Data Protection and CCTV
Discussion
Hope someone with legal knowledge knows the answer to this...
At work our reception desk has CCTV monitors which are manned by security staff.
If normal staff were to watch these CCTV monitors while waiting in reception, Is this in breach of of any Data protection act, or could this result in any disciplinary action?
Only asking, because we have told not to look at the monitors while in reception area.
At work our reception desk has CCTV monitors which are manned by security staff.
If normal staff were to watch these CCTV monitors while waiting in reception, Is this in breach of of any Data protection act, or could this result in any disciplinary action?
Only asking, because we have told not to look at the monitors while in reception area.
I think there are next to no provisions in law as to who can set up and use a CCTV system on private property...
only thing I could find is:
CCTV is covered by the DPA 98 because part of its operation is to process images (personal data) of individuals observed by CCTV cameras. As far as the DPA is concerned, the only CCTV systems that fall within the jurisdiction of the act are those that are dealing with surveillance in ‘areas where the public have largely free and unrestricted access.’
Office block, private land = no issue?
>> Edited by princeperch on Thursday 2nd February 18:39
only thing I could find is:
CCTV is covered by the DPA 98 because part of its operation is to process images (personal data) of individuals observed by CCTV cameras. As far as the DPA is concerned, the only CCTV systems that fall within the jurisdiction of the act are those that are dealing with surveillance in ‘areas where the public have largely free and unrestricted access.’
Office block, private land = no issue?
>> Edited by princeperch on Thursday 2nd February 18:39
princeperch said:
‘areas where the public have largely free and unrestricted access.’
Office block, private land = no issue?
Could the area being observed such as the office car park, be classed as unrestricted access?
It is a private car park, but there is nothing to stop anyone walking through it or parking in it at the moment.
ledfoot said:
‘areas where the public have largely free and unrestricted access.’
Office block, private land = no issue?
Could the area being observed such as the office car park, be classed as unrestricted access?
It is a private car park, but there is nothing to stop anyone walking through it or parking in it at the moment.
No , I wouldnt think so. Chances are your co has signs up discharging their liability for any incidents that arnt down to their negligence due to it being private property, a similar thing works with regards to CCTV, as they would have a yellow sign up to inform licencees (customers etc) when entering their carpark that they are being CCTV'd and that it is private property.
voyds9 said:
I would have thought so long as they are watching live cctv then it doesn't fall under DPA. Only stored data falls under DPA ie recorded images. Stands and waits to be corrected.
Nope pretty much correct....
However, where CCTV operates it must be clearly marked and you as an individual have one principle right - the right to view and have access to the recorded image. Its effectively your data and therefore you have access to it. By rights, the signage clearly shows that you are being potentially recorded and as a result wave your right for anonymity.....
So if its on private land then fine - still need signs. If the cameras are on public access property, or can view such areas you need the signs AND you need to talk to your local council / police - there may be a planning issue at hand. Additionally you must register this with the DPR and failure to do so will land you with a big fine.
lots of other stuff too, was a big issue when companies started putting up webcams.
On private land (such as in an office block etc) you need a sign that says that CCTV is in operation, who the 'data controller' is, and who to contact. You also need to be registered. For webcams looking out over lets say a beach or a shopping centre, the image quality has to be such that the faces of persons cannot be made out, and vehicle registration numbers cannot be read. You can also be in a bit of bother if your office cctv camera records images of public places too, eg through a window.
On private land (such as in an office block etc) you need a sign that says that CCTV is in operation, who the 'data controller' is, and who to contact. You also need to be registered. For webcams looking out over lets say a beach or a shopping centre, the image quality has to be such that the faces of persons cannot be made out, and vehicle registration numbers cannot be read. You can also be in a bit of bother if your office cctv camera records images of public places too, eg through a window.
voyds9 said:The DPA is not confined to "stored data". It covers personal data being processed, it does not need to be stored. (Personal) data are covered where they are information which-
I would have thought so long as they are watching live cctv then it doesn't fall under DPA. Only stored data falls under DPA ie recorded images. Stands and waits to be corrected.
(a) is being processed by means of equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purpose,
(b) is recorded with the intention that it should be processed by means of such equipment,
(c) is recorded as part of a relevant filing system or with the intention that it should form part of a relevant filing system, or
(d) does not fall within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) but forms part of an accessible record ...
Streaky
>> Edited by streaky on Sunday 5th February 07:12
See here: www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/eventual.aspx?id=5739 - Streaky
off_again said:
However, where CCTV operates it must be clearly marked. By rights, the signage clearly shows that you are being potentially recorded and as a result wave your right for anonymity.....
So if its on private land then fine - still need signs.
Ahem!
CCTV Code of Practice
Circumstances in which the requirement for signs may be set aside:
The Act does not make specific reference to the use of covert processing of (sensitive) personal data but it does provide a limited exemption from the requirement of fair processing. Because fair processing (as indicated above) requires that individuals are made aware that they are entering an area where their images may be captured, by the use of signs, it follows that the use of covert processing i.e. removal or failure to provide signs, is prima facie a breach of the fairness requirement of the First Data Protection Principle. However, a breach of this requirement will not arise if an exemption can be relied on. Such an exemption may be found at Section 29(l) of the Act, which states that:
c) Circumstances in which the requirement for signs may be set aside
“Personal data processed for any of the following purposes:
a) prevention or detection of crime
b) apprehension or prosecution of offenders
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff