Dash cam footage and the law
Discussion
PIs there any legal issue of publishing dash cam footage online etc,
I ask because I got my cam but have yet to publish anything however local woman to me this week really got my goat she nearly pulled out into my car no signal them drove the high street two laned carriageway swerving around I thought it was guy being aggressive to the chap in front but he turned off and still she couldn't drive in a straight line. Finally get long side her at the lights and she is playing on her phone a game buy the looks of it. Realised she lives the road along from me so when we got near her house she took of like a loney as she must of thought I was following her as her s
te driving. She nearly hits someone crossing the road and doesn't give way to them one of boat sized ds5 things.
Anyway I sat the entrance to my road and waited 5 minswatching the footage back and she comes flying down the road on her phone. She parks on her drive and I pull up window down don't want to get out and be all intimating as I have a mum and wife and know I wouldn't want some big guy in her face. Just say your driving is terrible you need to put your phone down and concentrate you we're all over her odd in East reach, you are going to cause an accident if you carry on like this you are all over the road and I have dash cam footage. She just stares and says nothing. Then I say if you have nothing to say for yourself I assume you don't mind me up,adding the footage online. She just says that's illegal don't do that!
I ask because I got my cam but have yet to publish anything however local woman to me this week really got my goat she nearly pulled out into my car no signal them drove the high street two laned carriageway swerving around I thought it was guy being aggressive to the chap in front but he turned off and still she couldn't drive in a straight line. Finally get long side her at the lights and she is playing on her phone a game buy the looks of it. Realised she lives the road along from me so when we got near her house she took of like a loney as she must of thought I was following her as her s
te driving. She nearly hits someone crossing the road and doesn't give way to them one of boat sized ds5 things.Anyway I sat the entrance to my road and waited 5 minswatching the footage back and she comes flying down the road on her phone. She parks on her drive and I pull up window down don't want to get out and be all intimating as I have a mum and wife and know I wouldn't want some big guy in her face. Just say your driving is terrible you need to put your phone down and concentrate you we're all over her odd in East reach, you are going to cause an accident if you carry on like this you are all over the road and I have dash cam footage. She just stares and says nothing. Then I say if you have nothing to say for yourself I assume you don't mind me up,adding the footage online. She just says that's illegal don't do that!
Edited by jbsportstech on Saturday 27th June 09:58
It's not illegal, but it's completely pointless. What are you going to achieve by putting it on YouTube or similar? If she is clearly identifiable on the video and can be seen using her phone while driving then report it to the police and give them the footage.
That said, if you post the footage then put a link up. Who doesn't like a good gawp at bad driving?
That said, if you post the footage then put a link up. Who doesn't like a good gawp at bad driving?
Other parts of europe, who are signed up to the same human right convention as us have considered it a violation of people's right to privacy, it is legal in this country so far as no one has yet to say it is illegal.
I wonder how things apply in terms of data protection, when someone fits a dashcam to a leased car, or a company car. A leased car might be stretching things a bit, but certainly think you would likely need to consider the data protection act when posting footage filmed on the dashcam of a company car, even if you installed it yourself.
I wonder how it would apply to people on bikes as well. I would love to see the ICO turn around and tell people that because you filmed a video on your £3k carbon fibre fixed gear wking accessory which you bought on a cycle to work scheme, you are not allowed to post footage online of you being a wker doing thing such as holding up traffic while you shout at someone for eating cereal.
I wonder how things apply in terms of data protection, when someone fits a dashcam to a leased car, or a company car. A leased car might be stretching things a bit, but certainly think you would likely need to consider the data protection act when posting footage filmed on the dashcam of a company car, even if you installed it yourself.
I wonder how it would apply to people on bikes as well. I would love to see the ICO turn around and tell people that because you filmed a video on your £3k carbon fibre fixed gear w
king accessory which you bought on a cycle to work scheme, you are not allowed to post footage online of you being a wker doing thing such as holding up traffic while you shout at someone for eating cereal.ging84 said:
Other parts of europe, who are signed up to the same human right convention as us have considered it a violation of people's right to privacy, it is legal in this country so far as no one has yet to say it is illegal.
I wonder how things apply in terms of data protection, when someone fits a dashcam to a leased car, or a company car. A leased car might be stretching things a bit, but certainly think you would likely need to consider the data protection act when posting footage filmed on the dashcam of a company car, even if you installed it yourself.
I wonder how it would apply to people on bikes as well. I would love to see the ICO turn around and tell people that because you filmed a video on your £3k carbon fibre fixed gear wking accessory which you bought on a cycle to work scheme, you are not allowed to post footage online of you being a wker doing thing such as holding up traffic while you shout at someone for eating cereal.
Article 8 (Right to a Private Life) would not apply under these circumstances, save perhaps if it is a govt agency routinely posting such videos. Its a consideration for "Police Interceptors" and such programmes (and one that can legitimately be allowed), but ECHR would not be applied to private individuals posting videos of others driving.I wonder how things apply in terms of data protection, when someone fits a dashcam to a leased car, or a company car. A leased car might be stretching things a bit, but certainly think you would likely need to consider the data protection act when posting footage filmed on the dashcam of a company car, even if you installed it yourself.
I wonder how it would apply to people on bikes as well. I would love to see the ICO turn around and tell people that because you filmed a video on your £3k carbon fibre fixed gear w
king accessory which you bought on a cycle to work scheme, you are not allowed to post footage online of you being a wker doing thing such as holding up traffic while you shout at someone for eating cereal.Stinkfoot said:
Dose not seem to bother the hundreds of cyclists who post video after video of car and lorry drivers who have the cheek to overtake them then put them in a youtube channel so fellow cyclists can comment on how bad car and lorry drivers are etc etc.
