At my local One Stop Shop , all the staff have a camera in a holster strapped to their body's filming every customer in the shop , when your paying for your goods you are recorded face on ? even the card machine takes a flash photograph of you , not forgetting the fixed cameras filming your every move , when you leave the shop with your payed for shopping you are radio scanned , interestingly thing is , all the Children that go in One Stop are also filmed ????? ( ONE STOP , PART OF THE TESCO GROUP )
We ended up exchanging this model for the slimmer version ru-vid.comUgkx0jZ_lGlDVJhDnmagEU8gn47cmfPNlLQU because it was too wide for the only door trim area that made sense to mount it on. However, we should have just noted the dimensions prior to purchasing. Otherwise, we love the doorbell. It works perfectly, and the video is very clear, even at night.
Living in a small rural village where we've had a lot of things stolen by a certain "community" most of us have CCTV that watches over our own and each others' gardens. It's proved to be a real asset. One of my cameras overlooks the neighbour's back yard but since it covers his shed where he keeps his motorcycle and tools he's fine with this. He dropped me an SMS one day and asked for footage from a certain time - of course I downloaded it and sent it to him on Whatsapp ..... it was him and a bunch of his mates mooning at the camera after spending the afternoon in the pub watching the rugby. I'm not sure what laws this broke but it gave everyone a good laugh 🙂
It amazes me how quickly the Police are knocking on peoples doors who've got a CCTV camera on show in the hope that they've captured a recent criminal activity in the area.! ;-)
I have harassed by me neighbours for years and with all their cameras. I have had the police and the ICO they didn’t won’t to know! I asked if I can put cameras up to protect my family the ICO said as long as the cameras are not looking into back gardens it was okay the police said it was okay to protect my family. I have sent the cctv to the police of verbal abuse and their car being driven at me and my wife what the police have said to the neighbours ? We have had 5 years of this from the neighbours 😢
Police came round the other week wanting the cctv from our home of a person walking down the street. They had no issues and the footage was very helpful.
Same here it helped them get kids that stole a car down the tenfoot where I live. I put signs every where cctv in operation and only keep footage 14 days, it's not then for surveillance it's a deterrent. Also all my neighbours have access to the cameras via Web portal and footage is only available by request of the police and never uploaded to any Web platform
@@evelbsstudio Because you had signs up, there's an expectation that those recorded "know" they are recorded... I dont have signs up BUT.... A drug fried idiot turned up at my front door demanding drugs i caught him trying to get thru my gate, i was watching TV in the dark, (cos i had a headache, so no house lights on)... CCTV captured him face on, and The Police provided flash drives ( USB) for me to upload the footage related to the incident...as i was able to show them my cell recordings, which i then transferred onto my laptop where the pics were a lot clearer...
Thank you. This is very timely. I live on the first floor of a four flat council block. A ground floor tenant has fitted one of these camera doorbells in the middle of her door. There is no way for the neighbour on my floor, myself or any visitors to our homes to leave or enter the property without being recorded as the door with the camera is next to the bottom of the stairs. How is this not a breach of our privacy? The neighbour with the camera is an awful person and I don't want her recording me. For the record, I would have no issues with the council installing a cctv system. I just object that this woman is able to harass me and my neighbour in this way. Thank you for all your knowledge and help in explaining the law.
I have a similar scenario to you although it's the case when I am visiting my neighbour. We have CCTV in the private communal area which although I am not a big fan of I accept it is a crime prevention step. This said the Management Firm have refused to provide footage on numerous occasions in relation to harassment that has been reported to the police
Why would she be harassing you though. People get them ring door cameras if they have a disability elderly 👀 In my case no longer accidentally opening doors to baliffs. Privacy screens. Turning off the audio , recordings setting. Soon as someone presses bell, activates recording , can see live. ( just ask her is she OK, mention privacy screens explain why) I would !
@@markchambers That seems really unfair. Can the police compel them to hand over footage? We have a very bad neighbour situation here with this woman. I'm sure her camera will miraculously 'fail to record' when she is misbehaving. I hope that your situation improves.
@@lylecoglianese1645 I am because we have a horrible neighbour dispute going on and I am happy for the council to be able to observe the situation. This person with the camera is a nightmare and is the type to take footage of people just going in and out and spread it everywhere with lies attached. She has already falsely reported my neighbour on this floor as subletting and not living here because she has seen her mum coming in. She spies on us all the time when she is at home and now is able to do it when she is out because of the doorbell.
@@elchlao5230 Unfortunately there is an ongoing neighbour dispute here, a lot of it centred around the downstairs tenants using the communal areas as extensions of their properties including a dog running about all over the place, aggressive, confrontational behaviour over landing windows being open, them smoking in the hallways etc. This is just another way of them colonising communal space. My neighbour has already spoken to the council about the camera as we both feel that we are entitled to move in and out of the block or to our gardens, or have friends/relatives visiting without being spied on. Also she isn't elderly; she works as a phlebotomist for the NHS sometimes.
I live on a boat in a port on a canal in France. About 4 years ago, a couple of private boats were broken into and possessions stolen. The port has a CCTV camera and the nextdoor restaurant also has one. The burglars were caught on video and were easily identifiable. However, as there were no signs informing the public that CCTV was installed, the footage could not be used by the police. The port is part of of a government-owned entity and leased to a private company but it is still considered public property.
