- This topic has 14 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Hi!,
Looking for information on the law/or how other EC/strata groups have dealt with webcams, cctv which may or may not be facing common property.
Residents at our apartment block have noticed that another resident has installed a webcam in their apartment facing outwards through the window, which overlooks both their downstairs courtyard and the adjoining common green space.
A complaint has been made to the strata management agency, citing fear of safety of children being filmed and invasion of privacy etc. The residents with the camera were then asked what the camera was for, to which they responded it was to monitor their dog’s behaviour about which there have been many complaints.
Some residents are still not satisfied with this answer – what proof is there that they are only filming dog etc.
The strata company have suggested the residents contact the police and have put it back to the EC to respond to??
It seems fair to me to suggest they move the camera, if possible, so it more obviously only films their courtyard. Beyond that, it seems a tricky situation – I’d love to hear any opinions. Especially objective ones, as the residents involved in this have been involved in a series on complaints about each other.
Cheers
Lara and Luca
-
Replies
-
My understanding is their is no exception of privacy on the common areas (think of street cameras of which their are millions). If the camera was aimed at a private yard on the lot, or a window within the private yard you might have problems. Not to sure about CCTV aimed at a common swimming pool within the strata (quite a lot have security cameras in this area anyway).
CCTV aimed at a swimming pool within the lot would def be clear breech in my opinion.
I will be going online next week with advice that the Owners Corp should pass a by-law that individual owners’ webcams should not be looking at common property or into private property. In this case, if the camera was at the edge of the property looking back at the unit, there would probably be no cause for complaint.
However, if this is part on an ongoing dispute between neighbours, then logic and mutual respect have probably long since fled the scene.
If you have the time and want to look at the mesmerising range of issues questions like this raise, click on this link to the Australian Law Reform Commission’s report on privacy and, specifically, this section on the protection of children and young people which notes that ‘innocent’ pictures can end up being used for nefarious purposes. Scary.
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
I wonder what restrictions can be imposed on residents and be supported in law.
If a ‘webcam’ is banned then is it possible to ban a recording on non-web cam (on a tripod) or a hand held cam or if a resident can see what the cam can see do we stop looking outside of windows? Clearly the last proposal is silly but I see this as a very slippery slope on both sides. There have been lots of proposals but I recall an ABC news item where a homeowner had a security camera that looked over the neighbours property and the neighbours could not do anything about it.
The aspect of social media also arises. If I take pics of some common property event (kids of family members playing in a pool) should there be a restriction on their use with respect to social media? (I’m raising the question, not making a suggestion here).
Camers also bring into play the question of common property v private property v ‘privacy’ property.
Given cameras are cheap and easily set up and now even drones can be used to look into windows then we need, as residents and citizens to ‘watch this space’ (a pun I couldn’t resist).
This was emailed by a reader:
in response to your article today on filming neighbours, I think you’ll find your answer in the Surveillance Devices Act 1999-Section 7. Penalty is level 7 inprisonment and or fines…
Surveillance Devices Act 1999 – SECT 7
Regulation of installation, use and maintenance of optical surveillance devices
7. Regulation of installation, use and maintenance of optical surveillance
devices(1) Subject to subsection (2), a person must not knowingly install, use or
maintain an optical surveillance device to record visually or observe a
private activity to which the person is not a party, without the express or
implied consent of each party to the activity.Penalty: In the case of a natural person, level 7 imprisonment (2 years
maximum) or a level 7 fine (240 penalty units maximum) or both;
In the case of a body corporate, 1200 penalty units.(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to-
(a) the installation, use or maintenance of an optical surveillance device
in accordance with a warrant, emergency authorisation, corresponding
warrant or corresponding emergency authorisation; or(b) the installation, use or maintenance of an optical surveillance device
in accordance with a law of the Commonwealth; or(c) the installation, use or maintenance of an optical surveillance device
by a law enforcement officer in the performance of his or her duty on
premises if-(i) an occupier of the premises authorises that installation, use or
maintenance; and(ii) the installation, use or maintenance is reasonably necessary for the
protection of any person’s lawful interests.If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
Hi Lara & Luca,
I’ve thought of some questions which may help you with your problem.
Have you approached these residents with the camera and introduced yourself, and raised your concerns in person?
Have you ever met these residents?
Do you know for a fact there have been many complaints about their dog’s behaviour, or is that just hearsay?
Are you able to see the camera from the green areas, or is it only when you are standing directly in front of their gate?
Have you personally ever spoken to more than one resident that lives around them and knows them?
