
@@cormoran2303 nope just nature 😂
Don't keep footage of them unless they are committing an offense. If they argue with each other you might be tempted to keep it as it shows their character but this is basically none of your business.
Got exactly the same problem the neighbour hates the cameras because he and his wife can't get away with much no more. Now he has fitted a camera pointing directly at my property but turns it off when he is up to no good.
Would love to know how this crosses over with people filming on their phones and publishing on UA-cam etc.
Me too
@@dwayne_dibley you are correct, but it's a distinction that is wrong in principle. It (the law) needs fixing. CCTV does not work as a deterrent it's not supposed to. CCTV is a tool for gathering evidence of events, in part in conjunction with other evidence or as a single source of evidence. It's incapable of doing this particularly well if you are unable to capture the events leading up to or after a crime in some cases. In most cases CCTV is incapable of being a sole source of evidence because the process of retrieving footage is subject to potential tampering, eg unless the CCTV can export footage in a formate that can demonstrate nothing has been edited and is of adaquate quality to confirm who is who and what was done, it's only good to state the person in it has a likeness to XXX unless other continuity of events can be used such as human observations or capture of number plate (oh wait - you can't do that unless that car is caught on your land) or capture of DNA (and for reasons beyond this comment it's possible to argue DNA found at a crime isn't yours no matter how close to yours it is).
My point is CCTV should cover past your fence, your doorway or property boundary, into public space, but not into neighbouring land without their written consent. In a more neighbourly world, neighbours should ask their community to add CCTV together to cover a small village with as many as they can. Eg overlapping cameras capturing as much footage as is needed to secure a conviction, without doubt, or room to argue it wasn't them.
Also using dash cam in your car.
it doesn't, its only fixed cameras.
@@sarahsarah4271 it doesn't cover dashcams in a car.
I was the CCTV controller for our local village hall for many years. We operated to a strict control policy per the ico. The police regularly contacted me for access to our recordings (the police were approved for access under our policy). The police would also knock on doors of houses with cameras when trying to obtain crime information and they seemed to consider various household CCTV a great asset in combatting crime. I'm retired from the hall but my own premises have detailed coverage within my property boundaries
And when you think of the fuss made by intellectuals when they were widely introduced in cities !
There's no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.
but there is a reasonable expectation to not be under surveillance.
@@GhostWriter_Music tell that to the millions of CCTV cameras around England in public places. ohhhhhh, wait.
Marvelous. Meanwhile, just about EVERYWHERE you go in town/car parks/pubs/shops etc, you're being recorded with impunity.
Tinfoil-Tip: almost all cctv cameras are overly sensative in the Infra Red range. So a baseball cap illuminated with the kind of LED's used in TV remotes will provide some measure of obscurity.
@@Jon6429 Or give a unique "fingerprint" that makes it even easier to connect you with the otherwise poor quality footage 😉
serve "your self" scum bag as we not paying someone to serve you, o yeah we going to record you in full 4K in your face video then stop you after to check your bags, gets right on my nerves, we doomed and the minions don't see it coming !
Can't even use the self checkouts at a certain supermarket without being filmed by I suspect facial recognition cameras.
John, not with impunity at all, since the data protection act equally applies to those records, but with even greater scrutiny and controls.
It's the big brother world that we live in sadly.
Amazing how sensitive parents are about their children appearing on cctv or a photograph, but are then perfectly happy to distribute the same on social media for all and sundry to see!
Hardly comparable.. one scenario is a stranger doing it with unknown intent. The other is the child's guardians doing so to share moments with friends and family.
Obviously some people are bad with knowing security setting on their devices.. but that's another issue.
@@nickjones7737 Hardly comparable indeed.
One is doing it in a way which potentially allows the wrold and his dog to see them.
The *other* is, oh ............... hang on sec..
@@Farweasel one has a questionable motive.. the other has a known motive
@@nickjones7737 so, what about Joe public filming in the street, on the beach, hotels,fairgrounds (who blatantly take photos of kids on rides for them to purchase, dash cams etc, all capturing footage of their children without consent? 🤔
@@David-bl1bt that's not the same thing as a fixed camera running 24/7..
I wonder if this explains why, when my business was broken into and we got a clear image of the culprit’s face and the police recognized him, no further action was taken?
@slopp slagit I think it's to a judges discretion what film footage is used as evidence but usually the Police use the footage only to identify the person then find their own evidence by raiding their homes and or tracing stolen items.
@slopp slagit I think if they want to they can - we don't have the same 'admissibility' laws as the US about how evidence was captured. Pretty sure that once images exist and are known to the police they can be used - even if captured 'illegally' .
That was probably more to do with a back-hander being given
I understand all that you have said in this video. As far as video and photo capture I have always understood that permission is not required in a place where a person would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy (a public park or a public street etc).
This depends on the nation you are in and the specific area.
However the general rules to follow is no that does not count.
A crowd of people so individuals is blended together possibly you could get away with so a full public park is one thing but just because it is a public park no.
Most dvr's have an option to block out certain areas that each camera picks up. So if the camera picks up an area beyond my property there is the option to have a blacked out square that can be size adjusted to blank out that sensitive area. On the recording and remote live feed it simply shows a black square in these sensitive areas. My camera points out towards the road to keep an eye on my van but also picks up neighbours front of house. Where the windows and doors are I have covered these areas to afford them privacy. I have also spoken with my neighbours about it and shown them on my phone what is being picked up. They were all in favour of the cameras as it improves security and when shown that those sensitive areas were covered had no objections. I think if you are open about it with your neighbours and show them what is being captured then I don't see any reason you should experience any problems.
Mines the same. Nobody at the end of my road has cameras but I installed them when I moved in and nobody had an issue. I was very open with them and showed them what it captured and gave them the option to mask their property. I said if somebody broke onto their car one evening though I wouldn’t be able to help them as the camera wouldn’t catch anything under the mask. Nobody asked me to mask anything. My rear camera catches some of the neighbours patio so I’ve given them their privacy but they have recently cut down a tree so I need to go in and adjust this now.
i have cameras and dont care what my neighbors think...they arent paying my mortgage. i put them up for security. i can walk outside my home and see everything my camera sees...law gonna tell me where i can and cant look in my own yard?
Around 2010 a number of school kids were using the close I stay in, to smoke, and leave there rubbish behind. Our close was getting vandalised with graffiti, and with me staying on the ground floor, I could see all that was going on
So one day I put up a cctv camera, but made sure it could be seen, as we wanted to catch the school kids. On one occasion there was around 20 kids in the close, and after they left, they left all there rubbish
A few weeks later, we decided to tell the school kids to get out, and we began to take photos. The school kids weren't happy about this, telling us, you cant take a photo of us. A number of parents made complaints about this, but as soon as they seen the footage of the videos which we recorded, they went quiet
These parents now learned that some of there kids have taken up smoking
Nice one mate, people power.
All it takes is one Karen though
I had my living room window put through I had CCTV up I knew who had done it but the quality of the CCTV recording was not clear enough. I am now in the process of having 4k day/nite CCTV put up and to be honest, I don't give a rat's arse what the police say. My neighbors are more than happy for the CCTV to be up and cover the front of their properties as they are predominantly elderly.
*their
@@dopiaza2006 pis of.
My wife is a goldsmith and we are required by her insurance to have CCTV coverage of all entrances and exits. Our neighbour across the street was very suspicious of this and complained that we may be looking inside his house - which was absolutely not the case. This year while he was on holiday his house was broken into by his rear door which is in sight of our camera; now he is a convert as the police could use our CCTV to identify the criminals
You should have deleted it immediately.
@@robburrows2737 why should they?
@@paulfrost8952 its best to play nice with people.
A friend of mine installed a CCTV camera because of problems with illegal drug use and selling in the neighbourhood.
They did it to protect their property. The police simply didn’t want to help.
Inadvertently they recorded a murder by stabbing.
The police impounded the recordings and the recording device. The recording was used to help with a conviction.
How does that work out if the accused objects to the use of CCTV?
I can provide you with details if you are interested
It doesn't help the accused at all. It will be evidence in their trial.
They should not have let the police take the camera,I bet they never had a warrant
Murder infringes on other people’s human rights, but so does policing “illegal” drug use. A rare case of the police being sensible!
@@DissociatedWomenIncorporated there is strong case for the use of CCTV specifically to catch criminals
@@StephenSwindells sure, if there’s any criminal activity _other_ than consenting adults buying or selling substances for personal use. You know, _real_ criminals, not just people being criminalised because of outdated political dogma used specifically to target ethnic minorities and the poor.
What a world we live in, where trying to protect yourself from crime can land you in more trouble than actually comitting a crime.
As Mr Bumble said in David Copperfield: ""the Law is an ass".
If the people reduced crime this would slow the massive money train and the judiciary does not like that idea at all!
I got burgled 4 times in my last flat.the last time it happened I was in and grabbed one of them hold and threw him on the floor hurting his poor little thieving elbow and I had to pay him..disgusting our law is..law is only there for people that abid by it,but if yr scum and aren't ruled by law it doesn't apply..the police took 24 hrs to come to me the last time..but god forbid you park funny in yr car
Oliver Twist.
Most of us would be prefer not to live in the hellish prison of surveillance society under the guises of safety.
Have you ever heard the term "birds in golden cages"
Freedoms always come with risk.
Just lock up yourself and your family and never leave your house if you want want to live without risk.
How about the fact that none of us can walk around any town without being constantly captured on CCTV ?
Lets all make Subject Access Requests to the Council or organisations that operate the CCTV - the operators will soon get tired of responding withing the DPA's guide lines and, just maybe, the SPA will be reviewed and amended to something more reasonable.
I"m sure those who have been victims of any crime and solved by CCTV would agree with you .
Even if you pay a subscription images from a ring camera are only stored for 30 days hence by the time anyone goes through a process the subject matter will no longer exist.
What if you’re capturing antisocial behaviour from a harassing neighbour for evidence?
As an advocate for privacy and freedom, I hate the CCTV surveillance state we live in where every house in the street has 3/5 cameras, tracking your every movement and listening to your private conversations.
