If a crime is committed inside a store/chain so be it. Talking about the obvious is nul. We shouldn't be debating what is and happens. We should be talking about any form of tracking cameras on the streets and roads used for tracking anyone that has the right to travel freely. My point being arguing about a grey area keeps the main arguments unsolvable.
Was just about to say this, by this logic of the ICO it's not local so would be excessive as they've not been convicted. But then you have a right to film in public. Seems like a very grey area here that needs further defined legislation
Crimewatch stopped because the beeb was getting harassment from Non white groups because the villains were primarily non whites...BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF THOSE THAT COMMITED CRIMES WAS NON WHITES(WAS THAT PC) ?
I was in a shop in Paington, Devon, and they had about eight A4 size full-face pictures on display behind the counter. With the message, " these thieves are banned from this shop." They must have been local so their neighbours would see them. Natural justice is best.
Yes! I am from Canada, I was in a Town in Northern Alberta, where a local neighborhood store's owner was sick and tired of the thievery in his store, So he set up cameras, snapped screen shots of the thieves, and posted them right on the entry door for all to see!
@@PeterWildman-gm2gqSo; say you are in a restaurant and the customer in the table next to you, for no reason says you are paying for their meal. Would you be happy to pay? Most likely NOT! Well no matter the size of the business, you are doing so. Non payers, will either force closure or the business to increase prices to lessen the blow of the loss
@@robertwillis4061 While eating a kebab in poland I noticed a man sit down and try to eat the remains of someone elses meal that they had left. I removed it and went to the counter and used my remaining change to buy him a small kebab. then sat down to wait and make sure he got it. The turkish proprieter brought the man the largest meal he had on the menu. Guess where I go back to every time I want a kebab. .... Try to be kind. it helps the world go around. now look up mc donalds turns away homeless man on you tube and you will see how I justify my atitude.
I work in retail and there almost wouldn't be any reason to post it on the internet because the ones who steal are constant repeat offenders and everyone already knows who they are, but the police just don't do anything. If anything, I feel like this situation should be a time when it is necessary to publish the images online because the role of the police is to protect the public and if they are not doing their job then you have to do it yourself, and posting the images of the thieves online it would help protect yourself and other businesses as the police do not as they refuse to convict them.
Yeah I was working in retail also and very often the reason you keep the security guard near the doors is so that they can deny access to the people that are known to steal. For everyone else you see a mark-up in prices to compensate for the people who are stealing.
I used to work as a cctv operator where are control room was based in a shopping centre which had their own separate control room. The police would hand out laminated prints of the top 12 local shoplifters for the centre management and individual stores. Only thing is, once in a while there would be listed the individuals date of birth and address!!! I witnessed while shopping these images be displayed behind the counter where ANY customer could see.
Or don't be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I was once accused of not paying my restaurant bill when the money for the bill was taken by another waitress.
First thing a copper asks now is did you see it do you have a picture. Shoos, restaurants etc should be able to make use reasonably of any footage/photo especially theft name and shame is good😊
How police identify suspects is legislated for in England and Wales by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Guidance as to how crusty law operates is contained within PACE Codes of Practice. It is strict. And deviation from the code can result in identification evidence being dismissed at court. This video is about how members of the public use photos and cctv to identify suspects. But there is overlap. PACE really is a minefield. Example: police officer on foot sees a person committing a crime. He gives chase and provides update on the Police radio. Colleagues in the area overhear the message and apprehend a person whom they believe matches the description passed by their colleague. What does PACE say about how confirmation should be made? The officer who witnessed the offence is not allowed to meet up with colleagues who have the suspect detained to see if it is the correct person. Instead, an ID procedure has to be arranged. And ID procedure is about recognising the person, not the clothing. So days or weeks later, the officer will be shown moving images of the suspect, along with eleven other random persons who look broadly similar, and asked if any of them is the person he saw. Of course, his clothing will now be different. Example: police respond to reports of a serious crime such as a commercial robbery. There is cctv available. The attending police all cram around the monitor and look at the footage, discussing if the persons caught in video could be x, y, or z. PACE says this is wrong. PACE says each officer must view the footage on his/her own and make a contemporaneous note as to what they see, who they think the suspect shown in screen might be, and why they think that. All very laborious? A very common real life scenario is where the victim of a crime tries to do research on social media to identify the offender. Police might well have identified a suspect and then arrange an identification procedure. The witness will be asked to identify the person from the time of the offence. But the waters are muddied if the victim has also subsequently seen photos on the internet of potentially the same person. The defence will argue that the victim is identifying someone he or she recognises from the internet, not from the scene of the offence.
Given that Police Scotland released a statement a few months ago effectively stating that they'll advise shops on how to combat the risk of shoplifting, but won't actually turn up to try and catch the buggers doing it, it does make cctv rather pointless unless it is used to name and shame.
Across the pond in most States. If in public and can by seen by eye can record and post. Google maps will often pop up a review request for an adjacent place because GPS was off 10 meters that day.
We have a friend who is a leaseholder in a council block in the England. They had problems with possible drug dealers gaining illegal access to the property and dealing drugs aledgedly inside the block. There is cctv on entry, and our friend had a few dates and times they saw these people enter. The council would not release the CCTV pictures or video to our friend the leaseholder and said it needed a police request. They contacted the police, but never heard anything back and this kept going on for a while. As a leaseholder can you request such images ??
What about a shop having a photo in the shop of someone that has done nothing and someone has made up a story about that person being a shoplifter but have never shoplift in their life but that shop has their photo?
I remember years ago when I worked for a large electronics store chain they would often put CCTV images of thieves in the staffroom and also show those images in staff briefings while the store was open to customers.
Or they're spending their time and the taxpayer money allocated to them to investigate more serious crimes. I'm not trying to imply that these more minor crimes should be ignored, but unless we want to pay more taxes or unless people stop committing serious crimes, the police simply won't have the necessary resources to catch all the minor criminals too. It's a shit situation, but the fault lies with the criminals more than the police. Try moaning about them instead of saying the police "can't be arsed".