France is weird. Evidence is evidence no matter what. However the police do need to follow rules when they are the ones collecting the evidence. But evidence collected by a witness is evidence if its a recording or a verbal statement or written down.
My neighbour was spying and recording my house, we could see the cameras in his house pointing at our house and kids. The police said we can’t do anything about it unless he admits he’s covertly using cameras. They even spoke to him. The laws all well and good if and when it works. Everybody should prepare to defend themselves and not leave it to the police.
He could just say that he's not recording? Still sounds really bad. I suppose it's up to the police and they don't want to seek a warrant to check it out?
@@robburrows2737 they don’t want to get involved. He was a health and safety officer for them in the past. You wouldn’t get a warrant in those grounds. He’s now moved but had a sustained hate campaign against us.Everything from trying to hit my dog with a rake to being racist towards my wife, reporting us for everything to the council, residents committee, planning, police constantly, intimidating me by shouldering me when we were in the local path, spitting at my dogs. It goes on. The police are useless and not interested in what essentially is a civil matter. If this was America I would’ve sorted it on my own. By the way with all his busy bodyness it was all a waste of officers time. Nothing came if his reports. I pity the next neighbour!
@BlackBeltBarrister would you consider a video to address whether or even if recordings of a neighbour's activities becomes a case of harassment, please?
The section of the ICO website included the following paragraph: "There is a limited amount of action the ICO can take after this point to make the person comply. It is highly unlikely the ICO will consider it fair or balanced to take enforcement action against a domestic CCTV user" Basically they are saying that they won't (possibly even can't?) take any meaningful action against a domestic camera owner so presumably any action would be civil rather than criminal. That being the case, if the stereotypes are to be believed, would put it more in the realm of who has the most competent legal team (or deepest pockets) rather than strictly to who is in the right.
I put a window mounted bird feeder up on my office window. I was thinking about setting up a motion capture style "Wildlife camera" eventually using a Sony A6100. However, the moment I put the bird feeder on the window I knew the only way I would be auto capturing it was from inside the window, because otherwise the camera would be pointed into my neighbours garden... from above. I just wasn't about to do that. I had to find another location to try and same that just has my own garden in shot.
Also, in our road we have a house who's front door faces along the road and the owner had a camera on the door recording all that happens in the road. This person also parks his vehicle on the pavement in front of his neighbours house and says he has a right to do so. His camera records this vehicle and anything that happens on the pavement in front of his neighbours property and the road. Is this right and is there anything that can be done to stop it? He has already told me I'm passive-aggressive when I positions traffic cones on the kerb to stop him parking there!!
Hi BBB, I was out shopping in Asda’s and they have the standard cameras by the self service checkouts, however one of the cameras had frozen with a previous customers face and bank card details on. These were just about visible; I asked the staff member if they were going to turn the frozen screen off, but they didn’t understand why I was concerned that every customer using that self service till could clearly see the customer and their bank card. I gave up trying to explain why this could be a problem. What are your thoughts on these cameras and their use. It may make an interesting video.
That is so wrong, the manager should have been notified, its irresponsible of them. I guess cover your card and face to protect privacy in a public place
As I understand it for taxi/private hire vehicles, they should only have video on for dashcams and therefore don't need to pay the £40 per year to ICO. IF the driver wants to record audio and/or wants internal video and/or audio they MUST inform ICO and register. How many Ubers or Taxis have you been in where they are recording audio via their dashcam? They shouldn't be if they haven't registered. Fairly certain on this one.
What about the companies that are storing the data, as in the case of the ring doorbell the footage is stored by ring, or Amazon, I'm not sure which one actually stores that information but are they obliged to provide the footage to people as they are holding the data, even though it was caught by a homeowner?
So, are individuals subject to GDPR? Yes. Does it mean you CANNOT film people? No. So long as you comply with GDPR rules, you can film them. GDPR does NOT mean you CANNOT film. You can.
Interesting. I wasn’t sure on the laws about house cameras. My sin is a drummer in a band, don’t worry, he only practices at home during times that have been agreed with my neighbours and he used damper pads. But to get his kit to the car parked in the road in front of my drive, it takes about 3-4 trips minimum. The same on his return after pub closing times. My neighbour complained about this and asked that he not bring his kit in at night, that he leaves it visible in the car parked on the road, because his trips from the car to the door and back kept setting off her doorbell camera, which obviously alerts them each time. We live in the two houses at the end of a very small, dead end road of 18 houses. We are a small road off a small road off a small road x 6. She claims she can’t adjust the distance it’s set at because her and her husband feel safer being able to see who’s walking around that close to the house. Despite no crime in our area in the 20 years we have lived there, they moved in a month before me, and they are in their early 50’s. The same as me. So when their camera goes off, they have a clear view of every front garden all the way down the road & every time myself or a visitor enters or leaves my house or approaches, it sets their camera off. So I’m guessing that legally I kind of have the right to tell them we will come and go as often and as late as we want, as long as we aren’t causing a public noise nuisance?And that I can reasonably ask her to minimise the settings of her camera so it isn’t intruding on my privacy or recording my movements on my property or the public path & roadway? Good to know. Now, what about the two feuding neighbours who live opposite and have cameras above their second floor windows that record everything and everyone in their front gardens and on the road and look over each other’s garden gates and into each other’s front bedroom windows??? Honestly, they are both idiots and I politely how to each of their houses when I’m walking down the road. Lol.
