CCTV: Burglars have rights

MadsL

Here's a doozie.

http://www.independent.ie/incoming/man-who-captured-thieves-on-film-forced-to-remove-footage-from-website-30004205.html

A guy who set up a website to try and catch the guys who robbed him has been told to take down the footage as it infringes the burglers data protection rights.

Personally, I think on balance this is probably a good decision in order to prevent vigilantism, but I'm sure some are still going wtf?

I dont Wash Myself

And in other news
A man has shot dead an unarmed teenager because the music was too loud in his car

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/12/florida-man-michael-dunn-murder-loud-music

Gran Hermano

I'd leave it up until the 'alleged burgular' contacts me in writing requesting I take it down.
Pretty sure they'll have to provide contact details when requesting the info under DP act.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

It's always the goddam Amish!!!

Terrorist scum if you ask me, absolute terrorising terroristic terrorisers.

Cantremember

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

.

No! It was a bunga bunga party. I'm sorry you went to the bonga bungo party and that you can't sit down for a few weeks.

MadsL

I dont Wash Myself wrote: »

And in other news
A man has shot dead an unarmed teenager because the music was too loud in his car

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/12/florida-man-michael-dunn-murder-loud-music

What has this to do with the OP?

I dont Wash Myself

MadsL wrote: »

What has this to do with the OP?

I thought we were posting our most interesting news topics of the day

Apologies if I misunderstood the OP

entropi

So if these people are caught and end up on the evening news through the view of their (TV station) cameras, how is it that the news station could show them but this guy cannot? Sounds backwards to me

MadsL

entropi wrote: »

So if these people are caught and end up on the evening news through the view of their (TV station) cameras, how is it that the news station could show them but this guy cannot? Sounds backwards to me

I assume because they have been arrested.

Guy:Incognito

entropi wrote: »

So if these people are caught and end up on the evening news through the view of their (TV station) cameras, how is it that the news station could show them but this guy cannot? Sounds backwards to me

The news and programs like crimeline show cctv footage exactly like whats in the story all the time when trying to trace criminals. Surely this came up in the conversation?

wil

What rights do law abiding citizens/homeowners/residents have?

The right to be victims?

wil

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The news and programs like crimeline show cctv footage exactly like whats in the story all the time when trying to trace criminals. Surely this came up in the conversation?

Yes if I recorded that would I be breaking the law watching Crimeline breaking the law showing criminals (allegedly) breaking the law?
Boom:eek:

hfallada

Does our courts believe innocent until proven guilty. What if one of these men is misidentified and some innocent man that looks familiar is accused?

Temptamperu

wil wrote: »

What rights do law abiding citizens/homeowners/residents have?

The right to be victims?

Yes and the police do nothing about it. After a few houses on my road got burgled including my own they said they would look into it. Since then i haven't seen one patrol or even a squad car.
its only interesting to them if its a business getting done in. Feck the prolats.

wil

hfallada wrote: »

Does our courts believe innocent until proven guilty. What if one of these men is misidentified and some innocent man that looks familiar is accused?

one would assume the gardai are well capable of using common sense and any other evidence to rule him out. I'm sure misidentification happens in many cases as it is.

CB19Kevo

Its on his private property,They entered his property.
As far as i see it he should leave it online and tell them Feck off.
It would be different if he was recording his neighbor's property.

demanufactured

The only rights any burgler has are the rights to have their legs broken.

Boombastic

wil wrote: »

one would assume the gardai are well capable of using common sense and any other evidence to rule him out. I'm sure misidentification happens in many cases as it is.

One would assume but then this is the gardai, so your probably over estimating them

the_syco

The CCTV footage shows the thieves climbing the wall outside his house

He edits out this piece, and it's all legal, me thinks?

Think_then_talk

I saw the cctv footage 4 of them. They knew they were on Cctv they even moved 2 of the cctv cameras so not to be seen commiting a crime. Their was a court case a while back. Man charged with crimnal damaged said his rights were infringed as he was caught on cctv doing damage to an others property. He lost the case and was convicted. http://tinyurl.com/kseosl5 .