@@jimmygrundy they've got no shortage of time, that's for sure. Allegedly. But they get paid whatever, so solving crimes doesn't need to be a priority.
theres a big difference between showing a picture saying the person is being looked for and posting the same picture with accusations that they have commited a crime. also a big difference between a shop owner sharing images with local shops and having them post it in their windows say they are eventually found, taken to court, and found not guilty. wouldnt they have a strong case for libel against their accuser?
Surely the way approach this is to say (in your social media post) that you assume they forgot to pay and that they can come back to sort out their "mistake". If they are identified but fail to come forward only then are you accusing them of an offence .
O what a tangled web we weave, when every minute of human life is to be tracked, traced, regulated and legislated. Thank God I'm nearly past this authoritarian Kafkaesque mess of a collapsed society turned into a digital gulag.
A lot of retail staff rooms are accessible by more than just staff, we have machine vendors, repair people, cleaners etc who all access our staff area's
We used to have a book behind the bar with photos of banned and dodgy individuals that was monthly updated at our publicans meetings or if it was a really important case we would immediately transfer images and accounts to other proprietors in the local area either/or by phone,person or message...oh and sometimes we would tell the police for all the good that did..
The police used to send the high street shop i worked at , a packet of the last months arrests or cctv of theft. We had the stuff pinned in the staff room per the polices advice.
Staff room: surely depends on if its only staff that have access. If contractors or if there is a policy that admits public (i.e missing kids are put in there) then that makes it less appropriate? Also depens if the staff room has access control or if it is left open?
My wallet was stolen, and my card was used in a McDonald's restaurant. The police received the images, but they decided not to release them or follow up on the crime. I wondered why some police forces show pictures of people they want to question while others do not?
I think that when someone does a clear illegal act, such as stealing, battery, vandalism or others like them and can be clearly proven, then that person forfeits their right to "data protection act" until a verdict is done. This way it helps others protect themselves against the perpetrators and also helps the police in their investigation for finding the culprits faster. Yes, when the police need more information, they ask, but it takes them so long until they start asking for more information that all the leads turn cold.
there's a really old saying if you can't do the time don't do the crime what? about putting pictures of missing children or persons to help to find them? is this covered in this section? as i like yourself am old enough to remember the bill boards and milk bottles being plastered with this sort of image ?
Actually, where I live, our police force has a Facebook page & they will often post photos or video footage there, of people committing crimes/offences, & seek the assistance of the public to identify the offenders in those photos/video footage. So, because those photos/video footage were posted on the Facebook page of the police force itself, anyone at all could view them, & offer their assistance to identify the offenders.
When I worked for a retailer part time while at Uni 20+ years ago. Images were in the staff room BUT the staff rooms always had a passcode door to ensure only staff could enter and not visitors or external workers. I suppose that makes it secure. The reviews comes from Google Beacons which they send out to businesses to place on their premises and it pings phones that it thinks have been nearby, nothing is passed to the business. I think the phone has to have also turned on Google geo location settings.
The salient feature in the description is "suspected", not "definitely". It depends what is shown; if it is absolutely certain that the person was stealing without any possible doubt, then publish anywhere you damn well want because then it may be "necessary and proportionate" to find the culprit. If it is just "suspected" then the limits are intended to be applied. Otherwise, you could be in trouble for libel as well.
@@S.Trades No it isn't; it is just "not convicted" in normal parlance. If I see something of mine stolen by someone I know, deliberately, before my eyes, he is definitely guilty, just not convicted. If someone you know punched you on the nose for no reason, would you just suspect him? Or think he was guilty of assault?
I never realised that CCTV should also be registered via the SIA , apparently you can be fined if not , apparently it has to be a certain quality to be used in court ?
With all the CCTV cameras all over the shop , how is it possible that the police aren’t able to track down criminals. As for putting criminals faces online that’s another way criminals can be arrested, prosecuted and gaoled
Hi Daniel, sitting here listening to you allows me some opportunity to ponder on the topic as well asa hear what you are saying, the product of this is that some ideas float around in my mind, most of them gently float away!, a few stick around for a bit, an even smaller number persist for long enough for me to write all this and still refer to that idea. The first point I can make is that I see absolutely no good reason Any person to expect any privacy at any time when in the public domain, this must also apply to any film footage shot and then published. While I will stick with all of the above it does not apply to any assertions made to accompany publication, so while there is nothing wrong with publishing footage commentary must be very carefully compiled to ensure that there is no chance of any unsupported statements or claims get published with the footage, so any assertion regarding the potential criminal intent of the relevant parties can only be published if proven in court. Thus the whole thing falls in two parts at least, one the publication of original unedited footage, the other,- claims, assertions and statements that are added as commentary. I do understand that this opinion is only mine and not established in law, it is also rather less definitive than many people might desire but I stand with it still because real life is rarely simple and uncomplicated. Cheers, Richard.
I would argue that in a store, any staff "customer facing" could be regarded as responsible for security to some extent whether or not they have a security guard's badge. That being the case, it could further be argued that anyone other than back office admin etc would be legitimate and proportionate as viewers of security materials such as photos of people they are likely to come into contact with. Given that, according to the ICO, the material may be passed to other local businesses, their staff should be able to see it for the same reasons.
I manage a community Facebook group and people often want to share images when they have not informed the police. Their defence to this is that they do not believe the police will take any action. Well, if they do not know about it, of course they will not. I think that images of this kind should always be shared with the police first.
How would this use of cctv images affect ‘Pub Watch’ or ‘neighbourhood watch’ schemes? My local pubs are linked by radios to thwart trouble makers, with security personnel and the police also linked into the broadcast. Or an individual publican that bans an individual for whatever reason?
