In uk.legal Cynic wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:44:25 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Cerberus . wrote:
Quote from ICO - 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.

Doesn't specifically say it's ok to have it covering a neighbour's
property, though.

It doesn't specifically say that it's OK to take pictures of bananas
either.

Anything that is not prohibited is by default permitted.

Even if something is prohibited it does not follow that it is prohibited
by a specific law.
e.g. filimg someone on someone else's (including their own) property is
far more likely to be an issue under "anti-stalking" or "Human Rights"
laws.


Thing is if you wish to add a window overlooking a neighbour's house they
can object to planning permission. Don't see why a camera is any different.

A camera is not something that requires planning permission.

Some people appear to beileve otherwise. Or does it matter if this
involves a business or residential property? (What if the property in
question is actually both?)