Implications of CCTV cameras with audio in NZ?

[beakernz]

I've almost finished up install of a couple small cameras that will keep an eye on my property. The cameras can also record audio. It's likely adjacent properties and audio will be within range as the cameras can be on auto panning mode. Are there any legal implications to this? I recall the "tea" tapes of John Key and someone saying you can't record someone without their knowledge. Would this apply to security monitoring? I would think many commercial establishments record audio & video and I have yet to see a sign stating as such. Thanks for any info.

[spaceman]

As the law stands audio and video are treated differently.......video may be recorded audio can't be....mute your audio or you will be breaking the law.......you could also be doing the video illeagally if you're not carefull


good luck

cheers
Spaceman

[klauster]

Change in behaviour – you will notice that

If you don’t intrude people’s privacy, it’s your job to keep your property secure. A warning sticker helps the bad guys to stay away and when you run it on solar energy, it doesn’t cause any running costs.

[Shalodge]

The privacy principles are based on expectation. If you are in a public place in full view then you cannot reasonably have an expectation that you cannot be seen picking your nose etc. Same if you are in your back yard but are aware that you can be seen from an adjacent public place. No reasonable expectation of privacy .. people can look if they want. and if you get photographed .. no problem .. ask Google street view..

With audio you can be in a public place having a private conversation in a situation where you can reasonably expect not to be overheard (ie teapot tapes) in which case it is not permissable to record such conversations. The twist in the tea pot tapes was that it was said to be accidental recording but the principle still apples.

Russell

[beakernz]

Thanks Shalodge, my recording of video and audio will be when they are on the sidewalk yelling and screaming, as well as when they run around the street hollering, often off their faces playing rugby in the middle of the road. In that case it sounds like I have no issues to record such antics. I think if I directed my camera and audio to their property that would be another story, but I have no need to do so when they are always on the sidewalk and street going nuts.

[props4u]

Are there any restrictions to audio+visual recordings on the "common property" of a body corporate?

[Shalodge]

It is illegal to record private conversations unless at least one of the parties agrees. The key word is 'private' and the key argument is around whether the expectation of privacy exists. It doesnt matter if the conversation is in a public place or common space, if it is a quiet conversation in a quiet corner under the CCTV camera then the audio shouldnt be recorded but if it is a shouting match then ok.

Shouldnt be a problem with video. Common areas are a bit like public places , no real expectation that you cant be seen but I wouldnt put a video camera in any area where privacy is expected, ie changing rooms, bathrooms, 'private' areas.

There are some more detailed guidelines on the Privacy Commissioners site.

http://privacy.org.nz/new-guidance-on-privacy-and-cctv-media-release

Russell

[props4u]

It is illegal to record private conversations unless at least one of the parties agrees. The key word is 'private' and the key argument is around whether the expectation of privacy exists. It doesnt matter if the conversation is in a public place or common space, if it is a quiet conversation in a quiet corner under the CCTV camera then the audio shouldnt be recorded but if it is a shouting match then ok.

Shouldnt be a problem with video. Common areas are a bit like public places , no real expectation that you cant be seen but I wouldnt put a video camera in any area where privacy is expected, ie changing rooms, bathrooms, 'private' areas.

There are some more detailed guidelines on the Privacy Commissioners site.

>>> props4u >>> Had to remove link from here to post reply - props4u <<<

Russell

Thanks for that.

Therefore and since one party agrees to it, it is permissible for 1st party to record a conversation between two parties (if only to prove 2nd party a liar) - Irrespective as to whether it is private conversation in public or private area - True or False?

PS - Where on this site can one find "how to" instructions OR How does one attach avatar (picture) to one's ID here? Thanks
.

[Perry]

PS - Where on this site can one find "how to" instructions OR How does one attach avatar (picture) to one's ID here? Thanks.

Your User Control Panel, rather arcanely buried under Forum Actions > Edit Profile.
(Hint: left click the down arrow to the right of Forum Actions).

The Forum Help threads are here.

PS
There may be limits on some options until
the ten posts mark is passed.

[Shalodge]

Section 216 of the Crimes Act.

Part 9A

Crimes against personal privacy

• Part 9A: inserted, on 6 August 1979, by section 2 of the Crimes Amendment Act 1979 (1979 No 5).

216A Interpretation

• (1) In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires,—
  intercept, in relation to a private communication, includes hear, listen to, record, monitor, acquire, or receive the communication either—
  • (a) while it is taking place; or
  • (b) while it is in transit
  
  interception device—
  • (a) means any electronic, mechanical, electromagnetic, optical, or electro-optical instrument, apparatus, equipment, or other device that is used or is capable of being used to intercept a private communication; but
  • (b) does not include—
    • (i) a hearing aid or similar device used to correct subnormal hearing of the user to no better than normal hearing; or
    • (ii) a device exempted from the provisions of this Part by the Governor-General by Order in Council, either generally or in such places or circumstances or subject to such other conditions as may be specified in the order
  
  private communication—
  • (a) means a communication (whether in oral or written form or otherwise) made under circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties to the communication; but
  • (b) does not include such a communication occurring in circumstances in which any party ought reasonably to expect that the communication may be intercepted by some other person not having the express or implied consent of any party to do so.
  
