I would like to have a small security camera (perhaps ceiling mounted) in my study/office at home.
Can anyone suggest any value for money cameras. A low price is important.
It would need to record audio too as it is useful for me to go back and hear what I said in face to face discussions or in phone calls.
you might fall foul of some privacy law if you record sound IIRC
If being used for commercial purposes, you will need to register yourself on the data registrars roll, as a data control manager. Commercial surveillance is now under the control of the data protection and safety act, which states that all material recorded to media suitable for playback proposes, must be registered with your local police and council authority, and must be to a standard where the material is secure to prevent unauthorised broadcast, reproduction or copying.
But a cheapo system can be got from eBay if you search in the CCTv sections. Put a search for " +CCTv+audio " to get thousands of hits back. Watch out for the cheap systems that are advertised from the far east. Most are cheap for a good reason, and some won't arrive at all. They still pay people to leave feedback for them, over there. Buyer beware.
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Kevin saying something like:
Bollocks.
Bollocks to you too
"Firms may have to revise their use of closed-circuit television to monitor workers following the publication today of a new code of practice by the Information Commissioner's Office.
The ICO found seven out of 10 individuals oppose the use of CCTV cameras that record their conversations, and half did not know the Data Protection Act covers CCTV surveillance.
The ICO said the use of sound recording was "highly intrusive" and warned organisations that its use would be justified only in "highly exceptional circumstances".
This debate has been ongoing since 2002, but an article, seen here
As you will see, the article was published back in 2006, but it caused the act to be updated immediately to contain the Criminal Laws act of obtaining unlawful communication in any covert fashion. The data protection system is still being update, almost daily, to try and contain newer techniques which are also being updated on an almost daily basis. With it being a relatively new set of proposed standards, the industry and individuals will always try to find loopholes, but the act is not law. Although it can be used to relate to current Criminal Justice Laws which cover such things that the act proposes. Such is the case of obtaining unauthorised communication media.
The act now contains a paragraph which states that no covert surveillance can used to obtain recorded material for use in unauthorised monitoring of personnel or visitors to a commercial or public building. That's why it is now law to post clear signs telling of recorded surveillance equipment in use. If the said surveillance recording also captures audio media, then the signs must also clearly state this to people.
So, ballox back at ya' :-)
If anyone is interested
Having to work to these standards most every day, we, as a company, have to keep informed about the current legislative updates that have been, or are to be, introduced into the system.
It was through such discussion with the data commissioner's office, that our company had the clause of privacy introduced into the act. This was the first time it had even been thought about as pertaining to such legislation. During discussion, we asked about the installation of surveillance devices in the toilet areas of pubs, clubs and other public buildings. Although we brought attention to the fact that criminal activity can and will be committed in such places, we also knew that people didn't want to be watched as they used the loo.
Our point was to introduce a situation of acceptable use of such devices where the person would not be violated while in a state of undress. The new paragraph now says, roughly, that areas within such facilities, the areas away from urinals and solid waste disposal systems, may be covered by video surveillance and recording devices ( the public areas ) in accordance with current criminal prevention laws. This just means that you can install cameras to watch the floor area away from where people are naturally going to expose their ugly bits.
The print on information signage is also to changed soon. New wording is being introduced to inform people that video surveillance, either recorded locally or remotely, is being used to protect staff, residents and visitors from criminal attack. This new simple wording scheme actually covers a load more situations where video can be used. With the current wording on signs, it only tells people that cameras are there and are being recorded. Because of the introduction of the simple phrase "Staff, Residents and Visitors" it now covers areas that are used frequently by employees, residents and anyone else who may visit in any part of a property, including the public areas of toilets and cloakrooms.
I think the new signs have already been installed on a few new fleet buses across the country. Where the wording says something like "Video is installed to protect staff and travelers" in this situation. But the signs will shortly have to change to the new wording scheme right across the country soon. If not already.
To tell the truth, the signs have now disappeared to my eyes. I have seen to many of them, everywhere, to even notice them anymore. No matter what is written on them. :-)
But there are relaxations (maybe not including audio) for home security use.
So do not tell anyone then.
Adam
there are some about disguised as smoke alarms or alarm PIR detectors if you want to be ultra-covert...
I use a cheap hard disc DVD recorder (=A3150) with mine.
You could use a PC with a DVR card which (if working correctly :>)) brings in motion detection etc but obviously PC must be *on* all the time (and not crashed...)
jim
ignorance either real or imagined of any laws does not make you immune to prosecution
Remember that sound quality reduces considerably with distance from the microphone - background noises become more significant than the sounds you want.
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Kevin saying something like:
Ohkay... Anyway, the OP wants to do it in his own home, to back up his recollection of events in his own office/study. I don't see the problem if it's to put some dodgy bastard in their place.
I would have thought a home "office" still would be classed as a place of work and subject to the normal rules/laws
On Sun 02 Nov08 00:39, BigWallop wrote in :
Hello. I am the original poster. I can't follow exactly who's bolloxing who! I would like to say that you point out may not apply in my case.
You wrote "unauthorised monitoring of personnel or visitors to a commercial or public building.
FIRST. In my case it is my home. Not a "commercial or public building". My visitors are visiting a home even though I do have a study. However I'm not conducting any business from home.
SECOND. I am not so much "monitoring" visitors as recording what is said by visitors for me to hear (or expected to see). In other words, the recording will be akin to entries made at the time in a notebook. In this case it's an electronic notebook.
Do you think these two points would permit the recording to occur?
Or to come at it from another direction ... if I had a security alarm running all day long and a visitor to talk to me came, then would that breaking any law?
On Sun 02 Nov08 18:39, Kevin wrote in :
I am the OP. It's not really an office. It's strictly a study.
It's where I keep books, papers, have a desk, write letters, and so on.
I don't work. So there is no work to be brought home!
I do not do anything commercial in my study or in my home.
If you have no commercial enterprise what so ever within the property, you are not under any authority to register with the Office of the Data Commissioner. If, however, you do install equipment for the use of recording audio and / or video images, and you use these images in the pursuit of any commercial venture, you do have the obligation to tell the people you are recording them and that the images may be used in such ventures. You will also have to register yourself as a Data Manager / Controller.
Would you tell your visitors they are being recorded with video and audio systems? If you don't, then could also fall under the Privacy of Personal Identity Laws, which have just been passed through government at this very moment. Because of the increase in Personal Identity Theft, these new legislative demands may cause the surveillance of visitors to your home or rented accommodation to be brought to bear into secret filming / recording of any personal information. So you could be caught both ways very shortly.
Is this monitoring to be overt or covert? If a film crew openly approach you in the street while you are talking to friends, would you allow them to continue filming and recording your every word and expression? Even though they are not hiding any of their activities. On the other hand, if the film crew are filming you and your friends from a van across the street, with the aid of a sound recordist covertly standing next to you with a microphone recording your every word. Then it is shown on national TV without your consent. How would you feel?
The laws against recording of material of a personal nature is now punishable by up to ten years imprisonment. Do you remember the journalist bloke who, with a scanner radio, could listen in on celebrity mobile phone calls? He was lucky he was the first person to be privately sued by this activity, because the laws have been refined and tweaked a lot since then.
So it depends on how these recordings are to obtained and used. Some people may not like being played back in front of whom so ever else visits your home, even if the conversation is not business related. Every personal conversation is not for public use, which any covert recording would be classed as if your visitors find out about them.
If you are filming and sound recording every room in your private residential home, then you have no obligations of the Data Protection and Safety Act at all, whatsoever. You will need a regulatory sign outside the premises, telling visitors and passers by that they will be recorded if they enter or approach your home. That is all you have to do. Such material is deemed as "Being for the private use of the home owner".
If you are recording a public area, like a public footpath or roadway of any kind, out with the boundary of your property, then the Act states that you do have an obligation to the public to disclose any recorded material that may be pertinent to them in the pursuit of their personal business. Which means they could just be walking passed your property when they were caught on your audio / video system, so you have to allow them access to any such recorded material that they appear on, from your system. You can charge a small fee for any material copied to third party media for the private use of the requester.
To sum up the Data Protection and Safety Act, then. If your system is only for private use within your home. With no means of being used to covertly obtain personal material from "informed visitors". Then your system is not regulated by the act at all. Nada. Zilch. If such recorded material is to be used in any type of commercial venture, whatsoever, you do have to register yourself for this purpose to the Data Commissioners Office. None disclosure of any such material to the police or any other authorised body (which includes all persons you have been recorded on your system and / or their agents) as of any request for such material, may be punishable under the Personal Identity Theft Law and Data Protection and Safety Act.
It costs nothing to register your system to the proper authorities. Some people think it is a tough set of regulations that they have to comply with, when it is really nothing of the sort. Others think that the DPA is some sort of way the government keeps tabs on your private lives, when in actual fact it is used mainly to protect your rights against violation by others, under common law. The DPA and ID Violation Laws are used very rarely in court cases, where systems have been used to capture evidence of none criminal activity.
I have personally never heard of any case where a system has been used in anything other than criminal evidence. Because of that fact, if your system is registered with the DCO, your system can be used as evidence in a court of law. If you have an unregistered system, it can not be used for this purpose.
There are a lot more situations where the Act defines sound and video recordings being used in tandem for purposes of time and date stamping procedures Etc. Etc. But a small, private residential system does not have any such implications made on it. They are for commercial and public control systems.
So, there yee are then. That's what it does. :-)
Would your visitor know they were being recorded? See my other reply further up this thread.
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "BigWallop" saying something like:
Thanks for the clarification of this latest piece of knee-jerk legislation. I'm concerned about how this will be used (abused) by PCSOs in their relentless pursuit of street photographers, those urban scourges and molesters of small children, as every chav mum knows.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.