DIY Speed Cameras and Signs on Public Road - Legal?

JP1978

peachyprice wrote: »

Ok, so the plot thickens.

These are the signs:


There are 5 in total, each and every one of them attached to a telegraph pole. Do Openreach allow that?


These are the 'cameras': (sorry, not a great pic, it was dusky)



I had a look at the post they are on, it is actually on the inside of a gate bollard, so on private property but they point only and directly at the road, nowhere else. I though that CCTV/cameras on private property could only record images on that property, not the public road? There are no signs in the vicinity about CCTV/ANPR/image recording. I know they may be dummies, but equally they may not.

I think I'll be making a visit to the parish council office tomorrow, see what they have to say.

You say these are on a gate bollard? Is the gate automated?

Those ‘camera’s’ are not pointed down enough to be CCTV, they are likely to be sensors for the automated gate - so that an approaching driver can press a button (Infra Red) and the sensor will pick up that and open the gate in time for the car been at the gate ready to turn in.

droopsnoot

Could you knock on the door of the house where the cameras are, and ask them?

neilmcl

JP1978 wrote: »

Actually, you are wrong.

The DPA does not, never has and never will apply to private individuals. So, by putting that nugget of inaccurate information in your post to me makes your whole post inaccurate.

And no, a private individual does NOT have to register with the ICO - as long as they stick with basic guidelines on how the system is set up.

Can you not see how contradictory your post is. If the DPA, and now GDPR, has never applied to private individuals then where do you think these "guidelines" come from.

The main difference between the GDPR and DPA for private individuals is you no longer are required to register with the ICO, so you have that bit right but to say the GDPR (and DPA for that matter) does not and has never applied to private CCTV installations is simply plain wrong.

DoaM

JP1978 wrote: »

You say these are on a gate bollard? Is the gate automated?

Those ‘camera’s’ are not pointed down enough to be CCTV, they are likely to be sensors for the automated gate - so that an approaching driver can press a button (Infra Red) and the sensor will pick up that and open the gate in time for the car been at the gate ready to turn in.

Did you miss the bit in the thread where the OP intimates that it is a 2-way street? Unless the home owner (assuming it IS an automated gate) only ever approaches the property from the one direction ........

George_Michael

JP1978 wrote: »

Actually, you are wrong.

The DPA does not, never has and never will apply to private individuals. So, by putting that nugget of inaccurate information in your post to me makes your whole post inaccurate.

And no, a private individual does NOT have to register with the ICO - as long as they stick with basic guidelines on how the system is set up.

Best you tell the ICO that as they seem to think otherwise.
What you state was true up until 2014 when there was a full exemption for private household CCTV but at that time this changed for household systems that record outside of the boundary of the private property.

https://www.inforights.im/media/1378/domestic-cctv-_-uk-parliament-briefing-paper-2016.pdf

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) enforces the 1998 Act. The ICO website contains updated advice on the domestic use of CCTV, including the following:
What if my camera captures footage of individuals beyond the boundaries of my property?
You must consider whether it is necessary for your camera to operate beyond the boundary of your property.
If your camera covers, even partially, any areas beyond the boundaries of your property, such as neighbouring gardens or the street, then it will no longer be exempt from the Data Protection Act (DPA) under the domestic purposes exemption. This does not mean that you are breaching the DPA but it does mean that you are subject to it.

https://ico.org.uk/media/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its judgment in the case of Ryneš on 11 December 2014. In this judgment, the CJEU concluded that where a fixed surveillance camera faces outwards from an individual’s private domestic property and it captures images of individuals beyond the boundaries of their property, particularly where it monitors a public space, the recording cannot be considered as being for a purely personal or household purpose.
This means that cameras attached to a private individual’s home may, in certain circumstances, no longer be exempt from the requirements of the DPA under section 36. Those circumstances are likely to include where the camera monitors any area beyond the interior and exterior limits of that individual’s home. This would include any camera to the extent that it covered, even partially, a public space such as the pavement or street. It would also cover cameras which captured areas such as neighbours’ gardens.

JP1978

DoaM wrote: »

Did you miss the bit in the thread where the OP intimates that it is a 2-way street? Unless the home owner (assuming it IS an automated gate) only ever approaches the property from the one direction ........

Did you miss the bit in the picture that shows two of these ‘camera’s’ one pointing each way - opposite each other - possibly like one pointing one way and the other the opposite way? .......

JP1978

George_Michael wrote: »

Best you tell the ICO that as they seem to think otherwise.
What you state was true up until 2014 when there was a full exemption for private household CCTV but at that time this changed for household systems that record outside of the boundary of the private property.

https://www.inforights.im/media/1378/domestic-cctv-_-uk-parliament-briefing-paper-2016.pdf

https://ico.org.uk/media/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf

Not as it matters either way - to me, they look like IR detectors for a gate opener.

George_Michael

JP1978 wrote: »

Not as it matters either way - to me, they look like IR detectors for a gate opener.

So it doesn't matter either way yet you were quick enough to jump in and state that I was wrong.

I take it that's as near to an admission that you were in fact the one who was wrong when you stated that :
"The DPA does not, never has and never will apply to private individuals." as we're going to get.

Ergates

JP1978 wrote: »

Not as it matters either way - to me, they look like IR detectors for a gate opener.

They look excessively large for IR sensors - most are about the size of a key fob. And why would they be shaped like a camera?

Cornucopia

Not speed cameras, though.