another angle

damon5

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/cyclists-may-breach-data-laws-with-on-board-cameras-413613.html

Beasty

No idea why they raise this as a cycling issue. Surely there are more dashcams out there filming exactly the same sort of stuff.

Borderfox

There is no expectation of privacy in a public area

ThisRegard

Beasty wrote: »

No idea why they raise this as a cycling issue. Surely there are more dashcams out there filming exactly the same sort of stuff.

Yeah, raised the same point in another thread discussing it, don't know why they took that approach.

Maybe the dashcam thread in motors should be closed until legal advice clarifies it given how the site tiptoes around such potentially legal issues.

Beasty

ThisRegard wrote: »

Yeah, raised the same point in another thread discussing it, don't know why they took that approach.

Maybe the dashcam thread in motors should be closed until legal advice clarifies it given how the site tiptoes around such potentially legal issues.

If they are uploading from YouTube site policy is it's OK as YouTube are hosting it and are at the front of the queue should there be any legal challenge (along with whoever uploaded it)

Borderfox

Photos and video shot in public are used by media outlets all the time and are covered by editorial usage

cython

“Our general guidance in this area is that we would consider that body-worn cameras should only be activated in extreme cases in response to specific pre-defined criteria, where it could be justified for security and safety purposes,” reads the report.

This piece just sums up for me how out of touch with reality that report is. I'm reasonably sure that in well over 90% of all incidents where a helmet/body/dashcam might have captured a dangerous manoeuvre (e.g. dangerous overtakes, vehicles pulling in on top of other vehicles, etc.) the only reason that the incident was captured was because of the camera already being on - most of these incidents don't exactly come with much forewarning, and I would say that the proportion that do is sufficiently small that the cameras' utility would be significantly negated by the above approach.

ThisRegard

Beasty wrote: »

If they are uploading from YouTube site policy is it's OK as YouTube are hosting it and are at the front of the queue should there be any legal challenge (along with whoever uploaded it)

I'm being facetious of course, but then does it not fall into the same category as linking to websites that sell dodgy android boxes for example which are strictly frowned upon.

Beasty

ThisRegard wrote: »

I'm being facetious of course, but then does it not fall into the same category as linking to websites that sell dodgy android boxes for example which are strictly frowned upon.

I doesn't but as soon as there is a perceived exposure to legal action site rules require us to delete the relevant material. So, for example, we have to ban copyrighted clips of soccer action. However anything on YouTube is OK as they host it and therefore they are the ones with the primary legal exposure

However if someone uploaded some helmet cam footage here that was not from a source such as YouTube/Twitter/Facebook we now would have to consider deleting if the Data Protection Commissioner is taking this approach (and that approach is frankly bizzarre, but unfortunately not untypical of the things I have seen from the DPC in the past, albeit the predecessor to the incumbent).

gaffmaster

Sounds like the Data Protection Commissioner or someone close the them is afraid of being caught doing something silly on camera.

From what I learnt years ago, filming/photographing the public behaving naturally in a public space is perfectly legitimate. The need for control comes when a scenario is derived or concocted for the purposes of filming a member of the public's actions/reactions, in which case you need to get consent from that person (which is why you often see blurred faces in hidden camera shows - that person didn't sign a release form).

Agree with the 'why pick on bikes' point above too. How many dashcams/mobile phones/drones would this also apply to.

Chips Lovell

I don't think the DPC "picked on" cyclists. It didn't mention cycling at all in its report, just "body worn cameras". It was the Examiner who highlighted that cyclists use them.

Macy0161

Can't see why the article would only focus on cyclists and cctv, and not dashcam. All feeding into the anti cyclist agenda that you see in the comments section on the likes of the journal or joe*.

*As a cyclist, the reaction to the upload of that white merc when Joe ran the story was frankly scary in the reaction of most. I feel we need to re-work "Guns don't kill people, rappers do!" to "Cars don't kill people, cyclists do!"...

check_six

Macy0161 wrote: »

As a cyclist, the reaction to the upload of that white merc when Joe ran the story was frankly scary in the reaction of most.

What incident was this? It doesn't ring any bells. Could you give me a summary, please?

Lumen

Beasty wrote: »

No idea why they raise this as a cycling issue. Surely there are more dashcams out there filming exactly the same sort of stuff.

Lots of motorcyclists use helmet cams too, though possibly only to record their wheelies :-)

Macy0161

check_six wrote: »

What incident was this? It doesn't ring any bells. Could you give me a summary, please?

