Dash cam and Data Protection

jenny smith

Is there any Data Protection aspect to having a dashcam? If you upload footage showing people or their reg plates. A lot of papers seem to blank out reg plates now.

brian_t

jenny smith wrote: »

Is there any Data Protection aspect to having a dashcam? If you upload footage showing people or their reg plates. A lot of papers seem to blank out reg plates now

You asked the same question last August.

Car registrations personal data ?

jenny smith

https://www.blakemorgan.co.uk/news-events/news/domestic-cctv-data-protection/

It is an important ruling for anyone who uses CCTV on their home as well as those who use other monitoring devices in public.

Paulw

A dashcam isn't CCTV though. Very different.

gizmo555

jenny smith wrote: »

https://www.blakemorgan.co.uk/news-events/news/domestic-cctv-data-protection/

It is an important ruling for anyone who uses CCTV on their home as well as those who use other monitoring devices in public.

Paulw wrote: »

A dashcam isn't CCTV though. Very different.

Read the article:

The ruling has significant implications beyond the use of CCTV monitoring; in particular, for to the use of other data recording devices which are commonly used by individuals in public. For example, the use of body worn cameras by cyclists and dashboard cameras used by motorists for insurance purposes; filming on smartphones; and covert surveillance in care homes where relatives suspect mistreatment.

GM228

jenny smith wrote: »

https://www.blakemorgan.co.uk/news-events/news/domestic-cctv-data-protection/

It is an important ruling for anyone who uses CCTV on their home as well as those who use other monitoring devices in public.

Paulw wrote: »

A dashcam isn't CCTV though. Very different.

gizmo555 wrote: »

Read the article:

The ruling has significant implications beyond the use of CCTV monitoring; in particular, for to the use of other data recording devices which are commonly used by individuals in public. For example, the use of body worn cameras by cyclists and dashboard cameras used by motorists for insurance purposes; filming on smartphones; and covert surveillance in care homes where relatives suspect mistreatment.

Here is the ruling:-

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=160561&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=19547

Indeed it isn't limited to CCTV, but rather recording of images in a public place by a camera for personal or household purposes (CCTV, dash cams etc are all cameras at the end of the day).

The ruling was in relation to a camera installed in the private home which captured data in a public place, a camera installed in a public place capturing data in a public place would probably not fall under the ruling as it wouldn't be considered a recording for a purely personal or household reason.

coylemj

jenny smith wrote: »

Is there any Data Protection aspect to having a dashcam? If you upload footage showing people or their reg plates. A lot of papers seem to blank out reg plates now.

They are covering their asses because of two cases where people claimed that they were defamed through their images being shown on TV ....

1. Garda Commissioner Larry Wren happened to be passing in Henry St. one day (he was in civvies, might have even been retired) when RTE recorded a video clip for use in a piece about selling fake cigarettes or similar. Nobody in the editing studio spotted him so his image was carried in the report. He sued, RTE settled.

2. A female barrister was in a queue of cars at a Garda checkpoint one day. RTE recorded a few seconds of video showing the queue of cars probably in a piece about drink driving enforcement coming up to Christmas.

Female barrister sued, claimed half the people in the law library would have recognised her car and assumed she was stopped for drink driving, RTE settled.

hullaballoo

RTÉ are wimps.

I have never seen anything that suggests that there are DPA implications for recording videos in a public place. Plenty of people disagree with me on that but they're all wrong.

jenny smith

coylemj wrote: »

They are covering their asses because of two cases where people claimed that they were defamed through their images being shown on TV ....

1. Garda Commissioner Larry Wren happened to be passing in Henry St. one day (he was in civvies, might have even been retired) when RTE recorded a video clip for use in a piece about selling fake cigarettes or similar. Nobody in the editing studio spotted him so his image was carried in the report. He sued, RTE settled.

2. A female barrister was in a queue of cars at a Garda checkpoint one day. RTE recorded a few seconds of video showing the queue of cars probably in a piece about drink driving enforcement coming up to Christmas.

Female barrister sued, claimed half the people in the law library would have recognised her car and assumed she was stopped for drink driving, RTE settled.

Could anyone shown in such footage sue as Larry Wren did?

ohnonotgmail

jenny smith wrote: »

Could anyone shown in such footage sue as Larry Wren did?

Anybody can sue. the question is would they win. I suspect not. But for the likes of RTE even successfully defending such a case can be expensive.

jenny smith

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Anybody can sue. the question is would they win. I suspect not. But for the likes of RTE even successfully defending such a case can be expensive.

What i meant is would someone like Mr Wren have a better chance given his job and his being known?

ohnonotgmail

jenny smith wrote: »

What i meant is would someone like Mr Wren have a better chance given his job and his being known?

I dont see why. I cant even see what they could possibly sue for. As hullabaloo said RTE wimped out in both cases.

coylemj

jenny smith wrote: »

What i meant is would someone like Mr Wren have a better chance given his job and his being known?

Yes, that was the basis of his case. He was a recognizable (i.e. public) figure so RTE couldn't (according to him) claim that he was just another anonymous citizen going about his lawful business.

ohnonotgmail

coylemj wrote: »

Yes, that was the basis of his case. He was a recognizable (i.e. public) figure so RTE couldn't (according to him) claim that he was just another anonymous citizen going about his lawful business.

recognisable to who? the current commissioner could walk past me in the street and i probably wouldn't notice. well not unless she was wearing the uniform.

coylemj

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

recognisable to who? the current commissioner could walk past me in the street and i probably wouldn't notice. well not unless she was wearing the uniform.

Brief a good lawyer and you'll be as famous as the Kardashians by the time you get into court.

But seriously, what you're saying is correct and applied to that female barrister I mentioned above, the only people she claimed would recognise her car were her professional colleagues, she made no claim about being a household name but RTE caved in and wrote her a cheque.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

GM228

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Number plates are not personal data.

I have a previous e-mail from the DPC confirming that car registration plates are considered a form of personal data as per the EUs Article 29 "Opinion 4/2007 on the Concept of Personal Data" as it will indirectly make someone identifiable.

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2007/wp136_en.pdf

3. THIRD ELEMENT: “IDENTIFIED OR IDENTIFIABLE” [NATURAL PERSON]

The Directive requires that the information relate to a natural person that is “identified or identifiable”. This raises the following considerations. In general terms, a natural person can be considered as “identified” when, within a group of persons, he or she is "distinguished" from all other members of the group. Accordingly, the natural person is “identifiable” when, although the person has not been identified yet, it is possible to do it (that is the meaning of the suffix "-able"). This second alternative is therefore in practice the threshold condition determining whether information is within the scope of the third element. Identification is normally achieved through particular pieces of information which we may call “identifiers” and which hold a particularly privileged and close relationship with the particular individual. Examples are outward signs of the appearance of this person, like height, hair colour, clothing, etc… or a quality of the person which cannot be immediately perceived, like a profession, a function, a name etc. The Directive mentions those “identifiers” in the definition of “personal data” in Article 2 when it states that a natural person "can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity".

"Directly" or "indirectly" identifiable

Further clarification is contained in the commentary to the Articles of the amended Commission proposal, in the sense that "a person may be identified directly by name or indirectly by a telephone number, a car registration number, a social security number, a passport number or by a combination of significant criteria which allows him to be recognized by narrowing down the group to which he belongs (age, occupation, place of residence, etc.)". The terms of this statement clearly indicate that the extent to which certain identifiers are sufficient to achieve identification is something dependent on the context of the particular situation. A very common family name will not be sufficient to identify someone - i.e. to single someone out - from the whole of a country's population, while it is likely to achieve identification of a pupil in a classroom. Even ancillary information, such as "the man wearing a black suit" may identify someone out of the passers-by standing at a traffic light. So, the question of whether the individual to whom the information relates is identified or not depends on the circumstances of the case.

This is why the EU insisted Google blured plates on Google Earth.


EDIT: There was also a 2013 case in the UK where Hertfordshire Police fell foul with the Information Commissioners Office who also confirmed licence plates were considered personal data as per decision FS50186040.

Recently, the ICO took enforcement action against Hertfordshire Constabulary in circumstances where breach of the DPA by the police could have been avoided had a DPA been carried out. The Constabulary had installed automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras to monitor traffic going in and out of the town of Royston. In a landmark decision, the ICO declared the practice to be unlawful and ordered the Constabulary to cease all processing of information recorded by the cameras immediately and not to resume until an assessment of the risk to individuals’ privacy has been conducted which demonstrates that the practice is in compliance with the requirements of the DPA.

The system was deemed to be unlawful by the ICO because license plates and other vehicle registration marks constitute personal data under the DPA and, as such, the Constabulary was under a duty not to process personal data that was excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which it was collected originally. In addition, the practice was found to be a violation of the vehicle license plate holders’ right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Victor

GM228 wrote: »

This is why the EU insisted Google blured plates on Google Earth.

This also flagged the parts of the original data for the NSA to look at. :eek:

jenny smith

GM228 wrote: »

I have a previous e-mail from the DPC confirming that car registration plates are considered a form of personal data as per the EUs Article 29 "Opinion 4/2007 on the Concept of Personal Data" as it will indirectly make someone identifiable.

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2007/wp136_en.pdf



This is why the EU insisted Google blured plates on Google Earth.


EDIT: There was also a 2013 case in the UK where Hertfordshire Police fell foul with the Information Commissioners Office who also confirmed licence plates were considered personal data as per decision FS50186040.

Saw a newspaper report a few months ago about a pedestrian crossing where the lollipop lady was retiring and not being replaced. Parents complained it was danger to childre going to school and they had a photo showing people crossing. There was a car approaching when the photo was taken. The reg plates were blanked out

Thanks for the feedback, very interesting

jenny smith

coylemj wrote: »

Brief a good lawyer and you'll be as famous as the Kardashians by the time you get into court.

But seriously, what you're saying is correct and applied to that female barrister I mentioned above, the only people she claimed would recognise her car were her professional colleagues, she made no claim about being a household name but RTE caved in and wrote her a cheque.

Well i am known to my neighbours , cannot be gossipped about as if i were driving drunk...