Reply to post: What the judgment actually considers...

Europe's top court mulls vandal's right to privacy after bloke catches thug on home CCTV

The JP

What the judgment actually considers...

...is two things:

A. Can you use CCTV to record criminal activity? The answer is probably yes. However, this isn't really what the judgment is about.

B. If you as a private individual place a CCTV camera on your house, and it records a public space, are you subject to the full weight of data protection law? The answer to this is a definite yes. So you need to put up signage, register with your local data protection authority, ensure appropriate security measures etc etc

You may (or may not) think this is a good idea. However, similar reasoning is likely to apply to other technology, e.g. Google Glass, social media etc. meaning that many private individuals are treated as businesses when it comes to complying with data protection law. In the UK, the Information Commissioner has stuck his head in the sand on this issue and I expect it to remain firmly embedded there for the foreseeable future.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon