coozer
|
| posted on 14/4/11 at 09:37 PM |
|
|
CCTV Anyone??
Anyone got cctv outside the house?
Bloke I know got burgled last week and caught them on his cctv...
Copper asked him if he had a sign up warning of cctv... no..
No sign up.. we cant use it....
How mad is this country getting!!! Thought I'd seen it all!!!!
1972 V8 Jago
1980 Z750
|
|
|
|
|
mistergrumpy
|
| posted on 14/4/11 at 09:51 PM |
|
|
Never heard of this and never said it a few hours ago when I asked the same question either. Perhaps he should put a sign up saying "No
burglars" too 
|
|
|
SteveWalker
|
| posted on 14/4/11 at 10:02 PM |
|
|
Don't let him just take the word of the Copper, he may be correct, but there is no guarantee of that, as there are often misconceptions about
such things and the police can get things wrong too. I could well be wrong, but I was under the impression that as long as you are recording your own
property and anyone on it, you don't need any warning signs.
|
|
|
contaminated
|
| posted on 14/4/11 at 10:09 PM |
|
|
Do you honestly mean that if I murder someone in cold blood and there is no sign under the camera warning me I'm in the clear? What's the
postcode for 10 Downing Street? Ridiculous! What he meant was he couldn't be bothered surely.
|
|
|
SteveWalker
|
| posted on 14/4/11 at 10:10 PM |
|
|
Just had a quick look online and the signs *are* required under the data protection act, so lack of signs could well prevent the footage being used in
evidence, *but* - and its a big but - the legislation specifically excludes home CCTV systems from the requirements of the act, unless they record
people outside the boundaries of their property.
|
|
|
wilkingj
|
| posted on 14/4/11 at 10:11 PM |
|
|
Citizens Advice job methinks....
They are accepting helmet Cams in court... and there are no warning signs in those cases.
http://www.cyclaim.co.uk/blog/cyclists-v-motorists-%E2%80%93-debate-goes
However, it may be different for property.
A chap in our village used his footage from his security cameras to get police and council action on the rowdys at the skatepark on the other side of
the fence, ie climbing over and throwing things into his garden.
Councill ended it by putting a high fence along by his property. (It really was a problem and was getting worse).
He also got a bloke in his car knocking his front wall down. Police prosecuted that one as well.
I think you should take advice, and then remonstrate with the police (in writing) if its in your favour.
1. The point of a journey is not to arrive.
2. Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.
Best Regards
Geoff
http://www.v8viento.co.uk
|
|
|
loggyboy
|
| posted on 14/4/11 at 10:15 PM |
|
|
IIRC it boils down to if the camera is viewing anyting outside of your own property (providing its for home security, not businness). If ots businees
or views off your property, thats when you need signs and you need to comply with data protection act etc.
|
|
|
speedstar
|
| posted on 15/4/11 at 06:50 AM |
|
|
Yep you need a sign up. My dad has CCTV and consulted a police friend on it. Stupid rule, but a rule none the less.
Could always say there WAS a sign up, and jsut put one up now? Burglar isn't going to know any different!
|
|
|
skydivepaul
|
| posted on 15/4/11 at 07:05 AM |
|
|
YOU DONT NEED A SIGN UP
on a domestic property the rules for signage are exempt
if on the images the intruder is caught within the property boundary then you are ok
even if part of the image may capture beyond his property boundary.
take it back down the cop shop and if need be print out the data protection act for CCTV and take it with you
the coppers will probably know who it is anyway!
http://www.smartideasuk.com
http://www.smartmapping.co.uk
HD CCTV
3D design solutions and integration
IP security systems
access control systems
|
|
|
Agriv8
|
| posted on 15/4/11 at 07:06 AM |
|
|
Not sure data protection Act applies FOR HOME USE - Ie if it not your OFFICE or WORKSHOP ETC.
If its at home only if your data was being used by a company / organisation. If data protection applies to your own files each house would need a
data protection officer ! the Photos I have taken at shows for example.
Also "evidence used to catch" and "evidence used to covict" can also be different.
I think this needs to be brought to attention of a senior PO.
PS It stinks and is only gets worse as the police budgets Cuts start to take hold.
Regards
Agriv8
[Edited on 15/4/11 by Agriv8]
Taller than your average Guy !
Management is like a tree of monkeys. - Those at the top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces. BUT Those at the bottom look up and see a
tree full of a*seholes .............
|
|
|
deezee
|
| posted on 15/4/11 at 07:13 AM |
|
|
The data protection act 1998 (PART IV section 36) specifically excludes home CCTV, if to protect you from theft, even if the cameras overlook public
property (Domestic use of CCTV). Its worth double checking the law, on subjects such as this.
|
|
|
skydivepaul
|
| posted on 15/4/11 at 07:18 AM |
|
|
quote from DPA CCTV
"The use of cameras for limited household purposes is exempt from the DPA. This would
apply where an individual uses CCTV to protect their property from burglary, and to images
captured for recreational purposes such as with a mobile phone, digital camera or
camcorder. For example, if you make a video of your child in a nativity play for your own
family use, this is not covered by data protection law"
linky to CCTV
info
http://www.smartideasuk.com
http://www.smartmapping.co.uk
HD CCTV
3D design solutions and integration
IP security systems
access control systems
|
|
|
swanny
|
| posted on 15/4/11 at 07:59 AM |
|
|
if all sensible routes fail, contact police informing them of your decision to contact both your local MP (CON/DEM may be more up for this than
Labour, so maybe even the nearest local tory) and the tabloid press under the heading 'bonkers britain' etc.
working in the public sector threatening the MP route certainly gets the attention, because they will almost certainly take it up at a reasonably
senior level in order to provide answer to the constituent.
paul
|
|
|
hughpinder
|
| posted on 15/4/11 at 11:37 AM |
|
|
I believe you can use it on your own (non business) property without signs. It does need to be of a certain quality for prosecution use. When I
mentioned that I was thinking of installing CCTV to my local police they asked if a) I would let them know if I did so that: b) I could angle it to
capture the road that passes my house - they couldn't use footage for prosecution, but it might help them to catch thieves.
Regards
Hugh
|
|
|
Alan B
|
| posted on 15/4/11 at 04:14 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skydivepaul
YOU DONT NEED A SIGN UP
on a domestic property the rules for signage are exempt
if on the images the intruder is caught within the property boundary then you are ok
even if part of the image may capture beyond his property boundary.
take it back down the cop shop and if need be print out the data protection act for CCTV and take it with you
the coppers will probably know who it is anyway!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What he says....if anyone on here would know then this guy is it...
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 16/4/11 at 12:24 PM |
|
|
Say the thief nicked it or just put up a really small sign, nice and high and out of the way (like on the floor in the shed if you have one - at least
there is a sign)
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
mrwibble
|
| posted on 16/4/11 at 01:22 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Simon
Say the thief nicked it or just put up a really small sign, nice and high and out of the way (like on the floor in the shed if you have one - at least
there is a sign)
ATB
Simon
exactly. it was always there guv. even the police cant be that stupid, once someone slightly higher than the numpty of a copper who should of said,
"put up a sign quick, so we can use it." sheer bloody laziness and lack of common sense...
|
|
|
