Bailiff enforcement CCTV and Body Worn Cameras

[caledfwlch]

I don't actually see that there is necessarily a Privacy issue with Dashcams - they are filming in Public, and filming in Public is allowed, at least where the authorities are concerned, should you complain about the camera crews folowing Bailiffs, or the Police, or indeed about someone with a dashcam, or simply standing in the street filming, as you are in public there is an expectation that you have less privacy.

 

I could be wrong but I have understand the rule of thumb in terms of the law is, I can film the general scene of a street, however, if I focus in on individuals and continue to do so even after they ask me not to, then I am tip toeing over the edge of what is allowed and my actions start to become harassment. It's why I am not so sure that the "campaigning" Cyclists who go out covered with BWV determined to catch bad drivers and shame them by getting good quality footage of their faces, licence plates etc then sticking it on youtube, I suspect that is not in the spirit of the law.

 

It is also why I feel the Camera crew on Can't Pay are also stepping over the line, since when ordered to leave a property by the householder, they simply go to the street and continue focussing their cameras on the house in question, that is not "general" filming, and is bordering harassment if not outright causing it. People in dispute with neighbours are regularly given ASBO's and harrasment warning letters by the Police, simply for standing in the street staring at the home of the neighbour they are in dispute with, something as basic as that can be seen and treated as harrassment these days!

 

The issue is not so much that Cameras and CCTV are becoming widespread, but that there needs to be proper controls on what can be done.

 

I think that the best workaround for EA's is they must all carry the equipment allowing to either video or audio record, have it switched off when they arrive, and be required every time, to inform the debtor that they have that ability, and does the Debtor wish them to switch it on so that the visit can be recorded, and thus protect both parties should a dispute about the visit occur.

[mikeymack2002]

I can't see any EA asking for permission twice. Once off camera and once on camera. Again this would be open to abuse, they could simple state you gave me permission to film verbally which cannot be proved.

 

BWV really is a nightmare...

[caledfwlch]

I can't see any EA asking for permission twice. Once off camera and once on camera. Again this would be open to abuse, they could simple state you gave me permission to film verbally which cannot be proved.

 

BWV really is a nightmare...

 

Easily done "Ok, I have switched on my recording device, please state out loud that you give permission for me to record".

 

.

[mikeymack2002]

Then you have the second situation where the EA has a button hole camera where does it stop?

[brassnecked]

I can't see any EA asking for permission twice. Once off camera and once on camera. Again this would be open to abuse, they could simple state you gave me permission to film verbally which cannot be proved.

 

BWV really is a nightmare...

You film them filming you even with a phone, after all the EA cannot "Take Control" of the I-Phone if a debtor is using it.

[mikeymack2002]

I love the humour of your response BN brilliant...

[brassnecked]

I love the humour of your response BN brilliant...

Thanks MM The EA cannot stop the debtor filming him either, especially if there is a doorstep CCTV camera, as seen in many places to show the occupant who is at the door.

[caledfwlch]

Then you have the second situation where the EA has a button hole camera where does it stop?

 

The EA filming the visit is in the debtors benefit, unless he or she does something criminal to the EA.

[brassnecked]

The EA filming the visit is in the debtors benefit, unless he or she does something criminal to the EA.

Best for the debtor to film the EA also in case the EA's camera goes 10 1

[mikeymack2002]

The new BWV used by the EA's hidden behind their ID badge see here >>

at the 2:34min mark for a few seconds and see the PDF. You would even notice it if you look closely....

Doc1 1.pdf

[stu007]

This is a link where you can download the Home Office Body-worn video: technical guidance https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/body-worn-video-technical-guidance

 

In this link: http://www.flintshire.gov.uk/en/Resident/Council-Apps/Search.aspx?search_keywords=body%20worn%20video

 

If you look at Privacy Impact Assessment-BWV & Risk-assessment-BWV (these are PDF downloads) it gives you a better view of how a council sees BWV and its use with enforcement agents

[mikeymack2002]

Hi Stu007..

Thanks for for be links. I saw you on the thread and I thought I had done something wrong when posting the video link.

 

I know that BWV will be a touchy subject, but knowing what you can do or ask is what will help in the long run.. I will look at your links and feed back here if need be ...

