Okay, I guess there's a couple of debates i'm interested in.
1) Is the use of CCTV in public spaces unethical? Should I/we/you be bothered that i can be tracked pretty much anywhere i wander. Do I start to do a Genet and act guilty because I'm presumed to be guilty?
2) If the use of CCTV bothers I/we/you, can laws on the invasion of privacy be applied to the operators of these cameras? If celebrities can apply it to the paparazzi, why can't i apply it to the council?
I'll wade in later on, but i'm interested to see other people's points of view/legal expertise.
Ta
J
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In Europe, because the encompassing data protection legal framework of the European Union Data Protection Directive applies to video surveillance records, privacy authorities have started drawing up guidelines aimed at implementing the Directive's data protection principles to the field of video surveillance.[1] The European Commission, in a recent consultation aimed at evaluating how the Directive had been implemented in practice as regards the processing of sound and image data, concluded that no change was required to the current rules for it to be applicable to the processing of personal data in the context of video surveillance, although more practical guidance was definitely needed.[2] The Article 29 Working Party (established under the EU Data Protection Directive) has issued several documents on video surveillance. One includes a summary of guidance issued by national data protection authorities.[3]
In July 2000, the United Kingdom Data Protection Commissioner issued a code of practice on the use of CCTV. The code sets out guidelines for the operators of CCTV systems and makes clear their obligations under the recently implemented Data Protection Act 1998.[4]
[1] In May 2004, the Deutsches Institut für Normung (German Institute for Standardization), published a draft standard for a graphic symbol to indicate surveillance by electronic means. DIN 33450 "Graphic Symbol to Indicate Surveillance by Electronic Means (video symbol)." The uniform symbol, a pictograph, is intended to provide a simple way of fulfilling any legal requirement of making video surveillance known to the public. See .
[2] The consultation shows that there has been so far insufficient public debate about the limits to be placed on the use of video surveillance in order to safeguard data subjects' rights and freedoms, and that a number of legal and practical issues resulting from the implementation of the Directive in the Member States with respect to sound and image data is creating some uncertainty for operators called on to comply with the legislation and for individuals entitled to exercise their data protection rights. European Commission, First report on the implementation of the Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC), COM (2003) 265(01), available at
; see also European Commission's Report on the transposition of Directive 95/46/EC homepage . See also British Institute of International & Comparative Law, Report on the Implementation of Directive 95/46/EC to the Processing of Sound and Image Data, May 16, 2003, available at (expert report that substantiates the European Commission's report).
[3] See Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (WP29), Opinion 4/2004 on the Processing of Personal Data by means of Video Surveillance (February 2004) (WP 89) . The WP29's opinion also discusses the consequences of processing of image and sound data under the standards of the European Data Protection directive. See also WP29, Working Document on the Processing of Personal Data by means of Video Surveillance (November 2002) (WP 67) .
[4] United Kingdom Data Protection Commission, CCTV Code of Practice, July 2000. |
