Woman throws cat in bin.

[kidneyfailure]

Here, for the hell of it:

The Data Protection Act considers to be protected any personal info, which is defined as:

data which relate to a living individual who can be identified from those data; or from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller and includes any expression of opinion about the individual and any indication of the intentions of the data controller or any other person in respect of the individual

Which clearly applies in this case. Furthermore,

Information will amount to personal data if it is capable of being processed so as to distinguish you from any other individual. For example, if a data controller can capture an image of you from a CCTV camera and then match that image to a photograph or a physical description of you, the CCTV footage will be personal data. On the other hand, CCTV footage of a public area where you are just a ‘face in the crowd’ and the data controller has no means of identifying who you are is unlikely to be considered your personal data.

I think that obviously applies.

ETA:

And

in some circumstances the use of CCTV footage that allows you to be identified and which reveals something private about you may engage your Article 8 rights. So in a notable case the European Court of Human Rights held that publishing CCTV footage that showed the applicant attempting to commit suicide breached his private life, even though the footage was taken from a CCTV camera in a public street.

*The court decided that for information to relate to an individual, it had to affect their privacy. To help judge this, the court decided that two matters were important: (1) a person had to be the focus of the information and (2) the information must tell you something significant about them. Whether or not the DPA covers a CCTV system thus depends on how it is used. If a particular person is intended to be the focus of CCTV and the information from the CCTV tells one something significant about that person, the data from the CCTV are likely to be covered by the DPA and the operator’s use of CCTV must comply with the provisions of the DPA. *

And, finally:

If, however, the CCTV is used remotely to zoom in on people, or for monitoring particular individuals, or the film recorded is used for anything other than for providing to law enforcement bodies, then the CCTV is likely to be covered by the DPA.

In other words: PRIVACY VIOLATED. Any questions, mhendo?

[pulykamell]

How in the hell do they get any journalism done in the UK if that’s considered a violation of privacy?

[mhendo]

@kidneyfailure

In other words: PRIVACY VIOLATED. Any questions, mhendo?

To be quite honest, i don’t have a huge amount of confidence in your ability to accurately interpret what is a very complex Act. Even the legal system and the regulators in Great Britain often have trouble determining exactly what does and does not fall under the auspices of the DPA.

I’ve just read through not only the website you linked to, but the ACT itself, and it’s still not clear to me whether this particular case would be deemed to violate the woman’s privacy rights. And given that you first quote in this thread from the yourrights.org.uk site (in Post #103) was taken dramatically out of context and seemed to misrepresnt the information on that page, you’ll forgive me if i don’t place too much credence in your assertions.

After all, in your most recent post with all your quotes, you conveniently left out this one:

Similarly, if your neighbour has a CCTV camera for domestic security purposes, and this captures personal data about you and your family, again it is likely to not be covered by the DPA, as it will be considered information concerned only with the management of his household affairs

Admittedly, the posting of the video on the internet goes beyond simply using it for “household affairs,” but i have a feeling that this case is somewhat more complex than you are making out in this thread. If your posts are any indication, it’s probably more complicated than you can actually understand.

And the legal question is, for me, separate from the question of principles and morals. Even if the posting of the video were fond to violate the DPA, i would argue that the DPA itself is the problem. If you do something on a public street, in full public view, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, in my opinion, and the law should not protect you from the social consequences of your own stupidity, especially when you do something as ridiculous as what this woman did.

@pulykamell

How in the hell do they get any journalism done in the UK if that’s considered a violation of privacy?

The fact is that the right to free speech is considerably narrower in the UK than it is in the United States. Libel and slander cases are considerably easier to make, because truth does not constitute an absolute defense in such case, the way it does in the United States. Similarly, privacy laws have been written in such a way that they curb what i believe to be reasonable instances of free expression. I don’t think the UK’s Data Protection Act would ever pass constitutional muster in the US.

I’ve been plenty critical of the United States in the past, including many of its laws and its political priorities, but one area where it has a huge advantage over almost everywhere else, including other western democracies like the UK and Australia, is in its freedom of expression.

[pulykamell]

@mhendo

]The fact is that the right to free speech is considerably narrower in the UK than it is in the United States. Libel and slander cases are considerably easier to make, because truth does not constitute an absolute defense in such case, the way it does in the United States.

Yes, I know about Britain’s ridiculous libel and slander laws. What a terrible place to be a journalist.

Similarly, privacy laws have been written in such a way that they curb what i believe to be reasonable instances of free expression. I don’t think the UK’s Data Protection Act would ever pass constitutional muster in the US.

I find it somewhat ironic that one of the most, if not the most, video surveilled countries in the world is so protective of “privacy.” Yes, I could see the laws being there because of all the video surveillance but, on the face of it, it still strikes me as ironic.

[Quartz]

@mhendo

I’ve been plenty critical of the United States in the past, including many of its laws and its political priorities, but one area where it has a huge advantage over almost everywhere else, including other western democracies like the UK and Australia, is in its freedom of expression.

It’s a fine balance and I think the US has gone too far. Sure they’ve got freedom of expression, but the American press are almost above the law. Apparently, it’s even legal for them to lie.

[kidneyfailure]

@mhendo

After all, in your most recent post with all your quotes, you conveniently left out…

I didn’t leave it out, I specifically chose not to mention it because this negates it:

or the film recorded is used for anything other than for providing to law enforcement bodies

Rather than giving the evidence only the the police, he also chose to post it online. That’s where the violation occurred. I will agree that there is a distinction to be made between the legal and the moral, but the law is the law and in this case the law was clearly broken. The justice system doesn’t exist to adjudicate morality, but to apply the law and to dole out punishments as needed. Law is law, morality is morality. Two different beasts.

@mhendo

If your posts are any indication, it’s probably more complicated than you can actually understand.

When your arguments are proven wrong there’s still the trusty old ad hominem, eh? :rolleyes:

[mhendo]

@kidneyfailure

I didn’t leave it out, I specifically chose not to mention it because this negates it:

or the film recorded is used for anything other than for providing to law enforcement bodies

Rather than giving the evidence only the the police, he also chose to post it online. That’s where the violation occurred. I will agree that there is a distinction to be made between the legal and the moral, but the law is the law and in this case the law was clearly broken. The justice system doesn’t exist to adjudicate morality, but to apply the law and to dole out punishments as needed. Law is law, morality is morality. Two different beasts.

As i suggested in my last post, i don’t really have much confidence in your ability to interpret the law, given your performance in this thread. It is possible that the person violated the DPA by putting the video online, but i’ll wait for the prosecution and conviction.

You are right that the justice system is there to apply the law, but the law itself is a function of society’s moral code. What is the law about privacy rights if not a law about morality and about how one should act in civil society? In this case, i happen to think that the legal sanctions available for certain acts under the UK’s DPA are a contravention of the fundamental right to freedom of expression. While i support the right to privacy under many circumstances (in your home, for example), i don’t think it should extend to actions undertaken in places that are, by definition, public.

@kidneyfailure

When your arguments are proven wrong there’s still the trusty old ad hominem, eh? :rolleyes:

As i suggested above, it will take more than your ravings to convince me that the guy broke the law. Having read the websites you linked, as well as the Act itself, i’m willing to concede that it’s possible. There certainly seems to be scope, under the Act, to prosecute him for putting the information online. I’ll wait and see what actually happens.

More important to me than all this, though, and the main reason i responded to you in the first place, is your asinine wailing about the poor woman. It’s pretty simple, asshole: if you don’t want people to know you’re a fucking moron, don’t act like a fucking moron in public.

And you can also quit with the strawman of equating public shaming to vigilante action. No-one in this thread has supported violence or harassment, and everyone who’s mentioned those things has done so explicitly to repudiate them.

[kidneyfailure]

@mhendo

And you can also quit with the strawman of equating public shaming to vigilante action. No-one in this thread has supported violence or harassment, and everyone who’s mentioned those things has done so explicitly to repudiate them.

You’ve gotta be fucking kidding me.

Yeah, sure, no one wants her to be harrassed or assaulted, but you all support the public release of the video, the one thing that could (and probably has) lead to her being harrassed and assaulted. That’s some fuzzy logic there, my friend.

@mhendo

It’s pretty simple, asshole: if you don’t want people to know you’re a fucking moron, don’t act like a fucking moron in public.

I don’t disagree, asshole. However, even fucking morons have rights and protection under the law. That’s what the laws are there for. Doing something stupid in public doesn’t negate your right to privacy.

[kidneyfailure]

ETA:

And in this case that right (to privacy) has been breached. IANAL, so don’t take my word for it if you don’t want to, but it seems pretty clear to me that the cat owner went over the line in releasing the video to the Internet. I don’t think the woman will sue, though. I imagine that she’s pretty well-despised among most people in Britain at the moment, and filing a breach of privacy lawsuit against the guy, even though he obviously deserves it, wont win her any friends.

[kidneyfailure]

Hmmm, so is this thread over now?

[Gangster_Octopus]

I dunno if this violated the law in the UK, but I can say it is freaking idiotic law that would consider revealing something done in public as somehow being an invasion of privacy.

[Malthus]

@kidneyfailure

Here, for the hell of it:

The Data Protection Act considers to be protected any personal info, which is defined as:

data which relate to a living individual who can be identified from those data; or from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller and includes any expression of opinion about the individual and any indication of the intentions of the data controller or any other person in respect of the individual

Which clearly applies in this case. Furthermore,

Information will amount to personal data if it is capable of being processed so as to distinguish you from any other individual. For example, if a data controller can capture an image of you from a CCTV camera and then match that image to a photograph or a physical description of you, the CCTV footage will be personal data. On the other hand, CCTV footage of a public area where you are just a ‘face in the crowd’ and the data controller has no means of identifying who you are is unlikely to be considered your personal data.

I think that obviously applies.

ETA:

And

in some circumstances the use of CCTV footage that allows you to be identified and which reveals something private about you may engage your Article 8 rights. So in a notable case the European Court of Human Rights held that publishing CCTV footage that showed the applicant attempting to commit suicide breached his private life, even though the footage was taken from a CCTV camera in a public street.

*The court decided that for information to relate to an individual, it had to affect their privacy. To help judge this, the court decided that two matters were important: (1) a person had to be the focus of the information and (2) the information must tell you something significant about them. Whether or not the DPA covers a CCTV system thus depends on how it is used. If a particular person is intended to be the focus of CCTV and the information from the CCTV tells one something significant about that person, the data from the CCTV are likely to be covered by the DPA and the operator’s use of CCTV must comply with the provisions of the DPA. *

And, finally:

If, however, the CCTV is used remotely to zoom in on people, or for monitoring particular individuals, or the film recorded is used for anything other than for providing to law enforcement bodies, then the CCTV is likely to be covered by the DPA.

In other words: PRIVACY VIOLATED. Any questions, mhendo?

I suspect you are wrong in law.

First, I have no idea if the UK law even applies to personal acts by individuals - that is, whether they qualify as “data controllers” under the Act. I suspect it is intended to apply only to those performing commercial functions, though I could be wrong in that.

But nonetheless, even if so, the processing of personal data “for the prevention or detection of crimes” or “the apprehension or prosecution of offenders” is exempt, by virtue of s. 29 of the Act, from the first data protection principle (that, among other things, consent of the subject be obtained, etc.).

Given that this person is clearly an offender (animal cruelty is illegal), and that the tape was made and distributed for their apprehension, no violation of the Act, even if the Act was applicable, has occured.

[kidneyfailure]

@Malthus

But nonetheless, even if so, the processing of personal data “for the prevention or detection of crimes” or “the apprehension or prosecution of offenders” is exempt, by virtue of s. 29 of the Act, from the first data protection principle (that, among other things, consent of the subject be obtained, etc.).

Given that this person is clearly an offender (animal cruelty is illegal), and that the tape was made and distributed for their apprehension, no violation of the Act, even if the Act was applicable, has occured.

I noticed that. But does it specify whether or not the footage can be released to the public for indentification of the perp or just to the police?

[Malthus]

@kidneyfailure

@Malthus

But nonetheless, even if so, the processing of personal data “for the prevention or detection of crimes” or “the apprehension or prosecution of offenders” is exempt, by virtue of s. 29 of the Act, from the first data protection principle (that, among other things, consent of the subject be obtained, etc.).

Given that this person is clearly an offender (animal cruelty is illegal), and that the tape was made and distributed for their apprehension, no violation of the Act, even if the Act was applicable, has occured.

I noticed that. But does it specify whether or not the footage can be released to the public for indentification of the perp or just to the police?

The Act exempts the “processing” of data under the first data protection principle. The term “processing” is defined broadly in the Act, as follows:

1(1)“processing”, in relation to information or data, means obtaining, recording or holding the information or data or carrying out any operation or set of operations on the information or data, including—
(a) organisation, adaptation or alteration of the information or data,
(b) retrieval, consultation or use of the information or data,
**(c) disclosure of the information or data by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, ** or
(d) alignment, combination, blocking, erasure or destruction of the information or data;

[Emphasis added]

The case is made clearer by the operation of subsection 29(3), which provides as follows:

(3) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions in any case in which—
(a)the disclosure is for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (1), and
(b)the application of those provisions in relation to the disclosure would be likely to prejudice any of the matters mentioned in that subsection.

[Emphasis added]

Where subsection 29(1) states as follows:

29. Crime and taxation.— (1) Personal data processed for any of the following purposes—
    **(a)the prevention or detection of crime,
    (b)the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, **or
    (c)the assessment or collection of any tax or duty or of any imposition of a similar nature,
    are exempt from the first data protection principle (except to the extent to which it requires compliance with the conditions in Schedules 2 and 3) and section 7 in any case to the extent to which the application of those provisions to the data would be likely to prejudice any of the matters mentioned in this subsection.

[Emphasis added]

In short, under the Act you need not obtain a subject’s consent to record and disclose their personal data to the public, if it falls within the exemption found in s. 29.

A person who set up a camera to detect criminal activities and records a crime committed, and who then publishes it on Youtube to identify the perp, isn’t in breach of the Act.

Though I must admit, a more complex and confusing statuory regime it has rarely been my pleasure to read.

[palacheck]

Apparently this teen girl is the next target of the Internet Police. NSFW(unless your boss is cool with vids of puppies being thrown into a river).

[Nzinga_Seated]

@palacheck

Apparently this teen girl is the next target of the Internet Police. NSFW(unless your boss is cool with vids of puppies being thrown into a river).

God*dammit. *What the fuck is wrong with her??

[GSV_Consolation_of_Dreams]

Thought it might be a fake at first because there was a moment during the backswing (excuse me while a I dry-heave) when her throwing hand is out of shot, but that that last throw (reaching for eye-bleach) looks pretty damn real.

[pulykamell]

@GSV_Consolation_of_Dreams

Thought it might be a fake at first because there was a moment during the backswing (excuse me while a I dry-heave) when her throwing hand is out of shot, but that that last throw (reaching for eye-bleach) looks pretty damn real.

I see no reason to think that video is a fake. Looks pretty damn real from start to finish.

[Quartz]

@palacheck

Apparently this teen girl is the next target of the Internet Police. NSFW(unless your boss is cool with vids of puppies being thrown into a river).

At first I thought that there was a quick substitution going on because her hand was out of view but as she progressed there were at least two in full view from start to finish.

Not a nice lady.

[DigitalC]

You’all probably should not check fark today. And if you do you really really don’t want to click on a certain video link there.