Whilst this may be true in many cases, it is possible to donate money to the fundraiser without the payment appearing on the totaliser (or whatever it's called).Quote:
Originally Posted by seikopath
Most of my fundraiser contributions have been public, but I think there have been 2 or 3 that have been under the radar, so to speak.
I so so hope that the way in which the CCTV has been collected and shared is not in breach of GDPR.
Does the school's data protection policy for the CCTV - as shared with the Information Commissioners Office - include the purpose of investigating collisions on the road? Identifying persons in cars on that road and in their private driveways opposite?
We're the neighbours informed that they were under surveillance?
Does that policy include that the CCTV data can be shared with staff members and their relatives?
Hopefully this is all in place, as otherwise writing to tell someone they (as an individual not just their car) have been identified from the school CCTV, including on their driveway and that has been shared could prove very costly for the school!
“Wife had her car heavily reversed into today. It is street parking but a private road shared by the school she works for and large residential houses along it. The parking space is private to the school.”Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyp
So - she is an employee of the school.
Both she and the school share ownership of the road.
I think the School is well within their rights to share the information with an employee involved in an incident on their property.
Well you’ve let him off Scott free. Given the evidence and his failure to report I wouldn’t have been as generous. Sod Xmas.
Consent is only one form of lawfulness. Legitimate public interest, legitimate interests of the school, legal obligations of the school are all lawful reasons for collecting data other than consent. I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyp
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I think your emphasis is wrong regarding ownership - the road is private and shared by the school and the houses opposite, not by the school and the OP's wife.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackal
Irrespective, since the GDPR came in earlier this year, the data (which includes CCTV) can only be used for the purposes for which it is recorded and shared with those authorised to use it for those purposes.
The penalty for doing otherwise is significant.
For me, doing what the school has done seems perfectly reasonable, however the data protection regulations say otherwise.
Are you referring to the consent of the joint property owner to have the area subject to CCTV coverage?Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyCasper
Your comments regarding reasons for collecting data are all completely legitimate, however businesses (including schools) now have to to declare in advance what personal data (including CCTV) is being recorded, what it can be used for, by whom etc.
... And how was the email address obtained?
Are you saying that CCTVs fall foul of GDPR and as such the evidence they collect are no receivable in a civil action ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyp
CCTV use should be clearly signed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint-Just
Take a look at page 15 of this riveting 50 page guidance. Reasonable disclosure is allowed with procedural controls.
https://ico.org.uk/media/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf
The document also comments that it's not been updated to cover the GDPR changes from 2018.Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyCasper
My understanding however is that the CCTV can be shown to the police for them to determine if a crime has been committed
I deliberately mentioned a civil action.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyp
I know you did and I don't know the answer so I skirted round itQuote:
Originally Posted by Saint-Just
[emoji846] thank you. I don’t know either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint-Just
All I really know is that I've been stopped from using data at work as my use was not the use for which it was intended (even though all involved agreed that it would have been useful and appropriate) and I've subsequently sat through what seems like hours of GDPR training.
The key messages being
- businesses or public bodies have to state in advance and agree what data is being collected, the purpose that the data's being collected for, and who will have access to that data
- that purpose must be lawful and appropriate
- collecting anything else, using it differently or releasing it to the wrong person could end up with an eye wateringly big fine.
With that in mind, the OP's situation rang alarm bells.
I agree. And the first eye watering fines were dished to many a well known charity so they wouldn’t think twice about going for a school.
I am not sure however that in this case GDPR would apply because banging someone’s car can hardly be called sharing data.
But I wouldn’t want to test it in court. At all.
Banging the car isn't sharing dataQuote:
Originally Posted by Saint-Just
Sharing the CCTV footage would definitely be sharing data
Under the GDPR, the ICO can impose up fines of up to 20 million Euros or 4% of group worldwide turnover (whichever is greater) against both data controllers and data processors. Not sure with a school if the group would be the school, the local council, the department of Education...
Quote:
Originally Posted by eldrich
I made this mistake years ago when my mums neighbour reversed from his mums drive at speed and smashed the nearside wing of my mk1 Escort, He said 'Get it done and i'll pay you', never ever saw him again!!
John :unconscious:
Off tangent to the OP’s original post but regarding GDPR, what is the situation regarding dash cams?
I have one in my taxi with a camera both inside and out.
https://www.griffinhouseconsultancy....ed-notify-ico/Quote:
Originally Posted by jaytip
Thanks for that but unfortunately that tells me nothing for my situation because it’s my dash cam fitted in my own taxi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyp
I felt that...Quote:
Originally Posted by jaytip
"As Dashboard cams are not covered by the legislation you do not need to Notify the ICO, nor is*signage required, which is obligatory for non-domestic CCTV*cameras. However, if the Dashboard Cams *are on work or commercial vehicles, then a member of the public has the right under*Section 7 of the DPA to make a Subject Access Request to view the footage which contains their image;*for that reason a sign saying how they can apply for this may be warranted but not currently compulsory."
would cover you on the basis that your taxi is a work/commercial vehicle
It’s an unclear situation but my interpretation is this is aimed at inward facing cameras covering the driver and punters not external facing ones but i accept my interpretation is worth little until clarified by the ico or courts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyp
You have 24 hours to report a non injury accident to the police.. In fact it works out 3-5 days as you're given a form to fill in and send off to the police section that deals with such incidents.Quote:
Originally Posted by noTAGlove
Unlike the "good old days" when it was dealt with at the counter of the police station.
The next paragraph covers inward facing cameras.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Morgan
“Inward facing cameras however are a different kettle of fish as these will have greater privacy concerns for individuals, and come under the rules for monitoring staff. Data Controllers will need to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment and have to justify the use on a case by case basis. There is nothing within the legislation to stop an organisation installing these cameras if it is proportionate to the problem it is addressing, but relations between management and staff may be tested, and the ICO may have questions if over-monitoring is employed without serious reasons for doing so.”