Or could there be another side to this story?
Could it be that these residents are the subject of a vindictive campaign by one resident who does not work, is in the complex 24/7, and who spends his time running around the complex spreading fictitious rumours about these residents & attempts to coerce other residents into making complaints to the strata about them or about their dog.
And why would he do that?
Because this man believes he has some authority within the complex, above that of any other resident, and these residents dared to stand up to him!
So, can I say that sometimes things aren’t what they seem, and the unfair actions of one man, can create such hysteria out of nothing…Some very specific allegations here (beow) – Is Tolerance perhaps one of the parties to his dispute?
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
Just to go back a bit. Surely a dog should not be running around outside a Strata complex without the owner being with it and having it on a leash?
If the owner (Tolerance?) is in a two storey unit and the dog is in his downstairs yard, his camera could be downstairs and pointed into his own yard.
Lara and Luca come across as reasonable residents voicing the concerns of other residents.
If there have been on-going issues a mediation session should be arranged between interested parties. The exact nature of the complaints against the dog have not been mentioned but perhaps the owner is concerned that someone is teasing the dog. I believe the concerns of a common area being filmed are vexatiously exaggerated. We can’t make our problem neighbours get psychological counselling. We just have to move from a toxic environment.
Filming of common areas, such as the footpath or street, can assist with crimes.
I have a dog but keep her inside when I go out. Dogs are less likely to bark when they are kept inside.
I speak as someone who has had their house burned by a paranoid schizophrenic neighbour and also shared a wall with a drug, alcohol, domestic violence abuse household.
Hi All,
thanks for all the responses, all very interesting. Just to clarify for FlatChatFun, the dog is inside the owners yard.
And for Tolerance – sounds like you have some inside knowledge! maybe we should go for a beer
What if a person wants to spy on another person? Can he take his pictures in public without letting him notice? Isn’t that against the privacy law???
@kristojackal said:
What if a person wants to spy on another person? Can he take his pictures in public without letting him notice? Isn’t that against the privacy law???Generally speaking, in Australia you can take pictures of anything you like in a public place.
However, you can’t take pictures of a person in their private property.
Owners Corporations don’t have to post notices saying that they are filming people on common property (although they should have a by-law permitting them to do so) but they do have to put up notices warning tradespeople that they are being videoed. Why? Beats me!
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
Why?
Well it’s always sounded a like a bit of a stretch to me, but as the common property is considered a workplace when maintenance people and others are on-site, the situation is covered by Sect 10 of the NSW Workplace Surveillance Act (2005).
I have complied with respect to our Strata Plan by placing a CCTV symbol and a prominent notification at the bottom of all Work Orders which are always issued 14 days in advance; no repercussions so far!
One further point that may well be a furphy, is that the placement of those “property under surveillance” signs around the common property could lead to legal consequences for the O/C if residents then rely upon those for their personal well-being and for that of their personal property, and then find that when the worse happens – there is no surveillance.
Just putting it out there!
Just to further muddy the waters here.
https://photorights.4020.net/ discusses photographers’ rights in NSW, and is written by a photographer who is also a qualified solicitor. It’s regularly updated and I find it trustworthy.
So my interpretation (which may be wrong) is:
– There is no “right to privacy” in Australia. “A person, in our society, does not have a right not to be photographed”. So, photos of people or private property are legal unless another law prevents it. (Look at Google Street View.)
– One such law is, if you are ON private property, under common law the property owner can deny you permission to take photos. This does not apply here as the webcam is apparently situated in the lot owner’s property.
– Other laws cover “voyeurism”. However according to the site they are limited to sexualized photos (“upskirting”, “private parts” etc) so are unlikely to apply.
– The “Surveillance Devices Act 1999” mentioned below is Victorian legislation so also will not apply. I also suspect “private activity” in that act is probably quite narrowly defined. The corresponding “SURVEILLANCE DEVICES ACT 2007 – SECT 8” of NSW is more restrictive and would not apply. https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/sda2007210/s8.html
– Photos of children are not a special case
– The NSW Workplace Surveillance Act (2005) mentioned, may apply.
I also expect the property rights of the lot itself could be overridden by a special by-law (as occurs already for noise etc) if the owners corp was to make one. On the other hand, another discussion here recommended a by-law saying the OC could install surveillance itself…
Cheers
In New York city, it’s legal to take photo on the subway, there’s the chance that you’ll be questioned by the police who thinks you could be a terrorist. Maybe they don’t know the current laws. You are allowed to photograph on the subway, so long as you don’t use a flash or tripod.