CCTV and its scope (outside of the railway)

[Bletchleyite]

Moving out from here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/tpe-bodycams-flashing-red-meaning.307622/#post-7961781

I have significant issues with the overuse of CCTV in any context. In particular the use of audio which may pick up conversations which may have been private before it existed, and the use by private individuals with few or no controls such as Ring doorbells.

It is something I would like to see strong privacy legislation on.

So no, it's not just the railway.

My view would be that you can have it but it should be necessary to evidence that it only covers your property and does not record public areas or anyone else's.

Evidence to whom? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the principle, but how are you enforcing it?

I would like to see a licence required to operate CCTV installations with strong safeguards on what is collected, why and who by, and on it being available to anyone making a Subject Access Request.

An easy way to enforce it would be a requirement to display a licence number board visible on any premises covered by it allowing an easy subject access request and complaint process even if you don't know who operates the premises. Those like me who disapprove of its misuse would quite happily report noncompliant installations, given that cameras are usually visible.

To obtain such a licence one would need to evidence what the CCTV was recording. In particular it would be an offence to have privately controlled CCTV capable of seeing or hearing anything outside the property on which it is installed. Modern systems are capable of blurring out parts of the image on recording, and similarly on careful control of what areas are covered by microphones. CCTV covering public places should only ever be allowed to be installed by public bodies and subject to the same levels of control e.g. it must not record video or audio onto private property except with express written and withdrawable consent.

There would also need to be some sort of regulation of dashcams, but I'm not sure how that would be managed. But I'm rather less concerned about that (as a car is typically only passing) compared to e.g. a Ring doorbell opposite potentially constantly recording into my front window. If someone stood outside my house and filmed through my window more than incidentally, I'd certainly be having words about the rudeness of doing so (even if legal), and I don't see a fixed camera doing the same as any different. I do however have concerns about the constant filming "dashcams" on the likes of Teslas - if one is parked directly outside my front window it could feasibly be recording for a prolonged period straight into it, and I don't find that acceptable. Perhaps a reasonable option would be that dashcams may legally only be active when the vehicle is turned on (and thus moving rather than potentially parked outside a house) or when it detects a break-in via the alarm system.

We will have to start having very tall fences in front of our houses.

It's very easy to blank parts of the image in software and not record those parts.

 

[styles]

In the camera doorbell example, the ICO already has guidance on this.

Basically recording a public space on-demand, such as having it in the background when a postie approaches your door and it triggers the doorbell to start recording, isn't an issue. This is not too different to standing at your door with a mobile phone, except it's been automatically triggered by a boxed trigger area defined for your doorbell.

However if your doorbell is triggered by people walking along say a public pavement not on your private property, or it is a camera which continuously records, then this is a CCTV installation and comes with the usual requirements a data controller would have to comply with (signage, handling subject access requests, right to erasure, etc).

Home CCTV systems

ico.org.uk

This guide will help you if you want to understand what data protection law says when someone is using home CCTV at their property. This includes the use of fixed cameras and smart doorbells.

CCTV can help protect a person’s property. However there are some rules that owners should follow.

Where possible owners should position their cameras to only capture their own property.

However, if this isn’t possible and the CCTV captures someone else's property, a public area or communal space, then data protection law applies. This is because CCTV can capture images and voices of other people, and this counts as their personal information.

Now, enforcement of this is obviously tricky. For doorbell cameras, it's not easy to tell from the outside whether it's continuously recording or whether it's triggered to start recording only when someone enters private property, etc. With some models you could work it out by trial and error of walking past it at various spots and seeing if the recording light comes on, but it's a bit cumbersome. There's also the issue that the trigger area is usually defined as a bunch of squares so you might find that a tiny bit of public pavement is in the trigger area and I doubt the ICO would care.

There is also the effectiveness of enforcement actions even when it is known to cover public areas. The police will most often become aware of this breach when something happens on the street outside and they knock on doors asking for doorbell footage. At this point if the police obtain footage from your camera, you've just helped their investigation of presumably a reasonably serious crime so they're pretty unlikely to give you a dressing down over the fact that you shouldn't have been recording a public highway just because a car drove past nowhere near your private property. Then there's the ICO who would deal with such complaints, and they're as toothless as my nain.

I can only really see the police or ICO taking any action if a neighbour puts in a relatively detailed complaint or can show they're being recorded as part of some sort of harassment or ongoing dispute. And even then I'd expect them to bounce it between each other.

 

[BuhSnarf]

Whilst I understand the privacy concerns if I am in a public place I don't feel I have a right to a private conversation - I could be overheard by any one. Also, I've got a few outdoor CCTV cameras and even though I even really good ones aren't great at picking up a conversation unless there is zero wind noise and the person is speaking incredibly loudly.

And as styles says above, the cameras come in useful when there are incidents in the street. Of course, recording in to someone else's garden / house is a big no no.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Oct 2026 ==

There would also need to be some sort of regulation of dashcams, but I'm not sure how that would be managed. But I'm rather less concerned about that (as a car is typically only passing) compared to e.g. a Ring doorbell opposite potentially constantly recording into my front window. If someone stood outside my house and filmed through my window more than incidentally, I'd certainly be having words about the rudeness of doing so (even if legal), and I don't see a fixed camera doing the same as any different. I do however have concerns about the constant filming "dashcams" on the likes of Teslas - if one is parked directly outside my front window it could feasibly be recording for a prolonged period straight into it, and I don't find that acceptable. Perhaps a reasonable option would be that dashcams may legally only be active when the vehicle is turned on (and thus moving rather than potentially parked outside a house) or when it detects a break-in via the alarm system.

This would defeat the point of the Tesla's cameras (not dashcams) as they are there for picking up if someone attempts or does take or vandalise the car. If one is parked outside your window it only has the same view as if someone was standing there - which is perfectly legal thing to do.

If you're concerned about someone seeing in your window put up a blind or a curtain like most people do?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whilst I understand the privacy concerns if I am in a public place I don't feel I have a right to a private conversation - I could be overheard by any one.

Incidental overhearing and wilful recording are two VERY different things.

And as styles says above, the cameras come in useful when there are incidents in the street. Of course, recording in to someone else's garden / house is a big no no.

The problem is lots of them do.

This would defeat the point of the Tesla's cameras (not dashcams) as they are there for picking up if someone attempts or does take or vandalise the car. If one is parked outside your window it only has the same view as if someone was standing there - which is perfectly legal thing to do.

However it is recording my house all day. I'd give someone who stood there doing that a piece of my mind. It is legal but very rude indeed.

Personally I would not say the security of your car overrides that. I suspect many would disagree though. I wonder how the ruthlessly (and rightly) strict privacy laws of Germany see it?

If you're concerned about someone seeing in your window put up a blind or a curtain like most people do?

I should be able to enjoy daylight without having cameras filming my property all day. This is very different to incidental inclusion in a photo or video.

 

[BuhSnarf]

Incidental overhearing and wilful recording are two VERY different things.

Of course, but unless you have a decent directional mic which would be very noticeable and NOT a standard CCTV camera, it's not going to hear your conversation - again - unless you are shouting at which point I think you have lost any defence of it being a personal conversation.

The problem is lots of them do.

Agree and if they do you'd have a word with the neighbour - or if no luck there - take it up with police/council as appropriate.

However it is recording my house all day. I'd give someone who stood there doing that a piece of my mind. It is legal but very rude indeed.

And if they refused to stop recording? Do you think your life is that exciting that someone is going to go back and review 10 hours of you walking around your living room?

Personally I would not say the security of your car overrides that. I suspect many would disagree though. I wonder how the ruthlessly (and rightly) strict privacy laws of Germany see it?

You might say that, but the car owner would disagree I'm sure! In Germany Tesla will now warn them that filming may infringe on local privacy laws.

I should be able to enjoy daylight without having cameras filming my property all day. This is very different to incidental inclusion in a photo or video.

Your choice to leave your windows fully open!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Your choice to leave your windows fully open!

It is, and it's reasonable for me to do so without being filmed all day, which as I say differs from incidentally looking in as you pass.

I suspect we differ on a fundamental here - you value security over privacy, I value privacy over security. I'd like German style privacy laws here and far less CCTV, and probably an outright ban on audio recording for surveillance in places where the public have access, aside from body cams explicitly activated to record a specific conversation which is more analogous to overtly recording a phone call, including a "record back" feature of not exceeding 30 seconds.

(Covertly recording anything by anyone other than the police or similar with a warrant should be completely illegal).

 

[AlterEgo]

For me there is a substantial difference between someone specifically setting up filming equipment to record your house or your movements and a Ring doorbell across the street which is incidentally recording everything.

We have a Ring doorbell which is fairly unproblematic as it faces only into our drive and catches almost none of the road (we live at the end of an L shaped cul de sac). The street is not a public road either. It did however catch two would be burglars vaulting a garden fence and the evidence, along with two other neighbours' cameras, was used by the police to convict them last year.

 

[BuhSnarf]

It is, and it's reasonable for me to do so without being filmed all day, which as I say differs from incidentally looking in as you pass.

I suspect we differ on a fundamental here - you value security over privacy, I value privacy over security. I'd like German style privacy laws here and far less CCTV, and probably an outright ban on audio recording for surveillance in places where the public have access, aside from body cams explicitly activated to record a specific conversation which is more analogous to overtly recording a phone call, including a "record back" feature of not exceeding 30 seconds.

(Covertly recording anything by anyone other than the police or similar with a warrant should be completely illegal).

Maybe moving to Germany might be an idea as the UK is notoriously not a privacy focussed country and I don't think it ever will be.

Mass fixed facial rec will be rolled out across London quite soon, although not continuously at the moment.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Oct 2026 ==

We have a Ring doorbell which is fairly unproblematic as it faces only into our drive and catches almost none of the road (we live at the end of an L shaped cul de sac). The street is not a public road either. It did however catch two would be burglars vaulting a garden fence and the evidence, along with two other neighbours' cameras, was used by the police to convict them last year.

Yes, I live on a rather busy street and my cameras do cover my front garden and also a portion of the street, was able to provide video evidence for a hit and run last year - where a person hit a poor young kid crossing the road.

 

[Msq71423]

Many people don't realise but CCTV with covert microphones is used in many high street shops and supermarkets. Asda self checkout tills all have a covert microphone. Larger Boots and TKMaxx stores use CCTV with audio, if you read the small print sign in the entrance window it will say something along the lines of 'CCTV with audio is in use in this store'. I used to work for TKMaxx until 2010, they were the first retailer to bring this into use in 2009. The microphones are primarily located above till areas with the intention of monitoring for dishonest staff members colluding with each other and/or customers who they may know. At the time I worked there staff members were never informed of this, other than the disclaimer sign in the entrance. I do not know if this has since changed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Mass fixed facial rec will be rolled out across London quite soon, although not continuously at the moment.

You will be unsurprised to know I would ban that outright in all contexts. It's positively Orwellian.

Yes, I live on a rather busy street and my cameras do cover my front garden and also a portion of the street, was able to provide video evidence for a hit and run last year - where a person hit a poor young kid crossing the road.

Personally, sad and disgraceful as such an incident is, "think of the children" can be used to justify anything and thus doesn't have great credibility in this sort of debate in my view.

If we surveil 100% we will have much less crime, but personally I don't think that's an acceptable price to pay.

 

[BuhSnarf]

You will be unsurprised to know I would ban that outright in all contexts.

Personally, sad and disgraceful as such an incident is, "think of the children" can be used to justify anything and thus doesn't have great credibility in this sort of debate in my view.

If we surveil 100% we will have much less crime, but personally I don't think that's an acceptable price to pay.

And I respect that view, even if it differs to mine

 

[Bletchleyite]

And I respect that view, even if it differs to mine

Yes, and me yours, that's part of the good quality debate we have on here as distinct from eg X

 

[BuhSnarf]

Yes, and me yours, that's part of the good quality debate we have on here as distinct from eg X

It's just a shame we don't have a thumbs up button!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Oct 2026 ==

(Of course I also have a vested interest as privacy laws like in Germany would likely make any of the YouTube videos I make not possible!)

 

[Bletchleyite]

(Of course I also have a vested interest as privacy laws like in Germany would likely make any of the YouTube videos I make not possible!)

I think that sort of thing would often be OK - I wouldn't ban incidental inclusion of people in that sort of video, eg a video of a train or bus that happens to include some of its passengers or its driver. Or any filming where the subject consents to it.

I think I would however limit "paparazzi" style activity to bona fide Press activity, as I don't think anything good ever comes of "auditing" and the likes.

 

[BuhSnarf]

I think that sort of thing would often be OK - I wouldn't ban incidental inclusion of people in that sort of video, eg a video of a train or bus that happens to include some of its passengers or its driver. Or any filming where the subject consents to it.

I think I would however limit "paparazzi" style activity to bona fide Press activity, as I don't think anything good ever comes of "auditing" and the likes.

I would hope so, but I know from fellow people who have been over to Germany that filming can be quite difficult as even if you are just filming the bus/train/journey you can be confronted which is something I don't really want to have to deal with.

Agree, auditing videos are THE worst. Maybe it's just me but all I ever feel after mistakenly clicking on one is that "I feel so sorry for this poor worker who has had to put up with this know it all"

 

[Sorcerer]

In my experience travelling in Switzerland I remember a tourist getting called out on the Harder Kulm funicular for filming. I didn't hang around to listen but I presume it was likely because their video didn't just focus on the outside and I believe might've gone around the passenger area as well, and I remember seeing a notice elsewhere asking people not to film their staff. The Swiss very much love their privacy as much as the Germans it seems, enough so for the late Tina Turner to have felt comfortable living there.

With relation to CCTV in the UK though I am lead to wonder if the abundance of surveillance cameras has actually had any net positive on society? Has it actually allowed us to tackle crime and terrorism meaningfully? Because on the immediate side I can see what the state gets out of the arrangement, but what do we get on our side of this social contract?

 

[Bletchleyite]

With relation to CCTV in the UK though I am lead to wonder if the abundance of surveillance cameras has actually had any net positive on society? Has it actually allowed us to tackle crime and terrorism meaningfully? Because on the immediate side I can see what the state gets out of the arrangement, but what do we get on our side of this social contract?

Ring cameras, dashcams and the likes certainly have been used to prosecute people for crimes they might otherwise have got away with. @AlterEgo and @BuhSnarf give examples above.

The whole thing is really just a form of the "liberty vs safety" argument I guess, to misquote whoever it was.

 

[Sorcerer]

Ring cameras, dashcams and the likes certainly have been used to prosecute people for crimes they might otherwise have got away with. @AlterEgo and @BuhSnarf give examples above.

Fair enough I suppose. When I think about it, part of me does feel uncomfortable with how CCTV-heavy we are in the UK, though I'm mostly asking from a position of being pragmatic and whether it's worth it on a societal level.

The whole thing is really just a form of the "liberty vs safety" argument I guess, to misquote whoever it was.

You might be thinking of Benjamin Franklin, and in fact the original quote was made in a vastly different context as I'm sure you were already aware.

 

[BuhSnarf]

I think it would be hard to give a true picture of whether society has got better or worse with CCTV adoption. There's been so many variables in society since their introduction that it would be hard to know whether we would be in a worse position had we not adopted them.

I would argue that to actually prosecute offenders now there is a higher bar of evidence needed that without CCTV or other surveillance more people would get away with crimes, but conversely there is the argument that maybe people act worse now because they feel they are being treated like criminals?

 

[WelshBluebird]

When it comes to CCTV specifically, it is worth remembering how many crimes do get solved through it. And yes you can have the theoretical privacy v liberty debate, but that doesn't change the fact the only reason the person who violentally assaulted me on Christmas Eve a few years ago was caught was because of the CCTV on the outside of a local nightclub (and that the police basically had to threaten them with sanctions if they didn't hand it over).

I should be able to enjoy daylight without having cameras filming my property all day. This is very different to incidental inclusion in a photo or video.

If part of your property is visible from public land you don't have any expectation of privacy there anyway. Its why Google Streetview has been allowed to be a thing (and has caught some quite interesting moments). Of course some other countries have stricter privacy laws which means such services are less useful or not at all available. If it is part of your property that is only visible from another private property, say your garden being recorded by a camera high up on the back of your neighbours house then that is something else entirely!

 

[Bletchleyite]

If part of your property is visible from public land you don't have any expectation of privacy there anyway. Its why Google Streetview has been allowed to be a thing (and has caught some quite interesting moments).

I don't mind that as it's fleeting. I do think constantly filming someone's property is very different and is rude even if legal.

Google by policy will blur properties on request though.

Of course some other countries have stricter privacy laws which means such services are less useful or not at all available. If it is part of your property that is only visible from another private property, say your garden being recorded by a camera high up on the back of your neighbours house then that is something else entirely!

I installed some fake ones a while back and did go to the neighbours explicitly to point out that they weren't in fact recording anything.

 

[BuhSnarf]

Unless you've got really low windows very close to the road I'm not sure a Tesla parked outside would actually be recording inside your house. Obviously the different models have different positions for the Sentry cams but on most the side facing ones are facing backwards so would likely mainly record the pavement and behind the car. The back camera is quite low, doesn't have a great field of view and not great resolution.

However, if you have a Tesla parked facing directly at your property maybe you have a concern as the front camera appears to have the best field of vision and resolution. However, unless they're parked on your drive or you're at the bottom of a cul-de-sac I can't see this being a "normal" place to park a car. For most UK house I'd imagine what would likely be caught as opposed to the inside of your house is actually you coming in / out your front gate.

Again, depends how your house is positioned in relation to the street though!

 

[WelshBluebird]

Unless you've got really low windows very close to the road I'm not sure a Tesla parked outside would actually be recording inside your house. Obviously the different models have different positions for the Sentry cams but on most the side facing ones are facing backwards so would likely mainly record the pavement and behind the car. The back camera is quite low, doesn't have a great field of view and not great resolution.

However, if you have a Tesla parked facing directly at your property maybe you have a concern as the front camera appears to have the best field of vision and resolution. However, unless they're parked on your drive or you're at the bottom of a cul-de-sac I can't see this being a "normal" place to park a car. For most UK house I'd imagine what would likely be caught as opposed to the inside of your house is actually you coming in / out your front gate.

Again, depends how your house is positioned in relation to the street though!

Where I live we only have houses on one side of the street, and the other side is parking but in the vertical not horizontal position, so in theory you could park a car there and record into people's from windows. However the way the houses are laid means you'd only get a pretty bad view into the kitchen window anyway. But it is something I haven't really thought of before. By far the more annoying thing is uber drivers using the parking whilst they are waiting for their next pick up with their lights on so you get the lights pointing right into the house (and into the bedroom on the 1st floor - because of the way the windows are this wouldn't be an angle a camera could see anything from, but you get the light in still).

I don't mind that as it's fleeting. I do think constantly filming someone's property is very different and is rude even if legal.

Are people constantly filming? Very few bits of equipment do film 24/7, most are on movement only (if nothing else because of battery and storage concerns). I guess if there is frequent movement that could be classed as "constant recording" but in that case I would very much suspect it would fall under the ICO's guidance for such systems and should either be repositioned or privacy settings adjusted to not capture movement for a specific part of the frame. I'd imagine someone actually constantly recording someone else's property without measures probably would fall foul of some kind of rules around the processing of that information (rather than just the recording itself).

Google by policy will blur properties on request though.

I suspect that is more a combination of trying to appease privacy campaigners and to provide some cover from potential lawsuits - if these companies are seen to be doing something, even if its fairly ineffective, that is often enough to let them off the hook!

 

[BuhSnarf]

Where I live we only have houses on one side of the street, and the other side is parking but in the vertical not horizontal position, so in theory you could park a car there and record into people's from windows. However the way the houses are laid means you'd only get a pretty bad view into the kitchen window anyway. But it is something I haven't really thought of before. By far the more annoying thing is uber drivers using the parking whilst they are waiting for their next pick up with their lights on so you get the lights pointing right into the house (and into the bedroom on the 1st floor - because of the way the windows are this wouldn't be an angle a camera could see anything from, but you get the light in still).

Yes, I live on a side road off of a main road behind a petrol station, so all through the night we have people parking down our street. It's also (unfortunately) a hot spot for drug dealers to park their cars and do deals because you can easily jump on to a number of quick routes out of the area. Something you'd not imagine as we are in a rather "posh" neighbourhood. We've had several police stings down here in the past few years. I don't really mind the drug dealers with the exception that they sit in their car engine running and lights on so in summer it's rather annoying with the bedroom windows open hearing cars coming and going at 3-4am!

I would argue that if someone really wanted to record in your house, a small high definition wireless camera with decent optical zoom lens hidden higher up on something like a lampost would be MUCH better than just parking my Tesla outside that has my registration on it (not that I own a Tesla.)

 

[thecrofter]

For me there is a substantial difference between someone specifically setting up filming equipment to record your house or your movements and a Ring doorbell across the street which is incidentally recording everything.

We have a Ring doorbell which is fairly unproblematic as it faces only into our drive and catches almost none of the road (we live at the end of an L shaped cul de sac). The street is not a public road either. It did however catch two would be burglars vaulting a garden fence and the evidence, along with two other neighbours' cameras, was used by the police to convict them last year.

Other Video Doorbells are available. Ring (originally DoorBot) was aquired by Amazon in 2018 and has become synonomus with home video monitoring equipment. Lets not call all video doorbells RING doorbells please!

 

[BuhSnarf]

True, the Reolink ones are MUCH MUCH better than Ring

 

[Jimini]

I've got doorbell cam footage from earlier in the year when a couple pulled up in their car at gone 1am directly outside our house (end of a cul-de-sac), hopped in the back and engaged in a bit of "how's yer father". All captured in night vision mode. Unbeknown to them, I love my American basketball and it was playoff season, so I was in the lounge not 10 yards away from them. I got annoyed with the "motion detected at your front door" phone notifications after a while and went outside to get them to bugger off

 

[Cdd89]

One counterpoint is that if someone wants to film covertly, it's already very easy to do so. You can get cameras that, on the external side, are just adaptations of the peepholes in doors – I'm not sure you'd reliably spot one of those. Plenty of other ways to conceal a camera too.

Cameras are only obvious at present because property owners generally want them to be visible as a deterrent. If you make the requirements too onerous, people will just do it less obviously, which has the opposite effect than you would want. I doubt the realistic penalties could ever be severe enough to deter that either.

 

[najaB]

I think that sort of thing would often be OK - I wouldn't ban incidental inclusion of people in that sort of video, eg a video of a train or bus that happens to include some of its passengers or its driver. Or any filming where the subject consents to it.

IMO you shouldn't have an expectation of privacy if you're in a public place - the key is in the name. That said, if you ask for someone not or to stop recording you then they should.

 

[Sorcerer]

That said, if you ask for someone not or to stop recording you then they should.

Where should public servants such as police come into this? I don't expect to be encountering the wrong side of the law anytime soon, but in any encounter I would certainly feel a lot more comfortable if I had some form of camera rolling (though rest assured I've no intention of being an auditor who publishes it for clout acting like an oppressed know-it-all).