"Blah" wrote in message
...
Micky Savage wrote:

People ,
Just my 2 pence worth.
Don't go Maplin.



TRY CCTV direct.
Micky
Do they do no quibble exchange on faulty equipment upto a YEAR after
purchase? Maplin do........


Don't know, but their kit is good.

Micky

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:41:11 +0100, Blah wrote:

You'd better tell the home office then, they disagree!
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice...vchecklist.pdf

"If you use a CCTV system in connection with your business you should work
through the checklist and address all the points listed. This will help to
ensure that your CCTV system remains within the law and that images can be
used by the police to investigate crime."

It's for businesses only.

--

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:41:11 +0100, Blah wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

"Gordy" wrote in message
...



There is an women down my mothers road who has had a camera up for
about a year now that looks straight down the row of gardens at
peoples children and people coming in and out of there houses.

In short the council didnt want to know anything about it nor did the
constabulary.

They won't be, there is no law to stop a householder having a CCTV
pointing at the street.
There is no law requiring you to register it.
There is no law requiring you to put up warning stickers.

You'd better tell the home office then, they disagree!
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice...vchecklist.pdf


That document refers to 'small users' & the Data Protection Act, not a
domestic situation;

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. Images captured for recreational purposes, such as
with a mobile phone, digital camera or camcorder, are also exempt.

See
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documen.../3_covers.html

Don.

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.

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.

--
*When the going gets tough, use duct tape

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

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.

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.

The ICO are only referring to the DPA side of things. A guy accross the
corridor probably deals with the privacy side of it.

The following link is interesting
http://www.problemneighbours.co.uk/c...d-the-law.html mentioning
harassment and voyeurism. Oh well, "The Courts of Human Rights" would
probably have something different to say.

Don.

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:50:09 +0100, Blah wrote:

Alex Heney wrote:

Plug into home pc (which must be switched on 24/7!).


That is an extremely expensive way of doing it.

You can get a proper DVR with 250GB built in HD for about the same as
the price of your first link.

And you can get decent all-weather cameras with 1/3 inch CCD for about
£80 - even the £99 one in your link only has 1/4 inch.

It wasn't meant to be cheap, it was meant to be EASY for a complete
newbie (as the OP is).
She can walk into Maplin, get some further advice and walk out with the
goods and return them if they don't work.

Fair enough.



DVR are not for newbies and have less features (like remote viewing)
which are far more important than price.


Mine has remote viewing. So do plenty of others.

My kit was actually more expensive altogether than your quotes too,
but has 4 *good* cameras.

I can't now actually find DVR's as cheap as they were a few months
ago. I was checking then when the power supply packed in on mine
(before I knew what the problem was, and thought I might need to
replace it), and found ones slightly better for under £100, while now
they seem to be about £130 for similar.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Is it possible to feel gruntled?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On 28 Aug 2008 22:56:16 GMT, "Bob Eager" wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:29:53 UTC, "Tanner-'op"
wrote:

snip


However, if you record anywhere outside your own property; you must register
with the data commissioner, put up signs informing people of the camera, and
keep logs of the recordings in a secure place.

The later guidance from the ICO seems to contradict that...but I think
there was a change in the legislation.

No change in statute, just the courts deciding that the ICO
interpretation of the legislation was wrong.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
FOR SALE: Iraqi rifle. Never fired. Dropped once.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

"Alex Heney" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:50:09 +0100, Blah wrote:

Alex Heney wrote:

Plug into home pc (which must be switched on 24/7!).


That is an extremely expensive way of doing it.

You can get a proper DVR with 250GB built in HD for about the same as
the price of your first link.

And you can get decent all-weather cameras with 1/3 inch CCD for about
£80 - even the £99 one in your link only has 1/4 inch.

It wasn't meant to be cheap, it was meant to be EASY for a complete
newbie (as the OP is).
She can walk into Maplin, get some further advice and walk out with the
goods and return them if they don't work.

Fair enough.



DVR are not for newbies and have less features (like remote viewing)
which are far more important than price.


Mine has remote viewing. So do plenty of others.

My kit was actually more expensive altogether than your quotes too,
but has 4 *good* cameras.

I can't now actually find DVR's as cheap as they were a few months
ago. I was checking then when the power supply packed in on mine
(before I knew what the problem was, and thought I might need to
replace it), and found ones slightly better for under £100, while now
they seem to be about £130 for similar.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Is it possible to feel gruntled?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom


Got **** loads of power supplies Man.

Will post you one .

No Probs..




Mick

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:17:52 +0100, "Micky Savage"
wrote:


"Alex Heney" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:50:09 +0100, Blah wrote:

Alex Heney wrote:

Plug into home pc (which must be switched on 24/7!).


That is an extremely expensive way of doing it.

You can get a proper DVR with 250GB built in HD for about the same as
the price of your first link.

And you can get decent all-weather cameras with 1/3 inch CCD for about
£80 - even the £99 one in your link only has 1/4 inch.

It wasn't meant to be cheap, it was meant to be EASY for a complete
newbie (as the OP is).
She can walk into Maplin, get some further advice and walk out with the
goods and return them if they don't work.

Fair enough.



DVR are not for newbies and have less features (like remote viewing)
which are far more important than price.


Mine has remote viewing. So do plenty of others.

My kit was actually more expensive altogether than your quotes too,
but has 4 *good* cameras.

I can't now actually find DVR's as cheap as they were a few months
ago. I was checking then when the power supply packed in on mine
(before I knew what the problem was, and thought I might need to
replace it), and found ones slightly better for under £100, while now
they seem to be about £130 for similar.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Is it possible to feel gruntled?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom


Got **** loads of power supplies Man.

Will post you one .

No Probs..


Thanks, but this was about 4-5 months ago now. I replaced it as soon
as I knew what the problem was.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If rabbits feet are so lucky, what happened to the rabbit?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

"Alex Heney" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:17:52 +0100, "Micky Savage"
wrote:


"Alex Heney" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:50:09 +0100, Blah wrote:

Alex Heney wrote:

Plug into home pc (which must be switched on 24/7!).


That is an extremely expensive way of doing it.

You can get a proper DVR with 250GB built in HD for about the same as
the price of your first link.

And you can get decent all-weather cameras with 1/3 inch CCD for about
£80 - even the £99 one in your link only has 1/4 inch.

It wasn't meant to be cheap, it was meant to be EASY for a complete
newbie (as the OP is).
She can walk into Maplin, get some further advice and walk out with the
goods and return them if they don't work.

Fair enough.



DVR are not for newbies and have less features (like remote viewing)
which are far more important than price.


Mine has remote viewing. So do plenty of others.

My kit was actually more expensive altogether than your quotes too,
but has 4 *good* cameras.

I can't now actually find DVR's as cheap as they were a few months
ago. I was checking then when the power supply packed in on mine
(before I knew what the problem was, and thought I might need to
replace it), and found ones slightly better for under £100, while now
they seem to be about £130 for similar.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Is it possible to feel gruntled?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom


Got **** loads of power supplies Man.

Will post you one .

No Probs..


Thanks, but this was about 4-5 months ago now. I replaced it as soon
as I knew what the problem was.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If rabbits feet are so lucky, what happened to the rabbit?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom


OKY DOKY.

the rabbit was Irish.


lol


mick. like me before I get into trouble.
Have a lot of spares, just ask before you buy,

No probs .
Please don't be in the Amaon Basin.


pmsl

"Blah" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Gordy" wrote in message
...




There is an women down my mothers road who has had a camera up for about
a year now that looks straight down the row of gardens at peoples
children and people coming in and out of there houses.

In short the council didnt want to know anything about it nor did the
constabulary.


They won't be, there is no law to stop a householder having a CCTV
pointing at the street.
There is no law requiring you to register it.
There is no law requiring you to put up warning stickers.

You'd better tell the home office then, they disagree!
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice...vchecklist.pdf

You should read what you post links to..

"If you use a CCTV system in connection with your business you should work
through the checklist and address all the points listed."

There is no law requiring you to register a domestic CCTV system.


They might be interested if you fit a 20:1 hdtv camera on a pan and tilt
mount so you can spy into bedrooms.

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 00:19:54 +0100, jake wrote:

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:15:35 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"Blah" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Gordy" wrote in message
...




There is an women down my mothers road who has had a camera up for about
a year now that looks straight down the row of gardens at peoples
children and people coming in and out of there houses.

In short the council didnt want to know anything about it nor did the
constabulary.


They won't be, there is no law to stop a householder having a CCTV
pointing at the street.
There is no law requiring you to register it.
There is no law requiring you to put up warning stickers.

You'd better tell the home office then, they disagree!
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice...vchecklist.pdf

You should read what you post links to..

"If you use a CCTV system in connection with your business you should work
through the checklist and address all the points listed."

