CCTV domestic use

Comms69

ReadingTim wrote: »

Think about the old adage about never working with children and animals....

Ah I see, yes fair enough!

Smodlet

Comms69 wrote: »

Ah I see, yes fair enough!

Wakey, bloody wakey!

Comms69

Smodlet wrote: »

Wakey, bloody wakey!

To be fair going from CCTV, to filming in public, to that - it was a bit of a leap!

FreeBear

Comms69 wrote: »

There are also restrictions on who & what you can film outside a Court of Law. - Totally incorrect.

Sorry but you're just wrong, on pretty much every example

It is contempt of court, a criminal offence, to take a photograph in any court of law of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal, or to publish such a photograph. This includes photographs taken in a court building or the precincts of the court.

Criminal Justice Act 1925 (c.86) s.41https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44307037

The Terrorism Act of 2000 s58 also places restrictions on photography & filming in designated areas - A rather contentious piece of knee jerk legislation that the London Metropolitan Police have tried to use to restrict photographs being taken.

Comms69

FreeBear wrote: »

Criminal Justice Act 1925 (c.86) s.41https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44307037

The Terrorism Act of 2000 s58 also places restrictions on photography & filming in designated areas - A rather contentious piece of knee jerk legislation that the London Metropolitan Police have tried to use to restrict photographs being taken.

First: the precincts of the court. That doesn't mean OUTSIDE the court. Literally look at any high profile criminal case and see the photos, taken outside the court! (the link from the BBC includes a picture of him OUTSIDE A COURT)


Secondly: Tommy Robinson case was because SPECIAL restrictions had been placed and he was live streaming the encounter. "Lawyers for the Attorney General said reporting restrictions had been put in place. These postponed the publication of any details of the case until the end of a series of linked trials, involving 29 defendants. This was to stop the juries in those cases being influenced." (that's from your link.


Thirdly: No s.58 places no restriction on any area. It makes it an offence to gather information in very limited circumstances. "he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism"


Not sure how any of that helps your point.

Retired_Mortgage_Adviser

That's absolutely fine, it's your home. The key measurement is whether the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy (in your house that would be rooms like a toilet, bathroom ,etc). As long as you're not doing that, it's fine.

Quillsnpens wrote: »

I don't think this will be captured within GDPR regulations as will only capture domestic use and i will warn the letting agents about the cameras but just wanted to check with the knowledgeable folk here if there are any other regulations / laws i should be aware of?

Quillsnpens

Thanks everyone, and the wider discussion was quite interesting.

I'll be setting them up this weekend.