Laws for keeping CCTV?

Redx

Cmdr_Bond wrote: »

My apologies for littering the forum.

I didn't bring highview into this post, someone else did.

While it is related to my appeal, i thought this point merited separate discussion as it could be oh use to others.

I'll crawl back to my little hole.

I brought it up earlier, hence my last post asking you to return to it with your "draft" popla appeal

I dont have a problem in you opening this thread for the ANPR discussions that you have raised, never said that I did and nobody else has said it either

it did merit separate discussion and brought about all the answers and replies you received regarding this topic and this topic alone

but when it comes to your ongoing PCN, I am asking you to stick to that thread as regards popla and court cases , ie:- one topic , on thread

this thread should remain on the questions you have raised which were valid once you understood the nuances and defined the issues correctly

Cmdr_Bond

And I never said I would post that PCN draft here, maybe I didn't make that clear enough. But then, I wouldn't have mentioned it at all if highview hadn't been brought in to the thread in the first place.

Leaving all that to one side...

Back to the ANPR questions.

How easy is it to ascertain if the local authority has approved the use of ANPR in a private car park?

And would they supply that permission to the land owner or to the company or to either/both¿

Redx

you just check with the planning departments and this has been done many times before as I have seen it mentioned dozens of times in various threads

I believe that the PPC does it with the landowners permission in writing (if they actually do it as in many cases they havent) , submitting it as a joint application

there was a case in Bury where PE had failed I believe

and parking prankster has blogged about it on several occasions , like

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/parkingeye-discontinue-two-cases.html

and

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/parkingeye-and-planning-consent-or-lack.html

and

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/planning-backlash-against-illegal.html

and

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/morrisons-penrith-parkingeye-ride.html

and

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/parkingeye-charge-pensioners-for-being.html

I would suggest you look at all his blogs over the last few years , some subjects have been extensively covered, like anpr , planning etc

plus on other forums too , like pepipoo

http://www.pepipoo.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t104441.html

I am sure there will be similar threads on C.A.G. and legal beagles as well

Cmdr_Bond

Thank you.

Fruitcake

Cmdr_Bond wrote: »

Something related that has just popped into my head.

Private carparks such as those at retail outlets are classed private property aren't they?

I remember once being told in no uncertain terms by a jumper up security guard that i couldn't take photo in a shopping centre because it was private property, data protection, yada yada.

If they didn't have my permission to take photos of me or items registered to me, can i also use that against them?

I'm looking for as many points as possible, although I'm sure I've already got a winning case.

Anyone can take pictures in a "public place." Private property where the public are allowed may still constitute a pubic place. A shopping centre, airport, or railway station may all come under this.
As already said, the landowner would have to stipulate "no photos" as a condition of entry otherwise I believe there is an implied right that pictures can be taken.

Some places will stipulate "no flash photography" or "no video," or just plain "photography prohibited." Without these, there are no terms and conditions so no restriction on taking pics.

I believe that photographic images do not constitute data as defined by the Data Protection Act, so your man was talking borax.

Cmdr_Bond

Fruitcake wrote: »

...

I believe that photographic images do not constitute data as defined by the Data Protection Act, so your man was talking borax.

Just found this..

Images of people are covered by the Data Protection Act, and so is information about people which is derived from images – for example, vehicle registration numbers.

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/cctv/

So only partial borax

beamerguy

Cmdr_Bond wrote: »

Just found this..

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/cctv/

So only partial borax

The thing is that taking pictures of cars is one thing but the PPC goes to the DVLA for your information and they don't give a monkeys about data protection, it seems they are allowed to on the basis of collecting £millions for the scam family coffers

Redx

a good debate on CCTV and ANPR in this thread

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=108095

I think the crux of it would be if the PPC owned the site and ran the cctv security, because all the data would be "in house"

there wont be many PPC`s that actually own the site, they are usually contractors and not site owners