And I suspect that the OP would have exactly the same issue as the cyclists who post footage that clearly shows dangerous driving - the Police will do nothing in this case, just as they do nothing in those.There is much misunderstanding of the law as to data protection and privacy. The DPA would not apply in the scenario described, and in any event the DPA is not, despite what many think, a general ban on identifying people.
It is not strictly correct to say that Article 8 ECHR could not apply at all, as a Court, a public authority, would have to act consistently with it, and so the article can have what is known as horizontal effect between two non State agents. The main point about article 8 ECHR here is that the driver has no reasonable expectation of privacy while driving on a public road.
Continental Europe generally has more developed privacy laws than the UK, independent of the ECHR.
It is not strictly correct to say that Article 8 ECHR could not apply at all, as a Court, a public authority, would have to act consistently with it, and so the article can have what is known as horizontal effect between two non State agents. The main point about article 8 ECHR here is that the driver has no reasonable expectation of privacy while driving on a public road.
Continental Europe generally has more developed privacy laws than the UK, independent of the ECHR.
Many European countries have more developed privacy laws then us, but they are all signed up to the same set of human rights, the same right to privacy and the same right to freedom of expression. If one country says it's not ok to publish a video of another person online because of the privacy of the subject, and another says it must be allowed due to freedom of expression of the poster, only one can really be right, unless you can honestly have a situation where some countries you have a blanket expectation of privacy driving on a public road, but in others you do not.
With regard to the DPA, i'm well aware it's not the magic shield people often think it is, but it is something organisations always need to consider when handling video from which people can be identified.
An entertainment company which films people on the street with the intention of publishing that footage as entrainment is a very different situation to a company with a dashboard camera fitted to a vehicle specifically, or primarily for the purpose of establishing liability in an accident, and that footage ending up being published as a source of entertainment.
I am not saying it is not permissible to publish or it should or should not be, for companies or individuals, just that it's a complex area that I don't think has yet been given as much thought as it needs yet.
With regard to the DPA, i'm well aware it's not the magic shield people often think it is, but it is something organisations always need to consider when handling video from which people can be identified.
An entertainment company which films people on the street with the intention of publishing that footage as entrainment is a very different situation to a company with a dashboard camera fitted to a vehicle specifically, or primarily for the purpose of establishing liability in an accident, and that footage ending up being published as a source of entertainment.
I am not saying it is not permissible to publish or it should or should not be, for companies or individuals, just that it's a complex area that I don't think has yet been given as much thought as it needs yet.
I'd only just recently read about using cameras in some European countries. Not just illegal to publish the feed but actually illegal to use them.
I wonder how many people have travelled rfom the UK without bothering to read up on legality in foreign countries (cause they British right and the rest of the world should follow....sorry....but it does feel that way sometimes) and have fallen foul of local rules.
I wonder how many people have travelled rfom the UK without bothering to read up on legality in foreign countries (cause they British right and the rest of the world should follow....sorry....but it does feel that way sometimes) and have fallen foul of local rules.
ging84 said:
... If one country says it's not ok to publish a video of another person online because of the privacy of the subject, and another says it must be allowed due to freedom of expression of the poster, only one can really be right,...
Not always. Each State "has a margin of appreciation" or (better description) "discretionary area of judgment" with regard to qualified rights such as privacy and free expression.Unlike EU law, ECHR law does not compel* standardisation.
* I am generalising about EU law.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 28th June 11:52
Putting to one side Ging's tiresome bigotry, what would be the implication of keeping a GoPro on the handlebars of a bicycle when touring in Europe?
Racing in Norway recently I noticed that it's very common for motorcyclists to have a GoPro on their helmets, and their plates showed them to be Italian, Swiss, Belgian, and German.
Also a lot of cars had a GoPro mounted on the leading edge of the bonnet - more for the view I think (up and down mountain passes) than for the recording of bad driving, but there none the less.
Racing in Norway recently I noticed that it's very common for motorcyclists to have a GoPro on their helmets, and their plates showed them to be Italian, Swiss, Belgian, and German.
Also a lot of cars had a GoPro mounted on the leading edge of the bonnet - more for the view I think (up and down mountain passes) than for the recording of bad driving, but there none the less.
I was watching and filmed a 'ChipsAway' van driver texting while driving. As his van was marked I was able to get his email address. I told him what I saw and asked whether I should send the film to police and/or Chips Away? Got a very apologetic reply so perhaps he will think twice before texting again while driving.
Did you know that if you have a dashcam fitted to your car you are supposed to have something to warn the public that they are being videoed ? 😲
"I confirm that I understand that dashcam footage falls under the Category of CCTV and as the footage is taken in the public domain, the Domestic Purposes Exemption under the Data Protection Act/UKGDPR does not apply and therefore all users are Data Controllers in their own right. As such you should be informing the public that they are being filmed and should have some form of notification on your mode of transport as you have responsibilities under the Data Protection Act /UKGDPR "
"I confirm that I understand that dashcam footage falls under the Category of CCTV and as the footage is taken in the public domain, the Domestic Purposes Exemption under the Data Protection Act/UKGDPR does not apply and therefore all users are Data Controllers in their own right. As such you should be informing the public that they are being filmed and should have some form of notification on your mode of transport as you have responsibilities under the Data Protection Act /UKGDPR "
119 said:
Nigh on ten years must be a record surely?
Even worse, he’s actually wrong.https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/advice-and-se...
An individual who processes personal data for ‘purely personal or household activity’ will not be subject to UK GDPR, and therefore will not have controllership obligations.
As such, if a customer is using the dashcam footage only for personal use, the UK GDPR will not apply, and they will not be a controller.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff