ot cctv

[caytonmiller]

If so, why are there three painted dark green ones as you go through tintwistle? They even moved one at the top of the hill to almost at the bottom as you descend the hill and set it back off the road!

Conservation area! Environmental area! Not submissable in court! Flash to reduce speed but no camera! All answers online. Tbh I don't know

[KerrAvon]

Didn't they have to paint speed camera yellow to stop entrapment? Though I agree it's only if the camera is recording outside your boundary property a sign would be needed

My understanding is that they were painted yellow to act as a deterrent. There is also an argument that the sudden realisation that there is a speed camera at a location can encourage heavy braking and consequential risk of accident - hence the advance signage.

The daily location of mobile cameras is included on their websites by some police forces and the local radio where I lived used to announce them.

Data captured for law enforement purposes is subject to a number of exceptions under GDPR.

[flourbasher]

I appreciate that I am further risking my status as 'most favourite poster' on this site, but I have to tell you that is wrong.

GDPR would require the display of a notice by someone with a CCTV camera that covered an area beyond the boundaries of their dwelling (as established within the Oxford case) , but I think it very unlikley that a court would exclude evidence from the same if it assisted in the detection or prosecution of a crime.

The only route to exclusion would be via an application under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act:

In any proceedings the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.

It is unlikley that any self-aware criminal lawyer would argue that, say, it would be 'unfair' to show CCTV of a burglar breaking into a house because he wasn't warned that he was being filmed. I hear that it is no fun to be ridiculed in public, chewed up and spat out by a judge for making hopeless applications

Yes that's what I said...recording beyond the boundary

I've also used the word likely in my comments about inadmissible
You have then used the word unlikely that a lawyer would ....argue that......

But then in your first sentence you say that I am wrong

In reality I would suspect that it depends what the defence / prosecution want to do in that particular case and what the circumstances are and also what the judge has had for breakfast.

[KerrAvon]

Okay. I should have said 'partly wrong' as I was agreeing with you about GDPR and signage.

Yes you used the word 'likely' and you were wrong when you did so. That was my point... I used the word 'unlikely', because it is - highly unlikely to the point of there being a vanishingly small chance of it happening - that any judge would exclude CCTV because it was 'unfair' that the offender wasn't told they were on camera.

If I thought that you were right to use the word 'likely' then I would have indicated that i agreed with you, but as was pretty clear to you, I was disagreeing, hence I used the word 'unlikley'...

Put another way, GDPR is about protecting the privacy of people going about their daily business. The notion that any judge would find that it also covered the privacy of people committing criminal offences is fanciful to say the least, no matter what they had for breakfast.

[flourbasher]

So I wasn't wrong then.
I just had a different opinion to you as to what's likely ....or not

[crashbang]

What about dash cams ?

[crashbang]

They collect tons of data. all outside your property .

[Brin]

Dash Cams- One of the first things that the police ask for if there’s been a major crime committed. Also, always helps if you’ve been hit in a vehicle crash but, beware of the fact they also record your speed you were doing at the time of the accident.

[crashbang]

In that case chuck it 😁

[Ericsladkilnhurst]

The council are in no position to make such a ruling. They are entitled to advise people of the requirements of GDPR, but need to get it right, which they would not be if they suggest that CCTV that covers only the domestic property of the camera owner requires the giving of notice.

Here's the guidance from the man himself: https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters...-being-filmed/

The council own the property, so they have the right to tell her to display a cctv warning notice.