1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Smart Doorbell & Security Cameras

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by dangie, Oct 14, 2021.

  1. dangie

    dangie Senior Knobhead

  2. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    I read about this, with the relative proliferation of security cameras covering private dwellings it was perhaps inevitable that such a case would arise.
     
    RogerMac likes this.
  3. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    My son's neighbour just installed one and the motion detector picks up movement in my son's driveway. I was bemused last Monday evening to hear a recorded voice warning me that I was under surveillance. The important thing to know, for anyone recording video, is that this activity should be registered with the office of data protection. I was quite surprised to learn that the office are quite proactive. I have a limited company and they wrote to me a couple of months ago to ask why I wasn't registered. After a talk with a very helpful lady my company is now formally registered as exempt from paying the annual fee but the "test" comprises two questions - do you operate a camera system (e.g. for monitoring the front door) and - do you collect and process personal data. I do neither. This applies to anyone not just companies. I'm not sure just how mobile devices such as dash-cameras are covered - logically they should be the same, if you operate one you should report that you have one and pay a fee to cover the [presumably data protection] costs of having this information stored somewhere.
     
  4. dream_police

    dream_police Well-Known Member

    Out of interest, I have just looked this up. It is certainly not made clear to folk who install these things (i don't have one either). You don't need to register or pay a fee it would appear but you are governed by rules.

    • You don’t need to register with the ICO or pay a fee (this is a change from the previous law). However, you must maintain records of how and why you are capturing these images, and for how long you are keeping them. You may need to make these records available to the ICO on request.
    https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/domestic-cctv-systems-guidance-for-people-using-cctv/
     
  5. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Thanks for that. I suspect there is a lot of non-compliance. Seems dash cams are covered by GDPR if in a company or fleet vehicle but I didn't find anything from an ICO source on them or personal use. I am thinking about getting a camera for my bike, to record/report close passes, so was wondering about the GDPR position on that.
     
  6. Malcolm_Stewart

    Malcolm_Stewart Well-Known Member

    In the middle distance past, I've set up a camera and timer & recorded whatever my camera was looking at over several days. Mainly during periods of snow, and capturing how the snow weighed down the boughs of garden trees. My neighbours dog (now deceased) featured on some of my shots...
     
  7. Derek W

    Derek W Well-Known Member

    There is a lot more to this case than is being reported I feel.

    I don't think it was just the guy having a ring doorbell that was the issue but rather a combination of other elements resulting in the harassment of his neighbour who eventually bought the case.

    My reason for thinking this came from looking at pictures of the houses/area.

    The Dr who bought the case against Mr Woodward lives two doors, and a road, down from him, plus the house in between the two of them also has a ring doorbell but no mention/issue was made of this.

    Capture22.JPG

    Capture23.JPG

    Images courtesy of Mail Online
     
  8. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    Whatever happened to "in public, your face is public"?
     
    zx9r likes this.
  9. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    It can be complex but a lot relates to whether people who are filmed are 'identifiable' in the images. In the case of neighbours that's clearly far more likely than whizzing along a road.
     
  10. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    nothing
     
  11. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    Which, having seen the pictures posted by Derek, raises the further question: what was really going on?
     
    zx9r likes this.
  12. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Yes, but the point of a bike camera is specifically to identify the vehicle via its number plate. I don't suppose reporting evidence of careless or dangerous driving to the police on a one-off basis is likely to fall under "processing individual data" but I was curious.
     
  13. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    Well yes it would. But... In very simplified terms what you are doing with that data is reasonable use. If you used it for example by paying DVLA £2.50 for a request to get name and address of the vehicle's keeper (using false reasons, because they don't give out Willy nilly) so that you could find out who that sexy blonde in the sports car was, you'd clearly not be under the scope of reasonable use. Identifying data can be used without explicit consent for a variety of reasons, of which law enforcement etc. is covered.
     
  14. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    I dare say that the reportage of the court case would tell you. I didn't memorise it when it was in The Times a few days ago. It does strike me from the photographs (I hope Mail online authorises reproduction with acknowledgement) that the fact the doors are 90 degrees to each other may be significant in terms of what a camera can record.
     
  15. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    If cctv is in use there needs to be signage indicating this in a prominent location. It also needs to state who (if unclear) is operating it and its purpose. Use for purposes other than those specified is legally very very iffy at best.
     
  16. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    As it happens the door bell is only part of the problem. There were other cameras that covered public areas, the case depended on the total coverage by all the cameras which allowed the defendant to track the movement of his neighbours.

    The "Road" Derek refers to looks like the access to a parking area for the houses and thus is, in some way, shared property which any one resident's cameras should probably not cover.

    This from the ICO is the important bit, I think.
    "If you set up your system so it captures only images within the boundary of your private domestic property (including your garden), then the data protection laws will not apply to you.

    But what if your system captures images of people outside the boundary of your private domestic property – for example, in neighbours’ homes or gardens, shared spaces, or on a public footpath or a street?

    Then the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA18) will apply to you, and you will need to ensure your use of CCTV complies with these laws."

    The door bells capture a public footpath or street and the camera on the shed, see the original BBC story, covers a shared area.
     
    Zou likes this.
  17. IvorETower

    IvorETower Little Buttercup

    ^
    I don't understand this at all. No "data" is being collected, only images. You have no information on the name, address, date of birth etc of a person whose image is being recorded.

    Offence under "spying" laws, maybe, but under data protection law? I would not have thought so. There must be more to this case than first meets the eye
     
  18. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    If you have footage and sound recordings of your neighbours and know them to be your neighbours and not (say) Air b&b guests, then you might be surprised how much data you have, in legal terms. Names, address, and personal info gleaned without consent.
     
  19. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Images are data, which is a large part of the justification for GDPR in the first place. You don't have to have specific data just something identifiable, which applies to an image. Taking a still photograph in a public place is not the same thing, but if you want to use it for commercial purposes you need permission if someone is identifiable.
     
  20. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    That is possibly true but equally it might be totally untrue. To begin with, there is a long list of exemptions including artistic or journalistic use: Exemptions | ICO

    Beyond these, there's a whole series of prior decisions on the use of a person's image in, for example, an advertisement, which may still apply under certain of the exemptions.
     

Share This Page