Cctv sings for home

chrismon

Hi guys.
Iv a cctv system at home.
Do I legally need to put up CCTV signs?

chrismon

Ment to write sign not sing.

alta stare

Put them up if you want or dont. No one will force you. An issue can arise though if you go to court with footage. If it wasnt clear that cctv was in place then a case can be dropped. All to do with this data protection lark.

Same as if the data is not processed and stored correctly. All a load of bullshït but heyho this is the way it is gone.

chrismon

alta stare wrote: »

Put them up if you want or dont. No one will force you. An issue can arise though if you go to court with footage. If it wasnt clear that cctv was in place then a case can be dropped. All to do with this data protection lark.

Same as if the data is not processed and stored correctly. All a load of bullshït but heyho this is the way it is gone.

Thanks for that.
I'll get some sorted to be safe.

Crock Rock

Can the judge just decide on a whim whether or not evidence is admissible??

alta stare

Crock Rock wrote: »

Can the judge just decide on a whim whether or not evidence is admissible??

If the correct procedure is not followed regarding the handling of the data then it could be dismissed. All down to data rights.

A solicitor in the know can argue a good case and it could end up being dismissed.

alta stare

chrismon wrote: »

Thanks for that.
I'll get some sorted to be safe.

Have them at any entrance to the property ie gate or driveway. That is sufficient.

bk

It depends on if the CCTV is used in your home and if it is overlooking or recording public areas outside your home.

If it is just inside your home or only over looking your property, then normally it is excluded from the GDPR and sign's aren't needed *

If the CCTV overlooks the public road outside and you don't mask out the public path/road part, then the GDPR may apply:

https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/cctv-home

* Note GDPR may apply if you employ people in your home, e.g. Child minders, etc.

alta stare

bk wrote: »

It depends on if the CCTV is used in your home and if it is overlooking or recording public areas outside your home.

If it is just inside your home or only over looking your property, then normally it is excluded from the GDPR and sign's aren't needed *

If the CCTV overlooks the public road outside and you don't mask out the public path/road part, then the GDPR may apply:

https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/cctv-home

* Note GDPR may apply if you employ people in your home, e.g. Child minders, etc.

Believe it or not if it goes to court cctv can be and has been dismissed over a lack of signage. Thats why having it on your gate/entrance is enough to cover yourself. Public to private means of entrance.

bk

alta stare wrote: »

Believe it or not if it goes to court cctv can be and has been dismissed over a lack of signage. Thats why having it on your gate/entrance is enough to cover yourself. Public to private means of entrance.

Can you point me to that court case?

I'm aware that there are issues around using CCTV to monitor employees who might be stealing. etc. But I've never heard of a case of domestic CCTV of a burglary or similar being dismissed because of a lack of a sign.

alta stare

bk wrote: »

Can you point me to that court case?

I'm aware that there are issues around using CCTV to monitor employees who might be stealing. etc. But I've never heard of a case of domestic CCTV of a burglary or similar being dismissed because of a lack of a sign.

If you think im going to go looking for that just to prove a point on boards then you are sadly mistaken.

A sign can be taken to be part of the over all package when it comes to the handling, processing, rentention etc etc of cctv data.

If a person comes onto your propery they will do so from public land. It can be argued that they did not know they were being recorded as soon as they entered your land therefore having cctv signs at the entrance is not a bad idea if possible. As i have already said a good solicitor can and have argued this type of scenario before.

bk

alta stare wrote: »

If you think im going to go looking for that just to prove a point on boards then you are sadly mistaken.

So you don't know.

alta stare wrote: »

A sign can be taken to be part of the over all package when it comes to the handling, processing, rentention etc etc of cctv data.

If a person comes onto your propery they will do so from public land. It can be argued that they did not know they were being recorded as soon as they entered your land therefore having cctv signs at the entrance is not a bad idea if possible. As i have already said a good solicitor can and have argued this type of scenario before.

Non of which applies to domestic homes under the GDPR as I linked to earlier.

The need for signs, only came in in the last year as part of the new GDPR legislation, domestic homes are generally excluded from it and anyway it only pertains to the processing and handling of data.

And non of that has anything to say on how CCTV footage can or can't be used in a court case. A person trespassing on private property certainly has no right to privacy and nothing in the GDPR says differently.

Think about it, dashcam footage from cars is used every day in court cases. And that is filming a public place and with no signs up in most peoples cars.

Sure, put up a sign if it makes you feel better, no harm, it is another deterrent anyway. But the OP asked if it was legally required and the answer is no.

bk

I should of course point out that for those of you who professionally install and potentially monitor CCTV systems, even in domestic settings, as a company, you would have different obligations under GDPR legislation, then say a DIYer setting it up in your own home.

Also I am not a lawyer.

alta stare

bk wrote: »

So you don't know.



Non of which applies to domestic homes under the GDPR as I linked to earlier.

The need for signs, only came in in the last year as part of the new GDPR legislation, domestic homes are generally excluded from it and anyway it only pertains to the processing and handling of data.

And non of that has anything to say on how CCTV footage can or can't be used in a court case. A person trespassing on private property certainly has no right to privacy and nothing in the GDPR says differently.

Think about it, dashcam footage from cars is used every day in court cases. And that is filming a public place and with no signs up in most peoples cars.

Sure, put up a sign if it makes you feel better, no harm, it is another deterrent anyway. But the OP asked if it was legally required and the answer is no.

you want me to linking something just because you wont go looking yourself. It was a discussion when i was in FAS. We were shown articles about court cases and data protection. Data protection is not just about a camera facing a road or a private house. You linked to a small section regarding cctv. As i have already said a good solicitor in the know would have cctv evidence struck off even if the cameras were on private property.

The need for signs was always there but it changed to having the correct sign when gdpr came in.

Never mind the tresspassing part, what if a delivery driver calls to your property. What makes you think you have the right to record him without him knowing you have cctv? Or the postman???? So yes you can be challenged over lack of signage.

Dash cams??? Yes public place. Different type of camera for different settings so they dont fall into the security systems category. Bit of a silly example.

We were required to read data protection in college and i can tell you its not as black and white as you think it is. If cctv data is not retainted, processed, controlled in the correct manner it can and has been dismissed as evidence.

Id suggest you read more than just a vague document about gdpr.

lgk

alta stare wrote: »

Dash cams??? Yes public place. Different type of camera for different settings so they dont fall into the security systems category. Bit of a silly example.

What security systems category do you mean here? There is no such category or section in the legislation so curious as to what this refers to. The legislation also makes no differentiation between data captured by fixed CCTV or dashcams.

The ECJ has ruled that domestic CCTV installations fall under the requirements of GDPR only if they record the public realm.

alta stare

lgk wrote: »

What security systems category do you mean here? There is no such category or section in the legislation so curious as to what this refers to. The legislation also makes no differentiation between data captured by fixed CCTV or dashcams.

The ECJ has ruled that domestic CCTV installations fall under the requirements of GDPR only if they record the public realm.

Well you arent going to have to worry about your dashcam in your own home are you. A dash cam is not classed as a security device. A security camera is....its in the name really. I dont expect a level of privacy from a dash cam or a camera which is in public. Now if my neighbour's happens to have one catching some of my property i would request they use a privacy mask. We inform customers in domestic settings about this all the time. Plenty of cameras on houses look out onto public land ie roads, paths.

If i come onto your property to do some work as requested by you the paying customer and i see cameras which i dont want to be filmed on then i am going to avoid walking on to your property. If however i seen a sign there then i wouldnt of walked onto the property in the first place and i would let you know that.

When i do come onto your property and accept i will be filmed i would expect you are going to handle my data on your recorder with the due care and responsibility required.


If when on your property i happened to take something or do something untoward which ends up with you bringing me to court where you try use cctv as evidence then a GOOD SOLICITOR IN THE KNOW can argue that the cctv be thrown out due to lack of signage on the grounds of data processing. When the owner of said cctv tries to argue their case about data protection the solicitor can challenge. Do you think that the data protection laws cant be challenged? It works both ways.

