-----Original Message-----
From: David Logan
Sent: 01 June 2001 09:14
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Re CCTV Footage


2) > The statutory duties relate to (for example) crime and disorder, town
     centre traffic,  and public safety.  Although CCTV is not specified in
law,
     it is the chosen methodology in most cases.

My problem is though as a creature of statute must a local authority claim
specific statutory authority for the use of cctv? To some extent I think
there is a solution in that local authorities have power to do anything
conducive to or incidental to their other functions. So, for instance, could
the local authority, as housing authority, use cctv images to monitor
council house estates - even to the extent of looking out for suspicious
activity within the estate (e.g. unusual number of visitors to any property;
"moonlight flits" from a property)? Could the Council, as licensing
authority, use cctv to determine if street traders have applied for and
obtained relevant licences?

3) >  The purposes stated must be the non-obvious ones

This still causes problems in determining the actual amount of detail to be
given on the sign, especially where the information may be shared between
various depts of the Council. (I could go about data matching but will we
leave that until next week?!)

4)  > Yes, CCTV images can be sensitive if for example they show a person's
      disbilities, physical health, mental condition, religion (from their
attire)
      etc., and they can be sensitive if they show an alleged or real
offence.

This is my concern - so does that mean that data controllers should act as
if all cctv images will be sensitive personal data to be on the safe side?

David Logan
West Dunbartonshire Council.

-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 01 June 2001 06:31
To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Re CCTV Footage


In a message dated 31/05/2001 16:26:05 GMT Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< The Commissioner's Code doesn't restrict her example to instances where
the
 cctv scheme is for the prevention or detection of crime.

  Your point, therefore, raises several interesting issues, such as:

 - to what extent can reliance be placed on the Code if one suspects that
the
 Act places a greater duty than is specified in the Code
 - to what extent must local authorities have specific statutory authority
 for the use of cctv
 - to what extent must signs give specification of the uses of the cctv
 scheme. For instance, in a sports centre the purposes could be anything
from
 the usual prevention and detection of crime, etc through to the general
 safety of users of certain facilities where the facilities are left
 unattended (even through to assisting someone who has dropped some property
 within the building!)

 Just as an aside - are cctv images ever likely to be sensitive personal
data
 either by reference to the person's appearance or behaviour on screen? >>
-------

1)  I don't think the code describes a lesser requirement than the Act, it's

just that the examples given may be misinterpreted.  The code itself in the
"standards" sections are a reflection of the legal requirements.

2)  The statutory duties relate to (for example) crime and disorder, town
centre traffic,  and public safety.  Although CCTV is not specified in law,
it is the chosen methodology in most cases.

3)  The purposes stated must be the non-obvious ones such as (again, only
examples) parking fee enforcement (some owners think the cameras are there
to
protect their cars),  community safety (could cover disorder as well as
crime), contract compliance (the statement for this could be included in the

public works contract rather than on the sign), etc.  In the sports centre,
"for your safety" is a shorthand way of describing the purpose you describe.

If the person who has dropped something of value is assisted in retrieving
it, I doubt they would complain but if he/she dropped litter and was
approached about it you would have to show it was a crime or a breach of the

rules of attending the facility.

4)  Yes, CCTV images can be sensitive if for example they show a person's
disbilities, physical health, mental condition, religion (from their attire)

etc., and they can be sensitive if they show an alleged or real offence.


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!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^