2112 Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 11 minutes ago, CrazyDave said: Most people just use them so they don’t miss someone at the door, or can tell the delivery guy where to leave a parcel. Nothing to do with security for lots of people Of course security is the primary concern, but they have other features. These are handy if you are away on holiday, you can check on your home using the app, from your phone. However, before long, if it isn’t the case, where some homes may have CCTV cameras, again operated by an app on your phone, would IOMG demand these are registered and a fee paid? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beelzebub3 Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 26 minutes ago, CrazyDave said: Most people just use them so they don’t miss someone at the door, or can tell the delivery guy where to leave a parcel. Nothing to do with security for lots of people All the deliveries to our house (amazon / ebay /RM etc have a note attached to the delivery address, if no-one home pop the parcel into the green shed at the side of the house and it works everytime. I do not like those ring type gadgets, they could possibly leave people with a false sense of security. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: You're forgetting that David Ashford was the Jason Moorhouse of 2017. He was always prepared to ask questions about anything on anyone's behalf before he was made a Minister. Since he was sacked, he has resumed this and he also likes to raise topics to show how much he knows and is on top of the latest developments. Presumably the idea is to demonstrate how much talent they are missing from CoMin now he is on the backbenches. This usually fails as it trends to reveal he hasn't much idea what he is talking about and is extremely patronising and annoying when he does so. In this case the exact question is: Whether a review of the annual charge levied on Ring doorbells for data protection registration and the registration process is being considered Which suggests it's a question that a constituent has raised (it mentions a particular brand of video doorbell rather than being more general) and it's one where he doesn't have the faintest idea what it's about. And the reply could well be that Ring doorbells will be dealt with no differently to any other domestic surveillance system. Back of the net Ashy! Edited March 10 by Gladys 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyDave Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 30 minutes ago, 2112 said: However, before long, if it isn’t the case, where some homes may have CCTV cameras, again operated by an app on your phone, would IOMG demand these are registered and a fee paid? They already do if they cover areas that are off your own property. Its exactly the same requirement and isn’t new. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyDave Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 1 minute ago, Gladys said: And the reply could well be that Ring doorbells will be dealt with no differently to any other domestic surveillance system. Back of the goal Ashy! They are already dealt with the same as any home surveillance system. If it records images off your own land it needs to be registered and that has been the case for years. Its just the press have picked up on the doorbell thing for some reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 16 minutes ago, CrazyDave said: They are already dealt with the same as any home surveillance system. If it records images off your own land it needs to be registered and that has been the case for years. Its just the press have picked up on the doorbell thing for some reason. I know, that was not the point of my post. RM pointed out that the question dealt with only one brand and type of domestic surveillance system. So, the legitimate answer could be in respect of Ring doorbells only, not the many other systems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyDave Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 2 minutes ago, Gladys said: I know, that was not the point of my post. RM pointed out that the question dealt with only one brand and type of domestic surveillance system. So, the legitimate answer could be in respect of Ring doorbells only, not the many other systems. Ah ok. My bad. I still don’t understand the “back of the net” bit, that is what threw me. Apologies. It does seem that most people commenting don’t seem to really understand that it’s old legislation that applies to CCTV and any video doorbell though. Sorry for any misunderstanding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 1 minute ago, CrazyDave said: Ah ok. My bad. I still don’t understand the “back of the net” bit, that is what threw me. Apologies. It does seem that most people commenting don’t seem to really understand that it’s old legislation that applies to CCTV and any video doorbell though. Sorry for any misunderstanding Sarcasm! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyDave Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 2 minutes ago, Gladys said: Sarcasm! Ah. I read it as it being a result for him, hence the confusion, when actually it would be an own goal. My bad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 Just now, CrazyDave said: Ah. I read it as it being a result for him, hence the confusion, when actually it would be an own goal. My bad No probs. All the question needed was "-type" put after Ring. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 29 minutes ago, Gladys said: And the reply could well be that Ring doorbells will be dealt with no differently to any other domestic surveillance system. Back of the net Ashy! Well quite. Actually even with that one company there may be complications. On the quickest google there may be models which don't record video (rather than transmit it) are those covered? Also devices may record but the data not be accessible to the customer without subscription. Who is the (potential) data controller there? Is it Ring and are they registered on the Island? The real question that needs to be asked is what I outlined earlier in this topic. Why is the IC's Office now demanding that large number of people register when the previous advice as recently as 2021 was that they didn't need to and that there was no way of prosecuting them anyway?[1] Of course there's a wider topic here as well about the independence of the IC's Office and the resourcing of it to do its job properly. Obviously those running the civil service would like to get rid of these pesky people pointing out when they break the law, but a lot of international agreements depend on robust systems for data exchange and control and throwing them out to benefit a few well-paid incompetents might not be a good idea. [1] The smartass answer to this is that it screws more money out of the public, but I'm not even convinced that will work at those prices. Of course in IOMG 'money-making' exercises are never checked to see if they do, so that wouldn't be a difficulty. Though possibly the real intention is for the IC's Office (which we know is already understaffed from the complaints of the previous IC and his Deputy) now spends all its time on pointless administration rather than tackling abuses of data protection legislation. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 The gov. will hire Door Bell Camera wardens, whose job it is to wander the streets looking for Door Bell Cameras. When they find one they will take a photo of it, along with the door number, and electronically transmit it to an office of Door Bell Camera Executive Officers.They will scan the database to find out if it is registered. A bit like ANPR, but without the A. Of course, there may be some minor legalities involved in taking photos of someone's house, in case the photo includes Ena Sharples with her hair in curlers picking up a pint of milk from the doorstep. The gov. will have a plan for that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyWolf Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 I’ll turn mine of then, then turn the hose pipe accidentally of course on the warden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 If only IOMG can concentrate on the IOMs woes, as strong, as they are on nonsense like door bell cameras……….. we could all sleep soundly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 If you look for UTube videos showing door bell content, there are many, many such items? These show the delivery driver, the garden and the street beyond! How could this use be policed? You shouldn't film the face of the delivery man because he is on 'your' property, not 'public' land where filming is allowed but I'm sure the police would be interested in someone stealing your delivery from you doorstep but maybe UTube would pay more for the footage than the loss of your delivery!!! Live and let die? It's not worth the hassle of Policing this!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.