GDPR CCTV clip to parent

[knightrider]

Hi all,

 

Apologies if I have missed a single article on GDPR! but I have a question regarding showing a CCTV clip to a parent where their child has been caught vandalising some equipment and the Head of School wants to show the clip to the parent.

 

The clips includes a lot of other students obviously.

 

Should this be treated as the parent not needing to see the other students and should be blurred out?

 

Or is it OK to show the clip?

 

Any help appreciated.... quickly

 

What does it state in your policy? Always list who can view footage this includes police, SMT but no 3rd party. It doesn't matter if it is the head of school requesting this, if it states 3rd parties can't view your policy then 3rd parties can't view. Simple.

[leegcvcc]

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

I think we all have

 

What does it state in your policy? Always list who can view footage this includes police, SMT but no 3rd party. It doesn't matter if it is the head of school requesting this, if it states 3rd parties can't view your policy then 3rd parties can't view. Simple.

I can write whatever I like in the Policy, but my question is "do I HAVE to blur faces to be compliant?". Seems like there is no definitive answer judging by the mixed responses. One of the dangers of showing other students is there are students that a lot of people shouldn't know attend the school, and they could be in a clip.

 

Hassle as it seems, it makes sense to not be able to show this to a parent when they have no need to view other students activities. And yes, some of the other students are vandalising in the clip although unrelated.

 

THanks for replies, great angles from all. (geez, some folk get so stroppy at times )

[Garacesh]

I think we all have

 

I can write whatever I like in the Policy, but my question is "do I HAVE to blur faces to be compliant?". Seems like there is no definitive answer judging by the mixed responses. One of the dangers of showing other students is there are students that a lot of people shouldn't know attend the school, and they could be in a clip.

The definitive answer is yes.

 

The more nuanced answer is "You're not allowed to show parents footage of other kids. You must take some kind of steps to obscure them from footage." Not necessarily blurring them, you could paste the awesome face over everybody, paint solid colour over everything that ain't their kid, etc. There basics of it is that the parent should be able to interpret the surrounding circumstances but not be able to identify other persons involved. Once somebody is identifiable, then you're risking the breach.

 

Again, my personal advice would be a series of still screenshots. You need only manipulate maybe 7-10 images, and you can still portray the event with reasonable coherency.

[Farloch]

OK -there's a lot of valid points been made here and I've climbed down from my soap box a little but I still lean towards common sense being the driving force here rather than fear of prosecution. I can't actually think of any situation where we have ever shown footage to a parent. Footage was only ever shown to a staff member to identify a pupil and to the pupil to show them they were caught red handed. I can't honestly see an issue with that as everyone is aware of who everyone else is so your not showing anybody anything they didn't already know.

 

Now this is not a rant, this is a genuine question.

The average person is filmed thousands of times each day just going about their day to day business. If you go to a concert or any kind of staged event you are often filmed and you are told of this in the terms and conditions of sale. By attending you surrender all rights to this footage and agree to it being used. Nightclubs for example have statements at the door that CCTV is in operation for security purposes and protection of staff and customers and by entering you are agreeing to this. Is it different for a schools and if so why? As long as you have controls in place to limit who has access to any recorded footage and you don't keep it for longer than is necessary I'd have thought that would be enough.

[atcoates]

Slightly off topic but...This thread really does demonstrate the problems that GDPR will face. Look at the range of responses on this thread. Apologies if I missed it but has anyone been able to point to a link on an official website the definitively states what the correct action should be? Does the information differ from LA to LA and from Academy chain etc? Is that why we have such a range of responses?

[localzuk]

OK -there's a lot of valid points been made here and I've climbed down from my soap box a little but I still lean towards common sense being the driving force here rather than fear of prosecution. I can't actually think of any situation where we have ever shown footage to a parent. Footage was only ever shown to a staff member to identify a pupil and to the pupil to show them they were caught red handed. I can't honestly see an issue with that as everyone is aware of who everyone else is so your not showing anybody anything they didn't already know.

 

Indeed, there's a difference between your own staff looking at it, and parents.

The average person is filmed thousands of times each day just going about their day to day business. If you go to a concert or any kind of staged event you are often filmed and you are told of this in the terms and conditions of sale. By attending you surrender all rights to this footage and agree to it being used. Nightclubs for example have statements at the door that CCTV is in operation for security purposes and protection of staff and customers and by entering you are agreeing to this. Is it different for a schools and if so why? As long as you have controls in place to limit who has access to any recorded footage and you don't keep it for longer than is necessary I'd have thought that would be enough.

Nightclubs, concerts, whatever, all have to comply with the same laws - a nightclub can't just play back CCTV footage of random people to strangers without their consent. Whether a "notice" on a wall is consent would be another question. Being filmed, like at a concert where they video the crowd, will be in the terms and conditions of the tickets - so buying them was giving consent to whatever they listed as the purpose of that footage.

Schools are slightly different - we should all have a notice up saying we use CCTV, why and who operates it. We are slightly different as the people being filmed in the school have no option about coming in or not - they can't say no to being at school.

