Posting video of criminals in the act legal?

roadsmart

Just listening to a man on Joe Duffy, he has video footage of 4 men breaking into his house which he posted on a website for all to see. Within 90 minutes of his first appearance he got an email from the Data protection Agency saying unless the 4 criminals consented to the video being published that the poster was breaking the law. What sanctions can they take against him if he refuses to take it down?

jimmii

Was told by the Gardai that if we have footage we can not legally share it with anyone publicly I would imagine they could charge him with a breach of the act and probably fine him.

Here is a list of the penalties:

http://www.dataprotection.ie/ViewDoc.asp?fn=/documents/legal/4e.htm&CatID=23&m=e#Penalties for Offences under the Data Protection Act

Gatling

But surely copyright would be a defence who ever took the video owns the material by right ???,

And if he didn't accuse them of wrong doing and just posted the video as a news related piece ??

Would the data commission react that quick

roadsmart

Just a thought, in order for the DPA to bring a successful prosecution of the poster, surely they would need the four "injured parties", ie the burglars,mot give evidence that they didn't assent to the publishing?

amen

Within 90 minutes of his first appearance he got an email from the Data protection Agency saying unless the 4 criminals consented to the video being published that the poster was breaking the law.

So If I record the people walking on a busy street and post the video I need the permission of everyone in the video ?

If the Gardai record criminals doe they record the permission of the criminals to show the video in court or to store the video ?

roadsmart

Another thought. Does the DPA have to receive a complaint before they can act? Did the criminals make the complaint?

Mycroft H

amen wrote: »

So If I record the people walking on a busy street and post the video I need the permission of everyone in the video ?

If it's in a public place you've not got a reasonable expectation of privacy or so I thought?

Riskymove

Mycroft H wrote: »

If it's in a public place you've not got a reasonable expectation of privacy or so I thought?

so there is a reaosnable expectation of privacy when breaking into a house?

Gotham

Recording people in public or on your own private premises without their consent (as long as you don't capture someone else's private premises) is legal and lawful and you can do whatever you like with that footage... as long as you do not post slander/liable along with it.

Mycroft H

Riskymove wrote: »

so there is a reaosnable expectation of privacy when breaking into a house?

That's something I couldn't answer for sure.

RangeR

roadsmart wrote: »

Just listening to a man on Joe Duffy, he has video footage of 4 men breaking into his house which he posted on a website for all to see. Within 90 minutes of his first appearance he got an email from the Data protection Agency saying unless the 4 criminals consented to the video being published that the poster was breaking the law. What sanctions can they take against him if he refuses to take it down?

How sure was the guy that the email actually came from DPA? Did he contact the DPA to confirm? eMail addresses can be spoofed terribly easy.

hullaballoo

There's no such thing as "the Data Protection Agency", so I doubt very much your friend received anything from it.

It is inconceivable that video footage that has not been manipulated in any way could breach the Data Protection Acts. There are only limited circumstances in which it is unlawful or illegal to record and publish video footage.

roadsmart

hullaballoo wrote: »

There's no such thing as "the Data Protection Agency", so I doubt very much your friend received anything from it.

It is inconceivable that video footage that has not been manipulated in any way could breach the Data Protection Acts. There are only limited circumstances in which it is unlawful or illegal to record and publish video footage.

My friend? What are you on about?
And sooooo sorry I took it up as agency from listening to a radio programme, the COMMISSION. Happy now?

ScouseMouse

I have been argueing this point for months.

I have a CCTV warning sign in my shop window, AND another one at my front door that says:

CCTV in use in this store.

Images recorded will be used for security purposes and to help trace people via facebook, window, or any other method which may be of assistance to the gardai.

I have put several scumbags on facebook and they have generally come to me to pay for what they stole.

This cannot be a breach of the law. Can it?

roadsmart

Well the Commission seem to think it does. Personally I would publish and be damned, I can't see Darren and Git coming forward to give evidence against me.
"Yeah your honour, that's me breaking the window open........."

RangeR

roadsmart wrote: »

Well the Commission seem to think it does. Personally I would publish and be damned, I can't see Darren and Git coming forward to give evidence against me.
"Yeah your honour, that's me breaking the window open........."

Thing is. If it's a DPA issue, it wouldn't be the scumbags coming after you. It would be DPC if any.

the world wonders

Excuse me but I just happen to be Grand High Poobah of the Data Protection Association and unless this thread is taken down within fifteen minutes I will be seeing yis all in court.

(some guy calls Joe Duffy about some unverified anonymous email and people are actually discussing this seriously?)

tayto lover

A man who owns a shop near me used to stick all the dud cheques he got in the front window for all to see.
Many people made a quick dash back to the shop to pay what they owed and get their cheques back.
He was dead right in my opinion.

Pro Hoc Vice

What the DPC actually said,

https://www.rte.ie/radio1/liveline/

The important bit "A breach of Section 2 of the Data Protection Acts is not a prosecutable offence."

roadsmart

the world wonders wrote: »

Excuse me but I just happen to be Grand High Poobah of the Data Protection Association and unless this thread is taken down within fifteen minutes I will be seeing yis all in court.

(some guy calls Joe Duffy about some unverified anonymous email and people are actually discussing this seriously?)

And you got "anonymous email" from where? :rolleyes:

John Kimble

I think this is an interesting enough topic...

The Data Protection Commissioner seems to be contradicting the information on his own website

The Data Protection Commissioner issued this statement following today's programme:

"Any processing of a personal data must be with the consent of the person or if there is another legal basis laid down in legislation for example by a law enforcement agency such as An Garda Síochána (e.g. Sec. 8 of Data protection Acts). If an organisation (data controller) processes personal data without the consent of the person then that organisation is in breach of Section 2 of the Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003. A breach of Section 2 of the Data Protection Acts is not a prosecutable offence."

vs

From http://www.dataprotection.ie/viewdoc.asp?m=&fn=/documents/FAQ2012/CCTVFAQ.htm

6.1 What issues surround the use of CCTV?

All usage of CCTV other than in a purely domestic context must be undertaken in compliance with the requirements of the Data Protection Acts. Extensive guidance on this issue is available at http://www.dataprotection.ie/viewdoc.asp?m=m&fn=/documents/guidance/cctv.htm.

Unless I'm missing something here, the person in question is exempt from the provisions of the Data Protection Acts and can do whatever he chooses with his footage.

Pro Hoc Vice

John Kimble wrote: »

I think this is an interesting enough topic...

The Data Protection Commissioner seems to be contradicting the information on his own website



vs

From http://www.dataprotection.ie/viewdoc.asp?m=&fn=/documents/FAQ2012/CCTVFAQ.htm



Unless I'm missing something here, the person in question is exempt from the provisions of the Data Protection Acts and can do whatever he chooses with his footage.

The creation of CCTV footage by a private person would be exempt, but by then uploading it to a public site, may bring the person into the scope of the Act, as they are now processing data. But my reading of the DPC statment is the person is a data processor under section 2 but has done nothing actionable.

Manach

So what can the individuals do ... in that the non-compliance with the principles is not a criminal offence (as per s2 of the act) and a civil action by them under say law of confidence or law of tort would be unlikely to succeed.

Paulw

An article on the Independent website about this now too - http://www.independent.ie/incoming/man-who-captured-thieves-on-film-forced-to-remove-footage-from-website-30004205.html

Ken.

How can the Independent show the videos and the guy not. Also one of the comments on The Independent site says "How can crime call show video's of break in's and such on RTE and not be in breach of data regulations?

hullaballoo

Just reading that article, this is a bizarre call by the DPC. It's not surprising, though. The commission regularly steps beyond its remit. I usually wouldn't complain but in this case, there is reason to.

usernamegoes

What about s22a of the Act? Surely, he could say it was journalistic?

Pat Mustard

The DPC has this to say about domestic CCTV:

The processing of personal data kept by an individual and concerned solely with the management of his/her personal, family or household affairs or kept by an individual for recreational purposes is exempt from the provisions of the Acts. This exemption would generally apply to the use of CCTVs in a domestic environment.

So, the actual CCTV system aside, it seems that the DPC found that masked burglars who trespass on residential property have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to how the CCTV footage of them will be dealt.

The decision seems unlikely to be appealed in this instance, which is a pity.

I can see how a postman delivering post or a guard delivering a summons or somebody legitimately coming to the house should have an expectation of privacy, but it seems very strange that these people can assert privacy rights, in such circumstances.

The owner of the youtube page described the circumstances as follows (I have deliberately omitted the link, but the youtube page is easily found):

Home burglary caught on CCTV, 4 suspects visible on footage, all 4 masked their appearance and used gloves to avoid identification. Suspects took time to create an escape route and set up a chair for exit at rear wall before entering premises. Alarm was activated and suspects were not deterred by loud siren/strobe lights. Suspects ransacked several rooms and took jewellery, phones, cameras, and even emptied children's coin savings boxes. Suspects fled on foot after seeing Garda approaching. If you can identify any individuals in the clip please submit information via www.crimecctv.com