It was on sticky bottle after the weekend, joe regurgitated yesterday. The comments on Joe were all about how it was the cyclists fault for being in a group, two a breast etc etc...

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/video-driver-lucky-to-be-alive-after-overtaking-irish-club-spin/

NiallBoo

Don't think it makes much sense to criticise dash-cams here.

It's silly of the examiner to highlight helmet-cams, but them doing two silly things doesn't make it any better.

Dash-cams are of benefit to cyclists too. Dangerous drivers will act dangerously to everyone. If they get caught on a dash cam then hopefully they won't have the chance to act dangerously to a Cyclist (or anyone) in the future.

Beasty

The perils of a dashcam

Macy0161

NiallBoo wrote: »

Don't think it makes much sense to criticise dash-cams here.

Don't think anyone necessarily has issue with Dashcams - the problem was why only highlight cyclists/ helmet cams, and cctv, and make no mention of dashcams? That was the point really - if there is an issue, it doesn't apply just or even mainly to cyclists.

NiallBoo

Macy0161 wrote: »

Don't think anyone necessarily has issue with Dashcams - the problem was why only highlight cyclists/ helmet cams, and cctv, and make no mention of dashcams? That was the point really - if there is an issue, it doesn't apply just or even mainly to cyclists.

It doesn't seem that either were mentioned by the data protection folks - so making the article about either of them is bad reporting.

I'd rather the examiner make one mistake than two.

I think that the focus on dash-cams here misses the point by making it car vs bike.

Just looking at it different ways really - I agree that the data commissioners don't seem to be thinking of either and the whole thing is bad reporting.

Roadhawk

I'm all for helmet cams when cycling. They are paramount in the event of an accident. Yellow cyclist has incredible day to day videos around Dublin showing some crazy stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgCjrdNoFNHet0p1H5phIpw

starshine1234

The Irish Examiner says, on this link
http: //www. irishexaminer.com/ireland/cyclists-may-breach-data-laws-with-on-board-cameras-413613. html
(new user so links not working)

Irish Examiner wrote:

The spokesperson from the commissioner’s office stated however, that where an individual processes data from such cameras ...(CCTV cameras)... for their own personal affairs or keeps it for recreational purposes, this is exempt from the data protection law.

However, even if the activity is exempt a person such as a neighbour might object to it and take a civil action.

“Though outside the remit of this office, it may be the case that even where this exemption does apply, an individual who objects to the recording, for example a neighbour who objects to images of his or her property being recorded, may be able to take a civil action based on the constitutional and common law right to privacy,” said the spokesperson.

An Irish high court judge has given a ruling which more or less completely contradicts that article.

More details here
http: //www. tjmcintyre.com/2006/05/high-court-gives-disappointing. html
(new user so links not working)

quote from above page

Irish High Court Judge wrote:

I am satisfied that the taking of video footage of the hedge and in so doing the front of the accused’s house is not an act which constitutes an unconstitutional invasion of the right to privacy as contended by Mr O’Higgins. First of all, it is obvious that the front of the accused’s house is something which is visible from the public road – perhaps only with the use of a ladder, but nonetheless visible. It is certainly visible from the upstairs of the house opposite, from which the footage was taken.

Irish High Court Judge wrote:

One way or another I cannot see that there has been any breach of the accused’s right of privacy in relation to his dwelling and its curtilage – especially in the absence of any trespass or other unlawfulness.

Very interesting eh?

So a camera, which records on zoomed in setting, viewing directly into your living room, 24 hours a day, is perfectly legal according to this judge as the cameraman could just as easily have set himself up in that same spot with binoculars 24 hours a day.

I wonder what the judge would say if you set up 20 such cameras, or one single camera pointing at his house?


In any event, this judge sees no problem with footage taken from public places, regardless of its invasiveness.

2RockMountain

Silly indeed of the journalist to focus on cycling helmetcams. The same issues arise with dashcams, and indeed with anyone taking a still photo or video clip on the street. If a cyclist with a helmetcam is a 'data controller', then so is the 11-year-old Snapchat user taking selfies with people in the background.

cython wrote: »

This piece just sums up for me how out of touch with reality that report is. I'm reasonably sure that in well over 90% of all incidents where a helmet/body/dashcam might have captured a dangerous manoeuvre (e.g. dangerous overtakes, vehicles pulling in on top of other vehicles, etc.) the only reason that the incident was captured was because of the camera already being on - most of these incidents don't exactly come with much forewarning, and I would say that the proportion that do is sufficiently small that the cameras' utility would be significantly negated by the above approach.