information from ICO Domestic CCTV systems The use of recording equipment, such as CCTV or smart door bells, to capture video or sound recordings outside the user’s property boundary is not a breach of data protection law. People should try to point their CCTV cameras away from their neighbours’ homes and gardens, shared spaces or public streets. But this is not always possible. When people capture images and audio recordings outside of their property boundary, they should consider how intrusive this activity is. They should consider whether they can point their cameras elsewhere or, if possible apply filters or privacy blocks. In these circumstances, data protection law also requires them to follow certain rules - although these are difficult to enforce.
A while back, you analysed the video that Ashley Neal was being sued for... where the work van swerved towards a cyclist. If I remember correctly, the driver claimed something like an "invasion of privacy", and the consensus seemed to be that there can be no expected right to privacy if you're out in public. How does that work alongside the GDPR? I fully understand that if you have CCTV covering your garden, you can't record next door's garden as well, as it's private property. But if you have a Ring doorbell recording the path to your door and a _public_ footpath, how is that covered by GDPR? Similarly, if I fly my drone around my garden recording video and it captures faces of people on the _public_ footpath out the back, and I then put the video on RU-vid, where would I stand?
Hi I regularly watch your RU-vid channel. Would you consider posting a Ring Door bell classification when it is fitted in a communal area of a private flat complex as the two you've posted don't appear to cover such a situation. My neighbour's front door is at the top of a communal stairwell also serving a second flat (my mate). The Ring Doorbell is fitted in the communal area walkway/Car Park and isn't the RD owner's property. The Ring Doorbell owner doesn't own the outside door or the internal door as I had to get permission from the Freeholder to change for a Oak internal door last year. All had to be approved etc Fire Door for example. The second flat though is my mate and I regularly visit him. Hence I am captured every time I visit, furthermore we often speak on the walkway outside where the Ring Doorbell is installed and thus the other neighbour can listen/store private conversations.
So regarding drone footage ...this contradicts what you said that if you are loading video up to RU-vid as a business then you are a citizen journalist and GDPR will not apply ?? Which is the correct information
The neighbour has a Ring doorbell pointed directly at my property - other side of a cul-de-sac. This could be / should be angled so that it is not directly facing my property. The LCO/Police, as usual, won't do anything and said it is up to me to lodge a complaint to the ICO. However previously when I updated one of my CCTV cameras from analogue to digital, the neighbour complained and the LCO/Police came to my door. This was during the Scaredemic and in request to the LCO/Police to come in I said no - they immediately said they were going to report me to the ICO. I said I can easily just take a mobile phone image of my CCTV images. The LCO/Police was very disappointed at my obvious suggestion and agreed. Apparently the neighbour said they saw a green light come on as they moved on their drive and thus automatically assumed I was capturing them on CCTV. Not much of a security system when it 'announces' when it is capturing images. What was occurring was that the digital CCTV was using Ethernet and a in-line led was just indicating when there was a link between the camera and my Laptop (similar to led's on Routers indication the status of links between equipment - thus depending on where you were on the drive whether the led was 'hidden' behind the camera or not!!. The LCO/Police told the neighbour I was not monitoring their property and the neighbour were suitably red-faced about the issue. Why did the LCO/Police visit me but not the neighbour?
I have been interviewed by OB (local news) They ask for express permission (verbally in my case, on camera) as most forms of exhibition/publication require a Model Release Form (or similar agreement) from the subject. I am also an urban landscape stills photographer and sometimes have to use these forms myself.
If a householder has cctv covering the front of their property (but, in order to cover the path and steps, a small area of the pavement outside the garden is also covered), is it necessary to erect a sign to advise that cctv is in use?
I have a neighbour with a ring camera that points in through our front window, I have asked them to relocate the camera so that it's not looking in to our hose, you can actually see us inside our living room (she's shown us), I spoke to ICO and the reply was "there's nothing we can do, you need to raise it with ring", I kid you not, she's even admitted she knows she shouldn't be recording people outside her boundary (audio and video), I spoke to ring to ask for details of their GDPR department and they just kept pointing me back at their terms and conditions....I'm not a customer! nobody seems to know what to do with this, in fact ring kept saying "it's not stored by ring, it's in the cloud" yep, the cloud owned and operated by ring, an hour of trying to get anywhere on the phone with them was totally wasted. so apparently it's not a gdpr breach to record audio and video of someone INSIDE their own property by someone that even admits they know they shouldn't :/
How would I even start to deal with this legally? we've tried the polite neighbour approach, even explained that it's making us very uncomfortable in our own home, we even now keep the curtains closed in the front facing rooms and have to tell our visitors don't say anything when at the front door as the camera can record them
How about a follow up on how to issue and respond to a data subject request? Would you really have to watch all of the footage from the camera to find out if the subject's image had been captured?
