Ellier
Posts:12
 |
| 17 Jul 2008 05:45:59 |
 Alert
|
To concerned - Did I complain? - no - I merely suggested that you would be better putting your energies to better use! There are better ways of solving your complaints rather than moaning on a forum. Amusing reading for us though!
What makes me laugh - how many people were moaning about the problems outside the shops and now there is CCTV guess what lets moan again!!!! Some people are never happy! |
|
|
|
|
concerned
Posts:48
|
| 17 Jul 2008 19:41:39 |
Alert
|
IanC
I am responsible for the posts written by "concerned" your latest post refers to you being confused. I believe you are confused, I can’t make sense of your ranting.
I covered the face to face issue in my post 14th July 2008 try rereading and consider points raised. I thought the whole point of you volunteering for every position you could, then to have your name address and phone number made public was your decision, and some would question the motivation? An individual such as myself is not held accountable for there words, this used to happen in Russia when it was a dictatorship. Decision makers are held accountable for there decisions. I have also been reading the School Playground Lights forum and I wondered if "Sam of Kingswellsyouth31" had to attend a KCC meeting before his demand was granted.
The whole matter could not be cleared up by a visit to the community centre, but a start could be made by having the camera which is causing distress adjusted as requested.
It is difficult to deal with unreasonable people especially when they don’t listen or choose not to understand an alternative point of view. Perhaps there are more people than "resident@4" concerned at the decision making process, but again if you reread my post of 14th July 2008 you will know I am well aware of the process and why I am frustrated by demands, made by a community council member who is there on a system basis, not votes. If you have not been voted in you can not be voted out. We need accountability in a democracy not bullies.
I hope other readers of this post can decide whether the topic is a real concern, or whether any excuse, however weak or confused is used to evade giving information. |
|
|
|
|
concerned
Posts:48
|
| 17 Jul 2008 19:46:06 |
Alert
|
To ellier
At least you had some amusement from my posts.
It was not really my intention to amuse. I am trying to gain some information on the CCTV system at the shops, and to have the camera which is causing distress adjusted.
I take your point about teens and trouble at the shops, but did it really warrant a £3000:00 CCTV system? Was it really such a hot bed of crime? Did the lighting at the shops and surrounding area need to be replaced by white light, for the cameras to see? We all pay for it, and Aberdeen City Council is bankrupt. You don’t solve one problem by creating another, and I think this system is a mess.
Not to many laughs but a very interesting web site you might try : www.ico.gov.uk (left hand colum click on site AtoZ) (then letter C) then (CCTV)
|
|
|
|
|
Ellier
Posts:12
|
| 18 Jul 2008 05:27:30 |
Alert
|
| Lets just hope the CCTV caught images of the young man who ran into the shop last night and grabbed some poor woman's purse then sped off in a silver car! |
|
|
|
|
Ellier
Posts:12
|
| 18 Jul 2008 06:19:05 |
Alert
|
| To Concerned -Sorry I do understand that you are obviously distressed about the CCTV cameras. What I am finding amusing is your approach to solving the problem! Have you tried contacting Peter Stephen about it? |
|
|
|
|
concerned
Posts:48
|
| 18 Jul 2008 07:51:37 |
Alert
|
To ellier
I'll keep a look out for the police report |
|
|
|
|
IanC
Posts:119
|
| 18 Jul 2008 12:13:40 |
Alert
|
Dear Concerned,
I hope I don’t rant.
I did read your post on the 14th, and I answered the questions I thought were important.
Sam did not have to attend a KCC meeting as it was more appropriate to meet where Sam plays football. Two community councillors met with Sam and his mates to discuss the issues, and some resolution was attempted.
I don't agree that your issues cannot be resolved by seeing what is seen by the camera. If you have problems going to the centre then I offered to take an image from the camera to you. You have declined both offers.
The reason I have not had the camera adjusted is that there is no reason to do so, but you cannot be convinced of this as you refuse to view the image from the camera.
I have no problem being known. I do have issues having detailed discussion about the CCTV system with people I don't know. For all I know you could be someone who wants the camera adjusted or other reasons. That is why it is only fair if we meet.
You are not quite right about the voting with regards to the KCC members. If there were more than the max number of potential committee members (12) then there would be a requirement to be voted on to the community council. There was not more than 12 interested, so no voting was required.
All of the KCC members have different interests and have varying amounts of time that they can give freely to KCC. We are all residents just like you. The main difference is that KCC have decided to dedicate some of their spare time for the benefit of the community. The motivation of all KCC members is a desire to improve the community.
I resent any accusation of bullying, and any aggressive questioning. I am less inclined to respond when treated in this way.
I don’t think you should bother anyone else about this. The matter is easily resolved. “go to the centre and see what the camera is looking at”.
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
Allan
Posts:10
|
| 20 Jul 2008 07:42:52 |
Alert
|
| Why do we need Spy cameras at all. I for one would rather have a police presence rather than some piece of tech that might or might not be working, or even pointing in the right direction. |
|
|
|
|
Bridget
Posts:19
|
| 20 Jul 2008 09:37:27 |
Alert
|
Personally, I'm quite happy to have CCTV cover public areas. As far as I understand, they are not allowed to cover anything which is not already in the public view, and so cannot be seen as intruding on privacy. As for a police presence - it is not realistic to suggest that we can have 24 hours cover! This is what CCTV should be able to provide. In addition, once it is recognised that criminal activity is recorded, it can also act as a deterrant.
Bridget
PS Thanks to KCC who give their time and energies to making Kingswells a better and safer place to be. |
|
|
|
|
concerned
Posts:48
|
| 20 Jul 2008 11:20:06 |
Alert
|
Sorry Messed up.
|
|
|
|
|
concerned
Posts:48
|
| 20 Jul 2008 11:29:19 |
Alert
|
The discussion is being led away from the real issues we need to get back to the chase.
1. Is the System currently live and operating?
2. Who is legally responsible for data protection? Who is the Data Controller? This is very important as an individual has the right of access to recorded images which is provided under section 7 of the 1998 data protection act. This information must be supplied in permanent form by way of a copy.
3. Is the position of data controller and system administrator the same? I can find no reference to system administrator on the information I have checked.
4. Is there a time limit on the individual who presently holds the position of system administrator?
The following statement is a direct quote from: Information Commissioners Office. CCTV Code of practice : Where the system will be operated by or on behalf of a public authority , the authority will also need to consider wider human rights issues and in particular the implications of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life). This will include:
# is the proposed system established on a proper legal basis and operated in accordance with the law?
# is it necessary to address a pressing need, such as public safety, crime prevention or national security?
# is it justified in the circumstances?
# is it proportionate to the problem that it is designed to deal with?
If this is not the case then it would not be appropriate to use CCTV.
I am concerned that the instigators and operators of this CCTV system at Kingswells shops have not taken there responsibilities seriously and have shown a complete disregard for The CCTV code of practice. The objective of this code is to help ensure that good practice standards are adopted by those who operated CCTV. If they follow its provisions this not only helps them remain within the law but fosters public confidence by demonstrating that they take their responsibilities seriously.
I would refer IanC to The Information Commissioners Offices, CCTV Code of Practice particularly to Section 4. Deciding whether to use CCTV or continue using CCTV pages 6&7.
The web site address: www.ico.gov.uk left hand column click (site A to Z) then (C)Then(CCTV)
|
|
|
|
|
concerned
Posts:48
|
| 20 Jul 2008 12:54:12 |
Alert
|
Sorry Bad Day
|
|
|
|
|
concerned
Posts:48
|
| 20 Jul 2008 13:01:45 |
Alert
|
I apologize for the two previous messed up posts today.
IanC : I don't agree that your issues cannot be resolved by seeing what is seen by the camera. If you have problems going to the centre then I offered to take an image from the camera to you. You have declined both offers.
REPLY :
If a camcorder with zoom can view the full lens of the Spy Camera from her property and garden, then the potential to spy on that person is clear. IanC can claim there is no zoom incorporated within the spy camera, or that the images can not be downloaded and magnified, but this is not accepted. This is a high spec camera. To show innocuous images on a monitor or photo will not convince and anyone who has down loaded digital imagery will know that the technology is readily available for magnification and manipulation, the existing setting of the spy camera is not logical to view car movement. The street Light changes to white light are also questionable.
IanC : The reason I have not had the camera adjusted is that there is no reason to do so, but you cannot be convinced of this as you refuse to view the image from the camera.
REPLY :
I refer IanC to The CCTV Code of Practice section 4 (what are the views of those who will be under surveillance?) (What could you do to minimise intrusion for those that may be monitored, particularly if specific concerns have been expressed? Under section 10 of the data protection act is the right of the individual to prevent processing which is likely to cause distress.
IanC : I have no problem being known. I do have issues having detailed discussion about the CCTV system with people I don't know. For all I know you could be someone who wants the camera adjusted or other reasons. That is why it is only fair if we meet.
REPLY :
Using CCTV has an impact on people’s privacy, it is intrusive as it is capable of putting a lot of law-abiding people under surveillance and recording there movements as they go about their day to day activities. IanC should consider his own position in this matter.
IanC : You are not quite right about the voting with regards to the KCC members. If there were more than the max number of potential committee members (12) then there would be a requirement to be voted on to the community council. There was not more than 12 interested, so no voting was required.
REPLY :
Everything I said is accurate (Kingswells Community Council has never gone to election as there have always been more places than candidates) and no matter how important an individual community councillor may think they are, or how big there ego is. The fact remains no Kingswells community councillor past or present has ever been voted in by the public.
IanC : I don’t think you should bother anyone else about this. The matter is easily resolved. “go to the centre and see what the camera is looking at”.
REPLY :
Happily this is not IanC’s decision to make. His arrogence is unbelievable. There is an issue of credibility over the images which can be shown.
Add Reply Page 2 of 2 << < 1 2
Kingswells Forum --Community Debate --General Banter --Broadband --Just For Fun --Classifieds
Forums > Kingswells Forum > Community Debate > SPY CAMERAS
Quick Reply
Subject:
Body:
ActiveForums 3.6
Copyright 2008 kingswells.com Contributions to the site can be sent to info@kingswells.com
|
|
|
|
|
IanC
Posts:119
|
| 20 Jul 2008 16:37:36 |
Alert
|
Concerned,
Apology accepted.
If the reason you do not want to go to the centre is based on something that happened in the past please be assured that KCC do not hold any grudges.
You have obviously done your research. The police identified to KCC its obligations under the act. If you refer to posting 10 Jul 2008 12:56:59 “Data protection requirements are being complied with, the police have inspected the system and are happy with the locations of all the current cameras and the proposed locations for future cameras. The signs are up, and the system will be going live next week.”.
Regarding your points in posting 20 Jul 2008 18:00:45. I do not wish to change my responses.
Regarding your points in posting 20 Jul 2008 16:28:19:
1. The system is live and operating. There are some issues gaining access to the system when required, but these should be resolved in the near future. This means that the police can only access the system after normal office hours.
2. Each member of KCC manage the data in their possession in accordance with the Data Protection Act. The data controller is Alan Stott. Your interest in reviewing footage from the camera is strange as this is exactly what has been offered to you, but you continually decline. Obviously, your rights under that act do not include viewing every second of recorded information.
3. No
4. I have no real desire to be administrator of the system and will gladly relinquish the post when I can. In the meantime I treat the post in a professional manner and you can be assured that the information is secure and is treated as confidential.
The system has been approved by the police – so that should answer your remaining points.
You don’t seem to see reason despite all attempts by me and others. You are not convinced by the police giving the system their approval. I don’t think the help you need is available on this Forum. The matter is easily resolved. “go to the centre and see what the camera is looking at”.
Ian |
|
|
|
|
concerned
Posts:48
|
| 20 Jul 2008 19:03:02 |
Alert
|
I think IanC must be confused again, he was offered no appology from me. The appologies were intended for all other readers of the postings, and it is obvious.
I find it very revealing that IanC conviently and consistently, ignores the reference to the capabilities of the camera mounted at the side of Aberdein Considine, which is purported to be watching car movement.
Is Aberdeen City Council involved in any way in the CCTV system? If so How? |
|
|
|
|
concerned
Posts:48
|
| 20 Jul 2008 19:11:57 |
Alert
|
IanC : 1. The system is live and operating. There are some issues gaining access to the system when required, but these should be resolved in the near future. This means that the police can only access the system after normal office hours.
REPLY :
What exactly are the issues involved, Please be very specific I am sure all readers of the post will understand. Does your statement mean only an off duty police officer can access the system? (ie in an unofficial way) |
|
|
|
|
concerned
Posts:48
|
| 20 Jul 2008 20:25:04 |
Alert
|
IanC : 2. Each member of KCC manage the data in their possession in accordance with the Data Protection Act. The data controller is Alan Stott. Your interest in reviewing footage from the camera is strange as this is exactly what has been offered to you, but you continually decline. Obviously, your rights under that act do not include viewing every second of recorded information.
REPLY :
I believe IanC's response is not intended to give information, but to confuse and muddy the water. I believe there can only be one data controller. Why would IanC consider it strange for an individual to exercise his/her right to view recorded images of themselves going about their daily business which is being recorded and stored, I believe it is a personal right of an individual to view every second of any recoded images of themselves.
But what I do find strange it is OK for IanC to have access to all this information when he holds the dubious position of Data Controlller.
|
|
|
|
|
IanC
Posts:119
|
| 20 Jul 2008 20:26:07 |
Alert
|
I can't account for you changing the messages. When I read your message it said that you "apologized for the previous posts". I assumed that you were apologising for the general content of all your posts.
Do you actually read any of the posts? You just seem to bang on and on and don't listen.
The police work shifts, so the cameras can be check by an officer on back shift.
There is only one data controller, but each member must control the data they deal with on a daily basis.
As no one views the footage that is recorded, how do you think the footage you appear on will be identified, and how do you think the data could be transfered to you?
Let me know when you want to see the camera.
This is my last word on this thread.
Ian |
|
|
|
|
concerned
Posts:48
|
| 20 Jul 2008 20:37:26 |
Alert
|
IanC : 4. I have no real desire to be administrator of the system and will gladly relinquish the post when I can. In the meantime I treat the post in a professional manner and you can be assured that the information is secure and is treated as confidential.
The system has been approved by the police – so that should answer your remaining points.
REPLY :
This statement is totally meaningless it is so vague.
|
|
|
|
|
concerned
Posts:48
|
| 20 Jul 2008 21:08:31 |
Alert
|
IanC : You don’t seem to see reason despite all attempts by me and others. You are not convinced by the police giving the system their approval. I don’t think the help you need is available on this Forum. The matter is easily resolved. “go to the centre and see what the camera is looking at”.
Ian
REPLY :
IanC never gives straight honest answers and uses words like police as if this gives IanC an unchallengable right to be believed. If I have not misunderstood then IanC has once again dodged the question of the capability of the considine camera. |
|
|
|
|