Home CCTV rules
Discussion
I have installed 1 cctv camera to cover my driveway. The driveway is shared with my neighbour. I own 1 half they own the other half. The camera covers their half too.
We have no issues with our neighbours and have shown them the CCTV view which they are fine with.
Do I need to do anything else to be legal?
We have no issues with our neighbours and have shown them the CCTV view which they are fine with.
Do I need to do anything else to be legal?
My CCTV has one camera overlooking my front door and garden, one inside my garage for when I leave it open whilst working, and one on the back of my garage overlooking my parking area (on road parking), it's capture my space and space either side, plus half the street with cut off just below the line of bottom floor windows on the other side of the street, the Police have seen it and had no issue.
You'll only get problems if someone starts making accusations as to what your using it for.
Faz50 said:
I've read the above but I thought you had the right to film in public whenever you want. I could certainly film the same image my CCTV does with a Go-pro and would be totally legal. I don't get it.Mine covers the entire street in both directions after systemic issues of attempted theft etc.
All fully discussed with my neighbours, and agreed, they were happy that they didn't need to put their own in, or at least at a reduced cost.
Police have also seen it as part of their investigations for one of my neighbours after knocking on.
Makes it hard work sneaking in the prostitutes when the missus is away.
All fully discussed with my neighbours, and agreed, they were happy that they didn't need to put their own in, or at least at a reduced cost.
Police have also seen it as part of their investigations for one of my neighbours after knocking on.
Makes it hard work sneaking in the prostitutes when the missus is away.
The DPA is not enforced by the police, so why would they care? CCTV images could only help them (legally obtained or not). The ICO cares (they really, really do), but they are also bound by European court rulings which suggest that a camera covering any part of the public street is not being used purely for domestic purposes (and thus exempt from most of the DPA).
ash73 said:
techmoan said:
There is a tiny bit of a road in the view so guess I will just pay the £35 and job done.
I'd be amazed if anyone else bothers, but I suppose it's possible a smart barrister could use this to exclude prosecution evidence. Most cctv systems can be set to ignore movement in parts of the image anyhow.Our Ring doorbell only activates for movement within range (essentially within a few of metres of our door) but captures images from further away, including the street.
Also from the ICO website:
'Many CCTV systems now come with audio recording facilities. Audio recording is particularly privacy intrusive and in the vast majority of cases where CCTV is being used on domestic properties it should be disabled'
given the purpose of a doorbell - especially one of the selling features of Ring - not helpful!
Hadn't occurred to me I'd need to look into this!
As mentioned earlier, can someone explain why having CCTV covering a road is any different to me standing there’s with phone recording?
What’s the DPA aspect as well? I can’t see how having a couple of seconds recording of someone walking past my house creates any sort of problem, especially if I’ve no intention of using it.
There seems to be a huge amount of paranoia on here about this. Unless someone complains, then I can’t see what the problem is likely to be, or have we got a roaming army of DPA plod swooping onto unsuspecting homeowners?
What’s the DPA aspect as well? I can’t see how having a couple of seconds recording of someone walking past my house creates any sort of problem, especially if I’ve no intention of using it.
There seems to be a huge amount of paranoia on here about this. Unless someone complains, then I can’t see what the problem is likely to be, or have we got a roaming army of DPA plod swooping onto unsuspecting homeowners?
My cctv points out at the street. I had it installed years ago when I had a bit of trouble from people drinking, shouting & swearing outside the pub next door.
I was glad I had it last month when a car skidded on ice and collided with the front of my house. The driver drove off without stopping but I had evidence on cctv and the accident was witnessed by a neighbour.
I was glad I had it last month when a car skidded on ice and collided with the front of my house. The driver drove off without stopping but I had evidence on cctv and the accident was witnessed by a neighbour.
Gavia said:
As mentioned earlier, can someone explain why having CCTV covering a road is any different to me standing there’s with phone recording?
What’s the DPA aspect as well? I can’t see how having a couple of seconds recording of someone walking past my house creates any sort of problem, especially if I’ve no intention of using it.
There seems to be a huge amount of paranoia on here about this. Unless someone complains, then I can’t see what the problem is likely to be, or have we got a roaming army of DPA plod swooping onto unsuspecting homeowners?
It's different because specific legislation made it different, if you forget the red tape and bureaucracy it's no different at all, but unfortunately that sh*t is unavoidable.What’s the DPA aspect as well? I can’t see how having a couple of seconds recording of someone walking past my house creates any sort of problem, especially if I’ve no intention of using it.
There seems to be a huge amount of paranoia on here about this. Unless someone complains, then I can’t see what the problem is likely to be, or have we got a roaming army of DPA plod swooping onto unsuspecting homeowners?
The authorities don't really want the public to have CCTV covering public areas. They can watch us, but we're not allowed to watch them.
ash73 said:
I'd be amazed if anyone else bothers, but I suppose it's possible a smart barrister could use this to exclude prosecution evidence.
Not really; there's no US-style "exclusionary rule" in the UK, so the normal rule of evidence would apply: whether the evidence is relevant to a fact in issue in the case.The DPA is being increasingly enforced, but I expect that most people still take no notice of it most of the time. That doesn't mean it doesn't apply, just that enforcement is still at a relatively low level.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff