Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Private CCTV camera filming pavement
930 views
Skip to first unread message
Tough Guy no. 1265
Nov 15, 2015, 4:42:04 PM11/15/15
to
My neighbour's brother is going to fit a CCTV camera and told me (via my neighbour) that it's illegal for it to face the pavement. Am I correct in assuming he's talking nonsense? You can film in public, otherwise all car and bicycle dashcams would be breaking the law. Surely it's only illegal if the camera films private land, such as next door's garden?
Steve Walker
Nov 15, 2015, 7:10:29 PM11/15/15
to
householder, so he can include the pavement (or next door's garden) in
the field of view if he wishes.
In practice however, if the Police get a complaint then they may visit
and ask to see the camera view. If it appears to them to go
substantially beyond the householder's land, especially if it appears to
infringe someone else's privacy, then they may mutter darkly about
harassment and ASBO's.
Tough Guy no. 1265
Nov 16, 2015, 9:45:52 AM11/16/15
to
Espen H. Koht
Nov 16, 2015, 3:16:17 PM11/16/15
to
In article <op.x75p2...@red.lan>,
If you are filming anything other than your own land you aren't you
likely to be bound be the DPA? The exception to Domestic Purpose in the
act only cover:
"Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that
individual's personal, family or household affairs (including
recreational purposes) are exempt from the data protection principles
and the provisions of Parts II and III."
likely to be bound be the DPA? The exception to Domestic Purpose in the
act only cover:
"Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that
individual's personal, family or household affairs (including
recreational purposes) are exempt from the data protection principles
and the provisions of Parts II and III."
Tough Guy no. 1265
Nov 16, 2015, 5:37:34 PM11/16/15
to
--
Carpe Foxum: Seize the Babe.
Roger Hayter
Nov 16, 2015, 6:17:47 PM11/16/15
to
people passing my house was very much information only for my personal
use. It might be different if I used facial recognition software, but
even then knowing who passes my house is in general only going to be of
interest to me, especially if I didn't know, or record, their real name.
--
Roger Hayter
Tough Guy no. 1265
Nov 16, 2015, 8:18:00 PM11/16/15
to
Janet
Nov 17, 2015, 7:36:00 AM11/17/15
to
In article <op.x77v8...@red.lan>, n...@spam.com says...
However, a security camera trained on and recording a private
households comings and goings, or looking into their windows, is
a different league of privacy-invasion from the security cameras in
Marks and Spencer.
Janet
households comings and goings, or looking into their windows, is
a different league of privacy-invasion from the security cameras in
Marks and Spencer.
Janet
steve robinson
Nov 17, 2015, 10:52:16 AM11/17/15
to
solely to record your neighbors going in ad out of the door or
peering directly into a bedroom there shouldn't be a problem.
My cameras pick up the neighbors doors across the road, anyone
entering or leaving is just an unidentifiable blur.
It picks up my next door neighbor coming and goings but it doesn't
bother them as it also covers their car (plus I asked them if they had
any objection to me putting camera up
Tough Guy no. 1265
Nov 17, 2015, 10:52:36 AM11/17/15
to
Tough Guy no. 1265
Nov 17, 2015, 12:56:06 PM11/17/15
to
Steve Walker
Nov 17, 2015, 5:25:28 PM11/17/15
to
On 15/11/2015 23:34, Steve Walker wrote:
> There is no legislation restricting the use of cctv by a private
> householder, so he can include the pavement (or next door's garden) in
> the field of view if he wishes.
>
> In practice however, if the Police get a complaint then they may visit
> and ask to see the camera view. If it appears to them to go
> substantially beyond the householder's land, especially if it appears to
> infringe someone else's privacy, then they may mutter darkly about
> harassment and ASBO's.
Just a note to modify above - It seems that the European court of
> There is no legislation restricting the use of cctv by a private
> householder, so he can include the pavement (or next door's garden) in
> the field of view if he wishes.
>
> In practice however, if the Police get a complaint then they may visit
> and ask to see the camera view. If it appears to them to go
> substantially beyond the householder's land, especially if it appears to
> infringe someone else's privacy, then they may mutter darkly about
> harassment and ASBO's.
justice issued a ruling in late 2014 which has potential to overturn the
UK's traditional "domestic use is unregulated" position.
www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/11/home-surveillance-cctv-images-may-breach-data-protection-rules-european-court-judgment-says
I do not think that UK statute has been amended (and may never be).
Iain Archer
Nov 17, 2015, 7:03:19 PM11/17/15
to
Steve Walker <persi...@byzantium.invalid> wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2015 at
22:21:57:
The ICO has amended its guidance though:
"If your camera covers, even partially, any areas beyond the boundaries
of your property, such as neighbouring gardens or the street, then it
will no longer be exempt from the Data Protection Act (DPA) under the
domestic purposes exemption. This does not mean that you are breaching
the DPA but it does mean that you are subject to it. "
https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/cctv/ ;
and their 2015 Code of Practice (387kB), which refers to the Ryneš
judgment is downloadable at
<https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/cctv/>.
We also have a (fairly powerless afaics)
<https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/surveillance-camera-commissi
oner>.
I'd have thought that a major consideration in any of this would be to
avoid getting on the wrong side of neighbours or other viewees. Keeping
neighbours, in particular, fully informed and reassured would, I guess,
help avoid most difficulties. Can anyone envisage DPA problems, with
sanctions being invoked in such circumstances? What would be the likely
outcome of a 'worst case' scenario here, such as occurred in the Ryneš
case, where a perp objected to Ryneš making CCTV recordings and giving
them to the police to assist in the perp's conviction? A question that
seems to be common is the possible consequence of using CCTV to overlook
one's vehicle parked in the road outside one's home.
--
Iain Archer
22:21:57:
"If your camera covers, even partially, any areas beyond the boundaries
of your property, such as neighbouring gardens or the street, then it
will no longer be exempt from the Data Protection Act (DPA) under the
domestic purposes exemption. This does not mean that you are breaching
the DPA but it does mean that you are subject to it. "
https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/cctv/ ;
and their 2015 Code of Practice (387kB), which refers to the Ryneš
judgment is downloadable at
<https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/cctv/>.
We also have a (fairly powerless afaics)
<https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/surveillance-camera-commissi
oner>.
I'd have thought that a major consideration in any of this would be to
avoid getting on the wrong side of neighbours or other viewees. Keeping
neighbours, in particular, fully informed and reassured would, I guess,
help avoid most difficulties. Can anyone envisage DPA problems, with
sanctions being invoked in such circumstances? What would be the likely
outcome of a 'worst case' scenario here, such as occurred in the Ryneš
case, where a perp objected to Ryneš making CCTV recordings and giving
them to the police to assist in the perp's conviction? A question that
seems to be common is the possible consequence of using CCTV to overlook
one's vehicle parked in the road outside one's home.
--
Iain Archer
Robin Bignall
Nov 17, 2015, 8:46:09 PM11/17/15
to
so neighbours are not involved. In fact, when part of his wall was
demolished in the middle of the night, presumably by a visitor trying to
turn round in our narrow street, my neighbour told me that it would have
been nice for the cameras to record the street itself. At the time I
had a recorder triggered by movement, and focusing on the street would
have triggered each time a vehicle passed, so it wasn't practical.
--
Robin Bignall
Herts, England
Roland Perry
Nov 18, 2015, 5:57:00 AM11/18/15
to
In message <UjrhYjSO...@gmail.com>, at 23:30:22 on Tue, 17 Nov
2015, Iain Archer <iane...@gmail.com> remarked:
>The ICO has amended its guidance though:
>
>"If your camera covers, even partially, any areas beyond the boundaries
>of your property, such as neighbouring gardens or the street, then it
>will no longer be exempt from the Data Protection Act (DPA) under the
>domestic purposes exemption. This does not mean that you are breaching
>the DPA but it does mean that you are subject to it. "
>https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/cctv/ ;
>
>and their 2015 Code of Practice (387kB), which refers to the Ryneš
>judgment is downloadable at
><https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/cctv/>.
Paragraph 7.2, regarding Body-worn-video could be relevant in the
context of dash-cams mentioned by the OP.
What's not clear to me is where the dividing line should be, or is,
drawn between private photography in public, videos captured by a
smartphone in public, and dashcams - which are in effect a smartphone
recording video that's fixed against the windscreen.
One of the themes which crops up several times in the guide above is a
reluctance to support the gathering of video in the context of being a
"vigilante", watching for things 'just in case'.
--
Roland Perry
2015, Iain Archer <iane...@gmail.com> remarked:
>The ICO has amended its guidance though:
>
>"If your camera covers, even partially, any areas beyond the boundaries
>of your property, such as neighbouring gardens or the street, then it
>will no longer be exempt from the Data Protection Act (DPA) under the
>domestic purposes exemption. This does not mean that you are breaching
>the DPA but it does mean that you are subject to it. "
>https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/cctv/ ;
>
>and their 2015 Code of Practice (387kB), which refers to the Ryneš
>judgment is downloadable at
><https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/cctv/>.
context of dash-cams mentioned by the OP.
What's not clear to me is where the dividing line should be, or is,
drawn between private photography in public, videos captured by a
smartphone in public, and dashcams - which are in effect a smartphone
recording video that's fixed against the windscreen.
One of the themes which crops up several times in the guide above is a
reluctance to support the gathering of video in the context of being a
"vigilante", watching for things 'just in case'.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Nov 18, 2015, 5:57:08 AM11/18/15
to
In message <dvfn4blp13rpgjj2d...@4ax.com>, at 00:09:04 on
Wed, 18 Nov 2015, Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
>My cameras are mounted above my garage doors and look down on my drive
>so neighbours are not involved. In fact, when part of his wall was
>demolished in the middle of the night, presumably by a visitor trying to
>turn round in our narrow street, my neighbour told me that it would have
>been nice for the cameras to record the street itself. At the time I
>had a recorder triggered by movement, and focusing on the street would
>have triggered each time a vehicle passed, so it wasn't practical.
I was looking at a budget CCTV camera the other day, and it has a bug in
the built-in motion detection - you switch it on and it displays the
view, but doesn't record. As soon as there's motion, it starts recording
on its internal memory, but when the motion ceases it switches itself
off. So you only get one activity captured.
Some webcam software has motion detection built in, but you'd need to
have a PC switched on permanently to run it.
--
Roland Perry
Wed, 18 Nov 2015, Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
>My cameras are mounted above my garage doors and look down on my drive
>so neighbours are not involved. In fact, when part of his wall was
>demolished in the middle of the night, presumably by a visitor trying to
>turn round in our narrow street, my neighbour told me that it would have
>been nice for the cameras to record the street itself. At the time I
>had a recorder triggered by movement, and focusing on the street would
>have triggered each time a vehicle passed, so it wasn't practical.
the built-in motion detection - you switch it on and it displays the
view, but doesn't record. As soon as there's motion, it starts recording
on its internal memory, but when the motion ceases it switches itself
off. So you only get one activity captured.
Some webcam software has motion detection built in, but you'd need to
have a PC switched on permanently to run it.
--
Roland Perry
Adam Funk
Nov 18, 2015, 10:30:16 AM11/18/15
to
drive.
Robin Bignall
Nov 18, 2015, 4:52:58 PM11/18/15
to
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:49:07 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
>In message <dvfn4blp13rpgjj2d...@4ax.com>, at 00:09:04 on
>Wed, 18 Nov 2015, Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
>
>>My cameras are mounted above my garage doors and look down on my drive
>>so neighbours are not involved. In fact, when part of his wall was
>>demolished in the middle of the night, presumably by a visitor trying to
>>turn round in our narrow street, my neighbour told me that it would have
>>been nice for the cameras to record the street itself. At the time I
>>had a recorder triggered by movement, and focusing on the street would
>>have triggered each time a vehicle passed, so it wasn't practical.
>
>I was looking at a budget CCTV camera the other day, and it has a bug in
>the built-in motion detection - you switch it on and it displays the
>view, but doesn't record. As soon as there's motion, it starts recording
>on its internal memory, but when the motion ceases it switches itself
>off. So you only get one activity captured.
>
Mine worked like that, but by focusing on the road it would trigger
every time a vehicle or person passed, leading to too many motions to
scan through to find the one that you were interested in. I now have a
continuous recorder holding about 3 week's worth on a 3T drive, focusing
just on my drive, and with software to skip to the moving images.
>Some webcam software has motion detection built in, but you'd need to
>have a PC switched on permanently to run it.
--
Robin Bignall
Herts, England
wrote:
>In message <dvfn4blp13rpgjj2d...@4ax.com>, at 00:09:04 on
>Wed, 18 Nov 2015, Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
>
>>My cameras are mounted above my garage doors and look down on my drive
>>so neighbours are not involved. In fact, when part of his wall was
>>demolished in the middle of the night, presumably by a visitor trying to
>>turn round in our narrow street, my neighbour told me that it would have
>>been nice for the cameras to record the street itself. At the time I
>>had a recorder triggered by movement, and focusing on the street would
>>have triggered each time a vehicle passed, so it wasn't practical.
>
>I was looking at a budget CCTV camera the other day, and it has a bug in
>the built-in motion detection - you switch it on and it displays the
>view, but doesn't record. As soon as there's motion, it starts recording
>on its internal memory, but when the motion ceases it switches itself
>off. So you only get one activity captured.
>
every time a vehicle or person passed, leading to too many motions to
scan through to find the one that you were interested in. I now have a
continuous recorder holding about 3 week's worth on a 3T drive, focusing
just on my drive, and with software to skip to the moving images.
>Some webcam software has motion detection built in, but you'd need to
>have a PC switched on permanently to run it.
--
Herts, England
Iain Archer
Nov 18, 2015, 4:53:17 PM11/18/15
to
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK
--
Iain Archer
Roland Perry
Nov 18, 2015, 5:18:23 PM11/18/15
to
In message <f4iuhcx...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 15:29:51 on Wed, 18
Nov 2015, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>> Some webcam software has motion detection built in, but you'd need to
>> have a PC switched on permanently to run it.
>
>About 6 W to power a new Raspberry Pi with an external USB hard
>drive.
It that a Raspberry Pi running a Windows emulator?
--
Roland Perry
Nov 2015, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>> Some webcam software has motion detection built in, but you'd need to
>> have a PC switched on permanently to run it.
>
>About 6 W to power a new Raspberry Pi with an external USB hard
>drive.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Nov 19, 2015, 3:38:52 AM11/19/15
to
In message <1jrp4bl528vus3ddr...@4ax.com>, at 21:36:52 on
first motion-episode ends. It then records nothing at all until manually
switched back on.
--
Roland Perry
>>I was looking at a budget CCTV camera the other day, and it has a bug in
>>the built-in motion detection - you switch it on and it displays the
>>view, but doesn't record. As soon as there's motion, it starts recording
>>on its internal memory, but when the motion ceases it switches itself
>>off. So you only get one activity captured.
>>
>Mine worked like that, but by focusing on the road it would trigger
>every time a vehicle or person passed, leading to too many motions to
>scan through to find the one that you were interested in.
Juts to be clear, the camera I described switches off as soon as the
>>the built-in motion detection - you switch it on and it displays the
>>view, but doesn't record. As soon as there's motion, it starts recording
>>on its internal memory, but when the motion ceases it switches itself
>>off. So you only get one activity captured.
>>
>Mine worked like that, but by focusing on the road it would trigger
>every time a vehicle or person passed, leading to too many motions to
>scan through to find the one that you were interested in.
first motion-episode ends. It then records nothing at all until manually
switched back on.
--
Roland Perry
Adam Funk
Nov 19, 2015, 6:31:16 AM11/19/15
to
On 2015-11-18, Roland Perry wrote:
But I think Raspbian (GNU/Linux) does have packages suitable for CCTV
(including motion detection).
Adam Funk
Nov 19, 2015, 6:57:25 AM11/19/15
to
On 2015-11-18, Roland Perry wrote:
> What's not clear to me is where the dividing line should be, or is,
> drawn between private photography in public, videos captured by a
> smartphone in public, and dashcams - which are in effect a smartphone
> recording video that's fixed against the windscreen.
>
> One of the themes which crops up several times in the guide above is a
> reluctance to support the gathering of video in the context of being a
> "vigilante", watching for things 'just in case'.
It seems strange to me to regard collecting potential evidence &
> drawn between private photography in public, videos captured by a
> smartphone in public, and dashcams - which are in effect a smartphone
> recording video that's fixed against the windscreen.
>
> One of the themes which crops up several times in the guide above is a
> reluctance to support the gathering of video in the context of being a
> "vigilante", watching for things 'just in case'.
giving what evidence you find to the police (or your insurer, in the
case of a dashcam) as "being a vigilante"; the latter would involve
(for example) reacting with a baseball bat or threats to what you see
on the camera.
Anyway, in order to have the evidence when you need it (hopefully
rarely), you need to leave the camera running all the time. It would
be a lot more dangerous to drive around with one finger hovering over
the dashcam switch just in case an accident is about to happen.
