£100,000 FINE FOR Doorbells and CCTV
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 03. 2024
- UK GDPR applies to domestic CCTV capturing footage beyond your property, like a neighbor's garden. This means following data protection rules or facing action from the ICO or even lawsuits from those impacted.
Free £50 when you switch energy suppliers:
share.octopus.energy/happy-hu...
Exclusive content: www.blackbeltbarrister.com
Become a Channel member: / @blackbeltbarrister
Support the channel: buy.stripe.com/14kdUS6gb4f26e...
or one-off: buy.stripe.com/bIYdUSfQLcLy7i...
TO CONTACT ME: Follow & Message on Instagram:
/ blackbeltbarrister
For FORMAL ADVICE Requests ONLY:
clerks@ShenSmith.com (non formal requests will be deleted)
💌 Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @blackbeltbarrister
MY CAMERA GEAR
🎥 Big Camera amzn.to/3tW8nPU (amazon link)
🎥 Small Camera amzn.to/2RB7ez9 (amazon link)
🎙 RODE VIDEOMic Pro+ amzn.to/2QCJURi (amazon link)
Gobe ND Filter amzn.to/2R3eEuA (amazon link)
Neewer Ring Light amzn.to/3aOkLtT (amazon link)
Switch Pod amzn.to/3sZb8yA (amazon link)
JOBY Tripod amzn.to/3dXJYDT (amazon link)
External Media Drive amzn.to/3uxNDOQ (amazon link)
BE PART OF OUR LAW COMMUNITY HERE:
/ blackbeltbarrister
/ blackbeltbarrister
/ blackbeltbarrister
/ blackbeltbarrister
🎓 Brilliant contract law book:
amzn.to/2PHC2O1 (Amazon link)
🎓 Excellent book with an overview of criminal law:
amzn.to/3gTPEAV (Amazon link)
🎓 Learn more about trespass and tort law:
amzn.to/32N6TLS
(Affiliate link)
LAW FAQS
• Common Law
CONSUMER LAW PLAYLIST:
• Consumer Law
TREE LAW PLAYLIST:
• Tree Law Miniseries
ROAD TRAFFIC LAW PLAYLIST:
• Road Traffic Law
FAMILY LAW PLAYLIST:
• Family Law
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER:
I'm a Barrister of England and Wales.
Videos for educational guidance only, Always seek advice before taking action. Videos on my channel are not legal advice and should not be taken as such. I accept no liability for any reliance placed upon the content of these videos or references, therein.
#blackbeltbarrister #lawvlogs
Description contains affiliate links; I will occasionally earn commissions from qualifying purchases or leads generated.
It doesn't help and confuse things that if a crime happens in the street the police will often ask if anyone has CCTV to help their inquiry!
I think the whole legal system is entirely happy with moving forward with a mind to create as much conflict as possible. It's business to them. Look at the new road hierarchy/pedestrian/junction rules.
Wouldn't capturing that sort of thing - a car or a person passing by, for example - be within what's necessary?
Who's the fool that came up with this shit
Exactly!
Help the police in this way and they will prosecute you later.
There should be a £100,000 Fine for reading The Express.
Or your comment. Wait...
People don't read it, they look at the pictures.
...and The Daily Wail ^
😋
Doesn't reading the Excess or the Snail come under the heading 'Cruel &/or unusual punishment' ?
My son's one day old car was rammed by a large new SUV (only 20 registered on UK's roads). The police had CCTV of the incident and HD CCTV of him checking out of the Hotel/Leisure complex complete with his credit card details. The police sent a letter 4 weeks later stating they had closed the incident and no further action would be taken. My son had to pay out for his excess and drive for the whole year without gaining any no claims bonus, that is when I noticed two tier policing in action.
what did the letter say though? That they couldn't identify the person?
Someone called in a favour or more likely bought one.
Obviously, someone down the lodge had a word and that was that
Never! You mean the police are not fit for purpose. The police are useless, and even worse than that, a lazy bunch of Phillistines
Your son's insurer should have demanded the offender's identity from the police.
The law and rights of individuals are ignored by the courts and police when it suits them to do so.
This is not likely to happen just as you're not likely to be jailed for two years for putting a sticker on a lamp post.
@@secondchance6603 sadly these things happen every day, it only seems to be noticed when it happens to you. Ignorance of the law is NO excuse especially if it’s been weaponised instead of the pursuit of truth and justice.
Man removes Covid poster, gets arrested by police and changed
Woman rips down vax protest poster, man objects and tries to remove poster from further damage and gets arrested by police for touchless assault for not allowing woman to rip it
But the police are not biased at all 🤡🇬🇧
Freemasons
I have an anti-social neighbour (check my list!!) Who talks so loud that I can record her nasty obscene conversations in my livingroom when my patio doors are open.
Camera in my garden, is tripped by her loud voice and music.
Surely if you carry on like that, you do not have an expectation of privacy.
It's funny that the police are happy to ask for doorbell footage to assist the investigation of a crime.
Not really.
It would be the ICO which prosecutes for flagrant breach of data protection, not the police.
I would imagine that most police are unaware of the obligations placed on CCTV users as it is not police which investigates a breach
Catch-22 system
@@geordiewishart1683 I think you missed the point of the comment.
When the police make a public appeal for CCTV footage of incidents which happened outside your property, or even go door-to-door having identified a camera which they believe covers the area of interest, were it me my getout response to them would be "No, there would be no useful footage for you since the camera has a block filter in place to exclude the highway and any area beyond my boundary."
IDGAF if there's a block filter in place or not, I am under no legal obligation to help the police by supplying CCTV footage whether it is likely to be useful to them or not.
Yes.... they are always doing that in our street
@BlokeOnAMotorbike I'm surprised at your delight in refusing to help victim of crime.
The Daily Express telling lies? That's what they do daily.
Don't all MSM news papers😊
They once ran the headline "Electricity will be free by 1990" I think it may have been The Sunday Express, but you get the point.....
I thought it was the Daily Mail which did that. To me the Express is just mindless drivel, kind of like the Daily Star but without the aliens.
Cool it with the antisemetim
@@loc4725Or tits.
I installed cctv after several threats against my life and my families life from my older neighbours who happen to be brothers. At first I recorded them on my mobile phone and sent this to the council on advice of the police. Only to be told I had antagonised and provoked them by filming them even though I say nothing to them. The council didn't want to know. So I installed cctv and a sign saying it is up and recording 24/7. Thankfully I had evidence of me being assaulted twice on my own property thanks to my cameras and this has lead to them being arrested and a restraining order put in place. Also footage of one of the brothers breaking his restraining order. I have been cross examined in court whilst testifying and my footage played to the court and powers that be. So it has been literally a life saver having it put up. But in court the argument against me was it is a breach of privacy against them. If it wasn't for how they had behaved it would never of been put up in the first place. Just thought I'd share my story. Keep up the great content you supply for us all. 👍🏻
So your a snitch then not something to be proud of pal
No he is protecting himself against thugs@@Piffaliff
The more people share experiences like this, the more it helps ordinary people protect themselves from all possible directions because we would expect to be helped not penalized further by the police action.
@@Piffaliff Joined Jun 17, 2023 Ahh another edgelord wannabe. Grow up maybe?
Good to hear it helped.
My Mum's nextdoor neighbour who is a close family friend has set up his CCTV to cover her gate and drive, he asked first and we were happy for him to do so as it protects my Mum.
I think this is a sensible approach if you have a camera, speak to your neighbour and explain you'd like it to help protect them too.
"This is highly unlikely to ever happen." That's the single worst excuse you can use for giving people in power the tools to abuse you. If there is the possibility for this to happen, then it's important to stop it.
Who exactly is being abused ? The laws mentioned are there to protect people's privacy, and the possibility of them going after a private citizen using a ring camera while low are still the same laws that they need to keep everyone else under check at the same time.
Adding exceptions just to put people who are breaking the laws at ease could end up with loopholes protecting the people / companies that the laws are there to and try and stop, as well as reduce the amount of actions that can be taken against general invasion of privacy.
A few examples of these abuses of cctvs by private individuals are given in this video, do you think having tools to aid in prosecution and at the very least having their cameras removed in cases like those are a bad thing ?
Got a friend with a nasty neighbour who openly points CCTV over the fence and into his garden and windows as harassment. Police and council, caled and do nothing. But what do you expect from officials these days.
Laser......
The Police actually asked me if I had C.C.T.V in connection with a burglary acroos the road. These laws made to favour criminality, if I had C.C.T.V given the police record of biting the hand that feeds them, I would not have told them anyway.
No they are favoring the confiscation of your private propety....
Police never asked you for the footage straight away - they need to establish is it operational, does it capture the area in their interst etc. I they do this, then can ask you for checking the footage. If they do it, you can ask them for official request with all details what, when and where (approx. time etc). When you would receive document like this, you have a time to check, verify and eventually release footage to the police. First question is when :) ? I had situation when police came to me and asked for the footage from the situation which happened 3 months earlier :) Nobody is obligated to keep records so long - typically 30days however private users can keep it 2 weeks/1week and then the footage is overwritten. If you have set 2 weeks keeping records and the police would sya it happened 3 weeks earlier there is still a chance the record exists. Rejecting police request about footage brings questions - why you do not want to check/share the footage (if exists)with he police and if its serious crime they will (probably) confiscate HDD (or whole recorder) for further examination :) . I have never had an issue with the police when they came - in one case the footage helped to find the young man who attacked and robbed on the street 74yo man who broke his hip during this crime. They will not confiscate anything unless you give them reason :) .
@@delta110a What are you reading? they did not ask me for footage, only if i had C.C.T.V. I did not but if i had I would not have told them anyway,
@@williamoates1754 Small mistake ??? However if they would see cams they would ask for possibility to check footage unless you would have hidden cams then you do not need to inform them. I do not want to assume what would happen if the police discovered you had a cam which could help them : -- obstructing the investigation ? 🤣
@@delta110aDoesn't really matter whether your CCTV cameras are visible or not: If you don't want to give the police (or anyone else) any footage, you can always say that they are "placebo" cameras; installed for the purpose of being clearly visible and therefore act as a deterrent, nothing more. Such products do exist and can be bought and installed for precisely that reason - not all of them are convincing enough, but there are some which look reasonably close to the real thing.
So even if the police didn't believe you for whatever reason, they would then have to prove that you were lying when you told them the cameras were of a placebo variety. The only way they could do that would be to gain access to your home and search for whatever devices you were using to record the footage from the cameras. But I would find it very hard to believe that this would ever be sufficient grounds for them to be granted a search warrant, so there's not much chance of them being able to gain access to and search your home in that situation, unless you gave them explicit permission or invited them in yourself.
We have way too many laws and way too many public servants with nothing better to do but come up with new ones.
@rath6599
> We have way too many laws and way too many public servants
> with nothing better to do but come up with new ones.
We also have way to many ignorant f~~~wits with nothing better to do but come up with fatuous posts on social media about new laws.
@@anonnona8099 Hit a nerve? Lol. Hope you have a great day man.
@@rath6599
> @anonnona8099 Hit a nerve? Lol. Hope you have a great day man.
Sad that you laugh about parading your ignorance.
@@anonnona8099 I did hit a nerve! Apologies. Here's the thing, comments on youtube, you can ignore. Stupid laws, you can't. That's the problem that I have. I'm sorry I offended you, you're clearly a public servant. Please don't legislate against me.
@@rath6599
> @anonnona8099 I did hit a nerve!
Don't flatter yourself.
> Here's the thing, comments on youtube, you can ignore. Stupid laws, you can't.
> That's the problem that I have.
No - the problem you have is that you aren't very bright.
My neighbour got extremely defensive when I requested he position his cameras so as not to capture me on my property or be alerted to me coming and going, as if I was making a ridiculous request. I am still disturbed by the fact he needs two cameras pointing at his back door, one of which is very close to my garden boundary and the area in which I entertain. I cannot guarantee conversations are not recorded so have to warn anyone spending any time in my garden about possible recording. It's very uncomfortable. He has now put signs up on the front of his house, but they cannot be read from public areas. How does adding signage, as per ICO, make any difference to those being captured in public places if they cannot be read the signs without venturing on to the property?
