CCTV around the home good or waste of money

[polybear]

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I

Trouble is, I think they can imply ‘we have things worth nicking’, and there are so many ways that a determined thief can nobble them, so that the benefit is mainly psychological, and possibly illusory.

 

I guess with a little thought there may be scope for installing cameras that are discrete/hidden....

[Nearholmer]

At which point any deterrent value is lost ....... it’s a conundrum, isn’t it?

 

Big, prominent, high-tech-looking cameras made from old cereal boxes and toilet-roll middles might be as effective as anything else ........ who knows?

 

 

Edited July 8, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Traintresta]

11 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

CCTV can give us all a good giggle. The attached pic shows, in the doorway in purple top, my cleaner in her house, with her son. To the left is her married lover (of 6 years!), who has just dragged his wife out of the house, and is now engaged in a full and frank conversation with her. 

 

 

Not wishing to sound like a kill joy but be careful when sharing stuff like this. Your cameras really shouldn’t be looking at someone else’s house, nor should you be sharing images on public forum without their permission. A friendly word of warning, it It can get you in trouble. 

[Bernard Lamb]

1 hour ago, Traintresta said:

Not wishing to sound like a kill joy but be careful when sharing stuff like this. Your cameras really shouldn’t be looking at someone else’s house, nor should you be sharing images on public forum without their permission. A friendly word of warning, it It can get you in trouble. 

Oh come off it.

Since the birth of photography there has been a genre of street photography.

Do you lump train spotters who include drivers waving at them in published pictures on your banned list?

If I can take a photograph using a standard lens from a public place then any person in that photograph who it might be possible to identify just has to accept that how they behave in public might be observed by others.

It seems that these days it is frowned on to take photographs of children but other than that I see no harm in taking and publishing photographs of street scenes and certainly find nothing untoward in what Oldddudders has published.

Just seen the blog by a friend of mine who records daily life in a part of London. Today it contained several street scenes with people clearly visible.

This afternoon I will be going on a walk with our local history group. Several people will be taking photographs and I can assure you that none of them will consider any persons who just happen to appear in a street scene.

 

Back OT.

The next door neighbour could have done with a camera the other day. The gardeners arrived and began to unload their van. They took the mower into the garden through a gate and left the grass box on the drive. It was stolen. They have an upmarket mower and the box will cost £130 to replace. It would seem that this was no chance theft but that a person who needed such a box was watching where they worked and followed them waiting for an opportunity to nick it.

Bernard 

[TheQ]

We had a hidden camera at our last house watching our garden and a little bit of the grass outside. It was put there so we would see the kids climbing over the fence and causing damage getting their balls back... I think the kids thought SWMBO had Second sight as she always appeared just as they were going to climb.. and that spot was not visible from the  house..

[Traintresta]

51 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Oh come off it.

Since the birth of photography there has been a genre of street photography.

Do you lump train spotters who include drivers waving at them in published pictures on your banned list?

If I can take a photograph using a standard lens from a public place then any person in that photograph who it might be possible to identify just has to accept that how they behave in public might be observed by others.

It seems that these days it is frowned on to take photographs of children but other than that I see no harm in taking and publishing photographs of street scenes and certainly find nothing untoward in what Oldddudders has published.

Just seen the blog by a friend of mine who records daily life in a part of London. Today it contained several street scenes with people clearly visible.

This afternoon I will be going on a walk with our local history group. Several people will be taking photographs and I can assure you that none of them will consider any persons who just happen to appear in a street scene.

 

Back OT.

The next door neighbour could have done with a camera the other day. The gardeners arrived and began to unload their van. They took the mower into the garden through a gate and left the grass box on the drive. It was stolen. They have an upmarket mower and the box will cost £130 to replace. It would seem that this was no chance theft but that a person who needed such a box was watching where they worked and followed them waiting for an opportunity to nick it.

Bernard 

I offered a friendly word of warning, get of your soapbox!

 

Taking photos of other people’s property, or of them on their property can be classed as an invasion of privacy, especially if they are published without consent.

 

if you have a home security system, it should only cover what is within the boundary of your property, it shouldn’t be used for this kind of purpose. 

 

I am am not having a whinge at the original poster, I am advising that some people take umbridge to it and as it is in fact against the law, it can land you in trouble. 

 

Personally I have no issue with it but not everybody knows where they stand so I was offering a polite word of advice. Perhaps I shouldn’t bother for fear of offending someone. 

Edited July 9, 2019 by Traintresta

[Reorte]

10 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

At which point any deterrent value is lost ....... it’s a conundrum, isn’t it?

 

Big, prominent, high-tech-looking cameras made from old cereal boxes and toilet-roll middles might be as effective as anything else ........ who knows?

 

I guess it depends whether your main goal is deterrent or identification after something has happened.

[Oldddudders]

4 hours ago, Traintresta said:

Not wishing to sound like a kill joy but be careful when sharing stuff like this. Your cameras really shouldn’t be looking at someone else’s house, nor should you be sharing images on public forum without their permission. A friendly word of warning, it It can get you in trouble. 

