Donald Henderson on 07 October 2004 at 10:37 said:-
> Fair enough. How about we re-phrase it as "if you attend a public
> meeting you have no more expectation of privacy than if you were in a
> public place" ? The issue probably now centres round purpose...
>
> CCTV in public places is normally covered by prevention and
> detection of
> crime, etc. Presumably a public meeting could be "broadcast" for the
> purpose of furthering open and accountable government, etc. which
> doesn't seem unreasonable at first thought.
>
> Where do second thoughts get us, then ?
>
Accountable government is a legitimate purpose and the argument stands on
that aspect for that purpose, provided that mechanisms exist which allow for
circumstances where that "broadcast" would exclude some members of the
society from attending if they so wish to. (As per Ian B's 11:23 point.)
The arguments supporting an expectation of some limits on publicity in a
public place as a means of maintaining physical privacy still stand.
Ian W
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection
> issues [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Donald Henderson
> Sent: 07 October 2004 10:37
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Webcasts
>
>
> Fair enough. How about we re-phrase it as "if you attend a public
> meeting you have no more expectation of privacy than if you were in a
> public place" ? The issue probably now centres round purpose...
>
> CCTV in public places is normally covered by prevention and
> detection of
> crime, etc. Presumably a public meeting could be "broadcast" for the
> purpose of furthering open and accountable government, etc. which
> doesn't seem unreasonable at first thought.
>
> Where do second thoughts get us, then ?
>
> Donald Henderson
> Information Security Manager
> Perth & Kinross Council
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
> Sent: 07 October 2004 08:00
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [data-protection] Webcasts
>
>
> In a message dated 06/10/04 14:47:43 GMT Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask]
> writes:
>
>
> > I know from work with CCTV that there is "no expectation of
> privacy in
>
> > a public place". So, a relevant question would be "is a
> public meeting
>
> > a public place". I think the answer has to be "yes", which
> would lead
> > to the conclusion that if you attend a public meeting you have no
> > expectation of privacy.
> >
> > Or is there a flaw in that line of thinking ?
>
> -------
>
> I'm afraid there is. Remember the case of the man attempting
> suicide in
> a public place, caught on CCTV? Remember the result?
>
> Ian B
>
>
> Ian Buckland
> Managing Director
> Keep IT Legal Ltd
>
> Please Note: The information given above 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
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
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 : -
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|