law Re: Domestic CCTV

[Cress]

My next door neighbour recently had bricks thrown through two of his expensive sports cars in what looks like a targetted attack. His busines is controvertial, but I won't go into that here. I work from home, so this does affect me, but it isn't strictly a business law question!

He has recently instaled a set of CCTV cameras onto the outside of his house that point both down the street (we are the two houses at the end of the street) and into my front drive and onto the side of my house (where there are windows). THe primary use is clearly to monitor his own property, but the houses are set up in such a way that there are no fences, gates or markers identifying property lines (new builds...). In fact, while they are there to monitor his property, they actually see a lot more of other people's properties than they do his own. THey see their front gardens, the front of their houses - they can monitor the street until it turns round the corner, quite a few houses. His house is designed so that two sides face the street, it is on a corner, and therefore the cameras pick up a lot of extra information.

While this doesn't bother me particularly, if bothers people that live with me and a lot of neighbours. The cameras don't infringe on back gardens however one does point indirectly at our kitchen wondow, and another points indirectly at a neighbour's bedroom window (the person now refuses to open the curtains because the camera can actually see the window). What I want to know is, what does the law say about this? What can we make him do? What is our position about this, what rights do we have? The neighbours understandably want the worst ones removed, but he refuses. A neighbour phoned our local policeman, but I'd like to know what the options are from someone not so involved! Thanks!

[PI Guy]

he is entitled to his CCTV. there is no law to prevent it. there's another thread similar to this somewhere here

Here it is http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=68789

[HSLS]

You may want to visit here http://www.gardenlaw.co.uk/phpBB2/index.php - there have been a few posts and useful information about this sort of thing.

[Cress]

he is entitled to his CCTV. there is no law to prevent it. there's another thread similar to this somewhere here

Here it is

Thanks for the link - is he entitled to it even though it invades my, and others, privacy? It points into my kitchen, if the camera is good enough, which I think it is, they can actually see into my kitchen, see what I am doing, and record it. That's only minor, I agree, but actually seeing and recording what is happening in someone's bedroom, even though it is incidental, can not be legal, surely. Any thoughts?

[PI Guy]

It's legal. If you want to have your privacy close the curtains. In actual fact the camera probably can't see into your window.

I would just have a small (friendly) word with him.

[aaamusements]

Some more info here:
http://www.nfh.org.uk/resources/Articles/cctv/index.php

There could well be an issue under the Human Rights Act, surprise surprise.

And he will be bound by the Data Protection Act as the cameras can record images outside of his premises.

[PI Guy]

The HRA was designed for public authorities and does not apply. DPA also does not apply. Some further reading material http://www.carter-ruck.com/articles/200303-privacy-nt.html

and

http://www.e-legal-gathering.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=389

[aaamusements]

The HRA was designed for public authorities and does not apply.

Maybe so, but they still have to comply with the requirements of the DPA, or reset their cameras to only cover their own property.

[PI Guy]

Maybe so, but they still have to comply with the requirements of the DPA, or reset their cameras to only cover their own property.they don't as much as you might want them to. There is no privacy law in the UK. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/jan/29/pressandpublishing.broadcasting

this is a subject i have an understanding of.

[aaamusements]

they don't as much as you might want them to. There is no privacy law in the UK. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/jan/29/pressandpublishing.broadcasting


Yet.

You are however correct about the fact that private households are entirely exempt from the DPA, as I have now found a link that is relevant.
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/cctv_code_of_practice_html/3_covers.html

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.

[PI Guy]

I started a thread on my own forum to see what my colleagues in the PI industry think, http://www.e-legal-gathering.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=716&pid=3305#pid3305

[aaamusements]

Here's something else to throw in:
If your neighbour is a private individual e.g. the cameras are on their residential property, it is unlikely that they will be breaching the Data Protection Act because there is an exemption for domestic/household processing of personal data as long as this does not involve putting personal information on a website or otherwise disclosing it to the world at large without good reason. They may however be breaching other legislation, such as the law about harassment or voyeurism, and so may be referred to another body such as the police to investigate.Source (http://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/faqs/data_protection_for_the_public.aspx#f89CC45B4-580B-4FCD-98A2-278DE2D7446C)

[PI Guy]

Here's something else to throw in:
Source (http://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/faqs/data_protection_for_the_public.aspx#f89CC45B4-580B-4FCD-98A2-278DE2D7446C)
Yes I made mention to those possibilities in the other UKBF thread.

[aaamusements]

Yes I made mention to those possibilities in the other UKBF thread.

Can't see where you mentioned voyeurism.

Pointing a camera at someone's bedroom window might be considered to be just that in a court of law?

[PI Guy]

since there is no Privacy law in the UK, and since CCTV cameras are virtually unregulated (apart from the Sexual Offences Act 2003 offence of Voyeurism, which requires proof of "sexual gratification"), and are unlicensed, then legally, there is not much that can be done.

Even the Planning Regulations do not require planning permission for exterior CCTV camera, provided that there are no more than 4 cameras per side of building up to a total of 16 overall, and they are each smaller than the approximate size of a microwave oven - something which virtually all modern cameras easily comply with. Interior cameras which can see through windows do not require any planning permission at all.

Publicly funded CCTV schemes usually require consultation with neighbours, under voluntary, not legally enforceable, Codes of Practice.

