Jump to content


RLP Data protection issues/discussion


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5459 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Feel free to post here-in particular we want to hear details about RLP/Data protection issues-have they threatened to involve debt collectors/pass on your data/?

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Someone said they had their photo taken by the store.The storing of this type of data is clearly prescribed in the Data Protection Act.Anyone who had their photo taken would be within their rights to check that it was being stored in the correct way.I strongly suspect it would not be.Check with your local police HQ if they are happy about stores taking their own photos.

 

It is supposed to be possible to request a copy of cctv images,of the offence, on disc or tape,but unless you had the corresponding commercial viewing equipment,it may not be possible to view at home.

Edited by shanty
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is supposed to be possible to request a copy of cctv images,of the offence, on disc or tape,but unless you had the corresponding commercial viewing equipment,it may not be possible to view at home.

 

The DPA 1998 requires that any data provided as a result of a SAR is in an intelligible format.

 

If CCTV used a unique format, then they would also need to provide the means with which to view it or convert it to a more common format (eg MPEG).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah..yes..the law.

 

So you don't know about the loop hole?

 

You haven't worked in retail have you?

 

It's what I have said a couple of times about what is written in books,and what happens in real life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Retailers just ignore the request until 28 days (or however long they keep their recordings for),then write back apologising that it has been recorded over.

Stunningly simple.

Edited by shanty
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how you would do it,but if a court order would work,yes.

 

There is a cctv code of practice that lays out good practice too,but it is only a guideline .Most large companies claim to adhere to it.

The reality is often different.

 

http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/topic_specific_guides/cctv.aspx

 

For example ,good practice:a store cctv room should have a log and in that log should be recorded the number of the tape/disc,who put the tape/disc in,when and where it is stored if being used for evidence.It should record when the tape /disc is wiped.

 

If you wanted to confirm who had done what with a tape/disc,I presume you could request this book as evidence too,if the tape went missing.There should be a papertrail.Not being filled in,or filled in incorrectly indicates incompetance.

I think this is in line with Data protection law,but can't quite remember.

Edited by shanty
Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing that wouldn't go down well with the court & should certainly be drawn to the Judges attention is that if the evidence was destroyed despite them knowing that an incident had taken place & the tape was valuable evidence the court should be asked to treat any evidence by the guards with great caution .............which is another way of saying "they are lying your honour cos had it been true they wouldn't have got rid of what should have been the irrefutable evidence"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah..yes..the law.

 

So you don't know about the loop hole? No, fairly obviously - otherwise why would I waste time and bandwidth asking...

 

You haven't worked in retail have you? No, nor do I wish to - your point is?

It's what I have said a couple of times about what is written in books,and what happens in real life.

 

The relevant period under the DPA is a maximum tine for compliance, not a period given in law to destroy the requested data.

 

If it could be proven that the CCTV was deliberately wiped/overwritten to prevent it being issued then |I suspect that someone would be looking at serious criminal charges. Attempting to pervert the course of justice comes to mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing that wouldn't go down well with the court & should certainly be drawn to the Judges attention is that if the evidence was destroyed despite them knowing that an incident had taken place & the tape was valuable evidence the court should be asked to treat any evidence by the guards with great caution .............which is another way of saying "they are lying your honour cos had it been true they wouldn't have got rid of what should have been the irrefutable evidence"

 

Spot on.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

The relevant period under the DPA is a maximum tine for compliance, not a period given in law to destroy the requested data.

 

If it could be proven that the CCTV was deliberately wiped/overwritten to prevent it being issued then |I suspect that someone would be looking at serious criminal charges. Attempting to pervert the course of justice comes to mind.

 

Ah proof..mmmm..

That's why it's called a loophole..

It's just a letter sitting in someones tray for a bit too long-wrong-but that's life.

Yes,it would be good for someone to be charged,but highly unlikely as it has been going on for so long.(secretly)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The relevant period under the DPA is a maximum tine for compliance, not a period given in law to destroy the requested data.

 

If it could be proven that the CCTV was deliberately wiped/overwritten to prevent it being issued then |I suspect that someone would be looking at serious criminal charges. Attempting to pervert the course of justice comes to mind.

 

I agree Pat however I don't think there's much chance of such a prosecution unless they confess along the lines of "yes gov I deliberately destroyed the evidence cos I wanted to be able to tell blatant porkies in court..........wotever"

 

I think the most fruitful course would be to ask the court to consider as to why, if the evidence bore out their version of events, did they destroy it - why didn't they just keep it - "somebody forgot" really who "dunno mate" Anyway you can see where this is going can't you:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

But the wiping of tapes is usually done on a regular basis by the security staff,and the letter may be sent to another person.The "destroying" is actually procedural,and two unconnected people ie a Manager may be involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter The fact that they can claim that the right-hand doesn't know what the left-hand is doing is their problem not the accused. That in itself can be made to seem like they are hiding the truth otherwise why aren't there procedures in place to stop this happening........... surely management & in particular security realize the tapes might be needed as evidence in order to ensure a conviction......... after all they wouldn't nick someone who's innocent......would they:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

quick question as far as i remember the act from school (back when you caught the brontosaurus on the way there and tried to stop the school trex from nicking your lunch)

 

you have the right to request any data thats held on you correct?

if this is incorrect your allowed to request that its changed or removed?

 

if someone who got a letter stating that they stole goods actually had no conviction for this requested there data and that said that the person had stolen then this information would be infact incorrect and therefore liable to removal/correction, as they would be stating that the persons conviced for theft when they havent been.....

 

sorry circular thinking i think the cats cut off my circulation again

Please note:

 

  • I am employed in the IT sector of a high street retail chain but am not posting in any official capacity,so therefore any comments,suggestions or opinions are expressly personal ones and should not be viewed as an endorsement or with agreement of any company.
  • i am not legal trained in any form.
  • I have many experiences in life and do often use these in my posts

if ive been helpful kick my scales, if ive been unhelpful kick the scales of the person more helpful :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the data is incorrect then it's required to be corrected........but good luck trying to find out what your school has said about you because the info is such that they CAN hide behind the DPA in that the individual sources (teachers) are easily identifiable

Link to post
Share on other sites

wasnt thinking of school data i was thinking people on RLPs data base

Please note:

 

  • I am employed in the IT sector of a high street retail chain but am not posting in any official capacity,so therefore any comments,suggestions or opinions are expressly personal ones and should not be viewed as an endorsement or with agreement of any company.
  • i am not legal trained in any form.
  • I have many experiences in life and do often use these in my posts

if ive been helpful kick my scales, if ive been unhelpful kick the scales of the person more helpful :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...