Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?

[Benice]

It might, if the purpose was ostensibly to monitor private property.  What might be not permitted is deliberate monitoring of public areas.

What about the Web Cam which can be accessed at the top of this page - that covers public areas?

[jassi]

What about the Web Cam which can be accessed at the top of this page - that covers public areas?

It appears to be sited inside a cafe and monitors customers, though I agree it covers others areas as well. Presumably that is permitted.

Rather different to being situated on public land for the principal purpose of monitoring the general public.

This is only my opinion - I don't know what the rules about cameras are.

[Eleanor]

It might, if the purpose was ostensibly to monitor private property.  What might be not permitted is deliberate monitoring of public areas.

Then why isn't it pointing to the pathway inside the property?  This would have the same result. 
This sounds like another one of those illegal things that isn't actually illegal.  Unless it suits, of course.

Personally, I am not all that keen, but they are here to stay.

[Alice Purjorick]

Then why isn't it pointing to the pathway inside the property?  This would have the same result. 
This sounds like another one of those illegal things that isn't actually illegal.  Unless it suits, of course.

Personally, I am not all that keen, but they are here to stay.

Every country has its fair share of those, dear Moderator.
In the UK when our driving licences were little maroon books it was an offence not to sign them. That law rarely came into play unless of course one was abusive to the policeman or had committed a serious motoring offence and the offence was just thrown in on the "kitchen sink" basis.
The more interesting point would be "if it is illegal to have surveillance of public places would the film from a private camera doing just that be admissible in court".
This is slightly off topic so please feel free to delete when read!

[jassi]

Then why isn't it pointing to the pathway inside the property?  This would have the same result. 
This sounds like another one of those illegal things that isn't actually illegal.  Unless it suits, of course.

Personally, I am not all that keen, but they are here to stay.

Probably it covers this area. Some cameras have wide angle of view.

Perhaps the difference lies in the purpose for installing the camera - ie monitoring of private property.

All the cameras pictured appear to be sited on private property - are there any installed on the general highways, such as we see in UK ?

[Eleanor]

Every country has its fair share of those, dear Moderator.
In the UK when our driving licences were little maroon books it was an offence not to sign them. That law rarely came into play unless of course one was abusive to the policeman or had committed a serious motoring offence and the offence was just thrown in on the "kitchen sink" basis.
The more interesting point would be "if it is illegal to have surveillance of public places would the film from a private camera doing just that be admissible in court".
This is slightly off topic so please feel free to delete when read!

That could be a good point about admissible in Court.  But Amaral didn't seem to think it would have been a problem.  Although we all know that it was Gerry he would have hoped to see.

But then Amaral opened a Criminal Investigation Agency as a Consultant. 

[pathfinder73]

Habana Beach Cam - was this checked for movements across the beach? It should have been. Anything in the files?

[jassi]

That could be a good point about admissible in Court.  But Amaral didn't seem to think it would have been a problem.  Although we all know that it was Gerry he would have hoped to see.

But then Amaral opened a Criminal Investigation Agency as a Consultant.

Even if not admissible in a court, positive identification would have helped  towards reaching a solution, in that the police would have known what the crime actually was and who the perpetrator was.

[Eleanor]

Probably it covers this area. Some cameras have wide angle of view.

Perhaps the difference lies in the purpose for installing the camera - ie monitoring of private property.

All the cameras pictured appear to be sited on private property - are there any installed on the general highways, such as we see in UK ?

Installing and monitoring these cameras would be an expensive exercise.  Probably better to let private businesses do it.  There is crime on The Algarve, and in Praia da Luz, and the Local Authorities didn't appear to want to know.  Expense, you see.  Hence the possible reason for suggesting it would interfere with privacy.

And another legal illegality is born.

[Jean-Pierre]

A quick search shows that there are webcams in Portugal - covering public areas, villages, raods and beaches.  From a commercial point of view beach webcams make the most sense as a means of promoting particular beaches and enticing tourists

For example

http://meteoabrantes.no-ip.info/

But some will no doubt still claim they are illegal in Portugal - maybe someone needs to tell the Portuguese government. 

[Eleanor]

Habana Beach Cam - was this checked for movements across the beach? It should have been. Anything in the files?

Good finds, Pathfinder, and better when enlarged.  The focus was larger than one might think.  I have no idea if Amaral raced to get those footages.

[Eleanor]

A quick search shows that there are webcams in Portugal - covering public areas, villages, raods and beaches.  From a commercial point of view beach webcams make the most sense as a means of promoting particular beaches and enticing tourists

For example

http://meteoabrantes.no-ip.info/

But some will no doubt still claim they are illegal in Portugal - maybe someone needs to tell the Portuguese government.

I doubt that The Portuguese Government were into pointing out a possible problem with crime.  Let's face it, these cameras aren't there to promote a crime free zone.  They are there to spot criminals mostly.

[Eleanor]

But, was Mr. Smith's claim pie in the sky?  I very much doubt it.  The whole family would hardly have made it up, especially since they didn't agree.  You might have thought that they at least would have got their story straight.  They had more than enough time.

[slartibartfast]

But, was Mr. Smith's claim pie in the sky?  I very much doubt it.  The whole family would hardly have made it up, especially since they didn't agree.  You might have thought that they at least would have got their story straight.  They had more than enough time.

They probably didn't sit down and go through it as a group...

[Eleanor]

They probably didn't sit down and go through it as a group...

Why should they have done?