"Disrupting" CCTV

[Gorf]

My neighbour has installed a CCTV system at the same height as my teenage son's bedroom.

It's in a dome, and I can't tell if it's mobile.

Could I get into trouble for setting up a tripod in his room and fixing a low-power laser pen pointing at the dome?

My reasoning is that if the neighbour complains about the image being disrupted, then the lens must be able to "see" into his room.

The camera is definitely able to see into our back garden, because the only part of their property that it is likely to be looking at would also catch our garden in its field of view. I gather from old posts that I'm out of luck on garden privacy, though.

[Doctor Dave]

Possibly, but you probably wouldn't. Are you sure that you can't damage the camera with this and are you sure that there is no possibility that an aircraft would fall into the line of sight of your laser.

Why do you think that the laser would be a good solution. Even if it could "blind" the camera, you'd have to be pretty sure of your aim onto its lens and that there was never any movement of either the camera or your laser.

[steve robinson]

criminal damage

[GB]

Why don't you have a friendly chat with your neighbour? He can then
tell you what sort of camera it is and show you where it's pointed, etc.
It may even just be a dummy to deter crooks.

[Roland Perry]

In message <88a93c1e-2129-4584...@googlegroups.com>, at
19:05:01 on Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Doctor Dave
<dave-chr...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:

>are you sure that there is no possibility that an aircraft would fall into the line of sight of your laser.

If there's an aircraft in between his son's window and the camera, then
CCTV images are going to be the least of his worries!
--
Roland Perry

[Stephen H]

many CCTV cameras are sensitive to Infra-red illumination. This is so
that they can still "see" in the dark down to near 0 lux illumination.

Simply buy an IR lamp like those sold as a "sidecar" onto IR night
vision cameras. They cannot be seen during the day and only emit a faint
red glow at night.

Simply fix into son's window in the direction of the CCTV camera. When
said CCTV camera swivels round, it will be like the equivalent of
someone shining a headlamp on full beam into your eyes, and all the
recorder will record is a load of "white" light.

This will also confuse the light level auto adjustment as the camera
has to lower the gain to reduce the brightness of the IR source to avoid
saturating the video signal, this has the effect of making everything
else in the picture darker and have less video detail.

This does not damage the CCD sensor in the CCTV camera.

Failing that. fit some privacy film to the glass windows.

[Lordgnome]

Er, what damage - criminal or otherwise? Note from the OP that he is
talking about a low-level device and presumably suggests a laser due to
its directional properties, thus not causing unnecessary light pollution
to all and sundry, as a floodlight would, for example.

It is all down to the OP to ensure that the light output is proportional.

Les.

[John Benn]

"steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xn0il5fi...@reader80.eternal-september.org...

As long as it is a low power laser (1mW or so), it won't damage the camera
sensor from a few metres away, just mess up the image while the laser is
shining at the camera so I'm not sure it counts as any kind of damage.

[Syd Rumpo]

On 29/07/2013 15:45, Gorf wrote:

A laser pen won't last long - they're not designed to. An infra-red LED
array might be better, you can buy such for illumination for security
camera - these are quite sensitive to near infra-red. It will be
invisible to him but would probably blind the camera looking your way.

However this will be difficult to test without access to the camera images.

What the legality of shining a harmless invisible 'light' on your
neighbour's camera is, I have no idea.

Cheers
--
Syd

[AnotherJohn]

On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 21:25:01 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

That's why he said there must be no movement of the laser, or it might
point past it.

[AnotherJohn]

Unless the camera is very close it's going to have a very oblique,
shallow view into the room. I would hope that your son is not going to
be doing anything private so close to the window :)

[Fredxx]

On 29/07/2013 19:25, steve robinson wrote:

An *intent* to cause cause temporary blindness to a camera is unlikely
to be classified as criminal damage even if actual damage was done.

[Pelican]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:$6YWMn$54s9...@perry.co.uk...

It would have to be quite law-flying, and a rather size-challenged aircraft,
to be between the son's window and the CCTV camera. They are both at the
same height.

[Zapp Brannigan]

"Stephen H" <i.lov...@please.spam.me.com> wrote in message
news:_FyJt.39642$i03....@fx03.am4...

> many CCTV cameras are sensitive to Infra-red illumination. This is so that
> they can still "see" in the dark down to near 0 lux illumination.
>
> Simply buy an IR lamp like those sold as a "sidecar" onto IR night vision
> cameras. They cannot be seen during the day and only emit a faint red glow
> at night.
>
> Simply fix into son's window in the direction of the CCTV camera. When
> said CCTV camera swivels round, it will be like the equivalent of someone
> shining a headlamp on full beam into your eyes, and all the recorder will
> record is a load of "white" light.
>
> This will also confuse the light level auto adjustment as the camera has
> to lower the gain to reduce the brightness of the IR source to avoid
> saturating the video signal, this has the effect of making everything else
> in the picture darker and have less video detail.
>
> This does not damage the CCD sensor in the CCTV camera.

Agree - you can buy a cheap IR lamp for a fiver on ebay (item 140977264040
for example) and it will harmlessly "blind" any cctv camera pointing towards
it. Using a laser will raise concerns about equipment damage, and would
be more complicated and costly to install.

[Nightjar]

From the CPS guidelines on criminal damage:

'The damage need not be visible or tangible if it affects the value or
performance of the property'

Colin Bignell

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Gorf" <g.p....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9924029c-5f8c-4382...@googlegroups.com...

> My reasoning is that if the neighbour complains about the image being
> disrupted, then the lens must be able to "see" into his room.
>

Nope. A laser hitting the lens from outside the field of view can still
affect the picture.

Have you thought of wandering next door and speaking to the neighbour?

--
Alex

[Roland Perry]

In message <f0ldv810t4h9vldij...@4ax.com>, at 21:55:02 on
Mon, 29 Jul 2013, AnotherJohn <Anoth...@nowhere.com> remarked:

>>If there's an aircraft in between his son's window and the camera, then
>>CCTV images are going to be the least of his worries!
>
>That's why he said there must be no movement of the laser, or it might
>point past it.

"Past the camera" might also be simply the side wall of the neighbours
house.
--
Roland Perry

[Bill]

In message <9924029c-5f8c-4382...@googlegroups.com>, Gorf
<g.p....@gmail.com> writes

Not quite answering your question, but:-

Your best action would be to talk with the neighbour, explain your
concerns and ask to see what the camera is looking at. Much better than
risking a dispute between the two of you.

If it is a dome, and you can't see if it is mobile, how do you know it
is even pointing at your son's window? Depending on the capabilities
of the lens, and the distance, it may not be able to see any detail in
the room, if it is wide angle. There again if it has decent zoom
capabilities it maybe able to get a good view of the pimple on the end
of his nose.

Is there any where that you could post a decent photo of the camera and
some here maybe able to say if it is likely to be fixed or mobile?

Why not talk with your neighbour?

Looking at it from another point of view. If you have a break in, via
your back garden, you may need to ask him if he has any images of the
incident. If you have been deliberately interfering with his system he
is unlikely to want to assist you.


--
Bill

[Mike Bristow]

In article <kt7m1f$99j$1...@dont-email.me>,

I endorse this approach. The nuclear option would be to go
to the police, and complain that your neighbour seems to be
pointing a camera at your son's bedroom - if he's under 18,
this would might get the police very, very interested. Even
if he's an adult, they should be interested. But chat to
the neighbour first.


--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com

[Neil Williams]

Mike Bristow <mi...@urgle.com> wrote:

> I endorse this approach. The nuclear option would be to go
> to the police, and complain that your neighbour seems to be
> pointing a camera at your son's bedroom - if he's under 18,
> this would might get the police very, very interested.

And potentially wreck his life, as even a minor allegation or investigation
along those lines can cause issues for anyone who works or volunteers in a
position requiring an enhanced DBS (formerly CRB) check.

I agree with the first bit of your post. He probably hasn't even thought
about it - go and have an adult discussion. Maybe he will even say
straight up "sorry, didn't think" and remove it. Or maybe you will be
reassured as to where it is actually pointing, e.g. by being given a tour
of how the system works.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.

[Mike Bristow]

In article <1330673949396868066.681033we...@news.individual.net>,

Neil Williams <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> wrote:
> And potentially wreck his life, as even a minor allegation or investigation
> along those lines can cause issues for anyone who works or volunteers in a
> position requiring an enhanced DBS (formerly CRB) check.

Yes. But if you're not in a position to have a sensible chat with
the neighbour (you've tried and been told to feck off; or you're
not currently talking to each other due to past shenanigans) then
it's may be a sensible way forward.

> I agree with the first bit of your post. He probably hasn't even thought
> about it - go and have an adult discussion. Maybe he will even say
> straight up "sorry, didn't think" and remove it. Or maybe you will be
> reassured as to where it is actually pointing, e.g. by being given a tour
> of how the system works.

It's likely to be quicker, too - the police will take their time.

--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com

[John Benn]

"Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote in message
news:kt6tbg$88e$1...@dont-email.me...

Would that work with speed cameras out of interest? Not that I'm advocating
using a IR light for such but I'm wondering if they are fitted with IR
filters to prevent that from happening.

[Gefreiter Krueger]

On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 09:15:02 +0100, Mike Bristow <mi...@urgle.com> wrote:

> In article <kt7m1f$99j$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Dr Zoidberg <alexNOOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> "Gorf" <g.p....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:9924029c-5f8c-4382...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> My reasoning is that if the neighbour complains about the image being
>>> disrupted, then the lens must be able to "see" into his room.
>>>
>> Nope. A laser hitting the lens from outside the field of view can still
>> affect the picture.
>>
>> Have you thought of wandering next door and speaking to the neighbour?
>
> I endorse this approach. The nuclear option would be to go
> to the police, and complain that your neighbour seems to be
> pointing a camera at your son's bedroom - if he's under 18,

The age of consent in the UK is 16.

[Ste]

Indeed. Otherwise, you'd be saying that the camera owner has a right to a certain kind of view of the target's property - that he is not only entitled to look through their windows, but is entitled to exert control on what may be seen through those windows.

[Mike Bristow]

In article <op.w01sa...@red.lan>,

Gefreiter Krueger <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> The age of consent in the UK is 16.

Irrelevant. Child porn is porn of folk who are, or appear to be,
under 18.

--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com

[Gefreiter Krueger]

Has anyone stopped to think that if he were going to spy through the window, he wouldn't do it in such an obvious manner?

[Ste]

On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 12:30:12 AM UTC+1, Jethro_uk wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 20:25:01 +0100, Lordgnome wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 29/07/2013 19:25, steve robinson wrote:
>

> >> [quoted text muted]

>
> > Er, what damage - criminal or otherwise?
>
>
>

> ISTR the law on criminal damage was changed when protesters put bin bags
>
> over speed cameras ... "criminal damage" is now any act which affects the
>
> functioning of a device.

It's arguable whether you are actually impairing the function of the device, or whether you are merely impairing the intended purpose of the device.

It would also have to be "without lawful excuse".

Covering up a speed camera is a very provocative act, given that the authority have a right of control over all relevant areas of the highway (and is entitled to set up a monitoring device that monitors activity on its property), and given that it is intended to subvert the law enforcement function of that device.

That's not the case with a laser that impairs the camera only when it seeks to view a property that it is not legally entitled to view - it would be absurd to say that the "function" of the camera is to spy into the neighbour's windows, and any denial of this view amounts to "criminal damage".

I think "stray electromagnetic waves" are more likely to be dealt with as nuisance rather than damage, but then it would have to be established that the laser was in fact a nuisance. In fact the unwarranted gaze of a camera into the target's home may well be the nuisance at law!

[Gefreiter Krueger]

On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 20:40:01 +0100, Mike Bristow <mi...@urgle.com> wrote:

> In article <op.w01sa...@red.lan>,
> Gefreiter Krueger <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> The age of consent in the UK is 16.
>
> Irrelevant. Child porn is porn of folk who are, or appear to be,
> under 18.

That is where the law does not make sense. The ages for having sex with, and taking photos or videos of, should be the other way round. Physical interaction is FAR more than photos.

[ARW]

Gorf wrote:
> My neighbour has installed a CCTV system at the same height as my
> teenage son's bedroom.
>
> It's in a dome, and I can't tell if it's mobile.
>
> Could I get into trouble for setting up a tripod in his room and
> fixing a low-power laser pen pointing at the dome?
>
> My reasoning is that if the neighbour complains about the image being
> disrupted, then the lens must be able to "see" into his room.
>
> The camera is definitely able to see into our back garden, because
> the only part of their property that it is likely to be looking at
> would also catch our garden in its field of view. I gather from old
> posts that I'm out of luck on garden privacy, though.

Does your son have curtians or a blind at his window?

--
Adam

[Neil Williams]

"Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

> That is where the law does not make sense. The ages for having sex with,
> and taking photos or videos of, should be the other way round. Physical
> interaction is FAR more than photos.

Or perhaps more logically they should both be the same. As 18 is the age
of majority for most things, that probably makes most sense.

[John Briggs]

On 30/07/2013 22:05, Neil Williams wrote:
> "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> That is where the law does not make sense. The ages for having sex with,
>> and taking photos or videos of, should be the other way round. Physical
>> interaction is FAR more than photos.
>
> Or perhaps more logically they should both be the same. As 18 is the age
> of majority for most things, that probably makes most sense.

Are you going to allow a "marriage exception"?
--
John Briggs

[Gefreiter Krueger]

It should depend on the age GAP. 40 and 16 is currently legal. Yet 20 and 15 is not. That is not logical.

[Gefreiter Krueger]

On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 22:05:02 +0100, Neil Williams <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> wrote:

> "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> That is where the law does not make sense. The ages for having sex with,
>> and taking photos or videos of, should be the other way round. Physical
>> interaction is FAR more than photos.
>
> Or perhaps more logically they should both be the same. As 18 is the age
> of majority for most things, that probably makes most sense.