The photo was not taken by me, and I live 12 km from the site. My cleaner lives in 17 acres - which she owns. No other house within 300 yards. The pic was taken by her security camera, specifically positioned in her cuisine d'été for such eventualities. And obviously she shared the pic with me, having shown me the entire video. And this is France, where laws may be different, but actually people are more reluctant to be photographed. As it happens, the lady was trespassing, having not been invited, and the gendarmerie arrived soon after to tell her so. 

[stewartingram]

A little while back, there were many instances of problems with stations & photographing on them. This seems to have been largely resolved, by the efforts of NR and BTP; I try to carry copies of their statements portraying this, as there are still over zealous staff in some places.

Around the time this problem was at its peak, I know questions about "public" photography were being raised in high places, including I believe Westminster. I do remember one outcome of this was that it was decreed somewhere that there is no law preventing you taking photos in public places - ie the street - and not being required to ask permission of people who would be in shot. (What about tourists at Trafalgar Square?). I believe there are still issues on private property however (not your own but when on others property). This also extends to the likes of school concerts, but depends on the attitude of the school it seems; probably more of a "scared of lawyers" attitude, and the photography of juniors (think perverts here).

 

Stewart

 

[Talltim]

Its been mentioned quite frequently (not just here) that house CCTV should only cover your property and not others'. How does this square with dashcams? While the road might be public, most of what is at the sides of them isn't

Edited July 9, 2019 by Talltim

[Traintresta]

21 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

The photo was not taken by me, and I live 12 km from the site. My cleaner lives in 17 acres - which she owns. No other house within 300 yards. The pic was taken by her security camera, specifically positioned in her cuisine d'été for such eventualities. And obviously she shared the pic with me, having shown me the entire video. And this is France, where laws may be different, but actually people are more reluctant to be photographed. As it happens, the lady was trespassing, having not been invited, and the gendarmerie arrived soon after to tell her so. 

Sounds fair enough then. 

[TheQ]

I believe for a house CCTV, it's OK if your CCTV, is aimed at your property ,and there is a little overspill thats OK. Pointing it at your neighbour, unless you can show a justifiable legal  reason is not permitted.

So if you were on the receiving end of say stones being thrown at your property from private or public property that would probably would be permitted..

Edited July 9, 2019 by TheQ

[Ohmisterporter]

3 minutes ago, Talltim said:

Its been mentioned quite frequently (not just here) that house CCTV should only cover your property and not others'. How does this square with dashcams? While the road might be public, most of what is at the sides of them isn't

 

You can see almost everyone's house  via Google Streetview. Very useful if you are house buying and want to see the neighbourhood before driving over to it. Saved us going to see a nice looking bungalow; when we did a 180 degree turn on streetview there was a tyre reclamation centre across the road!

 

[woodenhead]

8 minutes ago, Talltim said:

Its been mentioned quite frequently (not just here) that house CCTV should only cover your property and not others'. How does this square with dashcams? While the road might be public, most of what is at the sides of them isn't

I did think that myself last night - especially with the amount of recording that finds itself online in a voyeuristic manner to look at other's idiocy, calamities and simply to shame.

 

We should probably throw in helmet cams when it comes to invasion of privacy.  Unfortunately there are some idiots out there who go out of their way to provoke other's and then get it on camera to gain likes and sympathy.  I know that bikers are very vulnerable and us drivers do need to be very mindful of their presence (I used to cycle to work, I know how dangerous it can be), but some people seem to take it to an almost religiously zealot level in their efforts to prove a point to the detriment of the majority of cyclists.

[Grovenor]

On 07/07/2019 at 22:01, johnofwessex said:

https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/domestic-cctv-systems-guidance-for-people-using-cctv/

This was posted on here already, perhaps more of you should have a read.

[Ohmisterporter]

CCTV may be a deterrent but does not replace the need for good quality door and window locks. I recommend fitting the best locks you can afford and make sure the windows are closed at night or when you go out. OK, in hot weather we like to sleep with a window open but there are opening restrictors that stop the window being opened wide enough to climb through. A combination of good locks, CCTV and security awareness should deter opportunist thieves. Don't forget that telling the whole world on Facebook that you are on holiday and by default the house will probably be empty is not a good idea.

Edited July 9, 2019 by Ohmisterporter

[woodenhead]

1 minute ago, Ohmisterporter said:

CCTV may be a deterrent but does not replace the need for good quality door and window locks. I recommend fitting the best locks you can afford and make sure the windows are closed at night or when you go out. OK, in hot weather we like to sleep with a window open but there are opening restrictors that stop the window being opened wide enough to climb through. A combination of good locks, CCTV and security awareness should deter opportunist thieves. Don't forget that telling the whole world on Facebook that you are on holiday and by default the house will probably empty is not a good idea.

Good locks indeed, I only recently learnt how easy it is to shatter what is the standard lock on most houses - the slide in barrel - many thieves can simply shatter one or split it in half in seconds and then they simply turn the remaining part with a screwdriver.

[Reorte]

You can try to turn your house into some sort of fortress but unless you live somewhere iffy are you really gaining much if you go further than what's necessary to stop the opportunistic passer-by? For more than that anyone determined enough to break in probably will anyway. There seems to be an awful lot more security around now but a quick Google suggests crime rates aren't much different than they were in the early 80s (peaked in the early - mid 90s). Mind you that's overall crime rates, not burglaries.

Edited July 9, 2019 by Reorte