My neighbour has at least four cameras on his property two fully overlook my front garden and one at the back looks directly into my garage window, additionally it is about 10 foot from my kitchen door and has audio recording. My neighbour and his wife dislike me purely because I asked them politely if they could keep the music down in the garden. The level of hatred and revenge directed at me since then makes me believe they have listened to my private conversations where I have spoken about them to trusted people. I hate the idea that my conversations are being listened to and I am 'punished' for what they don't like hearing.
The Ring devices only store for 30 days, and only capture if someone walks into the zones you set, or you live view. It does not record indefinitely like cctv.
Hi B B B, yet again you provide us with a lot of sensible advice and information, one thing I am still unsure of is while footage of the activities in the public domaine filmed and recorded from private premises will not conform to the domestic exemptions for GDPR how is this different from personal photography film and recording carried out in the public domaine for personal and private use where again GDPR does not apply, is there some legal distinction related to the position of the camera?.
Cheers, Richard.
Having examined the legislation and the court judgment, I would say it is very important to stress that Art 6 of the GDPR is the starting point. That is, the lawfulness of the surveillance in the first place. Without being able to establish, by clear and credible evidence, (and this means in reality, not merely picking one of the options and simply saying it is so) that it is lawful to start with, questions as to reasonableness and proportionality and so on are completely irrelevant.
Many people seem to believe that they can bypass that initial hurdle and by backwards logic assert that because the way they use their system is reasonable and proportionate, it is therefore legal.
A great big big NO. It is quite possible (although unlikely) that surveillance of neighbours property could be judged as complying with all the reasonableness and proportionality and safety requirements of data capture and processing.
But it if it is not lawful under Art 6 to start with, it is not lawful!
Hi BBB, what about the belief that you can have no expectation of privacy whilst in a public space ? I am asking as I have my CCTV cameras pointing up and down our sidewalks and street in an attempt at curtailing loitering, trespass, also petty theft of private property such as bustbins etc.
I have a Ring doorbell and have a yellow sticker to say they are being recorded if they come to my door. My neighbours also have doorbells, but not Ring ones.
Ring has zones and I have set them up to not record outside my boundary.
"It certainly might"... Got to love lawyerspeak 😄
I have Amazon blink cameras with cloud storage, we have one above the cat flap to see when the cats are in/out, one near the front door mostly to monitor parcel deliveries and one on the garden which captured an intruder who stole a bike from
a neighbours garden which we uploaded to the police website.
What you are applying is that it’s perfectly ok for the Authorities to put cameras on a public street and film law abiding citizens. But ordinary householders can’t film anyone passing their house.
Good call! OK for Big Brother, but not us!
Implying*
I'm not surprised, it's one rule for them and another rule for us
Yup. We had cars being vandalised in our street, so I said I was going to put up security cameras, was told by Police not to as there was a school in the street and if the cameras caught any minors they’d throw the book at me.
So I put up fake cameras, even the Police were fooled until I told them to take a closer look when they came to arrest me, I was de-arrested within 5 minutes and we didn’t have any more cars vandalised either.
Yet the school on the street, has 78 cameras covering it.
Where this makes no sense is that you can film people in a public place so if someone is on the street outside and you capture them how is that different to standing on the street filming them which is legal.
I have Ring and police wanted me to see if I’d recorded disturbance at neighbours house 🏠
Very interesting. A follow-on for you: how does this apply to car dashcams which may be always on? Let's say you're parking your car in a regular area.
Just about to ask the same question. If the idea of a dashcam is to record incidents you are involved in for insurance reasons if you then post it online on one of the many dashcam channels on UA-cam are you then running a risk of ‘illegally’ posting about some third party?
@@davenunn7259 i note that in Poland for example the dash cam channels all blurr all faces and number plates...
I also remember seeing on Hubnut's trip around Europe he was saying it's completely illegal to film in (I think it was) Germany
@@cockneyse I think they’re illegal in Luxembourg as well, seem to remember someone doing a road trip across Europe and saying they weren’t allowed to use it there
Normally a dashcam overwrites the oldest data, so if your car is sat outside your house constantly recording, you will be "in effect" deleting the data regularly.
However, there is the ability to "save" data, and to swap out memory cards.
What about Tesla cars?
Built-in cameras.
Very good information ,for what can be a grey or misunderstood area .
I work for local government and local police supplying cctv for public saftey and law enforcement..We have to consult "legal" before installation of new equiptment.
The part about pointing it at next doors garden i get, the part I dont't understand is the part about the public walking past. How would me recording/Live streaming peolpe walking past in public view be any different to me Live straming/Recording on my phone out and about in public?
Fixed and permanent
Here they do not differ and both can put you in the exact same trouble of being charged for breach of privacy and data protection. The means of how you captured the footage of people in a public place is irrelevant. But these laws can differ from country to country.
Just like all the Cameras recording 24 / 7 in our Town Centres .
I don't have a particularly good understanding of the law but in the case of the fairly ubiquitous ring doorbells it does feel like there is a difference. I was walking to a friend's not long ago and realized that amazon could see my entire walk. I can't remember the name but there was some Amazon trial of a street wide network to link ring doorbells together for better coverage so Amazon is clearly interested in using these devices as a network rather than as isolated personal cameras. In 20 years when the hardware for computing facial recognition gets cheaper, I can see amazon using this data in ways that would make me uncomfortable. From the mundane like identifying that I may need better walking shoes if I was following a regular route. Then to maybe more seriously identifying that I am sick by the fact that I start walking more slowly or not as far, data that could be sold to insurance companies that might raise premiums. Or in the most sinister possibility, identifying what we would consider to be legitimate protestors and handing them over to the government in return for the right to trade or tax cuts. In conclusion, the difference I see is the potential of malicious use through centralizing such consistent data. A phone video or livestream on the other hand is a snapshot of a time and place that is presumably somewhat notable and it would be difficult to learn much about the individuals caught in that snapshot.
