GPDR & Dash Cams
Discussion
Will the provisions of Paragraph 34, page 10 mean that dash camera "enthusiasts" won't be able to submit footage to police "Operation Snap" websites?
https://edpb.europa.eu/sites/edpb/files/consultati...
"Important balancing factors can be the size of the area, which is under surveillance and the amount of data subjects under surveillance. The use of video surveillance in a remote area (e. g. to watch wildlife or to protect critical infrastructure such as a privately owned radio antenna) has to be assessed differently than video surveillance in a pedestrian zone or a shopping mall.
1.
Example: If a dash cam is installed (e. g. for the purpose of collecting evidence in case of an accident), it is important to ensure that this camera is not constantly recording traffic, as well as persons who are near a road. Otherwise the interest in having video recordings as evidence in the more theoretical case of a road accident cannot justify this serious interference with data subject’s rights.11"
https://edpb.europa.eu/sites/edpb/files/consultati...
"Important balancing factors can be the size of the area, which is under surveillance and the amount of data subjects under surveillance. The use of video surveillance in a remote area (e. g. to watch wildlife or to protect critical infrastructure such as a privately owned radio antenna) has to be assessed differently than video surveillance in a pedestrian zone or a shopping mall.
1.
Example: If a dash cam is installed (e. g. for the purpose of collecting evidence in case of an accident), it is important to ensure that this camera is not constantly recording traffic, as well as persons who are near a road. Otherwise the interest in having video recordings as evidence in the more theoretical case of a road accident cannot justify this serious interference with data subject’s rights.11"
I read that as though it means that if the police/local authority installed a camera for the purposes of ANPR/Accidents in a public area, they have to make sure that it doesnt then cover a shopping precinct for example, and will only be used for the purpose it was intended for.
A dash cam will be recording the road while your driving, should you be recording a carpark constantly when parked up, you may not be able to submit that in the event of something happening.
A dash cam will be recording the road while your driving, should you be recording a carpark constantly when parked up, you may not be able to submit that in the event of something happening.
Paul Dishman said:
Example: If a dash cam is installed (e. g. for the purpose of collecting evidence in case of an accident), it is important to ensure that this camera is not constantly recording traffic, as well as persons who are near a road. Otherwise the interest in having video recordings as evidence in the more theoretical case of a road accident cannot justify this serious interference with data subject’s rights.11"
GDPR covers the holding of personal data. Most, if not all, dash-cams over-write the footage unless you specifically save it. Therefore you are not actually holding the data. Dependent on the size of card being used this may be a few hours to a day or two. How can this contravene the GDPR regulations?GDPR will apply even once we've left the EU. UK government has been quite clear that we will adopt the same regulations. I thought the regulations covered the rights of data subjects, regardless of who is processing the data.
Hopefully someone who knows the details will come along momentarily and enlighted us. The statement that dashcams don't hold video footage for longer than is necessary is a moot point. Lots of this footage lands up on youtube where it will stay forever. In my eyes the individual posting the video is breaching personal data rights so should be prosecuted
Just to add - common sense doesn't enforce the regulations, the law does. It's a fairly new regulation so will be a while until there is certainty how the law will be interpreted by judges.
Hopefully someone who knows the details will come along momentarily and enlighted us. The statement that dashcams don't hold video footage for longer than is necessary is a moot point. Lots of this footage lands up on youtube where it will stay forever. In my eyes the individual posting the video is breaching personal data rights so should be prosecuted
Just to add - common sense doesn't enforce the regulations, the law does. It's a fairly new regulation so will be a while until there is certainty how the law will be interpreted by judges.
Edited by MarcelM6 on Tuesday 14th July 10:49
My understanding is that as long as the dash cam overwrites after a reasonable period of time, and it does not keep running at all times.
People’s home CCTV is more of an issue. When it film’s outside the boundaries of the owners property there are legal issues with GDPR, which most people don’t seem to be aware of or understand.
People’s home CCTV is more of an issue. When it film’s outside the boundaries of the owners property there are legal issues with GDPR, which most people don’t seem to be aware of or understand.
Electro1980 said:
My understanding is that as long as the dash cam overwrites after a reasonable period of time, and it does not keep running at all times.
People’s home CCTV is more of an issue. When it film’s outside the boundaries of the owners property there are legal issues with GDPR, which most people don’t seem to be aware of or understand.
To be fair I don't think many people care. Unless it's a neighbours camera pointed directly into your bathroom.People’s home CCTV is more of an issue. When it film’s outside the boundaries of the owners property there are legal issues with GDPR, which most people don’t seem to be aware of or understand.
Under the premise that you can video anything you want in a public space I don't think this is something of great concern to most of us? Obvs if you have CCTV purposefully pointing through someone's window then that is an invasion of privacy. Also what could be the personal data concern over the fact that you have random unidentified passers by and random vehicles recorded? I really don't get some of these concerns!
One thing which should be kept in mind, particularly by individuals who use or intend to use video recording equipment in either a commercial context or in a public place, is whether or not the recording falls under the ‘personal’ or ‘household exemption’ from the GDPR (under Article 2(2)(c) and Recital 18 GDPR). This exemption states that the GDPR does not apply to processing of data (such as recording video) by an individual “in the course of a purely personal or household activity”. If the recording does not fall within this category, then it is possible that the person making the recording has a number of obligations as a ‘data controller’ under the GDPR.
When assessing whether or not recording is purely of a personal or household nature, a number of factors should be taken into consideration, such as:
whether it has any connection to a professional or commercial activity;
who were the people involved in or captured by the recording – where they known to the person making the recording; and
what area the recording covered – did it cover public or only private spaces.
A case from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) assists in understanding the extent of this exemption, making it clear that this exemption must be construed narrowly. In its judgment in the case of Rynes vs Urad (2014), the Court considered that;
To the extent that video surveillance… covers, even partially, a public space and is accordingly directed outwards from the private setting of the person processing the data in that manner, it cannot be regarded as an activity which is a purely ‘personal or household’ activity ...
Although this case related to a fixed CCTV system, it is still helpful in deciding whether the exemption applies in cases where individuals are using other types of video recording equipment, such as ‘dash cams’ or ‘action cams’.
Ultimately, whether or not a recording was of a purely personal or household nature will depend on the facts of each case.
When assessing whether or not recording is purely of a personal or household nature, a number of factors should be taken into consideration, such as:
whether it has any connection to a professional or commercial activity;
who were the people involved in or captured by the recording – where they known to the person making the recording; and
what area the recording covered – did it cover public or only private spaces.
A case from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) assists in understanding the extent of this exemption, making it clear that this exemption must be construed narrowly. In its judgment in the case of Rynes vs Urad (2014), the Court considered that;
To the extent that video surveillance… covers, even partially, a public space and is accordingly directed outwards from the private setting of the person processing the data in that manner, it cannot be regarded as an activity which is a purely ‘personal or household’ activity ...
Although this case related to a fixed CCTV system, it is still helpful in deciding whether the exemption applies in cases where individuals are using other types of video recording equipment, such as ‘dash cams’ or ‘action cams’.
Ultimately, whether or not a recording was of a purely personal or household nature will depend on the facts of each case.
hoganscrogan said:
I'm not going to read this...
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTM...
Think you summarised it rather well in your previous posthttps://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTM...
If I read it correctly, storage = automated processing, which, if it takes in a public space in which data subjects are captured, constitutes a breach of the Data Protection Act.
CheesecakeRunner said:
Yes, GDPR isn't going anywhere as it's encapsulated in our Data Protection Act 2018.
https://www.gov.uk/data-protection
"The Data Protection Act 2018 controls how your personal information is used by organisations, businesses or the government. The Data Protection Act 2018 is the UK's implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)."
The GDPR is not set in stone. There are considerable pressures on it for change. It's been running for a bit over two years, and it is clear that in some ways it requires modification. https://www.gov.uk/data-protection
"The Data Protection Act 2018 controls how your personal information is used by organisations, businesses or the government. The Data Protection Act 2018 is the UK's implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)."
The UK's data protection agency, the ICO, has been robust with regards the enforcement with regards large breaches of personal data, with a threatened EU 200,000,000 fine for British Airways, about EU 4 for each person probably affected. However, Ireland, the place where the massive multinationals all have their HQs has had the massive total of zero cases. The DPA Ireland is the job to have.
This variation is something of a concern. There's a 50,000 report published by the EU on the first two years of the GDPR. They reckon it's great.
No really significant change will happen in the short term. It took five years for the GDPR to be finalised, but I do see the likelihood of some of the pressure groups persuading the EU that more generous guidelines should be issued.
The ICO has not, as yet, concerned itself much with the little fry and SMEs have only been warned in the main. I doubt they are much bothered by a camcorder in a private car, for all the regulations.
It's getting into utter gobbledegook!
I wish someone could write it in plain language and make it 1000% clear - the ICO website itself and registration questionnaire being a case in point. It's designed to get as much registration £40's as possible - even if you are not really obligated.
Even for commercial operations you can absolutely film/photograph what you like in a public place. If you FEATURE someone without their consent (and especially for commercial gain) then that is different and even if it is just a courtesy you get a release form signed (for which you then need GDPR to hold their data as they are now identifiable rather than some random unknown person).
See all you need is 2 sentences - job done - peasy
;)
I wish someone could write it in plain language and make it 1000% clear - the ICO website itself and registration questionnaire being a case in point. It's designed to get as much registration £40's as possible - even if you are not really obligated.
Even for commercial operations you can absolutely film/photograph what you like in a public place. If you FEATURE someone without their consent (and especially for commercial gain) then that is different and even if it is just a courtesy you get a release form signed (for which you then need GDPR to hold their data as they are now identifiable rather than some random unknown person).
See all you need is 2 sentences - job done - peasy
;)Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff