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.

Financial ombudsman would have been more applicable to a credit check issue

I had tried them first but as it was incorrect data that was being held it came under the Data Protection Act and therefore ICO.

I had tried them first but as it was incorrect data that was being held it came under the Data Protection Act and therefore ICO.

 

I'd hope they are better resourced now to deal with problems such as yours. They are very serious people and not to be trifled with but the lack of resources limits what they can do.

Generally the ICO does good work.

Will dashcams come under the scope of this?

 

Would be good if they were restricted as we have a neighbour who has one in his car, leaves it on all the time and films everyone who comes and leaves as the road is a dead end.

Unfortunately he's a bit of a "special" character too.

In general most people seem happy to capture footage of other people and public areas that overspill their own boundaries, as they see their actions as innocent and protective of their property.

However these same people, quite often are upset at being filmed. They see the perpetrators of this activity as 'peeping toms' at best, and taking lurid pictures at worst.

In general most people seem happy to capture footage of other people and public areas that overspill their own boundaries, as they see their actions as innocent and protective of their property.

However these same people, quite often are upset at being filmed. They see the perpetrators of this activity as 'peeping toms' at best, and taking lurid pictures at worst.

 

Yep, seen another mr CCTV in his car protecting his property 24/7.

When a neighbour asked him to point his car away from the only exit as he thought it was a bit weird recording when everyone was coming and leaving the guy got abusive.

 

Said neighbour recorded him getting abusive using his phone and the CCTV man went nuts. I did sit and listen in just incase it turned nasty (I was renting at the time) and the line of "I'm just protecting my property and face by filming it" went down like a tonne of bricks.

 

I really think home CCTV and car CCTV ought to be strictly regulated, including contact details, rights to copies and simiar.

For example all these people posting it online would be in breach of DPA if they were a company, but for private people it's unclear.

Why are people so bothered about being filmed when in a public place?

 

I understand being filmed when you have a reasonable expectation of privacy - such as on private land etc. But being seen walking past someone's house on their CCTV? What are you expecting them to be doing with the footage that irks you so much?

Why are people so bothered about being filmed when in a public place?

 

I understand being filmed when you have a reasonable expectation of privacy - such as on private land etc. But being seen walking past someone's house on their CCTV? What are you expecting them to be doing with the footage that irks you so much?

 

In the above case, it was because we all lived in a mews/dead end so there was only one way in and out.

This neighbour didn't like that this guy was filming when everyone was in and out and recording patterns.

(To be fair the guy had ****ed people off a lot before by being weird and using their coming home at all hours as a defence. It even got the guy complaining a parent came home 4 hours after their children, which is frankly creepy).

 

At the end of the day residential property with only one way in and out, it does actually cause a bit of an issue for the peoples privacy.

Plus if the person was to make it internet accessible, then criminals can monitor and plan when best to go in based on patterns. (It has happened so I read).

 

Basically, film your drive, but when the camera is being a catch all onto the footpath/road, it's a bit out of order.

Plus as mentioned, if the above thought he was ok to film the entrance/exit area, then why did he have a problem being filmed in the same area?

Edited 11 May, 201610 yr by cheezemonkhai

I kind of see the 'criminal' aspect. But that would only work if the guy was recording to do that himself (or pass to a friend) - which he could reasonably do by sitting at his window for a day  without a camera anyway. Or if he was live-streaming or uploading 12 hours of footage, per day, to youtube (which I can't say I've seen happen) for other people to process.

 

Aside from that, why would you be bothered if someone has footage of you arriving at your house? I mean, I understand people do get angry at it, and don't like it but why?

 

I'm only asking because I don't get it; I wouldn't be upset if the house at the end of our road had CCTV and had me leaving/entering the street on tape, so I don't understand why other people would?

Usually because the neighbour who does it is the unreasonable type to start with.

 

Frankly also, you are entitled to privacy and this breaches it.

But you're not entitled to privacy in a public place? That's the point of it being public?

Recording through your bedroom window with cctv is unacceptable, recording you on a public street? Or in a public park? Or in a city centre? These aren't infringements of privacy. Why would you assume standing in the street is a private place?

Guess I'll never understand really. I hate being photographed as much as the next person but I don't feel the need to prohibit the capture of images due to it. Perhaps it comes from being a photographer myself?

I agree with Mort and just because cheezemonkhai's neighbour is (in cheezemonkhai's eyes and maybe even in real life) unreasonable, it doesn't stop him paying the £35 and carrying on does it?

Usually because the neighbour who does it is the unreasonable type to start with.

 

 

OR, as the First time I had threats when some unsavories ( drug dealers over a hundred yards down the street) descended on my house to  attempt to terrify my wife, when they ASSUMED ( on street rumours) that I had a camera operating.Police advice "if you have one, take it down".

I contacted my councillor, who called his county mate ,who contacted his mate on Police committee, and someone in police HQ had bottom tended to . Police attended the so called dealer and had a nice result, which stopped the direct threats. As my local councillor said "what does someone over a hundred yards away have to fear from any sort of non sophisticated video camera, real, or as in this case a figment of local anti social hysteria".

Locally , as I've posted before, some one has a problem . You might be seen as a threat to their undeclared DHSS/HMRC income . First step is a plague of kids, and a gang of kids around your nice P&J is not nice, when suddenly you find a wing mirror hanging off. Next step is the excess weight football ,booted high in the sky- it miss the wing mirror, but if it hits the body, then loaded with mini stones, it Will cause paint damage. Of course it might not, but that is the threat- it's called physiological harassment. BUT, as I said, these parents would love to see CCTV protecting your P&J, as then they have the perfect excuse to complain to police and on the grapevine that here's someone taking photos of their kids. Get it on the street grapevine and there's a mass vigilante move to force the innocent person to move.

As said on earlier posts, I've had this. I've heard a young toddler tell me that "GRAN has told me that YOU photograph kids". I went straight to police with this and asked that PCSO investigating the allegations of my photographing kids ( which she found an ground less allegation), look at the persons making the initial complaint as the source.

But you're not entitled to privacy in a public place? That's the point of it being public?

Recording through your bedroom window with cctv is unacceptable, recording you on a public street? Or in a public park? Or in a city centre? These aren't infringements of privacy. Why would you assume standing in the street is a private place?

Guess I'll never understand really. I hate being photographed as much as the next person but I don't feel the need to prohibit the capture of images due to it. Perhaps it comes from being a photographer myself?

 

On a normal street with multiple ways out and the like I might be tempted to say covering the area infront of your house is fine. If you had a long drive then I'd probably say fine.

The issue comes when the person is basically tracking peoples movements.

 

A company operating can't openly share the video with the world, can only pass it onto police etc.

They must also make it available to anyone who legally requests a copy under the correct laws for a reasonable fee.

 

The fact is, the home stuff and car stuff is totally unclear and unclearly regulated; frankly there should be some laws around it.

The issue comes when the person is basically tracking peoples movements.

 

The fact is, the home stuff and car stuff is totally unclear and unclearly regulated; frankly there should be some laws around it.

 

And how would you regulate the neighbour who sits in his front room with a notebook, watching when you come home and leave - writing it all down? He has the exact same information, but without an image of you.

 

For me, your issue is not with the capturing of your image but one with the surveillance of your movements which is not a CCTV issue, per se. It's essentially stalking/harassment - which is already covered quite well in existing laws I believe.

 

If the police asked for copies of their CCTV footage as evidence they would be obliged to comply. As to a FOI request - why exactly would obtaining your neighbours copy of you walking into your street make you feel safer that he has that footage?

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative, so sorry if it comes across like that. But I'm still none the wiser to why people would be upset that they are on CCTV. Just that they are unhappy people are taking images of them in a public place without their consent (which is perfectly legal in almost every definition).

FOI is only for public bodies so not applicable here.

 

If someone has home CCTV and you want a copy, you might have a right to it but if the owner tell you to take a hike I would suspect the right is not realistically enforceable.

 

again it's about appropriateness.

 

If the person has a camera with a telescopic lenses pointed at their neighbours window that's illegal.but nothing to do with CCTV, it's harassment, possibly assault.

If a CCTV catches you walking down a pavement outside the property and the CCTV is not registered, it may be a technical breach of the DPA but since there is no substantive harm no one is going to investigate a complaint on it. Resources are limited so they'll investigate the big stuff and ignore the rest.

FOI is only for public bodies so not applicable here.

 

cheezemonkhai was saying that companies have to comply with FOI requests on their CCTV by law and that makes it better; I was asking how (practically) it makes it better. So it's partially relevant, even if not applicable to current law - well relevant to my trying to understand people's objections at least, perhaps not to the original question.