GDPR CCTV clip to parent

[Farloch]

It is not your data to make that decision about though. Privacy by default. Without having permission to share that video footage with third parties (which a parent is), you are not respecting that principle.

 

There's a world of difference between sharing the footage and showing it to a parent who needs to see it.

Let me understand this; you're suggesting that if Child A and all his mates (C,D,E,F & G) walk up and smack Child B round the head and its all caught on camera I have to obtain permission from the parents of Child A, C, D,E,F & G before I can show it to the parents of Child B?

I can really see that one happening. "I need your written permission to show evidence that will incriminate your child. is that OK"

 

Not on my watch!

 

What is the point of a CCTV system if you can't do anything with the footage?

[Marci]

It is not for us to decide the law / what legislation we adhere to. It is down to us to follow the law / legislation, should we wish to keep our jobs... all of which will have some clause somewhere regarding working within any applicable legal frameworks.

 

I suggest if you decree things aren’t happening on your watch because you disagree with the law, you hand in your notice and find a job where the laws that apply don’t offend your sensibilities.

 

Unless you are the Principal, whether it happens on your watch or not is not your decision to make.

Edited May 24, 2018 by Marci

[elsiegee40]

There's a world of difference between sharing the footage and showing it to a parent who needs to see it.

Let me understand this; you're suggesting that if Child A and all his mates (C,D,E,F & G) walk up and smack Child B round the head and its all caught on camera I have to obtain permission from the parents of Child A, C, D,E,F & G before I can show it to the parents of Child B?

I can really see that one happening. "I need your written permission to show evidence that will incriminate your child. is that OK"

 

Not on my watch!

 

What is the point of a CCTV system if you can't do anything with the footage?

 

You can’t do anything you want with cctv footage. There are laws surrounding it.

 

Safeguarding is the primary concern of all schools. Data protection is another legal concern and the ICO has guidance.

 

To my mind your DSL should be the first port of call in this. Their Safeguarding concern must be taken into account

[Garacesh]

There's a world of difference between sharing the footage and showing it to a parent who needs to see it.

Let me understand this; you're suggesting that if Child A and all his mates (C,D,E,F & G) walk up and smack Child B round the head and its all caught on camera I have to obtain permission from the parents of Child A, C, D,E,F & G before I can show it to the parents of Child B?

I can really see that one happening. "I need your written permission to show evidence that will incriminate your child. is that OK"

 

Yes.

You need their permission.

You do not get to decide on this. The decision has already been made.

 

The parent of Child B does not need to see the footage of Child A and their friends assaulting their child. They might (some would say, justifiably) want to. But they do not need to.

You show the footage to your safeguarding lead, and your safeguarding lead tells Child B's parents that Child B has been attacked and they have identified the people responsible. Child B's parent, if they wish, goes to the police (though in this instance the school should be doing that anyway). The police ask for the footage. Then* you can hand it over without written consent, because it's a legal matter, but only to the police, and of course your standard chain of custody and data protection applies. Encrypt it and get it signed for.

 

* Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this point

[DrCheese]

Let me understand this; you're suggesting that if Child A and all his mates (C,D,E,F & G) walk up and smack Child B round the head and its all caught on camera I have to obtain permission from the parents of Child A, C, D,E,F & G before I can show it to the parents of Child B?

I can really see that one happening. "I need your written permission to show evidence that will incriminate your child. is that OK"

 

Not on my watch!

 

What is the point of a CCTV system if you can't do anything with the footage?

 

You can say not on your watch, but that *is* what you are legally bound to do. It is not your decision.

 

By simply showing it to parents, you could influence what happens outside of school & be in a world of hurt. If a crime has taken place, the police can request the uncensored footage and present it in a court of law who are far, far better placed than you are to ensure it's used fairly (i.e the exact same clip is played and taken into legal context rather than emotional parents/children) & undo harm does not result.

Edited May 24, 2018 by DrCheese

[GrumbleDook]

This is another of those situations where you need to go back to the beginning:

 

For what reason do you use CCTV - are these reasons listed in your privacy notice? What legal reasons do you use to justify the purposes you use it for? Consent isn't generally one of the legal justifications for running CCTV, and it is just one of the legal justifications.

