Is it a good idea to release forward facing CCTV footage of incidents?

Leaving aside moral or others concerns, if the railway cannot keep the video secure, it should probably just release it to reduce the probability of it being manipulated or distorted by other people.

I seem to recall a few years ago following the Kirkby overrun caused by a driver (who was later dismissed and convicted) being distracted by his phone - station CCTV footage was on the internet within hours and I think it still lurks around on Youtube. Was anyone brought to book over leaking that footage? I recall a similar outcry at the time.

HSTEd said:

Leaving aside moral or others concerns, if the railway cannot keep the video secure, it should probably just release it to reduce the probability of it being manipulated or distorted by other people.

Click to expand...

It *can* keep it secure. If it cannot, it is in breach of the law and has no right to do it. Someone is appointed as Data Protection Officer and they are responsible for compliance, training - and also reporting: (https://ico.org.uk/for-organisation...lity-and-governance/data-protection-officers/)
They are also responsible for reporting breaches, like this.

Managing Data Breach Responses: Coordinate investigations into personal data compromises, help assess severity, and assist with mandatory reporting to regulators and affected individuals.

Click to expand...

fishwomp said:

It *can* keep it secure. If it cannot, it is in breach of the law and has no right to do it. Someone is appointed as Data Protection Officer and they are responsible for compliance, training - and also reporting: (https://ico.org.uk/for-organisation...lity-and-governance/data-protection-officers/)
They are also responsible for reporting breaches, like this.

Click to expand...

Well the empirical evidence is that it cannot, as repeated rapid releases of this information sort of show.

As to legality, I'm not sure if forward facing CCTV really constitutes privileged/sensitive information. Certainly on the level that would forbid defeat a release on public interest grounds, especially if actions like blurring faces were undertaken.

Is there an expectation of privacy on a railway track? Certainly there is not on a railway station which is open to the public.

I think it is highly likely to be no more privileged than a dash cam recording of a public road. The release of that sort of footage to news people on public interest grounds is common.

HSTEd said:

Well the empirical evidence is that it cannot, as repeated rapid releases of this information sort of show.

Click to expand...

Inability to follow the law is not a reason to ignore it. Should persistent criminals be ignored because they can't help breaking the law?

HSTEd said:

As to legality, I'm not sure if forward facing CCTV really constitutes privileged/sensitive information.

Click to expand...

Please read the prior post I made, with chapter and verse on it. It is personal data, there is a requirement to control it.

HSTEd said:

Certainly on the level that would forbid defeat a release on public interest grounds.

Click to expand...

Public curiosity is not the same as public interest. There is no public interest in something that has legislated appropriate and public investigation processes. If those bodies fail, a public interest and whistle blower argument could be a defence to a leak. Neither of those apply today.

HSTEd said:

Is there an expectation of privacy on a railway track? Certainly there is not on a railway station which is open to the public.

Click to expand...

There's an expectation that personal data will not be released. That is the failure and breach of legislation here (again, see previous post).

HSTEd said:

I think it is highly likely to be no more privileged than a dash cam recording of a public road. The release of that sort of footage to news people on public interest grounds is common.

Click to expand...

An individual with dash cam doesn't have to register with the data protection registrar. A genuine news source will often blank faces and number plates (again, see earlier post for links on personal data), and, largely, will know what is public interest and what is not.

fishwomp said:

Inability to follow the law is not a reason to ignore it. Should persistent criminals be ignored because they can't help breaking the law?

Please read the prior post I made, with chapter and verse on it. It is personal data, there is a requirement to control it.

Click to expand...

I'm struggling with this point, to be honest. I'm familiar with the duties of data controllers and data processors, but the video I've seen doesn't show an identifiable individual concerned with the incident (and the incidental capture of an unrecognisable image of a bystander doesn't itself engage those duties). Whatever other duties are engaged (or breached), I'm not seeing a personal data angle for the employer.

I do agree with you on the distinction between public interest and curiosity, that there is no serious public interest defence for this release, and that the employee duty of confidentiality ought to have been adhered to.

35B said:

I'm struggling with this point, to be honest. I'm familiar with the duties of data controllers and data processors, but the video I've seen doesn't show an identifiable individual concerned with the incident (and the incidental capture of an unrecognisable image of a bystander doesn't itself engage those duties). Whatever other duties are engaged (or breached), I'm not seeing a personal data angle for the employer.

Click to expand...

I haven't seen the video - but the point is that access to CCTV is access to personal data according to the legislation. That someone can choose - without permission I presume - to share that video is to point to lax implementation of the responsibility. If there were no faces visible in the picture, that's down to luck - next time it won't be an overnight ECS in an empty station.

Everyone using the railway, and all staff, need to trust that the responsibility of CCTV is taken seriously. ASLEF would be unquestionably right to refuse to allow a cab video if they could end up on youtube.

35B said:

I do agree with you on the distinction between public interest and curiosity, that there is no serious public interest defence for this release, and that the employee duty of confidentiality ought to have been adhered to.

Click to expand...

Indeed. The culture should be of confidentiality - if you have access, you must have done the training and know the consequences.