Welcome to Close Protection Forum and Surveillance Forum  
 
Members  
Go Back   Close Protection Forum and Surveillance Forum > Close Protection World Area > CCTV Forum
 


Notices

CCTV Forum Discuss CCTV

Members currently using Flashchat: 0
The most chatters online in one day was 12, 22-09-2008.
No one is currently using the chat.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Old 27-03-2008, 06:44 PM   #11 (permalink)
Default
Full Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 13
Thanks: 1
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Groaned others: 0
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0
blueonezero is on a distinguished road
The true legal position is actually fairly straightforward but widely misunderstood.

It is true that RIPA does not apply in this scenario but it is important to remember that Part II of RIPA (the bit that deals with Surveillance et al) is enabling legislation i.e. it does not actually make any activity unlawful. The key point in this scenario is that the Human Rights Act 1998 (which does make certain activity unlawful) only applies to public authorities and those acting as agents of same.

Any member of the public is perfectly entitled to install either a covert or overt video camera on their own premises with a view of their neighbours premises or the public highway. This activity will not interfere with any person's rights to respect for their private and family life as the Human Rights Act 1998 does not apply to the actions of private citizens.

There are, however, one or two caveats. Where the use of the covert or overt cameras can be seen as amounting to harrassment of the filmed party (within the meaning of the Protection from Harrassment Act 1997) then that conduct may amount to a criminal offence.

Similarly, common sense will tell you that if your camera is such that it captures imagery of, for example, naked children playing in a neighbours garden, you may find yourself in hot water.

It is also important to bear in mind that if the covert surveillance is carried out by a member of the public on behalf of a public authority, any privacy interference is likely to fall within the coverage of the Human Rights Act and some form of lawful authority will be required.

sedoparking.com - Online Videos, Access Account, Schools Online

Last edited by blueonezero; 27-03-2008 at 06:56 PM.
blueonezero is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Add to OnlywireSpurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2008, 06:44 PM   #12 (permalink)
Default
Full Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 13
Thanks: 1
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Groaned others: 0
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0
blueonezero is on a distinguished road
The true legal position is actually fairly straightforward but widely misunderstood.

It is true that RIPA does not apply in this scenario but it is important to remember that Part II of RIPA (the bit that deals with Surveillance et al) is enabling legislation i.e. it does not actually make any activity unlawful. The key point in this scenario is that the Human Rights Act 1998 (which does make certain activity unlawful) only applies to public authorities and those acting as agents of same.

Any member of the public is perfectly entitled to install either a covert or overt video camera on their own premises with a view of their neighbours premises or the public highway. This activity will not interfere with any person's rights to respect for their private and family life as the Human Rights Act 1998 does not apply to the actions of private citizens.

There are, however, one or two caveats. Where the use of the covert or overt cameras can be seen as amounting to harrassment of the filmed party (within the meaning of the Prevention from Harrassment Act 1997) then that conduct may amount to a criminal offence.

Similarly, common sense will tell you that if your camera is such that it captures imagery of, for example, naked children playing in a neighbours garden, you may find yourself in hot water.

It is also important to bear in mind that if the covert surveillance is carried out by a member of the public on behalf of a public authority, any privacy interference is likely to fall within the coverage of the Human Rights Act and some form of lawful authority will be required.

blueonezero
blueonezero is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Add to OnlywireSpurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2008, 06:45 PM   #13 (permalink)
Default
Full Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 13
Thanks: 1
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Groaned others: 0
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0
blueonezero is on a distinguished road
The true legal position is actually fairly straightforward but widely misunderstood.

It is true that RIPA does not apply in this scenario but it is important to remember that Part II of RIPA (the bit that deals with Surveillance et al) is enabling legislation i.e. it does not actually make any activity unlawful. The key point in this scenario is that the Human Rights Act 1998 (which does make certain activity unlawful) only applies to public authorities and those acting as agents of same.

Any member of the public is perfectly entitled to install either a covert or overt video camera on their own premises with a view of their neighbours premises or the public highway. This activity will not interfere with any person's rights to respect for their private and family life as the Human Rights Act 1998 does not apply to the actions of private citizens.

