|
||||
| Definitions Within the 1998 Data Protection Act there are several definitions of which a user of CCTV systems or similar surveillance equipment must consider in order to determine whether they need to comply with the requirements of the 1998 Act and to what extent the Act applies to them. (See panel) Registration rules The Data Protection Registrar suggests three criteria that determine whether a company should be registered. Firstly, does it use CCTV to collect data? Secondly, is this personal data? Thirdly, is the personal data automatically processed? The answer here is ‘yes’ if CCTV can be programmed to search for a specific time or frame reference at which it is known that personal data about a known individual is recorded. If this is how CCTV is used, then the operator should register (see panel). If equipment has been installed after 24 October 1998 then its use should be registered by 1st March 2000 The right balance The 1998 Act seeks to protect the public and provide evidence that helps to convict the guilty. It’s not so much a question of the law becoming extra stringent but more a case of it keeping up with the times. In 1984, when the last Data Protection Act appeared, CCTV was far less widely used and digital images were not available. In the Intervening period, technology has advanced rapidly and at the same time the public have become more conscious of the presence of CCTV. People are aware of their rights in relation to being filmed without their permission. That’s why another requirement of the Act is for CCTV users to put up signs telling you when you are under surveillance (which is also a pretty good crime deterrent anyway). You should have signs placed in the proximity of the cameras so the public are aware they are entering an area which is covered by CCTV. The sign should be visible to the public, a minimum size of A3 and should list the person or organisation responsible for the scheme, the purpose/reason for the scheme and details of who to contact regarding the scheme. Test case likely One of the ways in which the limits of the law are defined is through test cases. Here, a court decides on how the law should be interpreted and a kind of ‘best practice’ is established based on precedent. The Select Committee and the DPR refer to court cases involving analogue CCTV. So far none have been resolved regarding digital evidence and so the ‘rules’ governing the use of digital CCTV have yet to be established by this route. However, industry experts think it likely that a digital CCTV test case will emerge sooner rather than later. |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||