No. They have to give a rough time, date, description of themselves & their ID Plus if it’s your personal camera not for business rules then you are not obliged to provide anything in response to a GDPR request
I have just joined walking group. Was handed form to complete. Contains request for date of birth ( and other contact details which I don't have a problem with) and 12 questions on health. This is just for a walk in local park. At top of form it says it is a key requirement of our funding contract (it is a Trust) is all participants must complete this form. Do you think that this is against GDPR regulations?
Having had a CCTV licence it's pretty complicated. I've noticed a few private fixed cctv cameras in public areas which have nothing to do with the protection of their properties. It's a grey area for people knowing what they can or shouldn't do. It's always worth asking first
it has every thing to do with protection of house / property . if your house front is directly to a public path. since cameras are up less crime has happened. damage to cars now is more up the road, next door had a hit and run two days in a row and guess what they were caught and was sure happy they were there. caught a few people so far. people live close by know if they need footage let us know, but no way they are being removed, just upgraded soon to 4k so a bit better with seeing number plates, but thats the key role my dashcams play 1080p 60fps setting if misses nothing and can rec up to around 24-25 hours of footage only on a 128gb card. report a crime these days, if no footage they just give a crime number and they won't find who did it, not even try and a visit from them for damage caused some police do not even show up
My camera captured the audio of a neighbour getting a very severe beating (he ended up in hospital) and pics of his attackers before and after the event. Do I keep it for the police or destroy it for his attackers' privacy?
Daniel, surely Auditors are carrying out commercial activity as they benefit from revenue from their You Tube channel so they are required to be registered with the ICO? Thank you Keith
The difficulty is the ‘for public interest purposes’ journalistic exemption. I find that really hard to define. I think auditors should have to but none do.
Someone on my street has a Tesla which doesn’t fit fully on their driveway and overhangs half the pavement. Every time anyone walks past (walking on the pavement) the headlights do that double flash to indicate a clip has been saved as you were too close to the car. I’m not sure if audio is recorded, but is this reasonable? Bearing in mind the pedestrian is on the public footpath. They must be recording hundreds of clips a day.
Tesla cams don't record sound, however it shows what a good deterrent it is that it had you bothered! There have been many prosecutions owing to sentry mode. Its surprising how many vandals don't realise that they're on camera!
What about these shops, big stores etc who have their cctv on their outer walls? They are capturing everyone who walks past the store I know because I worked for a well known large store. These cameras were the best money could buy, high definition, all the bells and whistles Why were they not told to take their cctv down or why were they not taken to court? Hey,, if they ban any sort of public photography, they had better ban, country wide, all cctv as well. There cannot be one law for one and another for a corporation.
There isn't. Daniel didn't really make it clear but carrying out a hobby is purely a personal activity. Doesn't matter if thousands see the photos afterward as argued in the Dutch case (which is not England) as many photographers show off their best photos to friends and fellow hobbiests. When does the number seeing the photo make a difference? A dozen people in the club, a hundred at a private show, ten million for a viral social media post that is not monetised? The act of monetization on RU-vid is to allow advertisers to show ads on the channel, not for individual photos or videos. There is no guarantee that a video on a monetised channel will warn anything as it can be demonetised. So the money itself does not make a photo/video caught be the DPA (the new name for GDPR).
@ Liberté Egalité Fraternité no you can’t just film people. Firstly that not moral or right to film someone without permission. CCTV is separate issue entirely I can’t just go around filming anyone
What if you have a court order in place for your neighbor stop recording your garden, your child and stop recording audio, then you find she has posted her CCTV on Facebook clearly showing over your fence and your child's trampoline with clear audio on the video?
This video is a treasure for those who have their eyes on the piano gate incident that happened 10 days ago at St. Pancras station. Please do an analysis of that particular case. Your opinion is much expected and appreciated. Just a discussion of legal matters, leave out the politics.
I have a neighbor that has a cctv camera on the outside of his fence to film the path and woods outside his garden. I spoke to the police and they just told me to file a complaint with the ICO. I then read that page you were on, and you missed probably the most important two paragraphs there: "You can complain to us when a user of domestic CCTV doesn't follow the rules. We can send a letter asking them to resolve things, eg put up appropriate signage or respond to data protection requests. There is a limited amount of action the ICO can take after this point to make the person comply. It is highly unlikely the ICO will consider it fair or balanced to take enforcement action against a domestic CCTV user. " What is the use of having these laws when the only penalty for breaking them is a strongly worded letter? That is no deterrent at all.
There's no law to say he cannot do that but he has to follow Data protection laws. If it's genuinely for safety or security purposes then it's perfectly legal to film the path or a road etc, just aslong as it's a good reason and not for anything illegal
I'm currently involved with the ICO as a complaint and they are a waste of space. The only place is a civil injunction and that's in the region of £10,000
okay, I have a question; I have a Ring camera at ground level inside my porch, facing inwards, which is used as a "doorbell" for my cat. It is obviously activated by anything or anyone entering the porch. My (ex) lawyer came to my door and a verbal exchange ensued. The lawyer later made claims that I said certain things, that I hadn't. I discovered the cat-cam had caught the conversation, and the lawyer's feet. I made contact and explained what I had, and received a letter by return stating that I had broken the law by recording this exchange without their explicit consent. Would I be right in assuming, given that the footage was never posted or shared/stored online, that this is nonsense?