[mikeymack2002]

Already just by quickly scanning these documents 2nd link the issues I see already refer to the BWV as shown in my pdf above is hidden behind the I'D badge.

 

Therefore after reading page 2/5 s3 column 3 paragraph 2 would be an issue as the camera is not fully visible. But a warning at the header states recording. So this particular device is covert. Therefore against this guidance. Does this look right? I'm on a mobile device so cannot see as clear as normal!

[tezza1234]

I don't know the rights or wrongs of all this but it seems morally wrong and we are getting away with it due to loop holes or chinks in the chain, if it is a genuine mistake and a 100% wrong ticket, then sure, defend till the death, but if not, and defending just because you can, because of a loop hole, a chink, or a wrongly worded letter it is wrong, full stop.

[mikeymack2002]

tezza2234 not sure what your post means as we are talking about body worn videos and not tickets...

[tezza1234]

tezza2234 not sure what your post means as we are talking about body worn videos and not tickets...

 

 

 

Well not really, apparently both partiers were recording, so what, the point was the debtors were refusing to pay the fine for whatever reason, I am just saying, if that reason is valid then fine, 100% defend, if its morally just being a (edit) then why.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Andyorch
removed

[mikeymack2002]

It's not really about the reason of the EA attending but the use of BWV only. The reason for the EA'S visit is irrelevant in this thread it's just about the use of BWV by the EA in this case ...

[tezza1234]

It's not really about the reason of the EA attending but the use of BWV only. The reason for the EA'S visit is irrelevant in this thread it's just about the use of BWV by the EA in this case ...

 

 

Do you not see that whole sentence makes no sense, its saying 2 wrongs are right, forget the fact that the debtor probably did park illegally and is trying to get off on a loop hole but its ok because the EA is not wearing the BWV correctly, seems madness.

[stu007]

Not at all MM

 

It an important subject matter as people need to know what there legal rights are.

 

It would be useful at the end of this discussion to have a summary or better still format it to a Question & answer that would be useful as a stikkie.

 

if you were in this position what questions would you ask with an answer and links.

 

1. What are the rules on Body Worn Video recording?

 

2. What notification is the Enforcement Agent/Company required to give that Body Worn Video recording may take place to a debtor?

 

3. Can a debtor refuse permission for Body Worn Video recording to take place and at what stage?

 

4. Does an enforcement agent on a home visit have to inform a debtor they are using body worn video recording?

 

5. Who does a debtor complain to if Body Worn Video recording has taken place without there consent/permission?

 

etc etc etc

 

Something else to consider with Body Worn Video devices (as there are different types)

 

You have different manufacturers of these devices that have been endorsed and sell these devices with licences that basically takes the majority of risk away from the company that has purchased the device with say a full licence, the risk it wont stop is how the end user uses that device on the day.

 

(do an internet search titled "Body Worn Video Camera" and have a look specifically at the manufacturers websites and look at the licence pricing and what it offers)

 

Some sources of interest on Body Worn Video:

 

Body-worn video: technical guidance

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/body-worn-video-technical-guidance

 

Data Protection Act 1998

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents

 

SIA - Bodycams and SIA Licensing

http://www.sia.homeoffice.gov.uk/pages/licensing-bodycams.aspx

 

ICO - CCTV Code of Practice

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/cctv/

 

CCTV Operational Requirements Manual 2009 & Retrieval of video evidence & production of working copies from digital CCTV systems &

UK police requirements for digital CCTV systems & Digital imaging procedure

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cctv-guidance

 

Surveillance Camera Commissioner's presentation on body worn video

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/body-worn-video-perspectives-from-the-surveillance-camera-commissioner

 

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents

 

Data Sharing

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/data-sharing/

Edited February 7, 2016 by stu007

[brassnecked]

Those are the questions that would be useful stu, a Q & A reference we can check usage against. Incidentally that Phoenix badgecam is sneaky, and one wonders what the quality of the footage is like, some cameras that small struggle with filming in low light and are often only VGA in resolution, so might be murky.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

It would be useful at the end of this discussion to have a summary or better still format it to a Question & answer that would be useful as a stikkie.

 

if you were in this position what questions would you ask with an answer and links.

 

1. What are the rules on Body Worn Video recording?

 

2. What notification is the Enforcement Agent/Company required to give that Body Worn Video recording may take place to a debtor?

 

3. Can a debtor refuse permission for Body Worn Video recording to take place and at what stage?

 

4. Does an enforcement agent on a home visit have to inform a debtor they are using body worn video recording?

 

5. Who does a debtor complain to if Body Worn Video recording has taken place without there consent/permission?

 

etc etc etc

 

Excellent set of questions Stu and I will make sure to use them if I may at a forthcoming conference that I will be attending next month regarding Body Worn Videos. The Information Commissioners Office will be doing a presentation on the day on BWV so hopefully I will have a lot of info to report back to the forum.

[mikeymack2002]

BN/STU

 

I find it strange that in an earlier post I happened to mention 'sneaky' button hole cameras. This is one of them.

 

As far as BWV it's always going to be difficult to enforce to a point, there can be misuses of them and that the data controller (dc) can view what has been recorded. This can only be done on certain machines, but this does not stop the DC and others standing around the monitor having a laugh at the debtor's expense, even if this is in the office of the EA. Then there are issues of security namely hackers.

 

It happened lots of times times last year and many other years that sensitive videos have been hacked and leaked to the public domain...

 

Take for instance the focus is from 1m to infinity in other words it's sharp regardless of distance. Take this scenario, EA at the door and a naked person is at the top of the stairs, EA sees this and notes the time. Reports this to the office the DC/EA review the images and have a laugh. This is not what BWV is for. It's both good and bad at the same time..

 

Should they be used? Should ANPR be available to a public company? Both are tools of the trade for the industry but really?

 

Then finally the EA/DC can keep the data for the time the account is active and for a period of time thereafter...

 

Finally there is a time and place for BWV and debt collection is NOT one of them it is after all an infringement of your human rights as you are on your own property...

 

A license from a manufacturer cannot be allowed to infringe on these rights, if the ICO give these licenses out then maybe they are sailing very close to the wind if not against the very principle of privacy...

 

Omg I sound like a FMOTL bloke lol but far from it. I have the given right to privacy please don't intrude on it with your nasty little cameras. ..

 

In fact I might even suggest that the debtor uses an umbrella to obscure the video. Imagine that.. The EA would be very upset..

[josephbloggs]

Well not really, apparently both partiers were recording, so what, the point was the debtors were refusing to pay the fine for whatever reason, I am just saying, if that reason is valid then fine, 100% defend, if its morally just being a (edit) then why.

 

The reason why they were refusing to pay is because they are freemen idiots, i believe they had previously had the car clamped and removed the clamp which is an offence by itself. But thats another long and boring video ...

 

these cameras arent new they have been used for 2+ years and the quality is equivalent to a hd 720p youtube video. And furthermore the EAs are supposed to tell the people who they are their to see from the start that they have the intention to record before beginning discussing the reason for the visit

[mikeymack2002]

Other issues I can see is that the EA has the original big camera and does in fact turn this one off, but because the second one is covert the debtor may not notice it. It would still be recording. This badge cam is nothing more than another way to break the rules or the guidance and or guidelines if they are already out there..

 

Sorry to have noticed this badge cam but I thought it important to mention...

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

I saw umpteen posts all over the internet saying video badges are needed for bailiffs, and then, when they have them, people start with the breach of human rights etc.

The cameras are there for the protection of the bailiff and the debtor and any third parties involved.

The badges are NOT covert. They are overt. They have a big green blinking light and a big yellow horizontal sticker that says recording. The bailiff should be identifying themselves and advising they are recording video and audio. If asked to turn it off INSIDE a residential house, then they should do unless an altercation is likely to happen.

If the bailiff is in the public area, then he can record all he wants. Normally, when children are around, the camera should be turned away from capturing that image. If someone is naked, then the same applies. However, if the bailiff is outside, and someone is running around naked and you are not happy, shut your door. Or ask them to get dressed.

There have been so many instances where accusations have been made, very serious accusations, and the camera proves it never happened.

On the flip side, there have been many where the camera has substantiated the complaint and bailiffs have been dealt with accordingly.

I have not seen a covert camera used by bailiffs. Investigators maybe, but bailiffs, no. There is no need.