If im on your property and i slip which you find funny as hell and you show it online or to your buddies then it is you who could be in trouble as you have breached my data rights....why???? Because you did not handle my data correctly or in a responsible manner.

Cctv signage makes people aware there are cameras. It informs them they will be recorded. You either accept it or dont. If you dont then dont enter the property. If you do then the owner must be a responsible data processor no matter what happens.

pedroeibar1

alta stare wrote: »

If the correct procedure is not followed regarding the handling of the data then it could be dismissed. All down to data rights.

A solicitor in the know can argue a good case and it could end up being dismissed.

People are confusing two issues on this thread - GDPR and rules of evidence. The video/photographic evidence from the camera must be securely processed/held from the actual recording to the Court hearing. If there is a weak/broken link in the chain of evidence the case could be thrown out, nothing to do with GDPR.

ldy4mxonucwsq6

What I'm reading is that if it's your own property then it falls under domestic exemption but if it records a public area then the data could fall under data protection legislation.

Info here

https://dataprotection.ie/en/cctv-home

And good guide here too

https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/guidance-landing/guidance-use-cctv-individuals

I have cctv a few years now, I don't have signs up on my property, the cameras are very visible and I only record my immediate area. The cctv is definitely a worthwhile investment.

Don't think there's any legal requirement to display signs but you could inadvertently become a data controller depending on the area being covered etc.

alta stare

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

People are confusing two issues on this thread - GDPR and rules of evidence. The video/photographic evidence from the camera must be securely processed/held from the actual recording to the Court hearing. If there is a weak/broken link in the chain of evidence the case could be thrown out, nothing to do with GDPR.

Glad your finally coming around to what im getting at. If the solicitor can find any mishandling of the recording then he can have it dismissed and one of the grounds for dismissal can be a data breach. So yes in theory it can have alot to do with GDPR so having signs at any entrance to your property would be of benefit and nothing else.

Not once have i said or suggested a person has to have them around their property...only at the entrance. Public to private. At least some camera is bound to catch a public road, path etc.

There could be a long winding debate about data and cctv it is an absolute mess. Look at all the nonsense about justification, retention, processing, nominated controllers, access to data....i could go on but why bother we would end up debating until the end of time.

I would always advise a client about cctv and data irrespective of where the camera looks. I explain how it CAN be dismissed in court if the correct procedures are not followed from start to finish. I advise about a sign at any entrance, if they dont want one then that is fine it makes no ends to me. At the end of the day it is up to the customer. Its their equipment, their property but it is my duty to at least inform them of how to go about protecting themselves as much as possible.

pedroeibar1

alta stare wrote: »

Glad your finally coming around to what im getting at. If the solicitor can find any mishandling of the recording then he can have it dismissed and one of the grounds for dismissal can be a data breach. So yes in theory it can have alot to do with GDPR so having signs at any entrance to your property would be of benefit and nothing else.

Not once have i said or suggested a person has to have them around their property...only at the entrance. Public to private. At least some camera is bound to catch a public road, path etc.

There could be a long winding debate about data and cctv it is an absolute mess. Look at all the nonsense about justification, retention, processing, nominated controllers, access to data....i could go on but why bother we would end up debating until the end of time.

I would always advise a client about cctv and data irrespective of where the camera looks. I explain how it CAN be dismissed in court if the correct procedures are not followed from start to finish. I advise about a sign at any entrance, if they dont want one then that is fine it makes no ends to me. At the end of the day it is up to the customer. Its their equipment, their property but it is my duty to at least inform them of how to go about protecting themselves as much as possible.

I'm not coming round to anything. I just bumped into this thread when looking for an answer HERE The simple fact is that signs/GDPR and the chain of evidence have nothing to do with each other. If a camera records an event outside your property you have a GDPR issue. That might be a problem in court if you bring an action for an event outside your property - e.g. a car smashing into your car on the street outside your home. A sign indicating that there was recording in place might obviate this. However, most judges would not have an issue and would be unlikely to let off a scrote on that type of technicality. I do know of several incidences where the Gardai have checked private CCTV systems that have road coverage and used it - successfully - in court. One of those cameras saved me €€€€s which is why I posted the Q above.

Most CCTV- evidence cases work fine if there is visual clarity. An error in the chain of evidence is why some are thrown out. You cannot rock up to court with your memory stick - it is evidence and has to be processed by the gardai from your machine/cloud and held by them separately to you. They download it, take it, mind it and produce it. That is the chain of evidence.

I do agree that 'signs are a good idea' because they are a probable deterrent and secondly because they reduce the chance of legal quibbles.

lgk

alta stare wrote: »

A dash cam is not classed as a security device. A security camera is....its in the name really. I dont expect a level of privacy from a dash cam or a camera which is in public.

The legislation does in fact entitle people to privacy in public places.

alta stare wrote: »

If im on your property and i slip which you find funny as hell and you show it online or to your buddies then it is you who could be in trouble as you have breached my data rights....why???? Because you did not handle my data correctly or in a responsible manner.

Did you not read the ECJ ruling? It'd be some solicitor who would successfully argue against that.

Again, what Security Systems category were you referring to in your response to the GDPR issue?

alta stare

lgk wrote: »

The legislation does in fact entitle people to privacy in public places.



Did you not read the ECJ ruling? It'd be some solicitor who would successfully argue against that.

Again, what Security Systems category were you referring to in your response to the GDPR issue?

Again you are taking the law quite literally. This law can be challenged.....by a good solicitor.

Of course everyone has the right to privacy even in public but lets be real here it can be construed as somewhat reasonable privacy given that you are in.......public.


Yes i have it on my phone.

Personal data is any information that relates to an identified or identifiable living individual. Different pieces of information, which collected together can lead to the identification of a particular person, also constitute personal data.

The above relates to cctv irrespective of where it is given a person can be identified via cctv.

lgk

alta stare wrote: »

Again you are taking the law quite literally. This law can be challenged.....by a good solicitor.

Of course everyone has the right to privacy even in public but lets be real here it can be construed as somewhat reasonable privacy given that you are in.......public.


Yes i have it on my phone.

Personal data is any information that relates to an identified or identifiable living individual. Different pieces of information, which collected together can lead to the identification of a particular person, also constitute personal data.

The above relates to cctv irrespective of where it is given a person can be identified via cctv.

So you didn't read the judgement then.

Again, in the context of GDPR, what Security Systems category were you referring to?

alta stare

lgk wrote: »

So you didn't read the judgement then.

Again, in the context of GDPR, what Security Systems category were you referring to?

I just told you i have any information regarding data protection and gdpr on my phone....would you like a screen shot? .


Are we not talking about CCTV here? Is that not a security category? I think it is...iv been working in this industry a while. Not once did i say gdpr is specific to just CCTV so you are trying to go after something which isnt there.

lgk

alta stare wrote: »

I just told you i have any information regarding data protection and gdpr on my phone....would you like a screen shot? .

No, why would a screenshot of your phone help clarify a legal position? The legislation is all published online, can you not link to whatever section of that you are referring to?

alta stare wrote: »

Are we not talking about CCTV here? Is that not a security category?

A category in relation to what?

alta stare wrote: »

I think it is...iv been working in this industry a while. Not once did i say gdpr is specific to just CCTV so you are trying to go after something which isnt there.

Then, in a discussion on domestic CCTV, why did you say:

alta stare wrote: »

The need for signs was always there but it changed to having the correct sign when gdpr came in.
<SNIP>
Dash cams??? Yes public place. Different type of camera for different settings so they dont fall into the security systems category. Bit of a silly example.
<SNIP>
Id suggest you read more than just a vague document about gdpr.

So you say dashcams fall under a different category and that poster should read up on GDPR. Again with the category thing! The ECJ has already ruled that domestic CCTV is exempt from GDPR requirements, the DPC have stated dashcam footage is covered by GDPR. In effect, the opposite of what you have been claiming.