Spy Blog - SpyBlog.org.uk

Ridiculously harsh. Most men, given the opportunity, will view a naked woman for the sake of sexual gratification. It's only human nature. What a bunch of prudes!

Why was temptation put in their way ?

It is perfectly possible to site public CCTV cameras so that they cannot physically be panned, tilted or zoomed to snoop on private property.

John Crinnion - a fair point.

wtwu - a good point. It should be compulsory that spy cameras cannot physically be directed to private property.

In my town, residents adjacent to a school were given the option to have the spy cameras monitoring to school equipped with some sort of screen which would have prevented their houses being viewed. I don't know whether it was an electronic "screen" or some physical device. Not surprisingly, none of them requested this facility be implemented. They obviously had nothing to hide!!!

er...look...

everyone is a private individual

we did not/do not need people spying on us

if that spying is labelled voyeurism then suddenly it becomes a sad male fantasy
scenario

it should remain in the realm of fantasy

the notion that these workers had temptation put in their path is quite frankly offensive

think about all those knuckle draggers who assert that women deserve to be raped for dressing in provocative clothing

c'mon

this kind of shit needs to be put in the modern perspective of a global satellite based surveillance capacity

into the same bag with the way soldiers acted at abu ghriab

with the rendition program

its a marker for how humans are being programmed to have no thought for others privacy

[and security for the matter]

these people are abusing a power

that they should not have
in the first place under
in a 'free' state

we all get the idea that CCTV is everywhere but do we really grasp the true nature of the sociological implications this extent of control is having?

i mean

the stanford experiment
is so old now

and we are now post Orwellian

question:

should CCTV be placed in all CCTV operation command rooms?

in all police stations?

in Parliament & the Lords?

especially in MP's offices

should'nt the state serve the voter?

maybe we could tune in randomly to their antics

or maybe we could hold these f**ks to account

with this kind of rhetoric

Quite simply all public CCTV should be banned and private CCTV should be licenced so that the maximum area that it could cover would be the perimiter of the building/land belonging to the applicant.

This will never happen until we get rid of the totalitarians in power (nearly all of the current members of parliament of all colours) and replace them with libertarian minded people.

Some of the more cynical among you will think that this will never happen, but I guarantee that sooner or later, by fair means of foul, it will.

We cannot live in a ever increasing totalitarian regime without tipping the balance of power which, 9 times out of 10, causes civil unrest. I do not believe that we are very far off that point (10years at the most)

@ cw - George Orwell's 1984 dystopia did not keep the "proles" under surveillance, since they were not considered to be important enough.

Only the Party elite and those working for the police state i.e. all those with power, were kept under surveillance.

This is not quite what we have in the UK today, where the "proles" are to be kept under surveillance as well.

@ Jake Long - we have been calling for the licensing of CCTV operators for years, given that the technology cannot be disinvented, and that there are some legitimate uses for such systems.

It is astonishing that every Television set in the UK is centrally licenced, but that no CCTV spy camera surveillance systems are.

Such licences should be revoked if:the CCTV surveillance systems are used for:

Schemes such as traffic jam cameras should be limited in the quality of images recorded i.e. it is not necessary to pick out individual drivers' faces in order to detect if a road is congested or not..

Instead of CCTV cameras on buses or on trains, there should be more human staff e.g. conductors, train guards and platform staff..

It would be far better to have far fewer.properly run and properly funded systems, than the plethora of privacy invasive ones which do not actually detect or deter crime or terrorism, which is what we have at the moment..

Does anyone know of any good links that explains the laws surrounding this area?

I was positive that laws were already in place to prevent CCTV from looking at private property not under your ownership/control. But that isn't the case, I take it?

@ Bjørn - here in the United Kingdom we do not have either a Privacy Law or a written constitution.

The Building Regulations allow you to have up to 16 external CCTV cameras on a building, up to 4 per side, of a size which
are no longer manufactured: the current models, including the pan / tilt / zoom gear, are all much smaller than the permitted maximum size. The Building Regulations say nothing about what the CCTV cameras can or cannot see. There is no limit on CCTV cameras inside a building, even ones which have a view through the windows to neighbouring properties.

Home Office subsidised public CCTV schemes have, in the past, had to consult with the neighbours, as a condition of getting the money, but only on a voluntary Code of Conduct basis, which is not legally enforceable. The Home Office is not currenlt spending money this way, and there are plenty of schemes which were never subsisdised by them.

Only if there is a provable sexual motive for the snooping, like in this case, does the Voyeurism offence apply.

The strongest legislation which applies to thr private sector or individuals is the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, which may, if you are rich enough to afford High Court lawyers, possibly protect your valuable performance art from unuthorised snoopers, but only after the fact, and if it is for commercial gain.

Even rich and famous people have no protection from papparazzi photographers or videographers, so what legal remedies do you think the rest of us have ?

Police and intelligence service use of "directed surveillance" under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, for the targeted investigation of serious crimes , comes under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, with some supervision by the Surveillance Commissioner, but he has chosen not to insist that mass surveillance schemes should be treated this way.

The Data Protection Act and the Information Commissioner have been discussed above.

Links to most of this legislation are in the left hand column of the home page of Spy Blog.

At least in Britain we can be assured that CCTV is being put to good use. Like here for instance:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/31/nfeed31.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/31/ixhome.html

I have a nieghbor with a camera on a 20 ft pole that can and does point in to my garden. I am just starting the process of sorting the situation out (I hope) as he insists he has the right. Judging by the above I have a problem

@ Dave Ellis - "camera on a 20 ft pole"

That could well require Planning Permission, even if the same camera attached physically to the outside of a building would not.

If your neighbour is unreasonable and refuses to prevent the camera snooping on you and your property at home, then, perhaps together with any other neighbours so affected, you could apply to your Local Council for an Anti-Social Behavior Order.

There are several groups of people up and down the country with similar concerns, thinking about doing this, but none have yet come to pass.

Thanks

So far I have information that he is outside the law on the following

1) Data protection act
2) Freedom of information
3) Article 8 of the human rights act

He is also breaking the CCTV code of practice. In addition you are quite right he does require planning permission, I have been asked to write to the Planning Enforcement Officer. He will have to apply for retrospective planning permission, bearing in mind the above laws etc when I object he is unlikelt to get it.

I will attempt to speak to him shortly in to try for a compromise ie shorten the pole. To be honest he is unlikely to agree to anything exept the status quo so it will be the planning dept. I will let you know what happend perhaps it will help others in a similar situation

Is Council allowed to spy on thir employee by public CCTV System, with out knowledge of employee

I'm a documentary maker - am wondering just how many bored CCTV operators are turning their cameras on bedroom windows? B

While muggers and joy-riders walk free. What a shit-for-brains country. Hate it and leave it.

Maybe the woman committed an offence of exhibitionism? After all, what does it
take to close the blinds?
The law quotes "reasonably expectation of privacy" - What? in a room with the
curtains open and the lights on?