'CCTV voyeurism, 'Safety' cameras of course.....
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/450712
Woman 'upset after CCTV spying'
A woman who was filmed naked in her home by CCTV operators felt "upset and angry" by the intrusion, a court heard.
The 25-year-old, described by the prosecution as "pretty", was filmed by a street safety camera at her flat in Sefton, Merseyside, in November 2004.
In a statement heard by the jury at Liverpool Crown Court, the woman said her privacy had been taken away.
Kevin Judge, 42, of Crosby, Merseyside, and David Welsh, 40, of Anfield, Liverpool deny charges of voyeurism.
The pair worked in a CCTV control centre for Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council.
Mr Judge has admitted misconduct in public office but denies voyeurism on the grounds he did not point the camera or view the images for sexual gratification.
Mr Welsh also denies misconduct in public office. He claims he never saw any improper image because he was busy with other duties.
In her statement, the woman explained that on 12 November she had returned from work, been visited by her boyfriend and undressed for a bath.
"I was contacted by Merseyside Police and I was informed that the CCTV camera outside my flat had been used to view incidents inside.
"The next day I was shown a CD of the recordings taken by staff at Sefton Council.
"I didn't give anybody any permission to watch me and I feel very upset and angry.
"I feel my privacy has been taken away and that someone has been inside my flat without my permission."
Two other men have admitted offences relating to the investigation.
One man has admitted voyeurism and another misconduct in public office.
The trial continues.
Woman 'upset after CCTV spying'
A woman who was filmed naked in her home by CCTV operators felt "upset and angry" by the intrusion, a court heard.
The 25-year-old, described by the prosecution as "pretty", was filmed by a street safety camera at her flat in Sefton, Merseyside, in November 2004.
In a statement heard by the jury at Liverpool Crown Court, the woman said her privacy had been taken away.
Kevin Judge, 42, of Crosby, Merseyside, and David Welsh, 40, of Anfield, Liverpool deny charges of voyeurism.
The pair worked in a CCTV control centre for Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council.
Mr Judge has admitted misconduct in public office but denies voyeurism on the grounds he did not point the camera or view the images for sexual gratification.
Mr Welsh also denies misconduct in public office. He claims he never saw any improper image because he was busy with other duties.
In her statement, the woman explained that on 12 November she had returned from work, been visited by her boyfriend and undressed for a bath.
"I was contacted by Merseyside Police and I was informed that the CCTV camera outside my flat had been used to view incidents inside.
"The next day I was shown a CD of the recordings taken by staff at Sefton Council.
"I didn't give anybody any permission to watch me and I feel very upset and angry.
"I feel my privacy has been taken away and that someone has been inside my flat without my permission."
Two other men have admitted offences relating to the investigation.
One man has admitted voyeurism and another misconduct in public office.
The trial continues.
Oh, you have to laugh,
Why would they bother with these two then? Two (unnamed) others had admitted it! doh.
catso said:
Kevin Judge, 42, of Crosby, Merseyside, and David Welsh, 40, of Anfield, Liverpool deny charges of voyeurism.
Two other men have admitted offences relating to the investigation.
One man has admitted voyeurism and another misconduct in public office.
Why would they bother with these two then? Two (unnamed) others had admitted it! doh.
bad company said:
I do not want to defend these guys but is the expense of this trial really in the public interest. Could they not have just been fired for misconduct?
Yes, I believe it is. Isn't this a criminal offence? IMO, simply sacking them gives out the wrong message.
This isn't an attack on you, bad company, but if this was your wife, girlfriend or daughter then you'd want the book thrown at them surely?
they'll be looking for new operators thenMunter said:
How many of us walk around in our underwear/nude with the curtains open?... Seems a bit odd to me.
Well, if her windows aren't actually overlooked by other people's windows then there wouldn't exactly be a reason not to. Plus presumably she wasn't expecting the CCTV camera to be redirected at her living room.
icamm said:
How did the Police get involve? Sounds pretty dumb of the CCTV guys to let that happen . Mind you they should be prosecuted for it if it is shown to be illegal (which it should be).
>> Edited by icamm on Thursday 8th December 12:58
I read that another camera was trained on the CCTV operators within the control room. That's how they were found out.
I have been on a tour of a town CCTV control centre. We were told that the area of coverage is limited to prevent the cameras looking into domestic premises. True? Maybe not.
Munter said:
How did the Police get involve? Sounds pretty dumb of the CCTV guys to let that happen
In a big brother moment someone decided to put a camera up to watch the people watching the cameras....
Apparently a supervisor walked in on them while they were zooming in. I don't know whether the camera was in there already or whether it was covertly placed after they suspected something.
I have also heard of this sort of thinking happening before, zooming in on frolicking couples in the street at night etc. I think the problem is that it is a low paid low skill job and attracts people who think it is a laugh and not thoroughly unprofessional, and in this case, illegal.
Gareth
>> Edited by g_attrill on Thursday 8th December 13:28
When will they allow a public internet webcam to be sited in the headquarters of the CCTV control room, watching the operators and the screens? It is the only way to make this fair.
There is nothing cnfidential there as they are all sited in public places.
It answers the eternal Quis Custodet question. The Public watch the people who watch the public.
There is nothing cnfidential there as they are all sited in public places.
It answers the eternal Quis Custodet question. The Public watch the people who watch the public.
7db said:
When will they allow a public internet webcam to be sited in the headquarters of the CCTV control room, watching the operators and the screens? It is the only way to make this fair.
That's a brilliant idea.
I'm sure they'd be the first to say (when defending their CCTV cameras)..."if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear..." How could they object?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff