OT:Digital CCTV

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 20:11:11 +0100, "Angus McCoatup"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I heard u need signs on commercial premises so the video can be used as
>evidence

Not really. A huge number of commercial convictions are obtained
following video evidence which is covert.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:32:22 +0100, Malcolm Kane
<[email protected]> wrote:

>You may be right I am merely basing my comments on the advice of two
>professional trade organisations who both advise that the notice etc. is
>a requirement under the data protection act.

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

>I was also under the impression that identifiable means if someone who
>knows you sees the video and recognises you then you are recognisable.
>In that if they had access to the video they could then use the
>information about you.

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.

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 07:41:25 +0100, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:

>besides, it costs little to put up a "CCTV Recording on these premises"
>notice, and it might, in and of itself, deter some miscreants.

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

Mother wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:32:22 +0100, Malcolm Kane
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >You may be right I am merely basing my comments on the advice of two

> >professional trade organisations who both advise that the notice
etc. is
> >a requirement under the data protection act.
>
> 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
>
> >I was also under the impression that identifiable means if someone
who
> >knows you sees the video and recognises you then you are
recognisable.
> >In that if they had access to the video they could then use the
> >information about you.
>
> 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.

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.
http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/eventual.aspx?id=5739

How this effects private residents I'm not sure, considering the number
of controllable webcams there are now, but I would guess that as long
as you are purely using it for monitoring and security you'd be OK.

On or around Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:48:13 +0100, [email protected]
enlightened us thusly:

>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 07:41:25 +0100, Austin Shackles
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>besides, it costs little to put up a "CCTV Recording on these premises"
>>notice, and it might, in and of itself, deter some miscreants.
>
>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?

presumably, you can at least get 'em for vandalising yer camera, in that
case.

's a nice touch, though.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Nessun maggior dolore che ricordarsi del tempo felice nella miseria"
- Dante Alighieri (1265 - 1321) from Divina Commedia 'Inferno'

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:43:51 +0100, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>>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?
>
>presumably, you can at least get 'em for vandalising yer camera, in that
>case.

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 and see if there is anything there that warms the cockles of your hearts.