http://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/122236

I've just added my name.

Signed

signed. 

 

Got some **** over the road who thinks he can film what he likes. 

signed. 

 

Got some **** over the road who thinks he can film what he likes. 

 

I dare you to stand in your garden in full view, wearing nothing but a todger warmer and a smile. 

Not uk resident so cant, but support the premise

signed. 

 

Got some **** over the road who thinks he can film what he likes. 

title of petition

"Amend the Data Protection Act to exempt registration of household CCTV systems"

 

Signed on that premise.

Start getting damage to car parked in street , know who it is /whose kids are doing it, but can't get witnesses ? But your car keeps on getting damaged. Let it be known that you've set up CCTV on your car( even if you have no intention of doing so) and within a day there's police accusing you of filming the little darlings. I've been there ,but I had last laugh. Neighbour told me that there was a story circulating that I was filming children in the street. I passed it straight back to police and suggested that the story could only have originated from the person who made the initial complaint and I wanted action .

I doubt (actually I know) the ICO doesn't have resources to enforce this ruling. It would only come into effect in as part of a larger issue. I doubt they could even handle the registrations if everyone decided to be legit.

 

ICO has larger fish to fry than bothering with individuals with misaligned cctv or bickering neighbors.

Can I pass on the charges to the police every time I provide them with footage....?!

Only have dummy cameras but have signed

signed. 

 

Got some **** over the road who thinks he can film what he likes. 

 

Um so on what basis have you signed the petition? If you want households to not film outside their boundaries you should not sign this petition.

 

The petition is for the EXEMPTING of registration for households with CCTV, else faced with a £35 registration fee households will simply point their cameras at their own boundaries and thus not catch footage of anything happening off their land, some of which is often useful in catching the perpetrators of offences committed on public land such as the street.

Will dashcams come under the scope of this?

Edited 1 May, 201610 yr by bigjohn

Will dashcams come under the scope of this?

 

Shouldn't. Data Protection only kicks in when an individual is the deliberate or clear subject of the footage.

For example the BBC filming in the street if you were interviewed the Beeb would need to get your consent to show that footage (you are clearly the subject there), but if you were filmed as part of a crowd in the same street they don't, even if you were identifiable.

 

CCTV is generally fixed in place so it's going to film the same area over and over (even if it can turn) so it's easier there to say a camera pointing beyond your ground into neighbours property is filming them as the subject. I would guess if the field of view encroached onto a public footpath that wood be ok, but pointig the camera at your neighbours teenage daughters bedroom would clearly not be.

 

In a car the subject is the road, if you are filmed it's coincidental. You're not the subject so registration wouldn't be needed.

I could imaging garages might ask you to switch them off on the basis however you've no right not to be filmed in a public place by another individual unless it's threatening or harassing. different kettle of fish should you choose to publish it especially for payment.

Will dashcams come under the scope of this?

No, but some site owners prohibit their use of their property.

Several members have been asked by dealers to disable their dashcams for data protection reasons.

Secure sites (not just MOD, airports, power stations etc) will have you remove or disable them before access is granted if you're working on site.

Some sites will even insist on covering the lens on a mobile( at sign in) and inspecting the seal when you sign out.

Interesting varied points being made here and I was sure it is legal to film anywhere in public with a handheld device.....but not from your alledged land ownership to the public area neither....

Also signed.  

Um so on what basis have you signed the petition? If you want households to not film outside their boundaries you should not sign this petition.

The petition is for the EXEMPTING of registration for households with CCTV, else faced with a £35 registration fee households will simply point their cameras at their own boundaries and thus not catch footage of anything happening off their land, some of which is often useful in catching the perpetrators of offences committed on public land such as the street.

I think i must of been ****ed when i signed that. Completely read it wrong!

Nah i dont agree with the petition. Yes vandalism may be a problem, but theres paedophiles out there, filming onto streets with kids playing.

Its obv got its positives and negatives.

OH-it DOES have it's +'s & -'s. While ago .House across the road was visited by an angry bloke. gate was kicked off hinges, and the front door was kicked several times. Son at property was a well known drug dealer, but Police did nothing as they'd only had two complaints. He also had taken to sampling his wares and was known to owe money to suppliers. So- take yer pick .

Few months earlier, I'd placed a cardboard box on the window  ledge. Shortly after ,one of my sons heard whispers that said I'd had a camera in my window, and dire threats were issued. After the attack, police arrived at my door asking about the "camera", and if I'd any photos. TBH- IF I'd had video of the incident, I'd have got shot of, as this little bit of crap got what he deserved. Out of the 8/9 cars this bloke on the dole had owned, only two had suffered "driver error", where he'd decided he had right of way over  some sort of pole in one instance and had slid sideways into another pole .All the rest were as a result of human interference- smashed windows/ mangled panels and the last one- set on fire. The first two were low end Rover 200, the next two being high end Astra, a few Audi A3 and last one a high end fiesta.

Great- any video I had would have helped them ,but fast forward ( as in #7) to when I had problems with a mate of little scrote, who'd by this time moved on ,but left opinions in the area. I was having problems with the kids of this mate, who'd had a visit from LA housing/ trading standards etc, over use of his social house to run a car sales ( on the corner), business. Mate had ASSUMED that the bloke that had instigated a visit from LA groups was me ( although as all know, LA never reveal sources, and it takes at least two complaints before they act).

For a so I had his kids bouncing balls off anything close by, including cars, and my windows/ front door. I asked politely if he'd stop them. Basically I was told"F off", to which I replied "ok- the cameras go back up". Next day ,I had his kids throw a ball at my front door. I asked them to go elsewhere. When I drove off, he tried to get in my way. I had a good quality camera in car, as I'd intended to photo dog in park, and my wife pointed it at him, to get evidence. he moved out of shot, and we carried on.

Next day we had Police accusing us of taking photos of kids Years ago, we had problems with what is now called "problem families" . After years of evidence, LA decided to act on one family to make an example of the worst. At the first hearing, LA was given the right to evict. Months later, we had an appeal. Barrister for the "problem family"

tried to argue that his "human rights” had been infringed, countered by barrister for LA suggesting that the rights of the many over rode the rights of the few. Judge ( correctly IMHO) told Barrister for "problem family" to Foxtrot Oscar.

I'm sorry.

 

You do not have, and never had a CCTV insdtallation at your house.

 

So WTF has any of that got to do with requiring a license for a CCTV installation, in a Private Dwelling, which covers externally to the boundary of the property??

BJM- I've never stated whether or not I've had CCTV at mine. I'm merely trying to highlight how legislation designed to protect the innocent can be upended to be mis used by those who want to hide something. For long enough ,the police view was that video coverage of you property was OK, and if due to limitations of equipment, it covered outside, then that was also OK. Then the civil liberties /bleeding hearts society/ anyone photographing from a house is a pervert lot came to the front, and folk living in areas with constant harassment/ vandal problems etc needed to get a licence to protect their way of life = Human rights to live their life in peace. I doubt  if you can understand that in this sort of area witness are rare, as the ones causing the problems make sure that the rest are "persuaded" to see nothing. The one thing these thugs fear is a camera. So they will use any means to discredit the offended. Untill you've experienced this level of harassment ,you may never know what it's like. OK- you can get a few great neighbours who can offer witness and a LA who will take legal action, but give a court some video of the thugs in action and this can't be discounted by some overpaid QC ,WHEREAS no amount of reams of witness statements can be ripped up, by a clever QC.

I suppose that might include "Wildlife", web-cam, dash cams, astro cams, drone cams, Go pros on just about anything,  local authority shopping centre cameras, gas stations etc etc. Any of these can be "Re-purposed"  - me thinks that the "Campaigners" might have an uphill political battle there, genie's already out of the bottle.

 

And with sophisticated cameras which with variable focus and tilt/pan, how can you tell what its taking a picture of.

 

It is interesting to note in my locality how a gap in the official CCTV coverage between the local high street and an adajacent traffic junction leads to all the petty crime being concentrated in the portion of the intervening  neighbourhood not having any coverage.

 

Is my socio-economic interest as a householder any less important than  that of a local shopkeeper, local authority or London Underground ? Like to see somebody prove that in the European Court of Human Rights.

 

So, perhaps it could be argued, on the basis of  statistics which are entered in  the local  crime databases (Now on-line), car insurance databases, local authority databases that the implementation of public policy is benefited by assisting in the correct attribution of cause and blame - a sort of "Polluter pays" principal.

 

I'm sure the CEO's of the local utility  companies would be interested to find out whose smashing -up their local inspection covers and road-side boxes, or for local authorities, who is doing the fly-tipping and smashing-up the paving on local footpaths.

 

Postscript

 

Don't forget to include the satelite cameras of "Foreign powers",  Ordnance Survey, any web service that uses "Street cams", google auto drive vehicles, any MOD and Met Office satellite  and drone photos and Tim Peek whilst you are at it

 

 

Nick

Edited 6 May, 201610 yr by Clunkclick

Nice to see someone else sees how legal applications can be usurped to become illegal "child porn taking bits of kit". In my case, I'd asked the parents to stop their kids using my car as a target for a football. I got the height of abuse from the kids, and next day a pedestrian raged parent walking in front of my car. As said, I'd the digital still/video camera on board, and when he stepped out in a threatening fashion, Mrs V picked up the camera, and he decided that I might have evidence to prove he was looking to cause problems  and he moved aside. As I mentioned, next day I'd a visit from a PCSO accusing me of taking photos of children. I'd guess the source ,And a few days later, one toddler said that "Gran says that you  take photos of little girls". I'd like to think that the PCSO I asked to investigate the source of the story read  the complainant the riot act. Or perhaps the PCSO mentioned that if I set up CCTV coverage of my property and it was police approved, then the police might act on complaints against the kids.

Had a general discussion about this at work, my boss is DPA expert. Apparently you SHOULD be registered even if your CCTV only extent over a footpath.

 

Won't cover in car cameras, Go-pros etc because those cameras are not static, unless they get used in a manner that means they have become CCTV. They'd be covered by existing legislation that covers normal cameras. i.e. the ICO doesn't expect to get a registration from everyone that owns a phone with a camera. It's less to do with the technology and more to do with the purpose.

 

But he also agreed the ICO won't have resources to back this up so it's toothless legislation.

Pretty pointless. I contacted ICO years ago and was advised that it would be at two years before they would even look at my request which was against Barclaycard who were stating on credit checks an unpaid credit card that I hadn't had for years and still had my old statements showing a nil balance.

The ICO were a lame duck then and doubt things have got any better since with higher case loads and less resources. Human Rights, Right To Privacy already covers being spied on with voyeuristic CCTV owners and you would have much better luck getting other people's cameras angled away from you under this law.