CCTV constitutional

humble_john

Me and my mates have just been having a chin wag about this in the pub so I decided to ask it on here to see what yez legal eagles think:
Is CCTV constitutional? wot about privacy issues?

Tom Young

Eh, yeah. On the basis that the CCTV is advertised and you or the public are on notice of its uses.

The UK has differing law in relation to this.

You might also be interested to know what there have been some Supreme Court judgments on the subject of same, but along the lines of evidence.

Privacy issues can come into it, but there is a proportionality argument.

Tom

McCrack

Signs giving notice of the operation of CCTV are not required, they are only put up to act as a deterrent to would be criminals. It's not illegal or unconstitutional to photograph/record another in a public place with or without their knowledge/consent.

I mean think about it, for example if you look at 9 o'clock news you will see cameramen running in front of defendants snapping their mugs going to/leaving the Central. Also Gardai often record suspects covertly and successfully use that evidence in court.

Now I say this with one caveat...s10 of the NFOAPA 1997, essentially stalking which in certain circumstances (depending on the facts) can be a criminal offence, certain facts im thinking might include persistantly following another with a camera which causes alarm/distress to that person but that aside it's not illegal or unconstitutional and notice is not required of the fact that recording is in operation.

mikemac

Interesting thread

To use another example I remember a sex shop opened in a residental area of Galway. The outraged NIMBYs residents took turns to film people coming and going from the shop.
Ended up on youtube I suppose, not quite sure if they did that.

Nothing illegal going by this thread but surely that's harrasment?
But then the residents were simply taking turns with the camera and were located across the street. Maybe they were claiming they were filming something else if they were ever challenged.

End of story is the shop shut down within months

Steve

McCrack wrote: »

Signs giving notice of the operation of CCTV are not required, they are only put up to act as a deterrent to would be criminals. It's not illegal or unconstitutional to photograph/record another in a public place with or without their knowledge/consent.

Afaik, the the signs you speak of are required under data protection law. They must also state the purpose or the surveillance.
e.g. 'security' footage mat not be used to track the length of employee smoke breaks and such unless they were informed of it beforehand.

Is that not true?

McCrack

If recording is on private property which would usually be commercial premises then notice should be given, if the camera is recording public space no notice is required.

humble_john

So is it to be taken that the constitutionality of CCTV in regards to a specific case has never been challenged to date? It would set an interesting precedent would it not.

cushtac

McCrack wrote: »

Also Gardai often record suspects covertly and successfully use that evidence in court.

Off-topic, but I'm not aware of any covertly-taken photos being presented by the Gardai as evidence in court.

Tom Young

humble_john wrote: »

So is it to be taken that the constitutionality of CCTV in regards to a specific case has never been challenged to date? It would set an interesting precedent would it not.

Sorry about this, but I am not really able to grasp your point.

If your point is one re. Privacy, then forget it. If it's something else, then please explain?

Bunreacht na hEireann art 40.3.3 contains a number of unenumerated rights, privacy being one of them, see the case of Kennedy v Ireland and Norris etc.

Tom

PS: Interesting precedent? No, not really.