@@AUA-camAccountName Mornig Callum , Thre are some who would describe You as a '' Conspiricy Theroist '' , whilst most of us can see the writing on the wall , and would agree with you .
I've got a slightly serious question . My property is on the corner of a side street and a lane . The far end , from that corner , of the property , also on the lane , is the corner of my garage . In the 8 years we have lived here that garage corner has been damaged many times by refuse trucks and also flat bed hgv's ( scaffolding and building supply trucks mainly ) . There are two utility polls just before you get to the garage corner when coming from the direction of the side street . We have just renovated the garage , including a rather expensive rubber skin on the roof . The utility poles occlude points of view from the house where we might easily mount a camera to monitor that corner of the garage . Likewise , there is no obvious place on the garage to mount a camera . It is likely a matter of time before a high sided metal vehicle ( refuse truck , e.g. ) damages the new roof at the corner of the garage ( the lane at that point is a pinch point and with a camber angled so that the sides of such vehicles lean towards the corner of the garage roof ) . Council drivers are driving as well as can be expected , bless them , but mistakes occur eventually when accidents are set up to happen , regardless of the competence and attention of a driver ( in fact they have told us they would prefer not to have to drive down the lane for this reason ) . I can't mount a camera on the new roof as that would void the warranty for the roof . Can't mount one on the side of the garage with a vantage of the corner as the poles are in the way . Can I mount a camera ( e.g.a doorbell cam ) on to the utility pole without informing the relevant utility company ? If I didn't , would the footage still be relevant in a claim against for example , the council or registered owner of the vehicle ? For clarity , the camera must needs point down the ( public ) lane to capture any such incident . Would appreciate any comments . Ta
Question: How does this mesh with the concept of “auditing”? Seems that uploading a video to UA-cam of random people (not all of whom might be public officials) could have the same effect as recording random people just passing by your house. I’ve also seen quite a number of similar videos uploaded to UA-cam showing TV license goon visits too (which could be argued the same way as freedom auditors)
I'd like to hear an answer to this too!
I think that is down to the type of recording device - CCTV or just a camera.
As for the TV goons, they usually come to a private property to do their bidding so they can hardly moan about being filmed when they are aware walking onto private property will have them captured.
I might be wrong here but i do recall that privacy laws prevent you from filming people who do not want to be filmed and before you upload it to youtube you should either remove any regonizable things and the face or get their permission.
I don't believe that any recording device is illegal in England because if that were the case then every cctv camera and dash cam in the country is also illegal. We installed a cctv camera about 5 years ago on the advice of the police after having problems with a neighbour. A few months back we had a visit from plod because said neighbour had complained about the camera. My response was "so your dash cam is also illegal then". They left.
It's hard to understand where the line of privacy is versus being in a public place. Doesn't that make councils live cam footage of a high street or traffic cameras an invasion of privacy to some degree? If you do have a troublesome neighbour who is coming on to your property and damaging or stealing your assets. Would your own camera footage, be rejected as evidence in legal proceedings? Despite setting your camera up correctly to capture precise areas within your property boundary and have no sound recorded.
Good call! Laws seem to be more focussed on protecting the rights of the criminal than the innocent citizen. Same applies to self defence!
The right to a private life is a qualified right which can be overridden in the interest of public safety and crime prevention, the council will have considered this before installing CCTV, they have to prove this to the ico if questioned, you will also be able to do an foi to access this reasoning (hence bbs advice of writing out your reasons and keeping that record). Those that use CCTV that cover outside the bounds of their property must do the same if you can prove a need and that your recording is proportional and for a legitimate purpose and you are storing/using the data collected responsibly it's unlikely the ico will have an issue. (Check the website for the proper guidance)
If you start sharing it on social media for an illegitimate purpose or start threatening to share things you have captured to wind up a neighbour for example then it becomes an issue.
There's no right to privacy on a high street.
Anyone who asks about my cameras including the police, I tell them it doesn't work... done.
This seems like a load of bollocks anyway, what about ordinary cameras where people are in the background when you take a picture, is that also a violation of some random law?
What about live TV news cameras on the street? can you take them to court if you are captured?
Most CCTV DVRs wrap around every 14 - 21 days in which case if you need to access any particular footage you have to download it within that
time scale otherwise it gets overwritten. Not something you would normally have to concern yourself with.
Most DVRs/NVRs only wrap when the disk is full unless you specifically set the overwrite period. I believe licensed premises are required to keep recordings for 30 days.
@@pling2 The point of wrapping is to prevent the disk from becoming full. There is a default set in the software to prevent the disk from running out of space.
You can of course set that to what you want. But if your software allows you to configure a setting that will ultimately mean your disk runs out of space then it's crap software.
We should all make Subject Access Requests to our local Authorities for the images of us as we go about our daily business walking in town. What bigger abuse of 'Personal Data' is there than an organisation with probably 100's of cameras all recording our every move, being monitored by no one knows who, behind closed doors.
If it's OK for the Council to have cameras intentionally capturing us, with high resolution, and probably facial recognition, across the town, why can't I have a camera monitoring the street outside my house to capture exactly the same images from my window?
Would be Interesting to know how it stands for narrowboat owners live streaming the canal path and public areas surrounding their boat, especially ones that "constant cruise" and have to move every 14 days - Ive seen a few around, that also record sound, and seen a lot posting recorded video for a UA-cam post...would this be any different with the boat being residential but in a public place? - thanks
There is plenty of cruising on the canal tow paths in my area and I'm sure the cruisers don't want to be photographed 😂😂😂😂
One of your best practical advice about lawfull use videos on cctv law from every point. nice one
Only in the UK can you try capture an image of someone burgling your home but you become the criminal 🤣
Indeed it's the most stupid thing going.
We have this issue where i live. had a CCTV system setup when the building was made. we could legally share the footage of people trespassing. but now if we did that we'd be breaching the criminals rights to privacy despite them breaking in!
Typical red tape getting in the way of common sense.
Lucky if you do, You're more likely to catch others going past to rob others which is far more likely to happen.
Not only in the Uk 😂
was t h inking exactly this AND also thinking why bother as sending the info to the police will achieve nothing...unless you're asking them to dance the Macarena while wearing a rainbow sheet
did you listen to the video? Capturing the image of a burglar is a "legitimate reason" for recording, plus you would be recording images within the curtilage of your property.
We had someone breaking into a property with an Angle grinder, Motion sensing didn't capture it but the excessive audio alert did.
Prevented them from driving off with our trailer as we called our neighbours and they set the on site Sirens off.
Bit of a shame, police were only 2 minutes behind them for a change (the response times have been improving).
From a non legal position I think using audio to electronically trigger a recording, much the same as movement detectors, is no problem - it's when the system also records the audio content that the DPA will kick in.
Very odd. The police ask house owners for any cctv footage if there has been any incident in your area ?
The data is encrypted and on my ring doorbell the neighbours property is blanked out. Audio is only recorded when triggered by the motion sensor. That's a darn sight more privacy than public cctv camers that are all over the place in the UK.
How is this different then to people that walk around in public filming, saying their auditing a building or area? Normally involving a security or police officer and put it out on Facebook etc.
I am in an interesting situation. The "front door" of my house is actually in the shared pathway between my house and the neighbour's house. (Their front door is in the more traditional position, at the front of their house, facing on to the street). They also use the shared pathway frequently as access to their property. Not only do they use it but often visitors do, too. If I were to use a door camera, I would capture every person who visits next door using the path. I've no idea how I'd pick the bones out of GDPR.
I had this issue. I'd had an attempted break-in, so wanted to get a security camera. I asked the neighbor if they were ok with this, given it'd also give some protection to their property as well. They said 'no'. So I ended up moving instead, and installing a decent CCTV system that supported masking off public areas. Not long after I'd moved, neighbor's house got broken into, so they decided CCTV might have been a good idea. Burglars often come back. This time, their new neighbor objected, and I laughed. They were kind of the neighbor from hell anyway, which was one of the reasons I'd moved. Makes me curious if Ring, Nest or other cloud-connected cameras can actually fully comply with DPA and GDPR rules in the first place given the user isn't really in control of their system, even if they would be liable for using it.
@@stevefox3763 True, but my neighbour was a PITA who objected to pretty much everything on general principle. Rest was really a de-risking exercise in case of any future problems. So I got a nice Panasonic system that does tracking, capture, masking etc. Best tip I got though was mounting discrete, low level cameras. So if an intruder sees the ones dummies in the eaves, they should end up looking right at the real ones.
@@stevefox3763 I think that's a problem with the law(s). I remember recently suggestions that all CCTV should be registered, so in the event of an incident, police could request footage. Mine's set up so that wouldn't work, ie it won't record images outside my property. So it complies with one aspect of the law, but doesn't help law enforcement. It's also why I don't like a lot of 'consumer' systems because if they're 'cloud' based, the consumer doesn't, and can't control the footage.
I did advice on this once; short version: you’re ok generally but avoid audio. Keep a note that there’s no way to avoid it but do your best to avoid their doors
@@BlackBeltBarrister Perfect, thank you
Does not data protection laws only apply to digitally stored information, or has the scope been widened in recent years?
Are shops that use facial recognition technology in breach of data protection law?
What if a home cctv camera only points onto the owners land and is shown to the police as doing so would that be within the law? Also what if a camera is moved periodically to view a certain area of a street but also for a short space of time looks over an ajoining neighbours garden would the time it looks over be relevent?
How does capturing the image of passersby relate to the fact that there is no expectation of privacy when you are in public? Does this mean that any images I have taken in public in a city street that very obviously contain images of people fall into this category, as I store them digitally on my PC? I can't see the difference between CCTV images and still images (those I take?)
Good point, I was wondering about that as well.
Years ago our neighbour had a visit from the old bill telling him he had to remove the cameras as they were filming the road and your not allowed to do that. Reason being was children as he could have been recording them and that was a big no no, but guess it's ok now...
In a public space, you can photograph, video anything and anyone regardless of age. If a kid walks past your door cam, and is captured on video by your door cam, so what?
Some months ago we had a knock on our front door, it was a police officer asking if we had a cctv system. Apparently next door had had a break in and they were hoping we may have some footage that may help identify who they were. We did not have a cctv system.
Exact same thing happened to me when a neighbour had some stuff nicked from his garden.
This is what gets me... they don't want you to encroach on neighbours or property outside of your boundary but do when it could help solve a crime! Imagine being prosecuted by an offender running past your house on a public footpath because you shouldn't have been recording there! 😂
That sounds like a made up story. The police never turn up for a burglary. 😁😃😀 But say a few hurty words on the internet and they turn up mob handed.
DPA GDPR don't seem to apply though to the police, councils or the state or did I miss something?
DPA does apply to Councils and installations tun by, or for, them - they will have the installation registered at the Information Commissioner - make a Subject Access Request to your council to find out what they hold/have recorded about you.
@@barrieshepherd7694 You need to join Naivety Anonymous. Shall I find their details for you? Whole system is rotten and corrupt to its very DNA!
@BlackBeltBarrister do Dashcams fall under the same rules?
My thoughts exactly
They don't from what I've read but its best to check it with a lawyer
There's no privacy in public. Audio of next door captured - the proportionality comes down to where the frig else am I going to put the doorbell if not by the door.
This business of recording video / audio outside the boundaries of your property remindes me of another question that you might be able to cover, security lighting: what's the legality of people having outside security lighting, movement detection activated or otherwise, when the light shines directly into neighbouring properties? Very high powered security lights are very common and it doesn't seem to be a requirement to 'hood' them in such a way as to only light your own property... Do the neighbouring properties have any legal position to ask for these to /not/ be directed onto their properties?
That's a very interesting subject, I'd like to see that covered here.
Suppose you can have light annoyance like noise annoyance
I always aimed my security lights downwards to limit light spill onto the neighbouring properties and the street as much as possible. The PIR sensors were aimed/adjusted so that the lights were only triggered when people were on my property or within a few inches of being so.
I'm next to a well used ally way had them decades no-one has complained got neighbours all around you just use common sense passers by seem to feel safer.
Civil action can be taken by an individual to tackle a lighting problem. He or she would have to be able to prove that a nuisance exists. The statutory nuisance dealing with light is defined as "artificial light emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance". Nuisance, in this context, is anything that would be regarded as an unreasonable interference with someone's use of their property, or prejudicial to their, or someone else's, health.
The statutory nuisance regime will not be available in certain instances, in particular, in relation to premises used for transport purposes, and other premises where high levels of light are required for safety and security reasons.
What about if someone has an allotment 25-30foot away from your back garden and they have a camera pointed your way. I also have 2 young boys playing in the garden
I like the use of language "It absolutely certainly MIGHT". that made me chuckle. I'm intrigued - if someone walks past your CCTV and then starts a Subject Access Request, how could you know that you have captured them?
They would have to submit the subject access request within a reasonable time and give you rough times and dates that they believe they were filmed.
It's hardly reasonable to say to a data controller "I walked past 104 times this month and I want a recording of every instance" - I also don't think you can include any other 3rd parties in the footage of the original requester.
@@ssss-df5qz if it was busy you couldn't be sure who the person is. They could give you a photo of themselves I suppose. When we respond to Subject Access Requests at work we have to be certain we have found every instance of their details. You could find 5 images of them walking past but they could sue you because there was a sixth. Sound recordings would be even harder to manage.
How does home cctv differ from the use of a dashcam (especially if it also captures sound)? Furthermore, what about auditors that share video & audio on UA-cam etc?
Ironical when the police often need footage from a cctv camera to solve many crimes, yet we're getting prosecuted for it also? Sometimes the law really is an ass.
And yet plod rely on private cctv when they are forced to investigate a crime.
I would really appreciate it if you could tell me the difference between an Auditor (after the fashion you have dealt with in a previous video) filming police stations, councils, security firms and the like all around the U.K., posting thousands of hours of content online for potentially millions of people to view - and a private citizen recording a few feet outside their home in the interest of crime prevention?
Auditing channels also have audio of conversations with the police, councils etc and members of the general public, as well as passers by - I’m just interested to know the difference, if there is one. Many thanks
@@stevefox3763 Yes but why it doesn't make seem to make sense
What is the position on this BBB as is 100% true in this case. A police officer knocks on my door as has seen I have a camera & would like the footage as a crime happened just round the corner? I agreed but could that come back to haunt me from the defendant not including a brick through the window. Please reply for a change.
Hi, so in regards to the CCTV recording, what would be the case if you just replied that the cameras do not record the footage? Do they have to take your word for it?
From what I understand you have to be honest and open in what you record else you are breach of gdpr. It was a point in the case bb mentioned.
