Filming kids in park

pogofish

biscit wrote: »

There may be regs relating to permanent CCTV installations, but I don't see why it should be different.

CCTV law and guidelines here -

http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/topic_guides/cctv.aspx

but they only apply to biz and organisations. Not to private individuals.

lucylucky

unholyangel wrote: »

Now i'm a little confused here.

Is the camera upstairs or downstairs? From what you originally said i would've said upstairs, but from what you have said since, i would say downstairs.

I mean even if its 3 metres away from his house, thats about 10ft. Thats not very far at all. If the camera is upstairs then due to the angle, you'd maybe find its trained on the border of their property. If its downstairs then i imagine its practically impossible NOT to film the park in the background if they are filming their own property.

Tbh if it were me personally, if i had to set a camera up to (for example) watch my car out the front i wouldnt even take into consideration about possibly filming kids. It wouldnt even occur to me. Now, if someone see's it and jumps to conclusions and accuses me unjustly and possibly leads to me having to move towns, leave my job etc, is that then my fault for having innocent intentions/thoughts or theirs for not having the common sense to consider that i may have an innocent reason or the tact to set their mind at ease without false accusations?

Child abuse is a very serious allegation. One that normally sane people act like loonies over. While a childs life may be destroyed by sexual abuse, an adults can also be destroyed by people with seemingly good intentions who dont think about the consequences of their actions.

The problem is you are taking the OP far too seriously.

londonpride77

Assuming he IS filming the children delibrately, and assuming there is an unpleaseant reason for it, you still have to ask yourself WHY would he (or she) do that?

He can just sit back and watch the live show every day he has no need to film it?

suited-aces

Careful Londonpride, you'll get burned or stoned for using logic around here

xangeleyes

pogofish wrote: »

Nope - This "rule" only exists in that officer's incompetent head. There is nothing to stop you setting up or using a camera at all.

Once again, legal summary here:
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/

Thank you :T I'll look more into this then as this certain bad neighbour has been threatening and following my other neighbour around!
Thanks

EDIT: Is this for photos or CCTV?

CWCDiver

zoelouise88 wrote: »

tbh hes not very approachable i would rather let the police/council speak to him.

Why on earth would the police or the council wish to speak to him?

When you are out and about in public you can have no expectation to privacy, people can look at you, people can film or photograph you and there is nothing you can do about it.

You have been offered numerous sensible suggestions on this thread such as speaking directly to the chap, or not using that park again yet you still seem to continue your moronic vendetta.

Just because someone has a camera does not automatically mean they have some kind of ill intent, also while your children might be quite important to you, most other people couldn't give two figs about them.

You are being massively paranoid.

CWCDiver

emweaver wrote: »

Do you record and photograph children? Would you? Im sure if you did you would find a fair few parents complaining.

Its attitudes like this that encourages these predators . I mean a predator isnt going to admit is he hes going to use the excuse of being an amateur to

No it is moronic attitudes like yours that cause more danger, people like you are happy to see restrictions imposed on our personal liberties just to "protect" your children.

Not that it actually protects children mind.

danothy

CWCDiver wrote: »

Why on earth would the police or the council wish to speak to him?

When you are out and about in public you can have no expectation to privacy, people can look at you, people can film or photograph you and there is nothing you can do about it.

You have been offered numerous sensible suggestions on this thread such as speaking directly to the chap, or not using that park again yet you still seem to continue your moronic vendetta.

Just because someone has a camera does not automatically mean they have some kind of ill intent, also while your children might be quite important to you, most other people couldn't give two figs about them.

You are being massively paranoid.

I was under the impression that you can have an expectation of privacy to some extent when in public in the sense that you're life and conduct is fundamentally your own business (e.g. you have the right to be left alone, even in public, i.e. not be harassed).

When it comes to photos I believe you have the right to not be targeted specifically for a photograph by that same harassment token, and in general (if caught in shot incidentally) you have the right to control the use of your image should you have any specific objections or reasons for doing so (although you don't have any copyright or ownership of the image as such). I would expect this extends to moving images too.

When it comes to CCTV for "crime detection and prevention" purposes this all sort of goes out of the window as they are generally explicitly notified and anyone can make an informed decision to (or not to) occupy the area they are used in.

I have also seen it argued that the expectation of privacy when in a public place is higher for someone with their kids that it would be for a lone adult for example, although this is a very subjective matter.

I would say that targeting someone specifically with a camera (still or film) is unacceptable without permission, but general public shooting isn't.

If, in case described in this thread, it is intended as crime prevention then it's general shooting but will become specific if it catches someone. However, the issue of privacy doesn't really apply to a criminal in the act of committing a crime as far as I am aware (trails are public for example).

If however the results from filming (while not illegal in itself) are to be used for criminal purposes (i.e. to exploit children somehow) then the issue is not really one of privacy, but public protection.

However this is an extremely serious accusation to make, and an individual's life can be irreparably damaged by just having the accusation made. Accusations like this should only be made with substantive evidence, not just suspicion and assumption.

In this case the OP appears to be making or implying the accusation heavily based on the fact that filming is taking place. This is unacceptable in my view as there is a gross assumption being made regarding what specifically is being captured (you can't know what it's focused on without seeing the footage), incorrect understanding of the legality of that image capture (in my view), and the purpose of the image capture.

While anything could be going on behind any closed door, you can't go shouting about it happening without the facts to back it up.

MackemPunk

danothy wrote: »

When it comes to photos I believe you have the right to not be targeted specifically for a photograph by that same harassment token, and in general (if caught in shot incidentally) you have the right to control the use of your image should you have any specific objections or reasons for doing so (although you don't have any copyright or ownership of the image as such). I would expect this extends to moving images too.

Well if that was true paparazzi wouldn't exist as their job revolves around targeting individuals in public, and they can do what the hell they want with the photos.

Lirin

You can put up CCTV on private land, and you do not need to inform anyone that you are doing so, unless it's an area where public may be expected- eg, a retail park. If the camera picks up public areas, you are advised to put up a notice stating you have CCTV, but it isn't a legal requirement.
You could even have a camera pointing into your neighbours garden- though again, advised not, as this could call up privacy invasion.
Film anywhere or shoot anywhere you like on public/private land, though if the private land isn't your own, seek permission.
Photograph anyone and anything, but it is the end product of the shots and their intended use which could be called into question- for example, the terrorism act. If you intend to use the image for say an advert- a model release would be required. For general paper/mag use as a wide crowd shot, nothing is needed. I don't need every guest at a wedding to sign a release form for me, as there's a reasonable expectation that photographs will be taken.

Police can if necessary confiscate any of your film, but can't delete it unless via court...

Private and public laws for photography are completely different, the Police can often get confused. After all, they've more to do than study photography law-related arguments...

This has went on too long, tbh- it's quite simple. OP, stop ranting and getting dramatic. Go to local police, explain your concerns- they will maybe check him out and pay a quick visit. They're not obliged to tell you anything they do, so if you dont hear back from them, do not take matter into your own hands.
Do not as others have suggested, post up a pic of his house so people can judge- not illegal, except could be taken as harrassment here. You'll land yourself in a ball of fire doing that.
He could be completely innocent, and he may not be. You do not know, so you need to be very careful what you do say. If he's not innocent, reporting it to authorities is all you can do. If he is innocent, you can cause a lot of harm. You have done the right thing by reporting it, now you need to calm down.