If the only legitimate use for home cctv is your own security, then handing it over to the police to help with their enquiries does not fall into that category. How long before they come after you for trying to do the right thing?
That’s the problem
We have a camera that records the front of our driveway. Our neighbor across the street was concerned that I was recording her coming and going. When I showed her what the footage actually looked like, how small she looked, how indistinct everything in their front yard was, she wasn’t worried anymore. Then she asked me to try to record the person who was letting their dog defecate on her lawn! 😂
it could still be used by the cloud to determine when she is leaving and coming back, how small or blurry she looks is irrelevant, enough information can be inferred from it. breaking privacy laws.
If the video got into the wrong paws, dog could use it to time its defecations for maximum annoyance!
@@ianstobie the camera could be defecated on therefore obscuring any images.
She can get her own!
@@ChrisWijtmans what privacy laws? HRA only covers against Governments not individuals
I'm going to repeat what someone else said in the chat. How do councils get away with street cameras, or shop camaras get away with it? I dont wish to be filmed 24/7 as that infringes on my right to live a quiet life, surely?
shops have signs up saying "cctv on these premises" and its private land. Your house however is not. Its why you need planning permission to do anything. And why, if you refuse to sell when (for example) the council want to build flats or a supermarket, they will get the police to remove you, while running the house prices down to a fraction of what they originally offered you.
They’ll have signs up. By you entering their property you are agreeing to the filming.
Sorry to say but on the street as the public area , you can not expect the privacy :) . In a shop, as the private land, cameras are installed for the security reason (they follow rules and GDPR). If the shop owner would share video (i.ex. on YT - let's say with the title "Please help me find this shoplifter") from the shop he would be prosecuted for breaking the law . Shop owner can record everything (on his land) but can't share to everyone - only to the authorised organisations on request. My ICO cert has note to whom I can share footage if required (some part of the cert) : "...Where necessary or required we share information with:
police forces, security organisations, central and local government, other business crime reduction partnerships, shopwatches ..."
It was aproved by ICO without any questions. If you follow the rules, then you will not have any problems, even with GDPR and CCTV operations. What I remember , for private/individuals, the CCTV guidance contains 3-4 pages only where you can find exact information what was told above in the BBB video .
@@AzguardMikethat's about as wrong as you can be. I'm hazarding a guess that you are not a lawyer.
I have a notic on my drive gates telling passers-by that i have cctv cameras recording 24hours a day and the reason for them and a telephone number to contact should they like to view the content of the recording.Never been asked by any body to view it.
Hampshire police told me I cannot put cctv up on my property because I MIGHT capture other properties in the background. I IGNORED the police & later I caught a criminal on tape! Yet no problem with police when they viewed the footage!
Very glad you IGNORED the police. That was such a stupid "request" from them (no surprise, sadly...)
Sorry...what? They told you you're not allowed to put one up before you put it up or they told you it was placed illegally?
You can film anything that can be filmed from a public property.
@@philipgeorgiev Oh, so you can stick a camera over someone's fence and film them in their back garden?
Can you also point your camera into someone else's window if you're stood on the street?
Hampshire Police.... I'm from Southampton so please don't get me started on these clowns in Police uniforms.
There is no legal requirement to assist a Police Constable with their investigation. Connelly vs Rice case law 1966 applies here. Also, there is no expectation of privacy in a public place, and without the CCTV as evidence, the case would either fail at the point of preparation, or at the first court hearing. Since the Police have already broken the law in the past, by waiting until the CCTV has been deleted, ( and yes, I have proof of it ), then there would be no case to answer there. Let the neighbour sue anyone. They will lose every case, due to the lack of evidence.
The time for compensating burglars for locking the front door is just around the corner
Just wait until a burglar can sue you for having your door locked.
there have been cases where burglars sue owners cos there were unsafe things in their house and they got injured.
I think this is the US though, so crazy-town.
Except it's not, the headline is from the Express and their ridiculous scaremongering
It already been that way for at least 19 years.
Fact of Kent corrupt woke, Racist anti white taxpaying Englishman police.
Yes I think I once read of an example in America where a burglar stole a car from a driveway. The car was getting work done to its brakes, meaning the thief crashed and hurt himself. He then successfully sued.
The news outlets have to exaggerate this non news story because the truth is very boring.
Good because my neighbours record all of our conversations in our back garden haven't used my back garden in two years it's like a prison
Maybe your a little paranoid!!, why would someone want to listen to someone else's boring conversation. for christ sake get a life.
Play obnoxiously loud & crappy music, if they choose to listen don’t make it easy for them 😉
The ICO barely ever take action against business, let alone the public!
I pointed out to the ICO Facebook (as it then was) were in huge breach of Data Protection Act requirements because they were demanding far more biographical information than necessary.
ICO were less use than a chocolate fireguard - Idiot ICO woman didn't know the law yet still insisted it was lawful!
I made a couple of complaints to them, one about the police refusing to hand over bodycam footage of an ex copper (Sam Bate), threatening to smash in my window, at the roadside. The police said they had deleted it, so there was nothing the ICO could do. 🤯 No proof required, obviously.
They can sod off.The police wont protect my property so i will
I get that totally.
The police won't protect my property... so I'll put up cameras that record my neighbours' conversions?
Unsure of the logic here.
The installer should make sure they are not capturing your neighbours. Mine did he fiddled around for ages to get them so they didn’t.
@eadweard. That's a stretch, where did he say this ? Can you quote it ?😂
@@lifesagamesobeawinner Well if he meant anything else, then it was just irrelevant bloviating.
The problem with things like this is in the very fact that they're saying it CAN apply to individuals, but they will CHOOSE to not pursue it. Or in other words, if you do or say anything the government doesn't like but isn't strictly illegal, they will be able to use their ABILITY to prosecute you under this law regardless, because fairness isn't the point. Scaring you into compliance and obedience is.
