Shop cctv

Shelflife

Why don't retail outlets make more use of their cctvs on their social media platforms ?

If they are subject to say a shoplifting incident or robbery what's to stop them posting the incident on Facebook and ask the public to help them with their enquiries?

If they don't make any accusations and let the stills or video speak for themselves are they in danger of a defamation case ?

athtrasna

Shelflife wrote: »

Why don't retail outlets make more use of their cctvs on their social media platforms ?

If they are subject to say a shoplifting incident or robbery what's to stop them posting the incident on Facebook and ask the public to help them with their enquiries?

If they don't make any accusations and let the stills or video speak for themselves are they in danger of a defamation case ?

Jeopardises a successful prosecution, and makes jury selection more difficult. Remember we still have presumed innocence until guilt is proven.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

ScouseMouse

Data protection act prevents it. I still did it though. Got GREAT results

Shelflife

How does data protection prevent it? You are allowed to share it with the gardai.

If the video/clip is posted with only a can you identify these people to help us with our enquires comment , surely you haven't defamed anyone ,

Glad it worked scouse mouse, sounds satisfying !

hullaballoo

The Data Protection Acts don't actually prevent it. The previous Commissioner had a policy in relation to it but there is nothing in the terms of the DPAs that prevents it.

The most important point has already been addressed above and that is the prejudice it would cause for any potential prosecution. Defamation is also a concern but it is the lesser of the two.

Shelflife

How would it prejudice a trial ? If I post a clip clearly showing hullabaloo take a bottle of Coke from the fridge and run out the door without paying? How is that any different to a news clip that captures a live incident ?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

hullaballoo

That coke was just em... resting in my account I paid for it the day before.

Media coverage can prejudice a trial. Do you remember that gangster in Limerick who was plastered all over the front pages giving the two fingers to journalists when his trial collapsed? That was because media coverage had been deemed to be so prejudicial that he could not get a fair trial.

Where footage is released by AGS, it is done so in a measured way to ensure any prejudice is minimised and media outlets are only allowed to say specific things about it. That's why so many media reports about incidents these days are so hazy and cagey. Although it is extremely doubtful that AGS have lawyers assessing the potential prejudice that might be done by the release of too much information on their investigations, they have been burnt enough to be quite careful about it in most cases.

Video footage can be prejudicial in many ways. Remember that taxi driver who posted footage of a group of people doing a runner from his cab one night? A man was identified as a main culprit before it transpired that the person identified was in Japan at the time. Had he not had that alibi, he could have been greatly prejudiced by the affirmations of the many youtube commenters that it was him.

Video footage can also be edited in a way that could create a defamation. Creating footage of someone leaving a shop with an item that they haven't paid for can be created by artfully editing out the part where they pay for the item. Etc., etc.


P.S. Shelflife, you have referred to hullabaloo taking a bottle of coke without paying. I am assuming that you mean me but you have incorrectly identified me. Poor Hullabaloo.

esforum

Shelflife wrote: »

Why don't retail outlets make more use of their cctvs on their social media platforms ?

If they are subject to say a shoplifting incident or robbery what's to stop them posting the incident on Facebook and ask the public to help them with their enquiries?

If they don't make any accusations and let the stills or video speak for themselves are they in danger of a defamation case ?

A, thats not what CCTV is for

B, They would be prosecuted under data protection

C, they would be sued

D, they have better things for their staff to do

hullaballoo

esforum wrote: »

B, They would be prosecuted under data protection

How would you rate the chances of a prosecution under "data protection" for this "offence" of recording and then publishing CCTV footage?

I'm really interested to know the answer to this question as it has arisen many times over the lifespan of this forum without any answer given.

Don't link the decision of the previous DPC because that is not the law and the law is, after all, the only thing that we are interested in for this forum's purposes.

esforum

hullaballoo wrote: »

How would you rate the chances of a prosecution under "data protection" for this "offence" of recording and then publishing CCTV footage?

I'm really interested to know the answer to this question as it has arisen many times over the lifespan of this forum without any answer given.

Don't link the decision of the previous DPC because that is not the law and the law is, after all, the only thing that we are interested in for this forum's purposes.

The DPC can bring cases against people under section 30 so their decisions are somewhat relevent.

The chances of success? It depends on the case, using CCTV from inside a shop and then showing it to the public via social media and suggesting someone is a criminal? I think you would stand a good chance of winning that case, obviously I am assuming for this topic that a criminal case for the theft isnt forthcoming and I took from the OP that that was the case.