So what about videos shown on news programs where a crime has been commited and they dont yet know who it is that has commited the crime. Or is this something different.
I'd love to hear your take on Sam Melia being denied access to his children. He is not allowed pictures of them and also not allowed to discuss them when his wife visits him. If we're going to discuss fairness...... Personally I think it's disgusting as was his prison sentence, and I don't agree with a lot of his opinions but I think he has a right to hold any opinion he wants. When judges can give a rapist of a 13yr old a community sentence, there's something seriously wrong with the judicial "service" in this country... and you're part of it!
More problematic maybe if an image is published on social media outside of the local area there is the possibility of a potential juror seeing the image and prejudicing any criminal case that may arise. Although the potential juror should mention this, before being sworn in, and have themselves removed.
I'm in The U.S. We don't have CCTV, but people have cameras on their houses. Mostly Ring type cameras. I am in Philadelphia and our D.A. doesn't want to prosecute crimes and our police don't shit as a result. People have videos of all kinds of crimes. The get people stealing packages off of doorsteps, assaults, people stealing cars, vandalism, and people breaking into houses. If you give these videos to the police the probably won't even look at them. So people share them online. I never thought about the legality if that.
We seem to be slipping down a very slippery slope created in the US where theft was deemed not charged if under, I think $200. Here I believe it is £200. If a 'perp' has the idea it's OK to steal minor amounts, food or goods and not get charged we are all going to end up paying vast sums in taxes to help the store after theft and fund the prisons, currently £50K per person per year.
The question in this case should be as to how can the Data Protection Laws apply to persons using multiple aliases and methods of identity Therefore, surely the only acceptable way to protect against further offences being committed by the perpetrators is by publishing their images to enable their identification and leading, hopefully to their apprehension.
Very interesting Daniel, how then would this impact people who share videos of people they allege have committed crimes such as using their phone while driving? Sometimes the people publishing the video give information that people have been convicted of a crime, presumably a statement of fact so in that context perhaps allowable. Frequently however these videos are shared with suggestions that they may have been prosecuted, if however this is not a known fact, could sharing a video implying a conviction be defamation? Also would sharing allegations of convictions with a wider audience meet the necessary proportionality test applied by the ICO? I would really appreciate any thoughts you may wish to share?
Interesting thought and raises the concerns about vigilante public going out looking for victims to name and shame for their own self benefit rather than any societal benefit. This is why the ICO is careful with its wording and those sharing should also be careful in their wording when sharing, using wordage like the police use, such as 'looking to speak to this person to clarify....'
If someone is captured on a recorded cctv video, taking an item(s), conceal the item(s), and exit the premises without paying. Then I say share the picture of the act of concealment with other shipowners after report it to police.
I'd say that volenti non fit injuria comes into play for people who knowingly break the law. But the shop and manager have to be bloody sure they've definitely committed a crime or they should be subject to defamation and privacy lawsuits. Similar to citizens arrest, be very very sure, don't abuse the power or be subject to severe consequences.
I think the Retail shops could do better at the enterences of the shops to stop rapid thiefs which is so often used by them.two wheeled items should also be stopped well before any shopping areas.We might see in the future a test machine to pass through to show up knifes or weapons.But we need a more deterant form of punishment in place which is not in place.A new Jail could be up north in the waste land to hold prisoners in greater numbers as a Deterent punishment.The message from the prison would find those doing wrong and then think twice what might happen to them.At this moment jail is a form of a holiday camp.
My partner walked out of restaurant without paying once. It was a Chinese all you can eat buffet. When we went to plate up, it was mostly fried cabbage and rice dishes. Nothing on the poster was on the buffet. So we walked out. I got stopped and told I still had to pay. I walked on out. Was I wrong? Would it be justified to publish my pictures?
@@gmo4250 The didn’t believe we never ate, plus they argued that simply being sat down and accepting the drinks menu from the staff was us accepting the terms.
In the case where the crooks take steps to destroy the equipment where the footage is stored, or for example use corrupt officers to unlawfully seize the equipment, the only real option to protect the footage and ensure that it can be easily retrieved, is to use social media (among other means) as a diy storage mesh. Because of the tendancy of crooks to gain unlawful access to social media accounts of witnesses, it is necessary to repeat the process across multiple websites. The case files can then be reassembled from scratch without the need for any authentication. That is the reasoning behind this actual channel, because of a series of crimes involving the police, including exfiltration of classified materials to hostile states. Allied states can then simply be supplied with the public URL without being detected, and to alleviate the necessity of notifying each agency individually. There really is no other way for an average person to protect themselves from foreign spy / hatd crime networks.
Any recording of a crime, or civil offence, should be legal to use as you wish. Hopefully aiding finding and turning them in to the police if a crime, or obtaining details for a private civil action. Fixed cctv type cameras over public areas, or your own private areas, have no place being subject to any extra constraints than general camera photography. The images should be yours to do with as you like. Actually, what is more weird is permitting the use of artist drawn images done from mere memory and description of a witness, as in some police cases!
can civil enforcement officer/dog warden...use body worn camera footage...if he did not tell the person he was recording...anytime before during or after ...while giving ticket for dog off lead in a park..????????????
I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY MORE CCTV CRIME IS NOT POSTED SAY AT SAY THE TUBE / BUSES /STOPS ECT OF FARE CHEATS SO THE GENERAL PUBLIC CAN REPORT WERE THEY KNOW THEM FROM OR EVEN WERE THEY LIVE AFTER ALL I REMEMBER TFL SAID THAT 1 - 25 PEOPLE WERE NOT PAYING TO TRAVEL
If people are going to be "convicted" in the court of woke on past posts, then why shouldn't the misbehaviour of current "offenders" be publicised. This is particularly true of dashcam footage. [Note: I leave it to the expert to determine legality].
