Carlos Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Actually Pooks, I believe you are mistaken. According to data protection laws, you can take images IF there is more than one person in the shot. If there is only one person in the shot, the view is that you should seek their permission and the image belongs to them.Hmm, bit more complicated than that? If one of the following applies~ Processing is necessary to comply with a legal obligation of the Data Controller (There is at least a common law duty on the poster as a professional to point out and try to prevent breaches of good H&S practice)~ Processing is necessary for …… functions of a public nature exercised in the public interest And one of the following applies~ Processing is necessary to protect the vital interests of Data Subject or another person (H&S again?)~ Processing is part of the legitimate activities of a non-profit organisation existing for political, philosophical, religious or trade union purposes (Shetlink is philosophical?) Then there's no breach of the DPA and then there are the vague exemptions where personal data is processed for journalistic, literary or artistic purposes, if this is done with a view to publication and is believed to be in the public interest. And as far as I know advice is still all a bit vague in general on exactly what is OK and what is not. Interesting though that this comes up in a thread about CCTV...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nederlander Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Jesus, can a man no get on with his job without worryin about if somebody will post a picture of him on the internet then discuss everything he is doin wrong?!? Ah, probably not now as everybody will be being watched the whole time now anyway what with these cameras and all..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unlinkedstudent Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 ^^Yep, DP is complicated. One of the reasons Google Streetview have removed photos of people on their own is due to DP and it gets even more complicated with the web being worldwide. I'm not trying to be a "know it all" because I'm not. In addition, I'm not fully awake yet (caffeine and nicotine having not fully kicked in). I attempted to make the point re Health & Safety thus perhaps validating the publication of the pics. I also tried to touch on whether a SIC employee/contractor still owns his "image" whilst working for them/on their behalf. A neighbour wanted to install CCTV and did because his car kept getting vandalised (London). Another neighbour did the same. One neighbour got away with it. The other neighbour was told by the Police to remove it as another neighbour objected to being filmed as he walked by. Now whether this was to do with the fact that the neighbour with the CCTV was not registered with the DP Almighty Lord or not I don't know but he was advised and instructed to remove said CCTV as he was capturing images of individuals on their own and was told he was in breach of the Act. Whilst the wording of the Act, as with other legislation, doesn't always make the situation crystal clear, the Almightly DP Bods do tend now to take the view and, whilst taking each case on their own merit, that if you have a group of individuals in a photo that is fine, but a photograph on their own, is not. Soz if I've gone off thread and don't want to upset the MODS but suggest a separation thread on DP/photos? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeAyBee Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Shetland Peat.. The photos of the guy you took setting up the CCTV? Do you think he would want to see himself on Shetlink? This a breach of identification and confidentiality of an individual. And I am surprised the Moderator's let these photos through????The photos should be removed from the site.This person should of been informed before pictures of him were posted on Shetlink!!Bad practice... MODERATOR'S!! Ahh!!!! Oh! No!!!! more things!!!! to be outraged!!!!!!!!! about. I pity your keyboard, especially the exclamation mark key. There is no name posted, and no agreement of confidentiality to be broken. Can you identify the person from the picture alone? I can't. The picture is of a public street scene and is just that, a public street scene. Obviously if the person pictured makes a request for it to be removed I'm sure the MODERATORS (without the apostrophe) as you textually shouted will comply immediately, or blur the face in the image. Returning to the topic, I'm divided on the issue of CCTV. Street crime is a problem, although not necessarily in Shetland, dog fouling is a problem, again not as bad here as south, drugs are very much an issue, but so is the whole issue of a surveillance heavy society. I know it is a weak position but I think I'd like to see the results of the implementation before I make up my mind. I agree that it could be a bad thing, but it could also be good. I don't think this is a black and white issue, but deep grey instead. Hopefully it won't be too late to remove them. I suspect though that they will go when a lack of success outweighs the cost of monitoring the cameras. By lack of success I mean no direct correlation of a crime drop to the implementation of the system - crime is pretty low here compared to south and my guess (and this is a guess) is that the dealers and ne'er do wells (I never thought I'd use that term) will move elsewhere on the islands or go South. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeAyBee Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 ^^Yep, DP is complicated. One of the reasons Google Streetview have removed photos of people on their own is due to DP and it gets even more complicated with the web being worldwide. I'm not sure that is completely the reason. This is more to do with the license rights of the person in the image. A street scene is a street scene but when the person specifically is identifiable a release to publish needs to be obtained to publish, whether this be on the web or in print or on film. The DP act in this context concerns the use of the data in a sense that is not consistent with the purpose of the system or process involved. In Google's sense, the street pictures are to provide street pictures and the spin off effect of individuals being seen in specific locations and the use of this data to secure the location of individuals is outwith the purpose of the system and the data and so likely to be in breach of the DP act. If Google called their system 'People Finder' and secured releases from individuals to publish their images for that purpose they might still break the law if they can't demonstrate adequate procedures to add, maintain and remove data. I think I may have been incorrect in a previous post, the fact that I can't identify an individual is neither here nor there, the fact that an individual can be identified may mean that the image is used without a license and so the publisher may not have the right to publish said image, but also doesn't necessarily mean that they can't - celeb snaps are another case in point as is the nebulous concept of being 'in the public interest'. In this specific case, I think (please correct me if I'm wrong) Shetlandpeat was alluding to possible breaches of Health and Safety procedures/legislation by the workman/workmen involved and would I think be able to argue that this is indeed in the public interest. In any event, I'm sure that the paparazzi don't secure release forms from celebs before putting them in the newspaper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roachmill Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 LHD will be doing a roaring trade in parkas Thulecraft will also be doing a roaring trade in empty lawnmower boxes if the 2 neds I saw a few weeks back were anything to go by. They were walking along the street both sporting a very large cardboard box each with 2 holes for their eyes. Please neds think about what you're doing! I couldn't see your Burberry cap, zit laden face and I bet you weren't spitting every 5 seconds inside your boxes... or maybe you were? The upshot of all this is that I didn't realise you were, in fact, neds at all... and were subsequently rendered completely harmless in my eyes. The fact you hadn't cut any arm holes either actually made me feel extremely safe (and a little bit tempted to make mischief at your expense) so keep up the good work ! P.S. Dear neds, the CCTV cameras weren't actually up at the time. You could tell this by the absence of cameras Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 ^^Yep, DP is complicated.I'm not trying to be a "know it all" because I'm not.Ah no, I just have some vague idea of what is permitted under the "right to privacy" stuff and wondered how/where the DP stuff overlapped.It'd be easier if it was clear, but seems to be another one of those laws where it's all down to individual interpretation... A neighbour wanted to install CCTV and did because his car kept getting vandalised (London). Another neighbour did the same. One neighbour got away with it. The other neighbour was told by the Police to remove it as another neighbour objected to being filmed as he walked by. And back to CCTV stuff I'm a bit vague® here, but there is a need to get a licence to opperate CCTV that covers a public area(?) and the licence depends on if it's covert (no warning signs) or overt (warning signs).Rumour has it that those issues may have only very recently have come to the attention of the CCTV project guys........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 LHD will be doing a roaring trade in parkas Thulecraft will also be doing a roaring trade in empty lawnmower boxes if the 2 neds I saw a few weeks back were anything to go by. They were walking along the street both sporting a very large cardboard box each with 2 holes for their eyes. Please neds think about what you're doing! I couldn't see your Burberry cap, zit laden face and I bet you weren't spitting every 5 seconds inside your boxes... or maybe you were? The upshot of all this is that I didn't realise you were, in fact, neds at all... and were subsequently rendered completely harmless in my eyes. The fact you hadn't cut any arm holes either actually made me feel extremely safe (and a little bit tempted to make mischief at your expense) so keep up the good work ! P.S. Dear neds, the CCTV cameras weren't actually up at the time. You could tell this by the absence of cameras they were shy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coastie Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 LHD will be doing a roaring trade in parkas Thulecraft will also be doing a roaring trade in empty lawnmower boxes if the 2 neds I saw a few weeks back were anything to go by. They were walking along the street both sporting a very large cardboard box each with 2 holes for their eyes. Please neds think about what you're doing! I couldn't see your Burberry cap, zit laden face and I bet you weren't spitting every 5 seconds inside your boxes... or maybe you were? The upshot of all this is that I didn't realise you were, in fact, neds at all... and were subsequently rendered completely harmless in my eyes. The fact you hadn't cut any arm holes either actually made me feel extremely safe (and a little bit tempted to make mischief at your expense) so keep up the good work ! P.S. Dear neds, the CCTV cameras weren't actually up at the time. You could tell this by the absence of cameras Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattie Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 To the Spam tin and the rest.... Would you's be happy for photos taken of youz about your daily business in da toon and then posted on Shetlink. I think not??Everyone on Shetlink can hide behind their user name and remain annonymous! Photos of Islander's that aren't even a member or know of Shetlink. Shouldn't be posted on this site without their permission.You can come and take a pic of me Shetland Peat in a Cherry Picker anytime?lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Mattie, you need to calm down about this, you are making a bit of a mistake...you cannot see they guys face in full. But, If I were to write a full description of him, his type of vehicle would that be ok... Or is there an underlying problem here.. They guy has been shown to have no regard to the safety of others and himself.. He is DUTY BOUND to comply with ALL public safety requirements... And, this is an example of being caught with a image, there is no avenue for explanation... This is why we need CCTV, it would remove the doubt and show facts to be as they are... Too many folk want to bend they rules, lie and cheat, if a camera is watching then it does not happen so much.. I am still in two minds as to report this matter, because I was one of the ones who has to walk under the work platform and again into the road to get around it.. Most folk are not really bothered about images being watched. It is no different from a bobby on the street, except a bobby can be more distracted. There are many many images of folk in tinternet. I think the cameras are here to stay though a few will try to delay their use. Only for their own reasons... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logie-Bear Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 I am still in two minds as to report this matter, because I was one of the ones who has to walk under the work platform and again into the road to get around it.. He is DUTY BOUND to comply with ALL public safety requirements... Just da sam as nearly every other cooncil thing, walking into the road to go aroond it, smoking on site, no hi-viz da list goes on... No all the cooncil boys comply with ALL public saftey requirements.... I am NOW in two minds wider to report certain cooncil boys.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 I am still in two minds as to report this matter, because I was one of the ones who has to walk under the work platform and again into the road to get around it.. Oh please!!!!!.....This is Commercial Road, LK! Not the M1. Report away if you like, its your time to do with as you please. However, I would tend to be of the opinion that if someone wishes to work up a cherry picker without safety gear, its their own funeral if they come a cropper. Likewise, if someone doesn't have the midder wit not to stand or pass directly below someone working with tools, they deserve the bop on the head with the hammer, shifter or whatever, I doubt they'd feel it. And if they're not capable of going out in to the road safely, to get around whatever obstruction is in their way, their midder shouldn't have slippit dem oot demsells yet. It not H&S Regs folk who come a cropper from such things need, its Darwin Awards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trout Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 harse trying to get some one the sack for this. So if you wish to report them make sure you never break any safety or other rules. There are plenty of dodgier thing going on than a man on a cherry picker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.