 

If I were writing CCTV into our policies, we'd have it as follows:

 

1. For prevention and detection of crime - as a school isn't legally obligated to do this, I would have it under "legitimate interests".

 

This is always an interesting one. I've seen it argued that this is a public task. As crimes range in what they could cover, it can and will cover forms of assault, and this comes under safeguarding ... vanadlism is a form of criminal damage and the school has a duty to protection public investment. I've seen that challenged and schools back down, but i've also seen schools say that no, this is what our risk assessment has come out with ... and the general response is 'OK, that is your decision.' It then falls down on what protections are put in place about the information, how transparent you are (how many schools want to be open about the risk of vandalism or assault at their schools). Also remember ... Legitimate interests ... safety of students and safety or property ... core activities ... public authorities ...

 

2. For dealing with behaviour issues - a school is obligated to deal with behavioural issues as part of their duties to educate, so I would potentially think this is a "public interest", else it would again be legitimate interests.

2a) For showing behaviour incidents to pupils as part of the process of dealing with behaviour problems. This would still be covered by the same reason as above, as the data is not really showing them anything - they were physically there during the incident, and see the same people every day just being in school. It doesn't increase the risk to anyone's data.

2b) For showing behaviour incidents to parents. This would NOT be covered the same as above - parents do not know who all the children are, introducing a third party to this data could increase risk.

 

So, to handle 2b, I would say you would need another reason to do this - ie. you'd either need consent from all the people in the video (remember, children over a certain age get to decide for themselves), or you would have to edit the video to blur faces.

 

That's my take on it anyway!

 

There is another reason why you might not show other children. If the incident being reviewed has a chance of needing to be reported to the police, then you don't want to introduce possible risk to witnesses. Items that are public interest as above, coud also be arrestable offences.

[mjk]

If a parent or member of public reports an incident and knows a child was in a certain location at a certain time, we would show the parent CCTV and ask them to identify the student/s. This is a legitimate interest and why we have CCTV notices everywhere.

Any jobsworths who are completely lacking any common sense: If you want to spend half an hour blurring out images before you show someone a picture- go for it guys, I won't be wasting my time on it and I guarantee you I won't be reporting it to the ICO when I show a parent a photo either (at fear of being laughed at).

[caffrey]

If you need to blur stuff and you have GAFE, youtube has some good blurring tools that work well and quickly. Just upload your clip and set to private

[MkII]

If a parent or member of public reports an incident and knows a child was in a certain location at a certain time, we would show the parent CCTV and ask them to identify the student/s. This is a legitimate interest and why we have CCTV notices everywhere.

Any jobsworths who are completely lacking any common sense: If you want to spend half an hour blurring out images before you show someone a picture- go for it guys, I won't be wasting my time on it and I guarantee you I won't be reporting it to the ICO when I show a parent a photo either (at fear of being laughed at).

 

It's not jobsworthyness it's fine avoidance. Interpret the regs as correctly as you can and you might avoid a huge personal fine.

 

If you have legitimate interest then you have no problem. You can't have signs that say.. we will be sharing your images beyond what we're allowed to do.. for example.

 

I'm not going to break the regulations in the hope that a disgruntled parent isn't going to report me to ICO.

[Bigbird7]

We had a similar SAR recently around an event that happened at lesson change over across 8 cameras, virtually everyone in school on the footage. The requestor refused still images which we offered due to the cost of redaction, this was appealed to the ICO. The ICO sided with us on the grounds of the cost

[DrCheese]

If a parent or member of public reports an incident and knows a child was in a certain location at a certain time, we would show the parent CCTV and ask them to identify the student/s. This is a legitimate interest and why we have CCTV notices everywhere.

Any jobsworths who are completely lacking any common sense: If you want to spend half an hour blurring out images before you show someone a picture- go for it guys, I won't be wasting my time on it and I guarantee you I won't be reporting it to the ICO when I show a parent a photo either (at fear of being laughed at).

 

It's not a legitment interest for you to show images/video of other non consenting students/staff to third parties. You are putting yourself at risk of being fined or blamed for an incidents that may occur as a result of doing so - Claiming common sense & saying "it's a waste of time" is not a defence.

 

This isn't a decision you are able to make, it's the law.

[localzuk]

If a parent or member of public reports an incident and knows a child was in a certain location at a certain time, we would show the parent CCTV and ask them to identify the student/s. This is a legitimate interest and why we have CCTV notices everywhere.

Any jobsworths who are completely lacking any common sense: If you want to spend half an hour blurring out images before you show someone a picture- go for it guys, I won't be wasting my time on it and I guarantee you I won't be reporting it to the ICO when I show a parent a photo either (at fear of being laughed at).

You say "jobsworth" I say "didn't pay attention to the law". This isn't new stuff with CCTV - the law regarding using it and showing it to people hasn't really changed since the DPA.

 

Sticking a sign up does not override the law.

[mjk]

It's not a legitment interest for you to show images/video of other non consenting students/staff to third parties. You are putting yourself at risk of being fined or blamed for an incidents that may occur as a result of doing so - Claiming common sense & saying "it's a waste of time" is not a defence.This isn't a decision you are able to make, it's the law.

 

That's not correct. I'm claiming that I have a legitimate interest to prevent bullying, crime etc. I've notified students and parents that the images will be shared with third parties for the purpose of safeguarding, behaviour management and crime prevention. I'm not putting the images on the internet, I'm showing a parent the image for the legitimate interest of identifying a perpetrator. ie exactly what I said I would do.

 

It's not jobsworthyness it's fine avoidance. Interpret the regs as correctly as you can and you might avoid a huge personal fine.

If you have legitimate interest then you have no problem. You can't have signs that say.. we will be sharing your images beyond what we're allowed to do.. for example.

I'm not going to break the regulations in the hope that a disgruntled parent isn't going to report me to ICO.

 

It's the definition of jobsworthynesss. Nobody is getting a fine for this. Ever.

[mjk]

You say "jobsworth" I say "didn't pay attention to the law". This isn't new stuff with CCTV - the law regarding using it and showing it to people hasn't really changed since the DPA.

 

Sticking a sign up does not override the law.

 

Exactly. Under DPA CCTV can be shown to all sorts. Police give it to solicitors so that defendants can view it. Private premises have it in full view of everyone to see.

Nothing has changed here. Move along people.

[localzuk]

Exactly. Under DPA CCTV can be shown to all sorts. Police give it to solicitors so that defendants can view it. Private premises have it in full view of everyone to see.

Nothing has changed here. Move along people.

No. Again, you've misread the law if you think you can show CCTV to all sorts. People do NOT have a right to see CCTV footage of other people, they didn't under the DPA and they don't under GDPR.

 

You are mixing up use of CCTV for crime prevention and detection - a school is not the same as a court case!

[PotNoodleTech]

I have had to blur our all student faces apart from the student involved. This has normally been for an exclusion panel, the same applies in this instance.

 

So all student faces need to be removed, it can be done by a massive block over the other students and doesnt have to be an oval shape on each person.

 

How did you blur out faces on moving footage??

[localzuk]

That's not correct. I'm claiming that I have a legitimate interest to prevent bullying, crime etc. I've notified students and parents that the images will be shared with third parties for the purpose of safeguarding, behaviour management and crime prevention. I'm not putting the images on the internet, I'm showing a parent the image for the legitimate interest of identifying a perpetrator. ie exactly what I said I would do.

OK. Imaginary situation for you. 2 children get in a fight in the playground, with children in the background, maybe 2 boys quietly holding hands in the corner. CCTV records it all.

 

You are saying that you are happy to show this footage to the 2 children's parents, even though it contains 3rd party, unrelated children without the permission of those children/parents of those children? What right do those parents have to the footage of those other children. Showing the faces of the 2 involved in the fight could be argued, sure, but the rest? I just don't see how you can justify that with the concept of privacy first, without having consent. What if one of these unrelated parents saw the 2 boys holding hands and decided to use that, previously private, information to post on Facebook?

 

That's kinda the point - the data isn't yours. You don't get to make that decision. You don't know the implications of sharing that info in this way.

[mjk]

No. Again, you've misread the law if you think you can show CCTV to all sorts. People do NOT have a right to see CCTV footage of other people, they didn't under the DPA and they don't under GDPR.You are mixing up use of CCTV for crime prevention and detection - a school is not the same as a court case!

 

CCTV in restaurants, shops and public houses on display for all to see.

OK. Imaginary situation for you. 2 children get in a fight in the playground, with children in the background, maybe 2 boys quietly holding hands in the corner. CCTV records it all.

You are saying that you are happy to show this footage to the 2 children's parents, even though it contains 3rd party, unrelated children without the permission of those children/parents of those children? What right do those parents have to the footage of those other children. Showing the faces of the 2 involved in the fight could be argued, sure, but the rest? I just don't see how you can justify that with the concept of privacy first, without having consent. What if one of these unrelated parents saw the 2 boys holding hands and decided to use that, previously private, information to post on Facebook?

That's kinda the point - the data isn't yours. You don't get to make that decision. You don't know the implications of sharing that info in this way.

 

Technically, we would be able to share this to prevent bullying, enforce discipline or prevent crime (as we made it clear we would). This is the very reason the ICO says we need to have adequate signs to show that we are recording.

The school may decide not to share it in this particular example, but all this talk of blanket bans on showing a picture of someone is just insane.

[localzuk]

CCTV in restaurants, shops and public houses on display for all to see.

 

To the people on them at that time. They don't show the recorded footage to them of random other people

 

Technically, we would be able to share this to prevent bullying, enforce discipline or prevent crime (as we made it clear we would). This is the very reason the ICO says we need to have adequate signs to show that we are recording.

 

No. Again. Only to the people involved! We do not have the right to show video footage of unrelated people to random parents! What is so hard to understand about this? You do not have the right to view CCTV footage of me, and I don't have the right to see CCTV footage of you. Why does this change because the people recorded are in a school? It doesn't!

The school may decide not to share it in this particular example, but all this talk of blanket bans on showing a picture of someone is just insane.

I'm going to ask the ICO about this. I'll post their response once I have it.

[mjk]

ok whatever. you go ahead and waste your time on this one. I really do have better things to do today.

[JJonas]

We have a monitor in our office showing the CCTV feed from other parts of the school. Do I now need to switch it off?

[DrCheese]

. Under DPA CCTV can be shown to all sorts. Police give it to solicitors so that defendants can view it.

 

... Key word here - Police. The police are far, far better placed than you to decide to risks of showing it to third parties. They also have powers to punish or warn people who misuse it, you do not.

 

localzuk's example of two boys is a good example of why you don't have the powers to do this. Another example would be a fight between two students that's stopped by a teacher. You just think it's a simple fight, so you show the parents. The parent then kicks off saying that the teacher did it wrong (Even if they didn't - But the parent is full of emotion and biased) & then goes and starts harassing or threatening the teacher, or if you've provided the footage to them, post it online & whip up anger. You've now failed your duty of care for your staff & the teacher would have grounds to sue the school (Also as you've inadvertently used it to monitor staff performance at work, which is illegal in most cases)

 

CCTV in restaurants, shops and public houses on display for all to see.

 

Live footage, not recorded. There's a difference.

 

but all this talk of blanket bans on showing a picture of someone is just insane.

 

Again, that's just tough. It's the law.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

We have a monitor in our office showing the CCTV feed from other parts of the school. Do I now need to switch it off?

 

I wouldn't do that anyway as it shows students who walk in where you see & more importantly, don't see.

[Blue_Cookeh]

We have a monitor in our office showing the CCTV feed from other parts of the school. Do I now need to switch it off?

 

It's a live image rather than recordings - make sure your policy allows this and make sure you have approval from higher ups. Register properly with the ICO and you'll be fine. Choose your camera feeds wisely, we stick to outdoor only on our live monitor.

[Boredguy]

We have a monitor in our office showing the CCTV feed from other parts of the school. Do I now need to switch it off?

 

If the screen is viewable by someone who is not authorised to review the footage (such as students) then you should review when it is on or relocate the screen so it is not visible. Only exception would be if the screen is only showing a feed from the location the camera is in and the viewer can be seen in shot. The same as how supermarkets often have the big screen above the enterence and self service tills with the single camera feed of that 1 area being displayed, but the security guard at his post can see all the screens in thier shielded displays.

[localzuk]

I'm going to ask the ICO about this. I'll post their response once I have it.

Apparently, the ICO are receiving an unprecedented number of calls today, so their live chat is offline. Wonder why!?