On a related issue, a collegue of mine attended the IFSEC2001 conference at
the NEC lasweek, jon bamford from the commissioner's office was a guest
speaker. Apparently he stated that it is not always neccessary to blur the
faces of third parties even if they are identifiable, the thread of the
argument was that the intention of the data subject is the pivitol issue of
whether to blank third party faces, he gave the example of a person who just
wants an image of themselves = no need to blank faces, as oppossed to a
person who wants to identify everyone in the area at the time of an accident
to contact possible witnesses = blank faces (identity of third parties being
sought without consent).
Now I'm confused I was of the opionion that if the images were c;ear enougfh
that a person could be identitified then their image should be blurred etc
to avoid a third party disclosure, the intention of the data subject being
irrelevant, I can't find anything in section 7 of the ACt that requires the
data controller to obtain information as to the intention for requesting
subject access.
Is this the new case? has jon bamford been misquoted??
Answers on a postcard to the group
Paul Couldrey
Data Protection Officer
Wolverhampton City Council
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 31 May 2001 08:15
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: re-CCTV footage
In a message dated 30/05/2001 16:03:19 GMT Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask]
writes:
<<What if the officer were having an argument with the subject, and you felt
the subject may become violent later? That extreme case aside, I would
hope as an employee to have rights myself to my footage being kept on
site and not given to third parties.>>
Answer:
The person would already know the identity of the officer. You want rights
as an employee but you don't want to honour the rights of others? Oh dear.
-----------
<< But if the picture is for safety, recognition is not an issue; even so,
at a certain distance a pixelation will occur rendering the image poor.
So quality is subjective, except in a court of law I guess :-) >>
Answer:
Sorry but no, the Code makes it perfectly clear that the image must be
perfectly clear if it is to be used for identification of (alleged)
perpetrators. If you are just having it for the deterrence value, just have
a dummy camera.
----------
<<My interest is in deploying a cost-effective policy, but one that still
honours the DPA. Sample codes of practice from real deployments are hard
to find, though the document you refer to is very helpful! The best
solution may be handing over responsibility to the university security
department (the problem is cctv systems internal to buildings - our campus
deployment is mainly external, with the exception of some workstation
labs).>>
Answer:
Then you must deploy a system that does the job properly. That job includes
meeting the security needs, being able to identify alleged offenders,
fulfilling your obligations under the various Acts - e.g. DPA, HRA, H&S@W,
etc
Too many organisations have installed CCTV as a "quick fix" to move crime
and
disorder to areas without cameras. They do not fully appreciate the legal
ramifications of their installations. One council I know of uses its "crime
detection and prevention" cameras to keep an eye on the arrival times of
staff who are on flexi-time. Another uses it to identify the registration
numbers of cars parked in their car parks without the driver paying a fee.
One place I went to they have their cameras able to see into private flats
above shops in the town centre streets.
Message: Think carefully before you install CCTV.
Ian Buckland
MD
Keep IT Legal Ltd
Please Note: The information contained in this document does not replace or
negate the need for proper legal advice and/or representation. It is
essential that you do not rely upon any advice given without contacting your
solicitor. If you need further explanation of any points raised please
contact Keep I.T. Legal Ltd at the address below:
55 Curbar Curve
Inkersall, Chesterfield
Derbyshire S43 3HP
(Reg 3822335)
Tel: 01246 473999
Fax: 01246 470742
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Website: www.keepitlegal.co.uk
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/user-manual/summary-user-commands.htm
all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Email Disclaimer
************************************************************************************************
DISCLAIMER: This email and files transmitted are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you may not copy, disclose, distribute or use it in any unauthorised manner. If you have received this email in error please notify us by telephone on 01902-554455 or by email to [log in to unmask] and then delete it and any attachments accompanying it. Please note that Wolverhampton City Council cannot guarantee that this message or any attachments are virus free or have not been intercepted and amended.
Any views or opinions expressed within this email are those of the author and may not necessarily reflect those of Wolverhampton City Council and no contractual arrangement is intended to arise from this communication.
************************************************************************************************
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/user-manual/summary-user-commands.htm
all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|