It is also total rubbish.
It claims that it is in breach because it is "intrusive surveillance" hat is not authorised.
defines "intrusive surveillance" as follows: -------------------------------------------------------------- (3) Subject to subsections (4) to (6), surveillance is intrusive for the purposes of this Part if, and only if, it is covert surveillance that- (a) is carried out in relation to anything taking place on any residential premises or in any private vehicle; and (b) involves the presence of an individual on the premises or in the vehicle or is carried out by means of a surveillance device. (4) For the purposes of this Part surveillance is not intrusive to the extent that- (a) it is carried out by means only of a surveillance device designed or adapted principally for the purpose of providing information about the location of a vehicle; or (b) it is surveillance consisting in any such interception of a communication as falls within section 48(4). (5) For the purposes of this Part surveillance which- (a) is carried out by means of a surveillance device in relation to anything taking place on any residential premises or in any private vehicle, but (b) is carried out without that device being present on the premises or in the vehicle, is not intrusive unless the device is such that it consistently provides information of the same quality and detail as might be expected to be obtained from a device actually present on the premises or in the vehicle. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
So.
First, it is hardly "covert" surveillance when there is a bloody great camera sign on the van.
Second, it does not relate to anything occurring "in" any private vehicle.
Third, it is probably covered by 4(a).
Fourth, it is definitely covered by 5.
There is IMO no way ANPR cameras are what is defined by the act as "intrusive surveillance". -- Alex Heney, Global Villager I wish life had a scroll-back buffer..... To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