I agree on them being the same. At least that is logical. But why do you think 16 is too young? We are already pretty high compared to most of Europe. Spain is 13!

[Vir Campestris]

On 30/07/2013 22:25, Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>
> It should depend on the age GAP. 40 and 16 is currently legal. Yet 20
> and 15 is not. That is not logical.

Nor is 15 and 15. Silly isn't it?

Andy

[Neil Williams]

John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> Are you going to allow a "marriage exception"?

Do many (any?) people marry at 16-17 these days?

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Ste" <ste_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12a51b23-0439-4445...@googlegroups.com...

> On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 12:30:12 AM UTC+1, Jethro_uk wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 20:25:01 +0100, Lordgnome wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 29/07/2013 19:25, steve robinson wrote:
>>
>> >> [quoted text muted]
>>
>> > Er, what damage - criminal or otherwise?
>>
>>
>>
>> ISTR the law on criminal damage was changed when protesters put bin bags
>>
>> over speed cameras ... "criminal damage" is now any act which affects the
>>
>> functioning of a device.
>
> It's arguable whether you are actually impairing the function of the
> device, or whether you are merely impairing the intended purpose of the
> device.
>
> It would also have to be "without lawful excuse".
>
> Covering up a speed camera is a very provocative act, given that the
> authority have a right of control over all relevant areas of the highway
> (and is entitled to set up a monitoring device that monitors activity on
> its property), and given that it is intended to subvert the law
> enforcement function of that device.
>
> That's not the case with a laser that impairs the camera only when it
> seeks to view a property that it is not legally entitled to view - it
> would be absurd to say that the "function" of the camera is to spy into
> the neighbour's windows, and any denial of this view amounts to "criminal
> damage".

Shining a laser onto a camera can cause permanent damage.

--
Alex

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.w01vn...@red.lan...

There's a good case for that, but as it stands, they are different

--
Alex

[Lordgnome]

On 30/07/2013 18:40, John Benn wrote:

>
> Would that work with speed cameras out of interest? Not that I'm advocating
> using a IR light for such but I'm wondering if they are fitted with IR
> filters to prevent that from happening.
>
>

You would need quite a strong IR source, possibly a laser diode
(pulsed). The laser speed camera can detect a "flood"

of IR though and this could lead to a "marker" being placed against the
registration, or a friendly visit.
They get very upset if you try and defeat their toys.

Les.

[John Briggs]

On 31/07/2013 07:30, Neil Williams wrote:
> John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> Are you going to allow a "marriage exception"?
>
> Do many (any?) people marry at 16-17 these days?

If you believe that 16-17 year olds shouldn't be having sex outside
marriage, the answer has to be, "Not enough."
--
John Briggs

[John Briggs]

Until the Bill got ambushed by the Religious Right in the House of
Lords, the intention was to criminalise the taking of indecent pictures
of 16-17 year olds *without their consent*.
--
John Briggs

[the Omrud]

On 30/07/2013 20:40, Mike Bristow wrote:
> In article <op.w01sa...@red.lan>,
> Gefreiter Krueger <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> The age of consent in the UK is 16.
>
> Irrelevant. Child porn is porn of folk who are, or appear to be,
> under 18.

Which leads to the bizarre fact that, while it's legal for two
17-year-olds to have sex, it's illegal (to the point that they could be
put on the sex offenders' register) for either of them to look at photos
of themselves having sex.

--
David

[davi...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 31 July 2013 12:00:02 UTC+1, the Omrud wrote:
> On 30/07/2013 20:40, Mike Bristow wrote: > In article <op.w01sa...@red.lan>, > Gefreiter Krueger <n...@spam.com> wrote: >> The age of consent in the UK is 16. > > Irrelevant. Child porn is porn of folk who are, or appear to be, > under 18. Which leads to the bizarre fact that, while it's legal for two 17-year-olds to have sex, it's illegal (to the point that they could be put on the sex offenders' register) for either of them to look at photos of themselves having sex. -- David

No, there's an exception for that. But it's illegal for them to allow anybody else to see the photos.

[Dr Zoidberg]

"John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:lI5Kt.18298$Jw....@fx21.am4...

That would have made more sense

--
Alex

[Scion]

Dr Zoidberg put finger to keyboard:

Is it not a criminal offence to take indecent pictures of *anyone* without
their consent?

[Gefreiter Krueger]

Very silly, although I think they tend to let them off. Well the law does, the parents might get all prudish.

If we weren't meant to have sex till 16, we wouldn't be able to until then.

My parrots have sex and produce offspring as soon as they are physically able to. Should I be punishing them for this offence?

[Gefreiter Krueger]

Still absurd. If they are allowed to decide to have sex, they should be allowed to decide who sees it.

[Gefreiter Krueger]

Surely the point is to flood it so it can't see your reg? Put the LEDs around the number plate.

[Gefreiter Krueger]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:30:01 +0100, Neil Williams <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> wrote:

> John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> Are you going to allow a "marriage exception"?
>
> Do many (any?) people marry at 16-17 these days?

Perhaps not marriage, but there are plenty couples living round here that had their kids at 16-17.

[Gefreiter Krueger]

Yes, which is why all these extra laws for underage people aren't really required.

[Zapp Brannigan]

"Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message

news:op.w03km...@red.lan...

They don't like it. They follow you, find you, inspect your car and
prosecute. Perverting the Course of Justice is a safely winnable charge,
even if the device isn't actively anti-laser.

www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8077912/Speed-camera-jammer-banned.html

<www.thisisscunthorpe.co.uk/1k-fine-driver-used-laser-jammer-thwart-speed/story-18222755-detail/story.html>

[Mike Bristow]

In article <op.w03mp...@red.lan>,

Gefreiter Krueger <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> Is it not a criminal offence to take indecent pictures of *anyone* without
>> their consent?
>
> Yes, which is why all these extra laws for underage people aren't
> really required.

Unless you think that the offence of taking an indecent pictures
of an adult should be punishable by flogging, while the
offence of taking an indecent picture of a 17 year old should be
punishable by death.

Alter the "maximum" penalties to taste, depending on your position
on the Mail-Guardian scale.


--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com

[Gefreiter Krueger]

At least they don't go after radar detectors etc. They do in France as I found out to the tune of 700 Euros!

[Gefreiter Krueger]

I think we should concentrate on laws for real crimes which actually harm people. Physical abuse, not verbal "abuse" for example. A picture cannot harm.

[Ste]

That's not logical. 40 and 15 is not legal either. The point of the legislation is not to group partners by age range - although this is something that is expected informally.

The point of the law is to protect children from risks where there is a gross inequality of sophistication, and also to reinforce certain social structures in how children are treated differently from adults - to prevent poor or ambitious children from selling themselves as prostitutes, for example.

[John Briggs]

Which exception?
--
John Briggs

[AC]

Neil Williams wrote:
> "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> That is where the law does not make sense. The ages for having sex with,
>> and taking photos or videos of, should be the other way round. Physical
>> interaction is FAR more than photos.
>
> Or perhaps more logically they should both be the same. As 18 is the age
> of majority for most things, that probably makes most sense.
>

> Neil
>

Can you still join the army to potentially die for the country at 16?

--
AC

[Ste]

> Gefreiter said, before he was rudely interrupted:

>
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 22:30:02 +0100, Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> It should depend on the age GAP. 40 and 16 is currently legal. Yet 20 and 15
> is not. That is not logical.
> >
> > That's not logical. 40 and 15 is not legal either.
>

> The point is that you must agree 40/16 is weirder than 20/15.

I hadn't contemplated the "weirdness"

> > The point of the legislation is not to group partners by age range - although
> this is something that is expected informally.
>

> If it's expected informally, why is it not written in the law?

Because I think we'd both accept that what is merely social expectation amongst most people, should not necessarily be written into and enforced by the law. If a woman in her 20s wants to marry an oil tycoon, that's their choice at the end of the day.

> > The point of the law is to protect children from risks where there is a gross > inequality of sophistication,
>

> I don't know what you mean by "inequality of sophistication".

Then imagine what it might mean. I'd be surprised if you didn't suppose the existence of Santa Claus at some point, to the defiance of all known science and without a shred of independent evidence.

> > and also to reinforce certain social structures in how children are treated
> differently from adults - to prevent poor or ambitious children from selling
> themselves as prostitutes, for example.
>

> So in reality what you're after is stopping children doing as they wish. Is
> this about protecting the children or limiting their choices?

I don't see the contradiction. Children will often choose to get into dangerous situations with outcomes that they wouldn't wish.

Without guidance as to how behave around motor traffic, for example, many children would have to be mown down before the appropriate behaviours bootstrapped themselves in the children left standing. It's more appropriate for adults to transmit the appropriate behaviour instead.


Finally, if you want to continue, may I suggest moving this discussion to the unmoderated group? The mods' trigger fingers are twitching with this contentious subject.

[Fredxx]

Yes but you're not sent to a combat zone until I think you're 18.

[Jon Ribbens]

You must be very busy running around inspecting each soldier personally!

[John Briggs]

On 01/08/2013 06:25, AC wrote:

> Neil Williams wrote:
>> "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> That is where the law does not make sense. The ages for having sex
>>> with,
>>> and taking photos or videos of, should be the other way round. Physical
>>> interaction is FAR more than photos.
>>
>> Or perhaps more logically they should both be the same. As 18 is the age
>> of majority for most things, that probably makes most sense.
>

> Can you still join the army to potentially die for the country at 16?

Yes, in contravention of International Law. There's an irony to Britain
joining the campaign against child soldiers.
--
John Briggs

[davi...@gmail.com]

S. 45 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 - admittedly it only applies in the context of a couple who are married or living together.

[John Briggs]

On 01/08/2013 19:05, davi...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 1, 2013 12:15:02 AM UTC+1, John Briggs wrote:
>> On 31/07/2013 12:45, davi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 31 July 2013 12:00:02 UTC+1, the Omrud wrote:
>>>> On 30/07/2013 20:40, Mike Bristow wrote:
>>>>> In article <op.w01sa...@red.lan>, > Gefreiter Krueger <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The age of consent in the UK is 16.
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant. Child porn is porn of folk who are, or appear to be, under 18. Which leads to the bizarre fact that, while it's legal for two 17-year-olds to have sex, it's illegal (to the point that they could be put on the sex offenders' register) for either of them to look at photos of themselves having sex.
>>>

>>> No, there's an exception for that. But it's illegal for them to allow anybody else to see the photos.
>>
>> Which exception?
>
> S. 45 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 - admittedly it only applies in the context of a couple who are married or living together.

And, moreover, only applies to the *other* person in the relationship,
not themselves.
--
John Briggs

[Zapp Brannigan]

"Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message

news:op.w01uc...@red.lan...

> Has anyone stopped to think that if he were going to spy through the
> window, he wouldn't do it in such an obvious manner?

Perhaps that's what he wants people to think....

[Gefreiter Krueger]

That's allowed, as they're 16.

[Gefreiter Krueger]

As long as nobody films you dying, yes.

[Gefreiter Krueger]

We aren't FORCING the 16 year olds to join. And 16 year olds are not children by the way.

[Gefreiter Krueger]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:00:02 +0100, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 30/07/2013 20:40, Mike Bristow wrote:
>> In article <op.w01sa...@red.lan>,
>> Gefreiter Krueger <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>> The age of consent in the UK is 16.
>>
>> Irrelevant. Child porn is porn of folk who are, or appear to be,
>> under 18.
>
> Which leads to the bizarre fact that, while it's legal for two
> 17-year-olds to have sex, it's illegal (to the point that they could be
> put on the sex offenders' register) for either of them to look at photos
> of themselves having sex.

Surely the law would allow you to look at a photo of yourself.

[aaa]

Since many criminals will take action to prevent detection (e.g. when shop lifting, hiding items in clothes, rather than simply overtly walking out the shop while carrying them), why is "Perverting the Course of Justice" not used more often?

[Doctor Dave]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverting_the_course_of_justice for an outline of what constitutes "Perverting the Course of Justice".

In the scenario you describe, hiding the stolen goods doesn't meet the test. Burning a getaway vehicle might.

[Gorf]

On Monday, July 29, 2013 8:30:02 PM UTC+1, GB wrote:
> On 29/07/2013 15:45, Gorf wrote:
>
> > My neighbour has installed a CCTV system at the same height as my teenage son's bedroom.
>
> >
>
> > It's in a dome, and I can't tell if it's mobile.
>
> >
>
> > Could I get into trouble for setting up a tripod in his room and fixing a low-power laser pen pointing at the dome?
>
> >
>
> > My reasoning is that if the neighbour complains about the image being disrupted, then the lens must be able to "see" into his room.
>
> >
>
> > The camera is definitely able to see into our back garden, because the only part of their property that it is likely to be looking at would also catch our garden in its field of view. I gather from old posts that I'm out of luck on garden privacy, though.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Why don't you have a friendly chat with your neighbour? He can then
>
> tell you what sort of camera it is and show you where it's pointed, etc.
>
> It may even just be a dummy to deter crooks.

Many thanks to everyone who replied to this. I'm sorry for my absence for the last month - internet problems which may well be the subject of another post, if I can't find a similar situation in the archive.

I've chosen GB's answer to reply to as it's obviously the common sense first-action. We're not overly friendly with our neighbour - not exactly enemies, but they seem to resent us for waking them up at 4am and calling the fire brigade to deal with part of their property that was on fire. And for calling the local police station to see if they could find out whose car was blocking our property access (we had no way of knowing it was one of their visitors).

My intention is not to blind their camera completely, or damage it at all. I just don't want their camera to be able to see him cracking one out to Jessie J or whatever mid-teenage boys do in the privacy(!) of their own room...

I'll get him an IR lamp as suggested elsewhere on the thread.

Thanks again folks.

