Teddy cam in creche?

fisher8181

Can a parent send a child to creche with a teddy camera such as this
http://cameras.pricegrabber.com/network-surveillance/m/875386924/
so that they can be assured their child is safe from abuse?

LowKeyReturn

Why in Gods name would you send a kid to a crèche you even had a doubt over?

fisher8181

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

Why in Gods name would you send a kid to a crèche you even had a doubt over?

Nothing has ever happened in our creche that worried me.
I have a doubt over all crèches after watching last nights prime time.

LowKeyReturn

fisher8181 wrote: »

Nothing has ever happened in our creche that worried me.
I have a doubt over all crèches after watching last nights prime time.

Ah okay. Well legalities aside, as no legal advice can be given here, I'd say the other parents would be nonplussed about their kids being recorded. Perhaps a group of parents could get together and ask CCTV be installed?

fisher8181

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

Ah okay. Well legalities aside, as no legal advice can be given here

I'm assuming its legal or else the rte reporter wouldn't have done it

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

, I'd say the other parents would be nonplussed about their kids being recorded. Perhaps a group of parents could get together and ask CCTV be installed?

Was thinking of just having it in her cot so other kids wouldn't be recorded

Victor

What you are suggesting is that you spy on the crèche, which at the very least is a breach of the Data Protection Act.

Some crèches provide internet accessible CCTV for parents.

gowley

Victor wrote: »

What you are suggesting is that you spy on the crèche, which at the very least is a breach of the Data Protection Act.

Some crèches provide internet accessible CCTV for parents.

is this not what prime time did in last nights programme

fisher8181

Victor wrote: »

What you are suggesting is that you spy on the crèche, which at the very least is a breach of the Data Protection Act.

I thought that initially but if its a breach of the DP act then how did the rte reporter get away with it?

Victor wrote: »

Some crèches provide internet accessible CCTV for parents.

I asked my creche to provide this and they quoted the DP act as a reason why they couldn't do it. I'd really appreciate it if you could give me an example (in a pm if you prefer) of somewhere that provides this access.

gowley

fisher8181 wrote: »

I thought that initially but if its a breach of the DP act then how did the rte reporter get away with it?



I asked my creche to provide this and they quoted the DP act as a reason why they couldn't do it. I'd really appreciate it if you could give me an example (in a pm if you prefer) of somewhere that provides this access.

http://www.linkschildcare.ie/brochure-forms/policies-and-procedures.html

this has cctv in every room

gowley

just realised this companies branch in abbington was on the tv last night. so much for for cctv

fisher8181

gowley wrote: »

http://www.linkschildcare.ie/brochure-forms/policies-and-procedures.html

this has cctv in every room

Looking for CCTV that can be accessed online by the parents.

gowley

fisher8181 wrote: »

Looking for CCTV that can be accessed online by the parents.

google it

Bodidly

Cocoon child care groups have round the clock cameras in every room. Parents get a password and can log on to view in real time whenever they like. They have numerous locations around Dublin.

Victor

fisher8181 wrote: »

I thought that initially but if its a breach of the DP act then how did the rte reporter get away with it?

There are substantial public policy grounds to allow investigative journalism. The journalists are feeding their information into a possible criminal investigation.

I asked my creche to provide this and they quoted the DP act as a reason why they couldn't do it.

They would require all the parents and staff to agree to it. However, with a new crèche or new customers / contracts, it should be possible. There are of course, separate privacy, child protection and health and safety issues - and cost.

I'd really appreciate it if you could give me an example (in a pm if you prefer) of somewhere that provides this access.

I've never used a crèche, so I don't know any.

Grolschevik

gowley wrote: »

just realised this companies branch in abbington was on the tv last night. so much for for cctv

I thought you were making a point!

gowley

Grolschevik wrote: »

I thought you were making a point!

no. just making a mug of myself. wouldnt mind but i watched the programme

seb65

Victor wrote: »

There are substantial public policy grounds to allow investigative journalism. The journalists are feeding their information into a possible criminal investigation.

And there are no policy grounds for ensuring your child is not subjected to abuse at her creche?

If something is illegal, public policy grounds are irrelevant. It's either illegal or it isn't.

Bodidly

Has anyone else noticed that the pop up advertisement on this page is for one of the crèches filmed on prime time?!

