Cyclists

[Meridian]

Where is Mattie when we need her ?

 

[SoundMan]

Wrong there mate.

Maybe if you went to university you would understand.

Ah the old academic snobbery at play again. Is being a tw@t something you honed in university or were you always like that?

 

[SoundMan]

The issue here essentially speaks to the "household exemption clause" within GDPR which allows people to film in public without breaching GDPR.


However.


Those using a dash cam in a public area for security or accident liability purposes should be aware that the publication of footage, for example on social media platforms, could represent a further act of processing and could risk infringing the data protection rights of recorded individuals. In general, and in line with the CJEU’s reasoning in the Buivids case (C–345/17), publication of material to an indefinite audience, such as on a fully public social media channel, cannot be considered to fall within the personal or household exemption. For any use of recordings involving personal data, which do not fall within an exception to data protection law, the controller will need to ensure that they have a legal basis for doing so, and otherwise meet the principles of data protection.

Looks like jank who threatens people with legal action has overstepped the mark himself - oh dear.

 

[Hank Scorpio]

Ah the old academic snobbery at play again. Is being a tw@t something you honed in university or were you always like that?

Whats the degree qualification required for selling fried chicken?

 

[Drucker]

Intercepting a telephone conversation may be considered legal where one party consents.

It is a very big leap to then claim that recording someone's personally identifiable data and subsequently uploading it to a fully public social media channel is equivalent.

This also assumes that one is fully compliant with all other GDPR requirements, (has registered as a data controller, has notified all subjects that they are being recorded, has the consent of all subjects, etc.) and has a very clear legal basis for doing so.

It's probably best to annonymise any data collected before uploading it online. This could mean pixellating identifiable marks such as number plates, faces, or other imagery.

This is a useful guide:

https://www.dataprotection.ie/sites/default/files/uploads/2019-12/Guidance%20for%20Drivers%20on%20the%20use%20of%20Dash%20Cams.pdf

 

[Hank Scorpio]

Intercepting a telephone conversation may be considered legal where one party consents.

It is a very big leap to then claim that recording someone's personally identifiable data and subsequently uploading it to a fully public social media channel is equivalent.

This also assumes that one is fully compliant with all other GDPR requirements, (has registered as a data controller, has notified all subjects that they are being recorded, has the consent of all subjects, etc.) and has a very clear legal basis for doing so.

It's probably best to annonymise any data collected before uploading it online. This could mean pixellating identifiable marks such as number plates, faces, or other imagery.

This is a useful guide:

https://www.dataprotection.ie/sites/default/files/uploads/2019-12/Guidance%20for%20Drivers%20on%20the%20use%20of%20Dash%20Cams.pdf

Nail on the head.


JG posting videos where car registrations and visible tattoos are on show are all clear violations of GDPR.

 

[jank]

Lol, rattled out of your mind John.


I wonder what your friends and family thought of you gracing the court reports with your nutjob carry on?

Probably too polite to mention it or have slowly distanced themselves (>1.3mtres) from you.


A complete laughing stock who is getting the hump about being rightly ridiculed on the PROC.


Throw up a few more posts on your Twitter Jank (definitely not John Grace).

You are soooo rattled you think I am someone else. Just goes to show you how rattled you are, that you have to think I'm this other person.
Hilarious to see tbh.

I guess if you spend so much time on your own it catches up with you.

 

[Drucker]

With regard to other countries using "video portals," the department of justice is very clear:

“any decision to allow film by members of the public to be used in evidence in road traffic cases would raise questions of reliability of, and possible tampering with, the apparatus used, as well as potential privacy” issues."

“It might also raise questions about why Garda apparatus was held to a standard not required of private individuals, if both were ultimately to be treated as reliable evidence,”

*****

In this country, one would merely ask to see the evidence that the footage had been collected by a calibrated, secure, accurate piece of equipment, and operated in a manner equivalent to that operated by a trained member of An Garda Síochána.

Should something such as this be attempted in this country, lawyers would have a field day in throwing out footage collected by Gardaí and GoSafe camera vans.

 

[Hank Scorpio]

You are soooo rattled you think I am someone else. Just goes to show you how rattled you are, that you have to think I'm this other person.
Hilarious to see tbh.

I guess if you spend so much time on your own it catches up with you.

Aw diddums, getting ratty because the PROC isnt an echo chamber like Twitter.


Listen m8 if you had any semblance of cop on you'd have called it a day on your lone ranger routine on the roads of Cork after you ended up with your name and details splashed all over the court reports (50+ complaints lol ).

You're obviously far too gone to realise what a complete lunatic you look like to the casual observer.

I hope you eventually seek the help you so very clearly need.

 

[jank]

The issue here essentially speaks to the "household exemption clause" within GDPR which allows people to film in public without breaching GDPR.


However.


Those using a dash cam in a public area for security or accident liability purposes should be aware that the publication of footage, for example on social media platforms, could represent a further act of processing and could risk infringing the data protection rights of recorded individuals. In general, and in line with the CJEU’s reasoning in the Buivids case (C–345/17), publication of material to an indefinite audience, such as on a fully public social media channel, cannot be considered to fall within the personal or household exemption. For any use of recordings involving personal data, which do not fall within an exception to data protection law, the controller will need to ensure that they have a legal basis for doing so, and otherwise meet the principles of data protection.

The key words there are 'could'. GDPR is loose in their terms.

Anyway, it doesn't state categorically that one cannot publish videos online of incidents that happen in public, especially when people are not identified.

If one wants to be extra cautious, blurring out their face will make it 100% legit.