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
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
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