Are IP Cameras (CCTV) That Record Audio Outside Legal?

Kintarō Hattori

Folks,

I'm not sure if I've ever posted here before so I'm not sure if I can ask the question even but, 'Are CCTV cameras that record audio legal in a residential estate?'. With decreasing costs and increasing accessibility more people are installing IP cameras- cameras that you can access from your smartphone. The majority of these record video but I wonder do some record audio too and if that were the case, would that be legal. Example being:

Camera is installed on the outside of a house and is picking up conversations from a passing footpath.

Samuel T. Cogley

Not sure if it's been tested but IIRC the ancillary recording of a public space is fine for visual as you've no expectation of privacy. I expect the same argument would be made for audio. Whether the same would apply if it was picking up the next door neighbour in their drive...

Kintarō Hattori

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Not sure if it's been tested but IIRC the ancillary recording of a public space is fine for visual as you've no expectation of privacy. I expect the same argument would be made for audio. Whether the same would apply if it was picking up the next door neighbour in their drive...

Thanks Sam. I was aware that visual gave no expectation of privacy but was curious about audio as I'd imagine that's a whole other kettle of fish.

Samuel T. Cogley

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Thanks Sam. I was aware that visual gave no expectation of privacy but was curious about audio as I'd imagine that's a whole other kettle of fish.

I'm sure they'll be a more informed opinion but I can't see why. You've either an expectation of privacy or you don't and it's a public space. You could just as easily be doing something embarrassing like picking your nose as you could be talking about how you got a bit tipsy.

Kintarō Hattori

Okie dokie. Let's say then that said outside camera picks up audio from the footpath but surely then it's capable of picking up conversations in a garden that are beside the foothpath mentioned above?

Samuel T. Cogley

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Okie dokie. Let's say then that said outside camera picks up audio from the footpath but surely then it's capable of picking up conversations in a garden that are beside the foothpath mentioned above?

I did sort of say that :pac: Taken a step further, what about sound traveling through the walls?

I still think the case law of the picture side of things would be informative, if I could remember what that was.

Kintarō Hattori

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I did sort of say that :pac: Taken a step further, what about sound traveling through the walls?

I still think the case law of the picture side of things would be informative, if I could remember what that was.

Ah you did indeed. Ha, well I'm afraid my knowledge of the legal world is limited so I have no idea what you're referring to in the latter part of your post.

Really I'm just curious about the audio side of things as while I have IP cameras myself, they are mounted inside and with audio switched off. However a number of people have in recent years/months installed outdoor cameras which I believe have the capability to record audio and which I find to be bad form.

Samuel T. Cogley

Well not a legal point of view but a practical one - it would be good to have the audio for the same reason as the picture. You never know what it's going to pick up if something does happen.

Kintarō Hattori

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Well not a legal point of view but a practical one - it would be good to have the audio for the same reason as the picture. You never know what it's going to pick up if something does happen.

True but while a camera has a fixed focal point audio gets picked up from all directions so while you may be out of view from the camera, you may not be from the mic. While in your garden and out of view, isn't that a violation to your right of privacy?

Homer

I think you are over estimating the quality of the mic in one of those cameras to be honest! The inbuilt microphone of any cameras I've come across had fairly poor clarity. The distortion was so great that you'd struggle to understand someone standing close to the camera. They might be ok for situations in which hearing the audio is more important than clearly deciphering it (glass smashing etc.)

Not_A_Racist

The Data Protection Commissioner provides advice on her site that recording audio is never acceptable. She states that she considers that there are no circumstances in which it is appropriate to record audio.

Of course that only applies to data controllers who are covered by the DP acts.

The Gardai must be involved if audio is to be captured to resolve crimes, according to DP Commissioner.


However, those restrictions don't really apply to private individuals. They certainly don't explicitily apply.

Recording audio is considered more invasive than recording images or moving images. I can understand why too. People can make admissions in audio.

A judge in Ireland has ruled that it is legal to set up cameras to record images of the interior of your neighbours house, if those same viewpoints can be achieved from a public place.

Not_A_Racist

Thinking about this more, entirely from a legal standpoint.

It seems to me it'd be legal for a private individual to place a recording device in a public place.

If a person did this with the intention of recording the songs of wild birds there'd be no problem.
If the person then recorded people would he be required to delete the recording?

I don't believe so.


I also think a person could target other people for recording and that'd also be legal. For example, you could place an audio recording device underneath a park bench, with the intention of recording whomever sits on the bench.

If you did that would you be committing an offence?
What offence?


Unrelated question but I reckon it's also legal to place a GPS tracking device on someones elses car without permission.
If you did so what offence would you be committing?
The Gardai can certainly do this can't they?, without warrant?

Victor

Hasn't there been a case about an unenumerated right to privacy? While you have a general right to record, there reaches a point where it is watching and/or besetting.

I would also contend that ongoing monitoring is different to one-off street recording, which leads to:

Not_A_Racist wrote: »

Unrelated question but I reckon it's also legal to place a GPS tracking device on someones elses car without permission.

Isn't this stalking?

Robbo

Not_A_Racist wrote: »

Unrelated question but I reckon it's also legal to place a GPS tracking device on someones elses car without permission.
If you did so what offence would you be committing?
The Gardai can certainly do this can't they?, without warrant?

That's harassment and possibly interference with a motor vehicle.

There'd also be cause for a civil action. Herrity v. Associate Newpapers and Sullivan v. Boylan spring to mind here.

Robbo

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Folks,

I'm not sure if I've ever posted here before so I'm not sure if I can ask the question even but, 'Are CCTV cameras that record audio legal in a residential estate?'. With decreasing costs and increasing accessibility more people are installing IP cameras- cameras that you can access from your smartphone. The majority of these record video but I wonder do some record audio too and if that were the case, would that be legal. Example being:

Camera is installed on the outside of a house and is picking up conversations from a passing footpath.

As ever where an overambitious CCTV implementation is mooted, read Rynes. Then consider what would be required to process the data in a lawful manner, the Commissioner has guidelines you may want to look at.

If there's a cloud based element to how the system operates, you'd want to be damn sure no data wings its way outside the EU.

Kintarō Hattori

Homer wrote: »

I think you are over estimating the quality of the mic in one of those cameras to be honest! The inbuilt microphone of any cameras I've come across had fairly poor clarity. The distortion was so great that you'd struggle to understand someone standing close to the camera. They might be ok for situations in which hearing the audio is more important than clearly deciphering it (glass smashing etc.)

Oh I know Homer, it had want to be an especially expensive setup to overcome general interference but I was just curious really as to the legalities if such a system existed and was being used by a private individual.

Not_A_Racist

In terms of GPS trackers on cars I don't accept it's harassment. The supposed victim is unaware of the harassment and I reckon being aware you're being harassed is an essential element of the crime.

It's the same with stalking. I don't believe you can stalk someone on a single occasion and there's also the issue that the victim would be unaware of the stalking.

It may be interference with a motor vehicle but so is placing a leaflet on a car. This interference (of placing a tracker) is again unknown to the supposed victim and it doesn't damage or affect the car in any way. When the tracker is removed the car is once again fine.
Is it a crime to interfere with a vehicle in a way which doesn't damage the vehicle and where the interference is unknown to the victim?



In terms of recording audio I reckon it's legal for a private individual and the individual can only use the data in a completely private capacity. He can allow the guards to hear it.



In terms of unenumerated rights to privacy I suspect it depends on the judge. If the judge decides to grant you rights you don't explicitily have that's fine, for him and for his court. It could be different in a different court.
I'd give as an example here the judge who said that Katie Fortune does not need to knock down her illegally built house as she has a constitutional right to invioability of her dwelling. Other judges rightly disagree with that conclusion as therefore all dwellings, whether illegal or not, would be invioable. For example the judge hearing the case in the supreme court about the illegal mansion in Meath. Recent ruling, house must be knocked within a year. They mentioned the Katie Fortune case in court.

A Irish judge has ruled that you can take videos of inside peoples houses if that same footage could be filmed by someone standing on a ladder in a public place. That judgement is also considered suspect.

hullaballoo

Are we talking s. 113 interference with the mechanism of a vehicle? I cannot see how the positioning of a GPS device would be considered to be such an interference. It's not like it's a device that renders the vehicle immobile. Not like, say, a clamp.

Victor

Not_A_Racist wrote: »

In terms of GPS trackers on cars I don't accept it's harassment. The supposed victim is unaware of the harassment and I reckon being aware you're being harassed is an essential element of the crime.

So, is it OK to rifle through someone's pockets if they are comatose?

A Irish judge has ruled that you can take videos of inside peoples houses if that same footage could be filmed by someone standing on a ladder in a public place. That judgement is also considered suspect.

Doing it once might be a breach of the peace. Repeatedly doing it is harassment.

Not_A_Racist

I agree, not interference with a vehicle as per section 113.