There are, however, one or two caveats. Where the use of the covert or overt cameras can be seen as amounting to harrassment of the filmed party (within the meaning of the Prevention from Harrassment Act 1997) then that conduct may amount to a criminal offence.

Similarly, common sense will tell you that if your camera is such that it captures imagery of, for example, naked children playing in a neighbours garden, you may find yourself in hot water.

It is also important to bear in mind that if the covert surveillance is carried out by a member of the public on behalf of a public authority, any privacy interference is likely to fall within the coverage of the Human Rights Act and some form of lawful authority will be required.

sedoparking.com - Account Login, Online Bank Account, Online Auction
blueonezero is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Add to OnlywireSpurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2008, 06:46 PM   #14 (permalink)
Default
Full Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 13
Thanks: 1
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Groaned others: 0
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0
blueonezero is on a distinguished road
The true legal position is actually fairly straightforward but widely misunderstood.

It is true that RIPA does not apply in this scenario but it is important to remember that Part II of RIPA (the bit that deals with Surveillance et al) is enabling legislation i.e. it does not actually make any activity unlawful. The key point in this scenario is that the Human Rights Act 1998 (which does make certain activity unlawful) only applies to public authorities and those acting as agents of same.

Any member of the public is perfectly entitled to install either a covert or overt video camera on their own premises with a view of their neighbours premises or the public highway. This activity will not interfere with any person's rights to respect for their private and family life as the Human Rights Act 1998 does not apply to the actions of private citizens.

There are, however, one or two caveats. Where the use of the covert or overt cameras can be seen as amounting to harrassment of the filmed party (within the meaning of the Protection from Harrassment Act 1997) then that conduct may amount to a criminal offence.

Similarly, common sense will tell you that if your camera is such that it captures imagery of, for example, naked children playing in a neighbours garden, you may find yourself in hot water.

It is also important to bear in mind that if the covert surveillance is carried out by a member of the public on behalf of a public authority, any privacy interference is likely to fall within the coverage of the Human Rights Act and some form of lawful authority will be required.

blueonezero

Last edited by blueonezero; 27-03-2008 at 06:52 PM. Reason: typo
blueonezero is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Add to OnlywireSpurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2008, 07:02 PM   #15 (permalink)
Red face Really sorry about the multiple posts
Full Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 13
Thanks: 1
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Groaned others: 0
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0
blueonezero is on a distinguished road
I have no idea what went on there but if anyone can let me know how I can delete the first three posts I will gladly do so
blueonezero is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Add to OnlywireSpurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2008, 05:50 AM   #16 (permalink)
Default
Full Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Futian District, Shenzhen City, China
Posts: 6
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Groaned others: 0
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Rep Power: 0
coffeegirl is on a distinguished road
haha it must be internet problem..........

Anyway, classic message! Never mind it is repeated for 3 times.
coffeegirl is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Add to OnlywireSpurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 11:28 PM   #17 (permalink)
Default
Full Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 12
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Groaned others: 0
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0
kensplace is on a distinguished road
The data protection act does not apply to domestic residential cctv, so you can stick a camera up without worries. Obviously, bear in mind the advice above about harrasment etc etc.

The only other rule I can think of would be planning permission if your going to stick a number of cameras on the outside, or they are massive beasts (old style pan/tilt zoom with huge ir lamps etc)
kensplace is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Add to OnlywireSpurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is a good CCTV setup for home use- I want to have my car protected? bukowski CCTV Forum 8 12-07-2008 02:46 PM
Should Director/ Managers of CP companies need to have a front line CP licence? littlewoman Close Protection Forum 7 16-01-2008 11:02 AM
I have installed wireless cctv at home can next door also see what my cam see's if xxxkaibabesxxx CCTV Forum 2 13-10-2007 01:50 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0
Powered by NuWiki v1.3 RC1 Copyright ©2006-2007, NuHit, LLC
closeprotectionworld.co.uk