Europe's top court mulls vandal's right to privacy after bloke catches thug on home CCTV Europe’s top court ruled Thursday that data protection rules apply to private surveillance cameras if they record people on the public footpath. The regulations in question – the Data Protection Directive – insists personal information can't be held for longer than necessary, and that consent must be given, and so on, although …
I know I am be recorded by the 1000's of cameras deployed here in the UK. Does this mean they all have to ask my permission?
Of if one were to break one of the windows in a building, say in the Vauxhall area (one might, for instance, take agin green window glass) from the public pavement, does this mean one could get away with it?
"Of if one were to break one of the windows in a building, say in the Vauxhall area (one might, for instance, take agin green window glass) "
If you are talking about a certain building , where a certain three letter security agency is housed, you could break their window, but if by getting away it , you mean ending up in a unmarked grave somewhere ,then go ahead. Literally YOUR funeral!
Privacy in public. I have got a reasonable expectation that my every move will not be traced by someone.
I should also point out that CCTVs don't protect your property they just record what happens to it.
Finally, if the police got off their backsides and stopped wasting resources working for large companies (IP propaganda etc.) and chasing whatever the governments current fashion crime is they might get time to tackle crime which actually effects normal people and we wouldn't be tempted into putting up CCTV cameras everywhere.
I politely disagree: The case you quote did not find that it is completely illegal to record while driving. The court specifically and explicitly did not decide on scenic recording that may include other drivers (but not intentionally) or crash cams. Rather, the dash cam used in the case you quote was installed with the admitted intent to record other drivers in order to "play traffic police".
Otherwise, the jury in Germany is still out whether dash cam recordings are legal. Under the general rules, scenic recording is more likely to be legal than not. Crash cams (which record continuosly but only für a relatively short timespan of about 3 minutes before a crash) also stand good chances of being legal. But at the moment, there is no precedent which would make it relatively safe to assume one result or the other.
> can't hand it over to the police
Yes you can, but do it anonymously. Ideally you should leak it to the cops via a lawyer or journalist, that makes it illegal for the cops to investigate who took the video. As they don't "know" who took it they have to accept it as evidence.
> post it on facebook
Don't do that. That would be a clear violation of privacy under EU law.
That was before this judgement trumped that one. If they feel you are committing an offence, they can take the camera as evidence. And this judgment WILL be interpreted in that way at some point either by a PCSO or a real cop. And we all know how slowly the wheels of justice can turn when it's not in your favour.
That was before this judgement trumped that one. If they feel you are committing an offence, they can take the camera as evidence.
If I'm lawfully going about my business taking photos or recording video in a public place, a cop can't confiscate my camera. The letter of guidance from the ACPO was issued to remind cops of this fact.
If I'm standing outside GCHQ headquarters (or some other 'protected place') taking photos of employees coming and going then, yeah, I'm probably going home without my camera.
I don't see how this judgement trumped anything...
> photographers can now no longer take pictures in public spaces
Yeah that's illegal BUT let me explain how junk laws like this works: they criminalize a wide swath of society, but the enforcement is left to the discretion of the police. So....
> policeman taking cameras
...will only happen if you piss the policeman (or a journalist, or a politician) off. So in 99.999% of cases you can take photos like this with impunity, and as for the 0.001% of people who randomly get slapped with a heavy fine and perhaps some jailtime, well, they shouldn't have tried to photograph a cop/politician/journalist.
they shouldn't have tried to photograph a cop/politician/journalist.
Policemen and politicians are public servants, we pay their wages and while they're on duty they can damn well stand there and be photographed when we tell them to.
As for the hypocrisy of a journalist who doesn't want to be photographed, the phrase "in the public interest, m'lud' comes to mind.
This post has been deleted by its author
This appears to have happened in czech republic, based on the location the case was bounced back to.
In the UK, in a public space you have no reasonable expectation of privacy & cannot stop or prevent anyone from recording you in said public space. Despite thier protestations otherwise it is fully legit for members of the public to make visual records of interactions with the police / government members etc in public spaces or even private if you are the one who owns the private property (just make sure they cant hang a 'its for terrorist purposes' tag around your neck, as then it is illegal)
however if you do use home cctv, a couple of visible warning signs on the exterior of your home & make sure your cameras arent pointing deliberatly at the pavement/road (if you just happen catch a little due to lens / camera placement well thats fair game as i understand the legal position on it) and you should comply with UK law.
*of course non of the above constitutes legal advice & i'm not a lawyer, if you want to be bulletproof then consult one in person & dont believe everything you read on the internet*
"even private if you are the one who owns the private property"
Hardly worth trying to film UK police. They'll weasel out of any complaint anyway.
When you get four police offices, one of whom has just assaulted a friend but refuses to identify himself, and you put in a complaint, the other three say "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil", regardless of any evidence or witnesses, and the Met say nothing bad happened.