[Gorf]

On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 9:20:03 PM UTC+1, ARW wrote:

>
> Does your son have curtians or a blind at his window?
>

Yep - which he only needs to keep the light out. If the neighbour put a room in their roof space and put a window in the side wall, his room would be overlooked by that. As it is, he can only be seen from someone outside if he stands at the window, or the camera which I suspect can see his bed within its field of view.

[Roland Perry]

In message <d4d93822-8f21-42b8...@googlegroups.com>, at
23:55:03 on Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Gorf <g.p....@gmail.com> remarked:

>> Does your son have curtians or a blind at his window?
>
>Yep - which he only needs to keep the light out. If the neighbour put a room in their roof space and put a window in the side wall, his room
>would be overlooked by that. As it is, he can only be seen from someone outside if he stands at the window, or the camera which I suspect can
>see his bed within its field of view.

My experience of building such a loft extension was that any windows
which overlook the neighbouring property have to be glazed with obscure
glass. This might constrain the design somewhat (if for example it was
one of the main gables of a loft room) but is simply one of the rules.
--
Roland Perry

[ianna...@gmail.com]

= can we use a jamming device to disrupt the cctv?

[Iain Archer]

ianna...@gmail.com wrote on Thu, 4 Dec 2014 at 18:29:36:
>= can we use a jamming device to disrupt the cctv?

Original thread:
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/uk.legal.moderated/llpP0v47FX0>,
where the discussion was about using laser or IR interference, and that
the camera appeared to have a minor's bedroom within its view. Last
preceding post 12 Sept 2013.

All radio frequency jamming devices are illegal without a licence,
n'est-ce pas?
--
Iain Archer

[Saxman]

On 05/12/2014 02:29, ianna...@gmail.com wrote:
> = can we use a jamming device to disrupt the cctv?
>

I suppose you might be able to if it was invading your privacy like a
back garden for instance. Why not tell the owner to divert it away?

[Simon Finnigan]

The CCTV camera might be connected by a wire, making the kind of jamming
device to kill the signal a bit overkill. Whereas a small laser directed at
the sensor to blind it without causing any damage will do the job and give
the owner an incentive to turn it away from you.

[steve robinson]

Pointing a laser at the camera may still put you at odds with the plod.

Whilst the op may be ticked off about the cctv camera the use of such
equipment on private dwellings by the householder is not ilegal.

[Percy Picacity]

But being proved to use it to watch certain activities within another
house could amount to a criminal offence.

--

Percy Picacity

[steve robinson]

Yes it would, however proving it is going to be nigh on impossible

[Percy Picacity]

Hopefully, with IP cameras and HDD storage people will be as confused
about what they have deleted as they are on PCs now.

--

Percy Picacity

[steve robinson]

Most domestic systems only store thecordings for a short period, if the
recordings are not viewed whats the problem

[Iain Archer]

steve robinson <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote on Sat, 6 Dec
2014 at 19:17:21:

Which gets us back to the OP's:

"Could I get into trouble for setting up a tripod in his room and fixing
a low-power laser pen pointing at the dome?"

"My reasoning is that if the neighbour complains about the image being
disrupted, then the lens must be able to "see" into his room"

In the unlikely case that the neighbour is running a business from his
address, I wonder if the DPA would then be applicable.
--
Iain Archer

[Roland Perry]

In message <xn0jah4c...@reader80.eternal-september.org>, at
20:49:53 on Sat, 6 Dec 2014, steve robinson
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> remarked:

>Most domestic systems only store thecordings for a short period, if the
>recordings are not viewed whats the problem

The problem is that you can't guarantee they won't be saved/viewed, nor
that the neighbour isn't viewing them for his sexual gratification in
real time.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <+rWDYyDW...@gmail.com>, at 20:55:50 on Sat, 6 Dec 2014,
Iain Archer <iane...@gmail.com> remarked:

>Which gets us back to the OP's:
>
>"Could I get into trouble for setting up a tripod in his room and
>fixing a low-power laser pen pointing at the dome?"
>
>"My reasoning is that if the neighbour complains about the image being
>disrupted, then the lens must be able to "see" into his room"

The principle of "two wrongs don't make a right" may apply here.
--
Roland Perry

[Saxman]

It is illegal to have a CCTV camera filming other peoples property from
what I was told by somebody in the business.

[Tim Watts]

Not that simple...

[Roland Perry]

In message <v7ldlb-...@squidward.dionic.net>, at 10:03:11 on Sun, 7
Dec 2014, Tim Watts <tw_u...@dionic.net> remarked:

>>>> Most domestic systems only store thecordings for a short period, if the
>>>> recordings are not viewed whats the problem
>>>
>>> The problem is that you can't guarantee they won't be saved/viewed, nor
>>> that the neighbour isn't viewing them for his sexual gratification in
>>> real time.
>>
>> It is illegal to have a CCTV camera filming other peoples property from
>> what I was told by somebody in the business.
>
>Not that simple...

