Jump to content

S&C webcams being turned off??


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Quote from the webcam page:

 

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT

Due to GDPR reasons highlighted within the railway industry, our landlord 'Settle & Carlisle Railway Properties Ltd' has been asked to remove the webcams from Horton in Ribblesdale, Ribblehead and Kirkby Stephen stations. We must stress that the decision does not lie with the property company, and we are currently in discussion with them regarding a provisional offer to retain the Viaduct camera.

 

Seems an odd reason.....??

Edited by newbryford
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, newbryford said:

Quote from the webcam page:

 

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT

Due to GDPR reasons highlighted within the railway industry, our landlord 'Settle & Carlisle Railway Properties Ltd' has been asked to remove the webcams from Horton in Ribblesdale, Ribblehead and Kirkby Stephen stations. We must stress that the decision does not lie with the property company, and we are currently in discussion with them regarding a provisional offer to retain the Viaduct camera.

 

Seems an odd reason.....??

 

It's not a "done deal" yet - see their follow-up post:

 

"We are in open and productive dialogue with all concerned parties with a view to retaining coverage along the line - and possibly even improving it in the coming months. Watch this space..."

 

Does seem strange though. Just look at some of the heritage cameras, especially NYMR at Grosmont, where people are clearly in view and the camera even has a 12-hour rewind.

 

Let's hope common sense prevails!

 

Edited by RFS
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

 

Sad to say that GDPR is being invoked by an increasing number of people.  In my own line of work a number of people have claimed that they have the 'right' not to be seen on camera in a public place that they have chosen to visit.  The people claiming this right, to not be seen in a public space that they have chosen to visit, are regarded as 'competent' in law.

 

Regards,

 

Alex.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, stewartingram said:

SVR Bridgnorth has some fuzzy bits on the footbridge (hardly visible) but the platform -much clearer- has none!

Originally it swung around and the sound was much louder with every chance of catching  some occasional 'industrial language'  In fairness having looked at it closely when it first came on it is not possible to generally identify people. There were some 'fuzzy' bits due to security concerns, but I can't think off hand what they are now on the footbridge. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)

Sad but true..

Quote

This provision – the so-called household exemption – in the context of video surveillance must be narrowly construed. Hence, as considered by the European Court of Justice, the so called “household exemption” must “be interpreted as relating only to activities which are carried out in the course of private or family life of individuals, which is clearly not the case with the processing of personal data consisting in publication on the internet so that those data are made accessible to an indefinite number of people”.3 Furthermore, if a video surveillance system, to the extent it involves the constant recording and storage of personal data and covers, “even partially, a public space and is accordingly directed outwards from the private setting of the person processing the data in that manner, it cannot be regarded as an activity which is a purely ‘personal or household’ activity for the purposes of the second indent of Article 3(2) of Directive 95/46”4.

https://edpb.europa.eu/sites/default/files/consultation/edpb_guidelines_201903_videosurveillance.pdf

For those of us with Ring doorbells, having a gdpr policy in place, with appropriate signage is surely a requirement, if the images are broadcast without restriction to the internet.

 

I suspect enthusiasts filming on stations, without posting signage and having a gdpr policy, who then go on to post on youtube could eventually fall foul of this, when the right conditions appear for a test case with financial value... which I could imagine a joint case between youtuber and station operator would suffice.. the you tuber for publishing and codefendant station operator for permitting it, and not-pre checking the photographers plans.


realtime monitoring looks to be less problematic, as data isn't being sub processed or stored... but still a web cam on private premises filming a public place...its an issue unless people cannot be directly identified from the recordings.

Edited by adb968008
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alex TM said:

........ a number of people have claimed that they have the 'right' not to be seen on camera in a public place that they have chosen to visit .......

Doesn't take much to extend that to every mobile 'phone photo taken on every packed holiday beach in the world ( in normal times ) .................. it'd keep the lawyers busy.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Which if taken to the ultimate extreme would mean all those body cameras that front line railway staff and emergency service personnel are now wearing in ever increasing numbers, could suddenly have to be stopped.

 

It is a deep dark legal black hole that is looming....

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, John M Upton said:

Which if taken to the ultimate extreme would mean all those body cameras that front line railway staff and emergency service personnel are now wearing in ever increasing numbers, could suddenly have to be stopped.

 

It is a deep dark legal black hole that is looming....

 

Not so!

 

The legal issues is NOT the actual taking of the video - its what you do with it that matters.

 

Bodycams worn by Emergency service personal are not a legal problem with respect to individuals being filmed as the footage is never released to the general public and is only released to the Police for the purposes of crime investigation. This is entirely within acceptable parameters under GDPR law.

 

Similarly CCTV images collected for security reasons (and therefore not broadcast publicly) and only passed on to the police for crime purposes) are also able to capture detailed images of people who may walk past them without falling foul of GDPR law.

 

Interestingly cameras installed for crime prevention cannot be used to monitor other things like a workforces timekeeping without the workers be expressly advised that this is the case and appropriate GDPR redress measures be put in place.

 

The issue with Railcams on stations however is precisely that they broadcast their footage publicly and that is not allowed without seeking the express permission of the people involved under GDPR law.

