In message , Angus McCoatup writes
I don't think this is correct as the notice as far as I know is under the Data Protection Act and doesn't have anything to do with evidence.
To me the logic of needing a notice to make it suitable as evidence would rule out a video taken by a bystander at a crime. Which seems doubtful to me.
On or around Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:32:22 +0100, Malcolm Kane enlightened us thusly:
besides, it costs little to put up a "CCTV Recording on these premises" notice, and it might, in and of itself, deter some miscreants.
Not really. A huge number of commercial convictions are obtained following video evidence which is covert.
I'd say it falls into 'good practice' to display a sign and it certainly does no 'harm'. I can't remember any smarmy defence lawyers ever trying to dismiss video evidence due to there not being a visible sign, though :-)
This could get very murky. Essentially a video surveillance recording is not deemed to be for any form of public use. HOWEVER, any form of evidence, video or otherwise, can be taken to detect a crime, on the reverse side, it's virtually impossible for an individual to obtain video evidence to prove their innocence.
If it's anything like the local sawmill that got burgled this is a heads up for them to first locate the camera and then disable it (recording of miscreant with long pole followed by view of sky), a case for one dummy camera and a concealed real one?
AJH
recognisable.
recording
I'm very sorry for that interruption in service. Google groups decided to wipe my message and post just the quoted text. Grrrrrr
What I was attempting to say was I have been looking at this for work, a school, and in relation to the DPA I found that if you are using a few fixed cameras (fixed as in not remotelly controllable to pan and tilt) to record general scences (a street, and entrance, not someone elses window) then you do not need to register for the DPA.
On or around Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:48:13 +0100, snipped-for-privacy@despammed.com enlightened us thusly:
presumably, you can at least get 'em for vandalising yer camera, in that case.
's a nice touch, though.
Miscreant complete with black motor cycling balaclava.
AJH
The Data Priotection Commissioner is just interested in that the information you are gathering complies with the Data Protection Act
1998. The Police are more interested in being able to use the information for prosecution of miscreants.In a private property that does not involve looking at the general public, you do not need signs or to register with the Data Protection commision. However, you cannot sight a camera to overlook an area where the general public are. Although, no one will prosecute you for looking at your car on the road (say) but they would if you trained it into the bedroom of the nubile 19 year old girl over the road.
Odd that there is this thread here though! It is what I do for a living you see, check out 'Security inStore CCTV web site'
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required