Data Protection & The Police

[maynragh]

The police posting photos to social media of vehicles belonging to persons who've been fined or apprehended for motoring offences is now a daily occurrence. It is my understanding that the police are exempt from data protection requirements where necessary for the prevention or detection of crime. Posting a photo of someone's car after they have been done for a bald tyre or no tax disk is neither prevention nor detection. Maybe there is some other exemption relating to public education or warnings that I have missed?

Does anyone know if the persons concerned are asked for their consent prior to the photos being posted? If they are asked, is that reasonable given the situation they are in?

I saw a photo today where the number plate of a car concerned had been obscured which made me think on this again, as clearly there is an awareness that data protection might be an issue. I don't think I've ever seen a photo of a person concerned, only ever vehicles. Due to the nature of social media (especially in a small community like the IOM), it is almost inevitable that the person concerned will be identified anyway by those who know them, know of them and or their vehicle or situation - a point regularly proven in the comment sections (which are left open for some unfathomable reason). Such photos are inevitably data which can be used to identify an individual in most cases.

I remember a photo of a motorcycle posted a few months ago, taken in the dark. Most people would be hard pressed to even identify what model of bike it was, but within a few minutes the person concerned had been identified in the comments section. Not long after that their extremely distraught mother was posting comments in an attempt to try and defend the situation from the 'bear pit' that was inevitably unfolding. I fully understand and support the reasoning behind the posts. It is worth reminding people, making them aware of enforcement activities and consequences, however I'm not sure the use of private data in this setting is correct or required. It seems like a rather regressive form of arbitrary punishment, which due to the nature of the offences concerned tends to be extremely socially stratified in the way it is applied. I assume that offences are public information, and I understand the logic of 'can't do the time, don't do the crime', however the punishment is whatever has been specified in the law. That doesn't included the hosting a court of public humiliation 'post offence' does it?

[Rhumsaa]

I never read the comments sections and I'd never considered the identifiability of a car purely from it's appearance without a registration plate but you make an interesting point when it's not being used as a way to detect a crime

It could be argued it's for prevention of others committing the same offence? But it could be a bit of a public humiliation punishment style I can see

[Pipsqueak]

49 minutes ago, maynragh said:

The police posting photos to social media of vehicles belonging to persons who've been fined or apprehended for motoring offences is now a daily occurrence. It is my understanding that the police are exempt from data protection requirements where necessary for the prevention or detection of crime. Posting a photo of someone's car after they have been done for a bald tyre or no tax disk is neither prevention nor detection. Maybe there is some other exemption relating to public education or warnings that I have missed?

Does anyone know if the persons concerned are asked for their consent prior to the photos being posted? If they are asked, is that reasonable given the situation they are in?

I saw a photo today where the number plate of a car concerned had been obscured which made me think on this again, as clearly there is an awareness that data protection might be an issue. I don't think I've ever seen a photo of a person concerned, only ever vehicles. Due to the nature of social media (especially in a small community like the IOM), it is almost inevitable that the person concerned will be identified anyway by those who know them, know of them and or their vehicle or situation - a point regularly proven in the comment sections (which are left open for some unfathomable reason). Such photos are inevitably data which can be used to identify an individual in most cases.

I remember a photo of a motorcycle posted a few months ago, taken in the dark. Most people would be hard pressed to even identify what model of bike it was, but within a few minutes the person concerned had been identified in the comments section. Not long after that their extremely distraught mother was posting comments in an attempt to try and defend the situation from the 'bear pit' that was inevitably unfolding. I fully understand and support the reasoning behind the posts. It is worth reminding people, making them aware of enforcement activities and consequences, however I'm not sure the use of private data in this setting is correct or required. It seems like a rather regressive form of arbitrary punishment, which due to the nature of the offences concerned tends to be extremely socially stratified in the way it is applied. I assume that offences are public information, and I understand the logic of 'can't do the time, don't do the crime', however the punishment is whatever has been specified in the law. That doesn't included the hosting a court of public humiliation 'post offence' does it?

the fire brigade  sometimes post photos of incidents they have attended too.

[Derek Flint]

Social media is used nationally and parochially in this manner. There’s a strong prevention message; it shows the police are proactive, and identifies to perhaps otherwise naive people what they can get potted for, encouraging them to put their own vehicle in order. 

Number plates are covered up for the GDPR issue, even though their eventual conviction will be a matter of public record.

Comments can’t be turned off on that page. And why would you? The police are the public, and the public are the police. 

Without engagement, the police are something completely different.

[Pipsqueak]

5 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

Social media is used nationally and parochially in this manner. There’s a strong prevention message; it shows the police are proactive, and identifies to perhaps otherwise naive people what they can get potted for, encouraging them to put their own vehicle in order. 

Number plates are covered up for the GDPR issue, even though their eventual conviction will be a matter of public record.

Comments can’t be turned off on that page. And why would you? The police are the public, and the public are the police. 

Without engagement, the police are something completely different.

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

[Derek Flint]

24 minutes ago, Pipsqueak said:

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

The same, but a hell of a lot less engaged.

[maynragh]

My assumption was that the use of personal data in this way was being justified under the premise of 'prevention', however it would certainly be interesting to find out if that was the intended purpose of the exemption. My guess would be that the exemption was intended to allow the police to use a person's personal data to prevent them from committing an offence, not to prevent others. That's sort of an underlying principle of data protection isn't it? As noted, the police are themselves confirming how thin this ice is by covering up the number plates. If the position is that they clearly do have the right to use personal data like this why cover up number plates? 

The issue of conviction being a matter of public record is an interesting one. If I want to find out what convictions someone has, and I walk in to a police station and ask, what am I going to be told? @Derek Flint?