Adam Funk
Nov 19, 2015, 8:09:53 AM11/19/15
to
On 2015-11-19, Huge wrote:
> Zoneminder.
>
> https://www.zoneminder.com/
That's the one, thanks.
> Whether a Pi has enough puff to run it, I don't know. But will likely be
> finding out in the next few months.
Googling 'zoneminder pi' turns up a bunch of people who say they've
done it successfully. The first hit does make this point:
This webcam does not need a self-powered USB hub. Some models do.
<http://www.holylinux.net/content/raspberry-pi-webcam-zoneminder>
I guess a powered USB hub would add another 5 to 10 watts.
>
> https://www.zoneminder.com/
That's the one, thanks.
> Whether a Pi has enough puff to run it, I don't know. But will likely be
> finding out in the next few months.
Googling 'zoneminder pi' turns up a bunch of people who say they've
done it successfully. The first hit does make this point:
This webcam does not need a self-powered USB hub. Some models do.
<http://www.holylinux.net/content/raspberry-pi-webcam-zoneminder>
I guess a powered USB hub would add another 5 to 10 watts.
Roland Perry
Nov 19, 2015, 8:36:22 AM11/19/15
to
In message <47o0icx...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 11:25:56 on Thu, 19
whistleblower, or informer; or if you prefer, a witness taking their
evidence to the police.
>Anyway, in order to have the evidence when you need it (hopefully
>rarely), you need to leave the camera running all the time. It would
>be a lot more dangerous to drive around with one finger hovering over
>the dashcam switch just in case an accident is about to happen.
The OIC's view (for CCTV anyway, and I'm not clear whether dashcams are
included) is that it's disproportionate to capture lots of personal data
"just in case" you happen to capture something untoward every now and
again. They even mention the possibility of footage appearing on
YouTube, in the way that's evident in a couple of tractor-accident
videos linked in another thread.
The argument you make, co-incidentally, is not that different to the
Government's reasons to capture lots of Internet Connection Records
"just in case" they might help when investigating some currently
unspecified crime, in the future.
--
Roland Perry
Nov 2015, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>On 2015-11-18, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> What's not clear to me is where the dividing line should be, or is,
>> drawn between private photography in public, videos captured by a
>> smartphone in public, and dashcams - which are in effect a smartphone
>> recording video that's fixed against the windscreen.
>>
>> One of the themes which crops up several times in the guide above is a
>> reluctance to support the gathering of video in the context of being a
>> "vigilante", watching for things 'just in case'.
>
>It seems strange to me to regard collecting potential evidence &
>giving what evidence you find to the police (or your insurer, in the
>case of a dashcam) as "being a vigilante"; the latter would involve
>(for example) reacting with a baseball bat or threats to what you see
>on the camera.
The form the vigilantism is more likely to take is being a
>
>> What's not clear to me is where the dividing line should be, or is,
>> drawn between private photography in public, videos captured by a
>> smartphone in public, and dashcams - which are in effect a smartphone
>> recording video that's fixed against the windscreen.
>>
>> One of the themes which crops up several times in the guide above is a
>> reluctance to support the gathering of video in the context of being a
>> "vigilante", watching for things 'just in case'.
>
>It seems strange to me to regard collecting potential evidence &
>giving what evidence you find to the police (or your insurer, in the
>case of a dashcam) as "being a vigilante"; the latter would involve
>(for example) reacting with a baseball bat or threats to what you see
>on the camera.
whistleblower, or informer; or if you prefer, a witness taking their
evidence to the police.
>Anyway, in order to have the evidence when you need it (hopefully
>rarely), you need to leave the camera running all the time. It would
>be a lot more dangerous to drive around with one finger hovering over
>the dashcam switch just in case an accident is about to happen.
included) is that it's disproportionate to capture lots of personal data
"just in case" you happen to capture something untoward every now and
again. They even mention the possibility of footage appearing on
YouTube, in the way that's evident in a couple of tractor-accident
videos linked in another thread.
The argument you make, co-incidentally, is not that different to the
Government's reasons to capture lots of Internet Connection Records
"just in case" they might help when investigating some currently
unspecified crime, in the future.
--
Roland Perry
Ian Smith
Nov 19, 2015, 9:14:11 AM11/19/15
to
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 21:36:52 +0000, Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Mine worked like that, but by focusing on the road it would trigger
> every time a vehicle or person passed, leading to too many motions to
> scan through to find the one that you were interested in. I now have a
> continuous recorder holding about 3 week's worth on a 3T drive, focusing
> just on my drive, and with software to skip to the moving images.
'Motion' running on a raspberry pi has the useful function that you
> Mine worked like that, but by focusing on the road it would trigger
> every time a vehicle or person passed, leading to too many motions to
> scan through to find the one that you were interested in. I now have a
> continuous recorder holding about 3 week's worth on a 3T drive, focusing
> just on my drive, and with software to skip to the moving images.
can tell it to only trigger if there's movement in a specified number
of sequential frames. In my case, the camera had view of a small bit
of the road, so a passing car at traffic speed has two frames of
movement (car appears, car disappears), so I set it to trigger if
there are three frames with changes, and most passing cars don't
trigger it.
It's also set to keep a few frames before the trigger - it's clearly
not actually a trigger to start capture, it captures all the time, but
discards frames if there's no trigger event within some interval after
capture. That is, it's a inhibit-routine-discard trigger, not a
commence-capture trigger.
Does a capture-continuously-but-subsequently-discard operation get any
different treatment to a capture-on-trigger operation, legally? I
assume not, but I have no basis for that assumption.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Ian Smith
Nov 19, 2015, 11:22:10 AM11/19/15
to
On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 13:25:43 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <47o0icx...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 11:25:56 on Thu, 19
> Nov 2015, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
> >
> In message <47o0icx...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 11:25:56 on Thu, 19
> Nov 2015, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
> >
> >It seems strange to me to regard collecting potential evidence &
> >giving what evidence you find to the police (or your insurer, in
> >the case of a dashcam) as "being a vigilante"; the latter would
> >involve (for example) reacting with a baseball bat or threats to
> >what you see on the camera.
>
> The form the vigilantism is more likely to take is being a
> whistleblower, or informer; or if you prefer, a witness taking their
> evidence to the police.
Gosh, is making a report to the police of suspicious activity really
> >giving what evidence you find to the police (or your insurer, in
> >the case of a dashcam) as "being a vigilante"; the latter would
> >involve (for example) reacting with a baseball bat or threats to
> >what you see on the camera.
>
> The form the vigilantism is more likely to take is being a
> whistleblower, or informer; or if you prefer, a witness taking their
> evidence to the police.
classified as being a vigilante? I must be a vigilante. I've
reported suspicious activity to the police. They seemed grateful for
the report.
It seems the government wants us all to be vigilantes, then, since we
are being encouraged to report suspicious behaviour to the
authorities.
This seems to me to be stretching the definition of 'vigilante' so
far outside it's normally accepted meaning as to be meaningless.
Roland Perry
Nov 19, 2015, 12:08:24 PM11/19/15
to
In message <slrnn4rth...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, at 16:15:40
on Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:
>> >It seems strange to me to regard collecting potential evidence &
>> >giving what evidence you find to the police (or your insurer, in
>> >the case of a dashcam) as "being a vigilante"; the latter would
>> >involve (for example) reacting with a baseball bat or threats to
>> >what you see on the camera.
>>
>> The form the vigilantism is more likely to take is being a
>> whistleblower, or informer; or if you prefer, a witness taking their
>> evidence to the police.
>
>Gosh, is making a report to the police of suspicious activity really
>classified as being a vigilante? I must be a vigilante. I've
>reported suspicious activity to the police. They seemed grateful for
>the report.
>
>It seems the government wants us all to be vigilantes, then, since we
>are being encouraged to report suspicious behaviour to the
>authorities.
They do, but not necessarily encouraging private-sector CCTV deployment
to supplement the public sector deployment.
I was interviewed informally earlier in the week by a constable with a
bodycam, in case I'd been a witness to something. I'm more confident of
the regulatory framework preventing that footage appearing on YouTube,
than if it had been a random member of the public with a bodycam.
>This seems to me to be stretching the definition of 'vigilante' so
>far outside it's normally accepted meaning as to be meaningless.
Most, if not all, of the dashcam footage I've viewed online has been of
incidents where the car from which the filming was done was not itself
involved. So what's their motive, other than to say "look at this bad
driver, he should be punished"?
