Reply to: CCTV recommendations

[darrylmg]

Do these cameras work to some common protocol (either hardware or API) then? I've some interest in something like this but possibly less for security and more so I am alerted if someone comes up my drive once we move to the country... so I don't miss deliveries, etc.

Yeah it's a crappy Web based API using GET requests.

[d000hg]

Unless it's really dried on, I think a bucket of warm soapy water and a sponge would be just fine.

[quackhandle]

Though getting CCTV because someone through dog poo at your car *one time* seems a little OTT to me.

I just want to see if it happens again and if it does I can see who it actually is.

Then I go to work with the pliers and a blowtorch!

qh

[woohoo]

Though getting CCTV because someone through dog poo at your car *one time* seems a little OTT to me.

Well these things start off as a little dog poo but before you know it the foul perpetuators progress to horse then elephant poo. It's a slippery, smelly slope.

[d000hg]

Though getting CCTV because someone through dog poo at your car *one time* seems a little OTT to me.

[d000hg]

I bought a £30 crap one from Amazon.
Hooked it up to iSpy running on a PC. Worked great. The iSpy software can be configured to only record video when movement is detected in a preconfigured area of the shot.

Do these cameras work to some common protocol (either hardware or API) then? I've some interest in something like this but possibly less for security and more so I am alerted if someone comes up my drive once we move to the country... so I don't miss deliveries, etc.

[SueEllen]

Work colleague has had their cctv used by the police when someone broke into his neighbour's house. The image was taken of his back yard with the fellow in it.

Police said that it was the trainers caught in the images which were very distinctive rather than the face that they wanted to use.

CCTV can be used by the police to find someone but it doesn't mean it can be used alone to prosecute that person.

So if there is no other evidence and the person refuses to admit they did the burglary, theft or criminal damage and you cannot very clearly see their face on the video then the case is often dropped by the CPS.

[Antman]

Work colleague has had their cctv used by the police when someone broke into his neighbour's house. The image was taken of his back yard with the fellow in it.

Police said that it was the trainers caught in the images which were very distinctive rather than the face that they wanted to use.

[SueEllen]

I can be grumpy, but I only have one neighbour and she's a crazy cat lady.

I did wonder if it was her who chucked the crap at my car, jury is still out, hence the camera.

Other than that I'm all for peace and love, man.

qh

Does your dog chase cats?

Or is it one that one that wants to be friends with them?

[northernladuk]

AIUI those rules only apply to companies and such, which have to register with the ICO and put up notices and what have you. Private individuals can do what they damn well please as long as they're not causing a nuisance, and don't have to notify anybody of anything.
.

Not sure that's completely true but depends on what you mean by nuisance. There is quite a bit of guidance about using them and particular other people's privacy.

Anything captured beyond your property is also covered by the Data Protection Act.

It is very wooly in the section about using evidence with lots of coulds and mights going on though.

It is only guidance (apart from the DPA bit) but there is plenty to consider.

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-your-property

[NickFitz]

My alarm man told me something similar. There are a lot of gotchas about filming people on public property without informing them. You need to have signs up informing people they are being filmed, similar to being recorded on the phone.

Lot of problems about how the video is stored and presented to court as it's classed as data so the way it's handled/stored can be questioned.

Also your camera's having views in to other properties houses makes it inadmissible I believe as well as the are illegally mounted so can't use the evidence etc. It's a proper minefield.

AIUI those rules only apply to companies and such, which have to register with the ICO and put up notices and what have you. Private individuals can do what they damn well please as long as they're not causing a nuisance, and don't have to notify anybody of anything.

The difficulty with using such evidence in court would be establishing the chain of custody - i.e. proving that it was recorded when it is said to have been, that it hasn't been edited or otherwise tampered with, and what have you.

A friend of mine works in the city CCTV control room here, and quite often has to go to court just to swear that video evidence being used in a case is the same video that he recorded at the time of an incident, was properly transferred to the police, and all that kind of thing. And that's with all kinds of controls and specialist equipment to prevent tampering and ensure timestamps are accurate; a defence lawyer only has to create reasonable doubt, so they could have a field day with a home CCTV setup whose clock has probably drifted by twenty-odd minutes and which is still on BST in January.

[quackhandle]

Is the OP a grumpy neighbour?

I can be grumpy, but I only have one neighbour and she's a crazy cat lady.

I did wonder if it was her who chucked the crap at my car, jury is still out, hence the camera.

Other than that I'm all for peace and love, man.

qh

[darrylmg]

My alarm man told me something similar. There are a lot of gotchas about filming people on public property without informing them. You need to have signs up informing people they are being filmed, similar to being recorded on the phone.

Lot of problems about how the video is stored and presented to court as it's classed as data so the way it's handled/stored can be questioned.

Also your camera's having views in to other properties houses makes it inadmissible I believe as well as the are illegally mounted so can't use the evidence etc. It's a proper minefield.

Yes, this ^ .
But that didn't stop the police just having a word with those involved.
It was only if I wanted to go to court that the evidence was inadmissible. Apparently if there was a murder and I had captured something of relevance on such a crap and possibly illegal setup, it's at the judges discretion whether to permit it's use in court as evidence. Just saying like... not got any plans, honest guv.

Also, as a youth, I've been witness to the old dog poo on the car handle trick. My mate was naffed off with a grumpy neighbour who got the council to put up "no ball games" signs to stop us playing football on the green space outside his house. Is the OP a grumpy neighbour?

[northernladuk]

Don't forget to switch off when the postman is on his rounds.

Ohh good call. I'd hate for the missus to find out

[northernladuk]

Why did they say the setup was not useful in court?

My alarm man told me something similar. There are a lot of gotchas about filming people on public property without informing them. You need to have signs up informing people they are being filmed, similar to being recorded on the phone.

Lot of problems about how the video is stored and presented to court as it's classed as data so the way it's handled/stored can be questioned.

Also your camera's having views in to other properties houses makes it inadmissible I believe as well as the are illegally mounted so can't use the evidence etc. It's a proper minefield.