RLP Data protection issues/discussion

[MARTIN3030]

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/?

[shanty]

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 April 15, 2009 by shanty

[JonCris]

I agree it's probably been downloaded onto their computer for all to access & may not be considered secure enough

[shanty]

Not all stores are anywhere near that high tech.

Was it a proper camera,or someones mobile?

[patdavies]

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).

[shanty]

But unfortunately Pat,theres the loop hole...

Intelligable format therefore is useless.

[patdavies]

What loophole?

 

The Act is clear on this

[shanty]

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.

[shanty]

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 April 15, 2009 by shanty

[JonCris]

Shanty so what your saying is that a court order should be immediately sort to secure the evidence before it's destroyed....good to know

[JonCris]

What loophole?

 

The Act is clear on this

 

Yes the act is quite clear on this in that the data MUST be able to be clearly understood by the subject

[shanty]

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 April 15, 2009 by shanty

[JonCris]

Yes together with the tape any order would/should include the log

[JonCris]

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"

[patdavies]

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.

[patdavies]

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.

[shanty]

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)

[JonCris]

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

[shanty]

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.

[JonCris]

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

[labrat]

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

[JonCris]

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

[labrat]

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