The ICO page is a lot like a lot of the recent government COVID pages. A mixture of advice and law, and not making clear which is which.

Even if the camera is subject to GDPR, all the owner needs to do is give good reason for the purpose of the capturing of data. And crime prevention is a good enough reason. As long as they can also show they manage the data (recordings) appropriately and only use them for the purpose declared, as well as responding to subject access requests, they’re completely legal.

My question – is the passageway in any way open to the public, can they use it as a cut through to the beach? That would strengthen the case of the camera owner in using it for ‘crime prevention’.

The case in the papers recently was all around the camera owner using the captured film to harass the neighbour, not about actually having the cameras themselves.

Basically, don’t be a dick with what you film, and you’re on the right side of the law.

You don’t have a right not to be filmed or photographed except in specific circumstances, sorry. Ask any paparazzi photographer. You might have an argument if they were peeping through your curtains, but if you’re just walking past your house then not so much.

Um, photography on private property is a specific circumstance that requires permission of the landowner. As I understand it photography from public property of things that are on private property but can be observed from public property are a gray area. Depends exactly on the nature of the activity.

Cctv, as I understand it, on private property if it capture only that property is fine and not under data protection. If it captures things or people outside that property, even inadvertently, is subject to data protection. You can request that it be remedied, you can request any info they hold on you and you can request that they delete any footage of you.

A laser pointer ‘accidentally’ being shone into the lens could, theoretically, burn out or corrupt the CCD inside the camera.
Just saying, like…

Its not contradictory as far as I can tell the ICO are quite clear, which part are you viewing as self contradictory?

The bit I posted which states the opposite. I’m no longer sure, as I said I need to do some more digging.

Um, photography on private property is a specific circumstance that requires permission of the landowner.

“On,” not “into.” I think I’ve found it (emphasis mine):

Taking a photo of a person where they can expect privacy (inside their home or garden) is likely to be a breach of privacy laws.

Is it reasonable to “expect privacy” walking past your house? I don’t know.

On,” not “into.” I think I’ve found it (emphasis mine

Yeah, that’s where the gray area comes in. Taking a picture of something that can be seen from the footpath is generally okay. Taking pictures specifically into a front window is less so, although technically not an offence if it’s a one off.

Setting up a chair, tripod, lense the size of a cannon and taking photos of a side passage every hour of everyday would probably constitute harassment.

Black widow.

10mm steelies.

Fun. 😁

Set up your own camera to photograph their path. Now it’s their move, report back to us.

Dress up as the skeleton that’s dressed as a pirate then steal the dogs and shave them in front of the camera. If you don’t like animal cruelty do something disturbing with frozen sausages instead.

Surely, it’s more annoying for them than the OP – they’ve put the camera up to catch anyone dodgy coming down the passage to get to their house (or using it for access to the beach, maybe?) and yet every time the OP walks to or from his doorway it triggers the camera, so they have to check it.
I’m sure they aren’t the slightest bit interested in his comings and goings, but it’s going to produce more false-positives than actual events, thereby rendering the camera just an annoyance for everyone. Seems like a lose-lose situation to me. And they are just thick rather than nosy or spiteful.

Surely, it’s more annoying for them than the OP – they’ve put the camera up to catch anyone dodgy coming down the passage to get to their house (or using it for access to the beach, maybe?) and yet every time the OP walks to or from his doorway it triggers the camera, so they have to check it.

Most people I know with cams get bored with the notifications pretty quick. Who wants to be woken up every time a cat walks past or spider crawls across the lens? People check the footage after something happens.

Time for a “what air rifle” thread again?

Does the neighbour have a right of way down your back passage – ie is it shared access? If it is not then his case for filming it is diminished somewhat I would have thought

Does the neighbour have a right of way down your back passage – ie is it shared access? If it is not then his case for filming it is diminished somewhat I would have thought

This forum needs an out-of-context hall of fame.

thought better of amusing but naughty comment. deleted.

Does the neighbour have a right of way down your back passage – ie is it shared access? If it is not then his case for filming it is diminished somewhat I would have thought

So the neighbour wants to know if the OP is coming or going?

No
The ginnell that runs down the side of their house is mine and they have no need to use it at all
Potentially yes, member of the public could nip up and use it as a cut through, but this happens maybe once a year to my knowledge
This cam is, imo, a step on the ladder to getting at me or some vain attempts at getting them evicted.
Yes, i think they are just thick if they think that is going to happen

IMO then, they have no right to be filming your property. If your back passage is your private property then they have no right intruding up it, either physically or with a camera. And I empathise with you – I have had a camera up my back passage a few times and it is deeply uncomfortable.

Seriously though, if the passage is yours then them filming it is no different than if they were filming you in your garden all the time.

Take photo of the ally and stick it in front of camera. Like in the movies.

Rub a bit of fish paste on the camera. Leave it to the seagulls, it’ll never function again 😆

Mount a camera right in front of theirs pointing directly at it. It’ll completely block their camera and they can hardly complain about your camera as long as their camera is there. If they do complain, tell them it’s an art installation on the modern interpretation of surveillance being surveiled by surveillance. It’s meta.