Things like the Human Rights Act and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act which cover directed or covert surveillance by the Police etc, only apply to "public authorities" and not to private citizens or commercial.

On it's own, a cctv installation would not amount to harassment. I hope that this clears up the misconceptions (urban myths) that exist about people's "right to privacy". No it wouldn't be since you would need evidence of it.

[aaamusements]

Fair enough.
I dare say that with the proliferation of surveillance in every aspect of our lives these days then a change in the law can be expected sooner or later, although constantly watching the populace seems to fit in very well with the government's slightly Orwellian attitude.

While searching for articles in relation to this subject I did find some some interesting statistics that suggested CCTV is often much overrated in it's effectiveness in reducing crime.

My apologies if you see this thread as a little below you, PIGuy, but that is an attitude that seems to come across in your posts... I hope I have presented reasoned, researched and rational argument rather than knee jerk reactions like "They can't do that!"
;)

[PI Guy]

it's not beneath me at all and i don't wish to give out that attitude.

There does seem to be a "surely there must be a law against that" type of mentality around though as if we needed the state to legislate against anything and everything.

The more CCTV there is the less effective it becomes as there is less likelihood that someone is watching it. CCTV is purely a reactive media.

another interesting article that may support your position http://www.thesecurityinstaller.co.uk/Content/dpa1998.asp

[MartCactus]

Thanks for the link - is he entitled to it even though it invades my, and others, privacy? It points into my kitchen, if the camera is good enough, which I think it is, they can actually see into my kitchen, see what I am doing, and record it. That's only minor, I agree, but actually seeing and recording what is happening in someone's bedroom, even though it is incidental, can not be legal, surely. Any thoughts?

The camera can only see what a human could also see. I assume the camera is located on his property? Would you consider it an infringement of your privacy if your neighbour stood on his property and looked at your window?

They can see into your kitchen without a camera. If you want more privacy in your kitchen you'll need blinds, or net curtains etc.

[aaamusements]

another interesting article that may support your position http://www.thesecurityinstaller.co.uk/Content/dpa1998.asp


Interesting article, thanks for that.

Just shows how ambiguous the situation could be I guess! :)

What is your take on the recent Max Mosley case as far as it effects the concept of a "right to privacy"?

[Tim R-T-C]

What is your take on the recent Max Mosley case as far as it effects the concept of a "right to privacy"?

I thought it was amusing that the press, who rant and rave about the government being given powers to 'snoop', were up in arms when their right to spy on people was curtailed.

[noidea]

DPA only affects businesses. I could obtain for example a million peoples email addresses and stick them on a website and I would be exempt from the law.


All government bodies such as HMRC are exempt from most laws due to crown immunity.

[aaamusements]

DPA only affects businesses. I could obtain for example a million peoples email addresses and stick them on a website and I would be exempt from the law.

Did you follow this link?
http://www.thesecurityinstaller.co.u...nt/dpa1998.asp (http://www.thesecurityinstaller.co.uk/Content/dpa1998.asp)

[noidea]

Did you follow this link?
http://www.thesecurityinstaller.co.u...nt/dpa1998.asp (http://www.thesecurityinstaller.co.uk/Content/dpa1998.asp)
"Home Security -v- The Data Protection Act 1998". What is it to do with email addresses?

[aaamusements]

"Home Security -v- The Data Protection Act 1998". What is it to do with email addresses?

DPA only affects businesses.

You brought up email addresses in a thread entitled "law Re: Domestic CCTV (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=585863#post585863)" so perhaps I should be asking you "What is it to do with email addresses"...

[noidea]

You brought up email addresses in a thread entitled "law Re: Domestic CCTV (http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=585863#post585863)" so perhaps I should be asking you "What is it to do with email addresses"...
Was an example.

[ken_uk]

What sort of distances are we talking about here?

Most cctv (unless he has gone for expensive megapixel, or is a voyeur and has installed pan/tilts/zooms or fixed high zoom lenses focused on a window) cameras really wont be able to see as much as you think they can.

Most people have a hollywood style impression of what cctv can do, they see on tv people zooming in and getting clear shots of anything they want, even after the event.

In reality, if its a fixed camera, it can either see a 'lot' ie right down the street - but there wont be much detail and it wont be able to see what is going on through a window down the other end of the street, it may see a window, but the level of detail will be so low you wont be getting much detail.

Or it can be focused in on a tight, small area with a zoom lens, meaning it could see in a window but would not be able to see pretty much anything else.

The more a cam is zoomed in with a lens, the smaller area you will be observing. If the system was installed to keep an eye on his sports car and people approaching the house, then its not likely its setup to not view that area, in which case its not going to be much use to the owner for looking in peoples houses.. (Unless the window is in direct view of the camera and very, very close).

If the cams are pan tilt zoom cams, then that is a different kettle of fish, they can be moved around and zoomed in at will to view in much more detail than the human eye can see. Also megapixel cams can see a lot more than standard cams, but they are a lot more expensive and not as widely used yet.

Have you expressed your concerns in a friendly manner and asked if its possible for you to see the views from the camera, if they let you see (although I cant think of a reason that would force them to have to) then you would probably find everyone is worrying over nothing - the level of details in the areas you are concerned about will be insignificant probably.

I would look on the other side of the coin, your getting 'free' protection from the cctv cameras which can have a detterant effect on many (but not all) criminals who move on to a softer target once they see the street is covered by cameras.