pcspb1 Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 Does anyone have a working knowledge of residential CCTV and the law governing privacy? Specifically: I have CCTV cameras pointing from within my home, to my car on the road outside. They are used for monitoring rather than recording. My understanding: is that the installation and operation of residential CCTV does not fall under any criteria of, nor is governed or regulated by the DPA (Data Protection Act) I have googled extensively, and seemingly public opinion is split with regard to the law surrounding such a system. Just hoping some legally-minded forummer can point me the right way to find definitive legislation. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 The Information Commissioner is quite clear on the subject: " The use of cameras for limited household purposes is exempt from the DPA. This applies where an individual uses CCTV to protect their home from burglary, even if the camera overlooks the street or other areas near their home." http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/detailed_specialist_guides/ico_cctvfinal_2301.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 The Information Commissioner is quite clear on the subject: " The use of cameras for limited household purposes is exempt from the DPA. This applies where an individual uses CCTV to protect their home from burglary, even if the camera overlooks the street or other areas near their home." On a technicality, is his car part of his home? It's technicalities like these that earn lawyers their fortunes, and I wouldn't want to be the man up in court on the test case. Has a ruling ever been laid down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 On a technicality, is his car part of his home? It's technicalities like these that earn lawyers their fortunes, and I wouldn't want to be the man up in court on the test case. Has a ruling ever been laid down? It shouldn't matter if he sets up his camera to "protect his home" in a position that coincidentally overlooks his car as well. Many private individuals have such systems set up without prosecution or fear of prosecution. You may well have seen their images shown on tv, newspapers and on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcspb1 Posted July 20, 2010 Author Share Posted July 20, 2010 On a technicality, is his car part of his home? It's technicalities like these that earn lawyers their fortunes, and I wouldn't want to be the man up in court on the test case. Has a ruling ever been laid down? This is one of the technicalities I am trying to define more clearly. It shouldn't matter if he sets up his camera to "protect his home" in a position that coincidentally overlooks his car as well. Many private individuals have such systems set up without prosecution or fear of prosecution. You may well have seen their images shown on tv, newspapers and on the internet. To say that it's been done (and still is being done by thousands of consumers) the law isn't clear on what can and can't be done. As far as DPA goes, I'm pretty clear on that already, there is no requirement to submit any application to the authorities - that said, although DPA isn't in question, I believe were someone so inclined, they could assert charges of invasion of privacy covered by the Human Rights Act, whereby they might have sufficient grounds to say that they have had their privacy violated. Which is a whole different thing... There seems to be no clear legislation for the installation and operation of a home CCTV system, that gives a black and white answer, it seems to be down to personal interpretation. For the while, and until I learn differently, the camera will remain. It isn't hooked up to a recorder, it views only what is in plain sight were I to be a pedestrian in the area, so I see no lawful reason which inhibits my use of it. Thanks for the replies and keep em coming, I know that there will be some sort of test case out there in the ether of t'internet, but I'm blowed if I can find it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosey Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 What's your concern with DPA? DPA doesn't leave you open to anything, other than potentially someone sending you a tenner and saying "Can I have a copy of my video image", to which you respond "No, I deleted it". End of story. And to answer headingnorth, yes, it is part of your home. It's not a technicality in honesty. Statutory interpretation and all that - the guidance on DPA is clear that someone with a camera pointing at their car is clearly protecting their homes in the broad sense, and that's all that matters. Unless you were clearly pointing it at someone else's property, through their window, I wouldn't worry. PS I love the comment "earn lawyers their fortunes...". My colleagues and I are clearly doing something wrong here as we've certainly never seen these fortunes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 PS I love the comment "earn lawyers their fortunes...". My colleagues and I are clearly doing something wrong here as we've certainly never seen these fortunes! You clearly haven't chased up enough technicalities Most lawyers are merely well-off, but some make millions out of exploiting such loopholes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosey Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 You clearly haven't chased up enough technicalities Most lawyers are merely well-off, but some make millions out of exploiting such loopholes. Depends on your definition of well off! Most are on well under £30k even after 10 years. Not bad, but not what people expect I suspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.