ICO contacted me a few years ago because I'm self-employed and I have signage on my van; I have to register my dash cam with them. Which I did and still do. I ask them about my doorbell and video cameras for the drive as this is a registered office for a charity that has a limited company section. They said no because it's still a residential property, don't need to register doorbell or cameras on the drive.
One question I've not seen addressed here or anywhere else is this one. What about houses which have dummy cameras which are so realistic that members of the public request footage ? How can this situation be dealt with, especially as the whole point of such cameras is the deterrent value, without admitting they're basically fake ?
I do have an issue with drones. While I know that a drone can legally fly over my property and film, it does feel like an invasion of privacy. I could put physical barriers in place to protect my privacy from an individual in a public space, but they could put a drone up and film anyway. But would someone standing on a high step-ladder to film over a high wall be considered in the same way? Why isn’t the privacy laws protecting my privacy from all invasions?
My neighbour is a well known drug dealer and user. He is aggressive to the point of even attacking his own friends with a makeshift weapon, screaming and shouting while walking up and down the street etc. I've had run ins with him during 2020 when he stole my bins and said I'd stolen them from him, etc etc. We are both social tenants, but in September/october 2021, he decided to put up static cameras outside his door, one facing to the front of the path and the other in the opposite direction. I assume this is because he was having some trouble with other drug dealers, (coming to his door and making threats etc). However, they're is a grass area between our doors. We are both downstairs flats with our doors facing the same way across this grassy area. There is a fence down the middle, (not that that helps, because he STILL walks up and down my side past my door whenever he pleases). But I have left my house before and walked down my path to the front of the flats to the communal garden area, and he's come to his door and stood there for about 10 seconds, before saying, "I was wondering who was outside, you set my cameras off". I simply said, yeah? I sometimes walk up and down here whenever I want, and left it hanging. I don't believe his camera should be covering my door, or my path or side garden past the line of the fence. I'm just wondering, how do I get him to move the cameras, and not film me coming and going out of my own home? It's not a case of ask him, because he's not the type of person I want to talk to or interact with.
Contact ICO if you want to make sure but if data protection laws will apply to him if it's beyond the boundary of his property so he will have to follow the rules on that
@Tom Alex but if they write him a letter, he isn't going to follow it. The stolen bins incident took a call to the police for a crime number, as my local council wouldn't act without one, then all they did was write to him a few times, try to get a "renta" cop to come down and speak to him, and multiple calls to the council later, they were telling me its not their job to sort it out, (even though anti social behaviour is their remit). Someone from the council ended up asking a police sergeant no less, to come and speak to him. It took around 5 weeks to get my bins back. And after that, well I had around a year of crap from him. Resulting in him reporting me to the rspca in 21, because I have house cats and was telling everyone who he could that I had 60 cats in my home. The year before, he was saying I had 50. I know if I report him, even anonymously, he's gonna rampage up and down the street yelling his head off, like he did when someone made a noise complaint against him a month ago. Probably one of his 3 immediate neighbours, as he's a music lover to early hours, and he's got a part time dog that stays over and shites everywhere and doesn't pick it up. Not the type of person I want to start again, as I've been poorly since July 21 after having covid, and then again in December. I can't be dealing with it.
@@SarahJSwiftI'd really consider moving especially if you are in social housing. See your doctor say you feel unwell mentally and physically etc complain to council, only one life why live in hell
@@SarahJSwift I'd definitely go about moving from there if that's the case. Contact your local council housing or housing manager and tell them you want to move
This is the thing. I can't move. There's no other one bed flats around where I live, that are near to my elderly mum. There's this street, and nothing else. I'd have to move around a mile and a half away, which can't be done. I have to be close enough to my almost 70yr old mum, just in case something happens. I mean, he has calmed down the past year, but mainly because he's not really been there. He spends time at his girlfriends in Stoke. So it's quiet part of the week. Plus I'm in the process of right to buy. Hopefully I can get some 6 foot panels up, and continue the fence around and put gates up, but I need to ask the council to fence around the communal garden to stop his dog from sh¥tting everywhere. That could take months. It took em 2 years to put the dividing fence up.
what about communal gardens? because my neighbor's are always knocking my back windows too see if I'm in, I've had more than 10x break in attempts in the past year! the police dont do anything when they do this or even when they try starting on me for saying i got them on cam. i know the obvious answer is too move out, but thats takin longer than my head might b able too handle lol
What if you fly your drone over your neighbourhood and people are in there gardens,but your at a height that you can't make out there faces,is this a privacy concern and can you get into trouble for it ?
You said, "It could well be, well it might, it wouldn't surprise me, it's possible, the court could, if, they could, or maybe, don't be surprised if"........ I didn't learn a thing from your conversation.
Just curious if for example you are being filmed sitting on a park bench yet people walk in back ground inadvertently but camera is focused on self. Would data protection kick in. Just curious
I’ve made an arrangement with my neighbour who has a doorbell camera. I won’t complain about it if you let me see video if any anti social behaviour or criminal activity such as car theft/ break ins happen in the street.