  
  (2) Any Order in Council exempting a device from the provisions of this Part expires 2 years after it is made.
  
  (2) A reference in this Part to a party to a private communication is a reference to—
  • (a) any originator of the communication and any person intended by the originator to receive it; and
  • (b) a person who, with the express or implied consent of any originator of the communication or any person intended by the originator to receive it, intercepts the communication.
  
  Section 216A: inserted, on 6 August 1979, by section 2 of the Crimes Amendment Act 1979 (1979 No 5).
  Section 216A(1): substituted, on 1 October 2003, by section 9 of the Crimes Amendment Act 2003 (2003 No 39).
  Section 216A first subsection (2): inserted, on 1 October 2003, by section 9 of the Crimes Amendment Act 2003 (2003 No 39).

216B Prohibition on use of interception devices

• (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (5), every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who intentionally intercepts any private communication by means of an interception device.
  
  (2) Subsection (1) does not apply where the person intercepting the private communication—
  • (a) is a party to that private communication; or
  • (b) does so pursuant to, and in accordance with the terms of, any authority conferred on him or her by or under—
    • (i) Part 11A; or
    • (ii) [Repealed]
    • (iii) the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act 1969; or
    • (iiia) the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003; or
    • (iv) the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978; or
    • (v) the International Terrorism (Emergency Powers) Act 1987.
  
  (3) Subsection (1) does not apply to the interception by any constable of a private communication by means of an interception device where—
  • (a) an emergency has arisen in which there are reasonable grounds for believing that any person (in this section referred to as the suspect) is threatening the life of, or serious injury to, any other person in his presence or in the immediate vicinity; and
  • (b) the use of the interception device by that constable is authorised by a constable who is of or above the level of position of inspector who believes on reasonable grounds that the use of the interception device to intercept any private communication to which the suspect is a party during the emergency will facilitate the protection of any person who is threatened by the suspect.
  
  (4) Subsection (1) does not apply to any monitoring of a prisoner call under section 113 of the Corrections Act 2004 or any interception of a private communication if the interception is authorised under section 189B of that Act.
  
  (5) Subsection (1) does not apply to the interception of private communications by any interception device operated by a person engaged in providing an Internet or other communication service to the public if—
  • (a) the interception is carried out by an employee of the person providing that Internet or other communication service to the public in the course of that person's duties; and
  • (b) the interception is carried out for the purpose of maintaining that Internet or other communication service; and
  • (c) the interception is necessary for the purpose of maintaining the Internet or other communication service; and
  • (d) the interception is only used for the purpose of maintaining the Internet or other communication service.
  
  (6) Information obtained under subsection (5) must be destroyed immediately if it is no longer needed for the purpose of maintaining the Internet or other communication service.
  
  (7) Any information held by any person that was obtained while assisting with the execution of an interception warrant must, upon expiry of the warrant, be—
  • (a) destroyed immediately; or
  • (b) given to the agency executing the warrant.
  
  Section 216B: inserted, on 6 August 1979, by section 2 of the Crimes Amendment Act 1979 (1979 No 5).
  
  

2 years imprisonment if you put a tape recorder under the boss's desk intending to record his conversation. This is the section that John used in his complaint re the teapot tapes.

Note the exception if one party agrees. Therefore you can record your conversations without telling the other party if you want to catch them out. Privacy and rights were never intended to be a shield for the guilty and its your conversation as much as the other parties.

[Perry]

Hhhmmm; it always annoys me when some outfit
I call generates a canned announcement that the
call will be recorded. I.e. I'm not given the chance
to accept or reject that, aside from hanging up the
phone. And if I phone to tell them I don't want the
conversations recorded, the announcement says
it's going to be, anyway.

Whether or not it's for staff training and/or quality
control purposes is irrelevant to me.

[Wayne]

Well I know somone who used the recording to prove that they said something that the operator said they hadn't. When push came to shove they asked that the recording be checked and they were right. So they can be for your benefit.

[Perry]

Which leads on to why or how one would
conduct certain critical business by phone.
"I have a phone conversation recorder,
too, you know. And as I wasn't allowed the
opportunity to decline your recording, you
were afforded a similar priviliege."

[Shalodge]

Perry .. these firms are not asking your permission or agreement, they could record the conversation without telling you (as could you). Its a courtesy really. You need to assume that everyone is recording you these days and simply watch what you say.

[Perry]

But, based on what you said earlier, would I not
have a reasonable expectation to privacy in such
a telephone call? And therefore not be recorded?

The Privacy Commissioner has (apparently) asked
firms to include a press one to accept; press two
to decline option, but I've yet to strike either.