There is no law requiring you to register a domestic CCTV system.


They might be interested if you fit a 20:1 hdtv camera on a pan and tilt
mount so you can spy into bedrooms.


We have old women widows living either side of us. One is intensely
nosey and spies on all people coming and going and the other keeps
herself to herself but has invested £0 in an obnoxious terrier cross
that barks at it own far**. Both run a conspiracy against us because
we don't conform to their lifestyle (eg we don't worship the selection
of wheelie bins we all have to feed and we don't seek to kill every
single growing plant in the garden and cover it in concrete. They
(not) unwittingly make our life hell on many occasions. We have tried
to be good neighbours and help them (in years past). It counts for
nothing now alas. We try to ignore them when possible.

Look on the bright side. These old farts can't live forever & no doubt
you'll eventually be able to dance on their graves (as long as they're not
buried at sea). ;-)

Don.

"jake" wrote in message
...

We have old women widows living either side of us. One is intensely
nosey and spies on all people coming and going and the other keeps
herself to herself but has invested £0 in an obnoxious terrier cross
that barks at it own far**. Both run a conspiracy against us because
we don't conform to their lifestyle (eg we don't worship the selection
of wheelie bins we all have to feed and we don't seek to kill every
single growing plant in the garden and cover it in concrete. They
(not) unwittingly make our life hell on many occasions. We have tried
to be good neighbours and help them (in years past). It counts for
nothing now alas. We try to ignore them when possible.

Look up paranoid in the dictionary.

"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
...

It sounds like the neighbours will be close enough for such kit to be
able to identify them - at least clearly enough to give a copper an
excuse to go round and have a word.

The problem with much of this CCTV is that the images are not clear enough.

at which point it might be cheaper to
hire a couple of 'likely lads' to go round
and 'express your concerns in a robust and
concerted fashion'.

That tends to work at times.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...

Alas, a waste of time trying to talk to the Firth idiot, he only argues
with or hurls abuse a people. Google for 'Steve Firth' and you woll see
what I mean.

Too true. The man should be tagged.

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:12:29 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
.. .

It sounds like the neighbours will be close enough for such kit to be
able to identify them - at least clearly enough to give a copper an
excuse to go round and have a word.

The problem with much of this CCTV is that the images are not clear enough.

I'm making the assumption that if they're kicking a football at the
OP's windows and not breaking them, they would have to be within a
certain distance - say around 50ft, and probably a lot closer. At that
distance it will be possible to say "That's so-and-so". I can just
make out a car number plate at that range on my setup.
For a more positive identification the range is more likely to be
around 30ft max.

at which point it might be cheaper to
hire a couple of 'likely lads' to go round
and 'express your concerns in a robust and
concerted fashion'.

That tends to work at times.

Either method leads to 'bad feeling and resentment' and possibly just
makes things worse - but if you haven't got good neighbours it's
perhaps better to have ones that are scared of you.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:41:11 +0100, Blah wrote:

They won't be, there is no law to stop a householder having a CCTV
pointing at the street.
There is no law requiring you to register it.
There is no law requiring you to put up warning stickers.

You'd better tell the home office then, they disagree!
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice...vchecklist.pdf

No they don't, it is you who has not understood what you were reading.

The regulations cited apply only to *businesses*, not domestic
proprties.

The last paragraph on the first page is the clue you needed.

--
Cynic

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.

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.

--
Cynic

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:29:26 +0100, Alex Heney
wrote:

*IF* you are using CCTV targeted on specific individuals or manually
controlled so as to track specific individuals *and* you do not have a
DPA registration covering it, then you *could* be in trouble with the
Information Commissioner if somebody reports you to him.

Nonsense. The DPA does not cover domestic installations for use by
individuals. No registration is needed.

--
Cynic

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:21:30 GMT, "George"
wrote:

But Gareth Crossman from Liberty said: " Not many people know that if their
camera looks onto public or a neighbour's property they are bound by the
data protection act and they must comply with some very severe
restrictions."

Gareth Crossman is obviously woefully ignorant of the DPA. Private
domestic use is *not* required to comply with the DPA.

The police, too, say CCTV cameras need to be used properly - otherwise they
may not be able to be used in evidence , and their images could be
challenged in court.

That's a different aspect altogether. CCTV camera footage is evidence
- and like any other evidence is may be challenged in court. I would
suggest that in most cases it would be difficult to challenge the
image itself, but the time and date it was taken could be contested,
and suggestions could be made that there was activity going on
off-camera that provided an innocent explanation to what is seen on
the video.