I have kangaroo doorbell cam it doesn't record audio and only takes a small few seconds of 3 to 4 quick pictures in conssesion to make a brief video clip that sends straight to ur phone but only if ppl get close to the door or pressing the doorbell, never records anything else it has sensor settings incase ur garden is bit longer, I love it never answer to salesmen ever again
I had issues with Anti Social neighbours - pointing CCTV at my house and using it as a point of intimidation due to an unrelated border disagreement - I caught her on my dashcam committing a hate crime by making disability mocking gestures towards me - she earned an entire day in the police station and I was offered a prosecution of her - a very satisfying outcome to one of these kind of issues, she's been a lot better behaved since the police fell upon her.
Hi, i have CCTV to front off the house, 2 cameras, we dont have a drive, just a public pavement, which catches two angles walking down the street from both sides, to my front door. i also have 2 cameras on the back where i have a garden and it captures my garden patio area as well as the neighbours, the neighbour has given consent as we live in cul de sac, and he has dogs, the the protection helps him also, how do i stand
Thought had put sign up if capturing general public or shared space , if recording they have a right to view it but yes can't keep footage for years and years
Very interesting. So if the police ask for dashcam or doorbell footage, that would no longer be considered as, "wholly personal or household use," and must therefore be blurred before being sent to the police. Thank you for clarifying this legal point.
I haven't watched the full video yet, but there are two separate regulations that apply: UK GDPR and The Data Protection 2018. UK GDPR applies to us as citizens holding CCTV or door bell video footage, and it is under this regulation we would need to blur out the faces of non relevant people before handing the footage over to anyone. So if somebody makes a subject access request (SAR) and wants to see video of themselves, then to prevent a confidentiality breach under GDPR, the faces of people who are not the subject of the SAR will need to be maintained and blurring is necessary. Now UK GDPR doesn't apply to the police. Shock horror, and you cry "yes it does!". No it doesn't. I will explain the history. The first incarnation of the GDPR data protection came in the form of the EU GDPR, which the UK was compelled to adopt because we were then a member of the EU. The UK decided it was going to leave the EU but said we would continue with the EU GDPR law. When we left the EU, politics being what politics is, we couldn't continue with an EU GDPR regulation on our statute. Now, there were big gaps in the EU GDPR regulation, notably one, is that it did not cover the Police. So what we did to resolve the short comings in the data protection legislation is two fold:. Firstly take the entire EU GDPR regulation and create our UK version of it, and far as I can tell, it is just a straight copy of the EU GDPR regulation but reference to EU bodies such as for enforcement removed. And this is now called the UK GDPR Regulation. To deal with the gaps in scoping of the original EU GDPR regulation, the police as I eluded to, among other security organisations, The Data Protection Act of 2018 was written. So coverage of data protection issues for the police are covered in DPA 2018 and not UK GDPR. Now, do you need to blur out faces when handing over video to the police? I will defer to BBB to make the definitive statement on that. What I will say, if the police get a search warrant then they will take the video from you, possibly even the equipment too and there won't be any obligation on you to blur faces out.
@@deang5622 I think you explain it well, and my understanding is that if you hand over the unblurred video to the police, the police can use that with impunity, but you as the maker of that video can still be prosecuted under the said regulations.
@@devonfuse It is an interesting point. Because in order to share the data you need a lawful basis for doing so. And in this case it could very well be argued the lawful basis under GDPR is "to comply with a legal obligation". But if the police want video on subject A and you hand them video containing A, B, C, can those subjects B, C sue you? If the police are looking at CCTV footage for evidence and they don't know who committed the crime, then by definition they need to see the footage and no person must be blurred out. I can't see the ICO achieving a successful prosecution in this circumstance. If the police obtain a warrant and that warrant says all footage regardless of who is in it must be handed over to the police, then I think in this case you can easily and successfully argue that the video data without editing, blurring was shared on the lawful basis to comply with a legal obligation.
The law wants it both ways, they don't want these cameras seeing passers by until there's a crime then they praise these cameras. These cameras have been instrumental in so many cases and many cases have collapsed for lack of evidence that such doorbell cameras would have captured. There can be no expectation of privacy walking down the pavement of a public road. The privacy of INSIDE your home cannot extend once you leave OUTSIDE your home.
Why is it not legal for people to photograph and film people (including cctv and doorbell cameras) on their private property but legal for drone operators to do the same? Sounds a bit like one rule for me but not for thee. I can understand dashcams. They have a specific purpose. The main purpose of drones is hobby and entertainment. Imagine the following scenario. It's a lovely hot summer day and you, well within your rights, allow your children to play in your private garden, maybe in a paddling pool without clothes on. Now there's a drone nearby recording your children. Surely that falls into "making indecent images of children" territory.
"better off reporting it to the police" report what? That they don't have a bobby parked outside my property 24/7 to observe crime? The only time to act is to put up a camera before the crime, you can't put a seatbelt on after you've had a car crash.
Modern CCTV cameras are able to mask areas like neighbour’s gardens, you can literally draw a line along that imaginary fence you described, to ensure everything to one side is masked.
@@simonelliott5956 the problem is that that solution is based on trust. If your neighbour complained that your camera's were filming his children, and you showed him your app showing that his garden is 'masked off'. What assurance does he have that you don't go back indoors and remove the mask and proceed to film his kids? Literally nothing, and if you don't get along, less than nothing. I'm not suggesting you film your neighbours children. Just using a scenario to say why that reasoning holds no merit.