GDPR has always applied to individuals and rightly so especially so if you are making money of the information. In practical terms there is no difference between auditor scum and Mcdonalds when it comes to GDPR. Both are profit making entities - company status is irrelevant
Think of it like this ....the police can choose to not pursue a fine or penalty if you're doing 71 mph in a 70mph zone, but they're absolutely allowed to.
@@RylanStorm Gotta catch you first .
@@InterdictionI’d drive at 72mph, just to be sure to get away.
Prosecution is one thing , conviction is quite another .
"A reasonable expectation of privacy in your own back garden": I've got terribly nosey neighbours. Staring out the window and ducking behind curtains - they don't need CCTV. I put a sign in my garden "would you please mind your own business". Didn't work, now I have a stuffed man sat on a chair in my shed with a halloween mask staring back at their main viewing point (back bedroom window). We also tailor our conversations in the back garden so the neighbours can hear (about the hostages in the dungeon under the garage etc.).
My doorbell, caught my neighbour damaging my metal railing with his car door, when sending him the footage for him to apologise, or at best offer to repair, he got the police round for this very issue, who said I was in my right to film my property and should raise a compliant for criminal damage he caused... Love it!! 🤣🤣
That is how you find out whether your neighbours are decent,fair play types or utter twats.
And ALSO why if anything untoward happens to his property or car ......
It will now mysteriously coincide with a blip in the video coverage.
The man is a total 🐓
I hope you did file the complaint for Criminal Damage given those circumstances.
@@Farweasel you know, I hesitate at first as I don’t believe in wasting police time, however I did make a complaint, and he now moves his car away before him or his passengers get into their car, so a happy ending to a degree…
How would you raise a compliant?
@@S.Trades in the UK you call 101 for non urgent police complaints
How would this apply anyway, we have the right to film in public and a stronger right to film on our own property.
Because you're not just filming in public. You're filming someone else's property repeatedly. If your doorbell or CCTV has someone else's property, i.e., front door, you are continually filming their property and recording their day to day activity. This isn't like being in public spaces where different people come and go all day long. It amazes me how so many people don't understand the difference. It's literally always been like that from an ICO point of view. These rules haven't changed.
Yep incidental inclusion 😊 how ever if you use it for the coming and goings of you neighbours etc and then apply it on social media for example then you are using it for the wrong reason. Just like my wild life camera collects data of everyone who comes in and out of my horse field. So long as I don't use the footage etc police yes if I have been robbed 😊
@@Ginge1164 that still wouldn’t matter, you have the right to film anything you can see from a public space, that includes other peoples property. At the extreme end you can film a restricted military site from a public road as long as you yourself are not upon the property. Systems like Google street view can only work because filming anyone and anything from a public space is lawful.
@@laceandwhisky again though as long as the filming is lawful ie the camera isn’t zoomed through their window then there’s nothing anyone can do. You also have the right to release any content for publication created lawfully, so you might have issues with copyright if you were doing it for commercial reasons but for any other it’s a free country (at least for now, though that’s quickly changing)
@@JohnDoe-lx3dtyou also have a right to a private life.
If you're filming the comings and goings of your neighbours, whilst you are filming a public space, that can be considered harassment and a breach of data protection.
Here’s a wee point, why when there is a murder in your street the police ask for door ring bell coverage or car video coverage. If you could be fined why would you give anything to plod. I am aware this is an extreme example but you get what I mean. There’s an other point when out and about in my wee car how am I not breaking the law by filming others out on the public highways. Just a thought.
If you captured something that happened outside your door (as opposed to inside your neighbour's living room), then there's unlikely to be a problem.
Yes, I don't understand why house cctv is under question when a peado can sit outside a school with a dash cam.
@@ellerosse5471 Nonces do all kinds of funny things. Nor sure how it affects this issue though.
It's the ICO which investigates breaches of data protection.
Even if you gave police footage which clearly shows that your camera is in breach of data protection requirements, they would most likely not know, nor care.
@eadweard. Recording the public without concent, especially children via dash cam, but it's never brought into question.
So wouldn’t CCTV, dash cams on vehicles etc also have to pay fines too? This is totally unenforceable.
because the BBB is wrong on this , he has misread GDPR and confused about what is permissable in a public space
So how do the councils / govt. get away with all these cameras everywhere? 1 rule for them?
Are you surprised that they have more power and rights than us?
Exactly
How is it one rule for them. All these cameras everywhere have proper signage up and follow the law as set out in GDPR. People with private cameras are the ones who are trying to play the system by not limiting cameras to their property - or when they aren't putting up proper signage and complying with the legislation
Did you even watch the video?
Good point!
I have a ring door bell, it shows my neighbors gate and car . He's very pleased to have that covered. If he were to move i would certainly check with the new neighbours , if they didn't want that I would have to move my doorbell. But we have had less car damage and milk thefts since it was installed .
That’s the reason I put in my doorbell milk being stolen they even took the little crate, also a parcel was taken before I brought it in.
I use my doorbell for notifying me of deliveries to my flat, I’m disabled so it’s easier for me to speak to the delivery person to tell them where to put it, handy if your out as well and a delivery comes earlier than expected.
I live in a terraced back to back so my neighbours door is opposite mine, although the camera is pointed up the yard as much as I could get it to it mainly points at my door.
Her doorbell is pointed at my door which used to annoy me as it records every time I open my door, and any one who comes to the door etc,but I’ve got used to it now, just ignore it.
There is a very fine line between 'monitoring' and 'surveillance' with CCTV.
Yet the filth can film what they like !
What if the camera is angled purposely to cover a neighbours property, against the neighbours (me) wishes?
had something similar, had a polish family slap a motorized camera to watch their car, fine if they had their own driveway but not on street parking.. of which they would always insist on parking outside my home meaning everyone from my front door up the road had 0 privacy outside their own front doors! and as an added bonus it was also mounted in a way that can be used to look into the windows of the properties over the way.
Just to clarify what is actually the case for private individuals and UK GDPR, here is a quote direct from the ICO: "The UK GDPR does not apply to certain activities including processing covered by the Law Enforcement Directive, processing for national security purposes and processing carried out by individuals purely for personal/household activities."
That's what I thought. Did I heat him say u have to respond to requests from passers by ? It seems no one knows the laws now
Personal under no circumstances applies to commerical ie auditors, the police are exempt to much of GDPR auditors never are
There are other uses for these cameras other than catching burglars. When my sister is away she uses it to spot when packages are delivered so I can hurry by and pick it up.
I use mine to make sure my packages are delivered as packages have been stolen in the past.
So why isn't every local authority in the country being fined 17 million quid every week ?
These clowns film EVERYONE ALL THE TIME ...????
because they are licensed and comply with the law on data storage etc. Duh
Because they all get to make the laws and do not subject themselves to the same Laws they use to bully and manipulate us into compliance with? The old adage Lead by Example is what they should really do, but since when have Politicians ever done that unless it suits them first?
@@suecharnock9369 correct, you don't have to be a brain surgeon, or rocket scientist to comprehend this. Yet this video is full of comments from 🤡's as per usual.
If I am in a public space with a camera, I am allowed to film all day long. If I in my own home and film my home and public areas around my home, surely this is allowed! Yes, if I am filming beyond my boundary into a neighbour’s (private) property, then I understand this law as it’s no longer public. I hate the world now. Policing is terrible but we are still hamstrung protecting ourselves and property. It’s all too much!
So google earth filming private property is ok, also government cctv?
someone on my street has a doorbell camera. But because they dont have a "cctv on this house" sign, their neighbour called the police on them and they got issued with a court summons and a fine was issued. Its getting crazy
that was a little harsh. I think I would let all the neighbours know that if any of their stuff gets stollen or broken into your camera wasn't working........ Actually sort of happened to someone I know. They had working dogs that had free use of the back garden. New neighbour moves in and complains about the dogs barking at them - so dogs get put into a pen (which they already had) at the far far end of the persons back garden. Someone was watching those properties, because two days later new neighbour got burgled - good and proper. New neighbour asked is person saw or heard anything - reply was "No and I wouldn't have looked out unless the dogs barked, but they dont now" New neighbours expression was apparently priceless.
The police did nothing to ours.
Our neighbours n other neighbours committed child abuse, many times... Recoded on their cctv, of course they refused to hand it over... Nothing done apart from the police APOLOGISED to the neighbours for us reporting n wanting the child abuse n threats to kill dealt with!!!
Oh yes VERY 2 teir.
some next doors are too nosey keep to your own yard
Well that's a completely made up story.
Exactly what law did they break?
Remember the audio recording... these device record everything near them..
My doorbell camera helped lock up a team of foreign burglars who targetted my neighbour's house (there was so much evidence between me and our other neighbours they had to plead guilty, the neighbour who was burgled now has lots of cameras and an alarm), I'll go to war before anybody tells me what I can and can't do with a camera :) The irony is, it would have caught them in the act if I didn't have privacy filters on my rear camera for the benefit of the same neighbour..
I live in a flat and neighbour has his camera pointing down onto my back door they say it’s broke but in the night you can see the infra red lights up on it.
Then they're lying to you.
They don't want you to be able to catch them playing dirty at your doorstep, but they do want to incriminate you via THEIR totalitarian surveillance state.
Funny that because if a crime happens the first place the police go to is ring doorbells and private cctv for evidence!
So does that mean Dash Cams are also illegal.
No. They're not fixed and they don't automatically process the data
You need a sign/sticker to say that your car has a camera.
Also, some dash cams do record when the car is parked.
What about Teslas...@@RylanStorm
They're still not "fixed".
Yet the MET and most supermarkets use cameras to record you scanning your shopping to facial recognition crap..
Private property ...you don't have to be there, or you could try covering your face.
@@BaddaBigBoomOr even wonder if the recordings will ever even be looked at by a human unless there is suspicion of theft 😁
We have installed CCTV because a dust cart reversed into our front garden , it took out our fence & gate & shoved our hedge up against our back garden. The garden has been completely trashed. The council was not interested unless we have video footage & an independent witness. The camera is capturing the road outside so if it happens again we can have footage of the vehicle & number plate .
I have a camera overlooking the street. It helps me 100% to know when delivery drivers are here. I often can't hear the door from my back kitchen.
Congratulations on surpassing the 400,000 subscriber level Mr Shensmith 🎥🏆. Hard earnt through decent, educational, honourable pro bono wise counsel 🥇. This wee soul very much appreciates your work👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
A lot flats have video camera doorbells that face across the landing, these doorbells record private conversations at the neighbour's door
The law is pretty reasonable though. It specifically talks about filming anything more than us necessary. Obviously this comes under necessary.
It's just a rule to stop you from going too far and putting up a camera filming your neighbours where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. You're not going to get fined if using a camera responsibly.
You would have no Expectation of privacy on a landing in a block of flats as its a (Communal Area).
Can i take my Neighbours cat to court
keeps setting my ring doorbell off
and tresspassing on my drive lol
Glad Australia allows CCTV at home. Eyes can not trespass. (Except audio,)
Im sick of the intrusive cameras in supermarkets...
I didnt agree to be fimed so close up... The store has cameras and a security guard...why are they allowed to film my face and whole body length when i pay for my shopping...????
We have small (Amazon Tapo) CCTV front and rear. Both point out of ground floor windows. We don't have a driveway and have a small front garden. So our car is usually parked in the parking bay in front of our house. We are on a road, on a residential estate, with a secondary school further down the road. The front camera points towards our front gate/path but also picks up some of the footpath and road as well as our car. We have had a few incidents of petty vandalism on our car, scratches mainly, but the main reason for the camera was because we have had parcels stolen from next to our front door and the schoolkids often open our gate (just for fun) and have dumped rubbish and picked flowers etc. I don't currently have warning signs so I am going to buy some. We have lived here over 20yrs and the behaviour of the kids has deteriorated so badly in that time. Since getting the cameras there are fewer incidents but they haven't totally stopped. :(
Yes! I'm just glad to hear a fellow Brit quote Dave Ramsey.
I've followed his steps since 2018.
I left the Army and became a successful Independent Financial Adviser all because of Dave.
They want youto have limit on what you capture but when the police wants evidence of a crime they pray you have lots of data to help them.
More confusion .
I have heard of laws not used for decades but still on the books used against people. A law is always a law ready to be used if still on the books. Plus today we know there are people using laws against people for personal reasons.
Absolutely yes
The rules and laws are so confusing that in Málaga Spain ( where I now live ) A few years ago the council put up CCTV all over the town centre, I have no idea what rule or law they broke ? ,But Málaga got a fine from Madrid ( The capital) And Málaga had to make multiple changes...If the government doesn't understand the government what hope have we got ....
You know that Malaga isn't in England and Wales, which this video is about?
@@BlackheathTownhouseso you're so amall minded you don't wanna know what's going on in the big wide world ?
Maybe CCTV operator looked in citizens windows instead of patrolling streets :) I know few situations where cctv cameras were used not for a legit reason especially with 30x optical and 40x digital zoom :)) . Maybe the CCTV was streamed live , maybe penalty was for the data leak (unauthorized access to the cctv) or the cameras were installed on the private lands without permission ? Without details it is hard to say what could be a reason however installation and running CCTV , even in Spain, was not a reason for penalty
@@lifesagamesobeawinnerWhether someone is small minded or not is irrelevant. This video and the associated discussion is about the laws in England, not Spain. Discussions by definition have to be about a specific topic, otherwise they would go on forever. Don’t you know that? If you want to take about something else, create your own video. Until then get back in your box and wind your neck in.
Malaga is part of the EU, or did that fly over your head, the laws that were in place prior to leaving Europe remain in place today..the law prior to 2018 was the General Data Protection Regulation..now known as the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation....you know that right.
The state should take down all their cameras and we should be suing them £20000
Thank you for the explanation of the law regarding camera use for domestic use. All the best.
*Can we complain to the council ?*
Should make these doorbell cameras with limited focus. 2 meters should be adequate.
Police keep asking for footage from my doorbell...
We have had police knock on our door to ask if we have footage of someone or a vehicle passing our house, because we are the first and last house in and out of a big estate. If its illegal someone should tell them!. That being said ive disabled the doorbell passing recording. It only captures people coming up to the house and or ringing the doorbell.
I have a ring doorbell and the police sometimes ask to view it. They said I didn’t have to put up a notice but Im wondering if I should now.
i dont believe the police controll these matters legal advice would be best or you could just put up a small sign.
@uksystems I must admit I hadn’t really thought about it since I last spoke to the police but I agree I think I will put something up.
I have never put up a notice for my CCTV - the camera in full view is enough! When I first put it up my neighbours noticed some shady characters crossing the road to walk past my address, before crossing back again when they thought they had cleared the camera! unless you come onto my property/ drive my camera will not record you, unless you are passing in the street at the same time that someone is at my door.
I'd tell them it's broken and does not work.
I bought little stickers to let people know the doorbell records movement and voice, just so people near my doorbell are informed. I have one on my door and one above the doorbell itself.
How does this apply, and what is the difference, to filming video on my smart phone outside my home?
even filming a video outside maybe prohibted, eg outside a medical facility where people entering the facility could be identified.
@@tony_w839No
@@tony_w839the facility may prefer you not to film outside but most of the time I expect there is nothing to stop you. Even if you are on their private property, all they can do is ask you to leave.
the difference, I believe, is that the smart phone isn't "installed" ... isn't "infrastructure" . Or maybe the "purpose" of the recording makes the difference
@@miff227Great point. Info on ICO about domestic CCTV and data protection law refers to "capture images or audio recordings from outside their property boundary using a FIXED camera, such as a CCTV camera or smart doorbell" and "These rules only apply to fixed cameras. They do not cover roaming cameras, such as drones or dashboard cameras (dashcams) as long as the drone or dashcam is used only for your domestic or household purposes."
I'll remember this the next time the police knock on my door and ask if they can look at my CCTV footage as a crime happened in the area.
They don't want you to film the criminals, the color
I am curious to the legality in a block of flats, i am interested in investing in a ring doorbell as we have had many parcels stolen or saying we are not in when we are etc.
Im more worried about the communal aspect, obviously it will capture my neighbours, and i would be more than willing to turn off motion detection to the option to only press button notification to capture video, any help would be appreciated.
You can buy cameras that use zones which you can block off neighbour, and pavement, and it only records the garden when someone walks into your garden.
If our neighbours tried reporting us for our cameras they would have a shock as I’ve already activated a privacy zone which greys out any areas that I don’t want my camera to see to activate it recording
Domestic users of CCTV should be specifically exempted from GDPR regulations.
Why?
@@eadweard. because in a public place , there is no expectation of privacy , and a public road is that public.
In theory you could use this to claim against someone videoing by Tower bridge if you got captured as there is no fundamental difference.
Sure don't have tour CCTV pointing in windows or back gardens, but the road is not a problem, driveways are not a problem, as driveways while private land, still are open and have no expectation of privacy
the old Data Protection Act had a specific clause to exclude recording for domestic purposes from the Data Protection Principles as scheduled. I used this to my advantage when I was practising law, this occasion just happened to be my own case:
Me [holding up a pen]: Excuse me, what's this?
Judge: a pen.
Me: what is it used for?
Judge: writing.
Me: Specifically, recording data, don't you agree?
Judge: ...in principle, yes.
Me: So using that principle of recording data, what's the difference between me using a pen and a sheet of paper to record data, and me typing on an electronic device such as a laptop with a silent membrane keyboard?
Judge: Practically speaking, no difference. However, not knowing the nature of the software being used I can't allow the use of a laptop in here.
Me: What if I show you the laptop starting up, following which the software in use? Would that not satisfy you as to intent and method?
Judge: I suppose so. Now?
Me: Certainly. [proceeds to start laptop in native DOS mode (as in, single-tasking from the command line, no GUI, in fact it looks a lot like MS-DOS 6.22), then a plain Jane text editor that looks a lot like DOS EDIT.]
Short version: I managed to convince a Judge in the High Court to allow me to use a laptop to take my own notes (I type a lot faster than I can write even shorthand), which I think may have also contributed to the adoption of e-tablets and laptops in the Court system as go-to references in place of trolleyloads of paper documents covered in post-it notes.
@@BlokeOnAMotorbike Self-indulgent fantasy.
@@eadweard.because we are protecting our property rather than using the information for profit. Also the Police are often asking residents for CCTV copy.
I have 2 cameras, one fr the front of the house to protect our vehicle that is parked in front of the house and the 2nd which is a doorbell type that covers the side path of the house along with the path outside the shop next door. Primarily it is used to protect our vehicle from damage and vandalism by the neighbourhood children and secondarily to catch my upstairs neighbour in the act of harrassing us which she does when she is drunk. Twice she has kicked or thumped our front door in te middle of the night (3am etc) and oce one of her friends did it for her, sadly we did not have the cameras installed at that time but I do have a picture of the footprint.
" protect our vehicle that is parked in front" cameras don't protect they only record the damage being done.
@@robertlane913 the notice that it is being recorded makes them stop and think if the damage that they inflicted is worth the money or freedom they will end up paying when the courts and police have done with them. Deterants work to protect us.
@@PerilousPaddy " stop and think " yes they will think about putting a balaclava on so you can't identify them. Cameras are pointless.
@@robertlane913 if they do that then the police will definitely be interested in finding them lol
THANK YOU SO MUCH, MY NEIGHBOUR HAS 3 CAMERAS LONG THE 6 FT WIDE PASSAGE BETWEEN OUR BUNGALOWS, ONE OVER EACH FRONT AND BACK GATES , AND ONE PARTIALLY LOOKING IN MY BACK DOOR ! ALONG WITH ONE OUT THE FRONT AND ONE JUST INSIDE THEIR BACK GARDEN GATE !! PLUS THEY ARE THE NEIGHBOURS FROM HELL !! I'M 80 , AND HAVE NEVER HAD SUCH NASTY NEIGHBOURS IN MY LIFE !!
The ICOs website confirms that "personal data processed in the course of a purely personal or household activity, with no connection to a professional or commercial activity, is outside the UK GDPR's scope."
Article 2(2)(c) UKGDPR 2018
@@Paul-ry5cx The ICO is charged with policing UK GDPR. are you suggesting they are wrong?
i am suggesting there website is a bag of poo, and the website is for guidance..if you want far better explanation of what the articles mean then google "REGULATION (EU) 2016/ 679 OF THE EU" and you can read the regulations in full themselves and great explanations of its meaning.@@alastairharris1866
lol..sorry, i have just seen what you replied to...i quoted the the actual article of the UKGDPR 2018 that states..
Article 2
2. This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data:
(c) by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity
i wasn't disagreeing with you, i was giving you the actual legislation.@@alastairharris1866
Yes, but if it's recording outside the property, whether that be public space or a neighbours private space, it falls outside the household exemption.
This was specifically mentioned in Fairhurst v Woodard.
How can they make a rule (it's NOT a law) about videoing in public, which is what a private CCTV is? Saying your cctv could be illegal is the same as saying looking out of your window at anything in view is illegal.
Freedom to photograph and film
"Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel." - MET police website
Data protection is just that, protecting data, not images of people, in public.
The point of the article and this video is about recording other people's property without their consent, not about recording public areas outside your boundary (which my understanding is that there are no restrictions on), although that was never specifically addressed in the video.
exactly
@@doctor_gee yep but the BBB while mentioning that, also implied that it could be a problem if it caught a driveway, and that's not the case, driveways private , but road facing no expecation of privacy
@@doctor_gee Recording someone's property from a public place is not illegal.
Basically, ANYTHING you can see from a public point of view, including private property, can be recorded.
Thank you so much for making sense of these headlines❤
My daughter bought a camera to put above her garage door, because the car parked on the drive was being damaged deliberately (scratched down sides). When tuning it in found that the neighbour had cameras aimed into her property, the back garden and back of house, also a camera pointing into the house bedroom across the road. It had to be reported, police just told them they shouldn’t have cameras pointing into others property, that’s all…. They were not very nice people and were always harassing my daughter and throwing stuff into the back garden (inaccessible from road). She had to move to get away for the safety of her toddler and peace of mind.
So we live on a terraced street where the doors are right on the pavement and as such we can't place cctv in such a way that it capture events outside our own property. We've had problems with graffiti and car thefts etc. We are good friends with all of our neighbours and have a system in place whereby our cctv watches the opposite side of the street and neighbours on that side have their cctv watching our side. I assume this is all technically illegal :p
Further to this the cameras are motion activated and non audio recording on both sides other than one house that has a Ring doorbell
Where I live life is simple. If something is viewable in public then it can be recorded. Includes what can be seen through auto or structure's windows if physically entering private property is not required to see.
🤔 It has been said that doorbell cameras can also pick up conversations in nearby houses, which is extremely concerning, more so than the visual aspect, in my opinion! 😳
Set up a flood light pointing at the camera.
What about communal areas of an apartment building? Packages and bicycles are being stolen from the building's foyer and communal bike rack. The landlord refuses to act, citing cost and all residents must consent (good luck when one is the thief). Can a resident set up CCTV as long as he posts clear notice and allows data protection enquiries?
You have a right to know what that CCTV is used for. If a business has CCTV, and that CCTV is apparently for security of the building, they can not use that same CCTV for say disciplinary proceedings towards staff for being late. That's just an example. I'd contact them via email and request in writing what that CCTV is for. You're entitled to know this given that you're more than likely on it.
@@Ginge1164 I think you misunderstand, or perhaps I wasn't clear. I want to know if a tenant can set up a camera in the communal areas to prevent ongoing crime, because the landlord refuses to take any action. I am in favour of the camera and would consider doing it myself if lawful.
you can read the regulations and find out yourself, its not that hard..just make sure you know the legal meaning of words and not just assume the meaning is the same as in common parlance.
@@Paul-ry5cx I've read the regulations, done research, and I'm educated in law. The answer remains unclear, so I thought I'd ask a barrister who just posted a video about it. If all legal issues were as simple as reading the legislation, we wouldn't need a judiciary to interpret.
ok, household cctv come under the exemption from GDPR "if it is for household or personal use" as long as the images captured are within the perimeter of your own home and are only used for your personal purposes... However, where your device operates in such a way as to capture images of people outside the perimeter of your home (in public spaces or in neighboring property), you are no longer able to avail of the domestic exemption. In those circumstances, you must either change the way you use the device to capture images only within your property or comply with data protection law. This follows from the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case of Rnyeš (C 212/13), which found that the household exemption did not apply where a domestic CCTV system captured images in the street outside the private property@@TheChocoboWhisperer
Its not only about protecting one's home, but also protecting one's community.
who gave permission kemho sabie
As all local authorities are registered as Businesses with Companies House, does this open up the possibility of members of the public suing the council for the mass installation and live monitoring of cctv cameras in City Centres and public spaces?
I had a Ladder that was chained up at the back of my House that was stolen , and the first thing the Police said " Do you have it on CCTV " They can do one !
The cheeky brutes.
Imagine asking if you had evidence which would help them catch someone who stole your property!
@@geordiewishart1683 They're only looking for the race of the perpetrator in order to choose whether to record the crime at all.
As per the Gov website - GDPR is only applicable to a business not an individual - uses of personal data on social media fall under bullying, online trolling legislation unless again used by a business which it then becomes a GDPR issue, if a camera records directly into someone else's property this is under privacy laws but again as a individual and not registered business GDPR does not apply.
these cameras record into the cloud by the company selling them duh.
@@ChrisWijtmans So GDPR applies to the company retaining the data for you, but does not apply to you taking copies on your pc or device, also if you know anything about cameras you would know that not all manufacturers rely on cloud storage, such as Tapo/TP link.
they still have copies. whether you have cloud acces or not. @@SHPR2013
This is incorrect. It doesn't apply to individuals who are processing for a purely personal or household activity. However, in the context of domestic CCTV, if you capture anything that is not within your property (e.g. you neighbour's property or the public street) then you are not processing for a purely personal or household activity and therefore fall outwith the exemption.
@@absolvitor3541 According to the Gov website it states that you are only liable to GDPR as a business, which as you stated is not personal use, so if you are a CZcamsr and you use your property to vlog from you are by definition running a business.
However if you are capturing data that is being overwritten and not used on social media and for your own use then GDPR does not apply to individuals unless the said cameras overlook directly into rooms or windows which would then make it a privacy law matter and again not GDPR as you are a individual and not a business.
If your neighbour puts up CCTV, and then you ask for a copy. Your neighbour may simply say they didn't record anything that day. Who will check? The police would need a warrant and to seize the CCTV and check it which would take months of work. If the person recording knows their system well, they could easily delete the footage before they are being checked, and then switch it back on once the ICO/police have left. If the person has a camera pointed at their neighbours childs bedroom, and the police come and check the cameras, they could simply switch them off whilst the police are there. It's a massively easy fix for people using the cameras.
I was going to put up one of these when I was being harassed but the police advised me that I would only be able to record my own property and nothing public. Also, I had to put up notices that I was using it. Decided against getting it. There should be warnings clearly put on camera packaging.
It is disgusting for anyone to have a camera overlooking a neighbours property. I hope any idiots doing this get heavily fined.
Makes it harder to burgle them does it?
I use mine to protect my self not others. And I have stickers all around to warn criminals I have my CCTV active.
I have a ring doorbell. This isn't just for security, it's also because I work nightshifts so it's handy as I've slept through people knocking before I got the doorbell. I have though made sure my camera doesn't record my neighbors, set up where to record so that up so I wouldn't keep getting notifications plus wanting them to have their privacy.
From the data that can be found there are approximately 1 million video cameras in London....... 1 for every ten inhabitants.
If they go around sniffing out possible illegal cases they can adjust the city's budget with just one round of fines...... and considering that on average anyone who goes around the capital has been filmed at least 70 times a day there's enough to fill the courts for years to come even considering only the truly illegal cases.
regards audio they cannot be an expectation of privacy outdoors
There can be, but as usual it depends. As shown by the case law where someone successfully sued after being recorded by a neighbour's CCTV when they were outdoors on their own property
and interestingly, the expectation of privacy changes with live vs recordings. Being overhead by someone on their property while you are on your property, no expectation of privacy. Being "overheard" at a later date by someone playing back audio/video that was captured is a different kettle of fish.
@@feanor5037
Totally agree with that distinction between the live and recorded
@@miff227
Yes agree but let's say you're on the patio and next door is and only a trellis between the two parties and you video a family member the speech of next door is captured I would say that is accidental inclusion and not applicable regards privacy ?
Maybe the category of device on which it is captured is relevant ?
What's going on with these comments 👇🤔
They are ethots trying to promote their onlyFans
bots and more bots. I report them, block them, but the API allows these scammers to keep coming back. I'm not even sure what they're after 🤷♂️
Was there perhaps a full moon last night..? Or Pluto in retrograde!? 😂😅
quick rule of thumb to follow.l.. always use the margin tool on ALL of your cameras to have an absolute indicator of if the cameras have been tampered with or re-aimed to ruin your compliance. Just take some pics on your phone once its set up. Will save you a lot of risk later. Also instead of using cameras in some locations use stealthy dome mirrors with no camera in them! Finger prints on them is great evidence.
I was a CCTV Control Room Operator for a quarter of a century and know how many people do not know the laws concerning CCTV. Many people in my area have cameras up on their properties and do not realise what the law states about cameras. I have rarely seen and signage on properties or cameras correctly mounted.When I was at work we had ongoing training as the rules and regulations change over time.
I had this issue when installing CCTV at a restaurant, the cameras covered an area that was a target for vandals but also covered other private property, the solution was to use masking, this will blank out parts of the image, showed this to the other property owner and we all went about our day.
I use my CCTV in the back garden to check if my cat has left the house or not when I am away. That is a perfectly reasonable use of CCTV that isn't security related. I've also used it to check if my son has left for college when I am at work, if he hasn't I can give him a text to check he hasn't over slept. Again perfectly reasonable use that has nothing to do with security. I've also used the CCTV to watch foxes in the back garden, another perfectly reasonable use that isn't security.
So to say the only reasonable use for CCTV is home security is nonsense.
I don't see how they can impose that when business and the government have cameras watching us.