CCTV Legality Case in the UK

[CCTVCam]

For UK members or those simply interested, a recent case has brought up the issue of CCTV / microphones that record public areas:

 

[wittaj]

Being discussed here:

Smart door bell harassment - 100K

I thought this article was interesting yet confusing at the same time. The UK is one of the most surveilled countries in the world. Almost every open space is monitored by video security. The article doesn’t really explain how the cameras were used to harass the long time member?!? Besides when...

ipcamtalk.com

 

[mat200]

Good video thanks @CCTVCam

1) Audio and Video footage outside of your property... issue ( recommends discussing this with your neighbors )
2) Be honest with your neighbor .. ( defendant claimed they are dummy cameras )
3) Do not make threats to your neighbors


Harassment - yes ( threats )
Nuisance - no ( Ring Flood Lights and Cameras over view of neighbors property ) - houses in the city, thus there are lights already ..
Breach of DPA 2018 - Data Protection Act of 2018 - Yes .. court found data collected outside the bounds of the property.. the defendant needed ... Ring Doorbell Camera = OK, Audio recording issues .. Driveway camera .. issues due to Data Protection Act.. not lawful found ..

CCTV - to watch, not to listen .. audio recording not lawful..

 

[CCTVCam]

CCTV - to watch, not to listen .. audio recording not lawful..

Not sure on the last one. What I took away from this is audio isn't necessarily illegal. However, it may be if you can't show it's necessary and if it record conversations outside of your property. That said, I'm no expert and my takeaway isn't necesarily legally correct.

As for asking all the neighbours, that might be ok if you capture a private driveway but if you capture a public road, what then? You can't ask everyone. The law seems to be problematic.

I guess the message here is always consult a lawyer and don't harass your neighbours.

 

[Sphinxicus]

very good video thanks for sharing @CCTVCam

Its interesting to note how in this case i dont think the law takes into account the tecnology in use.

Capturing images within the curtilage of your property and not beyond can be achieved by correct camera placement, lens choice and as a last resort privacy masking on the camera. Audio is not so easy. Sure you can reduce the gain on the microphone but this cannot account for someone talking loudly in the street or garden, so the only sure-fire way to be certain is to disable audio recording.

Disabling audio recording IMO is step backwards, sometimes the difference between identifying somene or not can be the audio, i.e. the perp calls his mate by name before they climb over your wall. Or intent to harm someone could be caught if they said something like, "im gonna beat the hell outta this guy when i get in".

It's definately a complicated subject where a fine line to respecting peoples privacy vs protecting your property/family has to be trodden.

 

[user8963]

Not sure on the last one. What I took away from this is audio isn't necessarily illegal.

depends on what UK did after they left EU.

EU rules are clear:

IAPP

iapp.org

You might think you are allowed to record audio, but its overriden by the protection of personal data/right for privacy of the recorded person in 99,99% of cases.

Same rules for video recording. Anything what goes beyond your own property is not allowed. In this case your own interests on your property are higher than the personal rules. But again. Audio recording without consent is NOT allowed, because there is no argument why.

For UK the rules might differ.

The laws surrounding recording a conversation in the UK without permission

IF you struggle with your memory or want to gather evidence of a telephone scam et cetera, recording the conversation might seem like the most sensible option. But is it illegal to record a convers…

www.thesun.co.uk

Audio and Video Recording Laws UK - Recording Law

UK Audio Recording Laws for Individuals According to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), recording conversations without consent in the UK is legal provided the recording is done for personal use; this includes telephone conversations. However, problems can arise when such...

recordinglaw.com

(maybe not the best source)

So audio seems general OK, video on public places/not your property no

 

[sebastiantombs]

What bothers me about the EU rules is that if you were outside watching you could easily see your neighbors driveway, garden, the street and so on. You could also hear what is being said, even if you weren't looking directly at the speaker. Does that mean you, personally, are guilty of violating their privacy? The way the laws are constructed it would seem so to me.

 

[IAmATeaf]

What I've gathered from the summary video is what I had originally thought, namely that there was more to this case then reported in the press.

It's seems that the guy was an ass towards his neighbour and when she complained he didn't react positively to work with her but decided to both lie and harass her, so in my books he got what he deserved.

 

[Teken]

What I've gathered from the summary video is what I had originally thought, namely that there was more to this case then reported in the press.