 

Breaking GDPR results in heavy fines so its important that organisations broadcasting such footage have clear policies in place that either restrict those who may view the footage on a 'need to know' basis or which blur out any persons who have not expressly given their permission to be filmed.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

Similarly CCTV images collected for security reasons (and therefore not broadcast publicly) and only passed on to the police for crime purposes) are also able to capture detailed images of people who may walk past them without falling foul of GDPR law.

 

Been there, done that. 

Footage from a domestic CCTV that I had set up as a precaution against a specific risk was used to secure a conviction when I was subject to an unrelated minor assault.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This law is unsustainable the way technology is going.  All these satellite photos, drones, even autonomous vehicles are being fitted with ever more powerful cameras in a global market, and their number is increasing exponentially.  Picking on webcams doesn't even scratch the surface.  Even your mobile phone is grassing you up on where you actually went last night, and we wouldn't be getting all these spam messages and unsolicited marketing call if the anti-malware was good enough.  The there's all these people breaching their own privacy by putting selfies, what they had for dinner and why they've split up with the boyfriend on facebook.   

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously if you are dealing drugs, doing a bit of pick pocketing, pulling a sickie or just having a day out with someone else's spouse your privacy is an important matter to you.  Its like keeping offenders names secret so some innocent bloke gets beaten up instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

This law is unsustainable the way technology is going.  All these satellite photos, drones, even autonomous vehicles are being fitted with ever more powerful cameras in a global market, and their number is increasing exponentially.  Picking on webcams doesn't even scratch the surface.  Even your mobile phone is grassing you up on where you actually went last night, and we wouldn't be getting all these spam messages and unsolicited marketing call if the anti-malware was good enough.  The there's all these people breaching their own privacy by putting selfies, what they had for dinner and why they've split up with the boyfriend on facebook.   

 

Most of said Spam / unsolicited calls originate outside of Europe / UK and thus shows that where it applies EU / UK, GDPR law can broadly be said to be working as intended.

 

GDPR wasn't (and never can be) designed to solve the problems caused by countries outside the EU where such safeguards are badly enforced (e.g. Nigeria 419 scam industry so named after the section of Nigerias law that bans it) or where such safeguards do not exist in the first place.

 

As for Social media, that is problematical as although the likes of Facebook are covered by GDPR from a business perspective, what actually gets posted is largely down to individual people (who have the right to freedom of expression) rather than the business itself and consequently it tends to only be the most offensive content which gets interfered with.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could it be that they are responding to misinterpreting GDPR rules in the same way that many public and private bodies do the same to H & S laws?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

As for Social media, that is problematical as although the likes of Facebook are covered by GDPR from a business perspective, what actually gets posted is largely down to individual people (who have the right to freedom of expression) rather than the business itself and consequently it tends to only be the most offensive content which gets interfered with.

That'll be Uncle Sam Donald then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If you are in a public place (ie a place in  which the public are permitted to be) then you have no general right to privacy from the other members of the public in the same public place. So you can take holiday photos provided you aren't upskirting people for example. A railway station is a public place but it is also private property, so you can take photos provided the occupier (TOC/NR) permits that. (See photography threads passim ad nauseum). 

 

However, if you are a commercial organisation then you must abide by GDPR/DPA which means, amongst other things, that you must protect the privacy of people captured on your CCTV cameras whether they are up to no good or not. 

 

You as a data subject have the right to request to see footage captured of you on station CCTV or bodycam and the data controller (CCTV owner) must comply subject a limited range of exceptions. But they must first redact any footage which may identify other data subjects in the same footage, ie pixelate them out.

 

If a commercial organisation is broadcasting webcam footage then it must also protect the privacy of those appearing in it by either pixelating them out (in real time !) or by making sure it is positioned so faces are not captured in sufficient detail to identify people. 

 

I suspect it is that last part which S&CRPL have fallen foul of but I should stress I don't actually know as I'm not directly involved. I've no idea what the legal position is with Ring doorbells. 

 

I will say that facemasks have made redacting CCTV footage a lot easier !

Edited by Wheatley
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There was acase a few years ago that a speeding motorist got his conviction canceled on the grounds that his children had been photographed without his concent! Dont know what happened subsequently as that seems a somewhat odd ruling, as Wheatly says there is no general rule of privacy

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it.  But not as much as the bloke who was nicked when speed cameras were first introduced decades ago - he worked at Joddrell Bank and called himself as an expert witness on radar - said the the rozzers weren't using it right because the corrugated fence across the road would cause the machine to detect birds flying by.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Seems this morning that two of the cameras are now displaying a "discontinued" logo. Ribblehead Station and Kirkby Stephen are gone, but Horton in Ribblesdale and Ribblehead Viaduct are still streaming. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
8 hours ago, RFS said:

Seems this morning that two of the cameras are now displaying a "discontinued" logo. Ribblehead Station and Kirkby Stephen are gone, but Horton in Ribblesdale and Ribblehead Viaduct are still streaming. 

 

It's now confirmed that 2 of the 4 cameras will be switched off but the others retained - see Railcam announcement .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...