CCTV - An un-maintained system by a non-accredited installer would not stand up in court?

[hightower]

As some of you know I currently work at a school while training. They've asked me if I'd be willing to take over maintenance of the CCTV system here. Not a problem, or so I thought, until someone told me that an "unmaintained system by a non-accredited installer would not stand up in court if required"

I've done a little bit of digging on this and all I can find is that if images are stored of public areas (which in this case they are not, only of the school grounds) they must meet the demands of the data protection act. Other than that I can't find anything that says "if it wasn't looked after by an NSI company the judge will laugh at you" so thought I'd ask the experts on here.`

 

[Wilko]

Just to kick off the discussion :
If you go ahead, perhaps have them assign you the task in writing. You want clarity here as you need to understand if you are the person responsible for the system, or working under direction. If you are to be responsible then perhaps they should stump up for the specialist training in tech and compliance.
The CCTV Advisory Service has said :
"......This means that in criminal cases, any use of a digital image as evidence must be accompanied by the certificate required under section 69 (of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984) This certificate, given by a person responsible for the computer system in question, must state that either the computer system was at all times operating properly, or that any defect in its operation was not such as to affect the accuracy of the record".

 

[ruston]

Just to kick off the discussion :
If you go ahead, perhaps have them assign you the task in writing. You want clarity here as you need to understand if you are the person responsible for the system, or working under direction. If you are to be responsible then perhaps they should stump up for the specialist training in tech and compliance.
The CCTV Advisory Service has said :
"......This means that in criminal cases, any use of a digital image as evidence must be accompanied by the certificate required under section 69 (of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984) This certificate, given by a person responsible for the computer system in question, must state that either the computer system was at all times operating properly, or that any defect in its operation was not such as to affect the accuracy of the record".

Just to stir that up a bit.
Well , my mates Father has just been done for dangerous driving on the evidence of a dash cam, so how does that tie in with that.

 

[Startinez]

Digressing here (do apologise OP) but that also means that installing CCTV to cover my personal premises is futile in the case of ever needing to actually produce said footage to bring about charges in the case of criminality?

I mean, I can understand the need to scrutinise and for professional installs of course, but seems like a very big technical loophole for criminals to worm through.

 

[ruston]

Correct , and every shop etc on the high street , and even private houses cameras are scrutinised by the police in order to gather evidence were a crime has been committed.

 

[hightower]

So.... lol

 

[ruston]

So.. is the present company an accredited installer?
As you already look after the computer systems , and presumably personal and personnel data , will you not fulfil the requirement already

 

[hightower]

So.. is the present company an accredited installer?
As you already look after the computer systems , and presumably personal and personnel data , will you not fulfil the requirement already

Well I'll not name the present company, but yes they are registered with the NSI as Gold Approval. I suppose I would fulfill the requirement, probably more so than a company that does yearly checks on the system (as we need to review footage here quite often).

I've even looked at getting approved by the NSI but costs aren't listed and I don't know whether it would be a waste of time/money.

 

[ruston]

But it could hold you in good stead for you future . Just think of it as an investment , similar(ahem) to joining a scheme.
There will be no doubt you will be a lot more 'economical' that a major company . Use that as a bargaining tool as per Wilko's advise.

 

[hightower]

Anyone any ideas of the costs of joining the likes of NSI?

 

[ruston]

I can only suggest that you ring their membership subscription department direct.

 

[hightower]

I can only suggest that you ring their membership subscription department direct.

I've already popped an enquiry off to them - will have to wait and see what they say. Looking at the website it seems to be more a pencil pushing exercise than anything else.

 

[ruston]

Honestly I would go for it .
As I understand it I believe they have different levels as you business grows.

Good luck .

 

[The Ghost]

Where I do work I was told you have to have an SIA security clearance to even look at footage of anything on our Dallmeire systems. As the "boss" loves looking at it for a hobby it was one of the secretaries who said it. Is that true?

 

[Wilko]

Hi - maybe, depending on the exact sit. This copied off SIA site, link below :

Public Space Surveillance (CCTV)
A Public Space Surveillance (CCTV) licence is required when manned guarding activities are carried out through the use of closed circuit television equipment to:

1. monitor the activities of a member of the public in a public or private place; or
2. identify a particular person.

This includes the use of CCTV in these cases to record images that are viewed on non-CCTV equipment, but excludes the use of CCTV solely to identify a trespasser or protect property.

Licensable Activities - http://www.sia.homeoffice.gov.uk/Pages/licensing-activities.aspx

 

[Dan]

This is an eye opener. Never considered the terms around my CCTV!

 

[FatAlan]

Wilko is spot on with his second post re use as evidence. Over the years I've used loads of CCTV as evidence and quite often the clocks maybe out slightly due to issues such as BST and the like. All this has to be taken into account in the witness statement producing the recording. Nothing about accredited installers. Just think about all the dash cams and mobile phone footage that is used these days. Any issues re integrity / admissibility in court would be a matter for the court. Imagine you disturbed a burglar in your house and you had to defend yourself by beating the hell out of him, you bet it would be used in court whether or not it was installed by an accredited person or not.