"In the UK, in a public space you have no reasonable expectation of privacy & cannot stop or prevent anyone from recording you in said public space. Despite thier protestations otherwise it is fully legit for members of the public to make visual records of interactions with the police / government members etc in public spaces or even private if you are the one who owns the private property (just make sure they cant hang a 'its for terrorist purposes' tag around your neck, as then it is illegal)
however if you do use home cctv, a couple of visible warning signs on the exterior of your home & make sure your cameras arent pointing deliberatly at the pavement/road (if you just happen catch a little due to lens / camera placement well thats fair game as i understand the legal position on it) and you should comply with UK law.
These 2 paragraphs are contradictory.
These 2 paragraphs are contradictory.
Yes they are but dont blame me, blame the lawyers / judges & parliment for not bothering to make things clear. Best thing to do if you are going to use is put up some sort of 'cctv in operation' sign and try not to aim your cameras in any blatent obvious manner at the pavement/roads.
Again as I understand it, the problems arise from data protection laws, as in this case regarding identification processing, rather than the law that makes clear the lack of privacy in a public space.
Its a stupid situation I agree & very much similar to the home defence law in the UK where if you kill someone by striking as soon as you see an intruder, with whatever is to hand you have the defence of 'in fear for your life' but if you try to ascertain the situation or take steps to arm/armour yourself against the intruder you are breaking the law :S :S :S
Take it up with your MP, if you can get any of the idiots to listen or care about anything beyond their next vote massaging tabloid headline
*again not a lawyer & none of this constitutes legal advice in any manner*
Seriously, why has the EU gone full retard on the internet & privacy?
In case you haven't heard the news in the last couple of years, the award for going "full retard on the internet & privacy" goes to the US and the UK. The rest of the EU doesn't come close.
The ICO will take no action if you are an individual recording members of the public fr 'personal use', I have checked this with the ICO after someone recorded patients in a hospital. As far as the ICO was concerned the person concerned was not recording on behalf of an organisation so it wasn't of interest to them.
Not all Eurpoean judgements on Data Protection affect the UK, our Data Protection regulations are not quite the same as the res of Europe, and, the Information Commissioner allows a lot of leeway for journalistic purposes etc.
Yup, same reason you can't use razor wire on your fence in case the low life scum bag hurts himself.
You can use razor wire to top off a fence or roof. Just make sure you've put up warning signs and taken out insurance.
What you can't do is dig a hole inside your property and fill it with razor wire to make a trap.
Hmm it's actually a grey area...The police stance:
"Using barbed/razor wire and broken glass in order to stop people getting in to your home is not advisable. You are making yourself liable to civil action as you owe a duty of care to ensure that visitors to your property are reasonably safe. Odd as it may seem, you also owe a duty of care to trespassers."
https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q78.htm
another couple of points of view:
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides some protection to householders. If a trespasser suffers an injury during the course of a crime, for which he is subsequently convicted and for which he could be sent to prison, he will only be able to sue the householder if he gets the court’s permission to do so....."
Note it says convicted and "sent to prison"
....there are more grey areas on the the site:
http://www.protectingyourself.co.uk/using-barbed-wire-glass-intruder-prevention-methods.html
Hmm it's actually a grey area...
It's not illegal, so for somebody to say "You can't use razor wire" is false.
The police can't charge me with a criminal offence if some $%^& injures himself on barbed wire while trying to climb over my wall onto my property.
If I was looking for legal advice I wouldn't ask a cop anyway... Saying "it's not advisable" is about as much as they can do.
If Johnny Scumbag is injured, he can certainly try to sue me. He's unlikely to get much compensation if I can show the court that I discharged my duty of care by putting up signs warning of the danger of injury, that the source of injury was clearly visible, and that I didn't act with malice...
...is two things:
A. Can you use CCTV to record criminal activity? The answer is probably yes. However, this isn't really what the judgment is about.
B. If you as a private individual place a CCTV camera on your house, and it records a public space, are you subject to the full weight of data protection law? The answer to this is a definite yes. So you need to put up signage, register with your local data protection authority, ensure appropriate security measures etc etc
You may (or may not) think this is a good idea. However, similar reasoning is likely to apply to other technology, e.g. Google Glass, social media etc. meaning that many private individuals are treated as businesses when it comes to complying with data protection law. In the UK, the Information Commissioner has stuck his head in the sand on this issue and I expect it to remain firmly embedded there for the foreseeable future.
Although its certainly not always the case, in this instance US law makes more sense. It holds that a person can record others if they are in a location that has no reasonable expectation of privacy. Thus, walking on a public sidewalk is fair game while standing inside a public washroom is not. It usually is extended to private property also, ie.- Someone recording a person standing in your living room is permissible while doing the same to someone in your bathroom is not.
In any case, person's committing a crime should forfeit their right to protest the technology that got them caught. All they had to do to avoid this breech of their "rights" is to NOT do the crime.
you also wonder - well, I do anyway - why the rules say private citizens can't use CCTV to protect their property without complying with all sorts of data protection rules, yet councils can view & record whatever they like (including cameras that overlook private property) and have absolutely no obligation to help prevent crime or help the police if things are caught on their cameras ... certainly no sanctions of any use against them if they choose not to, anyway ...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