@@TheCBRNick We often install CCTV as part of home automation systems, and always mask parts of cameras that overlook other people’s properties. If a client unmasks it we can’t do much about it, but we don’t generally give them access to the set up part unless there’s a good reason to do so, or we’re handing over to another company. There has to be an element of trust between neighbours, but I get why I some cases there isn’t. That said as recently as yesterday I was asked if I could provide video evidence of a crime that happened outside my own house but unfortunately the area of the pavement the other side of my wall is masked.
Thank you for the video and you are not wrong to suppose it asks more questions than it answers ( I understand that ultimately the answering in law is the prerogative of the courts ) . Is it legal to take footage of someone in a public space who may be in distress , unwell , and so on ...... and then publish it , whether for business profit or for public interest ( in and of itself ) ? Is that ( the publishing of the footage ) amounting to harassment or some other similar charge ? Could it amount to a crime as a hate crime or some other crime under certain circumstances ? What definition exists in UK law for a " publication ' and who , in UK law is to be described as the " publisher " ? Seems to me these are questions the legislature has deliberately avoided answering in the last 20 years. .
my front door is on a fairly busy street at least during the summer as i live on the coast, i have just found out that the homeless guy sleeping in the shop doorway next to me is using my front doorway as a toilet when he needs to urinate, could i install a video doorbell to capture that so that i could if necessary have him removed (I hasten to add that i have no problem with him sleeping in my landlords shop doorway) but my door has a small step down into my front hallway so therefore could be deemed as a health hazard if it is shown that he is indeed using my doorway as a toilet.
For the using CCTV outside the bounds of your property I was fairly certain, having followed the regulation changes professionally and court cases that this is no longer applicable. The case for which precedent you refer to was for the old DPR and does not apply to the GDPR. In that DPR case the judge incorrectly decided that personal use exemption did not apply because a person would not expect to be recorded in public. This was of course nonsense and the newer GDPR made a clarification on what "personal use" was intended to mean. There was no reference to "a wholly household activity", although the ICO may well use these terms it is not legally binding. In the GDPR the regulation was updated to clarify that personal use means "non-commercial" use. This makes the CCTV outside bounds ruling null and void. I totally agree that youtube funded and other commercial use is NOT non-commercial use. The GDPR mainly requires registration for commercial use of personal data, it is simply a definition issue as to whether personal use is exempted or not. Privacy violations come under other legislation.
I have CCTV, no sound and I can see alot out of my property,A young man set fire to a house down my street,I was returning to my house after doing shopping & noticed the smoke comming from the house.I whatched my CCTV footage and logged the time it started and who was leaving that house.The fire brigade were on site dealing with said fire,the police arrived too, but the amount of traffic parked on my street made the police park near my house.I went to the police and told them I have evidence of that fire,she came to look at the CCTV footage and she got a good look at the male clothing,face etc,she left going back to the car but she went around the block and parked up close to that house fire,unknown to her she had done the right move because that male came back to look at that house fire he set alight too and the policewoman notices him by my CCTV footage,she tried to arrest him but started coming back towards my house but another police car was parked up with the officers out of the car,that policewoman shouted at those police men to arrest that male coming towards you,they arrest him,he was charged,I found out the that the young man took his own life having probibly found out what the sentance was goig to be.So CCTV has it's purpose.I still get the police comming to my house on a suspicious nature children being maybe watched by car drives who park up in stupid places as if they are waiting for something which can be drugs of all kinds or something else not related to nothing but a phone call.Our eyes are Like CCTV but CCTV can play back the happenings our brain cannot.we have police camera at the top of another road watching events unfold and is able to see greater distances than mine because it's very high.The public can use a video camera to record what our eyes can see too but it stored and can be helpful should someone loose contact with a child.The benifits of CCTV far outway the losses and those people who come up with stupid laws made for one style of recording and another is not illegal yet both go hand in hand,the only diffence is one is statioary the other can move I say we do not have enough watching items to reduce crime etc.Todays police who are called to a disturbance want CCTV footage and are not bothered about legality but getting results quickly.
Hi BBB, my first question is you used a dutch lady in holland as an example, then latter commented if the dutch ruling is followed. Why should our courts/ judges follow a foreign ruling post brexit, surely our own spaniel ears can make UK ruling case law as the basis for case law rather than following what would be a roman law. How does it sit with the data protection act when the police ask people for video door bell footage as well as dash cam footage? Do private or public film crews taking shots of street scenes from a particular vantage point effectively become a fixed camera. The reason I ask is we can buy what are termed wildlife cameras that are set up say strapped to a sapling then moved to another location, but we can also buy mini cctv style wireless cameras that can be placed then moved?
I have question to your question. How are you certain the Netherlands follow civil law opposed to common law ? I’m not saying you are wrong or anything like that .
I've recently used cycling dashcam footage as part of a police report for someone using a mobile phone while driving. The police prosecuted, it went to court because of a not guilty plea but the court found the person guilty. I'm now getting solicitor letters claiming GDPR breaches because I "initiated, retained and controlled the recording" so they are saying I'm a data controller under article 4(7) of UK GDPR. The guilty person is claiming damages as part of this. Everything I've read and heard suggests I havent done anything wrong but I'm not sure what to say to stop the letters coming from solicitors. Anyone had any similar experiences? Any tips on how to respond to the solicitor letters please?