To stop wrong id's CCTV helps in any matter.I see no bad in CCTV or any other forms of recording the public at any time,this helps when the police arrest someone quicker and can stop a person telling lies making a statement for future use ie The courts.
If CCTV footage can’t be used to catch thieves then what’s the point of installing it. Most of the time the police won’t investigate a crime unless it’s over a certain value. All they do is give you a crime number for your insurance company, who then raise the cost of your insurance premium next time you renew your insurance! In my view CCTV of a crime footage posted on social media is similar to the old wanted posters, and if whoever committed the crime gets identified and prosecuted it’s well worth it. Sometimes the data protection laws protect the wrong people!
Don't pubs put up photos of people who are barred from entry all the time even in the local pubs where the individual wasn't actually barred? It's been a while since I've been to a pub but that certainly used to be the case in some places I've been. If business owners want to group together and help each other out by identifying people they consider undesirable then that sounds fine to me. If the police don't have the time or resources to investigate the alleged crimes of those apparently undesirable people they should be happy that there are other methods to dissuade more of those criminal activities. Sounds like a shop version of neighbourhood watch, which surely can't be a bad thing. If you want to commit petty crimes, don't be so blatant about it, and if you get yourself seen by CCTV you've only got yourself to blame.
If there is an issue with sharing this information, how are things like Pub Watch, BarU and the likes allowed to operate? I remember someone in my town did leak names and pictures off that once and that venue ended up in serious bother. As for pictures on social media, I'm remembering a post from about 7 years ago where a face taken by the security feature on a lost phone appeared in a local group, someone was asking if they recognised him. Someone perked up and said yes, he is a little scally, I'll bet he's stolen it, I'll PM you his name. I replied saying to take it easy as he may simply have picked the phone up somewhere, but they assured me they knew him and he was a thief. They were right, when the police payed him a visit it turned out he had more than just that one missing phone so he had indeed stolen it, the wanted pic on social media worked. If it works, that's good isn't it?
Many years ago I was shown a regional newspaper article about a person who had been sent to prison for a serious crime, the article included a photograph of the criminals face. Unfortunately a colleague of mine had such a striking resemblance to the image printed, that he ended up having to grow a beard. If a cctv image is posted on social media of a criminal, then the image must be of high quality & the exact date, time & location included in the image.
What annoys me is I keep seeing my local businesses post cctv imagery of children suspected of shoplifting but they have no proof there was also one that posted a 5 minute+ long clip including multiple customers for one person. Too many smaller businesses are using the data not to get justice, but to seek revenge on the suspects and their families.
Use code blackbeltbarrister at the link below to get an exclusive 60% off an annual Incogni plan: incogni.com/blackbeltbarrister
If a crime is committed inside a store/chain so be it. Talking about the obvious is nul. We shouldn't be debating what is and happens. We should be talking about any form of tracking cameras on the streets and roads used for tracking anyone that has the right to travel freely. My point being arguing about a grey area keeps the main arguments unsolvable.
Loving the thumbnail featuring loads of cop cars .
Anyone remember Crimewatch TV program from the 1980s 1990s who always had a wanted section showing images of wanted criminals to the whole country ?
Good point. I suppose the difference is that the BBC are above the law, whereas Joe blogs is nothing better than what you scrape off your shoe
Was just about to say this, by this logic of the ICO it's not local so would be excessive as they've not been convicted.
But then you have a right to film in public. Seems like a very grey area here that needs further defined legislation
@@RobGreenCOMPOSER Well if the BBC can stick wanted criminals mugshots on national TV for the whole country to see then so should anyone else.
Crimewatch stopped because the beeb was getting harassment from
Non white groups because the villains were primarily non whites...BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF THOSE THAT COMMITED CRIMES WAS NON WHITES(WAS THAT PC) ?
Crimewatch is still going!
I was in a shop in Paington, Devon, and they had about eight A4 size full-face pictures on display behind the counter.
With the message, " these thieves are banned from this shop."
They must have been local so their neighbours would see them.
Natural justice is best.
Yes! I am from Canada, I was in a Town in Northern Alberta, where a local neighborhood store's owner was sick and tired of the thievery in his store, So he set up cameras, snapped screen shots of the thieves, and posted them right on the entry door for all to see!
Let's turn the question round. Is it fair to intentionally steal from and defraud a restaurant? Just wondering.
Not if it is a family buiseness. Big corperations. Maybe.
Exactly. Rights vs responsibilities?
@@PeterWildman-gm2gqSo; say you are in a restaurant and the customer in the table next to you, for no reason says you are paying for their meal. Would you be happy to pay? Most likely NOT!
Well no matter the size of the business, you are doing so. Non payers, will either force closure or the business to increase prices to lessen the blow of the loss
@@robertwillis4061 While eating a kebab in poland I noticed a man sit down and try to eat the remains of someone elses meal that they had left. I removed it and went to the counter and used my remaining change to buy him a small kebab. then sat down to wait and make sure he got it. The turkish proprieter brought the man the largest meal he had on the menu. Guess where I go back to every time I want a kebab. .... Try to be kind. it helps the world go around. now look up mc donalds turns away homeless man on you tube and you will see how I justify my atitude.
That is the question. I say no, but each case turns on it own facts.
“It depends” has definitely become your catchphrase. Loving what you are doing on this channel, keep it up
What is the difference between putting images on the Internet, as if they are put on TV such as BBCs Crimewatch.
Internet is forever, where often TV unless shared else where is only a month watchable
Yes .Anything goes in my book to catch Liars Cheats and Thieving gits
I work in retail and there almost wouldn't be any reason to post it on the internet because the ones who steal are constant repeat offenders and everyone already knows who they are, but the police just don't do anything.
If anything, I feel like this situation should be a time when it is necessary to publish the images online because the role of the police is to protect the public and if they are not doing their job then you have to do it yourself, and posting the images of the thieves online it would help protect yourself and other businesses as the police do not as they refuse to convict them.
Would you say the police are largely lazy and corrupt?
Yeah I was working in retail also and very often the reason you keep the security guard near the doors is so that they can deny access to the people that are known to steal. For everyone else you see a mark-up in prices to compensate for the people who are stealing.
To be fair, private prosecutions allow retailers to take it to court themselves.
@@eroero830
they are a deterrent more than anything.
Remember Crimewatch in the 1980s, they often showed criminals on TV in the hope of catching them and no-one complained about that.
I used to work as a cctv operator where are control room was based in a shopping centre which had their own separate control room. The police would hand out laminated prints of the top 12 local shoplifters for the centre management and individual stores. Only thing is, once in a while there would be listed the individuals date of birth and address!!! I witnessed while shopping these images be displayed behind the counter where ANY customer could see.
These dine and dashers seem to 'travel' quite a bit so their images need to be shared nationally
The simple answer seems to be, take £100 deposit (or whatever), before service. As petrol pumps do.
Always post the picture as "Looking for this individual for questioning regarding the incident. This does not infer guilt"
You don't understand what "infer" means; back to school.
@Fitzrovialitter
Infer : to reason by deduction. You could also use Imply.
Don't crime and you won't have your face all over the place
silly answer. this can be missused to ruin a persons reputation.
@@PeterWildman-gm2gq can you give an example of what you mean?
@@PeterWildman-gm2gq moronic answer, this is why scum can commit crime at will because of vile idiots like you.
Or don't be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I was once accused of not paying my restaurant bill when the money for the bill was taken by another waitress.
That poor couple look like they already have more than enough on their plates.
😂
Images of criminals ...... Tis no wonder Lawyers and Politicians are against it eh !!!!! 😛🏴
First thing a copper asks now is did you see it do you have a picture. Shoos, restaurants etc should be able to make use reasonably of any footage/photo especially theft name and shame is good😊
It is alleged theft/fraud.
How police identify suspects is legislated for in England and Wales by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
Guidance as to how crusty law operates is contained within PACE Codes of Practice.
It is strict.
And deviation from the code can result in identification evidence being dismissed at court.
This video is about how members of the public use photos and cctv to identify suspects. But there is overlap.
PACE really is a minefield.
Example: police officer on foot sees a person committing a crime. He gives chase and provides update on the Police radio.
Colleagues in the area overhear the message and apprehend a person whom they believe matches the description passed by their colleague.
What does PACE say about how confirmation should be made?
The officer who witnessed the offence is not allowed to meet up with colleagues who have the suspect detained to see if it is the correct person.
Instead, an ID procedure has to be arranged.
And ID procedure is about recognising the person, not the clothing.
So days or weeks later, the officer will be shown moving images of the suspect, along with eleven other random persons who look broadly similar, and asked if any of them is the person he saw. Of course, his clothing will now be different.
Example: police respond to reports of a serious crime such as a commercial robbery. There is cctv available. The attending police all cram around the monitor and look at the footage, discussing if the persons caught in video could be x, y, or z.
PACE says this is wrong.
PACE says each officer must view the footage on his/her own and make a contemporaneous note as to what they see, who they think the suspect shown in screen might be, and why they think that.
All very laborious?
A very common real life scenario is where the victim of a crime tries to do research on social media to identify the offender.
Police might well have identified a suspect and then arrange an identification procedure.
The witness will be asked to identify the person from the time of the offence.
But the waters are muddied if the victim has also subsequently seen photos on the internet of potentially the same person.
The defence will argue that the victim is identifying someone he or she recognises from the internet, not from the scene of the offence.
Given that Police Scotland released a statement a few months ago effectively stating that they'll advise shops on how to combat the risk of shoplifting, but won't actually turn up to try and catch the buggers doing it, it does make cctv rather pointless unless it is used to name and shame.
Across the pond in most States. If in public and can by seen by eye can record and post.
Google maps will often pop up a review request for an adjacent place because GPS was off 10 meters that day.
We have a friend who is a leaseholder in a council block in the England. They had problems with possible drug dealers gaining illegal access to the property and dealing drugs aledgedly inside the block. There is cctv on entry, and our friend had a few dates and times they saw these people enter. The council would not release the CCTV pictures or video to our friend the leaseholder and said it needed a police request. They contacted the police, but never heard anything back and this kept going on for a while.
As a leaseholder can you request such images ??
Would that film footage not be available under a freedom of information request?
I'm not sure how that works. As far as I'm aware it should be though.
Answer is no. you can only ask for your information. You can get cctv footage showing yourself not the other people.
Not really sure those 2 could dine and DASH... dine and waddle, more like
Wine and waddle!
What about a shop having a photo in the shop of someone that has done nothing and someone has made up a story about that person being a shoplifter but have never shoplift in their life but that shop has their photo?
Incoherent rambling.
If this is the case, then the person in question who's photo has been wrongly used can likely sue under grounds of libel.
I remember years ago when I worked for a large electronics store chain they would often put CCTV images of thieves in the staffroom and also show those images in staff briefings while the store was open to customers.
The police won't find them because they can't be arsed.
Or asked
@@CharlesRWJones or bothered. Allegedly.
Or have the time
Or they're spending their time and the taxpayer money allocated to them to investigate more serious crimes.
I'm not trying to imply that these more minor crimes should be ignored, but unless we want to pay more taxes or unless people stop committing serious crimes, the police simply won't have the necessary resources to catch all the minor criminals too.
It's a shit situation, but the fault lies with the criminals more than the police. Try moaning about them instead of saying the police "can't be arsed".
@@jimmygrundy they've got no shortage of time, that's for sure. Allegedly. But they get paid whatever, so solving crimes doesn't need to be a priority.
If someone is caught red-handed on camera their image is free vend in my opinion.
theres a big difference between showing a picture saying the person is being looked for and posting the same picture with accusations that they have commited a crime.
also a big difference between a shop owner sharing images with local shops and having them post it in their windows
say they are eventually found, taken to court, and found not guilty. wouldnt they have a strong case for libel against their accuser?
Surely the way approach this is to say (in your social media post) that you assume they forgot to pay and that they can come back to sort out their "mistake".
If they are identified but fail to come forward only then are you accusing them of an offence .
O what a tangled web we weave, when every minute of human life is to be tracked, traced, regulated and legislated. Thank God I'm nearly past this authoritarian Kafkaesque mess of a collapsed society turned into a digital gulag.
If you took the cctv images to the police will they act?
No
@@xXevilsmilesXx That is why they posted on social media.
😅
What increase in police force do you think would halt this problem? It’s a genuine question, is it twice as many, three times as many?
@@JohnnyMotel99 No they could broiadcast on social media and tv.
The Chinese have a saying .-----If you don"t want anyone to know,don"t do it .
若要人不知，除非己莫為
@@andyyu5957 Yea!
A lot of retail staff rooms are accessible by more than just staff, we have machine vendors, repair people, cleaners etc who all access our staff area's
We used to have a book behind the bar with photos of banned and dodgy individuals that was monthly updated at our publicans meetings or if it was a really important case we would immediately transfer images and accounts to other proprietors in the local area either/or by phone,person or message...oh and sometimes we would tell the police for all the good that did..
If they don't want their image putting online or publicised in news papers they shouldn't break the law
They presumably haven't been found guilty of anything at that point.
What is the point of having CCTV if it can't be used...
As a deterrent?
@@S.Trades If the criminal knows it can't be used, it's not a deterrent...
@@MrOneillrobin
of course. But they wouldn't (usually) know that.
To invade our privacy.
@@S.Trades They'd be the first to know
The police used to send the high street shop i worked at , a packet of the last months arrests or cctv of theft. We had the stuff pinned in the staff room per the polices advice.
If the police did their job arresting shoplifters ect, which they don’t, then yes we should have photos of them so we can keep an eye out for them.
Staff room: surely depends on if its only staff that have access. If contractors or if there is a policy that admits public (i.e missing kids are put in there) then that makes it less appropriate? Also depens if the staff room has access control or if it is left open?
My wallet was stolen, and my card was used in a McDonald's restaurant. The police received the images, but they decided not to release them or follow up on the crime. I wondered why some police forces show pictures of people they want to question while others do not?
I think you are spot on, the ICO needs to adopt a common sense approach like you do.
I think that when someone does a clear illegal act, such as stealing, battery, vandalism or others like them and can be clearly proven, then that person forfeits their right to "data protection act" until a verdict is done. This way it helps others protect themselves against the perpetrators and also helps the police in their investigation for finding the culprits faster.
Yes, when the police need more information, they ask, but it takes them so long until they start asking for more information that all the leads turn cold.
How about businesses post a sign that if a camera catches you committing a crime the images will be posted publicly?
there's a really old saying if you can't do the time don't do the crime what? about putting pictures of missing children or persons to help to find them? is this covered in this section? as i like yourself am old enough to remember the bill boards and milk bottles being plastered with this sort of image ?
What about someone who orders a takeaway meal by phone and when he gets there refuses to pay and walks out without the meal?
Actually, where I live, our police force has a Facebook page & they will often post photos or video footage there, of people committing crimes/offences, & seek the assistance of the public to identify the offenders in those photos/video footage.
So, because those photos/video footage were posted on the Facebook page of the police force itself, anyone at all could view them, & offer their assistance to identify the offenders.
When I worked for a retailer part time while at Uni 20+ years ago. Images were in the staff room BUT the staff rooms always had a passcode door to ensure only staff could enter and not visitors or external workers.
I suppose that makes it secure.
The reviews comes from Google Beacons which they send out to businesses to place on their premises and it pings phones that it thinks have been nearby, nothing is passed to the business. I think the phone has to have also turned on Google geo location settings.
The wall of a staff room IS a ‘secure channel’, because it’s by definition a private area.
YES. If you don't want to do time, don't do the crime! Simple.
Absolutely fair they are criminals
They were however innocent at the time of the poster/pics being displayed.
I'd say publishing the images is a public service. We are the ones who end up paying higher prices and thieves may be willing to break other laws.
The salient feature in the description is "suspected", not "definitely". It depends what is shown; if it is absolutely certain that the person was stealing without any possible doubt, then publish anywhere you damn well want because then it may be "necessary and proportionate" to find the culprit.
If it is just "suspected" then the limits are intended to be applied. Otherwise, you could be in trouble for libel as well.
It's always "suspected", until proven guilty.
@@S.Trades No it isn't; it is just "not convicted" in normal parlance. If I see something of mine stolen by someone I know, deliberately, before my eyes, he is definitely guilty, just not convicted.
If someone you know punched you on the nose for no reason, would you just suspect him? Or think he was guilty of assault?
I never realised that CCTV should also be registered via the SIA , apparently you can be fined if not , apparently it has to be a certain quality to be used in court ?
It’s a shame that the ICO do not promote Business Crime Reduction Partnerships; who invariably have compliant data sharing systems in place.
With all the CCTV cameras all over the shop , how is it possible that the police aren’t able to track down criminals. As for putting criminals faces online that’s another way criminals can be arrested, prosecuted and gaoled
Hi Daniel, sitting here listening to you allows me some opportunity to ponder on the topic as well asa hear what you are saying, the product of this is that some ideas float around in my mind, most of them gently float away!, a few stick around for a bit, an even smaller number persist for long enough for me to write all this and still refer to that idea.
The first point I can make is that I see absolutely no good reason Any person to expect any privacy at any time when in the public domain, this must also apply to any film footage shot and then published.
While I will stick with all of the above it does not apply to any assertions made to accompany publication, so while there is nothing wrong with publishing footage commentary must be very carefully compiled to ensure that there is no chance of any unsupported statements or claims get published with the footage, so any assertion regarding the potential criminal intent of the relevant parties can only be published if proven in court.
Thus the whole thing falls in two parts at least, one the publication of original unedited footage, the other,- claims, assertions and statements that are added as commentary.
I do understand that this opinion is only mine and not established in law, it is also rather less definitive than many people might desire but I stand with it still because real life is rarely simple and uncomplicated.
Cheers, Richard.
What about those "banned from one banned from all" pub notices, which are on show to all your mates 😊
see through shirt there Daniel. Loving the vest.
I would argue that in a store, any staff "customer facing" could be regarded as responsible for security to some extent whether or not they have a security guard's badge. That being the case, it could further be argued that anyone other than back office admin etc would be legitimate and proportionate as viewers of security materials such as photos of people they are likely to come into contact with. Given that, according to the ICO, the material may be passed to other local businesses, their staff should be able to see it for the same reasons.
I manage a community Facebook group and people often want to share images when they have not informed the police. Their defence to this is that they do not believe the police will take any action. Well, if they do not know about it, of course they will not. I think that images of this kind should always be shared with the police first.
How would this use of cctv images affect ‘Pub Watch’ or ‘neighbourhood watch’ schemes? My local pubs are linked by radios to thwart trouble makers, with security personnel and the police also linked into the broadcast. Or an individual publican that bans an individual for whatever reason?
Pubs can ban anyone, for any or no reason. Same as supermarkets.
So what about videos shown on news programs where a crime has been commited and they dont yet know who it is that has commited the crime. Or is this something different.
I'd love to hear your take on Sam Melia being denied access to his children. He is not allowed pictures of them and also not allowed to discuss them when his wife visits him. If we're going to discuss fairness......
Personally I think it's disgusting as was his prison sentence, and I don't agree with a lot of his opinions but I think he has a right to hold any opinion he wants.
When judges can give a rapist of a 13yr old a community sentence, there's something seriously wrong with the judicial "service" in this country... and you're part of it!
More problematic maybe if an image is published on social media outside of the local area there is the possibility of a potential juror seeing the image and prejudicing any criminal case that may arise.
Although the potential juror should mention this, before being sworn in, and have themselves removed.
Looks like criminals don’t care about CCTV coz they know nothing will be done, some even wave their hand at the camera in mockery
The pizza tracking is probably because the person had joined the pizza restaurant wifi and agreed to said condition of joining the wifi.
I'm in The U.S. We don't have CCTV, but people have cameras on their houses. Mostly Ring type cameras. I am in Philadelphia and our D.A. doesn't want to prosecute crimes and our police don't shit as a result. People have videos of all kinds of crimes. The get people stealing packages off of doorsteps, assaults, people stealing cars, vandalism, and people breaking into houses. If you give these videos to the police the probably won't even look at them. So people share them online. I never thought about the legality if that.
We seem to be slipping down a very slippery slope created in the US where theft was deemed not charged if under, I think $200. Here I believe it is £200. If a 'perp' has the idea it's OK to steal minor amounts, food or goods and not get charged we are all going to end up paying vast sums in taxes to help the store after theft and fund the prisons, currently £50K per person per year.
Yes i dont have a problem with criminals being named and shamed.
The question in this case should be as to how can the Data Protection Laws apply to persons using multiple aliases and methods of identity Therefore, surely the only acceptable way to protect against further offences being committed by the perpetrators is by publishing their images to enable their identification and leading, hopefully to their apprehension.
“Publish and be damned”.
Are they sure they didn't sign into the free WiFi service for the pizza shop next door during dinner?
Very interesting Daniel, how then would this impact people who share videos of people they allege have committed crimes such as using their phone while driving? Sometimes the people publishing the video give information that people have been convicted of a crime, presumably a statement of fact so in that context perhaps allowable. Frequently however these videos are shared with suggestions that they may have been prosecuted, if however this is not a known fact, could sharing a video implying a conviction be defamation? Also would sharing allegations of convictions with a wider audience meet the necessary proportionality test applied by the ICO? I would really appreciate any thoughts you may wish to share?
Interesting thought and raises the concerns about vigilante public going out looking for victims to name and shame for their own self benefit rather than any societal benefit. This is why the ICO is careful with its wording and those sharing should also be careful in their wording when sharing, using wordage like the police use, such as 'looking to speak to this person to clarify....'
They were hard to find because,they kept hiding behind each other.
CAN VIDEO WORN CAMERA BE USED IN COURT IF IT WAS NOT DECLARED AT TIME OF RECORDING
If someone is captured on a recorded cctv video, taking an item(s), conceal the item(s), and exit the premises without paying.
Then I say share the picture of the act of concealment with other shipowners after report it to police.
I'd say that volenti non fit injuria comes into play for people who knowingly break the law. But the shop and manager have to be bloody sure they've definitely committed a crime or they should be subject to defamation and privacy lawsuits. Similar to citizens arrest, be very very sure, don't abuse the power or be subject to severe consequences.
If I sent you an image of some video evidence tampering, would you be able to tell me what tool the police use to blur a person out of video footage ?
I think the Retail shops could do better at the enterences of the shops to stop rapid thiefs which is so often used by them.two wheeled items should also be stopped well before any shopping areas.We might see in the future a test machine to pass through to show up knifes or weapons.But we need a more deterant form of punishment in place which is not in place.A new Jail could be up north in the waste land to hold prisoners in greater numbers as a Deterent punishment.The message from the prison would find those doing wrong and then think twice what might happen to them.At this moment jail is a form of a holiday camp.
My partner walked out of restaurant without paying once. It was a Chinese all you can eat buffet. When we went to plate up, it was mostly fried cabbage and rice dishes. Nothing on the poster was on the buffet. So we walked out. I got stopped and told I still had to pay. I walked on out. Was I wrong? Would it be justified to publish my pictures?
What reason did they give you for asking you to pay?
@@gmo4250 The didn’t believe we never ate, plus they argued that simply being sat down and accepting the drinks menu from the staff was us accepting the terms.
@@grrinc
I don't see what you are worried about then, taking a drinks menu is not accepting their terms to pay for a buffet.
In the case where the crooks take steps to destroy the equipment where the footage is stored, or for example use corrupt officers to unlawfully seize the equipment, the only real option to protect the footage and ensure that it can be easily retrieved, is to use social media (among other means) as a diy storage mesh. Because of the tendancy of crooks to gain unlawful access to social media accounts of witnesses, it is necessary to repeat the process across multiple websites. The case files can then be reassembled from scratch without the need for any authentication.
That is the reasoning behind this actual channel, because of a series of crimes involving the police, including exfiltration of classified materials to hostile states. Allied states can then simply be supplied with the public URL without being detected, and to alleviate the necessity of notifying each agency individually. There really is no other way for an average person to protect themselves from foreign spy / hatd crime networks.
Schizophrenic gibberish.
Here’s and idea. How about the police spend their time catching the criminals rather than telling people if they can post a picture of a criminal.
Any recording of a crime, or civil offence, should be legal to use as you wish. Hopefully aiding finding and turning them in to the police if a crime, or obtaining details for a private civil action.
Fixed cctv type cameras over public areas, or your own private areas, have no place being subject to any extra constraints than general camera photography. The images should be yours to do with as you like.
Actually, what is more weird is permitting the use of artist drawn images done from mere memory and description of a witness, as in some police cases!
can civil enforcement officer/dog warden...use body worn camera footage...if he did not tell the person he was recording...anytime before during or after ...while giving ticket for dog off lead in a park..????????????
I’d like to know why the other four people weren’t charged, they took part in the crimes and profited from them?
11:21 the man came forward to make a complaint 😅
In answer to your question London has more cctv per quater mile than most if not all major cities. YES name and shame them.
Yes more CCTV watching the population in London than in Beijing
"tracked a traced by a third party" - you mean Google. I'm curious, has Incogni ever tried to get customer data removed from Google?
The GDPR law is an ass
I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY MORE CCTV CRIME IS NOT POSTED SAY AT SAY THE TUBE / BUSES /STOPS ECT OF FARE CHEATS
SO THE GENERAL PUBLIC CAN REPORT WERE THEY KNOW THEM FROM OR EVEN WERE THEY LIVE
AFTER ALL I REMEMBER TFL SAID THAT 1 - 25 PEOPLE WERE NOT PAYING TO TRAVEL
If people are going to be "convicted" in the court of woke on past posts, then why shouldn't the misbehaviour of current "offenders" be publicised.
This is particularly true of dashcam footage.
[Note: I leave it to the expert to determine legality].
To stop wrong id's CCTV helps in any matter.I see no bad in CCTV or any other forms of recording the public at any time,this helps when the police arrest someone quicker and can stop a person telling lies making a statement for future use ie The courts.
If CCTV footage can’t be used to catch thieves then what’s the point of installing it. Most of the time the police won’t investigate a crime unless it’s over a certain value. All they do is give you a crime number for your insurance company, who then raise the cost of your insurance premium next time you renew your insurance! In my view CCTV of a crime footage posted on social media is similar to the old wanted posters, and if whoever committed the crime gets identified and prosecuted it’s well worth it. Sometimes the data protection laws protect the wrong people!
If the police did there job the public wouldn't have to take action themselves to protect their business
Yes, as they was suspected in committing multiple offences.
Don't pubs put up photos of people who are barred from entry all the time even in the local pubs where the individual wasn't actually barred? It's been a while since I've been to a pub but that certainly used to be the case in some places I've been.
If business owners want to group together and help each other out by identifying people they consider undesirable then that sounds fine to me. If the police don't have the time or resources to investigate the alleged crimes of those apparently undesirable people they should be happy that there are other methods to dissuade more of those criminal activities. Sounds like a shop version of neighbourhood watch, which surely can't be a bad thing.
If you want to commit petty crimes, don't be so blatant about it, and if you get yourself seen by CCTV you've only got yourself to blame.
When is the BBB going to leave uk ?
Just more rubbish where the rights of the criminals outweigh those of the victims. Seriously sick of this situation.
If there is an issue with sharing this information, how are things like Pub Watch, BarU and the likes allowed to operate? I remember someone in my town did leak names and pictures off that once and that venue ended up in serious bother.
As for pictures on social media, I'm remembering a post from about 7 years ago where a face taken by the security feature on a lost phone appeared in a local group, someone was asking if they recognised him. Someone perked up and said yes, he is a little scally, I'll bet he's stolen it, I'll PM you his name. I replied saying to take it easy as he may simply have picked the phone up somewhere, but they assured me they knew him and he was a thief.
They were right, when the police payed him a visit it turned out he had more than just that one missing phone so he had indeed stolen it, the wanted pic on social media worked. If it works, that's good isn't it?
If you don't rob from a store then your image won't appear online simples..
What about cctv of dog fouling pavement ,the owner literally dragging the dog away .no attempt to clear .
Many years ago I was shown a regional newspaper article about a person who had been sent to prison for a serious crime, the article included a photograph of the criminals face. Unfortunately a colleague of mine had such a striking resemblance to the image printed, that he ended up having to grow a beard. If a cctv image is posted on social media of a criminal, then the image must be of high quality & the exact date, time & location included in the image.
What annoys me is I keep seeing my local businesses post cctv imagery of children suspected of shoplifting but they have no proof there was also one that posted a 5 minute+ long clip including multiple customers for one person.
Too many smaller businesses are using the data not to get justice, but to seek revenge on the suspects and their families.