sign disclaimer

Truepat

unholyangel wrote: »

Whether you consider it a breach of DPA is irrelevant. I severely doubt the ICO would agree with you since they say the images should only be released to the police where an actual crime has been committed/the police have a valid reason (valid under DPA) for requesting the info and then go on to say they shouldn't be made available to the media or posted online.

I do hope all your clientele are ignorant of their rights or else your workplace could end up with a very hefty fine and/or lawsuit against them.

To be fair, we usually approach the person first and let them see the footage before we post it, most apologize and remove the comments when they see what really happened. However a small number choose to put their stupidity in the public domain, I am happy to make their embarrassment as complete as possible.

It is no different to me posting CCTV footage of party nights at the bar which we do regularly including streaming occasional live events (and yes there are signs up saying that we do it). I suppose I could just argue that we were posting the usual Saturday night video that just so happened to show the person - what an amazing coincidence. :whistle:

The day will come when someone will try their luck and we will see which way the law goes - until then it is not something I am going to worry about.

unholyangel

Truepat wrote: »

To be fair, we usually approach the person first and let them see the footage before we post it, most apologize and remove the comments when they see what really happened. However a small number choose to put their stupidity in the public domain, I am happy to make their embarrassment as complete as possible.

It is no different to me posting CCTV footage of party nights at the bar which we do regularly including streaming occasional live events (and yes there are signs up saying that we do it). I suppose I could just argue that we were posting the usual Saturday night video that just so happened to show the person - what an amazing coincidence. :whistle:

The day will come when someone will try their luck and we will see which way the law goes - until then it is not something I am going to worry about.

You don't understand who the ICO are, do you? Or else you wouldn't be dismissing their interpretation of the DPA.

Likewise you clearly have no understanding of the DPA itself if you think "oh its just a unfortunate coincidence x person was in that clip we have posted" will be a valid defense.

Or are you of the opinion that posting said info on facebook is complying with the legal requirement to keep info secure?

neilmcl

sarahg1969 wrote: »

I'd be surprised if a pub landlord would want to spend the kind of sums required for a defamation action.

Kind of depends on what's been said and what, if any, impact it has on his livelihood.

Truepat

unholyangel wrote: »

You don't understand who the ICO are, do you? Or else you wouldn't be dismissing their interpretation of the DPA.

Likewise you clearly have no understanding of the DPA itself if you think "oh its just a unfortunate coincidence x person was in that clip we have posted" will be a valid defense.

Or are you of the opinion that posting said info on facebook is complying with the legal requirement to keep info secure?

I know exactly who they are and the appropriate legislation, i also know how to hide behind it and how to bend it.

You obviously have a tiny little bit of knowledge on the subject, but just enough that limits you to thinking about things purely in black and white, back here in reality there are many shades of grey (at least 50 I am told).

Ectophile

unholyangel wrote: »

You don't understand who the ICO are, do you? Or else you wouldn't be dismissing their interpretation of the DPA.

Likewise you clearly have no understanding of the DPA itself if you think "oh its just a unfortunate coincidence x person was in that clip we have posted" will be a valid defense.

Or are you of the opinion that posting said info on facebook is complying with the legal requirement to keep info secure?

Would that be the same ICO who have indicated that they can't be bothered to investigate minor cases any more? http://www.ico.org.uk/news/blog/2013/~/media/documents/library/Corporate/Research_and_reports/A-new-approach-consultation.pdf

Make a complaint against an organisation, and they will ask you to sort it out with the organisation you are complaining about.

So, effectively, anyone is free to commit minor breaches of the DPA now.

unholyangel

Truepat wrote: »

I know exactly who they are and the appropriate legislation, i also know how to hide behind it and how to bend it.

You obviously have a tiny little bit of knowledge on the subject, but just enough that limits you to thinking about things purely in black and white, back here in reality there are many shades of grey (at least 50 I am told).

How about this, you provide the legislation that backs you up and I'll do the same (about "we posted it by mistake" being valid/still amounting to an offence under UK law).

As for knowing how to hide behind it and how to bend it...you just keep telling yourself that. I've heard many people say the same before a case only for the authorities to see right through it. Narcissism isn't as uncommon as people think.

unholyangel

Ectophile wrote: »

Would that be the same ICO who have indicated that they can't be bothered to investigate minor cases any more? http://www.ico.org.uk/news/blog/2013/~/media/documents/library/Corporate/Research_and_reports/A-new-approach-consultation.pdf

Make a complaint against an organisation, and they will ask you to sort it out with the organisation you are complaining about.

So, effectively, anyone is free to commit minor breaches of the DPA now.

A few points to make.

First, I take it you didn't read the document you've linked? Its a consultation. It goes on to detail how they have taken action on behalf of individuals before but they are going to stop doing that (doesn't mean the individual cant take action or that action wont be registered and used to prosecute them at a later date) and instead work how OFT works - focusing on repeated/serious offenders.

Second, ICO have always (at least for the last 4-5 years) required that you approach the company first before complaining to them. That is nothing new.

Lastly....the breach we're referring to here isn't necessarily minor. Minor is when it has no consequences. There is the possibility that someone could lose their job, marriage etc through these videos being posted. Or it may even endanger them in some other way.

While there may be a sense of karma in posting them being an !!! (believe me, I know fine well what dealing with drunken !!!!!!!s is like), it doesn't mean its the correct thing to do - either morally or legally.

Truepat

unholyangel wrote: »

How about this, you provide the legislation that backs you up and I'll do the same (about "we posted it by mistake" being valid/still amounting to an offence under UK law).

As for knowing how to hide behind it and how to bend it...you just keep telling yourself that. I've heard many people say the same before a case only for the authorities to see right through it. Narcissism isn't as uncommon as people think.

Oh dear poor diddums is having to resort to childish insults,there, there, no need to cry. Fortunately you will find that in real life the law is not a rigid inflexible thing, it may be an !!! at times, but it is flexible, you just have to know how to play the game.

unholyangel

Truepat wrote: »

Oh dear poor diddums is having to resort to childish insults,there, there, no need to cry. Fortunately you will find that in real life the law is not a rigid inflexible thing, it may be an !!! at times, but it is flexible, you just have to know how to play the game.

Oh please, that wasn't an insult. You've led a sheltered life if you think it is.

It is a trait of narcissism to think you can talk your way out of things - especially with unlawful/illegal behaviour. That's a fact.

And btw... just because the law is not always applied to the fullest extent it can be doesn't mean the law hasn't been broken. For someone who implies they see shades of grey, you sure as hell missed the biggest one.

Truepat

unholyangel wrote: »

Oh please, that wasn't an insult. You've led a sheltered life if you think it is.

i have already told you how childish you were acting.

It is a trait of narcissism to think you can talk your way out of things - especially with unlawful/illegal behaviour. That's a fact.

And btw... just because the law is not always applied to the fullest extent it can be doesn't mean the law hasn't been broken. For someone who implies they see shades of grey, you sure as hell missed the biggest one.

Are you still crying your eyes out?

Rules are for the obeyance of fools and the guidance of the wise
I told you, you have to know how to play the game.