There is no expectation of privacy on public land therefore anyone filmed on public land has no claim. If you want privacy you need to create it yourself. There are plenty on PINAC videos on youtube which prove this
I film people every day with my dashcam but I'm not allowed to film beyond the boundary of my home when my car is on the street? My car can film but I can't film my car. 🙄 Madness
The words "law" and "ass" come to mind
How would the law apply to someone recording a public area beyond their boundary for the purposes of recording the children playing, concluding recording other property gardens across the street from their house, to record images and audio of neighbours and conversation, we have this problem.
Am I right in thinking there is no law forbidding the taking of photographs or video in a public place? In which case captured images outside the boundary curtelige would be no issue?
Brilliant info. Shame when these issues occur the police do nothing to the persons wronged.
I’m in a neighbourhood watch scheme and we are constantly asked by the police if we have any cctv or door camera for information about car crime or burglary in the neighbourhood so how on earth does this work ( your dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t ) what do you think of this about what our police are asking .?
Things are getting stupid in the UK with drone law and people whinging about CCTV. My mate had the same problem with his neighbours, until one of them got burgled, then they could not wait to get the footage, which unfortunately he did not have.
Yeah, I’ve had that twice, neighbours from across the road asking if my camera caught someone breaking into their vehicle on their drive!!!
Cameras are everywhere. If its OK for the state then its OK for me. My neighbours like my cameras, which overlook their driveways. My only rear camera is low down and used only as a wildlife camera I dont record audio. They've been up 7 years and no one complains.They did once catch a pitbull savaging a neighbour and plod were happy to have the recording.
Also, I've got a webcam set up on my window so I can see who is going up and down my street. I saw a guy trying car doors, called the police and they came out (they grabbed the wrong guy up the street 😂) . He asked how I knew and I explained about my camera setup and asked if he wanted to see it and he said no, it was fine.
My camera records the whole street, and I was told to get it by the police after my car was vandalised and it couldn't be proven who did it. It hasn't been vandalised since. Someone did crash into it (drunk driver) though and the police came out and asked for a copy of anything showing the driver. They had no problems with me having the camera, and could easily see it covered the whole street. I don't review the files and they're automatically overwritten every few days as it's all on internal storage, but they'd have a job on getting me to take it down. It catches all kinds of criminal activity I already knew was going on, but it doesn't impact me so I stay out of it. Rather not make myself a bigger target than I already am.
@@mydogeatspuke You have to remember that most cops don't know their arse from their elbow when it comes down to understanding law.
@@grahamtaylor6883 yeah, no. I don't think that's a fair or accurate representation tbh.
So if plod shows up asking if they can view my front door footage which cannot help but catch people on the street, as they are tracing someone, am I protected from gdpr legislation?
I adjusted my CCTV so as not to overlook my neighbours rear garden, she (in her 80s) had a fall and lay there for 8 hours because I could no longer keep an innocent eye on her.
Me and my neighbour both have cctv overlooking each other’s property and we happy share footage if needed. And his camera came in handy for something that occurred at my property.
I wouldn't be too bothered about this. I reported a location to the Information Commissioner's Office regarding a CCTV system (several cameras) that was being used to record a public footpath adjacent to a farm. There was absolutely no reason for this to be done; rural Scotland - nil crime in the area. The ICO were not interested.
So what happens to those individuals who got sacked for sneaking off to watch snooker at The Crucible and their boss saw them on telly? Sue the BBC? 😂
Ferris Bueller at the baseball game😂
I thought photography in a public place (the street in front of the house) is allowed, and does not include any breaching of gdpr, as example the numerous auditors that go around the city etc ( for example Auditing Britan)
I realise this is a year old but many people are asking this and we really could do with a response from BBB....
Black Belt Barista, I find some kind of cognitive dissonence when I think that you're not allowed to record the people walking in the street with a Ring door camera, and post the video online, because of data protection laws - but you can walk down the street with your camera recording, and then post that video on UA-cam or fakebook live or whichever site. What the hell....does that mean that one could pursue legal proceedings if one asked someone filming, to stop recording them under the data protection laws? Cheers 👍
Does Daniel make nice coffee too ? Mine's a cappuccino then :-)
Question, mentioned CCTV and door bells with recording capabilities, does this extend to vehicles with dash cams and inbuilt cameras such as Teslas as they can record any movement?
Only people who have something to hide worry about CCTV
How do I stand recording a neighbour's entrance to the side of my property over which I have right of way and out to the road. My neighbour doesn't live there, it is an unused agricultural building. This entrance poses a clear security threat to both my neighbour's and my property, in fact I do have footage of people coming in and stealing things. The camera only records when it detects movement around the gate.
Please consider covering the Ellie Williams case, victim of grooming gangs locked up for talking about it publicly, first day of her trial started today.
Thanks for posting this I hadn't heard about this will be looking this up later today
She’s charged with making false claims, perverting the course of justice and falsifying evidence. Sounds like she tried to get two men prosecuted for acts that they didn’t do and she’s not locked up she’s out on bail. The fact that they are prosecuting her means that they have evidence that she tried to frame innocent men, and they are usually very reluctant to prosecute women for even blatantly false claims of being a victim of these sort of offences.
@@Szlater there have been thousands of girls that have made these claims and was ignored by the police , the whole grooming gang scandal ? The whole victims need to be silent for the sake of diversity bs .
Would that be the same Ellie Williams who made false accustations and provided false evidence ? The same Ellei Williams who repeatedly breached her bail conditions ?
