Thoie wrote: » https://www.thejournal.ie/data-protection-twitter-fine-december-5304509-Jan2021/ An article from this morning which doesn't touch on signage, but seems to say that if you only use the footage inside your own house, and don't capture any neighbouring areas outside your property perimeter, then there's no GDPR implications, and you're not a data controller. It's something I'm interested in as well - I want to get a video doorbell, but trying to ensure that I get one where I can set the boundaries, as my front door faces a footpath and a green area at the end of the drive. So I need to be able to aim the camera so that it's not capturing anything beyond the end of my driveway. My understanding is that if I only capture my property, then I don't need to put up signs.
cubatahavana wrote: » I suppose that for a doorbell camera, once you’re not recording private property it should be fine. I reckon the pavement and road should not be a problem, as it is a public place and you’re not holding data identifying the people passing by. I may be totally wrong, though
FionnK86 wrote: » They talked about this on The Hard Shoulder on Newstalk today. You’ve to do a self-assessment of data protection as you might be asked for same if DP Commission receives a complaint. Apparently complaints have increased a lot the last year.
Caranica wrote: » There are steps up to my front door (duplex) that also go to my next door neighbour's place. I need to see the steps for security so I do get the comings and goings next door as well. I've a sticker up but can't do much more. Ultimately it's for both of our security.
[Deleted User] wrote: » I was listening to that. As a professional photographer I have a decent grasp of the law in this regard, and whoever the guest was that they had on the show, really shouldn't have been on, as he was clearly making it up as went along. My personal opinion on signs: A notice/sign is a nice thing to put up to be 'by the book' but in real life, it does two things: 1. Makes the area look rough (when you see CCTV signs on people's houses it makes you question the place) 2. Brings nuisance from the nosey neighbours who all of a sudden are experts in CCTV and GDPR and claim to know all the rules (they don't). They'll either torment you because they don't want you looking at them, or you'll get never-ending requests from one or two neighbours to look at your cameras because Facebook told them there's a man in a white van abducting children in the area (there's not). Best thing to do, is install the cameras, forget about them and then never show anyone else what you can see, unless you're actually friends with them (and not just random neighbours). Also, have a cover story. Your door handle was broke and someone tried to break in. Doesn't matter what the story is, but have it ready to go incase John from down the road wants to know why you've cameras. I should point out, though, that most of these issues are things i've heard from friends and the CCTV installers. I personally have never had anyone give any grief or hassle, and a couple of houses have CCTV in my (rough) area, so it's not unusual. Most of us have fairly subtle dome cameras, but one or two houses have the more obvious 'bullet' ones. Anyway, enough of my opinion. The Law in Ireland is fairly straight-forward and generally speaking, just comes down to 'reasonable expectation to privacy'. For example, you can record someone walking on the path outside your house. You can put them on Youtube without their consent (if they do something funny or such) (provided you're not making money off it or using it for business purposes). A person on a footpath has no 'reasonable expectation to privacy'. However, people do have a reasonable expectation to privacy in, for example, their back gardens. So if Mary next door is going out into the street, and your camera can see her going to work, or reversing out of her parking space and hitting a car, or whatever, she can't complain that you seen her, because anyone in a public place could see her and she has no expectation to privacy there. In a 'typical' house estate, no one has a reasonable expecation in their front garden as theyre almost all overlooked by the public roadway/street. However, if Mary decides its a lovely warm day out, and decides to lie out in the back garden and whips her juggs out for a bit of a tan, and sees your camera, you're in trouble, because, although you, in theory, could stick your head out the window and get an eyeful of her, the likelyhood of that happening is so low that it would be 'unreasonable' to expect you would do it. As such, Mary has a reasonable expectation to privacy in her back garden. You can figure out most other situations you're likely to bump into by simply applying that logic: "would I expect privacy if I was here?".
cubatahavana wrote: » This is what I thought. As a semi-professional (it’s been a while since I’ve done paid work) photographer too, I read the law a few years ago. I was not sure if GDPR changed anything
[Deleted User] wrote: » GDPR is really more in relation to the publishing of material, rather than recording it. But it hasn't really changed much/anything to be honest. Sure take a flick through a newspaper; if GDPR worked the way people think it works, there'd be nothing but text and a 'Page 3' photo.
Deleted User wrote: » GDPR is really more in relation to the publishing of material, rather than recording it. But it hasn't really changed much/anything to be honest. Sure take a flick through a newspaper; if GDPR worked the way people think it works, there'd be nothing but text and a 'Page 3' photo.
Mjolnir wrote: » Remember EU law has supremecy over Irish law so that ruling is binding here.
Manion wrote: » GDPR applies to data collection, storage and processing as well as publishing. This is not really correct. EU Regulations are transcribed into member state legislation. EU Regulations don't have any effect until they are pasted into law by the legislative bodies in each member state.
Manion wrote: » This is not really correct. EU Regulations are transcribed into member state legislation. EU Regulations don't have any effect until they are pasted into law by the legislative bodies in each member state.
Mjolnir wrote: » It is correct, its the princepal of primacy, however in more recent times countries such as Germany amongst others have decided to ignore certain ecj rulings to suit themselves and their national law. Rulings are considered common law not legislative and ecj rulings are technically binding on member states.
antoinolachtnai wrote: » This is untrue. See Article 288 TFEU.
[Deleted User] wrote: » However, if Mary decides its a lovely warm day out, and decides to lie out in the back garden and whips her juggs out for a bit of a tan, and sees your camera, you're in trouble, because, although you, in theory, could stick your head out the window and get an eyeful of her, the likelyhood of that happening is so low that it would be 'unreasonable' to expect you would do it. As such, Mary has a reasonable expectation to privacy in her back garden.
Manion wrote: » I make no comment on the jurisdiction of the ECJ. My point related to the idea of EU laws and supremacy. OK, fair enough as a directive we didn't need to transpose it into Irish law, but we did under the Data protection act 2018 which would be the relevant legislation.
antoinolachtnai wrote: » The DPA 2018 is not a transposition of GDPR into Irish law.
Manion wrote: » https://www.itgovernance.eu/en-ie/data-protection-ie
antoinolachtnai wrote: » This says exactly what I just said.
Mjolnir wrote: » Afraid you're wrong there, the ECJ ruled in the Rynes case, that home cctv systems that capture publicly accessible areas outside of your property(e.g footpath) or neighbours yards etc fall under data protection laws. The domestic use exemption was ruled to not apply. Remember EU law has supremecy over Irish law so that ruling is binding here.
In this jurisdiction (Ireland)... The recent prosecution of the murder of Patricia O’Connor is an example. The CCTV system of a neighbour covered part of the property of Mrs O’Connor and was used as evidence in the hearing. While a strict application of Rynes would indicate that such footage could be excluded from a case due to it having no legal basis, the Irish courts would appear to allow such footage in the criminal context.
KaneToad wrote: » Quick question, do you have Mary's eircode handy?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5029bac657ae68f2ca4b7fa18994db0d.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d5a8197d7274f92eab37915a6d9f12a1.svg)