In regards prosecution, I think you could be prosecuted for an offence under either Section 10 (9) or 21 of the DPA.

doublej

If you give the recording to AGS ,could you not place the clip/screenshot online advising viewers that Gardai would appreciate assistance in identifying the people?
To be honest, unless a retailer presses the matter, there is a limited appetite from the Guards to spend too much time investigating what some may consider to be a petty crime.

Ciaran_B

There was a shop in Dublin used to have pictures on their wall they printed out from their CCTV system. Picture of people robbing from the shop.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

seamus

Ciaran_B wrote: »

There was a shop in Dublin used to have pictures on their wall they printed out from their CCTV system. Picture of people robbing from the shop.

Qualified gamble, like Mr. Scouser above.

Basically taking the bet that the people in the images aren't going to come forward and "out" themselves in order to sue, for fear of being prosecuted because now they've identified themselves.

It's perfectly legal, the question is really about whether it's a good idea.

As hullaballoo states, the Gardai usually release images and video, along with a statement that's carefully crafted to avoid accusation or implication.

So they chop out the part of the video that shows the guy walking out of the shop after stealing, and instead choose 5 seconds of video where you can see him walking around the shop and little else. Then the statement says, "We would like to identify this individual to assist us with an investigation into a theft at this shop."

The dogs on the street know what the means, but you haven't shown him doing anything nor accused him of anything. So any case isn't prejudiced and a defamation case can't be brought.

MarkR

If you have cctv in your premises, you are a data controller. If you have identifiable images (data) of people, this must be stored securely. Sticking it up on facebook would probably not be considered to be secure. Interesting read, if you want.
https://www.dataprotection.ie/viewdoc.asp?m=m&fn=/documents/guidance/cctv.htm

Actually, this one is very relevant.
http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/crime-victim-faces-fine-of-100000-over-cctv-website-30005589.html

Guys posts images from his own cctv after being robbed, forced to take it down.

ScouseMouse

Ciaran_B wrote: »

There was a shop in Dublin used to have pictures on their wall they printed out from their CCTV system. Picture of people robbing from the shop.

That could have been me. I had a facebook page aswell and put up video of a woman putting cartons of BIRDS CUSTARD in her knickers. Another one was a guy sticking expensive car mags up his sleeve, then there was the video of a guy grabbing 2 cases of lucozade and running to a waiting van.

In the last case, I put it on facebook where I had 1800 "friends". Within an hour the uncle was down complaining his nephew was on facebook and I couldn't do that. I explained he could complain to the guards and I reached for the phone.


"NO, NO, its okay".......

Really works and the thieves stay away from me now.

cml387

A certain small Dublin hotel famous on Facebook was forced to take down cctv footage of an incident by the DPC, I believe.

Ciaran_B

ScouseMouse wrote: »

That could have been me.

Are you on Talbot St? It was the little shop at the bottom near the bombing memorial.

ScouseMouse

Sorry man, wrong shop. I am out in the suburbs.

esforum

ScouseMouse wrote: »

Sorry man, wrong shop. I am out in the suburbs.

Shop on Main Street of Swords used to do it as well, closed now but I think it was a Spar

Grab All Association

athtrasna wrote: »

Jeopardises a successful prosecution, and makes jury selection more difficult. Remember we still have presumed innocence until guilt is proven.

The majority (if not all) cases for shoplifting would take place in the district court

the_syco

MarkR wrote: »

Actually, this one is very relevant.
http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/crime-victim-faces-fine-of-100000-over-cctv-website-30005589.html

Guys posts images from his own cctv after being robbed, forced to take it down.

I'm pretty sure that the footage he had to take down is in reference to the criminals being in a public property, not on private property. CCTV operators have to try to not record people on public property, I think?

esforum

Grab All Association wrote: »

The majority (if not all) cases for shoplifting would take place in the district court

its their right to elect for trial by jury if they so desire. The fact that its common changes nothing.

the_syco wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that the footage he had to take down is in reference to the criminals being in a public property, not on private property. CCTV operators have to try to not record people on public property, I think?

I think you are getting mixed up between 'pubic place' and 'public property'. A shop floor is a public place as is the exterior but most shops / premises will have their door covered by a camera. Public property would be a library, etc. Its governed by the same rules