Mr Water's covered his private property he did not ask them to break in they did that themselves. He only asked the public to contact Garda he even gave his crime report number for them to quote with any info.
Maybe the data protection lot should be charged with perverting the course of justice.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

sawdoubters

I think the burglars have to make a complaint before he has to take it down


he should have had cameras hidden he should also captured the car

if he had ip camera he would have got photos to his phone and called the guards


http://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/LAW-ON-DATA-PROTECTION/795.htm

Cookie_Monster

The letter told Mr Waters that he doesn’t have permission to make the footage public, because of protection under the law.

“The images that are captured on film are personal data,” the letter said.

Today, Mr Waters said: “Unless I get the criminal’s consent, I’m committing a crime,”

So is that only for crimes then or will every youtube video uploaded in Ireland need to be removed for using personal data of any caught in them?

CrazyRabbit

Hmm...this is the 2nd instance in Irish/EU law where looking at images of a crime is a crime in itself. Odd.

MadsL

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Hmm...this is the 2nd instance in Irish/EU law where looking at images of a crime is a crime in itself. Odd.

Which was the other one?

moxin

I watched both sets of video, there is no way one can positively identify the burglars, their faces were covered! In that case whats the problem with the Data Commissioner, unless the DP knows the culprits?

Ush1

sawdoubters wrote: »

I think the burglars have to make a complaint before he has to take it down


he should have had cameras hidden he should also captured the car

if he had ip camera he would have got photos to his phone and called the guards


http://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/LAW-ON-DATA-PROTECTION/795.htm

Unless the burglars sat there making tea, most likely they would be long gone by the time the guards arrive.

Dravokivich

On the Data Protection site it states:
http://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/Data_Protection_&_CCTV/242.htm

Domestic use of CCTV systems.

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. However, the exemption may not apply if the occupant works from home. [ 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.]

So... how is it a data protection issue?

keithclancy

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Or even in the EU, host it in the Netherlands and its under the remit of the Dutch Data Protection Act.

The only rule in the Netherlands is that the recording must not be secret, i.e. cameras should be visible.

Czarcasm

Dravokivich wrote: »

On the Data Protection site it states:
http://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/Data_Protection_&_CCTV/242.htm

Domestic use of CCTV systems.

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. However, the exemption may not apply if the occupant works from home. 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.

So... how is it a data protection issue?

I would interpret the above to mean that publishing the CCTV footage online is where the guy may have broken the law -

But on Wednesday he revealed that less than two hours later the Data Protection Commissioner sent him an email warning him he was breaking the law.

It stated: “This office views a photograph or image of an individual as personal data. In accordance with the Data Protection Acts 1988 & 2003, a data controller can only process the personal data of an individual with their consent.

“The commission or alleged commission of an offence is considered to be sensitive personal data.”

Source: Irish Mirror

pickarooney

It's me in the footage and I grant my consent.

Dravokivich

Czarcasm wrote: »

I would interpret the above to mean that publishing the CCTV footage online is where the guy may have broken the law -





Source: Irish Mirror

The DP Site states earlier:

Storage and retention.

Section 2(1)(c)(iv) of the Data Protection Acts states that data "shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for" the purposes for which they were obtained. A data controller needs to be able to justify this retention period. For a normal security system, it would be difficult to justify retention beyond a month, except where the images identify an issue - such as a break-in or theft - and is retained specifically in the context of an investigation of that issue.

The storage medium should be stored in a secure environment with a log of access kept. Access should be restricted to authorised personnel.

But the DP site states after for domestic purposes they are exempt of this requirement.

Wossack

this fscking backwards country... :mad:

astrofool

The DPC would be highly unlikely to pursue this case through the courts as it would make the whole commission a laughing stock, I'd have told them to f*ck off, and get back to reporting websites that use cookies without annoying the sh*te out of everyone (though I'd have also hosted in a non EU country).

ScumLord

sawdoubters wrote: »

I think the burglars have to make a complaint before he has to take it down

I don't know about that, this comes up every so often in the photography forum.

If I was to take a picture of someone and publish that photo I have to have a model release for anyone in the photo. It's not a case that I can use the photo until the model decides I'm not allowed to use it. I have to have the permission first.

I don't see how it applies here though two completely separate issues.

The news site itself seems to have no problems publishing the videos, I bet they know they can and rather than step in and say so they let the confusion run.

Gran Hermano

What data protection exemption do the gardai use when showing CCTV videos on crimecall?

Have the models/stars signed a release form?

DaireQuinlan

ScumLord wrote: »

If I was to take a picture of someone and publish that photo I have to have a model release for anyone in the photo. It's not a case that I can use the photo until the model decides I'm not allowed to use it. I have to have the permission first.

That's not the case. I can take a picture of someone, publish it, splash it on the front page of a newspaper, print 100 copies of it and sell it as a 'fine art print' all without needing a model release. If I want to use the image in a commercial fashion in an advertising campaign or on the cover of a book or what not then I do indeed need a model release for any identifiable individuals in the shot.

ScumLord

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

That's not the case. I can take a picture of someone, publish it, splash it on the front page of a newspaper, print 100 copies of it and sell it as a 'fine art print' all without needing a model release. If I want to use the image in a commercial fashion in an advertising campaign or on the cover of a book or what not then I do indeed need a model release for any identifiable individuals in the shot.

Is selling copies of it as fine art not "commercial" as well?

I wonder how the data commissioner came across this site? Was it a case of the criminals calling them to have the videos removed?

dulpit

There's a shop by me that, for as long as I can remember, displays stills from their CCTV cameras of anybody caught thieving. This includes people young and old. Wonder if the above decision means that technically the shop shouldn't be doing the same?

Gran Hermano

dulpit wrote: »

There's a shop by me that, for as long as I can remember, displays stills from their CCTV cameras of anybody caught thieving. This includes people young and old. Wonder if the above decision means that technically the shop shouldn't be doing the same?

Depends on how it is positioned. Are the photos titled as a rogues gallery with comments like "do you know these shoplifters?" Or is it plain photos or comments similar to "can the following people please contact management".

dulpit

Gran Hermano wrote: »

Depends on how it is positioned. Are the photos titled as a rogues gallery with comments like "do you know these shoplifters?" Or is it plain photos or comments similar to "can the following people please contact management".

They're clearly CCTV stills, with dates on them. I've not noticed any notices on them other than that though.

Lapin

The frustrating aspect of this sutuation is that the judge's hands are tied in relation to the Data Protection Act despite the fact that a crime is being recorded.

Another example of the law in this country bearing little resemblance to justice.

Riddle101

The Irish Justice system "Powerless to help out not stop you"

CrazyRabbit

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Hmm...this is the 2nd instance in Irish/EU law where looking at images of a crime is a crime in itself. Odd.

MadsL wrote: »

Which was the other one?

Sorry...thought it was obvious. It's child pornography.

keithclancy

Could cripple TV3 News ..


I'm in the background in that photo lads ... i'm suing ye.

papa.....2013

Under the DPA if the CCTV is recording private domestic dwelling it does not fall within the act even if it captures a criminal in the act the perpetrator would find it hard to bring to court. Sounds like a jobs worth within the DPC.

Sir Arthur Daley

The chainsaw beside the bed is the only job for a burglar.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Riddle101

WikiHow wrote: »

The chainsaw beside the bed is the only job for a burglar.

Chainsaw and hockey mask, that would do the trick alright.

papa.....2013

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

lol ahhhhhhh that's infringement of European convention of human rights under the right to privacy never mind dpa lol

darkpagandeath

papa.....2013 wrote: »

lol ahhhhhhh that's infringement of European convention of human rights under the right to privacy never mind dpa lol

err don't they film the police doing daily work arresting people in the UK and when the criminals say you cant film me. They get told to shut up as it's a public place and they can film whoever they like. Only minors or innocents get blurred out.