idrive:
My point is that you were sold this camera on the basis that it does not record constantly, only catches events.The fact is though that it does continually record, and at least a day’s worth of footage will be viewable if they want to, it just gets overwritten each day if not saved
Just seems odd to me that you make so much fuss about people bending over and accepting these cameras, while you literally have one pointed at your face (covered or not) and it could be used to incriminate you just the same as any other
Ok, you make some relevant points tbf, and rather than start arguing over it, I’ll try and explain it from my end,.with a bit of mitigation thrown in.
Firstly I was never ‘‘Sold’’ as such the idea of an inward facing ‘‘event type’’ camera’', (no probs with the outward facing half whatsoever btw)
So about 3 of us very loudly kicked off about it, naively thinking the rest would just do the same, but you can guess the outcome of that one. 
So we were faced with the choices of jacking (btw a job I quite like) or going along with it all,… or at least being seen to go along with it, but take steps to make the 'best out of a bad situation one of which I pointed out (maybe a bad move on reflection on a public forum 
)
I’m fully aware it is on a constant loop, but what I’ve said covers that aspect also.
No doubt there will be maybe some comeback on me in the future, but my camera virtually never goes off anyway, so for now I’ll settle for that, and come to any repercussions when they occur, but it’s been nearly 8 years up to press.
Like I said, salvaging something out of a crap situation,.and making the best of it.
Not an ideal way of dealing with stuff, granted,…but it’s my way.
So that is my point, what is YOUR view on this new legislation, and particularly when you throw inward facing cameras,.especially constant feed surveillance types in the mix?
I (maybe wrongly) think that you are one of those who justify cameras on these threads?..but cba to look back.