Discussion
The objective is to obtain photographs of an individual that were covertly taken by a media organisation on private property.
Can anyone with experience in this field tell me how they can best be compelled to provide the photographs, whether via GDPR or some other route?
I am aware that certain exemptions can apply with the media - public interest, etc, which is why input from anyone with specific experience would be useful. I know about IPSO, the ICO, etc.
Initial advice from a solicitor has been expensive, muddled and ineffective. I would like some pointers to complement my own research before deciding on next steps.
Thanks in advance.
Can anyone with experience in this field tell me how they can best be compelled to provide the photographs, whether via GDPR or some other route?
I am aware that certain exemptions can apply with the media - public interest, etc, which is why input from anyone with specific experience would be useful. I know about IPSO, the ICO, etc.
Initial advice from a solicitor has been expensive, muddled and ineffective. I would like some pointers to complement my own research before deciding on next steps.
Thanks in advance.
Taylor James said:
What's your basis for the comment about GDPR?
GDPR is about the retention of data and the deletion of data that they no longer have a requirement to keep. It does not provide a mechanism to obtain such data except under the banner of what is being processed and why.SAR is by far the most effective and quickest mechanism as poking GDPR is likely to elicit a "We didn't have a requirement to keep it, so we destroyed it in line with our policies" response.
The individual themselves would have to complete a subject access request as states. It is no different to gaining access to CCTV footage from a private company. Whether you would get the access would be governed by what the pictures show and who else is in the photos whose consent would also be required etc
craigjm said:
The individual themselves would have to complete a subject access request as states. It is no different to gaining access to CCTV footage from a private company. Whether you would get the access would be governed by what the pictures show and who else is in the photos whose consent would also be required etc
Thank you. My understanding is that only the subject is featured in the images. Do you know what exemption the media organisation may have? I can accept their claim that they were motivated by public interest which may well justify (at least be an argument) as to why the photographs were taken but not their refusal to provide them.The following are the exemptions stated in the DPA relating to SARs:
dpa said:
The controller may restrict, wholly or partly, the rights conferred by subsection
(1) to the extent that and for so long as the restriction is, having regard to the
fundamental rights and legitimate interests of the data subject, a necessary and
proportionate measure to—
(a) avoid obstructing an official or legal inquiry, investigation or
procedure;
(b) avoid prejudicing the prevention, detection, investigation or
prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties;
(c) protect public security;
(d) protect national security;
(e) protect the rights and freedoms of others.
If they refused to provide them I would raise a complaint with the ICO. If they refuse they should inform you the reasons why.(1) to the extent that and for so long as the restriction is, having regard to the
fundamental rights and legitimate interests of the data subject, a necessary and
proportionate measure to—
(a) avoid obstructing an official or legal inquiry, investigation or
procedure;
(b) avoid prejudicing the prevention, detection, investigation or
prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties;
(c) protect public security;
(d) protect national security;
(e) protect the rights and freedoms of others.
meatballs said:
dpa said:
The controller may restrict, wholly or partly, the rights conferred by subsection
(1) to the extent that and for so long as the restriction is, having regard to the
fundamental rights and legitimate interests of the data subject, a necessary and
proportionate measure to—
(a) avoid obstructing an official or legal inquiry, investigation or
procedure;
(b) avoid prejudicing the prevention, detection, investigation or
prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties;
(c) protect public security;
(d) protect national security;
(e) protect the rights and freedoms of others.
If they refused to provide them I would raise a complaint with the ICO.(1) to the extent that and for so long as the restriction is, having regard to the
fundamental rights and legitimate interests of the data subject, a necessary and
proportionate measure to—
(a) avoid obstructing an official or legal inquiry, investigation or
procedure;
(b) avoid prejudicing the prevention, detection, investigation or
prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties;
(c) protect public security;
(d) protect national security;
(e) protect the rights and freedoms of others.
You have been accused of doing something wrong and it is alleged that one photo out of nine would appear to support that. The accused maintains that showing all nine photos would show that the allegation was false.
meatballs said:
Civil or criminal? Should be part of disclosure... Does sound like you need a better solicitor.
Civil but with criminal potential. I have already advised a change of solicitor but until then I'm gathering information independently. It's not my call but I am trying to help. IMO this flies in the face of fairness (leaving aside issues of civil versus criminal standards of proof). The full set of photographs would exonerate the accused but they are being judged on the basis of one.Nose picking is not permitted at work (a commercial kitchen). A photograph is shown of you picking your nose. That is considered evidence that you have breached regs. However, we know that the preceding two photos show a wasp going up your nose and the following photos show you with a squashed wasp on your finger and a nosebleed. Your employer wants to discipline you for nose-picking and shows no interest in seeing the other photos. The full set of photos are held by XYZ publication who sneaked into the kitchen to take the photos, sent the one incriminating photo to your employer and is now ignoring all requests to provide the full set.
Pegscratch said:
GDPR is about the retention of data and the deletion of data that they no longer have a requirement to keep. It does not provide a mechanism to obtain such data except under the banner of what is being processed and why.
SAR is by far the most effective and quickest mechanism as poking GDPR is likely to elicit a "We didn't have a requirement to keep it, so we destroyed it in line with our policies" response.
Is SAR part of GDPR or entirely separate?SAR is by far the most effective and quickest mechanism as poking GDPR is likely to elicit a "We didn't have a requirement to keep it, so we destroyed it in line with our policies" response.
Taylor James said:
Pegscratch said:
GDPR is about the retention of data and the deletion of data that they no longer have a requirement to keep. It does not provide a mechanism to obtain such data except under the banner of what is being processed and why.
SAR is by far the most effective and quickest mechanism as poking GDPR is likely to elicit a "We didn't have a requirement to keep it, so we destroyed it in line with our policies" response.
Is SAR part of GDPR or entirely separate?SAR is by far the most effective and quickest mechanism as poking GDPR is likely to elicit a "We didn't have a requirement to keep it, so we destroyed it in line with our policies" response.
The organisation is refusing to provide the photographs on the basis of an exemption which they say is that the data is being processed for the purposes of journalism, that it is with a view to publication of some material, there is a reasonable belief in the public interest in the data and that providing the photographs would be incompatible with journalism.
I'm struggling to get my head around the above although I have seen something similar in some ICO literature. How is relying on one photograph fair and how can the refusal to supply the full set be in the public interest and incompatible with journalism? It's surely obvious that you can make many things appear credible through selectivity (see selective quoting on here!) but it hardly seems reasonable.
If we accept a "reasonable belief in the public interest" then surely the public would like to see all of the photos, not just the one cherry picked to support an allegation and indeed how would the public interest be properly served by such selectivity? Moreover, since when is providing all of the information incompatible with journalism?
I'm struggling to get my head around the above although I have seen something similar in some ICO literature. How is relying on one photograph fair and how can the refusal to supply the full set be in the public interest and incompatible with journalism? It's surely obvious that you can make many things appear credible through selectivity (see selective quoting on here!) but it hardly seems reasonable.
If we accept a "reasonable belief in the public interest" then surely the public would like to see all of the photos, not just the one cherry picked to support an allegation and indeed how would the public interest be properly served by such selectivity? Moreover, since when is providing all of the information incompatible with journalism?
Taylor James said:
The organisation is refusing to provide the photographs on the basis of an exemption which they say is that the data is being processed for the purposes of journalism, that it is with a view to publication of some material, there is a reasonable belief in the public interest in the data and that providing the photographs would be incompatible with journalism.
I'm struggling to get my head around the above although I have seen something similar in some ICO literature. How is relying on one photograph fair and how can the refusal to supply the full set be in the public interest and incompatible with journalism? It's surely obvious that you can make many things appear credible through selectivity (see selective quoting on here!) but it hardly seems reasonable.
If we accept a "reasonable belief in the public interest" then surely the public would like to see all of the photos, not just the one cherry picked to support an allegation and indeed how would the public interest be properly served by such selectivity? Moreover, since when is providing all of the information incompatible with journalism?
Sounds like bulls**t to me.I'm struggling to get my head around the above although I have seen something similar in some ICO literature. How is relying on one photograph fair and how can the refusal to supply the full set be in the public interest and incompatible with journalism? It's surely obvious that you can make many things appear credible through selectivity (see selective quoting on here!) but it hardly seems reasonable.
If we accept a "reasonable belief in the public interest" then surely the public would like to see all of the photos, not just the one cherry picked to support an allegation and indeed how would the public interest be properly served by such selectivity? Moreover, since when is providing all of the information incompatible with journalism?
The ICO have a live chat which is very good at providing clarity on GDPR related issues.
https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/live-chat/liv...
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/schedu...
Not sure how they think they genuinely believe the additional photos would have any impact on journalism (if your understanding of journalism is that it should be truthful and not misleading).
Sounds like you need to submit a complaint to them, then a complaint to the ICO.
Beyond that it would be a real struggle (and expensive) to make them comply.
Not sure how they think they genuinely believe the additional photos would have any impact on journalism (if your understanding of journalism is that it should be truthful and not misleading).
Sounds like you need to submit a complaint to them, then a complaint to the ICO.
Beyond that it would be a real struggle (and expensive) to make them comply.
Edited by meatballs on Tuesday 14th April 15:13
Edited by meatballs on Tuesday 14th April 15:13
t. Submit a formalThanks for the positive comments chaps. I know that threads like these can be frustrating when people are economical or dishonest with the facts but I've tried to tell the story as openly and fully as I can while protecting the identity of the person I regard as the victim in this situation.
To make things worse, the original solicitor, when they received the rebuttal outlined above, completely omitted to advise recourse to the ICO/formal complaint, etc.
I do think they're hiding behind an exemption designed to protect innocent people and allow journalists to investigate. I can't argue with either objective but if you're going to cast aspersions it only seems fair that you can't hide behind your edits to make your case. I also accept that soundbites sell and publishing in full might take up more space but at the very least you could provide a link to the rest of the photos, the unedited conversation, etc.
To make things worse, the original solicitor, when they received the rebuttal outlined above, completely omitted to advise recourse to the ICO/formal complaint, etc.
I do think they're hiding behind an exemption designed to protect innocent people and allow journalists to investigate. I can't argue with either objective but if you're going to cast aspersions it only seems fair that you can't hide behind your edits to make your case. I also accept that soundbites sell and publishing in full might take up more space but at the very least you could provide a link to the rest of the photos, the unedited conversation, etc.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff