Posting shoplifters pic on social media

the_pen_turner wrote: »

I was 8n a supermarket a few min ago and they have a sign beside each checkout saying shoplifters picture will be posted to social media and displayed in the shop.

Can they legally do this

They can but they would want to be able to prove it unless they want to run the risk of having to make a substantial payout to the 'alleged shoplifter' for defamation.

the_pen_turner wrote: »

I was 8n a supermarket a few min ago and they have a sign beside each checkout saying shoplifters picture will be posted to social media and displayed in the shop.

Can they legally do this

The threat would be a deterrant in itself. Nothing illegal in that I presume.

Anteayer wrote: »

As said above the huge risk there is they put up the photograph of someone who merely looked like they were shop lifting and weren't and the publisher then has defamed someone and is open to very expensive civil action.

Easy fix: only put up the pics after the court case at which they were found guilty. Its public information at that stage ...

I'd be worried that getting onto the wall would be seen as an achievement in some circles .... but I guess nothing will deter them.

Vetch wrote: »

What is described by the OP sounds like a personal data breach.

Even after a successful prosecution, the fact of the prosecution might be in the public domain but this doesn't mean that the person's image (personal data) is fair game by the shop I would have thought.

How do you figure that a photo of you constitutes 'personal data'?

And if publishing a photo without someone's permission constitutes a 'personal data breach', would you care to comment on this image (published on independent.ie this week) which shows the children of Peter Quinn arriving for a court case and it's a civil case by the way .........

Vetch wrote: »

coylemj wrote: »

How do you figure that a photo of you constitutes 'personal data'?

And if publishing a photo without someone's permission constitutes a 'personal data breach', would you care to comment on this image (published on independent.ie this week) which shows the children of Peter Quinn arriving for a court case and it's a civil case by the way .........


They way that I'd see this is that an image is personal data if a person is identified or identifiable. The shop is a data controller so its use of the image would have to fulfil one of the legal bases for processing in GDPR. You don't agree?

Journalistic privilege / freedom of the press for newspaper photo.

CCTV used in a shop is completely different than taking a photo of someone in a public area.
CCTV stored in a shop for security purposes is a mind field of GDPR legality and can only be used in accordance with GDPR processes.

Slightly different, security would take a Polaroid of persons they had caught and then the "wall" showed anyone banned from the shop, but everyone knew it was people caught stealing.

Snotty wrote: »

Slightly different, security would take a Polaroid of persons they had caught and then the "wall" showed anyone banned from the shop, but everyone knew it was people caught stealing.

Getting 'caught stealing' and being convicted of theft in the courts are two very different things. What you describe above would expose the store to a suit for defamation.

Snotty wrote: »

Why exactly? Not saying your wrong. There is no law against banning any person from a shop, as long as it can't be attributed to discrimination. So if it was announced they were banned, but without stating a reason, is it defamation?

The standard isn't that you accuse someone of an offence, only that you make a statement that tends to injure their reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of the public. Relying in innuendo rather than plain statements to attempt that injury doesn't save you from liability. In this case there would be a number of avenues open to someone to show that publication of their image as being "banned from the shop" tended to injure their reputation, the most obvious being that a reasonable person would conclude that one was banned for committing an offence, as you've said yourself, "everyone knew it was people caught stealing". Another obvious course of action would be to show that others on the wall had been convicted of theft, which would be good evidence that the publication of your image alongside them in that manner would injure your reputation.

Subutai wrote: »

Another obvious course of action would be to show that others on the wall had been convicted of theft, which would be good evidence that the publication of your image alongside them in that manner would injure your reputation.

+1 Guilt by association. And if only one of the other people in this 'rogues' gallery' had been convicted of something more serious than shoplifting, all the better for a big cheque to settle a suit for defamation.

Three More Big Sleeps wrote: »

Interesting. I used to (pre-GDPR) very frequently use a filling station on the Wexford Town to New Ross carriageway. Rarely were there not A4 sheets sellotaped to the pumps showing stills (from the CCTV) of vehicle registration plates after doing a "drive off".

Now that I think about it, I guess the owners are/were going for a "name/identify and shame" approach rather than going for the Gardaí/legal route. Perhaps the latter is just too costly and time-consuming?

Maybe the former was just more effective? Or maybe the deciding factor was not how effective either course was, in terms of recovering money, but how much time and effort the owners were willing to put in to addressing the problem.

If your main priority is not recovering money you have already lost, but simply deterring others from engaging in the same behaviour, putting up the stills is cheaper, quicker and less trouble than the legal route, and quite possibly more effective. What's not to like?