--
Roland Perry
on Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:
>> >It seems strange to me to regard collecting potential evidence &
>> >giving what evidence you find to the police (or your insurer, in
>> >the case of a dashcam) as "being a vigilante"; the latter would
>> >involve (for example) reacting with a baseball bat or threats to
>> >what you see on the camera.
>>
>> The form the vigilantism is more likely to take is being a
>> whistleblower, or informer; or if you prefer, a witness taking their
>> evidence to the police.
>
>Gosh, is making a report to the police of suspicious activity really
>classified as being a vigilante? I must be a vigilante. I've
>reported suspicious activity to the police. They seemed grateful for
>the report.
>
>It seems the government wants us all to be vigilantes, then, since we
>are being encouraged to report suspicious behaviour to the
>authorities.
to supplement the public sector deployment.
I was interviewed informally earlier in the week by a constable with a
bodycam, in case I'd been a witness to something. I'm more confident of
the regulatory framework preventing that footage appearing on YouTube,
than if it had been a random member of the public with a bodycam.
>This seems to me to be stretching the definition of 'vigilante' so
>far outside it's normally accepted meaning as to be meaningless.
incidents where the car from which the filming was done was not itself
involved. So what's their motive, other than to say "look at this bad
driver, he should be punished"?
--
Roland Perry
Adam Funk
Nov 19, 2015, 1:45:08 PM11/19/15
to
On 2015-11-19, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <47o0icx...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 11:25:56 on Thu, 19
> Nov 2015, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
> In message <47o0icx...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 11:25:56 on Thu, 19
> Nov 2015, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>>Anyway, in order to have the evidence when you need it (hopefully
>>rarely), you need to leave the camera running all the time. It would
>>be a lot more dangerous to drive around with one finger hovering over
>>the dashcam switch just in case an accident is about to happen.
>
> The OIC's view (for CCTV anyway, and I'm not clear whether dashcams are
> included) is that it's disproportionate to capture lots of personal data
> "just in case" you happen to capture something untoward every now and
> again. They even mention the possibility of footage appearing on
> YouTube, in the way that's evident in a couple of tractor-accident
> videos linked in another thread.
>
> The argument you make, co-incidentally, is not that different to the
> Government's reasons to capture lots of Internet Connection Records
> "just in case" they might help when investigating some currently
> unspecified crime, in the future.
There are (at least) two major differences between domestic/car
>>rarely), you need to leave the camera running all the time. It would
>>be a lot more dangerous to drive around with one finger hovering over
>>the dashcam switch just in case an accident is about to happen.
>
> The OIC's view (for CCTV anyway, and I'm not clear whether dashcams are
> included) is that it's disproportionate to capture lots of personal data
> "just in case" you happen to capture something untoward every now and
> again. They even mention the possibility of footage appearing on
> YouTube, in the way that's evident in a couple of tractor-accident
> videos linked in another thread.
>
> The argument you make, co-incidentally, is not that different to the
> Government's reasons to capture lots of Internet Connection Records
> "just in case" they might help when investigating some currently
> unspecified crime, in the future.
surveillance & gov't snooping: home CCTV & dashcam operators are only
recording what happens in the area of their own homes or cars; & for
the most part, they delete or overwrite the records if nothing bad
happens.
OTOH, the gov't is slurping up everything it can get its hands on, &
retaining everything indefinitely in order to be able to make a case
retrospectively (i.e., against people it doesn't like).
Adam Funk
Nov 19, 2015, 1:45:30 PM11/19/15
to
On 2015-11-19, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <slrnn4rth...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, at 16:15:40
> on Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:
> on Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:
>>> The form the vigilantism is more likely to take is being a
>>> whistleblower, or informer; or if you prefer, a witness taking their
>>> evidence to the police.
>>
>>Gosh, is making a report to the police of suspicious activity really
>>classified as being a vigilante? I must be a vigilante. I've
>>reported suspicious activity to the police. They seemed grateful for
>>the report.
>>
>>It seems the government wants us all to be vigilantes, then, since we
>>are being encouraged to report suspicious behaviour to the
>>authorities.
...
>>> whistleblower, or informer; or if you prefer, a witness taking their
>>> evidence to the police.
>>
>>Gosh, is making a report to the police of suspicious activity really
>>classified as being a vigilante? I must be a vigilante. I've
>>reported suspicious activity to the police. They seemed grateful for
>>the report.
>>
>>It seems the government wants us all to be vigilantes, then, since we
>>are being encouraged to report suspicious behaviour to the
>>authorities.
>>This seems to me to be stretching the definition of 'vigilante' so
>>far outside it's normally accepted meaning as to be meaningless.
>
> Most, if not all, of the dashcam footage I've viewed online has been of
> incidents where the car from which the filming was done was not itself
> involved. So what's their motive, other than to say "look at this bad
> driver, he should be punished"?
What's wrong with having that motive? (Slapping it on youtube isn't
>>far outside it's normally accepted meaning as to be meaningless.
>
> Most, if not all, of the dashcam footage I've viewed online has been of
> incidents where the car from which the filming was done was not itself
> involved. So what's their motive, other than to say "look at this bad
> driver, he should be punished"?
the right way to go about it, but I'm just talking about the motive.)
If I sent the police some fortuitous footage (let's say dashcam while
driving through your neighbourhood) with the motive "look at this bad
man breaking into Roland's house, he should be punished", that would
be a good thing, wouldn't it?
Roland Perry
Nov 19, 2015, 2:33:24 PM11/19/15
to
In message <pdh1icx...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 18:36:09 on Thu, 19
originally set at 3days to capture web data about events which "hit the
headlines". But somewhat inevitably not every crime is investigated that
quickly.
Nevertheless, the OIC is unconvinced that there's a regime in place to
regulate whether private individuals do indeed delete the data if
nothing bad happens, and especially if nothing bad happens to *them*.
--
Roland Perry
>> The argument you make, co-incidentally, is not that different to the
>> Government's reasons to capture lots of Internet Connection Records
>> "just in case" they might help when investigating some currently
>> unspecified crime, in the future.
>
>There are (at least) two major differences between domestic/car
>surveillance & gov't snooping: home CCTV & dashcam operators are only
>recording what happens in the area of their own homes or cars; & for
>the most part, they delete or overwrite the records if nothing bad
>happens.
Which used to be the case with government data retention - it was
>> Government's reasons to capture lots of Internet Connection Records
>> "just in case" they might help when investigating some currently
>> unspecified crime, in the future.
>
>There are (at least) two major differences between domestic/car
>surveillance & gov't snooping: home CCTV & dashcam operators are only
>recording what happens in the area of their own homes or cars; & for
>the most part, they delete or overwrite the records if nothing bad
>happens.
originally set at 3days to capture web data about events which "hit the
headlines". But somewhat inevitably not every crime is investigated that
quickly.
Nevertheless, the OIC is unconvinced that there's a regime in place to
regulate whether private individuals do indeed delete the data if
nothing bad happens, and especially if nothing bad happens to *them*.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Nov 19, 2015, 3:57:50 PM11/19/15
to
In message <78h1icx...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 18:33:11 on Thu, 19
Nov 2015, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>>>> The form the vigilantism is more likely to take is being a
>>>> whistleblower, or informer; or if you prefer, a witness taking their
>>>> evidence to the police.
>>>
>>>Gosh, is making a report to the police of suspicious activity really
>>>classified as being a vigilante? I must be a vigilante. I've
>>>reported suspicious activity to the police. They seemed grateful for
>>>the report.
>>>
>>>It seems the government wants us all to be vigilantes, then, since we
>>>are being encouraged to report suspicious behaviour to the
>>>authorities.
>...
>>>This seems to me to be stretching the definition of 'vigilante' so
>>>far outside it's normally accepted meaning as to be meaningless.
>>
>> Most, if not all, of the dashcam footage I've viewed online has been of
>> incidents where the car from which the filming was done was not itself
>> involved. So what's their motive, other than to say "look at this bad
>> driver, he should be punished"?
>
>What's wrong with having that motive? (Slapping it on youtube isn't
>the right way to go about it, but I'm just talking about the motive.)
>If I sent the police some fortuitous footage (let's say dashcam while
>driving through your neighbourhood) with the motive "look at this bad
>man breaking into Roland's house, he should be punished", that would
>be a good thing, wouldn't it?
You probably need to read the OIC document to get the full flavour, but
the gist is "the intrusion into the privacy of the 99.99% of people
caught on camera while behaving, doesn't justify capturing the CCTV in
order to finger the 0.01%
--
Roland Perry
Nov 2015, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>>>> The form the vigilantism is more likely to take is being a
>>>> whistleblower, or informer; or if you prefer, a witness taking their
>>>> evidence to the police.
>>>
>>>Gosh, is making a report to the police of suspicious activity really
>>>classified as being a vigilante? I must be a vigilante. I've
>>>reported suspicious activity to the police. They seemed grateful for
>>>the report.
>>>
>>>It seems the government wants us all to be vigilantes, then, since we
>>>are being encouraged to report suspicious behaviour to the
>>>authorities.
>...
>>>This seems to me to be stretching the definition of 'vigilante' so
>>>far outside it's normally accepted meaning as to be meaningless.
>>
>> Most, if not all, of the dashcam footage I've viewed online has been of
>> incidents where the car from which the filming was done was not itself
>> involved. So what's their motive, other than to say "look at this bad
>> driver, he should be punished"?
>
>What's wrong with having that motive? (Slapping it on youtube isn't
>the right way to go about it, but I'm just talking about the motive.)
>If I sent the police some fortuitous footage (let's say dashcam while
>driving through your neighbourhood) with the motive "look at this bad
>man breaking into Roland's house, he should be punished", that would
>be a good thing, wouldn't it?
the gist is "the intrusion into the privacy of the 99.99% of people
caught on camera while behaving, doesn't justify capturing the CCTV in
order to finger the 0.01%
--
Roland Perry
Ian Smith
Nov 20, 2015, 2:21:59 AM11/20/15
to
On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 16:57:26 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <slrnn4rth...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, at 16:15:40
> on Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:
>
> In message <slrnn4rth...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, at 16:15:40
> on Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:
>
> >This seems to me to be stretching the definition of 'vigilante' so
> >far outside it's normally accepted meaning as to be meaningless.
>
> Most, if not all, of the dashcam footage I've viewed online has
> been of incidents where the car from which the filming was done was
> not itself involved. So what's their motive, other than to say
> "look at this bad driver, he should be punished"?
What's wrong with that motive? Society believes people that do wrong
> >far outside it's normally accepted meaning as to be meaningless.
>
> Most, if not all, of the dashcam footage I've viewed online has
> been of incidents where the car from which the filming was done was
> not itself involved. So what's their motive, other than to say
> "look at this bad driver, he should be punished"?
should be punished (we wouldn't need a criminal justice system,
surely, were it otherwise?) What is wrong with an individual
believing individually what society believes collectively?
Next time I witness a traffic accident and the insurance companies
write to me, should I refuse to describe what happened because to do
so would be being a vigilante?
For what it's worth I have put dashcam footage on the internet (though
not youtube). I (and my camera) witnessed a traffic collision in
which one vehicle was stationary in front of me and another drove into
it (side-swiped it). The driver of the moving vehicle was adamant he
did nothing wrong - it was all the elderly lady driver's fault. She,
meanwhile, was very upset and thought she'd been stationary but was
doubting herself and the barrage of bluster from him. My footage
clearly shows her stationary throughout (except as the car is dragged
sideways by the impact) and him driving into her. I put the footage
up, so when the insurance companies wrote to me I could give them the
link (which I did). Is that wrong?
Is it more wrong that I also think he should have some penalty, not
only for poor driving, but also for blaming it all on the innocent
party? He was a professional driver, so I also wrote to his employer
and sent them the link too.
If it was you that had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the
wrong time, and someone drove into the side of you, would it be wrong
to provide the insurance company with the proof you were an entirely
innocent party? Is it more wrong to have video evidence of what
happened rather than just a poor memory of it?
Roland Perry
Nov 20, 2015, 4:24:13 AM11/20/15
to
In message <slrnn4tid...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, at 07:17:45
on Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:
monitoring on the off-chance it will result in some evidence is quite
another.
>Next time I witness a traffic accident and the insurance companies
>write to me, should I refuse to describe what happened because to do
>so would be being a vigilante?
That's not the circumstances under discussion.
>For what it's worth I have put dashcam footage on the internet (though
>not youtube). I (and my camera) witnessed a traffic collision in
>which one vehicle was stationary in front of me and another drove into
>it (side-swiped it). The driver of the moving vehicle was adamant he
>did nothing wrong - it was all the elderly lady driver's fault. She,
>meanwhile, was very upset and thought she'd been stationary but was
>doubting herself and the barrage of bluster from him. My footage
>clearly shows her stationary throughout (except as the car is dragged
>sideways by the impact) and him driving into her. I put the footage
>up, so when the insurance companies wrote to me I could give them the
>link (which I did). Is that wrong?
Loading it onto a website as a way of doing a store-and-forward to a
specific justifiable recipient isn't wrong, but the recent changes to
the OIC guidance might well indicate that it would be wrong to post it
on a public page.
>Is it more wrong that I also think he should have some penalty, not
>only for poor driving, but also for blaming it all on the innocent
>party? He was a professional driver, so I also wrote to his employer
>and sent them the link too.
>
>If it was you that had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the
>wrong time, and someone drove into the side of you, would it be wrong
>to provide the insurance company with the proof you were an entirely
>innocent party? Is it more wrong to have video evidence of what
>happened rather than just a poor memory of it?
The "wrong" is all that footage you taken which *doesn't* show anything
untoward happening, and is an invasion of the privacy of the people who
are captured. Perhaps we are over-reading the Rynes judgement (which
does allow footage to be given to the authorities after an incident) but
if a CCTV camera on your house isn't now supposed to be set up so that
can record the footpath and road, it would make sense that a camera
designed specifically to do that might also not qualify for the domestic
exemption.
--
Roland Perry
on Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:
>On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 16:57:26 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <slrnn4rth...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, at 16:15:40
>> on Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:
>>
>> >This seems to me to be stretching the definition of 'vigilante' so
>> >far outside it's normally accepted meaning as to be meaningless.
>>
>> Most, if not all, of the dashcam footage I've viewed online has
>> been of incidents where the car from which the filming was done was
>> not itself involved. So what's their motive, other than to say
>> "look at this bad driver, he should be punished"?
>
>What's wrong with that motive? Society believes people that do wrong
>should be punished (we wouldn't need a criminal justice system,
>surely, were it otherwise?) What is wrong with an individual
>believing individually what society believes collectively?
Beliefs are one thing, carrying out unregulated surveillance and CCTV
>> In message <slrnn4rth...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, at 16:15:40
>> on Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:
>>
>> >This seems to me to be stretching the definition of 'vigilante' so
>> >far outside it's normally accepted meaning as to be meaningless.
>>
>> Most, if not all, of the dashcam footage I've viewed online has
>> been of incidents where the car from which the filming was done was
>> not itself involved. So what's their motive, other than to say
>> "look at this bad driver, he should be punished"?
>
>What's wrong with that motive? Society believes people that do wrong
>should be punished (we wouldn't need a criminal justice system,
>surely, were it otherwise?) What is wrong with an individual
>believing individually what society believes collectively?
monitoring on the off-chance it will result in some evidence is quite
another.
>Next time I witness a traffic accident and the insurance companies
>write to me, should I refuse to describe what happened because to do
>so would be being a vigilante?
>For what it's worth I have put dashcam footage on the internet (though
>not youtube). I (and my camera) witnessed a traffic collision in
>which one vehicle was stationary in front of me and another drove into
>it (side-swiped it). The driver of the moving vehicle was adamant he
>did nothing wrong - it was all the elderly lady driver's fault. She,
>meanwhile, was very upset and thought she'd been stationary but was
>doubting herself and the barrage of bluster from him. My footage
>clearly shows her stationary throughout (except as the car is dragged
>sideways by the impact) and him driving into her. I put the footage
>up, so when the insurance companies wrote to me I could give them the
>link (which I did). Is that wrong?
specific justifiable recipient isn't wrong, but the recent changes to
the OIC guidance might well indicate that it would be wrong to post it
on a public page.
>Is it more wrong that I also think he should have some penalty, not
>only for poor driving, but also for blaming it all on the innocent
>party? He was a professional driver, so I also wrote to his employer
>and sent them the link too.
>
>If it was you that had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the
>wrong time, and someone drove into the side of you, would it be wrong
>to provide the insurance company with the proof you were an entirely
>innocent party? Is it more wrong to have video evidence of what
>happened rather than just a poor memory of it?
untoward happening, and is an invasion of the privacy of the people who
are captured. Perhaps we are over-reading the Rynes judgement (which
does allow footage to be given to the authorities after an incident) but
if a CCTV camera on your house isn't now supposed to be set up so that
can record the footpath and road, it would make sense that a camera
designed specifically to do that might also not qualify for the domestic
exemption.
