Dashboard mounted, hands-free CAMERA FUN?, Catch the Boys in Blue and CSP flouting the law Options

[slowerdriver]

As an experiment I rigged up a stabilised support for a HDD camcorder, completely out of the line of vision for the driver, on the passenger-side dash of my car. The camcorder records onto HD for many hours in medium-high resolution, is silent, auto-everything and totally hands-free.

Are there any legal impediments (leaving aside the 'terrorism' nonsense; photography in/from most public places, including those I'd be on, is expressly permitted in law) to my doing this, assuming I can show I (the driver) was not being distracted by its presence or operation?

Are there any legal impediments to my using the footage?

Where can I find working definitions (statutory easy - common law, less so) of "harassment"?

Not that it is relevant, but I often pass a large "Safety Camera Partnership" office at about the time the scammerati clock off. Also, I occasionally see coppers breaking any number of motoring laws (I'm not talking about speeding or getting to emergencies quicker - I'm talking about pointless, sometimes reckless, bad behaviour on the road).

I read about a boss of an SCP (in the garden of England, I think - MSCP) who was tailed by a well-equipped journalist who clocked him on vid going at 70mph in 30mph or 40mph zones (he knew where the live cameras and mobile units were, and ignored the cameras he knew were inoperative), and then published his results. Need I add that the shameless, pathetic, sycophantic BiBs came around and victimised, threatened and maybe even prosecuted the journalist, instead of shaming and prosecuting the hypocritical scammer, and tried to confiscate the footage as "evidence". Anyone have details of this? I read the story on old-fashioned paper ~2 years ago, but can't find any mention of it on the web. I found plenty of references to Brunstrom's speeding daughter and Jack Straw's drug-dealing son (cops harassed the journalist who exposed the Straw 'Family Values'), which are somewhat analogous but far less shocking as they don't involve the public servant himself.

They don't like us doing to them what they think they have a right to do to us, do they?

This post has been edited by slowerdriver: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 - 03:02

[Advertisement]

[spanner345]

In the sweep of the wipers, 40mm is the biggest obstruction allowed, 10mm in front, of any driver.

Ignore this rule, the police could get funny, as it is an mot fail (even though the police ignore this rule themselves).

So be careful where you mount the camera, allow for the full range of possible driver sizes.

This post has been edited by spanner345: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 - 09:16

[Teufel]

guide to your rights to take photography in public places (incl video)

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php

[slowerdriver]

In the sweep of the wipers, 40mm is the biggest obstruction allowed, 10mm in front, of any driver.

Thanks. It is sited in the corner just where the tax disc usually would be. It is set back from the windscreen. From the POV of any conceivable shape of human in the driving seen, all that the body of the compact videocam obscures is a view of part of the dash and part of the door trim.

guide

Thanks.

Anyone with views as to what else could lie ahead, especially re "harassment", "obstruction" (surely not), "interfering with police business", etc.?

[glasgow_bhoy]

I'm sure that you have to display on the exterior of your vehicle if you are recording images- I believe this was one of the reasons the American in-car insurance cameras never really kicked-off here (these things were mounted facing the road and one facing the driver, making blame easier to assertain in the event of a blame or incase of a hit&run etc)

Theres a company (local plumbers or engineers of some sort) have fitted their vans with cameras and all the vans have stickers on them (all 4 sides of the van) telling the public that images are being recorded- i suppose as long as people know your recording then you cant be done/harrased for anything


Mind you Id make sure my car had ultra good security if your gonna leave a HDD camcorder up at the windscreen coz i'd imagine those pieces of kit are popular amongst car theifs

This post has been edited by glasgow_bhoy: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 - 19:05

[bama]

"I'm sure that you have to display on the exterior of your vehicle if you are recording images"

reference ?

[glasgow_bhoy]

"I'm sure that you have to display on the exterior of your vehicle if you are recording images"

reference ?

no referance just what I was under the impression was the case. Something to do with Data Protection Act apparantly

[slowerdriver]

"I'm sure that you have to display on the exterior of your vehicle if you are recording images"

reference ?

no referance just what I was under the impression was the case. Something to do with Data Protection Act apparantly

You're possibly listening to the wrong people (cops?). Photography from public places is almost unfettered, whatever BiB or the DPR might want.

Is this (click here) the sort of country you want to live in?
Or this one?

Gotta love plods, doesn't one? And serving officers who want to claim that the first w***ers were just CSOs, stuff it, you are all part of the same evil empire, perverting the principles of justice. We don't care if the Luftwaffe say they shouldn't be smeared by what the U-boat brigade did, or vice versa.

This post has been edited by slowerdriver: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 - 20:04

[Boomer]

In the sweep of the wipers, 40mm is the biggest obstruction allowed, 10mm in front, of any driver.

Ignore this rule, the police could get funny, as it is an mot fail (even though the police ignore this rule themselves).

So be careful where you mount the camera, allow for the full range of possible driver sizes.

...so i expect that an entire camcorder, suckered over the passenger's "wiper sweep", on last nights Motorway Cops was a bit "iffy" then

Still, it helped 'em pull a car with a slightly out-of-spec number plate!

I do fancy getting one of these and a tiny "pinhole" camera (or two) fitted though

mb

[slowerdriver]

Boomer, the newer generations of videocams are small, inexpensive, record to hard disk (120Gb gives hours and hours of good quality recording time, unattended) and best of all come with a charging cradle that can be connected to a fused 12V lighter socket. The cradle's base is flat (in the SONY and other models I checked out pre-purchase), so a bit of velcro and you have a really secure fastening to your dash that won't have the camera flying off with anything less than an airbag rated prang. All neat and pro-fitted looking, just unhook camera and charge cord when leaving the vehicle.

But I'm still seeking clarification on what I can do with the footage.

[Cargy]

Just a thought really. We've all wished we had a camera ot one time or another BUT...

Is it possible this could be a double-edged sword. If you make a genuine (or otherwise!) unintentionally illegal bit of driving, could it be confiscated and used against you?

[glasgow_bhoy]

Just a thought really. We've all wished we had a camera ot one time or another BUT...

Is it possible this could be a double-edged sword. If you make a genuine (or otherwise!) unintentionally illegal bit of driving, could it be confiscated and used against you?

That could also work if it was declared to insurance companies though as it would make establishing blame easier

[slowerdriver]

Is it possible this could be a double-edged sword. If you make a genuine (or otherwise!) unintentionally illegal bit of driving, could it be confiscated and used against you?

Not that I ever would - I'm a slower(than a speeding bullet)driver, aren't I - but a good point. Need to experiment with quick rewind and switch to highest-resolution recording, and just leave running after the event. As long as it gets to the right portion of the hard disk, it will permanently wipe/overwrite previous material as much as 10 times faster then it was recorded in lowest-resolution, so an hour would be erased in 6 minutes. Hmmm...

[southpaw82]

Public bodies advertise the use of CCTV in order to comply with guidance (I don't believe it has the force of law) relating to the DPA and also RIPA. As this would be for private purposes it is entirely outwith the ambit of either Act and no notification need be given.

As to using the film then it is the same as any CCTV system. It is real evidence than can be adduced in court if required.

[slowerdriver]

Thanks!

As to using the film then it is the same as any CCTV system. It is real evidence than can be adduced in court if required.

Absolutely. No cock-ups. Just like we're still waiting for footage of the de Menezes executionminor Health & Safety violation from the key cam(s) which that day mysteriously malfunctioned or lacked a hard drive or whatever else Blair or his cronies thought a docile and gullible sheeple might swallow.

Such evidence as is there would be preserved from the earlier of such time as it was asked for and such time that it occurred to me that it was evidence, and of course it would be produced intact to the competent body.

But what's the score about being prosecuted or sued for harassment, interference or invasion of privacy, should (say) recordings of apparent breaches of motoring law (on public roads) by identifiable cops, SCP workers and the like appeared on a hosting site such as youtube?

Thanks.

[southpaw82]

But what's the score about being prosecuted or sued for harassment, interference or invasion of privacy, should (say) recordings of apparent breaches of motoring law (on public roads) by identifiable cops, SCP workers and the like appeared on a hosting site such as youtube?

Unfortunately your questions are too open to give any meaningful answer. Merely having the camera recording is not, per se, an offence. You can not invade another's privacy in a public place - there is no expectation of privacy to protect and is especially true in the case of a private individual. Takes me back as my thesis was on this point!

As to whether the events recorded should appear on YouTube then that is a matter for you and your conscience.

[BAILIFFCHASER]

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=33993

You may want to read the above link as well. Similar topic going on.

[slowerdriver]

[]
As to whether the events recorded should appear on YouTube then that is a matter for you and your conscience.

Your other advice has been gratefully noted.

Thanks, southpaw82. The Government doesn't ask my permission before selling my private data in all sorts of ways to all sorts of people to use to harass me, waste my time or steal from me. It doesn't ask my permission to use selectively edited photographs/videos of "me" driving in police P.R. programmes made for TV, like Police...Camera...Action.
I confidently state, therefore, that my conscience would have no problems whatever with giving self-righteous hypocrites the benefit of publicity. It is simply a matter of whether I could be successfully sued or prosecuted for doing so.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=33993
You may want to read the above link as well. Similar topic going on.

Thanks, BAILIFFCHASER: Yes, the link is relevant indeed. I'd already posted to that topic on 27 Jan 2009 at 02:36 and 17:59.
Further, I'd have linked to a topic of mine, which asked whether or not it was a coincidence that SCP/Council/Police scamera operators/clerks were so uniformly ugly and repulsive-looking. Astoundingly, the topic disappeared all of its own volition!

This post has been edited by slowerdriver: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 - 12:25