In fairness, the context of this 'warning' against body-worn cameras is in relation to businesses or organisations, not individuals. They are saying (and it makes some sense) that butchers shops or hedge-cutters or nurses shouldn't be fitted with body-worn cameras by their employers unless there is a compelling case for those cameras.

An Irish high court judge has given a ruling which more or less completely contradicts that article.

More details here
http://www.tjmcintyre.com/2006/05/high-court-gives-disappointing.html


Very interesting eh?

The High Court case is from 10 years ago. A lot has moved on in technology and Data Protection law in those 10 years. The idea that the average cyclist or motorist could run a video camera was fairly unthinkable at that time.

starshine1234

2RockMountain wrote: »

The High Court case is from 10 years ago. A lot has moved on in technology and Data Protection law in those 10 years. The idea that the average cyclist or motorist could run a video camera was fairly unthinkable at that time.

The Data Protection Act is from 1998 and 2003 I think. So the case from 2005 is relevant, and I don't think anything in Data Protection has moved on in that time.

I'm not sure it matters that technology has moved on. That's a matter for legislators to consider rather than judges. If legislators want to make new laws that's fine. Judges in the meantime will continue with the old laws, and rule in the old way.

Examples of new technology would be the availability of drones that allow you to take photos through third and fourth story windows. That could have been done previously with very long ladders, but drones make it easier.



I have a problem with the judges ruling. He says photos taken with ladders are ok. But I suspect that if you are on top of a ladder, looking into someones house over their hedge, with binoculars, that the Gardai would have a problem with that. Surely that would be a peeping tom type offence. But the judge rules that a camera in the same position (or with the same viewpoint) is legal.

The judge also said photos are fine from the house window opposite. But that isn't a public place, and that should make a difference. Again, if a person was to constantly stand at a window, with binoculars, and peer into your room I reckon you could call the police eventually. You could complain that you are being harassed or intimidated.

Borderfox

With regards to the judges ruling there is still an expectation of privacy inside your house

2RockMountain

starshine1234 wrote: »

The Data Protection Act is from 1998 and 2003 I think. So the case from 2005 is relevant, and I don't think anything in Data Protection has moved on in that time.

An awful lot has changed during that time, including a whole raft of European court judgements that directly impact Ireland, such as the Schrems case and the Rynes judgement.

https://ec.europa.eu/anti-fraud/sites/antifraud/files/caselaw_2001_2015_en.pdf

starshine1234

I'm aware of the Max Schrems case. He's a hero in the Data Protection world! I'm not a solicitor though and I don't know the other case. Thanks for that PDF doc; I may well read up on the cases.

Max Schrems single handedly took on the might of the Irish DP Commissioner and won in fine style. His case had been ruled vexatious or frivilous by the Irish DP. As it happened his case had huge implications for data protection in Europe when he crowdsourced money and successfully appealed the Irish DP decision to the Irish High Court and European courts

I think Max won in the sense that the Irish DP has to reconsider his original complaint to the Irish DP. But she is dragging her heels, to the extent that I heard (in the newspaper) that Max had threatened her with a personal lawsuit if she failed to carry out her duty. I feel she has no interest in ruling in his favour, and is prepared not to do her job correctly in order to frustrate him.

Ultimately Max won't succeed though. Europe have already sold out to US interests and a new version of Safe Harbour is being arranged.

borderfox wrote:

With regards to the judges ruling there is still an expectation of privacy inside your house

The judge said this.

Irish Judge wrote:

... it could not possibly be seriously contended that if that person also saw the accused re-entering his house through the front door, and while the door was open saw also into the hallway, that in some way that person had breached the accused’s right to privacy by seeing what he saw. The camera has done no more and no less than that.

The judge is saying it is ok if the camera is pointed at the door, and records inside the house when the door is open.

This suggests that this judge believes any camera is legal if viewing from a public place. Public places includes the top of ladders.

I feel he's wrong in his judgement, especially when it comes to taking continuous video footage, using zoom lenses, into peoples houses, from the tops of long ladders!

I feel the linked article is correct. The judge should have said that in general its not ok to take video recordings of other peoples houses but that in that particular case it was ok as the footage had been intended to resolve persistent criminal lawbreaking, i.e vandalism of some type.