--
Roland Perry
Peter Crosland
Nov 20, 2015, 4:36:25 AM11/20/15
to
On 20/11/2015 7:17, Ian Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 16:57:26 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <slrnn4rth...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, at 16:15:40
>> on Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:
>>
>>> This seems to me to be stretching the definition of 'vigilante' so
>>> far outside it's normally accepted meaning as to be meaningless.
>>
>> Most, if not all, of the dashcam footage I've viewed online has
>> been of incidents where the car from which the filming was done was
>> not itself involved. So what's their motive, other than to say
>> "look at this bad driver, he should be punished"?
The motive for having a dash camera is, I would suggest, for most users
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 16:57:26 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <slrnn4rth...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, at 16:15:40
>> on Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:
>>
>>> This seems to me to be stretching the definition of 'vigilante' so
>>> far outside it's normally accepted meaning as to be meaningless.
>>
>> Most, if not all, of the dashcam footage I've viewed online has
>> been of incidents where the car from which the filming was done was
>> not itself involved. So what's their motive, other than to say
>> "look at this bad driver, he should be punished"?
the peace of mind that there will be some evidence if they are involved
in a collision, particularly where they are not at fault. The examples
posted on-line are a by-product of this rather than the primary purpose.
--
Peter Crosland
Reply address is valid
Roland Perry
Nov 20, 2015, 5:18:59 AM11/20/15
to
In message <49idnRS8lL0AQtPL...@brightview.co.uk>, at
08:53:48 on Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
be a test of proportionality and appropriateness when gathering and
processing personal data, and a secondary purpose such as posting clips
on line may well fail both of those.
It's possible that one might claim an exemption on the grounds of
journalistic purposes, for such clips; but ICO would probably disagree
that there was a "pressing need" (to use their words) for a dashcam to
address the amateur gathering of evidence of road traffic accidents that
just happened to involve the vehicle with the dashcam.
--
Roland Perry
08:53:48 on Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
remarked:
>>>> This seems to me to be stretching the definition of 'vigilante' so
>>>> far outside it's normally accepted meaning as to be meaningless.
>>>
>>> Most, if not all, of the dashcam footage I've viewed online has
>>> been of incidents where the car from which the filming was done was
>>> not itself involved. So what's their motive, other than to say
>>> "look at this bad driver, he should be punished"?
>
>The motive for having a dash camera is, I would suggest, for most users
>the peace of mind that there will be some evidence if they are involved
>in a collision, particularly where they are not at fault. The examples
>posted on-line are a by-product of this rather than the primary purpose.
You've hit the nail on the head. Data Protection law requires there to
>>>> This seems to me to be stretching the definition of 'vigilante' so
>>>> far outside it's normally accepted meaning as to be meaningless.
>>>
>>> Most, if not all, of the dashcam footage I've viewed online has
>>> been of incidents where the car from which the filming was done was
>>> not itself involved. So what's their motive, other than to say
>>> "look at this bad driver, he should be punished"?
>
>The motive for having a dash camera is, I would suggest, for most users
>the peace of mind that there will be some evidence if they are involved
>in a collision, particularly where they are not at fault. The examples
>posted on-line are a by-product of this rather than the primary purpose.
be a test of proportionality and appropriateness when gathering and
processing personal data, and a secondary purpose such as posting clips
on line may well fail both of those.
It's possible that one might claim an exemption on the grounds of
journalistic purposes, for such clips; but ICO would probably disagree
that there was a "pressing need" (to use their words) for a dashcam to
address the amateur gathering of evidence of road traffic accidents that
just happened to involve the vehicle with the dashcam.
--
Roland Perry
Adam Funk
Nov 20, 2015, 6:48:54 AM11/20/15
to
On 2015-11-19, Roland Perry wrote:
>>What's wrong with having that motive? (Slapping it on youtube isn't
>>the right way to go about it, but I'm just talking about the motive.)
>>If I sent the police some fortuitous footage (let's say dashcam while
>>driving through your neighbourhood) with the motive "look at this bad
>>man breaking into Roland's house, he should be punished", that would
>>be a good thing, wouldn't it?
>
> You probably need to read the OIC document to get the full flavour, but
> the gist is "the intrusion into the privacy of the 99.99% of people
> caught on camera while behaving, doesn't justify capturing the CCTV in
> order to finger the 0.01%
The obvious (to me) solution is to require the CCTV operator to delete
>>the right way to go about it, but I'm just talking about the motive.)
>>If I sent the police some fortuitous footage (let's say dashcam while
>>driving through your neighbourhood) with the motive "look at this bad
>>man breaking into Roland's house, he should be punished", that would
>>be a good thing, wouldn't it?
>
> You probably need to read the OIC document to get the full flavour, but
> the gist is "the intrusion into the privacy of the 99.99% of people
> caught on camera while behaving, doesn't justify capturing the CCTV in
> order to finger the 0.01%
unneeded footage after a reasonable time --- But I think that should
apply even more forcefully to commercial & government CCTV (as well as
to things like ANPR records) than to personal use.
Roland Perry
Nov 20, 2015, 10:05:35 AM11/20/15
to
In message <ldc3icx...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 11:23:01 on Fri, 20
It [deletion] already applies to commercial and government CCTV, but
until recently people thought that the domestic exemption applied to
personal cctv. As such, there would be no code of practice or other
rules to impose.
--
Roland Perry
until recently people thought that the domestic exemption applied to
personal cctv. As such, there would be no code of practice or other
rules to impose.
--
Roland Perry
Ian Smith
Nov 20, 2015, 10:37:28 AM11/20/15
to
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:20:18 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <slrnn4tid...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, at 07:17:45
> on Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:
> >On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 16:57:26 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In message <slrnn4rth...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, at 16:15:40
> >> on Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:
> >>
> >> >This seems to me to be stretching the definition of 'vigilante' so
> >> >far outside it's normally accepted meaning as to be meaningless.
> >>
> >> Most, if not all, of the dashcam footage I've viewed online has
> >> been of incidents where the car from which the filming was done was
> >> not itself involved. So what's their motive, other than to say
> >> "look at this bad driver, he should be punished"?
>
> In message <slrnn4tid...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, at 07:17:45
> on Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:
> >On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 16:57:26 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In message <slrnn4rth...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, at 16:15:40
> >> on Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:
> >>
> >> >This seems to me to be stretching the definition of 'vigilante' so
> >> >far outside it's normally accepted meaning as to be meaningless.
> >>
> >> Most, if not all, of the dashcam footage I've viewed online has
> >> been of incidents where the car from which the filming was done was
> >> not itself involved. So what's their motive, other than to say
> >> "look at this bad driver, he should be punished"?
>
> >Next time I witness a traffic accident and the insurance companies
> >write to me, should I refuse to describe what happened because to do
> >so would be being a vigilante?
>
> That's not the circumstances under discussion.
It's the circumstances we are discussing, because I brought it up. I
> >write to me, should I refuse to describe what happened because to do
> >so would be being a vigilante?
>
> That's not the circumstances under discussion.
brought it up because it was claimed that running a dashcam makes one
a vigilante, a claim that I consider to be preposterous. I wish to
explore why reporting what I saw is apparently OK, but reporting what
I saw with evidence of what I saw makes me a vigilante.
> >Is it more wrong that I also think he should have some penalty, not
> >only for poor driving, but also for blaming it all on the innocent
> >party? He was a professional driver, so I also wrote to his
> >employer and sent them the link too.
> >
> >If it was you that had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at
> >the wrong time, and someone drove into the side of you, would it be
> >wrong to provide the insurance company with the proof you were an
> >entirely innocent party? Is it more wrong to have video evidence
> >of what happened rather than just a poor memory of it?
>
> The "wrong" is all that footage you taken which *doesn't* show anything
> untoward happening, and is an invasion of the privacy of the people who
> are captured. Perhaps we are over-reading the Rynes judgement (which
> does allow footage to be given to the authorities after an incident) but
> if a CCTV camera on your house isn't now supposed to be set up so that
> can record the footpath and road, it would make sense that a camera
> designed specifically to do that might also not qualify for the domestic
> exemption.
to generate the footage?
Next time the police make an appeal for mobile phone footage,
presumably we (the people) should tell them we can't because to do so
might be self-incriminating, and we'd rather not risk that?
Roland Perry
Nov 20, 2015, 11:27:23 AM11/20/15
to
In message <slrnn4ufd...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, at 15:32:49
a kind of crowd-sourced CCTV project potentially covering all the roads
in the country. And with no safeguards about what you do with the
resulting personal data of innocent passers-by, and no intention of
restricting the footage you publish to *only* incidents where your car
was involved (if I understand you correctly).
