By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
She sounds like a prize whinger, personally I would be thankful if had cameras keeping an eye on my house for free.
It seems a lot more to this story, than the quick glance over the link provided. The majority of people would not have an issue with cameras covering their property, in fact I think it's very neighbourly of him, for not asking for a fee for carrying out that service.
I've read the story from a different source and the cameras do sound intrusive, covering her garden and with audio too. It does/did affect her privacy.
I intend to put cameras up front and rear but only covering our back door and garden near the house and front path and garden to the road.
It doesn't matter what you like or dislike. I don't like being recorded every time i go out and every time i go into a shop or public building, but there's nothing i can do about it.
The key phrase, being, "their shed," it's on their property. I admit it's a bit weird and anti social, but it's not against the law,something that judge doesn't understand. Many people have home cctv and it captures images other than that which is on their property, and I know one who streams it to his pc. The implications of this are huge and could possibly prevent security surveillance unless it's overturned.
If your cameras capture images of areas outside of your own property, such as your neighbours property, you then become a data controller and must abide by data protection and GDPR laws.
Lying and misleading people about what you're capturing is a huge breach of these laws, as is plenty of other things this gentleman did.
If your cameras capture images of areas outside of your own property, such as your neighbours property, you then become a data controller and must abide by data protection and GDPR laws.
Lying and misleading people about what you're capturing is a huge breach of these laws, as is plenty of other things this gentleman did.
As he is on any subject he professes to be an expert on.
God help anyone who would take his advice.
You give it out, you take it back it`s all part of the game
It only applies to companies and organisations. Images or recordings are not personal data
From the Met police
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.
It only applies to companies and organisations. Images or recordings are not personal data
From the Met police
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.
We're not arguing whether you need a permit to film. We're arguing whether you're allowed to record the entirety of your neighbours garden, their front and back doors, and then lie to them when they ask what you are recording. That is not allowed, regardless of whether you're doing so as part of a company or an individual in your own home.
"The Data Protection Act 2018 gives you the right of access to find out what information is held about you. This is called the Right of Subject Access.
The Act also requires those who record and use personal data to adhere to the Act's principles and be open about how they use it. This last part applies to the Met Police, which the Act calls a ‘Data Controller’."
The doorbell person in our example became a "Data Controller" when he began amassing a trove of personal information relating to his neighbour. He was obligated to share with his neighbour any personal data he held regarding her whenever she enquired.
When she did enquire, he lied to her, deliberately misled her and subsequently broke the law. Hence why a judge said so. The fact he refused to share what he had recorded would worry me if I lived on that road.
We're not arguing whether you need a permit to film. We're arguing whether you're allowed to record the entirety of your neighbours garden, their front and back doors, and then lie to them when they ask what you are recording. That is not allowed, regardless of whether you're doing so as part of a company or an individual in your own home.
"The Data Protection Act 2018 gives you the right of access to find out what information is held about you. This is called the Right of Subject Access.
The Act also requires those who record and use personal data to adhere to the Act's principles and be open about how they use it. This last part applies to the Met Police, which the Act calls a ‘Data Controller’."
The doorbell person in our example became a "Data Controller" when he began amassing a trove of personal information relating to his neighbour. He was obligated to share with his neighbour any personal data he held regarding her whenever she enquired.
When she did enquire, he lied to her, deliberately misled her and subsequently broke the law. Hence why a judge said so. The fact he refused to share what he had recorded would worry me if I lived on that road.
The point being, you can film anything you like and use it as you see fit.You can even put it on social media without the persons consent The police have said you can film anything, including themselves at any time, doing any activity. Taking pics of ppl isn't personal data, it's just an image. Everyone's property images can be found on google earth or google maps
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
