Filming of houses cars etc

Santa Claus

So I brought the dog out for a walk on the green in our estate yesterday evening and there were 2 individuals driving around in a car with one of them sitting out the back window of the car filming all of the houses in the estate.

They were being so blatant that I don't think there was anything nefarious behind it but they drove around the green again and again for about 20 minutes filming on a video camera.

I did stop and challenge them as to what they were doing and they mumbled something about a music video so I asked them if they had a permit they replied no and continued driving around filming.

What is the legality of this, I know they are in a public place but are they obliged to obscure any identifying data from the footage such as faces of people they may have captured, number plates of cars etc.

Victor

Santa Claus wrote: »

I asked them if they had a permit they replied no and continued driving around filming.

No permit required in a public place.

splinter65

Santa Claus wrote: »

So I brought the dog out for a walk on the green in our estate yesterday evening and there were 2 individuals driving around in a car with one of them sitting out the back window of the car filming all of the houses in the estate.

They were being so blatant that I don't think there was anything nefarious behind it but they drove around the green again and again for about 20 minutes filming on a video camera.

I did stop and challenge them as to what they were doing and they mumbled something about a music video so I asked them if they had a permit they replied no and continued driving around filming.

What is the legality of this, I know they are in a public place but are they obliged to obscure any identifying data from the footage such as faces of people they may have captured, number plates of cars etc.

Once your out in public nobody needs to get your permission to film you or take your picture.
If you think about it clearly it would be totally impossible to impose any kind of a law against it.

p15574

Just to be on the safe side, I'd report it to the Gardaí, so they'd have the reg noted in case there's a sudden upsurge in burglaries in the area. We've been advised to do this by our community Garda if we see any suspicious vehicles. Obviously it's perfectly legal to do what they're doing, it's just a bit odd.

FishOnABike

I would think sitting out the back window of a car contravenes some road traffic legislation or other e.g. compulsory wearing of a seat belt but I don't see any issue with photographing or filming what's in open public view.

thejaguar

There could be some privacy implications - similar to operating a dashcam...

https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/guidance-landing/guidance-drivers-use-dash-cams

cruizer101

Victor wrote: »

No permit required in a public place.

Even if for a commercial purpose? I had thought there was.

Homer

cruizer101 wrote: »

Even if for a commercial purpose? I had thought there was.

Where does it mention commercial purposes? Could be kids mucking about.. could be burglars doing there homework equally.

punisher5112

What I would consider weird is a thing that happened years ago standing outside the then bosses house, I car drove by and the passenger had a big camera and took a photo while driving by. The flash was what caught me and this was at 7am on a dark morning. Now that was weird.

You had no right to challenge them though as they done nothing wrong.

If they were on private property then an issue can arrise.

Public is free game.

Victor

p15574 wrote: »

Just to be on the safe side, I'd report it to the Gardaí, so they'd have the reg noted in case there's a sudden upsurge in burglaries in the area. We've been advised to do this by our community Garda if we see any suspicious vehicles. Obviously it's perfectly legal to do what they're doing, it's just a bit odd.

Have you heard of Google Street View?

cruizer101

Homer wrote: »

Where does it mention commercial purposes? Could be kids mucking about.. could be burglars doing there homework equally.

Santa Claus wrote: »

mumbled something about a music video so I asked them if they had a permit they replied no and continued driving around filming.

I know they just mumbled and good chance its not true but they did say it

dudara

Victor wrote: »

Have you heard of Google Street View?

It's a fair comment. Google Street View is of a point in time and could even be a few years old. Reconnoitring the area in advance could show what time people leave to go to work, etc.

runawaybishop

thejaguar wrote: »

There could be some privacy implications - similar to operating a dashcam...

https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/guidance-landing/guidance-drivers-use-dash-cams

Link doesn't direct to that page, but in general there are no privacy implications with dashcams in public places.

Robbo

runawaybishop wrote: »

Link doesn't direct to that page, but in general there are no privacy implications with dashcams in public places.

Link fixed and the opinion of the DPC is that dashcam operators are most likely data controllers. The notion that the operator of a private CCTV system could rely on the "household exemption" has been exploded since Rynes in 2014.

So yes, there are privacy implications to the use of dashcams in public places.

runawaybishop

Robbo wrote: »

Link fixed and the opinion of the DPC is that dashcam operators are most likely data controllers. The notion that the operator of a private CCTV system could rely on the "household exemption" has been exploded since Rynes in 2014.

So yes, there are privacy implications to the use of dashcams in public places.

Dashcams aren't CCTV though and the data commissioner said 'may'. There are scenarios involving private places where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists where there would be an issue but in general, dashcams are grand.

Robbo

runawaybishop wrote: »

Dashcams aren't CCTV though and the data commissioner said 'may'. There are scenarios involving private places where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists where there would be an issue but in general, dashcams are grand.

Under what Jesuitical interpretation of the phrase "Closed Circuit Television" could you decide that dashcams are something else?

runawaybishop

Robbo wrote: »

Under what Jesuitical interpretation of the phrase "Closed Circuit Television" could you decide that dashcams are something else?

That was a specified case years ago before current gdpr legislation on fixed closed circuit cameras. Dashcams for personal use are grand. Business use falls under gdpr. Posting dashcam footage legitimately obtained online is a gdpr issue.

Robbo

runawaybishop wrote: »

That was a specified case years ago before current gdpr legislation on fixed closed circuit cameras. Dashcams for personal use are grand. Business use falls under gdpr. Posting dashcam footage legitimately obtained online is a gdpr issue.

Do you think that decades of jurisprudence on data protection and privacy suddenly became obsolete on May 25th of 2018?

Whether the camera is fixed or not is irrelevant, the fact is that data processing is being carried out in a manner which cannot be excused by the household exemption. You need to look at this from the starting point of fundamental rights and interpret things through these principles, as in Rynes at Para 29.

Since the provisions of Directive 95/46, in so far as they govern the processing of personal data liable to infringe fundamental freedoms, in particular the right to privacy, must necessarily be interpreted in the light of the fundamental rights set out in the Charter (see Google Spain and Google, EU:C:2014:317, paragraph 68), the exception provided for in the second indent of Article 3(2) of that directive must be narrowly construed.

I think before it makes an appearance, I think we can all agree that the "no expectation of privacy in a public place" canard can be left alone.

runawaybishop

Robbo wrote: »

Do you think that decades of jurisprudence on data protection and privacy suddenly became obsolete on May 25th of 2018?

Whether the camera is fixed or not is irrelevant, the fact is that data processing is being carried out in a manner which cannot be excused by the household exemption. You need to look at this from the starting point of fundamental rights and interpret things through these principles, as in Rynes at Para 29.

Yeah I've read it, I've also read nothing else that supports it in the same scenario as a dashcam, only potential issues and generalities around personal use.
That ruling was specifically on the original legislations narrow interpretation of personal use, which was defined in the current legislation.Tbh I think the ruling was flawed fundamentally and actually thought it was successfully challenged, willing to be corrected on that though.

Just saw your edit, yeah I agree with that in general.