recording images in public places

[lewis1641]

A new family have moved in round the corner from my house and have put surveylance cameras up on the edge of their property, overlooking a grassed area where children play.

I am pretty sure they have done this to record dog owners who don't pick up the poo. Whilst I think it is selfish and poor form not to pick it up, I also feel uncomfortable walking by this house now. I am not sure if they are operating within the law. They have a sign up saying recordings are being taken. The sign is at the top of the house under the guttering which makes me smile a little that they have gone to the effort to put it there. The 2 cameras that i have seen are on the very edge of their property, looking onto the grass. My understanding is that cameras should be used to capture images mainly on your own property, not solely onto someone elses (in this case, the council's)

They have reported my someone to the police already because their dog chased their cat! no harm done or anything!
I think they have a point, dog mess isnt pleasant but they have managed to alienate themselves to be honest.

 

[legrandefromage]

Sure it is illegal - we had a case in our village where the house owners cameras overlooked a bus stop - the owner was taken to court because he refused to move them.

 

[kenaltobelli]

you can ask the police if they are iffy;overlooking a play area
realy is a no no.
sounds dodgy'where abouts is this i have two dogs need a turn out
every hour or so

 

[daugs]

given a lot of schools now get advise not to video events as don't want risk of people videoing other people's children then I think you could ask the police to take action, could also raise with local council, generally my understanding was that can only video your property, I know this has been tested near US bases where people objected to US videoing them so I'm sure your neighbour doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Elysarian]

Not strictly speaking illegal - if the cameras are there for a specific purpose (in this case to catch antisocial dog owners in the act), the signage states that they're for "public protection and crime prevention (dog fouling is a criminal offence under the "Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005") and the "data controller" (in this case the householder) allows "reasonable access" to any recordings and only retains said recordings for a "reasonable time" (this is usually a maximum of 31 days unless the footage is to be used as evidence for a prosecution).

I'm a CCTV engineer and am involved in this sort of thing on a daily basis.

A summary of the relevant legislation (Data Protection Act and Article 8 of the European convention on human rights) can be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ghway-film

 

[Chopper the ex Copper]

There is no criminal infringement as they are a private individual. The only exception to this would be if they ere using the images for the purposes of criminal activity, such as perving through your bathroom window for voyeuristic purposes, or through the window of the local bank to try and get the safe combination.

The ECHR doesnt apply in this instance as its looking into a public area, so any information thus gained is already in the public domain.

If there is some kind of Data Protection infringement - and at this stage we do not know if the cameras are actually connected to a recording device - then it would be the office of the Information Commisioner that enforces these laws, but you've got 2 hopes of ever progressing a case through them, and one's "Bob".

RIPA doesn't apply as it's a private individual.

The law that applies in this case is civil, and is governed by the planning department at your local council. Within building regs there are strict specifications about how the camera are to be installed, how far apart the cameras are, where they point. These laws usually go unenforced because most folk arent aware of them, but raise a complaint and they will investigate. I would be onto the local planning department and ask them to assess the installation for compliance with building regs, and if there is a contravention they have the statutory enforcement powers. If any regulation is liable to have been broken, it'll probably be this one.

In my experience chumps tend to overtly place camera looking out at areas other than their property to make a point, or piss someone off, rather than for any genuine concern about crime or dog pooing - after all, if you want to catch dog poo dumpers to council would get a RIPA authority and install their own covert gear, and there is NO relationship whatsoever between the presence of CCTV and crime levels, and the average crime detection costs £400,000 in CCTV hardware/time, so there is really no case in any area for this installation. They've done it solely to show how righteously indignant they are.

In a previous role with my employer I was involved in arranging covert technical surveillance of various kinds, so I'm reasonably ok with the various laws from different angles, unless things have changed greatly the last couple of years.

 

[daugs]

Interesting, I stand corrected, my earlier post re US was where the cameras overlooked people's homes, but in this instance is it certain only public space ?

 

[Chopper the ex Copper]

He's saying grassed play area, so my presumption was a public space and not his neighbours garden, but I may have interpreted that incorrectly.

 

[highlandsflyer]

Interestingly, most of these regulations do not apply to web cameras. I would talk to the local police and have them query the use of the camera.

 

[lewis1641]

Cheers guys.

Chopper you are correct the cameras are looking over council property . They are on the very edge of the boundary on the top of a 6 foot fence so no chance of recording anything on their own property