@@Szlater .
"they are usually very reluctant to prosecute women"
Figures show that only about a third of known cases of false accusations, are prosecuted
Have you got some idea of the timeframe when the law is being introduced to make looking out of your Bedroom/Living room window a crime?.....
Very apt…in my opinion…
.... or putting your ear to the party wall in the bedroom 🤣
My solutions are thus;
1, Don't tell the neighbours what sort of camera you've got
2, if anyone asks the footage gets wiped after a few days.
Simples👌
3. Tell them your device it is not switched on or it is not set for recording.
I have a better one. Buy a camera that has *no* audio capabilities and direct it towards your own property. As simple as that.
If you don't tell them that you have a camera installed that can record video and audio of them and you get sued, you automatically lose. If they know you have a camera but you don't tell them that it also records audio and they find out, they might sue you and they'll win as well. "A few days and it gets deleted" is not a sufficient excuse. During those few days, who know if you saved the video for later use or not. Audio is useless if your goal is to film your front door like in those videos about retarded delivery people throwing packages so they don't have to walk up to your door or those who come back later to steal it.
How does that work with dash cam?
When people post that on the internet?
Or someone walking along live streaming?
I have cctv that doesn’t record audio I have a doorbell camera set up but it doesn’t record and is only active when someone rings the bell for communication to my phone..
This raises an interesting conundrum. I've recently seen a number of You Tube videos where drone users are flying over both public and private property capturing video and yet claiming that they are not in default of data protection.
Very good question,
I believe you are referring to the antics of so 'auditors', sometimes calling themselves citizen journalists.
They claim and seem to be completely immune from all liability regarding filming in public or indeed private land which is publicly accessible. Not just drone footage (which is governed by its own regulations) but hand held devices too.
Surely it all depends on intent?
In general. Private individuals have no duty to gdpr when recording in public places. This video is specifically about houses and cctv. Drone law is a bit different.
If gdpr was the case for individuals in public, then that means every tourist who takes a selfie in London is liable to gdpr complaints. Which is thankfully not the case.
@@colingreer853 Just so.
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.
How does this not contradict the rules you previously paid out saying you are allowed to record in a public place as there is no right to or expectation of privacy?
I get not being able to record others on private land in some contexts or it could be stalking but everything you just outlined would make it impossible to record in public as well especially if you get a single frame with a private property somewhere in shot in the background
To me it should be simple, same rules as recording in public. With the additional consideration of stalking or someone taking surveillance. But if your recording primarily your own land and everything you catch can be seen from public land aka you would be allowed to have it incidentally in a recording if you walked a few meters onto the road it should be allowed. just because it's taped to a wall and has a more obvious purpose shouldn't make it suddenly banned
Because it is fixed and "monitoring"
@@BlackBeltBarrister thanks for clarifying I don't agree in principle with the law here then, if it's public land and your recording is not intended for that. it makes CCTV impractical and too challenging in many cases but goes along with UK in general your right to protect yourself in this country is overwhelmed and destroyed by other laws
@@BlackBeltBarrister so it’s ok as long as it’s mobile and not fixed
@@stevefox3763 so using an old phone or GoPro to do the same thing as cctv is fine - just to clarify.
If beyond your boundaries is public property what happened to reasonable expectation of privacy?
Ashley Shaw: Apparently it isn't "reasonable" to expect privacy if you're in a public space (such as a street, public park, etc).
@@paganphil100 that's my point .....
Once accused by a neighbour of videoing their kids playing in the street. Except I was taking still photographs of a sewerage leak during the middle of a school day. Sewerage water through which their children could be walking or even playing. The embarrassed neighbour kept their distance after that.
Does this also apply to vehicle dashcams? There are many UA-cam videos where the owner of the dashcam captures other drivers crashing or doing "stupid" things. I suspect the owner did not get the subjects permission before publishing it on UA-cam.
And what about the police using dash cam footage to prosecute someone? 🤔
So The BBC can record me and the kids watching the London Marathon and broadcast it live, but I can't record the BBC film crew going past my house on my CCTV and post it online?
As usual thanks for your take on a tricky legal subject. However, you have raised a question in my mind which I will be very grateful if you will clear up. I have watched many 'auditors' recently all of whom argue that photography in public by members of the public in pursuit of their 'hobby' is not covered by data protection law and that no member of the public, when in public, has a right to privacy. If this is the case, then how is a CCTV camera different when it is in essence doing the same thing as an auditor's video camera. I am sure that there is a perfectly simple reason for this. Many thanks.
How would this work in a flat block (2×4) where the neighbour on the bottom floor puts their Ring doorbell beside the buzzers outside the entry to the flat block?
My neighbour constantly uses her camera on my door or bottom of drive. She also follows me up and down the drive going to bin or speaking to anyone on street.. Police have been called and said its harassment but they called and said its OK and so did Ico despite my finding it an invasion of privacy. It does have audio too. So no, they won't do anything
What if a CCTV camera set up to secure your property is also covering the street outside your house, IE a public place. Is that illegal?
Necessary, justifiable, proportionate. Reasonable duration for storage. Take care with audio. Use for appropriate purpose only. Keep long term only if for clear reason