It's seems that the guy was an ass towards his neighbour and when she complained he didn't react positively to work with her but decided to both lie and harass her, so in my books he got what he deserved.

First, thanks to the OP for sharing this fantastic video that provided all of the facts as it relates to this case. I also agree with @IAmATeaf that based on the facts the Ring guy lost on many counts. If what this video states as true he literally purgered himself in court which in most cases becomes a default judgment to the plaintiff.

The fact he shared images to other neighbors and also threaten to submit a police report bolstered the harassment claims.

I do take issue with the shed camera and believe they (court) are splitting hairs about home vs property. If a camera must only be installed on the building that would automatically make every government building that has security poles illegal under UK law!

Regardless, I’ll eat another plate of crow today because the information I based my replies were on very limited web information compared to the video presented here!

 

[CCTVCam]

depends on what UK did after they left EU.

I think under the Trade Agreement they have to retain many EU laws for 5 years after leaving but I'm not 100% sure. The agreement was all a bit of a fudge in many people's opinions.

I do take issue with the shed camera and believe they (court) are splitting hairs about home vs property. If a camera must only be installed on the building that would automatically make every government building that has security poles illegal under UK law!

UK businesses are bound by GDPR rules. I understand GDPR doesn't apply to non business users of CCTV except where they capture public property in which case it does. I could be wrong. BTW Public CCTV doesn't usually record audio only video. In the UK you're rarely off camera. Most city centres have hundreds of puiblic cameras monitored by staff in monitoring centres under the control of local authorities and then in addition to that practcially every business in the UK has CCTV inside and out. Roads have cameras watching them as do motorways and many roads are fitted with ANPR.

The issue is it's onerous for a private indivdual to follow and leaves the law often on the criminals side in my opinion.

UK City Centre TV Monitoring Station:

eg I believe Brimingham city centre has 164 cameras monitored 24/7.

We also have mobile CCTV vans which are used in areas of crowd trouble eg football matches:

 

[Teken]

I think under the Trade Agreement they have to retain many EU laws for 5 years after leaving but I'm not 100% sure. The agreement was all a bit of a fudge in many people's opinions.




UK businesses are bound by GDPR rules. GDPR doesn't apply to non business users of CCTV except where they capture public property in which case it does. That's my understanding. It could ne wrong. BTW Public CCTV doesn't usually record audio only video. In the UK you're rarely off camera. Most city centres have hundreds of puiblic cameras monitored by staff in monitoring centres under the control of local authorities and then in addition to that practcially every business in the UK has CCTV inside and out. Roads have cameras watching them as do motorways and many roads are fitted with ANPR.

The issue is it's onerous for a private indivdual to follow and leaves the law often on the criminals side in my opinion.

UK City Centre TV Monitoring Station:

eg I believe Brimingham city centre has 164 cameras monitored 24/7.

We also have mobile CCTV vans which are used in areas of crowd trouble eg football matches:

Of course not why would the government want to be held back and bound by the very same laws that only apply to its citizens!

They can monitor and record everything and 99.99999% nothing is ever happening at a government building. But where there are real crimes of theft and break in the common man can’t do the same!

Regardless, the video you shared offered critical insight as to why he lost. Now, whether that reaches the threshold of 100K sterling I can’t say.

Guess he can become a lorry driver and make ends meet as there’s demand for truck drivers!

 

[CCTVCam]

Of course not why would the government want to be held back and bound by the very same laws that only apply to its citizens!

I agree. But that was what it took to get a trade agreement, at least with the person who negotiated it.

EU legislation and UK law

www.legislation.gov.uk

The Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and the EU set out the arrangements for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU at 11.00 p.m. on 31 January 2020 (“exit day”), which included a transition or implementation period, during which EU law continued to apply in the UK. The implementation period, which was given effect in UK law by section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (c. 1), expired at 11.00 p.m. on 31 December 2020 ("IP completion day"), as set out in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (c. 1).
EU legislation which applied directly or indirectly to the UK before 11.00 p.m. on 31 December 2020 has been retained in UK law as a form of domestic legislation known as ‘retained EU legislation’. This is set out in sections 2 and 3 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (c. 16). Section 4 of the 2018 Act ensures that any remaining EU rights and obligations, including directly effective rights within EU treaties, continue to be recognised and available in domestic law after exit.

