Legalities of Uploading Cycle-Cam Film - Take 9
- Thread starter Origamist
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Good stuff MJ.
I'm curious how the DPA applies to data collected in the public domain. It's not like the reg number (assuming for a moment that it could be deemed personal data) is hidden, and the video footage is being released to an unsuspecting public!
Surely the DPA only applies to data where the controller has a duty of care to maintaining its confidentiality? The reg number is already in the public domain.
I'm curious how the DPA applies to data collected in the public domain. It's not like the reg number (assuming for a moment that it could be deemed personal data) is hidden, and the video footage is being released to an unsuspecting public!
Surely the DPA only applies to data where the controller has a duty of care to maintaining its confidentiality? The reg number is already in the public domain.
I am not a lawyer, but I can see no actual distinction from a brief scan of the act between public and private data. I would guess that the situation is analogous with defamation law, where if you repeat a libel that someone else has published already, it still counts as a publication - i.e. if more people know about it or are likely to learn of it as a result of your action then it's more public than it was.
However, there is a very interesting section about "Journalism, literature and art" (s32) which would seem to suggest that if your disclosure is in the public interest you are unlikely to have trouble.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/part/IV
http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=ODg=
However, there is a very interesting section about "Journalism, literature and art" (s32) which would seem to suggest that if your disclosure is in the public interest you are unlikely to have trouble.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/part/IV
http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=ODg=
gaz
Cycle Camera TV
- Location
- South Croydon
Me an magnatom have been incontact with the information commissioner about using video cameras on the road and posting videos online. Such videos might include numberplates, faces and voices.
They came back to both of us saying it's perfectlly fine to do.
They came back to both of us saying it's perfectlly fine to do.
mumbo jumbo
Senior Member
- Location
- Birmingham
Hours of painstaking analysis last night and gaz sorts it with a phone call! For what it's worth, I copied my previous post to a DPA colleague (an occasional cycle commuter, as it happens) this morning. I'll still be interested to hear what he has to say, if he gets a chance.
I doubt very much that we've heard the end of this though. The article in the OP basically signposts that there's a test case out there somewhere (and ideally they want it!). Don't forget that a court could decide that the Info Commissioner is wrong - that would be a problem. My advice? Get insured!
mj
mgarl10024
Über Member
- Location
- Bristol
I've recently been enjoying watching "Road Wars" for the first time where the Police chase down criminals - if you haven't seen it, it often involves car chases. Usually, the person being handcuffed and led away screams "get that camera out of my face" to which I've seen a few times the policeman say "He can film you, as you're in a public place". The clips often contain registration numbers of cars.
What confuses me about this, is:
- Their names are sometimes bleeped out and sometimes not
- Their faces are sometimes blurred out and sometimes not
- Often, in the case of a drugs raid for example, the camera follows them into the person's house.
- With the bleeping/blurring - I'm assuming that either they need a disclaimer from the individual to show these things unmodified (but that doesn't make sense - cause most of them are shown in terrible lights and would not sign it). So, I've come to the conclusion that there must be some outstanding legal preceding against them which necessitates the obfuscation.
- With the entering the house - I'm baffled still. Perhaps the warrant entitles anyone connected with the Police investigation to enter, and they say that the camera is recording evidence? But that wouldn't allow them to make a programme and broadcast it.
If anyone can help me understand the above - it'd be welcome!
BentMikey
Rider of Seolferwulf
- Location
- South London
classic33
Leg End Member
You mean to say that they get the person who they pulled from a car, floored & sprayed them(or vice versa) to come back & do it all again. Having signed a disclaimer saying that they can use their face/car & registration/house. Sorry find that hard to believe.
Its possible that the combination of onboard cameras & a cameraman with them, free to move out & around the person stopped, might also give the same impression.
DrSquirrel
Guest
Human rights is stuff like free speech, food, water, "private and family life", democracy and all that.
Privacy in a public place is bullshit.
Data protection - applies to companies.
Try giving me a data protection request as an individual - it won't work.
The article say filming certain vehicles you may be in breach - this is a bit backwards, also the article doesn't give any examples at all.
It's to do with not prejuicing the case.
No, I mean that I would not be surprised if some of those shows use actors. It's not unheard of in other "reality" series
http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/tv/n...-to-pretend-they-are-scammed-115875-22935879/
classic33
Leg End Member
Police cars, military vehicles(will depend on if you live near a Armed Forces base). Security vans where the occupants may be taking cash into a bank. Near any sensitive sites (power stations).
DrSquirrel
Guest
Don't go on with that "you cannot film any power stations"... It's a myth.
Only sites which are specifically listed by the secretary of state cannot be filmed, it's not a blanket ban on filming powerstations etc.
classic33
Leg End Member
I missed the word nuclear in that.
