Extract from local neighbourhood watch newsletter

[tel]

Your CCTV must now be licensed if it captures images beyond your property boundary. Failure to register is now a criminal offence.

Introduction of an annual registration charge for household CCTV, and the impact on crime across the whole of the UK
 
SUMMARY
From 20th January 2016 the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has introduced a £35 annual charge to register any household CCTV system under the Data Protection Act (DPA) that films beyond the boundary of your property.
* Filming beyond the boundary is perfectly legal - but failure to register is now a criminal offence
* Tens of thousands of households are now unknowingly breaking the law and can be prosecuted
* Neither the ICO nor the Government have publicised the new ruling [other than on the ICO website]
* This change has not yet been spotted by the national press or media
* The impact on crime detection across the whole of the UK will be enormous
 
BACKGROUND
* The UK DPA has to comply with the overarching EU Data Protection Directive.
* The EU regulations state that "This (the Data Protection Directive) shall not apply to the processing of personal data....by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity".
* Until 2014 the UK ICO interpreted this to mean that household CCTV that films beyond the boundary is exempt from registering under the DPA (known as a Section 36 Exemption)
* In 2014 in Czechoslovakia, a criminal challenged the local laws for that country which mirrored ours. The European Court of Justice ruled that filming beyond the boundary was not purely a personal or household activity (our emphasis).
* The householder was fined, and the fine later rescinded because he was helping the Police, HOWEVER the ECJ ruled that, as a result, householders filming beyond the boundary do fall within the DPA and therefore must register.
 
STATISTICS AND OTHER SUPPORTING INFORMATION
* In one West London ward, household CCTV has resulted in over 110 arrests in the past 5 years alone, and burglaries have halved. Householders actively work with the Police to catch criminals and the vast majority of successes have been achieved through evidence taken from household CCTV systems filming beyond the boundary.
* Householders who are Neighbourhood Watch members see this as "a tax on helping the police"
* Some householders are already turning cameras inwards to avoid the fee - criminals will realise this, and burglaries will rise, whilst detection rates will plummet as other householders with cameras will avoid offering footage for fear of prosecution.
* Thousands of householders across the whole of the UK are now criminalised - and no-one has bothered to tell them.
* The ICO originally wanted to publish everyone by name and postal address on the searchable register - which would have meant that criminals could just put in an area name and it would have listed all residents with CCTV cameras, and show a camera-free getaway route. The ICO changed this after we pointed it out, and there is now an option to show only an email address against your name in the online register.
 
PETITION
* An online petition was launched 19th Feb 2016. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/122236
* We need as many people as possible to sign this, UK-wide - this change in the law has a NATIONAL IMPACT which tips the odds in favour of criminals, a situation which cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.
 
ACTION REQUIRED
Some questions to be answered:
* The £35/yr cannot possibly be justified - businesses already pay £35/yr to register, so this is simply an extension of an existing system. The infrastructure for collection is already in place so extra revenue is not required to deliver registration for households.
* The act of registration itself is straightforward, and not a problem in itself, but The Information Commissioner needs to recognise that it is the fee that needs to be abolished or he must shoulder the responsibility of higher crime rates and lower detection going forwards.
* What about the elderly person living alone who has installed a camera to protect their front/door and path looking onto the road - they may not even be online and able to register, let alone afford the annual fee. Why are they now criminalised?
* When will the Information Commissioner publicise this change in the press?
* Why are good citizens being financially penalised for helping the Police?
* Does the Minister for Justice and Home Secretary even know about this fee and its impact on crime?

[Uncle Mort]

As far as I can tell from a quick perusal of various sites this is incorrect.

The Information Commissioner’s Office is an independent authority which reports directly to the UK parliament. It works to promote the protection of private information and access to public information. The Information Commissioner’s Office Code of Practice on the use of CCTV states that the use of security cameras for “limited household purposes”, including protecting an individual’s home from burglary, is NOT covered by the DPA - even if the camera captures images of streets or other areas near the home.

However, there is a widespread belief that the use of cameras is covered by the DPA if they capture images of people on property not belonging to the camera’s owner. Householders should bear in mind the use of the words “limited household purposes” – it is possible that some uses of CCTV may take them outside of this definition and bring them under the control of the DPA. For example, it may be that using a camera to snoop on a neighbour would not be exempt from the DPA restrictions.


This from a site updated 27th March.

[Steve]

As far as I can tell from a quick perusal of various sites this is incorrect.

The Information Commissioner’s Office is an independent authority which reports directly to the UK parliament. It works to promote the protection of private information and access to public information. The Information Commissioner’s Office Code of Practice on the use of CCTV states that the use of security cameras for “limited household purposes”, including protecting an individual’s home from burglary, is NOT covered by the DPA - even if the camera captures images of streets or other areas near the home.

However, there is a widespread belief that the use of cameras is covered by the DPA if they capture images of people on property not belonging to the camera’s owner. Householders should bear in mind the use of the words “limited household purposes” – it is possible that some uses of CCTV may take them outside of this definition and bring them under the control of the DPA. For example, it may be that using a camera to snoop on a neighbour would not be exempt from the DPA restrictions.


This from a site updated 27th March.

Indeed this does appear to be a false story put about by someone at Hillingdon Neighbourhood Watch for dodgy purposes to do with a certain referendum.  See Here for the hysteria

And see https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/cctv/ for the facts

If your camera covers, even partially, any areas beyond the boundaries of your property, such as neighbouring gardens or the street, then it will no longer be exempt from the Data Protection Act (DPA) under the domestic purposes exemption. This does not mean that you are breaching the DPA but it does mean that you might need to take some steps to comply with it. . . . .