Seek secret camcorder (like TV documentaries)

Discussion in 'Video Cameras' started by Anne R, Jul 1, 2006.

  1. Anne R

    Nigel Brooks Guest

    And I'd argue that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

    It is a fact that it is perfectly legal for an individual to covertly record
    a consensual conversation made by means of a public or private
    telecommunications system.

    It follows that if it is permissable to consensually record a conversation
    made over the wire - it is also permissable to record a face to face
    conversation consensually.

    There is far more of a privacy interest in communications conducted by
    telephone than there is in a face to face confrontation.

    The whole point of my post is that the legality of a covert consensual
    recording depends entirely on the jurisdiction you are in and there is no
    blanket authorization or prohibition.
     
    Nigel Brooks, Jul 11, 2006
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. If it's consensual, how is it covert?

    Anyway, this has gone on long enough. I just 'phoned my father, a
    lawyer. Covert audio/video is admissible in English courts. Given
    opportunity, the defence may well challenge its authenticity. But in
    principle it's admissible, and it's often used.
     
    Laurence Payne, Jul 11, 2006
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. Anne R

    Tony Morgan Guest

    Which has nothing whatsoever to do with Anne's intent.
    Please Nigel - stop blowing smoke !!!
    Firstly, I should remind you that Anne's proposition is not consensual -
    that is the whole issue.

    Further, jurisdiction is not an issue Nigel - Anne lives in the UK - so
    why start babbling on about jurisdiction?
     
    Tony Morgan, Jul 11, 2006
    #63

  4. That covert evidence is sometimes challenged on the basis of the HRA,
    but none the less frequently admitted.

    I don't think being a Google-expert is enough here, Tony.
     
    Laurence Payne, Jul 11, 2006
    #64
  5. Anne R

    Nigel Brooks Guest


    Rubbish - She is a party to the conversation and is the one who is
    consenting to the recording. You only need one party to consent. You are
    confused about the definition of what constitutes a consensual recording -
    it doesn't need every party to consent - only one......
    What specific UK law prohibits an individual from recording their
    conversations with others covertly? If there were such a law - every
    television show which utilizes the hidden camera technique would be subject
    to prosecution. The fact is that if the person doing the recording is a
    party to the conversation - it's legal.

    Nigel Brooks
     
    Nigel Brooks, Jul 11, 2006
    #65
  6. Anne R

    Nigel Brooks Guest

    If both parties consent to a recording then there is no problem - we are
    speaking of a situation where the person doing the recording is doing so
    covertly. The person doing the covert recording is a party to the
    conversation and is consenting to the recording - the other party is not be
    aware that the conversation is being recorded. It is covert if one employs
    a hidden device to record the conversation and that is not known by the
    other participants of the conversation.
    I could find nothing which would prohibit the use of a covert consensual
    audio/video under UK law. In fact UK law is somewhat more lenient than US
    law. For example although an order of the court must be obatined to
    intercept a conversation over the phone (non-consensual) - it is perfectly
    permissable for a law enforcement officer to bug a room to record
    conversations of non consenting individuals inside that room (or at least it
    was 6 years ago). In the United States however, both types of intercept
    require a Court Order .

    Nigel Brooks
     
    Nigel Brooks, Jul 11, 2006
    #66
  7. Anne R

    Nigel Brooks Guest

    The Act applies to Governmental bodies - specifically Article 8 prohibits a
    "Public Authority" - in other words The State from violating the Right to
    Privacy without due process. Private bodies and individuals are under no
    obligation to comply with the act.
    Kindly cite a couple - specifically cases involving private individuals who
    are alleged to have contravened the HRA

    Nigel Brooks
     
    Nigel Brooks, Jul 11, 2006
    #67
  8. Anne R

    Tony Morgan Guest

    True - it does additionally require the ability to read and comprehend
    the statutes that are there on-line for all to read.

    Of course some folks will find that a little difficult....
     
    Tony Morgan, Jul 11, 2006
    #68
  9. Tony, you're wrong. I know you can't admit it, but why not just let
    this one fade away?
     
    Laurence Payne, Jul 12, 2006
    #69
  10. Tony, you're wrong. I know you can't admit it, but why not just let
    20:1 Tony shuts up.

    2:1 Tony will soon make a lengthy post (with footnotes). Prolonged
    Googling will have dredged up some contexts in which he might be
    partly correct.

    10000:1 Tony posts "Sorry, I was mistaken."

    :)
     
    Laurence Payne, Jul 12, 2006
    #70
  11. Anne R

    Anne R Guest

    It may be inadmissable in an English court of law but it is definitely
    admissable where O wish it to be heard.

    Thank you but your contention following "if" is not applicable.
     
    Anne R, Jul 12, 2006
    #71
  12. Anne R

    Anne R Guest


    Sorry for these harsh words. They are not directed specificaly at
    Tony but this part of the thread seems approx the right place to
    post. Sorry Tony if you feel I am pointing only at you! I am not.

    I didn't post to uk.legal because I don't really need a theoretical
    discussion about laws and regulations and common practise and all
    that.

    I posted to several technology groups because I wanted some
    information about what was available on the market. I think it has
    to be my business how I use it.

    As was once observed: "morals" are standards one applies to oneself
    and "ethics" are morals which one applies to others. I will
    determine my own morality and that will not be done here. I don't
    care for other people's personal morality being foisted upon me.
     
    Anne R, Jul 12, 2006
    #72
  13. Anne R

    Anne R Guest

    What if I am preventing a crime, which is what I believe I will be
    doing?

    Surely Article 8 applies to individuals and not to people working in
    public institutions. The Freedom of Information Act makes this
    distinction in permitting others to ask about all the workings of public
    institutions except for private and personal matters.

    http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm

    A consultation given by an employee of a public institution would seem
    to be something available under the FOIA (provided privacy of the
    patient were observed). In the same way, it may be seen as possible to
    record that consulatation.

    Certainly if I were the patient I would most probably have access to the
    records of the consultation under the Data Protection Act. Again, if I
    make my own records and I do so electronically then I do not see that as
    being a matter for prosecution.

    I will add again ... I'm guessing that some consumer camcorders may now
    small enough to hide on one's body. But I'm not well-off so I don't
    want to spend a ton of cash.

    Certainly camcorders are now small enough to hide in a bag with the lens
    pointing outwards through a hole in the bag but I guess I would need one
    with a wide-ish angle and a mic suited to picking up conversation in a
    small room.

    Can anyone recommend some models to put on my shortlist? Especially if
    they are end-of-line and good deals can be had at the moment.
     
    Anne R, Jul 12, 2006
    #73
  14. Anne R

    Anne R Guest

    On what grounds?
     
    Anne R, Jul 12, 2006
    #74
  15. Anne R

    Anne R Guest

    Then it's a good job I have no intention at all of showing it in a
    court.
     
    Anne R, Jul 12, 2006
    #75
  16. Anne R

    Anne R Guest

    And if they are not?
     
    Anne R, Jul 12, 2006
    #76
  17. Anne R

    Anne R Guest


    I could show the hospital internal management what is happening.

    The management could then mount their own investigation secure in the
    knowledge that if they looked hard enough they would find for
    themselves what I had demonstrated to them.

    I will have shown them an undesirable end-point. I leave it to them
    to find how to get from the beginning to an end-point which they will
    know exists.

    That is quite different to the management mounting an investigation
    but uncertain that the allegation made is true or false.
     
    Anne R, Jul 12, 2006
    #77
  18. Anne R

    John Adams Guest

    Any you can afford to buy would be inadequate in low light conditions.
    If you are really serious about cutting off your nose to spite your
    face, I suggest you hire one for the day.
    Try here:
    http://www.ttx.co.uk
    and look for "Equipment dry hire"
     
    John Adams, Jul 13, 2006
    #78

  19. You started a discussion. It grew. That's what happens on Usenet and
    there's nothing you can do about it :)

    I think you got your answer very early on. Use audio.
     
    Laurence Payne, Jul 13, 2006
    #79
  20. Presumably by now you're either better or dead anyway? :)
     
    Laurence Payne, Jul 13, 2006
    #80
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.