113.—(1) A person shall not, without lawful authority or reasonable cause, interfere or attempt to interfere with the mechanism of a mechanically propelled vehicle while it is stationary in a public place, or get on or into or attempt to get on or into the vehicle while it is so stationary.

It's only an offence to interfere with the mechanism.



Rifling through pockets is not harassment, it's theft. Theft is a crime even if you're unaware of it.

Not_A_Racist

I had said.
A Irish judge has ruled that you can take videos of inside peoples houses if that same footage could be filmed by someone standing on a ladder in a public place. That judgement is also considered suspect.

Victor wrote: »

...
Doing it once might be a breach of the peace. Repeatedly doing it is harassment.

The judge said what he said in the context of a permanent CCTV installation. The judge knew that this camera was positioned on private property in such a way that it looked into the front door of the opposing neighbour and the judge said no problem. You could obtain this footage by standing on a ladder in a public place.

I agree with your point though. If a person brought a ladder onto the street and used it to look through your windows you couldn't expect to remain there all day. The police would move you on, for loitering if nothing else.
What about peeping tom legislation?
The judge clearly got his judgement wrong. But people can refer to his judgement and say that they take his word on what's legal and what's not.

seamus

If you consider the spirit of the law - where recording with a camera in public is legal because someone with a pair of eyes can see the same thing, I expect the same test would apply when it comes to the recording of audio.

That is, if the audio which was recorded could have been ordinarily heard by a person in that place, then it's probably legal.

However, if the microphone has been modified to be extraordinarily sensitive, or has been modified to include a parabolic reflector or noise cancellation, then I expect there's a strong case to be made that the recording is an illegal invasion of privacy on the basis that the speaker could not have been ordinarily heard by someone else (except the intended listener) and therefore had a legal expectation of privacy.

Think someone having a quiet chat with their friend on a fourth floor balcony and a guy down below them pointing a parabolic reflector at them.

Victor

Not_A_Racist wrote: »

Rifling through pockets is not harassment, it's theft. Theft is a crime even if you're unaware of it.

I didn't say anything was taken,

GM228

Not_A_Racist wrote: »

In terms of GPS trackers on cars I don't accept it's harassment. The supposed victim is unaware of the harassment and I reckon being aware you're being harassed is an essential element of the crime.

It's the same with stalking. I don't believe you can stalk someone on a single occasion and there's also the issue that the victim would be unaware of the stalking.

Victor wrote: »

Doing it once might be a breach of the peace. Repeatedly doing it is harassment.

On the point of harassment it is worth noting that despite the use of the word "persistant" in legislation the High Court has indicated that persistant is not dependant on a specific number of incidents or a time frame within which those incidents must have occurred, one unambiguous continuous act may amount to harassment as per Mr. Justice McCarthy in DPP vs Lynch [2010] 3 IR 434.

Not_A_Racist

Victor wrote:

I didn't say anything was taken,

I did think of that afterwards.

But I suspect it is implied that the reason you were rifling through their pockets was to steal something.

If, for example, you claim that you thought they had fallen into diabetic shock and you were checking if they had either; a medical device like a syringe with lifesaving medicine, or medical details like someone to contact in these circumstances, I feel you couldn't be proven to have had another intention.

So, the conclusion appears to be that rifling through the pockets of an unconscious person isn't explicitily illegal.

Robbo

Not_A_Racist wrote: »

I had said.
A Irish judge has ruled that you can take videos of inside peoples houses if that same footage could be filmed by someone standing on a ladder in a public place. That judgement is also considered suspect.

Citation?

Not_A_Racist

I'm looking for the newspaper article about the case. It has been linked to before by other posters on the legal forum.


Here we go...
from http://www.tjmcintyre.com/2006/05/high-court-gives-disappointing.html

that link above wrote:

The defendant argued that the resulting video footage of him was obtained unlawfully and in breach of his constitutional rights, particularly where it involved surveillance of his dwelling. This was rejected, however, by Peart J. who held that:

I am satisfied that the taking of video footage of the hedge and in so doing the front of the accused’s house is not an act which constitutes an unconstitutional invasion of the right to privacy as contended by Mr O’Higgins. First of all, it is obvious that the front of the accused’s house is something which is visible from the public road – perhaps only with the use of a ladder, but nonetheless visible.

The link gives lots more info. The judgement is considered wrong by most of those who consider it.


edit: A related issue is the use of drones to capture footage through third floor windows for example. Legal or not?