Is CCTV an encroachment on Privacy?

[Handley_Page]

So she gives a BJ in a lift, knowing she's on camera.
Then complains !

See here. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/20/ofcom_cctv_outrage_drunk_bj_woman_in_lift/

 

[jomar]

Don't know the laws there, but I'd want the video to be only used by law enforcement, not tv shows.

 

[Devilius]

CCTVs are primarily used for security purpose.

Is it a Breach on privacy?

Depends.

I personally think that it isn't a breach when you've been warned beforehand about the presence of a CCTV. If you still did something stupid, then it's your fault.

But, if some individual other than law enforcement officer is using spycams, like in toilets and other places prohibited by the local law, then it is certainly a breach of privacy.

 

[oggbashan]

The UK has more official and private CCTV systems than almost any other country:

"The British Security Industry Authority (BSIA) estimated there are up to 5.9 million closed-circuit television cameras in the country, including 750,000 in “sensitive locations” such as schools, hospitals and care homes.

The survey’s maximum estimate works out at one for every 11 people in the UK, although the BSIA said the most likely figure was 4.9 million cameras in total, or one for every 14 people.

Both projections were higher than previous estimates which ranged between 1.5 million and four million.

Simon Adcock, of the BSIA, said: “This study represents the most comprehensive and up to date study undertaken into the number of CCTV cameras in use in the UK.

“Because there is no single reliable source of data no number can ever be held as truly accurate however the middle of our range suggests that there are around five million cameras.”

That was in 2013. The price of domestic CCTV has dropped significantly since then...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...ry-11-people-in-Britain-says-CCTV-survey.html

New regulations for home CCTV in the UK were introduced this month (March 2015) but they are a voluntary code at present.

 

[Hypoxia]

The flaw in her position is her expectation of privacy in a place of public access. Simply opt, privacy is dead. Anybody can be surveilled and recorded just about anywhere. You MIGHT have privacy in your own home with curtains and doors shut, speech-obscuring sounds playing, heat turned up to mask thermal signatures, etc. But don't bet on it.

 

[SandraMustard]

I might invest in a company that makes tin-foil body suits...

 

[Handley_Page]

Note:
When there's CCTV about, there Must Be a Warning plainly visible.
She could not have failed to see it!

 

[49greg]

I heard somewhere, a few years ago, that Singapore has cctv nearly everywhere in public and it's monitored by law enforcement for traffic and crowd control and, well, law enforcement.

Edited: Funny about Mrs K though, walking around with her dress caught up in her panties. That's happened a few times in an office building I once worked in. You don't know what to say, do you tell her or not. I opted to tell one time and got chewed out by the woman at the time, I know it had to be because she was embarrassed, but later on there was no apology when she got over her embarrassment. We worked in the same department and she stared daggers at me for years.

 

[unregistered]

 

[49greg]

Given the explosion in low cost, high resolution equipment, I'd say privacy is only as alive as the enforcement of the laws to protect it. I volunteered with a group on the local campus of our state university to develop a drone chopper to track animal species, mostly the large number of coyotes but others as well. We tricked out the sensor suite for less than a thousand dollars and the work product can track small animals, cats mostly, by heat signature from two hundred feet and discernable vocalization from just a little below that. All that through the canopy. The faculty had to have a long conversation with the students running the oroject about loitering the drone to near a large apartment complex. The optic could easily make out images through a crack in the curtains from a few dozen yards.

The TV show "South Park" did an episode about individuals spying with an R/C copter. Was really funny since the pics got posted on line and pretty soon everyone in town was spying on their neighbors and vice versa.

 

[litmlove]

Edited: Funny about Mrs K though, walking around with her dress caught up in her panties. That's happened a few times in an office building I once worked in. You don't know what to say, do you tell her or not. I opted to tell one time and got chewed out by the woman at the time, I know it had to be because she was embarrassed, but later on there was no apology when she got over her embarrassment. We worked in the same department and she stared daggers at me for years.

Being the bearer of bad news is never good but that's a whole new low of being petty. Do you think she ever realised you were "looking out for her"? At least you were in no doubt about her shallowness.

 

[litmlove]

CCTVs are primarily used for security purpose.

Is it a Breach on privacy?

Depends.

I personally think that it isn't a breach when you've been warned beforehand about the presence of a CCTV. If you still did something stupid, then it's your fault.

But, if some individual other than law enforcement officer is using spycams, like in toilets and other places prohibited by the local law, then it is certainly a breach of privacy.

There is an expectation of privacy in toilets, not so much in a lift. That being said, I don't anyone believes they will have footage of themself in a lift being sold to TV station.


So I think she should sue for defamation despite the CCTV footage being it-is-what-it-is. The whole idea of defamation is to compensate people for having their careers sabotaged by reputation-assassinations. The truthfulness of the slander is of secondary importance, nobody deserves to lose all their income for something so trivial.

 

[someoneyouknow]

There is an expectation of privacy in toilets, not so much in a lift. That being said, I don't anyone believes they will have footage of themself in a lift being sold to TV station.


So I think she should sue for defamation despite the CCTV footage being it-is-what-it-is. The whole idea of defamation is to compensate people for having their careers sabotaged by reputation-assassinations. The truthfulness of the slander is of secondary importance, nobody deserves to lose all their income for something so trivial.

So we're abandoning personal responsibility? Had she not done anything, there wouldn't be an issue, would there?

 

[Lori_the_Hoosier]

CCTV vs Privacy

Because of the nature of my work here in the UK, I come up against the Data Protection Act 1999 and The Privacy Act again and again, both of which are regulated by the Data Protection Commissioner's Office. A public building or one that general public has access to, that has video surveillance and recording, must prominently display a sign stating that video surveillance is in place and is carried out is for the purposes of safety and law-enforcement. Walking past said sign is tacit agreement to being recorded, and as all the cameras on a site are, generally speaking, being recorded, anywhere there is a camera, you are under recorded surveillance, and any acts you commit contrary to the law which are recorded, are admissible in a court of law. Recording or manual surveillance in bedrooms, toilets, changing rooms and areas for bathing, showers etc, are strictly prohibited.

Sites where POVA (Protection of Vulnerable Adults) regulations are in force are to some extent exempted, although a license to record in corridors is required, and bedrooms/bathrooms/toilets are still prohibited from being recorded by any site surveillance system; 'Nanny-cams and 'Teddy-cams' are not covered by these regulations, as they are usually placed by family members if abuse or exploitation is suspected, as evidenced by several care-home scandals in recent months. Home recording and surveillance is exempted from the Act, and placing a camera outside your house to view your drive and watch your car is neither intrusive nor does it breach the privacy of by-passers; deliberately pointing your camera to view a neighbor's bedroom is very contrary to the act, and a definite breach of Privacy.

 

[litmlove]

So we're abandoning personal responsibility? Had she not done anything, there wouldn't be an issue, would there?

It's about the balance of rights: the right of reasonable surveillance (see Lori above) -vs- the reasonable expectation of privacy. You can't have either right at its extreme; some people need surveillance to deter criminals but there is also a right of personal privacy. There is no inherent right for surveillance to violate other's personal privacy (again, see Lori above).

Did she ever expect that her sexuality was on display for the world. Of course not. We do not live in a binary privacy world and she does not deserve the extreme consequence of having her privacy completely ignored by being in a location of less than 100% privacy. Maybe the damages awarded to her will be reduced because of that, but she does deserve some compensation for her reputation's sabotage.

Because of the nature of my work here in the UK, I come up against the Data Protection Act 1999 and The Privacy Act again and again, both of which are regulated by the Data Protection Commissioner's Office. A public building or one that general public has access to, that has video surveillance and recording, must prominently display a sign stating that video surveillance is in place and is carried out is for the purposes of safety and law-enforcement. Walking past said sign is tacit agreement to being recorded, and as all the cameras on a site are, generally speaking, being recorded, anywhere there is a camera, you are under recorded surveillance, and any acts you commit contrary to the law which are recorded, are admissible in a court of law. Recording or manual surveillance in bedrooms, toilets, changing rooms and areas for bathing, showers etc, are strictly prohibited.

Sites where POVA (Protection of Vulnerable Adults) regulations are in force are to some extent exempted, although a license to record in corridors is required, and bedrooms/bathrooms/toilets are still prohibited from being recorded by any site surveillance system; 'Nanny-cams and 'Teddy-cams' are not covered by these regulations, as they are usually placed by family members if abuse or exploitation is suspected, as evidenced by several care-home scandals in recent months. Home recording and surveillance is exempted from the Act, and placing a camera outside your house to view your drive and watch your car is neither intrusive nor does it breach the privacy of by-passers; deliberately pointing your camera to view a neighbor's bedroom is very contrary to the act, and a definite breach of Privacy.

Did you really agree? Or is is the surveillance imposed on you and there is nothing you can do about it.

Remember that there are also common law protections of privacy outside that Act: Using nanny-cams to spy on your house guests is and always will be against the law

 

[Bramblethorn]

So we're abandoning personal responsibility? Had she not done anything, there wouldn't be an issue, would there?

I don't know the intricacies of UK privacy law, but as somebody who regularly works with other people's private information: I think there ought to be a very strong justification required for using data like this outside the purpose for which it was collected.

I would assume UK law and/or tenancy agreements prescribe certain penalties for antisocial behaviour like smoking and pissing in a lift. I have no issue with CCTV footage being used in support of those penalties. Fine them, evict them, whatever penalty is on the books. But I'm pretty sure there is not a "punishment by public humiliation" clause in the sentencing regs.

IMHO the punishment for a crime (or whatever this counts as) should be determined by proper process, not by some TV executive trying to decide whether it'd be better for his ratings to humiliate the pregnant chav or the undocumented Romanian or some other offender. At that point we're abandoning the rule of law and turning things over to mob justice (sic), and whoever gets publicly shamed this week you can be sure it won't be the well-connected businessman with friends at a TV station.

Because of the nature of my work here in the UK, I come up against the Data Protection Act 1999 and The Privacy Act again and again, both of which are regulated by the Data Protection Commissioner's Office. A public building or one that general public has access to, that has video surveillance and recording, must prominently display a sign stating that video surveillance is in place and is carried out is for the purposes of safety and law-enforcement. Walking past said sign is tacit agreement to being recorded,

I would have said more like "tacit acknowledgement that it's impossible to go ANYWHERE in the UK without walking past a CCTV camera". I can say "reading this post is tacit agreement to pay a thousand quid to the Bramblethorn Retirement and Chocolate Fund", but that doesn't give it any moral weight.

and as all the cameras on a site are, generally speaking, being recorded, anywhere there is a camera, you are under recorded surveillance, and any acts you commit contrary to the law which are recorded, are admissible in a court of law.

"In a court of law" is fine, but that's not the same as "broadcast on Channel Mock-The-Plebs".

 

[Handley_Page]

I feel it important to mention this quote:-
.
"9 June 2014 episode of CCTV: Caught on Camera – entitled Lift Watching – which "examined the use of CCTV cameras to monitor the public areas of 19 council-owned tower blocks in Southampton and included the views and opinions of CCTV operators and residents on the impact of CCTV".

The images taken from the CCTV data were part of a TV programme.

"Ofcom found that Ms K had a limited legitimate expectation of privacy. However, in the particular circumstances of this case, to the limited extent that Ms K’s privacy may have been infringed, the public interest in broadcasting footage showing the role of CCTV cameras in monitoring anti-social behaviour outweighed Ms K’s expectation of privacy. Therefore, Ofcom found that Ms K’s privacy was not unwarrantably infringed in the programme as broadcast."

(Note:- 'OfCom' is the Office of Communications, a government department).
It's not as if she was shown 'in flagrante'.

The moral of the story is "don't piss in a public lift and blow your boyfriend"
One might add 'don't get too drunk when pregnant'

 

[someoneyouknow]

It's about the balance of rights: the right of reasonable surveillance (see Lori above) -vs- the reasonable expectation of privacy. You can't have either right at its extreme; some people need surveillance to deter criminals but there is also a right of personal privacy. There is no inherent right for surveillance to violate other's personal privacy (again, see Lori above).

Did she ever expect that her sexuality was on display for the world. Of course not. We do not live in a binary privacy world and she does not deserve the extreme consequence of having her privacy completely ignored by being in a location of less than 100% privacy. Maybe the damages awarded to her will be reduced because of that, but she does deserve some compensation for her reputation's sabotage.

She was in an elevator in a public place. By her actions she obviously didn't care if someone saw what she was doing.

For the sake of argument, let's say someone she knew walked in on her. That person later tells someone they know they saw her going at it in the elevator. Somewhere down the line she's interviewing for a job and this person happened to have heard of her antics. She doesn't get the job because of this.

Should she be allowed to sue this company for not hiring her because of her reputation? What about the person who saw her then told someone else? Should she be able to go after them for sabotaging her reputation? What about the people watching the video? If they told other people and word got around, should they be held liable for what happens to her? They don't release the video, only tell others about what and who they saw.

Just like posting on the Net, once you do something in public, it's out there. You can't take it back. If you don't want people to know what you do in your sex life, don't do it in public then complain how someone else ruined your reputation.

The sign(s) were clearly visible as was the camera. Ignoring them is done at one's own peril.

 

[sr71plt]

I think there's a world of difference in a couple of random people possibly seeing you doing something and that something being recorded and telecasted (for profit?) to a vast audience.

 

[Handley_Page]

Did she ever expect that her sexuality was on display for the world. Of course not. We do not live in a binary privacy world and she does not deserve the extreme consequence of having her privacy completely ignored by being in a location of less than 100% privacy. Maybe the damages awarded to her will be reduced because of that, but she does deserve some compensation for her reputation's sabotage.

Remember that there are also common law protections of privacy outside that Act: Using nanny-cams to spy on your house guests is and always will be against the law

[1] Why should she be awarded ANY compensation?
Her actions were rude, crude and deliberate.

I don't know the intricacies of UK privacy law, but as somebody who regularly works with other people's private information: I think there ought to be a very strong justification required for using data like this outside the purpose for which it was collected.

I would have said more like "tacit acknowledgement that it's impossible to go ANYWHERE in the UK without walking past a CCTV camera". I can say "reading this post is tacit agreement to pay a thousand quid to the Bramblethorn Retirement and Chocolate Fund", but that doesn't give it any moral weight.

"In a court of law" is fine, but that's not the same as "broadcast on Channel Mock-The-Plebs".

Don't forget, the TV programme was to show the depravity of some people in a public place. The fact that she and maybe a few of her close friends would identify her shows that a certain care had been taken over just what was televised.
The programme was NOT a 'Mock the plebs'. More it was showing how degenerate we have become.

[I recall a similar incident being quoted where a drunken passenger on a 'bus had, upon being told to sit down as there was a CCTV camera in plain view. His reaction was to expose himself to the camera.
He was awarded a hefty fine for public indecency.]

.

 

[someoneyouknow]

I think there's a world of difference in a couple of random people possibly seeing you doing something and that something being recorded and telecasted (for profit?) to a vast audience.

So it's the profit part which bothers you. Suppose someone from where this was recorded posted the same video on a site with no compensation for it. They didn't even say where or when it was taken, just gave the video, with the end result for her the same. In your opinion, would she still be able to go after them?

 

[sr71plt]

So it's the profit part which bothers you. Suppose someone from where this was recorded posted the same video on a site with no compensation for it. They didn't even say where or when it was taken, just gave the video, with the end result for her the same. In your opinion, would she still be able to go after them?

I gave more than one reason why it bothers me, but the profit part is what would make this a standup case in the United States, I think. But, for me, the TV program is just as sleazy as anything she did, and, I repeat, for me, there's a world of difference between possibly being discovered and seen by a random person or two and being broadcast to the world on TV for the titilation of the reality TV crowd. It used to be that she'd have to sign a release to be so shown (at least in the States). Not quite sure why that's no longer the case.

 

[RejectReality]

I'm with SR on this one. For the purposes of legal proceedings such as kicking her out of the building or prosecuting her for pissing in the elevator -- fine.

Sending it in to some television program and broadcasting it just as sleazy as anything she did.

Let's say it's something equally humiliating but not the fault of the person being humiliated, such as a drunken friend lifting a woman's skirt. What's to stop the sleazeballs who sent this one in from uploading that to YouTube?

 

[litmlove]

So it's the profit part which bothers you. Suppose someone from where this was recorded posted the same video on a site with no compensation for it. They didn't even say where or when it was taken, just gave the video, with the end result for her the same. In your opinion, would she still be able to go after them?

What bothers me is that she needs to be compensated for the emotional trauma and loss of income caused by the people who broadcast the video.

TBH If I were I judge I would hit the TV Station with extra penalties for flagrantly profiting from the humiliation of others["this is not a good business model, nobody else should try this"]. So I can't exactly say the commercial nature of the broadcast is irrelevant.

And to answer your hypothetical: definitely. Your scenario highlights how reckless it is to show videos without the explicit or implicit permission of everyone involved (the building owners & the "actors"). In reality there is the DMCA (or comparative legislation) which handles this situation and means the video must be deleted ASAP.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Don't forget, the TV programme was to show the depravity of some people in a public place. The fact that she and maybe a few of her close friends would identify her shows that a certain care had been taken over just what was televised.
The programme was NOT a 'Mock the plebs'. More it was showing how degenerate we have become.

This reminds me of Max Gillies' Fred Nile parody: "As I walk through Sydney I am shocked by the scenes of depravity I inadvertently witness... sometimes for hours." Maybe I'm over-cynical, but when a TV station offers to "expose depravity" I usually interpret that as "here's some titillation for people who don't want to admit they're looking for titillation".

TBH If I were I judge I would hit the TV Station with extra penalties for flagrantly profiting from the humiliation of others["this is not a good business model, nobody else should try this"]. So I can't exactly say the commercial nature of the broadcast is irrelevant.

And to answer your hypothetical: definitely. Your scenario highlights how reckless it is to show videos without the explicit or implicit permission of everyone involved (the building owners & the "actors"). In reality there is the DMCA (or comparative legislation) which handles this situation and means the video must be deleted ASAP.

nitpick - DMCA is specifically about copyright, which for a video or photo usually rests with the person who took it, so DMCA only helps if it's a selfie. Other than that, I agree with you - IMHO this is pretty close to revenge porn, which is a crime in itself in England and Wales at least.