- This topic has 6 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by .
-
Topic
-
I work for a global tech company where we take cyber and data privacy really seriously. So, after the recently installation of Google nest security cameras in our building, I was surprised to find that there is not a lot of commentary on the cyber threats and data privacy rights of tenants even though there’s a lot of commentary around CCTV footage in strata complexes.
The situation:
Recently, the head of the owners corporation of the building I live in installed Google nest security cameras on each floor. The small building of 12 has 8 tenants, 1 x AirBNb, 2 owners and 1 x second residence who are only there once-/twice a year. I’ve lived in the building for 15 years. It is quiet, in an affluent and safe suburb and everyone in the building is pleasant and kind.
The complexities:
- There are no security cameras on the entrance/exit to the property or in the common back garden. Negating that the cameras were installed for security reasons.
- The cameras are fitted with audio recording and therefore are listening devices.
- There are no by laws which relate to installation of cameras and the data privacy including who has access to this footage.
- The access to this footage is via a personal device. Not an authorised or reputable security company who understand the risks and laws.
- There are only 12 apartments, 3 floors. No gyn, no lifts, no common services. The cameras are positioned at head height on each floor to observe the comings and goings of residents in and out of their flats.
As you can imagine, the tenants feel violated, intimidated and a bit creeped out in their own living environment. It feels like we’re at the mercy of a ‘busy-body’ owners corp representative, as opposed to the genuine intent of security of the building. The strata organisation have declined to accept tenants calls, referring them to the respective managing agent.
The bigger issue:
- There is no charity on the data privacy of residence and who has access to the data. If strata installed the cameras, it would fall under their data privacy policy but as this has been installed by the owners corp, it seems it falls into a black hole.
- At home CCTV kits are a potential cyber issue, creating a security issue on someone monitoring the time, days of the comings and goings to the individuals apartment. Or, worse still illegally gaining access to the cameras and the footage for other more sinister purposes. There are no industry regulation around owners corporations being mandated to use professional security companies.
- The access to the security footage is kept on an owners phone, creating further security and safety risks. Also, creating a creepy environment for residence.
Would be great to get your thoughts on this topic and to hopefully bring awareness to the cyber and data privacy issues that exist.
-
Replies
-
I suppose you will have to lobby the other tenants of your complex to support you in approaching the chair of the OC as a collective, to get the answers to your queries that you are seeking.
Frankly, I have the opposite problem where I wish there were security cameras in my apartment block, although who monitors the footage and has access to it would be contentious. I have had items stolen from a secure shed in the basement car park. A tenant let a tradie in to park in the visitor space who helped himself to anything not nailed down by prising a padlock, piled his ute sky high with stolen items and drove away. My unit balcony overlooks the driveway, and had I had a CCTV operating it would have captured the offenders number plate for me to hand over to the police.
The tenants across from me have children who ride e-bikes which they drag into the unit (so they don’t get stolen) when they get home from school. One of the kids has ridden his bike fast along the common path leading up to the security door and smashed into the glass balustrade scattering glass everywhere. With no CCTV proof, the OC has had to pay to replace the glass panel, while the kids are laughing about it. We’ve also had to pay to replace a glass panel that street vandals have smashed on the balcony after throwing a large sandstone rock, and then running off. At the moment I am moving a large flowerpot from the foyer that tenants are using to prop the security door open 24 hrs, so their mates without a door key can come and go whenever they please. This is despite the strata manager writing to all occupants of the building of the necessity of keeping the door closed at all times. If I knew who the offender was with a CCTV footage we could curb the behaviour.
So write to the OC head with a petition of signatures from other residents/tenants and ask for the answers you are seeking.
There are two different issues here. Firstly is whether the OC head installed the cameras with a legitimate committee decision.
The second one is privacy. In short, provided the cameras are installed somewhere where there is no expectation of privacy which just about all common areas would not have (except for a bathroom or changing area), that isn’t an issue. Even cameras pointing across a road towards a front door or window of another property is fine as their is no reasonable expectation of privacy in that instance.
Audio recording should be disabled and it is fine. The fact the cameras have the capability isn’t an issue – in fact most CCTV cameras have that capability now. The rules on audio recording and what is allowed between each state. NSW usually needs all parties to consent whereas in Vic, it needs just one party to a conversation to consent. Recording a conversation someone isn’t a party to is a lawful interception though, so audio recording should never be done.
Most people mistake what their rights to privacy are within an OC.
Who gets to access the footage and how it is managed, is a matter for the committee and how they want to manage that. The privacy act applies in virtually no OC (unless it has a turnover of $3m or more) so there isn’t an issue there either. It would be expected that at least one or two committee members would have access in their role as committee members. Expecting it to be done only via a security company is a bit extreme, expensive and unnecessary.
If you don’t like it, get on the committee and get other owners on board to ‘get the numbers’ to put a different policy in place. However, assuming no audio recording is being done, everything you have stated is perfectly fine and has no privacy issues. It is quite normal. If you are a tenant, you don’t get a vote as you aren’t an owner. That may sound harsh, but that’s the rules. You don’t have any ownership of common property and how it is managed.
- This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by .
There are two different issues here. Firstly is whether the OC head installed the cameras with a legitimate committee decision.
I take your point but I don’t think it’s just a committee decision – it’s a change to common property and I think that needs a by-law approved by a super-majority at a general meeting.
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.
If I knew who the offender was with a CCTV footage we could curb the behaviour.
Two things come to mind:
1. In the interim, why not buy large CCTV signs and put them up in conspicuous places, such as in the foyer, outside the entrance and near the garage. Even without cameras, the signs will deter bad behaviour; and
2. Even with cameras, capturing an image of an undesirable damaging property does not necessarily mean he will be identified, caught, arrested, charged and sentenced. I think the police have other priorities. But when you do install CCTV, broadcasting their installation with signage should reduce criminal and other anti-social activity.
Hello rrychar
I feel your pain. My strata went to NCAT and successfully removed the security cameras. We did it without engaging a strata lawyer. It involved a lot of time on the computer getting to know the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 and reading a lot of strata lawyer web sites. I can tell from reading your post that your knowledge of who’s who in strata is not complete.
The Owners Corporation is IN CHARGE of everything to do with the strata plan. The Owners Corporation is whoever owns the 12 lots in your strata plan.
The owners corporation appoints a strata committee to oversee the work of the Owners Corporation. The strata committee has three office bearers: chairman, secretary, treasurer. The strata committee is appointed each year by the owners corporation. The owners collectively decides who serves on the strata committee.
I am guessing that you used the word “strata” to refer to the strata manager. The people you call “strata” answer to the Owners Corporation. Not the other way around. Strata managers are delegated the responsibility of taking care of your strata plan. They might tell you what is / is not permissible according to the law. My experience is to question everything they say. It is easy now with internet access.
I am saying all this because you may not realise that you, as owners, have a lot more power than you realise. Both strata committee and strata manager answer to you. Their power was granted by you and the other owners. You can take it away from them by voting.
HOW WE SUCCESSFULLY REMOVED THE SECURITY CAMERAS:
If an owner installs something which ALTERS THE EXTERNAL APPEARANCE OF COMMON PROPERTY and they did NOT pass a SPECIAL RESOLUTION to make that alteration, they are breaking the law.In your situation, there should have been a meeting for ALL the owners to vote. Not just the strata committee. A special resolution means that 75% of vote is in favour of the cameras. e.g. if eight people vote, a special resolution would be six votes in favour of the cameras.
It is impossible for the strata committee to make this decision on their own. Likewise it is impossible for the strata manager to make this decision on their own. If they say so, they are lying. It is explained in Section 108 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015.
We cited two laws:
Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 Section 108
Surveillance Devices Act 2007You can find all Acts of Parliament on the internet.
All your points about data security are valid. We included data security in our NCAT submission. Ultimately, the NCAT tribunal member ordered the removal of the cameras because it violated Section 108 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015.
The bigger issue:
- There is no clarity on the data privacy of residence and who has access to the data. If strata installed the cameras, it would fall under their data privacy policy but as this has been installed by the owners corp, it seems it falls into a black hole.
- At home CCTV kits are a potential cyber issue, creating a security issue on someone monitoring the time, days of the comings and goings to the individuals apartment. Or, worse still illegally gaining access to the cameras and the footage for other more sinister purposes. There are no industry regulation around owners corporations being mandated to use professional security companies.
- The access to the security footage is kept on an owners phone, creating further security and safety risks. Also, creating a creepy environment for residence.
Would be great to get your thoughts on this topic and to hopefully bring awareness to the cyber and data privacy issues that exist.
Presumably, the chairman thinks there are drug deals and other criminal activities going on, or they’re just weird. I would be worried about domestic violence perpetrators, stalkers, paedophiles viewing the video. Who are we to know if the chairman is one of these people?
Your first step is to talk with the other owners. If 75% of you don’t want these cameras, you can win this.
There are two different issues here. Firstly is whether the OC head installed the cameras with a legitimate committee decision.
I take your point but I don’t think it’s just a committee decision – it’s a change to common property and I think that needs a by-law approved by a super-majority at a general meeting.
You are right for NSW, it does require that, unless there is another by-law providing authorisation
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.