Data Protection & The Police

[Derek Flint]

2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

It isn't clear, is a reg no personal data?

Apparently yes. Unless the DPO has changed his view 

[Apple]

In my view there should be no posting of anyones car number plate.

What if the car belongs to someone else? What if someone is badly injured and can be identified by the plate number ?

I can't actually see any benefit to anyone in showing number plates or any other identifying data, except for possibly the location to avoid.

 

[maynragh]

https://gdpr.eu/eu-gdpr-personal-data/

‘Personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person.

There are more factors to consider with indirect identification. Indirect identification means you cannot identify an individual through the information you are processing alone, but you may be able to by using other information you hold or information you can reasonably access from another source. A third party using your data and combining it with information they can reasonably access to identify an individual is another form of indirect identification.

Any information that can lead to either the direct or indirect identification of an individual will likely be considered personal data under the GDPR.

The way I read it the fact that numerous people have already been identified by photos of their vehicle only (without registration plates showing) proves that such photos are personal data. I realise a lot of people couldn't tell one Ford Fiesta from another, but a lot of people could tell you if they see a specific vehicle they know - and therefore know the owner - without needing to see the reg plates. It is personal data. The police have proven this again by showing photos of cars with no reg plates, and asking people to identify the owners. Can't have it both ways.

Edited May 15, 2021 by maynragh

[Yin & Yang]

First hand experience!

DPO don't enforce any breaches and the police don't - as it's not their job. 

So anyone can post anything without the fear of prosecution from either of them. 

Alas, you can be taken to a small claims court (I think) JW will know more. 

[display name]

On 5/15/2021 at 8:11 AM, Pipsqueak said:

so before all this social media shit what did the police used to be ?

More effective?

[maynragh]

On 5/17/2021 at 9:08 PM, Yin & Yang said:

First hand experience!

DPO don't enforce any breaches and the police don't - as it's not their job. 

So anyone can post anything without the fear of prosecution from either of them. 

Alas, you can be taken to a small claims court (I think) JW will know more. 

I thought the local commissioner had been quite effective a few times, even when dealing with IOM Gov?

Surely if an individual were to request a review after the use of their data (or a failure to comply with a request not to use it), the office would have to at least respond. If it were a private company posting photos of customers for promotion purposes without their permission, I'd have thought they'd do something wouldn't they? What was your experience?

My assumption as noted originally is that this is currently riding on the 'prevention of crime' exemption - as it clearly is personal data being used. However I think using one person's data to prevent another unrelated person (or persons) from committing an offence is probably not the original intention of the exemption - and probably nobody can do anything about that without going through a court as you say. 

[Yin & Yang]

10 hours ago, maynragh said:

I thought the local commissioner had been quite effective a few times, even when dealing with IOM Gov?

Surely if an individual were to request a review after the use of their data (or a failure to comply with a request not to use it), the office would have to at least respond. If it were a private company posting photos of customers for promotion purposes without their permission, I'd have thought they'd do something wouldn't they? What was your experience?

My assumption as noted originally is that this is currently riding on the 'prevention of crime' exemption - as it clearly is personal data being used. However I think using one person's data to prevent another unrelated person (or persons) from committing an offence is probably not the original intention of the exemption - and probably nobody can do anything about that without going through a court as you say. 

My experience is that a company (who isn't/wasn't data registered) was sharing cctv footage to others. 

Data Protection said it was a Police problem and the Police said it was a DP problem. 

[Pipsqueak]

31 minutes ago, Yin & Yang said:

My experience is that a company (who isn't/wasn't data registered) was sharing cctv footage to others. 

Data Protection said it was a Police problem and the Police said it was a DP problem. 

which translates to DP didn't want to deal with it, and the police didn't want to deal with it.  

[TheTeapot]

They've gone to some lengths to make sure you can't see the number plate on this one, from this morning

[Andy Onchan]

Holy Moly.... that must take some doing.... separating the engine block from the chassis?

[Apple]

9 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

They've gone to some lengths to make sure you can't see the number plate on this one, from this morning

I can't even make out the type and model of car. Good one bobbies.

[Annoymouse]

9 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

Holy Moly.... that must take some doing.... separating the engine block from the chassis?

It’s held up well considering a tree also required emergency felling after the accident, so that really was some impact. I dare say even just 20 years ago that would have likely had a different outcome