when & when not to use Digital camera ???

  Sethhaniel 07:12 30 Jul 05
Locked

or phone camera -
in the aftermath of the terrorist onslaught in London earlier this month - the pleas for any information especially recorded on camera phones etc, were most welcome - and probably helped in the police investigations.
But yesterdays arrest and alert at Liverpool Street station - the police are now stopppimg people taking photo's with their phone/camera's.
What do they want!!!
As almost every street corner now has an eye in the sky filming you - which you have no control over - shops & businesses have to display a warning of CCTV in operation and you have rights to go and view what pictures there are of you.
So can we have police guidlines now on when it is OK to take photo's for their benefit???? ;)
Big Brother watches you (But you can't watch Big Brother)

  Forum Editor 08:12 30 Jul 05

that "you have rights to go and view what pictures there are of you"?

I know of no such 'right' at all, but I'm happy to be proved wrong.

Shops and businesses do not have to display a warning that CCTV is in operation - they do so because it acts as a deterrent; if you know you're being filmed you are less likely to commit an offence.

As far as I can see the fact that CCTV is in wide use doesn't impinge on your civil liberty in any way - it's the old story, if you are doing nothing wrong you have absolutely nothing to fear from it. In fact you should feel reassured - CCTV has been instrumental in helping to reslove thousands of crimes, and has probably prevented thousands more.

As far as the Liverpool Street station incident is concerned, the Police prevented people from taking photographs during the arrest of two women in the station. It was done for security reasons - the officers involved do not want their photographs being taken by all and sundry. They are working very long hours under sometimes dangerous conditions, and the last thing they want is to have their photographs splashed across every subversive web site on the planet.

Please think about the implications before you go posting "Big brother" comments. If you were arresting terrorist suspects would you want to be photographed in the act by a few hundred people, some of whom could well be terrorist sympathisers themselves? Like millions of others I live and work in London, and I move around it every day. Personally I'm grateful to the Police for what they are doing at the moment, and I think we should cooperate with them in any way we can - not spend our time sniping at them in web forums.

  john-231489 08:52 30 Jul 05

FE
Well said. I couldn't have put it better myself. In an ieal world I would agree with Sethhaniel, but we do not live in such a place and anything that will help to catch vilians and terrosists is certainly OK by me!!!

  Sethhaniel 09:20 30 Jul 05

Your First two Counts are wrong

1st Count: There are many aspects to take into account, such as 'Civil Liberties' and the 'Data Protection Act 1998'.

2nd Count :
Premises should display warning signs with relevant details:-

Scheme Holders
The name and address of the CCTV scheme holder should be on display.

In the event of a complaint of positive feedback it is essential that the customer is able to make swift contact with the controller or designated coordinator of the scheme.

If it is a Data Protection request, the prospective Data subject should be able to observe from the relevant signs:

Name of Controller/Co-ordinator.

Contact address.

Contact telephone number.

Once contact has been made it should be a speedy service delivery.
-----------
Liverpool Street if after questioning they find the two suspects had others with them - and the appeal for witnesses comes forward - as they say'a picture is worth a thousand words'
--------
As for 'SNIPING' I fully support the police in the dificult task they have to perform each day
And was just posing the question on what they want the public to do - Help or Turn a Blind Eye.

  Sethhaniel 09:28 30 Jul 05

The Data Protection Act Compliant CCTV Signs - The Data Protection Act 1998 came into force on 1st March 2000. It sets out rules for processing personal information and applies to paper and electronic records.

  john-231489 10:03 30 Jul 05

No Sethhaniel,
you are the one that has missed the entire point. You can quote all the laws you like and this data protection and Civil liberties is a load of rubbish. Do these terrorist conform to all the laws they are supposed to. Do they care about Civil Liberties.
and Let me ask you one question. "Have you ever witnessed a disaster on the scale we saw in New York or London. I doubt it otherwise you would not be quoting letter and verse ridiculous ill conceived laws that in practise do not work.

  Forum Editor 10:09 30 Jul 05

and perhaps I should have qualified my response regarding CCTV.

Shops and businesses do NOT have to display a warning sign if the surveillance is of a general area,and you do NOT have the right, under the Data protection act, to view footage which was recorded in such circumstances.

A shop, business, or public place may decide to record specific targets - staff for instance, or suspected criminals. In these cases the surveillance is of specific individuals, and the recorded footage will come within the compass of the act. That's when there is a legal requirement for a sign to be displayed. If signs are displayed in other contexts it's because the CCTV operator wished to cover him/herself, but there's no legal requirement.

There are no civil liberties aspects to take into account, because there is no infringment of a civil liberty - anyone may take your photograph at any time with or without your knowledge and/or consent. I can photograph you in the stree4t if I wish, and there's nothing whatsoever you can do about it - you certainly do not have a right to see the photograph.

  Sethhaniel 10:15 30 Jul 05

OK put a CCTV outside your premises
without being 'registered' and displaying the relevent 'Legally Required' signs and you'll find yourself £5000 out of pocket.
And then have the facility where if my image is caught on your camera I can apply in writting and be allowed to view what image you have of me (maybe by a set fee - to put off time wasters)
that is my lawful rights .
If you reread the post I am all for catching terrorist and being able to take photographs which may help in further police enquiries -and not stick my head in the sand as many are all too willing to do - if more people were more aware and knew what they can do ie take pictures of incident for helping road accident - bomb incidents etc - it is a well known fact that some guilty parties stand around in the background to see what their activities have achieved - and that image can put the guilty party behind bars.

  Sethhaniel 10:42 30 Jul 05

"I can photograph you in the street if I wish, and there's nothing whatsoever you can do about it" ---------------------
Unless I was Elton John and you'de have to retrieve your camera from somewhere unmentionable ;)

  wee eddie 14:57 30 Jul 05

There are severe legal restrictions on the publication of photos of individuals.

  Ancient Learner 15:02 30 Jul 05

As a private individual, with no business premises, are you telling me that I need a licence to use CCTV outside my house. If so, there will be a whole lot of householders who will, I am sure, be amazed to learn that; and that if you knock on the door, you are entitled to a view of the image the CCTV took of you.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Sniper Elite 4 review: Headshotting Nazis has never felt so good

1995-2015: How technology has changed the world in 20 years

The Fresh New Fonts of 2017

WWDC 2017 dates: How to get WWDC 2017 tickets, when is WWDC 2017 and more details announced