That's right. There's no general principle of privacy in the UK.
However, non-domestic CCTV operators have to be careful not to include
views into bedroom windows of nearby houses.
--
Roland Perry

[Percy Picacity]

Is that a legal requirement, or is it merely to protect their operators
from allegations of voyeurism which might occur during their use of the
equipment.

--

Percy Picacity

[steve robinson]

No it isnt, thats an urban myth, What is ilegal is using the system for
voyerism or in such a manner as to cause harrasement or breaching
somesones right to privacy.

All domestic systems will record other peoples property usally its
incidental to coverage on your own property, my systems cover my
neighbours car and parts of the rear gardens.

[Rob Morley]

Not if it's primarily covering your own property, for the purpose of
domestic security.

[steve robinson]

A laser pen may disrupt the camera if pointed at the dome, that doesnt
equate to the camera is looking into his room , even a low powered pen
can dazzle at a considerable distance . it will cetainly produce enough
light even if its at a large angle to the lense to blind the camera.

[Roland Perry]

In message <81u3nj....@news.alt.net>, at 11:37:53 on Sun, 7 Dec
2014, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> remarked:

>>>>>> Most domestic systems only store thecordings for a short period, if the
>>>>>> recordings are not viewed whats the problem
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that you can't guarantee they won't be saved/viewed, nor
>>>>> that the neighbour isn't viewing them for his sexual gratification in
>>>>> real time.
>>>>
>>>> It is illegal to have a CCTV camera filming other peoples property from
>>>> what I was told by somebody in the business.
>>>
>>> Not that simple...
>>
>> That's right. There's no general principle of privacy in the UK.
>> However, non-domestic CCTV operators have to be careful not to include
>> views into bedroom windows of nearby houses.
>
>Is that a legal requirement, or is it merely to protect their operators
>from allegations of voyeurism which might occur during their use of the
>equipment.

I think it's a DPA thing.
--
Roland Perry

[Iain Archer]

"s.36 Domestic purposes.

"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."
--
Iain Archer

[Roland Perry]

In message <Z1JU4QI5...@gmail.com>, at 13:22:01 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014,
Iain Archer <iane...@gmail.com> remarked:

>>>> That's right. There's no general principle of privacy in the UK.
>>>> However, non-domestic CCTV operators have to be careful not to include
>>>> views into bedroom windows of nearby houses.
>>>
>>>Is that a legal requirement, or is it merely to protect their operators
>>>from allegations of voyeurism which might occur during their use of the
>>>equipment.
>>
>>I think it's a DPA thing.
>
>"s.36 Domestic purposes.
>
>"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."

Does not apply to the non-domestic situation which I was addressing.
--
Roland Perry

[Simon Finnigan]

On what grounds? Say I direct a floodlight at the camera, it's have the
same effect in dazzling the camera, but also light up the house.

[Bill]

In message <m5rpuc$946$1...@news.albasani.net>, Saxman
<john.h.willia...@gmail.com> writes

I realise that this discussion is more about the legal side of the
possible problem and that my reply doesn't directly answer the original
question.

Rather than "telling" the owner to divert the camera, why not ask
him/her why it is there, what it is actually looking at and if it does
happen to cover what you consider to be a private area, then ask,
politely, for it to be moved or masked.

Asking gets a far better response than telling, certainly a better idea
than deliberately interfering with someone else's CCTV system.
--
Bill

[Gorf]

On Saturday, December 6, 2014 9:59:15 PM UTC, Iain Archer wrote:

> In the unlikely case that the neighbour is running a business from his
> address, I wonder if the DPA would then be applicable.

The neighbour is indeed running a business from their property.

The situation is hypothetical now - my stepson came home from his round-the-world trip and took back his old room (much to my irritation). My teenage son is now on the other side of the house.

He's 22 - if he has a problem with neighbour voyeurism, he can probably go sort it out himself...

[Gorf]

On Monday, December 8, 2014 10:55:19 AM UTC, Bill wrote:


> Rather than "telling" the owner to divert the camera, why not ask
> him/her why it is there, what it is actually looking at and if it does
> happen to cover what you consider to be a private area

It is covering his driveway which is about two cars long, so it's set quite high to cover the whole drive. by the nature of video aspect ratios, its horizontal view angle is 78% wide than its vertical view angle.

[Tim Watts]

Is it getting your house from over the road? Or is it at the end of the
neighbour's driveway facing back at your house?

If the former, I don't thing you've got grounds for complaint - unless
it is a *very* expensive HQ camera, it's not going to see much over the
road.

If it's facing back at you from say 8m away, then that would be more
grounds for complaint - but equally, a quiet word with the neighbour to
ask him to re-angle it to miss your windows?