Hi BB, how do we stand with data protection regarding self service check out tills, where a camera is continuously records your image during the transaction, can I make a data subject access request of the recorded image captured by the self service till from the supermarket or vendor
If you time your visit to the supermarket, with precision, you can normally eat all your produce with time to spare before you get anywhere near those dreaded self check out tills
My door bell is constantly operating but not recording. It only records when a person enters my drive and walks to my front door. People walking on the pavement past my home are not recorded. However if I am watching the happenings in real time but again not recording will these events be subject to the data protection act?
On my understanding that would be the same as you standing in front of your window looking out. So DPA and GDPR would not apply. It seems to only kick in when images/video/audio is recorded and stored. (Was trained by the Data Protection Commissioner back in '88 when DPA first kicked in.)
Could you clarity the data thing for companies please? Was it ICO? They say if you store or process data you have to pay a fee but the information of what they consider processing is pretty ambiguous. To me, and recording of any data would be processing, so no company would be exempt. I'm guessing most small companies pay the fee to be sure but a fair number of those would be exempt.
My door and therefore the camera doorbell is on the side of my property it’s range goes across my drive and to my neighbours front door. I told them and their response was yippe! More security. In actual fact ir only takes footage of anyone passing my porch or pressing the bell to activate it. Do the rules change if I have their permission?
My house the front door goes straight on to public path, i have two cameras covering the whole street. the houses directly to side of me you cannot not see in to there home, or houses across road you can not see through windows, but no one can be missed leaving or entering on to public ground. we had cars vandalized and even a hit and run two days in a row to next door, he was happy for the cctv for sure after that. plus my dashcams run 24/7 two of them so every angle covered. having them sure reduces crime near house, park just up road it common to get damage. the cctv saves up to a month, and dashcam footage gets wiped over approx every 25 hours so if something happens they got that time before its gone, but unlucky if the hdd gets format as every now and again it will. but if its some i do not like, footage will go missing
I’m currently on suspension due to recording someone via video at work reference a policy and trying to get a recording of that actual policy. Video wasn’t secret and I’m looking at a disciplinary for recording the conversation. Nothing was secret and it was just to try get a record of the conversation. Is that legal I thought it was as wasn’t secret.
Can you please help me, My Landlord has started installing CCTV around our estate, does he under GDPR regulations have to also put up signs informing he has. They are just visual only.
Interesting video, thank you. I am thinking of getting a home CCTV system to record anybody entering the property in case of any damage/theft. I will mask off any areas outside of the property. My question is must I put up notices that 'CCTV recording in progress'?.
To be able to use the footage legally, yes , a sign you are monitoring your property is required... But, even tho i dont have a sign up, the Police still used footage of someone on my front doorstep. Im in New Zealand and we tend to follow all UK laws...
surely using footage on youtube would be even less domestic use / personal and household exemption than on facebook. if a video is on youtube any monetised or sponsored then clearly it is being used to generate an income and should be classed as business / professional use. shouldnt identifyable details like vehicle registrations need removing/bluring out before use?
Say someone puts up a video on their unmonetised channel and 10 million people see it. Should they after the fact blur things out? What if someone puts video on their channel which is monetised but hardly anyone watches it and they earn 10p after 6 months. Should they have blurred things out? It's mot clear cut that RU-vid automatically makes something commercial.
@@TheSadButMadLad The one that gets me is that if I have a burger van & have the radio on in the cab but the public I'm serving can incidentally also hear the radio (that is just on to stop me getting bored) then that is still classed as "public performance" & I have to be registered with the Preforming Rights Society & pay them their bung... never underestimate how trivial something can be yet still be classed as "commercial".
Your messages are all mixed up. You said if someone was in a private corner minding their own business and someone came up to them filming - GDPR kicks in and it’s wrong. However going to a business where people are privately working and filming staff (like auditors) then it’s ok?
What about if it is for your security, fear of the safety of life, say you have been abducted a few times interrogation on all you know to hear and done,, Now have mental health problems,, been for Counselling , heard the problem,but can't help,, can't go to Police,warned family will get hurt,,. Any ideas. .
In New Zealand, for safety of all, and worry that water damming might release more spontaneous flooding, drone pilots were "restricted" for about 48 hours... Cyclone Gabrielle, Brookfields Bridge, Hawkes Bay, NZ (if you want to take a peek) One of the chaps who has amazing footage, and goes to all the decimated areas, stated this very clearly on his upload to YT... He stated it was a short video, because hed been informed his personal safety might be at risk of flash flooding, and that he could could come back once the weather improved, as he would NOT BE ALLOWED to retrieve the drone should it crash... He did go back once the wind and rain settled... his footage is invaluable for recording the decimation....
As far as I understand, the ICO does not state that the data protection laws are explicitly aimed towards business. Thus they effect every one and not just businesses.
During and since lockdown many churches have live and recorded footage on RU-vid. Ignoring the music and performance licences as these are dealt with, how do such videos cope with GDPR as far as the musicians and preachers are concerned?
In public no one has the expectation of privacy . You have the right to film anything and anyone in a public place .See the ACPO memo on photographer rights