A CCTV camera pointed at a neighbour's property could also be seen by
the neighbour as harrassment, which could result in the police
demanding it be removed or pointed in a different direction.

--
Cynic

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:34:36 +0100, "Micky Savage"
wrote:

They do have to be covering your property only.

Complete nonsense. They may cover anything you like apart from
specifically restricted areas (e.g. military installations etc.), so
long as it is not for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification.

--
Cynic

On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 12:26:33 +0100, Cynic
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:29:26 +0100, Alex Heney
wrote:

*IF* you are using CCTV targeted on specific individuals or manually
controlled so as to track specific individuals *and* you do not have a
DPA registration covering it, then you *could* be in trouble with the
Information Commissioner if somebody reports you to him.

Nonsense. The DPA does not cover domestic installations for use by
individuals. No registration is needed.

OK, it seems that the ICO have recently issued new guidance, and they
do now accept the above to be correct.

I was basing the above on their previous guidance (but issued after
the court case showing that in most cases individuals did not need to
register).

I didn't think they would change it further without another court
case, although I'm glad to have been proved wrong.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Which way to Castle Anthrax?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

In message , Cynic
writes
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.

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.


panning permission, on the other hand ...

--
geoff

In uk.legal Cynic wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:21:30 GMT, "George"
wrote:

But Gareth Crossman from Liberty said: " Not many people know that if their
camera looks onto public or a neighbour's property they are bound by the
data protection act and they must comply with some very severe
restrictions."

Gareth Crossman is obviously woefully ignorant of the DPA. Private

Maybe HM Governemnt could ammend the act such that before any corporate
representative refers to if they much first actually have read it.

domestic use is *not* required to comply with the DPA.

It might be argued that filiming somone elses private property is
outside this exemption in the act, but you'd need to actually convince a
judge.


The police, too, say CCTV cameras need to be used properly - otherwise they
may not be able to be used in evidence , and their images could be
challenged in court.

That's a different aspect altogether. CCTV camera footage is evidence
- and like any other evidence is may be challenged in court. I would
suggest that in most cases it would be difficult to challenge the
image itself, but the time and date it was taken could be contested,
and suggestions could be made that there was activity going on
off-camera that provided an innocent explanation to what is seen on
the video.

Whereas there are specific rules when it comes to the Police presenting
evidence AFAIK these only apply to the police. In effect there are
additional ways in which evidence presented by the Police (or those
acting on their behalf) can be challenged in court.

A CCTV camera pointed at a neighbour's property could also be seen by
the neighbour as harrassment, which could result in the police

Which has nothing to do with the DPA and is not applicable to filiming
public property.

demanding it be removed or pointed in a different direction.

On 28 Aug, 11:33, "George" wrote:
"Blah" wrote in message

...



Sarah wrote:
well we've been having troubles from pain in the backside neighbours
from
late night drinking to kicking footballs at our windows on purpose and
at
our sky dish. Reported it to the relvant people who seem to do nothing.
Had
a victim support person turn up out of the blue today and they siggested
putting a cctv camera up on the inside and if it is slightly watching
your
sky dish and catches them in the act you have instant proof ? (buy the
way
the list of their stupidity is far to lon to type, were tolerant to a
level but they have gone beyond too far)

So knowing nothing about cctv, I thought you guys would know ?

Do I need something that connects to my pc or tv ? also would need to
store
the footage maybe on a hard disc or a blank dvd ?

A bit out of my depth here so advice welcomed.

Thanks

One of these:

http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?...21498&DOY=28m8

Up to 4 of these:

http://www.maplin.co.uk/Search.aspx?...nu=y&doy=28m8&...
e=Wired%20CCD%20Cameras







Plug into home pc (which must be switched on 24/7!).

Might also want a bigger HD to store more stuff (when HD nearly full, it
* wipes oldest stuff automatically).

Gives you a timelapse/movement system which will record every sniff the
neighbours make.

If you have a internet connection, can also view live footage from
anywhere in the world.

Damn, you shop dearly...ever thought of buying on ebay for a fraction of the
cost of maplins,after all maplins probably get their surveillance equipment
from HonkKong too. :-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maplins sell the Swann brand of CCTV equipment. Beware the cameras.
They look impressive but are faitly useless quality at any sort of
range. For example, number plates in a car park are unrecognizable.
The spec may be high, but the lenses are crap.