Are you sure about not being able to turn off the comments Derek? As far as I'm aware it is a setting available on all 'page' formats on Facebook at least. It should be possible to turn of commenting for any specific post - it is on any page or group that I have ever managed, why would the police page be any different? If the police are looking for information there is a clear logic to having comments sections open. If they're trying to educate people and want an open dialogue, then again a clear logic for open comments. If they're using the personal data of an individual who's been picked up for an offence to educate others, then open comments hosted by police feels a bit dicey to me. It's been many years since I've had a ticket, but if I were ever pulled again I would make it very clear I didn't want my personal data used in public. Which way would the information commissioner lean on this one do you think?

[Augustus]

We're forgetting the role that social shaming plays in regulating normal human behaviour. Most people don't want to be seen as the "bad guy" or the "stupid guy" and adjust their behaviour accordingly. If we suddenly start pretending, for example, that being morbidly obese is "normal" and a "lifestyle choice", it is a slippery slope. I don't have much sympathy for snowflakes bleating about their bad driving or parking being held up on police social media.

[Annoymouse]

Generally speaking criminals don’t have a right to privacy, when prosecuted their name and typically part of their address are published, so a reg number makes no odds.

I don’t think the police have to obscure reg numbers, because it’s information already publicly displayed but as you’ve stated they do it to avoid the abusive posts directed towards the owner.

I’d personally like to see more focus on uninsured/unroadworthy vehicles and also a crackdown on those who drive without a licence but otherwise appear to be taxed/insured. The UK ANPR system are lightyears ahead in this respect.

[Gladys]

Did they show the vehicle registration?  If they did, is it personal data, ie allowing a person to be identified as that information is not available on the vehicle registration site?

Genuine questions. 

[maynragh]

You may well be right Augustus, I can see that the tide of public opinion could be turning on the use of humiliation as a punishment. If that is the case it needs to be clarified in law though doesn't it? That could then lead to some problems with Article 3 of the ECHR, but who knows that too may one day be trashed I guess. What a joyful future we can look forward to. Why did they create it in the first place, can anyone remember?  

@Gladys Part of my original post was the point that a photograph of someone's car is personal data whether the number plate is obscured or not, which is regularly proven by how easily people are identified when virtually nothing anyone would guess to be identifiable is visible.     

[Derek Flint]

3 hours ago, maynragh said:

My assumption was that the use of personal data in this way was being justified under the premise of 'prevention', however it would certainly be interesting to find out if that was the intended purpose of the exemption. My guess would be that the exemption was intended to allow the police to use a person's personal data to prevent them from committing an offence, not to prevent others. That's sort of an underlying principle of data protection isn't it? As noted, the police are themselves confirming how thin this ice is by covering up the number plates. If the position is that they clearly do have the right to use personal data like this why cover up number plates? 

The issue of conviction being a matter of public record is an interesting one. If I want to find out what convictions someone has, and I walk in to a police station and ask, what am I going to be told? @Derek Flint?

Are you sure about not being able to turn off the comments Derek? As far as I'm aware it is a setting available on all 'page' formats on Facebook at least. It should be possible to turn of commenting for any specific post - it is on any page or group that I have ever managed, why would the police page be any different? If the police are looking for information there is a clear logic to having comments sections open. If they're trying to educate people and want an open dialogue, then again a clear logic for open comments. If they're using the personal data of an individual who's been picked up for an offence to educate others, then open comments hosted by police feels a bit dicey to me. It's been many years since I've had a ticket, but if I were ever pulled again I would make it very clear I didn't want my personal data used in public. Which way would the information commissioner lean on this one do you think?

The police don't hold the records other than on PNC. The courts hold the public record.

We had considerable dialogue with the DPO on the subject of number plates. 

A picture of someone's car isnt personal data.

 

1 hour ago, Annoymouse said:

Generally speaking criminals don’t have a right to privacy, when prosecuted their name and typically part of their address are published, so a reg number makes no odds.

I don’t think the police have to obscure reg numbers, because it’s information already publicly displayed but as you’ve stated they do it to avoid the abusive posts directed towards the owner.

I’d personally like to see more focus on uninsured/unroadworthy vehicles and also a crackdown on those who drive without a licence but otherwise appear to be taxed/insured. The UK ANPR system are lightyears ahead in this respect.

This is happening frequently now.

31 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Did they show the vehicle registration?  If they did, is it personal data, ie allowing a person to be identified as that information is not available on the vehicle registration site?

Genuine questions. 

See above. It is personal data in the eyes of the DPO. 

 

[maynragh]

1 minute ago, Derek Flint said:

 

A picture of someone's car isnt personal data.

The commission have put that in writing have they? 

[Derek Flint]

1 minute ago, maynragh said:

You may well be right Augustus, I can see that the tide of public opinion could be turning on the use of humiliation as a punishment. If that is the case it needs to be clarified in law though doesn't it? That could then lead to some problems with Article 3 of the ECHR, but who knows that too may one day be trashed I guess. What a joyful future we can look forward to. Why did they create it in the first place, can anyone remember?  

@Gladys Part of my original post was the point that a photograph of someone's car is personal data whether the number plate is obscured or not, which is regularly proven by how easily people are identified when virtually nothing anyone would guess to be identifiable is visible.     

In my time as press officer I declined a good number of requests for mugshots of convicted persons. If someone is going inside for 10 yrs and you aren't actually looking for further victims, it is difficult to justify.

[Gladys]

4 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

The police don't hold the records other than on PNC. The courts hold the public record.

We had considerable dialogue with the DPO on the subject of number plates. 

A picture of someone's car isnt personal data.

 

This is happening frequently now.

See above. It is personal data in the eyes of the DPO. 

 

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