Grolschevik

Bodidly wrote: »

Has anyone else noticed that the pop up advertisement on this page is for one of the crèches filmed on prime time?!

Nope, but if it is it surely shows the effectiveness of whatever word/topic recognition software is used to target readers...

Cody Pomeray

It may be that you could find yourself in trouble if it were found that you had no reasonable grounds to suspect wrongdoing on foot of your children's experiences in the creche, and had planted equipment in the creche based on a TV show you had recently viewed.

From the Data Protetction Commissioner's Website

The use of recording mechanisms to obtain data without an individual's knowledge is generally unlawful. Covert surveillance is normally only permitted on a case by case basis where the data are kept for the purposes of preventing, detecting or investigating offences, or apprehending or prosecuting offenders. This provision automatically implies an actual involvement of An Garda Síochána or an intention to involve An Garda Síochána.

Covert surveillance must be focused and of short duration. Only specific (and relevant) individuals/locations should be recorded. If no evidence is obtained within a reasonable period, the surveillance should cease.

If the surveillance is intended to prevent crime, overt cameras may be considered to be a more appropriate measure, and less invasive of individual privacy.

The Data protection commissioner also provides a case study whereby there appears to have been some wrongdoing on behalf of an employee, yet the employer had nevertheless acted outside of the law in handling covert surveillance of that employee. So this is an area you'd want to be very careful with.

A more preferable arrangement might be to enquire about arrangements for parental access to CCTV, although this will have with its own Data protection restrictions.

daheff

Bodidly wrote: »

Cocoon child care groups have round the clock cameras in every room. Parents get a password and can log on to view in real time whenever they like. They have numerous locations around Dublin.

this is just not true. My kids are in one of these creches. They have 1 room that is online. and the quality of image is so bad that it might as well not be there.

theres nothing like an unannounced early pick up to check how well/bad the creche is doing. You get a much better idea as to what they are up to (Eg prefilled out daily forms etc).

Plus it keeps them on their toes if they dont know when somebody could turn up unexpectedly

hullaballoo

The Data Protection Acts do not apply to ordinary citizens going about their daily lives. They apply in very specific circumstances specifically to "data controllers".

Just because I have a camera does not make me a data controller. There is nothing to prevent me going around recording every conversation I have as a private individual. There may be an issue with trying to admit these recordings as evidence in court, but there are separate rules, altogether outside of the DPAs, which govern the admissibility of evidence.

All of the above may be complete tosh, but I have yet to see someone point to a particular statute or case that deals with the issue of digitally recording things. Perhaps someone knows better?

Cody Pomeray

hullaballoo wrote: »

The Data Protection Acts do not apply to ordinary citizens going about their daily lives. They apply in very specific circumstances specifically to "data controllers".

The data protection acts define a data controller as a person who, either alone or with others, controls the contents and use of personal data; there is absolutely no reason in the world to believe this does not apply to "ordinary citizens" with covert video cameras, as opposed to companies with covert video camera; "ordinary citizens" can, obviously, be data controllers.

hullaballoo

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

The data protection acts define a data controller as a person who, either alone or with others, controls the contents and use of personal data; there is absolutely no reason in the world to believe this does not apply to "ordinary citizens" with covert video cameras, as opposed to companies with covert video camera; "ordinary citizens" can, obviously, be data controllers.

That's just incorrect.

gizmo555

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

The data protection acts define a data controller as a person who, either alone or with others, controls the contents and use of personal data; there is absolutely no reason in the world to believe this does not apply to "ordinary citizens" with covert video cameras, as opposed to companies with covert video camera; "ordinary citizens" can, obviously, be data controllers.

Beg to differ.

The acts do not apply to "personal data kept by an individual and concerned only with the management of his personal, family or household affairs . . ."

Cody Pomeray

gizmo555 wrote: »

Beg to differ.

The acts do not apply to "personal data kept by an individual and concerned only with the management of his personal, family or household affairs . . ."

You can make that argument in this particular case, and we can get into that if you want; I'm responding to the poster's suggestion that the definition of "data controller" does not apply to individuals going about their daily lives; I don't believe stashing a nannycam in another's place of work constitutes going ordinarily about your daily life. I think there is every indication that Data Protection Legislation would apply here, as suggested by the case study provided earlier.

gizmo555

The case study linked to concerns an employer, not someone processing personal data in a private capacity.

Contrary to your assertion, there's very good reason to believe that the Acts may not apply to someone operating covert camera surveillance in a private capacity. Ordinarily, they do not.

Best bet for the OP or anyone else who is seeking guidance on this or any other aspect of their data protection rights and obligations is to contact the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner directly. They are very responsive and helpful.

Cody Pomeray

gizmo555 wrote: »

The case study linked to concerns an employer, not someone processing personal data in a private capacity.

There is a contractual relationship between the parent and the creche owner in her own workplace. This is not equivalent to somebody going about their daily life.

I think you realize this.

gizmo555

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

There is a contractual relationship between the parent and the creche owner in her own workplace. This is not equivalent to somebody going about their daily life.

I think you realize this.

Like I already wrote, I beg to differ.

I would consider that CCTV recordings of children by their parents, whether made overtly or covertly, are at least arguably "personal data kept by an individual and concerned only with the management of his personal, family or household affairs . . ."

We could go round in circles all day on this, but as I said, the Data Protection Commissioner is always glad to provide advice and guidance. OP, why not get reliable information from the horse's mouth?

http://www.dataprotection.ie

Cody Pomeray

I'd agree with that much... get in touch with the Data Protection Commission OP, and if their office says it is acceptable to stash covert CCTV in a creche on foot of viewing a television programme, please let us know of this remarkable decision.

Victor

gizmo555 wrote: »

I would consider that CCTV recordings of children by their parents, whether made overtly or covertly, are at least arguably "personal data kept by an individual and concerned only with the management of his personal, family or household affairs . . ."

But you are potentially recording private conversations and actions between other, non-consenting people - what if teddy gets left in the bathroom? What if teddy records a conversation between staff and/or other parents?

gizmo555

Victor wrote: »

But you are potentially recording private conversations and actions between other, non-consenting people - what if teddy gets left in the bathroom? What if teddy records a conversation between staff and/or other parents?

What I've been commenting on is whether or not the Data Protection Acts apply to the parent's use of a CCTV teddy. I think it's clear that there is at the very least significant doubt. That's not the same thing as saying it's, to use Cody's word, "acceptable". From the same guidance on CCTV from the DPC's website linked to above:

"Where the exemption does apply, a person who objects to the use of a CCTV system – for example, a neighbour who objects to images of her/his property being recorded – may be able to take a civil legal action based on the Constitutional and Common Law right to privacy."

Cody Pomeray

It is interesting that they raise the Constitution - there is of course some resort to case law here in the case of Kane v. The Governor of Mountjoy [1988] where it was held that the surveillance of the applicant (a member of the IRA) would have been objectionable in the absence of justification due to the Constitutional right to privacy.

So aside from the Data Protection Law which already seem to be on the creche's side, if that principle mentioned above were to apply here, it really is difficult to see what justification the OP could offer.

Remember the Prime Time crew recorded the creche in question arising out of legitimate parental suspicions of specific abuses. It would be quite another thing for the crew to have got a notion into their heads after watching The Hand That Rocks The Cradle (great film).

And I mean this is before we even get into the child protection concerns already raised....

gizmo555

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

So aside from the Data Protection Law which already seem to be on the creche's side, if that principle mentioned above were to apply here, it really is difficult to see what justification the OP could offer.

The significant difference is that if the Data Protection Acts apply in this scenario - which seems to me very unlikely - aggrieved data subjects can make a complaint which the Commisioner is obliged to investigate and adjudicate on, at no cost to the complainant, instead of the data subjects getting into costly and risky litigation.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Remember the Prime Time crew recorded the creche in question arising out of legitimate parental suspicions of specific abuses. It would be quite another thing for the crew to have got a notion into their heads after watching The Hand That Rocks The Cradle (great film.)

The RTE people are covered by a separate and very broad exemption to almost all the obligations normally applying to data controllers under the Acts, where data is being processed for journalistic, literary or artistic purposes with a view to publication and the data controller reasonably believes publication to be in the public interest.

Cody Pomeray

gizmo555 wrote: »

The RTE people are covered by a separate and very broad exemption to almost all the obligations normally applying to data controllers under the Acts

Of course, but I had raised this point above in relation to the Constitutional case law, not the Data Protection Acts.

I agree the Acts are the ideal practical route for either party.