Dashcams can be quite revealing

[219]

It would only , at most , be a private prosecution ; at best a civil matter raised on a whim and with no guarantee of success .

There are very few places where filming is prohibited by law ; most so called prohibitions are unenforceable .

There is no prohibition on filming on private property , unless the property owner has put one in place and expressly communicated it to anyone who might contravene it , and they have to be able to prove that they have done so . Even if you do contravene such a prohibition , there is little they can do about it beyond asking you to leave and , as long as you do , it is extremely unlikely anything further can happen .

Having a camera keep watch over your car whilst in a garage or a private car park is never going to breach anyone's civil rights ; and you could argue that your right to keep watch over your property is greater than some miscreant's right to damage it

 

[Sp!ke]

Personally owned cameras are not governed by the Data Protection Act and you can use them wherever and whenever to protect your property.

CCTV - FAQs for Members of the Public - ICO

 

[markjay]

The legality is one aspect... and I can't comment on that.

What has been recoded, has been recorded, inadvertently or otherwise. What was done can not be undone... but my point was that once you realise that you are in possession of a recording of a private conversation, however obtained, just delete it. This would be the decent thing to do, to my mind anyway.

 

[John Jones Jr]

What has been recoded, has been recorded, inadvertently or otherwise. What was done can not be undone... but my point was that once you realise that you are in possession of a recording of a private conversation, however obtained, just delete it. This would be the decent thing to do, to my mind anyway.

And maybe not even mention it.

 

[stevehg]

Personally owned cameras are not governed by the Data Protection Act and you can use them wherever and whenever to protect your property.

CCTV - FAQs for Members of the Public - ICO

What a conclusion to make

I think it would be good to read the link you posted again and then maybe review your statement to be factually correct Spike

 

[Sp!ke]

What a conclusion to make

I think it would be good to read the link you posted again and then maybe review your statement to be factually correct Spike

Sorry, what have I missed?

CCTV operated by an individual (not an organisation or corporation) is not covered by the DPA.

The use of cameras for limited household purposes is exempt from the DPA. This applies where an
individual uses CCTV to protect their home from burglary, even if the camera overlooks the street
or other areas near their home. Images captured for recreational purposes, such as with a mobile
phone, digital camera or camcorder, are also exempt

http://ico.org.uk/~/media/documents...iled_specialist_guides/ICO_CCTVFINAL_2301.pdf


Show me where I am wrong exactly?

 

[Giantvanman]

Using a dashcam to film on public roads is a whole different ball game to secretly filming people at their place of work on private property without permission. Good luck with claiming that it's legal if you intend doing this in the future.

You are free to do what you like, but as you posted this on a public forum, I was just pointing out that you may want to consider the legal aspects of your actions. Nothing more was intended, and it certainly wasn't to cause confrontation.

Cheers

Steve

In reference to the following (or other legislation you have in mind) where would you say the OP falling foul of 'the law' bearing in mind the first post and that Surveillance is covert if, and only if, it is carried out in a manner calculated to ensure that any persons who are subject to the surveillance are unaware that it is or may be taking place…………there was a dash cam on the windscreen which are commonplace these days?
Security Service Act 1989; Intelligence Services Act 1994; Police Act 1997; Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2010.

 

[219]

The legality is one aspect... and I can't comment on that.

What has been recoded, has been recorded, inadvertently or otherwise. What was done can not be undone... but my point was that once you realise that you are in possession of a recording of a private conversation, however obtained, just delete it. This would be the decent thing to do, to my mind anyway.

I completely agree . While I feel it is perfectly legitimate to leave the camera recording in case anyone damaged my car , I would have no interest beyond that . Any private conversations , whether the techs were working or slacking , or anything else that did not impact directly on me , would be of no concern of mine , and any recording would be deleted .

On the other hand , if I got my car back with a dent in the bodywork , or some other damage , and the video showed it being done whilst in the care of the garage , I would not hesitate to use it to confront the garage management if they disputed responsibility .

With so many cars having this equipment installed nowadays , staff entrusted with their care have to be pretty stupid to go hooning around in customers' cars or trying to cover up damage .

Any such recording could also be useful in my defence if my car was found to have been involved in any moving traffic offence whilst in the care of a garage , and would assist the authorities in prosecuting the right person .

In most cases , if presented with irrefutable evidence that a car was damaged on their premises , or by one of their staff whilst in their care , I would expect a quick resolution without bleating about privacy etc .

 

[Sp!ke]

I also had a dashcam experience at a main dealer.

It clearly showed the technician topping up my coolant reservoir with a hose pipe rather than coolant or distilled water. It was indisputable evidence.

My dashcam is not hidden and was only filming because the mechanic left my ignition on throughout the service.

When I brought the matter up with the service advisor, he was very keen for me to send the footage for review. (not that they followed up afterwards I should add ).

 

[flowrider]

Dash cams eh? I think there should be cameras everywhere. Oh, wait they are...It's funny too, all the good drivers that I know don't have dash cameras.

Interesting theory......... so none of the good drivers you know have dashcams the inference being therefore that drivers with dashcams cant be good drivers?

I know a few good drivers too, strangely none of them are called John

 

[Jeff666]

John Cooper...

 

[bpsorrel]

I was very pleased with my CCTV pointing over my drive and front garden when my neighbour decided to damage one of my cars whilst we were in Russia a couple of years ago.

The tosser's eyes nearly fell out of his head when I played the video to him and the community policeman I'd called. He had no defence and was cautioned. I was told the camera was perfectly legal and if the moron did it again he'd be arrested.
Needless to say he's not touched our property since.

Result I think!

 

[stevehg]

Sorry, what have I missed?

CCTV operated by an individual (not an organisation or corporation) is not covered by the DPA.



http://ico.org.uk/~/media/documents...iled_specialist_guides/ICO_CCTVFINAL_2301.pdf


Show me where I am wrong exactly?

You link to information and exemptions relating to CCTV use for residential properties only. From this you then make the leap to the statement that you can use personal cameras whenever and wherever you like to protect personal property.

Quite a leap given your source.

 

[flowrider]

You can record video and audio where ever you want unless specifically prohibited otherwise you wouldn't have any holiday videos.

 

[stevehg]

You can record video and audio where ever you want unless specifically prohibited otherwise you wouldn't have any holiday videos.

It's hard to beat that well reasoned argument now isn't.

 

[John Jones Jr]

the inference being therefore that drivers with dashcams cant be good drivers?

Interesting that you said that.

In all honesty the good drivers that I do know don't have dash cams and that's the fact of the matter. Read what you will into it.

 

[Sp!ke]

You link to information and exemptions relating to CCTV use for residential properties only. From this you then make the leap to the statement that you can use personal cameras whenever and wherever you like to protect personal property.

Quite a leap given your source.

You missed the bit where it says "Images captured for recreational purposes, such as with a mobile phone, digital camera or camcorder, are also exempt "

I will say again... The DPA does not apply to individuals, only organisations and businesses.

The only thing that covers the use of cameras for a private individual is the law of trespass (civil) and the human right to privacy. Neither of which the OP fell fowl of with the use of his dashcam. Not unless he was deliberately stalking his mechanics that is.

 

[Sp!ke]

Interesting that you said that.

In all honesty the good drivers that I do know don't have dash cams and that's the fact of the matter. Read what you will into it.

Don't most police pursuit vehicles (with advanced drivers) all have cameras now?

 

[John Jones Jr]

What do you think? Would you think that it's standard police equipment or the cops just go and buy dash cams from eBay in case their car isn't serviced correctly...

 

[johns E350]

Interesting theory......... so none of the good drivers you know have dashcams the inference being therefore that drivers with dashcams cant be good drivers? I know a few good drivers too, strangely none of them are called John

Oi I am a good driver and my name is JOHN & I have no dash cam