Scottish court issues damages to couple over distress caused by neighbour's use of CC

stator

I'm not sure this case has many remifications for the rest of us.
The guilty party were a business, not a Joe Bloggs.
The guilty party were recording sound as to pick up the conversations of people in their own back garden. Not sure many people have CCTV with sound in their domestic properties.
The location of the cameras was clearly an issue from the text of the judgement.

shaun_from_Africa

jhe wrote: »

The link doesnt work

This is what TCP meant to post:
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01803/SN01803.pdf.

TheCyclingProgrammer

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

This is what TCP meant to post:
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01803/SN01803.pdf.

Thanks, Google hi-jacking links is a PITA.

jhe

I have CCTV cameras around my property.
none of them overlook neighbours property, but I do have one pointed to my car on the roadside outside, only the car and not beyond it for security purposes only.
I have stickers in windows /doors warning of cctv recording.
every installer that came to give quotes all told me that was legal.
like most people I am not interested in my neighbours coming and going only my own property security.
My car has been damaged a few times in the past I now can keep a watch of it.

TheCyclingProgrammer

Its up to you, but the precedent set by the EU case and ICO guidance linked to above means that if you have a camera pointing to outside your property then the domestic exemption no longer applies.

That doesn't make your installation "illegal", it just means you have some extra responsibilities under the DPA. Its your choice whether you want to adhere to that - the risk of enforcement is probably very low.

It sounds like you're using your CCTV responsibly however you are supposed to register as a data controller. This costs £35/year.

https://ico.org.uk/registration/cctv

Its up to you, this isn't legal advice. You're welcome to believe brightontraveller instead.

jhe

TheCyclingProgrammer wrote: »

Its up to you, but the precedent set by the EU case and ICO guidance linked to above means that if you have a camera pointing to outside your property then the domestic exemption no longer applies.

That doesn't make your installation "illegal", it just means you have some extra responsibilities under the DPA. Its your choice whether you want to adhere to that - the risk of enforcement is probably very low.

It sounds like you're using your CCTV responsibly however you are supposed to register as a data controller. This costs £35/year.

https://ico.org.uk/registration/cctv

Its up to you, this isn't legal advice. You're welcome to believe brightontraveller instead.

thanks I have read the link
no point forking out if its not illegal.
the people who gave me quotes and advice are large registered installers, not someone who has just set up business and operating without knowledge, they did say it is a grey area but insisted I was fine to protect my own property even on the roadside.
anyway thanks to all for the info, its an interesting thread

brightontraveller

TheCyclingProgrammer wrote: »

Its up to you, but the precedent set by the EU case and ICO guidance linked to above means that if you have a camera pointing to outside your property then the domestic exemption no longer applies.

that should be might which I'm sure your aware makes all the difference

TheCyclingProgrammer wrote: »

That doesn't make your installation "illegal", it just means you have some extra responsibilities under the DPA. Its your choice whether you want to adhere to that - the risk of enforcement is probably very low.

It sounds like you're using your CCTV responsibly however you are supposed to register as a data controller. This costs £35/year.

https://ico.org.uk/registration/cctv

Its up to you, this isn't legal advice. You're welcome to believe brightontraveller instead.

The technology changed so much the laws simply haven’t kept pace feel free to believe “may be “ and “guidance” are laws ? your confusion isnt uncommon even what would pass as a cctv system legally speaking is as clear as mud.


You will continue to believe what you do regardless so pointless
If the original post had been uk domestic cctv etc then this would be a different conversation but its Scottish and a Business Also i will copy and paste from sites not because i need to but because i'm lazy and cant be arsed to type it out myself especially when you know the other parties going to bite like they were a fish with legs

savemoney

I have CCTV two IP cameras on front of house to monitor car really as I have had 3 hits on my car since moving here 10 years ago. Two hit n runs and one neighbour who reversed into car, I live on a very quite street. I blank any neighbors property as I can with this system and also have a large CCTV notice on house. No one has asked to see my system though I just done it to record car not spy on others

The marks on screen are its snowing now

TheCyclingProgrammer

brightontraveller wrote: »

You will continue to believe what you do regardless so pointless

Yes, I will continue to recommend people read and follow the official ICO guidance, not listen to an armchair expert who thinks he knows it all.

TheCyclingProgrammer

jhe wrote: »

thanks I have read the link
no point forking out if its not illegal.

Well you've read the same thing as me. To me it seems clear you should register as a data controller using the link provided, but your call.