Private Surveillance Law

P

pauls

Full Registered User
Private surveillance law seems very vague. RIPA is pretty straight forward once you get your head around it but this only covers governmental level investigations.

If anyone has legal experience in the following please comment;

Vehicle trackers - installed on public land and private land. With or without permission from the owner.
Covert camera - on public land and on private property. With or without permission from the owner.

Any help on the above would be much appreciated.
 
Vehicle trackers are technically a 'trespass' on the vehicle. Possible civil offence, unlikely criminal one. Just don't put a sim in it that's going to lead back to you.

I assume deployed, not bodyworn ? Any camera on 'public' land shouldn't be a problem. On private land, technically a trespass if deployed without owners consent. Bigger problem would be what are you recording ?

V
 
pauls said:
RIPA is pretty straight forward once you get your head around it but this only covers governmental level investigations.
Click to expand...
There are parts of RIPA especially regarding interception of communications that apply to us all.
 
Cameras I was talking about would be either from a vehicle or dug into to ground.

The footage would be used as evidence. Possibly used in court if legal to do so.
 
Have deployed a few cameras in public places both dug in and vehicle based. My bosses have always tried to at least adhere to the 'message' of RIPA in regards to necessity, the potential of intrusiveness and relevance. Whilst the private sector has less hoops to jump through and anything observable from a public area is fair game (obviously not through someone's bedroom window ), a thorough feasibility study was always required. It supported the evidence and maintained the companies professional reputation under legal scrutiny. In regards to installing on private land with the owners permission, you should be aware that this might have to be disclosed to the other parties legal team and the potential fallout.
 
Once upon a time, I was asked by a local council to deploy a kit in a kids recreation ground, looking at the swings etc, to record vandalism. I got pulled by a passing copper and had to wait a very embarrassing couple of hours until they found the guy at the council that authorised the job.

V
 
niallyan said:
I got a shit sandwich because it could have been voyeuristic and unjustified, despite the fact it was a remote and wasn't focused on that particular window.
Click to expand...
If it was from a public place as you said it was and the view is the same as you would have if you were stood there then there is no problem with filming through a bedroom window.
 
pauls said:
Cameras I was talking about would be either from a vehicle or dug into to ground.

The footage would be used as evidence. Possibly used in court if legal to do so.
Click to expand...
If it is going to be used in court then you should attempt to obtain it legally. However I have filmed from private land, not the subjects and without permission, and it was accepted by the judge.
 
rhea said:
If it was from a public place as you said it was and the view is the same as you would have if you were stood there then there is no problem with filming through a bedroom window.
Click to expand...
Apologies, it was a bit too generalistic. Again whilst the 'letter of the law' says it's fair game, it has always been expressed to me to consider who, what and where the viewing will take place. Whilst every job and it's associated footage is judged individually, especially if further legal action is intended/necessary, anything that can prejudice the investigation has to be reduced as much as is possible. I understand that in many cases the facts will win through but I have also experienced times when the SOE's legal team has screamed bloody murder in regards to the way the operation was conducted. I'm experienced enough now to know that it's a possible attempt to sway judgement etc. but it was enough to make me consider other options. So if I try to adhere to the principles of RIPA and feasibly avoid taking imagery deemed to be intrusive then I avoid potential headaches in the future.
 
Back
Top