Turk182

On 28 Aug, 12:55, Ariadne wrote:
On 28 Aug, 11:55, wrote:





On 28 Aug, 12:25, "George" wrote:

"Sarah" wrote in message

...

well we've been having troubles from pain in the backside neighbours from
late night drinking to kicking footballs at our windows on purpose and at
our sky dish. Reported it to the relvant people who seem to do nothing.
Had
a victim support person turn up out of the blue today and they siggested
putting a cctv camera up on the inside and if it is slightly watching your
sky dish and catches them in the act you have instant proof ? (buy the way
the list of their stupidity is far to lon to type, were tolerant to a
level but they have gone beyond too far)

So knowing nothing about cctv, I thought you guys would know ?

Do I need something that connects to my pc or tv ? also would need to
store
the footage maybe on a hard disc or a blank dvd ?

A bit out of my depth here so advice welcomed.

Thanks

Not going into the what and how routine,but if you do get surveilance
equipment I suggest you don't let it be visible or let ANYONE know you have
it...otherwise they will give you more grief than the norm as problem
neighbours hate that sort of thing and will do their uttermost to get shut
of it.

Beware also that you may get into trouble with the constabulary over a
totally mythical "law" that it is illegal to take photographs of
children. BTDTGTTS.

Chris- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm not sure about that but I had reason to look into
the legality of CCTV for surveillance.

It is apparently a good idea to register your use of
such equipment if you have specific individuals in
mind.

Presumably otherwise the filmed ones might have
grounds for prosecuting you.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Only a business needs to do that, not a member of the public, although
the police once hinted to a friend that he did, because they wanted to
know where the camera were, so that they didn'r get caught out!

On 28 Aug, 15:56, "BRAD" wrote:
The Information Commisioners Office has released CCTV guidelines on where
you can point the cameras etc:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documen...practice_html/
index.html


The information from this link has been stolen!

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?)

Hello,

Just a thought for you. Available on the market today are a number of
cameras that have the ability to pan, tilt and zoom. If the camera is not
set to view one area all the time it would not be classed as a static
camera. Most of the concerns arise from static cameras as people see them
aimed at one spot and automatically assume,

You have a number of options available to you. There is a very cheap, 2
x camera system available from Maplins that you can use with an old VCR or
DVD recorder. I believe it is only capable of a black and white image but
the quality of the image is quite ample.

Anthony Birch

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 06:08:02 GMT, Mark Evans
wrote:

But Gareth Crossman from Liberty said: " Not many people know that if their
camera looks onto public or a neighbour's property they are bound by the
data protection act and they must comply with some very severe
restrictions."

Gareth Crossman is obviously woefully ignorant of the DPA. Private

Maybe HM Governemnt could ammend the act such that before any corporate
representative refers to if they much first actually have read it.

domestic use is *not* required to comply with the DPA.

It might be argued that filiming somone elses private property is
outside this exemption in the act, but you'd need to actually convince a
judge.

No, the law is perfectly clear on this issue - a private individual
may put up CCTV cameras on domestic property that point wherever he
wants, whether his own property, public property or his neighbour's
property. A neighbour *could* complain that it constitutes harassment
and that would need to be judged on its own merit based on the exact
circumstances - but you could not be charged with an offence unless
you failed to move the camera after you had been told that it was
causing harassment.

If the camera were sited such that it captured images of people
undressing in a place that they reasonably expected to be private,
*and* it could be shown that the images were being obtained for the
purpose of sexual gratification, then it would fall foul of the sexual
offences Act.

And obviously if you live opposite a military base, airport or other
sensitive installation, there may be restrictions regarding
photographing such places.

--
Cynic

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 07:08:02 GMT, Mark Evans
wrote:

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.

Er, if someone is charged with harassment it's because it's prohibited
by the Protection from Harassment Act. The Human Rights act only applies
to public bodies.

In article ,
Turk182 writes:
Maplins sell the Swann brand of CCTV equipment. Beware the cameras.
They look impressive but are faitly useless quality at any sort of
range. For example, number plates in a car park are unrecognizable.
The spec may be high, but the lenses are crap.

Also, I've found the outdoor ones not to be very waterproof, although
designed as such. Also, the interlaced scan makes rather a mess of moving
images if you want to collect stills from them. (I did spend some time
with photoshop sliding the alterate scan lines together enough for the
police to recognise a suspect already known to them, but that would have
been no good as evidence.)

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]