Eleven Types of post-Brexit EU Law

The United Kingdom and the European Union agreed on Christmas Eve a new Trade and Cooperation Agreement. This treaty has replaced the rules of the single market in the...

www.law.ox.ac.uk

Five Categories of ‘EU Retained Law’ (as of 31 December 2020)
The third major category of EU law may be the most extensive and can be subdivided into five different sub-categories, each with a distinct legal basis (for which see Jack Williams’ enlightening blog post). The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Act (‘the 2018 Act’) created the broad category of ‘EU retained law’. This is the law that applied to the UK at the time of its full departure from the EU (with the exception of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights). All such law the 2018 Act protects from immediate demise on departure. This covers primary and secondary law. Any later amendments to EU retained law by the EU will not, naturally, be applicable to the UK.
Section 5(2) of the 2018 Act provides that the supremacy of EU law applies to any enactment or rule of EU law ‘so far as relevant to the interpretation, disapplication or quashing of any enactment or rule of law passed or made before exit day’. In other words, supremacy is still a relevant principle for all EU retained law.
According to s.6(7) of the 2018 Act retained EU law means:
‘anything which, on or after exit day, continues to be, or forms part of, domestic law by virtue of section 2, 3 or 4 or subsection (3) or (6) above (as that body of law is added to or otherwise modified by or under this Act or by other domestic law from time to time);’
This creates the following five sub-categories of ‘EU retained law’.

1. ‘EU-derived domestic legislation’
   Under s. 2 of the 2018 Act EU-derived domestic legislation is any primary legislation created in order to give effect to EU law obligations or secondary legislation made under the enabling provisions of the European Communities Act 1972, or ‘relating otherwise to the EU or the EEA’. Strictly speaking, of course, there was no need to ‘save’ primary law, but the Act is doing so anyway.
2. ‘direct EU legislation’
   Under s. 3 of the 2018 Act, ‘direct EU legislation, so far as operative immediately before exit day, forms part of domestic law on and after exit day’. Section 3(2)(a) specifies that direct EU legislation includes regulations and decisions, but not directives. Section 5(4) explicitly excludes the Charter of Fundamental Rights from EU retained law.
3. ‘rights etc. under section 2(1) of the ECA’
   Under s.4 of the 2018 Act, ‘any rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures which, immediately before exit day (a) are recognised and available in domestic law by virtue of section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972, and (b) are enforced, allowed and followed accordingly, continue on and after exit day to be recognised and available in domestic law (and to be enforced, allowed and followed accordingly)’. This is a provision, effectively incorporates the whole of EU law into UK law. It has made it necessary for UK ministers to legislate to exclude various aspects of the Treaties from the status of ‘EU retained law’. For example, The Freedom of Establishment and Free Movement of Services (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 removed Articles 49, 56 and 57 TFEU and Articles 36 and 37 of the EEA Agreement from retained EU Law. Section 4(2) of the 2019 Act creates an exception, however, for rights that arise under an EU Directive ‘and are not of a kind recognised by the European Court or any court or tribunal in the United Kingdom in a case before exit day (whether or not as an essential part of the decision of the case)’. It follows, I suppose, that directly effective directives continue to have direct effect under s. 4 of the 2018 Act.
4. ‘Retained case law’
   Section 6 of the 2018 Act provides that although the Supreme Court of the UK is not ‘bound’ by any retained EU case law (s. 6(4)), any question as to the validity, meaning or effect of any retained EU law is to be decided so far as this law is unmodified on or after the ‘implementation period completion day’, ie 31 December 2020, and so far as it is relevant to it (a) in accordance with any retained EU case law, and any general principles of EU law and (b) having regard (among other things) to the limits, immediately before IP completion day, or EU competences. At 6(7) the term ‘retained case law’ is defined as (a) retained domestic case law and (b) retained EU case law.
5. ‘Retained general principles of law’
   As we saw above, s. 6 of the 2018 Act provides that ‘retained general principles of law’ are relevant in the interpretation and application of EU retained law. These principles are defined in s 6(7) as: the general principles of EU law, as they have effect in EU law immediately before IP completion day and so far as they—(a) relate to anything to which section 2, 3 or 4 applies, and (b) are not excluded by section 5 or Schedule 1, (as those principles are modified by or under this Act or by other domestic law from time to time).