UK/EU Privacy Law

rsmck

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
31
Reaction score
24
Country
United Kingdom
Dash Cam
Mobius, Transcend DP200, K1S
Wonder what (if any) effect the judgement in the case of Ryneš on 11 December 2014 has had, or is likely to have, on dashcam usage.

The ICO has re-issued it's CCTV code of practice in May of this year https://ico.org.uk/media/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf

Specifically

"In this judgment, the CJEU concluded that where a fixed surveillance camera faces outwards from an individual’s private domestic property and it captures images of individuals beyond the boundaries of their property, particularly where it monitors a public space, the recording cannot be considered as being for a purely personal or household purpose"
Given that a road is a public space, arguably this could have an impact on dashcams. That said, a dashcam does not typically record or identify individuals, but rather vehicles, as past precedent has shown that a number plate is not 'personally identifiable information' within scope of the DPA, as it identifies a vehicle, not a person.

Still, since some EU countries privacy rules have suggested they may not be lawful, I do worry that we'll be next in light of this
 
That said, a dashcam does not typically record or identify individuals, (...)
Well, I catch a lot of jaywalkers that I put in my videos and many of them are easily identifiable.
 
Unfortunately, in accordance to law- no one would have a right to use dash-cams, but...
In practical terms, if you are using a cam ONLY as evidence in CASE of something happening nobody will say anything about it. "Do not troll" the idea behind it.
Privacy law vs law uphold is the dilema, that is the scenario from legal perspective at least for now. ;)
 
...Still, since some EU countries privacy rules have suggested they may not be lawful, I do worry that we'll be next in light of this
This is one area where I really believe that US law has got it right solely because of it's simplicity - if you're in public you have no expectation of privacy. Does not always apply to audio but, so far as I know, is true across the country for video.
 
This is one area where I really believe that US law has got it right solely because of it's simplicity - if you're in public you have no expectation of privacy.
The Law should always follow the K.I.S.S principle but I guess it's too much to ask of some "enlightened" minds...
 
I do worry that we'll be next in light of this
What French administration says about the video surveillance (CCTV): (https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F2517)
"There's no need for any authorization when recording in a private place. Any installation of video cameras on public roads or in a building or a public place must done only after obtaining an authorization.
- Only Police (probably) should have access of data from cameras on public spaces (roads).
- The data shouldn't be kept for more than 1 month."
 
My personal opinion is that recording your own property is fine, routinely recording around yourself, your car or your property is fine, but when it comes to taking out a camera and aiming it at a specific person without permission it is grossly offensive and should be outlawed. Too many jerks use cameras as a form of abuse nowadays.
 
...but when it comes to taking out a camera and aiming it at a specific person without permission it is grossly offensive and should be outlawed. Too many jerks use cameras as a form of abuse nowadays.
Not trying to turn this into a philosophical discussion but that is the problem with most 'moral' legislation. Just because one person finds something to be offensive is not a reason to make that activity illegal.
 
Not trying to turn this into a philosophical discussion but that is the problem with most 'moral' legislation. Just because one person finds something to be offensive is not a reason to make that activity illegal.
Well I don't think it's just me. I think you'll find that most people who grew up before smartphones existed find it very intrusive to have a camera pointed at them, especially when it is being done in a hostile way.
And those people are the majority.

To spin your argument, just because a minority (youngsters) think it's normal to film and be filmed all the time, that doesn't make it acceptable.
 
...I think you'll find that most people who grew up before smartphones existed find it very intrusive to have a camera pointed at them, especially when it is being done in a hostile way.
And those people are the majority....
Believe me I'm in that group - grew up when rotary dial, landline phones were the only option. :(

I also noticed you've added the word 'hostile' to your argument. That gets us into an entirely different arena and there are already in place a number of laws (possibly too many) relevant to that - separate from cameras specifically.

...To spin your argument, just because a minority (youngsters) think it's normal to film and be filmed all the time, that doesn't make it acceptable.
But still not a reason to make it illegal. Flatulence in a restaurant is unacceptable, to me grossly so, but not to the point where there should be laws specifically addressing that form of social 'crudeness'.

There are already laws in place that cover activities that can be considered harassment in any form so no need to be specific about a single activity. In the U.S. at least if you are in public you have no expectation of privacy so others can take your picture, video you walking down the street, etc. There are legal restrictions as to what can be done with those images/videos but that's a whole different discussion.
 
My personal opinion is that recording your own property is fine, routinely recording around yourself, your car or your property is fine, but when it comes to taking out a camera and aiming it at a specific person without permission it is grossly offensive and should be outlawed. Too many jerks use cameras as a form of abuse nowadays.

Agree, and that was the advice of the ICO for a long time, that recording your own property and the area around it was fine as long as it was for personal domestic use. However, this EU ruling changes that and they've been forced to revise their documentation.
 
Back
Top