The ginnell that runs down the side of their house is mine and they have no need to use it at all

But it’s the side of their house? They might not have need to use it but could it be a potential security risk?

This cam is, imo, a step on the ladder to getting at me

Why would they want to get at you?

IMO then, they have no right to be filming your property.

If it’s not excessively intrusive then the OP has no rights not to be filmed. If.

if the passage is yours then them filming it is no different than if they were filming you in your garden all the time.

A back passage – ie, a path – is open to the public. A garden is typically enclosed. No?

Wouldn’t this whole situation be resolved by installing a door at the front of the ginnel?

Just fit some kind of spotlight or light with IR bulb and aim it at the camera.

Also, do you actually know what the footage is like? I mean, is it ACTUALLY aimed at you, or is it aimed at his property and just manages to cover the alley way too or could it be possible you’re being a bit sensitive? The angles some of these cameras record / fisheye lense etc…. My cameras at home look at odd angles but records/covers well. Just to look at it, you’d think it wasn’t aimed well or accurately but it is.

If it’s not excessively intrusive then the OP has no rights not to be filmed.

Are you saying that having someone film your property 24/7 is not excessively intrusive?

If a member of the public were to walk by the passage they may get a fleeting glance down it just as you can see in my back garden from the road but again, only as you are passing it. A passerby is not permanently monitoring you on your property.

Filming it 24/7 is an entirely different proposition.

Are you saying that having someone film your property 24/7 is not excessively intrusive?

I thought you could film whatever you could see with your eyes from a public space?

Get a bigger camera with a night vision array and point it at theirs. Fight!

I thought you could film whatever you could see with your eyes from a public space?

Film the woman next door through her living room window and try that one in court.

This thread needs pictures (or cctv images) of the camera and alley in question.

This is a really elaborate humblebrag about living right by the beach. Nice work!

😀

@cougar

But it’s the side of their house? They might not have need to use it but could it be a potential security risk?

Aye, if the burglars plan to use a C4 charge to breach their outer wall. It’s his property, they have no right to video it, that was established way back when.

Why would they want to get at you?

That was mentioned by the OP in his thread opener.

If it’s not excessively intrusive then the OP has no rights not to be filmed. If.

In Tesco, with appropriate signage no. On his property, yes he does!

A back passage – ie, a path – is open to the public. A garden is typically enclosed. No?

Wouldn’t this whole situation be resolved by installing a door at the front of the ginnel?

Why should the OP install a door he doesn’t see any need for in an attempt to *maybe* keep his paranoid voyeur neighbours from carrying out 24hr surveillance of his property?

What has the typical state of a garden have to do with anything? It’s his property. Do I suddenly lose all rights to not being filmed because my fence panel blows over?

The camera is mounted up under the eaves and is angled so it would catch the top half of people on my side of the fence, but maybe the top of your head of their side as you would standing underneath the camera.
Its not public property . Its mine, It says private property on the steps up from the beach .
And its pretty much enclosed as there are 5ft fences on each side . Its more enclosed than alot of peoples gardens .
I dont use it much , maybe once a week. The tennants maybe more.
The filmers ( neighbours ) are worriers . CCTV , PIR lights everywhere , As if someone is going to steal the stolen beer barrels he has re appropriated into seats, or the prirate , or the Croc.

It is in fact pointless. You either get a grey IR film of a yoof in a hoody for 3 secs before the spray the camera with paint . Or a film of me walking to the beach with a windsurf board /mast/sail. Or a film of my tennants lad doing something daft, but to what end. The police won’t do anything o local bobby and no serious crime. I havent locked my front door at night for 20 years. I am not going to evict a 10yr tennant whose lad is going through it just now because my neighbours don’t like him.

Still not happy about it. I think its rude .

Apologies if this was already covered – but you are ensuring you’re naked every time you walk past it now, yes? Maybe some star jumps could be routinely deployed as part of your new morning ritual too

If the camera is something like a Ring, it can be configured to only trigger by movement in the area that is his property, and privacy zones added to mask off above the fence line. I do that with the cam watching my bikes.

But getting that organised/agreed would involve speaking.

Film the woman next door through her living room window and try that one in court.

Shut the bloody curtains then.

Well if it were my house, I’d speak to them about privacy zones as above. If diplomacy failed I’d disable the thing one way or another.
I like the laser pointer idea.

I’m pre-coffee so may be being dim here but I think I’ve misread some of this. I thought the wayward son was the son of the neighbours.

Who’s the tenant? Where do they live? Is actually there three properties involved?

You seem to have a fairly intimate knowledge of what is and isn’t being filmed. How come?

It is in fact pointless.

What’s the issue then? Just the principle?

I am not going to evict a 10yr tennant whose lad is going through it just now because my neighbours don’t like him.

Why would you even be considering this? Is there more to this tale, have they made threats?

Still not happy about it. I think its rude.

It probably is.

My Tenant and his wayward son live below in in a self contained flat .

So Yes , there are 3 properties involved

I can tell from looking at the camera exactly where its pointing . Its 8ft up in the eaves.