Cameras (CCTV or Smart) & GDPR

Clareman

There was a discussion in another thread a while back about cameras and GDPR, it was off topic for that thread and the Op asked it to be closed so thought it would be best to start a new thread.

The Data Protection Commissioner, Helen Dixon, has addressed the issue in an article on The Journal

In a nutshell, cameras should only within the perimeter of your home and the footage only to be used by the owner, if you go beyond this then you become a data controller and have all the responsibilities that goes also and if you go beyond that you could become a data controller. The bit that confuses me is where the perimeter of a home is, is that the building or are driveways/yards included, I think it's clear that paths/roads are not.

Del2005

My understanding is that once your camera is covering public areas then you are not compliant with the law. So you can cover your out buildings but not the public road or public footpath.

Mount your camera on external locations looking towards your property, not on your property looking towards the perimeter.

Clareman

Del2005 wrote: »

My understanding is that once your camera is covering public areas then you are not compliant with the law. So you can cover your out buildings but not the public road or public footpath.

Mount your camera on external locations looking towards your property, not on your property looking towards the perimeter.

That's my understanding as well, I also try to keep my camera angle below the level of the external walls, that way I'm not accidentally getting stuff I shouldn't be getting

irelandrover

How will this work with video doorbells? I assume almost all would take in public places as pointing them at the ground reduces there use.

Clareman

irelandrover wrote: »

How will this work with video doorbells? I assume almost all would take in public places as pointing them at the ground reduces there use.

Video doorbells and dashcams are difficult but I guess once you don't share the footage from them you are ok, I think the Nest Hello allows you to set a boundary as to where you can see footage, I've never bothered myself.

2011

Clareman wrote: »

I think the Nest Hello allows you to set a boundary as to where you can see footage, I've never bothered myself.

No, the Nest Hello allows you to draw a boundary so that only movement within the boundary generates a notification.

I have dash cams on my car following an attempted fraudulent claim and I have a Nest Hello that records footage outside my home. As an owner of licensed firearms I plan on installing a professional CCTV system in the near future. I have decided not to worry about this regardless of what the legalities are. I don’t believe I will end up in any trouble as a result of this. In fact I have found the Gardai very supportive of my proposal to install a CCTV system.

maxamillius

2011 wrote: »

No, the Nest Hello allows you to draw a boundary so that only movement within the boundary generates a notification.

I have dash cams on my car following an attempted fraudulent claim and I have a Nest Hello that records footage outside my home. As an owner of licensed firearms I plan on installing a professional CCTV system in the near future. I have decided not to worry about this regardless of what the legalities are. I don’t believe I will end up in any trouble as a result of this. In fact I have found the Gardai very supportive of my proposal to install a CCTV system.

Out of complete interest, are the firearms for hunting? Or just collect as a hobby?

punisher5112

So basically if one is asked have they footage, answer is no.....

We caught on CCTV the neighbours house attempted burglary and burglary on CCTV.

Gave it to the Gardai and absolutely nothing done, the 2 males were imo known.

If you don't share the footage then no issues.
What if the camera is indoor but catches public places would that fall under the same.


I find the whole thing bizarre to be honest as cameras are now everywhere such as work, street cams, cars etc.

Clareman

2011 wrote: »

No, the Nest Hello allows you to draw a boundary so that only movement within the boundary generates a notification.

I have dash cams on my car following an attempted fraudulent claim and I have a Nest Hello that records footage outside my home. As an owner of licensed firearms I plan on installing a professional CCTV system in the near future. I have decided not to worry about this regardless of what the legalities are. I don’t believe I will end up in any trouble as a result of this. In fact I have found the Gardai very supportive of my proposal to install a CCTV system.

This is where most people will fall i think, ultimately if you need footage for anything then data protection will be the least of your concerns

Del2005

Clareman wrote: »

This is where most people will fall i think, ultimately if you need footage for anything then data protection will be the least of your concerns

Especially since nearly every news report asks for dash cam or domestic CCTV footage. I wonder if the data protection commissioner ever sanctions the Gardai for encouraging data protection violations?

Clareman

Del2005 wrote: »

Especially since nearly every news report asks for dash cam or domestic CCTV footage. I wonder if the data protection commissioner ever sanctions the Gardai for encouraging data protection violations?

GDPR is just 1 part of data protection so I'd imagine any data used will have to be vetted by the DPP first, i know loads of businesses who's camera's have been used to identify car break ins for example. It's when a case like Graham Dwyer comes up is when there's an issue

2011

maxamillius wrote: »

Out of complete interest, are the firearms for hunting? Or just collect as a hobby?

I'm afraid that is classified.... :cool:

punisher5112

Clareman wrote: »

GDPR is just 1 part of data protection so I'd imagine any data used will have to be vetted by the DPP first, i know loads of businesses who's camera's have been used to identify car break ins for example. It's when a case like Graham Dwyer comes up is when there's an issue

The reason for that is it needs to be verified if the footage has been tampered with or time lines changed etc...

2011

Clareman wrote: »

This is where most people will fall i think, ultimately if you need footage for anything then data protection will be the least of your concerns

I'm not sure what you mean by either of these remarks.

All I can say is that I regret not having a dash cam on my car when I was almost the victim of a fraudulent claim, it would have saved a lot of sleepless nights. I found the entire experience very stressful. I was expecting to be sued for personal injury and/or damage to another car. This could have taken me years to financially recover from. The person that claimed that I drove into him conveniently had a witness and I had nobody to corroborate my version of events. I was in fact parked at the time with the engine off, but the truth is not always enough. The Gardai told me that this individual had a "colourful" past

Luckily for me there was CCTV in the area (McDonalds car park) which may be why this individual lost interest pursuing the claim.

Following this incident I told my insurance company that I intended on installing dash cams. They were very supportive of this and explained to me that such evidence is often used to establish what happened and determine who was in the wrong. I got the cameras fitted 2 weeks later.

So regardless of GDPR I will continue to use my video doorbell, the camera on my smart phone and dash cams just like so many others across the country. I think most taxis and busses have them now. I remain confident that I will not have any issues as a result of this.

Clareman

2011 wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by either of these remarks.

All I can say is that I regret not having a dash cam on my car when I was almost the victim of a fraudulent claim, it would have saved a lot of sleepless nights. I found the entire experience very stressful. I was expecting to be sued for personal injury and/or damage to another car. This could have taken me years to financially recover from. The person that claimed that I drove into him conveniently had a witness and I had nobody to corroborate my version of events. I was in fact parked at the time with the engine off, but the truth is not always enough. The Gardai told me that this individual had a "colourful" past

Luckily for me there was CCTV in the area (McDonalds car park) which may be why this individual lost interest pursuing the claim.

Following this incident I told my insurance company that I intended on installing dash cams. They were very supportive of this and explained to me that such evidence is often used to establish what happened and determine who was in the wrong. I got the cameras fitted 2 weeks later.

So regardless of GDPR I will continue to use my video doorbell, the camera on my smart phone and dash cams just like so many others across the country. I think most taxis and busses have them now. I remain confident that I will not have any issues as a result of this.

What I meant was that most people will ignore GDPR or be willing to not worry about it as they have valid reasons for having the devices/footage. As you pointed out, you had a dashcam, most insurance companies are big fan of them, in fact 1 of them were giving a discount to customers with dashcams but the DPC came out against them, just because the DPC doesn't like them doesn't mean that people are stopping to use them, which reminds me I've been meaning to get 1 for ages.

maxamillius

2011 wrote: »

I'm afraid that is classified.... :cool:

No worries, curiosity got the best of me!!!

2011

Clareman wrote: »

What I meant was that most people will ignore GDPR or be willing to not worry about it as they have valid reasons for having the devices/footage. As you pointed out, you had a dashcam, most insurance companies are big fan of them, in fact 1 of them were giving a discount to customers with dashcams but the DPC came out against them, just because the DPC doesn't like them doesn't mean that people are stopping to use them, which reminds me I've been meaning to get 1 for ages.

Ok, thanks.
Who are DPC?

ED E

2011 wrote: »

Ok, thanks.
Who are DPC?

Data protection commissioner.

Rew

2011 wrote: »

In fact I have found the Gardai very supportive of my proposal to install a CCTV system.

They can be as supportive as they want but its not up to them, this is civil not criminal stuff.

The gist of all this CCTV, Doorbell and dash cam stuff is for the most part don't be stupid and you should be fine. If you don't get on with a neighbour don't decide to point a camera at their house or somewhere they might take issue with or they can cause you grief. Don't post a vid of some guy falling on ice outside your house or a vid of someones bad driving on twitter.

Technical things like blocked out privacy zones or only capturing on motion inside your property will def help if someone does take issue.

CCTV in its self is fine its where the camera is pointed/captures is the issue.

punisher5112

How can they actually enforce this though?

Honestly so many now have a WiFi CCTV doorbell and others.... All one had to say is it's not working or connected.

Rew

punisher5112 wrote: »

How can they actually enforce this though?

They can issue a civil fine which if you don't pay becomes criminal

Honestly so many now have a WiFi CCTV doorbell and others.... All one had to say is it's not working or connected.

I would be very careful about taking that approach, def digging a deeper hole. I really think the only people who will have problems are those that make problems for them selfs. ie pointing a camera where they shouldn't, using the footage in dumb ways (eg local whatsapp/FB group here's a vid of my neighbour coming home drunk). There will be some attempts at grudge settling like people complaining only because they don't like the person nothing to do with the camera too i'm sure.

punisher5112

Rew wrote: »

They can issue a civil fine which if you don't pay becomes criminal



I would be very careful about taking that approach, def digging a deeper hole. I really think the only people who will have problems are those that make problems for them selfs. ie pointing a camera where they shouldn't, using the footage in dumb ways (eg local whatsapp/FB group here's a vid of my neighbour coming home drunk). There will be some attempts at grudge settling like people complaining only because they don't like the person nothing to do with the camera too i'm sure.

Yes but fine for what. If you say it ain't connected or working what can they do.

Clareman

punisher5112 wrote: »

Yes but fine for what. If you say it ain't connected or working what can they do.

And if they prove that it is working or you share recordings??? Data protection is never an issue until its an issue, in this case they are making it clear that you assume the role of data controller. As with Boards, don't be a dick and you'll be fine

Rew

punisher5112 wrote: »

Yes but fine for what. If you say it ain't connected or working what can they do.

They can investigate and look for proof or fine you 250k and send you to prison for years. Obviously that’s the extreme.

https://www.mhc.ie/latest/blog/enforcement-powers-of-the-new-and-improved-data-protection-commission

jimmycrackcorm

Clareman wrote: »

And if they prove that it is working or you share recordings??? Data protection is never an issue until its an issue, in this case they are making it clear that you assume the role of data controller. As with Boards, don't be a dick and you'll be fine

I wonder what the difference is between CCTV recording a pulbic area and you using your mobile phone to record in public?

What if I were to install a mobile phone as a CCTV camera?

Rew

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I wonder what the difference is between CCTV recording a pulbic area and you using your mobile phone to record in public?

What if I were to install a mobile phone as a CCTV camera?

It being in a fixed position makes it cctv, there is no definition of what a cctv camera is, it’s just a camera capturing in a set position. Recording out in public is momentary and not fixed (generally).

Clareman

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I wonder what the difference is between CCTV recording a pulbic area and you using your mobile phone to record in public?

What if I were to install a mobile phone as a CCTV camera?

By definition a Closed Circuit Television system wouldn't be able to share footage outside of the confines of the circuit so the name alone is flawed so I would say and device with the capabilities to display video would be considered CCTV, then again if you were in a case where you were fighting over the definition of what CCTV is you're probably in big trouble anyway.

I would say that any footage you take could be considered personal information if you are taking footage of people. There is also a difference between taking footage of a public and a private place, for example, RTÉ don't need permission from everyone in attendance at a match or in a crowd or walking down the street but if they were to start recording in people's back gardens they'd need permission.

Clareman

There's some more guidance here https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/dpc-guidance/blogs/cctv-home

What I find interesting in the above article is that it's all vague, wording like "is likely" makes it clear to me that the DPC isn't 100% sure themselves.

AndrewJRenko

The DPC's own guidance is clear that GDPR does not generally apply to a domestic or household CCTV

https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/dpc-guidance/blogs/cctv-home

They do mention the possibility that Data Controller obligations may apply of you share footage online.

punisher5112

I do find the laws funny though as you can photo or video in a public place and do as you please pretty much.

Clareman

punisher5112 wrote: »

I do find the laws funny though as you can photo or video in a public place and do as you please pretty much.

To a certain degree, there is no assumption of privacy in a public place but there is the assumption of a certain amount of privacy, for example, someone can take a picture/video of a street with people on it including a bank with an ATM but they can't take a picture/video of a person using the ATM. There are a lot more laws at play here rather than GDPR though, I wouldn't like to be a test case for any of this thought but the chances of being a test case are slim once you don't act the dick.

punisher5112

Clareman wrote: »

To a certain degree, there is no assumption of privacy in a public place but there is the assumption of a certain amount of privacy, for example, someone can take a picture/video of a street with people on it including a bank with an ATM but they can't take a picture/video of a person using the ATM. There are a lot more laws at play here rather than GDPR though, I wouldn't like to be a test case for any of this thought but the chances of being a test case are slim once you don't act the dick.

Oh I here you was just thinking out loud....

Suppose it's like you say if one sees they're posted online or talk of the town for example and turns out the footage is from the neighbours house say.., I fully understand and appreciate how that is good to have protection.

Clareman

punisher5112 wrote: »

Oh I here you was just thinking out loud....

Suppose it's like you say if one sees they're posted online or talk of the town for example and turns out the footage is from the neighbours house say.., I fully understand and appreciate how that is good to have protection.

The way I try to explain it is if you put a notice up on a notice board in a shopping center looking for a childminder for 2 children along with your name and phone number, that's fine, but if the shopping center were to tell everyone your name, phone number and that you had 2 children you'd have a massive problem.