Posting videos of shoplifters online.

..Brian..

Sorry if this has been covered before, tried searching buy couldn't find anything.

My brother has taken to posting videos of shoplifters on Facebook appealing for information as to who they are.

Is this legal? I would have thought not or that it may hinder proceedings of tings if they went as far as court, ie innocent until proven guilty etc. Or if the alleged shoplifters suffered at the hands of vigilantism.

Can anyone shed any light or point me in the direction of some recommended reading perhaps?

Thanks in advance!

Paulw

I believe it would be a clear breach of the Data Protection Act.

punisher5112

It is wrong but it has been fruitful for some who found out who the criminals were.

The whole system is a joke it seems always in the criminals favour.

Heard a guy done this a few weeks ago and was told by data protection he would have to remove but the guy that done the crime would hand himself in if the pictures/video was removed.

Which very surprisingly he did.

maximoose

Was wondering about this myself recently. In a restaurant the other day that every wall was covered in fully stocked bookshelves, number of notices around saying "Please do not steal our books, thieves will have video evidence posted on our Facebook to identify them" around.

johnayo

It's ok if you first get the scobees permission.:D

hullaballoo

Paulw wrote: »

I believe it would be a clear breach of the Data Protection Act.

Would you mind specifying what provisions of the DPAs this would breach because I cannot find anything on this?

..Brian..

Thanks for all the replies guys. As Hullaballoo said, a link would be great!

johnayo wrote: »

It's ok if you first get the scobees permission.:D

maximoose wrote: »

"Please do not steal our books, thieves will have video evidence posted on our Facebook to identify them" around.

I wonder would signage as above constitute permission granted, ie "If you choose to enter this premises you are consenting to having your image published on social media in the event that you are a shoplifter!"

..Brian..

Humm, I believe I have answered my own question!

Recognisable images captured by CCTV systems are personal data.

I think the last line below highlighted in bold, is pretty clear that publicly broadcasting the images would be a breach of data protection.

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.

Source: http://www.dataprotection.ie/viewdoc.asp?m=m&fn=/documents/guidance/cctv.htm

gctest50

what sort of proof has he that they shoplifted something ?

seamus

I believe defamation is your primary issue here. You're calling someone a shoplifter who hasn't been convicted of a crime, innocent until proven guilty and all of that.

If you can satisfy yourself that the video evidence you have is so rock solid that you would win a defamation suit, then rock on.

NoQuarter

..Brian.. wrote: »

Humm, I believe I have answered my own question!



I think the last line below highlighted in bold, is pretty clear that publicly broadcasting the images would be a breach of data protection.






Source: http://www.dataprotection.ie/viewdoc.asp?m=m&fn=/documents/guidance/cctv.htm

I'm not sure a reference to retaining the medium the images are on is the same thing as not posting it online.

I think the same as Seamus, rock on but choose your wording carefully, i.e. "Do you know this person? They are suspected of shoplifting" or something like that instead of "have you seen this shoplifter".

hullaballoo

..Brian.. wrote: »

Humm, I believe I have answered my own question!



I think the last line below highlighted in bold, is pretty clear that publicly broadcasting the images would be a breach of data protection.






Source: http://www.dataprotection.ie/viewdoc.asp?m=m&fn=/documents/guidance/cctv.htm

On the term, "authorised personnel", can I give authorised access to the general public when I publish on youtube, for example, or is that prohibited somewhere that I also can't find?

MarkAnthony

hullaballoo wrote: »

On the term, "authorised personnel", can I give authorised access to the general public when I publish on youtube, for example, or is that prohibited somewhere that I also can't find?

I think a purposive approach should be taken to that one. Mere suggestion, I'm not getting my arse handed to me by engaging you in legal debate :pac:

feelgoodinc27

What if its private property and the person does not have explicit permission to be there?

MarkAnthony

feelgoodinc27 wrote: »

What if its private property and the person does not have explicit permission to be there?

Like a shop?

There's an implied licence.

feelgoodinc27

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Like a shop?

There's an implied licence.

Sorry this isn't directly related to the OPs query, say if someone broke into a shop when it was closed, or another case would be something like a farm yard thats on a public road.

..Brian..

gctest50 wrote: »

what sort of proof has he that they shoplifted something ?

CCTV footage of them clearly lifting stock off the shelves and putting the items into their pockets without paying.

NoQuarter wrote: »

I'm not sure a reference to retaining the medium the images are on is the same thing as not posting it online.

hullaballoo wrote: »

On the term, "authorised personnel", can I give authorised access to the general public when I publish on youtube, for example, or is that prohibited somewhere that I also can't find?

My bad, I was skimming on my phone earlier and didn't read that paragraph fully. However I think the general public do not qualify as "authorised personnel." Presumably that would be the alleged shoplifter, the victim, relevant solicitors, the office of DP, the Gardai and the courts?

I've sent an email to DP commissioners office asking for clarity, will post their response if I get one.

hullaballoo

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I think a purposive approach should be taken to that one. Mere suggestion, I'm not getting my arse handed to me by engaging you in legal debate :pac:

Is a statutory office empowered to take a purposive approach to legislative interpretation? What if the legislation being interpreted by the statutory office is interpreting the legislation establishing the office?

NoQuarter

..Brian.. wrote: »

However I think the general public do not qualify as "authorised personnel."

I'd agree but I think the provision related to the medium the video was held on, presumably to keep it safe. I didnt read it as you not being allowed to show it to authorised personel only.

Tom Young

Paulw wrote: »

I believe it would be a clear breach of the Data Protection Act.

It would want to be erroneous and unannounced: http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/6509A008A7D7D8C280257A6400541451

Section 7 - Duty of Care operates alright.

MarkAnthony

hullaballoo wrote: »

Is a statutory office empowered to take a purposive approach to legislative interpretation? What if the legislation being interpreted by the statutory office is interpreting the legislation establishing the office?

I assumed the person would be taking the claim against the publisher, I concede I am perhaps confused as to locus standi.

Happdog

Although I have never watched it as far as I’m aware Crimecall on RTE post CCTV videos of alleged crimes being committed. I do not see the Data protection commissioner getting on to RTE or the Gardaí to complain. The only person who could complain would be the perpetrator and they are unlikely to ring up Crimecall to give out.

There could be some complaint about defamation from lookalikes or someone claiming to be a lookalike. But there interesting English case about lookalikes and defamation called O’Shea V MGn Ltd [2001] EMLR 943 where the claimant sued the owner of a pornographic website and the publisher of a newspaper for libel.
She alleged that a model that appeared in the advertisements closely resembled her and that; as a result, family and friends had been led to believe she was involved in the pornography business. She brought the claim under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. She did not win and the court held that there was a difference between word and images.

hullaballoo

In relation to Crimecall and similar programmes, because they're run in conjunction with AGS, the administration of justice exception to the DPAs kicks in, fwiw.

..Brian..

So I got an email from the office of data protection confirming they had received my question and that they "aim to reply within 15 working days!"

Another thought struck me, you'll sometimes see in petrol stations posting up screen caps of vehicles or people who haven't paid or whatever.

Ciaran_B

The High Court has overturned a €50,000 defamation award against a shop which allegedly put up a picture of a man on its door with the words "Attention Shoplifters".

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/50000-award-for-shoplifter-defamation-is-overturned-31189353.html

..Brian..

..Brian.. wrote: »

Another thought struck me, you'll sometimes see in petrol stations posting up screen caps of vehicles or people who haven't paid or whatever.

Its not defamation if its true.

BUT, if the guy can argue that he didn't shoplift anything, and the video incorrectly appeared to show him, or that he put the item back before he left the shop, you could be taken to the cleaners.

Ciaran_B

Ciaran_B wrote: »

The High Court has overturned a €50,000 defamation award against a shop which allegedly put up a picture of a man on its door with the words "Attention Shoplifters".

That was overturned because there was no evidence that the picture was ever put on the door. However if €50,000 was the reward for a poster on a door, think what it could be for a video on facebook or youtube. The Courts are gone compo mad.

234

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The Courts are gone compo mad.

Complete horse manure. This is a widelt held but consistently inaccurate perception that has never been empirically justified.

234

234 wrote: »

Complete horse manure. This is a widelt held but consistently inaccurate perception that has never been empirically justified.

The case in point - you consider €50,000 would have been appropriate???

I think its waaaayyy over the odds. Vindication of his good name should have been enough.

234

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The case in point - you consider €50,000 would have been appropriate???

I think its waaaayyy over the odds. Vindication of his good name should have been enough.

So your using an example where a claim was denied as evidence of a compensation culture? You'll need to provide something better. And newspaper reports of individual cases have all the statistical and probative value of Paul the octopus.

..Brian..

So the DP office came back to me.

Dear Mr xxxxx

Thank you for your recent email.