I was looking at another dashcam just now, and that appears to be far
less intrusive because it only saves the video from ten seconds before
you press a button to ten seconds after. But I'm struggling to resolve
that with other aspects of the spec which say it can store 140hrs of
video (at a pretty poor resolution, obviously - the dashcam I've been
testing here uses up SD-card at a rate of 1.2GB per ten minutes).
>> >Is it more wrong that I also think he should have some penalty, not
>> >only for poor driving, but also for blaming it all on the innocent
>> >party? He was a professional driver, so I also wrote to his
>> >employer and sent them the link too.
>> >
>> >If it was you that had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at
>> >the wrong time, and someone drove into the side of you, would it be
>> >wrong to provide the insurance company with the proof you were an
>> >entirely innocent party? Is it more wrong to have video evidence
>> >of what happened rather than just a poor memory of it?
>>
>> The "wrong" is all that footage you taken which *doesn't* show anything
>> untoward happening, and is an invasion of the privacy of the people who
>> are captured. Perhaps we are over-reading the Rynes judgement (which
>> does allow footage to be given to the authorities after an incident) but
>> if a CCTV camera on your house isn't now supposed to be set up so that
>> can record the footpath and road, it would make sense that a camera
>> designed specifically to do that might also not qualify for the domestic
>> exemption.
>
>How can it be right to give footage to the authorities if it's wrong
>to generate the footage?
That's a similar question to "how can it be wrong to use illegally
intercepted phone calls in court, if they help prove the case".
>Next time the police make an appeal for mobile phone footage,
>presumably we (the people) should tell them we can't because to do so
>might be self-incriminating, and we'd rather not risk that?
Not many people wander around with their mobile phone set to record
video the whole day. Arguably it'd qualify as a bodycam if they did.
The longest I've ever done is a shade under 13 minutes, and various
people claimed that was far too long, in a "watching paint dry" sort of
way. While not the intention, it captured several moving traffic
offences, but no-one from law enforcement has asked me for a copy. And I
deliberately posted in as grainy a mode as possible to remove personal
data (mainly the numberplates). The reason for the video was to document
how long a level crossing was down, and how often. You can see it if you
click "previous" a couple of times from the one below.
Here's a slightly shorter one [the start of the last ever
passenger-carrying trip for one class of UndergrounD train], and yes, if
a group of terrorists had suddenly arrived and started shooting at the
train, I wouldn't have a problem volunteering it as evidence.
https://www.facebook.com/roland.perry/videos/10152151548446637/
I would, without my tongue too far in cheek, claim the journalistic
exemption for my trainspotting videos.
--
Roland Perry
>> >> >This seems to me to be stretching the definition of 'vigilante' so
>> >> >far outside it's normally accepted meaning as to be meaningless.
>> >>
>> >> Most, if not all, of the dashcam footage I've viewed online has
>> >> been of incidents where the car from which the filming was done was
>> >> not itself involved. So what's their motive, other than to say
>> >> "look at this bad driver, he should be punished"?
>>
>> >Next time I witness a traffic accident and the insurance companies
>> >write to me, should I refuse to describe what happened because to do
>> >so would be being a vigilante?
>>
>> That's not the circumstances under discussion.
>
>It's the circumstances we are discussing, because I brought it up. I
>brought it up because it was claimed that running a dashcam makes one
>a vigilante, a claim that I consider to be preposterous. I wish to
>explore why reporting what I saw is apparently OK, but reporting what
>I saw with evidence of what I saw makes me a vigilante.
It's the fact you've installed a camera for the purpose of being part of
>> >> >far outside it's normally accepted meaning as to be meaningless.
>> >>
>> >> Most, if not all, of the dashcam footage I've viewed online has
>> >> been of incidents where the car from which the filming was done was
>> >> not itself involved. So what's their motive, other than to say
>> >> "look at this bad driver, he should be punished"?
>>
>> >Next time I witness a traffic accident and the insurance companies
>> >write to me, should I refuse to describe what happened because to do
>> >so would be being a vigilante?
>>
>> That's not the circumstances under discussion.
>
>It's the circumstances we are discussing, because I brought it up. I
>brought it up because it was claimed that running a dashcam makes one
>a vigilante, a claim that I consider to be preposterous. I wish to
>explore why reporting what I saw is apparently OK, but reporting what
>I saw with evidence of what I saw makes me a vigilante.
a kind of crowd-sourced CCTV project potentially covering all the roads
in the country. And with no safeguards about what you do with the
resulting personal data of innocent passers-by, and no intention of
restricting the footage you publish to *only* incidents where your car
was involved (if I understand you correctly).
I was looking at another dashcam just now, and that appears to be far
less intrusive because it only saves the video from ten seconds before
you press a button to ten seconds after. But I'm struggling to resolve
that with other aspects of the spec which say it can store 140hrs of
video (at a pretty poor resolution, obviously - the dashcam I've been
testing here uses up SD-card at a rate of 1.2GB per ten minutes).
>> >Is it more wrong that I also think he should have some penalty, not
>> >only for poor driving, but also for blaming it all on the innocent
>> >party? He was a professional driver, so I also wrote to his
>> >employer and sent them the link too.
>> >
>> >If it was you that had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at
>> >the wrong time, and someone drove into the side of you, would it be
>> >wrong to provide the insurance company with the proof you were an
>> >entirely innocent party? Is it more wrong to have video evidence
>> >of what happened rather than just a poor memory of it?
>>
>> The "wrong" is all that footage you taken which *doesn't* show anything
>> untoward happening, and is an invasion of the privacy of the people who
>> are captured. Perhaps we are over-reading the Rynes judgement (which
>> does allow footage to be given to the authorities after an incident) but
>> if a CCTV camera on your house isn't now supposed to be set up so that
>> can record the footpath and road, it would make sense that a camera
>> designed specifically to do that might also not qualify for the domestic
>> exemption.
>
>How can it be right to give footage to the authorities if it's wrong
>to generate the footage?
intercepted phone calls in court, if they help prove the case".
>Next time the police make an appeal for mobile phone footage,
>presumably we (the people) should tell them we can't because to do so
>might be self-incriminating, and we'd rather not risk that?
video the whole day. Arguably it'd qualify as a bodycam if they did.
The longest I've ever done is a shade under 13 minutes, and various
people claimed that was far too long, in a "watching paint dry" sort of
way. While not the intention, it captured several moving traffic
offences, but no-one from law enforcement has asked me for a copy. And I
deliberately posted in as grainy a mode as possible to remove personal
data (mainly the numberplates). The reason for the video was to document
how long a level crossing was down, and how often. You can see it if you
click "previous" a couple of times from the one below.
Here's a slightly shorter one [the start of the last ever
passenger-carrying trip for one class of UndergrounD train], and yes, if
a group of terrorists had suddenly arrived and started shooting at the
train, I wouldn't have a problem volunteering it as evidence.
https://www.facebook.com/roland.perry/videos/10152151548446637/
I would, without my tongue too far in cheek, claim the journalistic
exemption for my trainspotting videos.
--
Roland Perry
Ian Smith
Nov 20, 2015, 12:10:52 PM11/20/15
to
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 16:25:05 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <slrnn4ufd...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, at 15:32:49
> on Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:
>
> In message <slrnn4ufd...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, at 15:32:49
> on Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> remarked:
>
> that with other aspects of the spec which say it can store 140hrs
> of video (at a pretty poor resolution, obviously - the dashcam I've
> been testing here uses up SD-card at a rate of 1.2GB per ten
> minutes).
Mine runs at about 100MB per minute, so similar rate. The resolution
> of video (at a pretty poor resolution, obviously - the dashcam I've
> been testing here uses up SD-card at a rate of 1.2GB per ten
> minutes).
is plenty for seeing what happens. It has an 8GB card, so captures a
bit over an hour.
> >How can it be right to give footage to the authorities if it's wrong
> >to generate the footage?
>
> That's a similar question to "how can it be wrong to use illegally
> intercepted phone calls in court, if they help prove the case".
you've predefined the evidence in question as being illegal.
I don't doubt that it's wrong to give the authorities illegally
produced video. At question is what constitutes illegally produced
video.
My question is more like saying "How can it be wrong to repeat in
court when asked something I heard someone say in a public place". If
you dredged up some guidance saying it was wrong to repeat things
heard in a public place when asked to do so by the authorities I would
be making that comment - how can it be right to tell the authorities
what I heard if it's wrong to have heard it in the first place?
My point is, if the authorities think it's OK to see the video
produced when it suits them, I conclude they must actually think it's
OK to obtain the video.
Roland Perry
Nov 20, 2015, 1:03:05 PM11/20/15
to
In message <slrnn4ukq...@acheron.astounding.org.uk>, at 17:05:03
a result of the recent European Court case. Please read it, because it
will perhaps leave you, as well as me, with the impression that there's
no longer a domestic exemption to collect streamed CCTV from a public
place on the off-chance that very occasionally it will contain some
footage useful to the authorities.
That's quite distinct from accidentally catching something in the
background when you make a handful of short videos on your cameraphone.
--
Roland Perry
>If you dredged up some guidance saying it was wrong to repeat things
>heard in a public place when asked to do so by the authorities I would
>be making that comment - how can it be right to tell the authorities
>what I heard if it's wrong to have heard it in the first place?
What I have "dredged up" is a lengthy document from the OIC produced as
>heard in a public place when asked to do so by the authorities I would
>be making that comment - how can it be right to tell the authorities
>what I heard if it's wrong to have heard it in the first place?
a result of the recent European Court case. Please read it, because it
will perhaps leave you, as well as me, with the impression that there's
no longer a domestic exemption to collect streamed CCTV from a public
place on the off-chance that very occasionally it will contain some
footage useful to the authorities.
That's quite distinct from accidentally catching something in the
background when you make a handful of short videos on your cameraphone.
--
Roland Perry
Robin Bignall
Nov 20, 2015, 7:06:55 PM11/20/15
to
On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 19:23:07 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
My dashcam starts overwriting previous data after about half an hour. I
could get a larger SD card to record an hour, but this overwriting is
automatic, the dashcam runs all the time the ignition is switched on,
and if I want to keep anything permanently I have to connect a computer
and make a DVD immediately after the incident. I'm not sufficiently
interested in anybody else's driving to want to do that unless they have
an accident involving me. A more permanent record of other's potential
lawbreaking would be if I walked down the High Street with a video
camera, and as far as I know that isn't illegal.
wrote:
could get a larger SD card to record an hour, but this overwriting is
automatic, the dashcam runs all the time the ignition is switched on,
and if I want to keep anything permanently I have to connect a computer
and make a DVD immediately after the incident. I'm not sufficiently
interested in anybody else's driving to want to do that unless they have
an accident involving me. A more permanent record of other's potential
lawbreaking would be if I walked down the High Street with a video
camera, and as far as I know that isn't illegal.
Roland Perry
Nov 21, 2015, 5:05:39 AM11/21/15
to
In message <lrbv4bhvurr0hvkvl...@4ax.com>, at 23:51:15 on
Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
>>the OIC is unconvinced that there's a regime in place to
>>regulate whether private individuals do indeed delete the data if
>>nothing bad happens, and especially if nothing bad happens to *them*.
>
>My dashcam starts overwriting previous data after about half an hour. I
>could get a larger SD card to record an hour, but this overwriting is
>automatic, the dashcam runs all the time the ignition is switched on,
>and if I want to keep anything permanently I have to connect a computer
>and make a DVD immediately after the incident.
The one I'm playing with fills up the SD (~2hrs) and then stops. Or you
can loop it every 1, 3 or 5 minutes.
>I'm not sufficiently interested in anybody else's driving to want to do
>that unless they have an accident involving me.
Sure, but perhaps the long term answer to this issue is that it might be
regarded as a DPA infringement to have a dashcam that doesn't have a
fairly short loop permanently engaged.
>A more permanent record of other's potential
>lawbreaking would be if I walked down the High Street with a video
>camera, and as far as I know that isn't illegal.
It depends on the reason you are doing it. If there's a legitimate
journalistic or entertainment-type filming going on, they are exempt.
But if you are doing it simply so that should something untoward happen
you have a record, then the recent European Court court judgement needs
to be taken into account. Even if previously people were 'not wrong' to
assume it came under the domestic exemption.
--
Roland Perry
Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
>>the OIC is unconvinced that there's a regime in place to
>>regulate whether private individuals do indeed delete the data if
>>nothing bad happens, and especially if nothing bad happens to *them*.
>
>My dashcam starts overwriting previous data after about half an hour. I
>could get a larger SD card to record an hour, but this overwriting is
>automatic, the dashcam runs all the time the ignition is switched on,
>and if I want to keep anything permanently I have to connect a computer
>and make a DVD immediately after the incident.
can loop it every 1, 3 or 5 minutes.
>I'm not sufficiently interested in anybody else's driving to want to do
>that unless they have an accident involving me.
regarded as a DPA infringement to have a dashcam that doesn't have a
fairly short loop permanently engaged.
>A more permanent record of other's potential
>lawbreaking would be if I walked down the High Street with a video
>camera, and as far as I know that isn't illegal.
journalistic or entertainment-type filming going on, they are exempt.
But if you are doing it simply so that should something untoward happen
you have a record, then the recent European Court court judgement needs
to be taken into account. Even if previously people were 'not wrong' to
assume it came under the domestic exemption.
--
Roland Perry
Gorf
Nov 22, 2015, 7:52:53 AM11/22/15
to
On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 9:36:25 AM UTC, Peter Crosland wrote:
>
> The motive for having a dash camera is, I would suggest, for most users
> the peace of mind that there will be some evidence if they are involved
> in a collision, particularly where they are not at fault. The examples
> posted on-line are a by-product of this rather than the primary purpose.
>
My motive for getting one was to film the antisocial behaviour of parents and kids outside the school where I'm a governor - particularly the parents who park on the zigzag markings and the kids who quite deliberately step out in front of moving cars.
>
> The motive for having a dash camera is, I would suggest, for most users
> the peace of mind that there will be some evidence if they are involved
> in a collision, particularly where they are not at fault. The examples
> posted on-line are a by-product of this rather than the primary purpose.
>
I started posting video of the standards of driving I see on other roads on a facebook page someone set up for that very purpose. I can't see any problem with using in-car footage for entertainment purposes. The police do it on national TV.
Roland Perry
Nov 22, 2015, 10:26:12 AM11/22/15
to
In message <bc536d98-dde7-43bb...@googlegroups.com>, at
04:41:01 on Sun, 22 Nov 2015, Gorf <g.p....@gmail.com> remarked:
The police would probably claim they are doing it for "crime
prevention", which is a legitimate activity for them, but not
for random members of the public doing a similar thing.
--
Roland Perry
04:41:01 on Sun, 22 Nov 2015, Gorf <g.p....@gmail.com> remarked:
prevention", which is a legitimate activity for them, but not
for random members of the public doing a similar thing.
--
Roland Perry
Judith
Nov 22, 2015, 10:42:58 AM11/22/15
to
I would quite like to look at it and do a bit of a survey - how many
instances of pedestrians misbehaving, how many drivers, how many invalid
carriages, how many cyclists, etcetera.
Jerry Stuckle
Nov 22, 2015, 1:10:01 PM11/22/15
to
On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 15:17:00 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> The police would probably claim they are doing it for "crime
> prevention", which is a legitimate activity for them, but not for random
> members of the public doing a similar thing.
This is going a bit far; I know of no law that makes it an offence for a
>
> The police would probably claim they are doing it for "crime
> prevention", which is a legitimate activity for them, but not for random
> members of the public doing a similar thing.
"member of the public" to do any act, otherwise legal, for the purpose of
preventing a crime.
Roger Hayter
Nov 22, 2015, 4:36:11 PM11/22/15
to
prejudices among people who post road event videos? It isn't going to
tell you anything about the incidence of events in the real world, is
it?
--
Roger Hayter
Roland Perry
Nov 23, 2015, 5:30:21 AM11/23/15
to
In message <n2sqcg$9p4$6...@dont-email.me>, at 16:26:56 on Sun, 22 Nov
2015, Jerry Stuckle <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>> The police would probably claim they are doing it for "crime
>> prevention", which is a legitimate activity for them, but not for random
>> members of the public doing a similar thing.
>
>This is going a bit far; I know of no law that makes it an offence for a
>"member of the public" to do any act, otherwise legal, for the purpose of
>preventing a crime.
Well spotted. But the issue here is whether posting such things by the
public is "otherwise legal".
--
Roland Perry
2015, Jerry Stuckle <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>> The police would probably claim they are doing it for "crime
>> prevention", which is a legitimate activity for them, but not for random
>> members of the public doing a similar thing.
>
>This is going a bit far; I know of no law that makes it an offence for a
>"member of the public" to do any act, otherwise legal, for the purpose of
>preventing a crime.
public is "otherwise legal".
--
Roland Perry
0 new messages