Neighbour and our dog :(

Tropez

cgk1 wrote: »

That applies to businesses and business premises not individuals and homes.

That's not correct. Individual homes are entitled to film their own properties without concern for the DPA due to the exemption for domestic use under Section 36. Once you begin to capture images of other people's property then there is a legal grey area over how far the exemption under Section 36 goes. Even the ICO refuses to speak in definite terms when questioned on the subject, using vague responses such as "unlikely". If you are filming somebody elses property then it can be the case that Section 36 exemption for domestic use does not apply if you are unable to justify the filming.

I work in private security and have not insignificant experience with CCTV.

Furthermore, to provide a source...

From the Experts - Chris Brogan

Neighbours From Hell in Britain has consulted experts within the CCTV field and this is the information they have for you.

Chris Brogan, MA, of Security International Ltd describes CCTV and the Data Protection Act:

"I am often told (and indeed read it in numerous publications) that if security is for domestic purposes then the Data Protection Act does not apply. Can I dismiss that myth immediately. The Data Protection Act most certainly applies to any processing of personal data, which would include CCTV images and details of persons accessing premises."

"However, the Act does afford certain exemptions with some of the processing of personal data that takes place.

Section 36 of the Data Protection Act states such an exemption.

However (there is always an "however"), consider the following.

Mr. Smith at 11 Acacia Avenue has a CCTV system installed which monitors persons accessing his premises. It picks up any visitor as soon as they enter the gate and only captures their images whilst they are on his property.

(a) Mr. Smith is entitled to do this.

(b) He does not need to provide a notice saying that the person is entering a CCTV controlled area.

(c) He is not required to provide a copy of the footage he has captured to the Data Subject if they make a request. However, if that CCTV camera picks up images outside Mr. Smith's premises, such as the entrance to his neighbour's premises or persons walking down Acacia Avenue, then he has to consider the implications of the Data Protection Act.

http://www.nfh.org.uk/resources/Articles/cctv/part_2.php

The actual "Domestic Use" exemption under Section 36 of the Data Protection Act refers to "Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual’s personal, family or household affairs (including recreational purposes) are exempt from the data protection principles.".

You would have enormous difficulty proving that you are capturing images in line with the Data Protection Act if you are going out of your way to capture other people's property. Incidental capture is one thing and can, within reason, be argued as satisfying Section 36 but capturing images of other people's property without regard is on much shakier ground hence you must be able to justify the capture of that image in order to claim exemption under Section 36. If you cannot justify it, then you are subject to the full Data Protection Act - whether you are a business, or an individual.

babysonia

gettingready wrote: »

You keep on saying breeder - your dog is a mix of 2 breeds so thsi is obviously not a result of responsible breeding. Back street breeding more likely.

Why did the previous owner part with this dog? Was it behavioural reasons?

6 months old - he is a baby, you need to really try a behaviourist nor a "trainer" - if you can afford it of course.

All the best.

Where is a photo of the puppy [please?

Yes i do feel it was backstreet breeding the previous owners could not build him a kennel and would leave him sleeping outside in the cold so i took him.
http://s1063.photobucket.com/albums/t513/babysony786/

I uploaded some pictures of him here. Do tell me if you can see them

babysonia

Tropez wrote: »

That's not correct. Individual homes are entitled to film their own properties without concern for the DPA. When your filming begins to capture images from properties that do not belong to you, then the DPA kicks in.

I work in private security and have not insignificant experience with CCTV.

Furthermore, to provide a source...



http://www.nfh.org.uk/resources/Articles/cctv/part_2.php

The actual "Domestic Use" exemption under Section 36 of the Data Protection Act refers to "Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual’s personal, family or household affairs (including recreational purposes) are exempt from the data protection principles.".

You would have enormous difficulty proving that you are capturing images in line with the Data Protection Act if you are going out of your way to capture other people's property. Incidental capture is one thing and can, within reason, be argued as satisfying Section 36 but capturing images of other people's property without regard is on much shakier ground.

Thank you for that link. This is slightly freaking me out now as he put his video camera directly in line with our garden and the dog kennel. I know for a fact that me and other household members were fimled whilst we went out to put the clothes on the clothing line and so forth.

What do you think i could do?

gettingready

He looks lovely

Hope you do not mind?

Tropez

babysonia wrote: »

Thank you for that link. This is slightly freaking me out now as he put his video camera directly in line with our garden and the dog kennel. I know for a fact that me and other household members were fimled whilst we went out to put the clothes on the clothing line and so forth.

What do you think i could do?

Truthfully, it's difficult to say without seeing the setup. Even if the camera is aimed directly at you/your property, if challenged and it films enough of his property he could argue he was filming because he was concerned his fence/plants were being damaged or some other crap.

Your best bet is to contact the ICO (ico.gov.uk) and detail the problem you have, your belief that he is purposely targetting you and your family for filming, and therefore does not satisfy the requirement that he is filming for personal, family or household reasons and see what they say.

You could also lodge a complaint with the police over harrassment, arguing that he has been threatening you, has been goading your dog into attacking him and has set up a camera without your permission to film you and your family. The police, most likely, wouldn't caution him over such a problem but with any luck they'll at least pay him a visit, tell him to pack it in, and it's something else on his file against him for getting him evicted in the future.

babysonia

gettingready wrote: »

He looks lovely

Hope you do not mind?

Oh thank you, i couldnt seem to get them on.
These were taken soon as we got him, he has become bigger and fatter since then haha

faerie~spangles

Why is there a padlock on the chain around the dog's neck?

babysonia

Tropez wrote: »

Truthfully, it's difficult to say without seeing the setup. Even if the camera is aimed directly at you/your property, if challenged and it films enough of his property he could argue he was filming because he was concerned his fence/plants were being damaged or some other crap.

Your best bet is to contact the ICO (ico.gov.uk) and detail the problem you have, your belief that he is purposely targetting you and your family for filming, and therefore does not satisfy the requirement that he is filming for personal, family or household reasons and see what they say.

You could also lodge a complaint with the police over harrassment, arguing that he has been threatening you, has been goading your dog into attacking him and has set up a camera without your permission to film you and your family. The police, most likely, wouldn't caution him over such a problem but with any luck they'll at least pay him a visit, tell him to pack it in, and it's something else on his file against him for getting him evicted in the future.

Thanks for that, i will be calling non emergancy line for the police tommorow if he still has it up. It does not record his property at all- it is angled directly towards our property so he cannot really use anything as a excuse.

babysonia

faerie~spangles wrote: »

Why is there a padlock on the chain around the dog's neck?

Like i mentioned before this picture was taken 'as soon' as we got him from the previous owner- it has since been removed now he has a dog collar and a tag on it.

Person_one

OP, your dog is lovely, but I have to say he could be at risk of being seized as a pitbull type.

There's no surefire way to defend against this, but what might help is not conforming to any of the stereotypes about pitbull types. So don't train him as a 'guard dog', don't encourage any aggression at all and don't keep him outside. He's 6 months old, turn him into a gentle loving pampered family member.

All dogs are 'guard dogs' to some extent. They will all let you know if someone is coming into your house. The dog doesn't need to be trained to be aggressive to be an effective deterrent, just the fact that there is a big dog in the house will make most burglars move on to a house where there isn't.

Get him in, top priority. Fresh chicken is a great bribe, make inside infinitely more exciting and tempting than outside.