We offer a guidance note which outlines that the sharing of any data as to
the alleged commission of an offence by data controllers (different
retailers sharing information/photos of individuals) would not be compliant
with the provisions of the Data Protection Acts:
http://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/Commissioner_launches_new_guidance_on_data_sharing_in_the_pr/530.htm

Our CCTV guidance and data security guidance is available at the links
below for your information:
http://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/Data_Protection_amp;_CCTV/242.htm
http://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/Data_security_guidance/1091.htm

I hope that this is of assistance.


Yours Sincerely

Stewart Fennell
Information Officer
Office of the Data Protection Commissioner
Canal House
Station Road
Portarlington
Co. Laois

..Brian..

..Brian.. wrote: »

the sharing of any data as to
the alleged commission of an offence by data controllers (different
retailers sharing information/photos of individuals) would not be compliant
with the provisions of the Data Protection Acts:.

Surprises me a litle bit. I would have thought that large stores would be pooling their shoplifting data. I always thought that security in one store are in contact with others in their area, like if shoplifters get run out of a shop in Grafton Street, other stops in the area get to learn that they are about.
Perhaps the data doesnt belong to individual stores but to contracted security firms who can then apply it to all the stores that they cover....?

drunkmonkey

The Gardai should set up a dedicated website and post the videos to Facebook themselves.
Retailers have no faith in the force even if they do manage to get a conviction or even identify the person the punishment is too light, the scumbags think the whole thing is a joke. It is a joke.

Might be a crude but put a ball and chain on each person that's convicted for 12mts and you'll see the shop lifting rate drop in a heart beat. It won't hurt them but they'll think again before lifting something.

Tracksuits in the socks should be an automatic court appearance, dna test and fingerprinting, as it's not a fashion thing it's purely for the purpose of shoplifting/stealing.
I've barred people for it, not sure if it's legal but what's a scumbag going to do about it and the same applies to the videos.

Zambia

As I said previously cops here post images on their online site. They don't say "this bloke is a thief" they say "there was a theft in dunned stores on Wednesday, police want to speak to the depicted person in the hope he can assist with their enquiries"

irishgeo

..Brian.. wrote: »

So I got an email from the office of data protection confirming they had received my question and that they "aim to reply within 15 working days!"

Another thought struck me, you'll sometimes see in petrol stations posting up screen caps of vehicles or people who haven't paid or whatever.

The screenshot of a car is fine. But the screenshot of person who hasn't paid isn't.

irishgeo

irishgeo wrote: »

The screenshot of a car is fine. But the screenshot of person who hasn't paid isn't.

I wonder is that because of Irish defamation law (although I think proof that the statement is true is a valid defence) rather than data protection.

A German government minister recently accused the Irish data protection office of being deliberately ineffective, stating this was the real reason why facebook et al are here, not any tax breaks...

234

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder is that because of Irish defamation law (although I think proof that the statement is true is a valid defence) rather than data protection.

A German government minister recently accused the Irish data protection office of being deliberately ineffective, stating this was the real reason why facebook et al are here, not any tax breaks...

Hm, my impression of Irish data protection law has always been as one of the most aggressive in Europe. Hence, why when companies like Facebook or Google are taken to the ECJ it's on the basis of breaches of Irish or Austrian data protection law. Open to informed correction on this though.

mdebets

irishgeo wrote: »

The screenshot of a car is fine. But the screenshot of person who hasn't paid isn't.

It's probably, that for petrol theft it's much easier to have a full trail of video footage showing the crime. You probably have the camera turned onto the different filling positions and on the cashier. All you need to proof that the petrol was stolen, is to show the camera of them putting petrol in the car and then driving off, without going to the cashier.
In a shop, it's much more difficult. You need a full trail of the person from the time he took it until the time he left the store, without any possibility of him having disposed off the product somewhere in the store, where the camera doesn't show it. If he did this, he wasn't stealing and would get a nice pay out if the shop claimed he did and post a video of him online.

234

234 wrote: »

Hm, my impression of Irish data protection law has always been as one of the most aggressive in Europe. Hence, why when companies like Facebook or Google are taken to the ECJ it's on the basis of breaches of Irish or Austrian data protection law. Open to informed correction on this though.

Not so. Its because to get to the ECJ you need to go through the applicable national laws. Because these companies have their European HQs in Ireland its Irish law that applies so that if a case ends up in the ECJ for these companies its likely been in the Irish system. I din't know who is based in Austria.
There are national regulators in the other Member States but they don't have prime responsibility for facebook etc and feel Ireland is too soft... France and Germany are way tougher on personal privacy in general than Ireland is.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.