 

Slightly off topic but...This thread really does demonstrate the problems that GDPR will face. Look at the range of responses on this thread. Apologies if I missed it but has anyone been able to point to a link on an official website the definitively states what the correct action should be? Does the information differ from LA to LA and from Academy chain etc? Is that why we have such a range of responses?

There is no such link - the ICO has given guidance on a variety of things, as has the DfE, and LEAs will be providing guidance too. The laws themselves are quite wide-ranging and vague, so everyone's just doing their best.

Edited May 25, 2018 by localzuk

[Katy]

Slightly off topic but...This thread really does demonstrate the problems that GDPR will face. Look at the range of responses on this thread. Apologies if I missed it but has anyone been able to point to a link on an official website the definitively states what the correct action should be? Does the information differ from LA to LA and from Academy chain etc? Is that why we have such a range of responses?

I would think if you spoke to two different people at ICO about it you'd also get two different answers! Shame that some of the more easily forseeable scenarios weren't documented "what do you have to do?" rather than it all being left up to interpretation.

[MrWrighty]

Surely the parent can see the other children walking around the school or in the playground. What difference does it make if they see them on CCTV footage. As long as the parents/teachers/children are made aware of the fact they are being recorded via CCTV that should be sufficient.

[localzuk]

Surely the parent can see the other children walking around the school or in the playground. What difference does it make if they see them on CCTV footage. As long as the parents/teachers/children are made aware of the fact they are being recorded via CCTV that should be sufficient.

But that's just it, the law doesn't cover being able to see people in person - it does when it comes to recorded CCTV.

[mjk]

I've taken the time (my break) to quote the ICO guidance so we can all finally shut up about this.

My interpretation is exactly as I have said: We would share the footage to parents without any blanket ban on blurring out images.

 

Any other requests for information should be approached with care aswider disclosure may be unfair to the individuals concerned. In somelimited circumstances it may be appropriate to release information to athird party, where their needs outweigh those of the individuals whoseinformation is recorded.Example: A member of the public requests CCTV footage of a car park,which shows their car being damaged. They say they need it so thatthey, or their insurance company, can take legal action. You shouldconsider whether their request is genuine and whether there is any riskto the safety of the other people involved.

 

 

When disclosing surveillance images of individuals, particularly whenresponding to subject access requests, you need to consider whether theidentifying features of any of the other individuals in the image need to beobscured. In most cases the privacy intrusion to third party individualswill be minimal and obscuring images will not be required. However,consideration should be given to the nature and context of the footage.

 

Example: If footage from a camera that covers the entrance to a drugrehabilitation centre is held, then consider obscuring the images ofpeople entering and leaving it as this could be considered sensitivepersonal data. This may involve an unfair intrusion into the privacy of theindividuals whose information is captured and may cause unwarrantedharm or distress. On the other hand, footage of individual’s entering andexiting a bookshop is far less likely to require obscuring.

 

Judgements about disclosure should be made by the organisation

[Garacesh]

where their needs outweigh those of the individuals whose information is recorded.

 

A parent does not need to see the footage of other pupils. Therefore their need cannot outweigh the privacy of the other individuals, because their need does not exist.

 

A parent may want to see the footage. In many cases the School will have reasonable reasons to want to share the footage with the parents. But even in this case, the parents only 'need' the information about their own child. They do not need information about the child that (in our hypothetical scenario) [was assaulting/being assaulted by their child]. They do not need information about background pupils who just happened to be in the general vicinity at the time. Unobscured footage counts as sharing information (about the subjects that have not been obscured) and there is no legitimate need for the parent to have that information.

Edited May 25, 2018 by Garacesh

[localzuk]

Exactly the key word is need. Parents don't NEED to see that footage of other people. I don't NEED to see footage of other visitors to a shop.

[mjk]

It's could be the schools need to get the parent to accept responsibility. ie to use the data for behaviour management as we said we would.

[Disease]

We look at the potential risk to the people in the CCTV and make a determination from there.

 

Example 1:

 

Student caused damage to the computers while in class.

No risk of the data of those not involved being used maliciously or prejudiced - Would show to parents.

 

Example 2:

 

Fight occurring between 2 pupils with bystanders on view.

 

No risk of the data of those not involved being used maliciously or prejudiced

Risk of the data of those involved scaled depending on the parents (most schools know what parents of problem children are like) gauged and a decision on if to show taken according to the risk.

Edited May 25, 2018 by Disease

[elsiegee40]

We look at the potential risk to the people in the CCTV and make a determination from there.

 

Example 1:

 

Student caused damage to the computers while in class.

No risk of the data of those not involved being used maliciously or prejudiced - Would show to parents.

 

Example 2:

 

Fight occurring between 2 pupils with bystanders on view.

 

No risk of the data of those not involved being used maliciously or prejudiced

Risk of the data of those involved scaled depending on the parents (most schools know what parents of problem children are like) gauged and a decision on if to show taken according to the risk.

 

Actually there is a risk to the bystanders who may well be labelled as snitches that caused the incident to be investigated in the first place. Never assume bystanders are safe

[mjk]

Either way, it's up to the school to decide. There is no blanket ban and no fine.

[MkII]

Either way, it's up to the school to decide. There is no blanket ban and no fine.

 

Incorrect. The line "Judgements about disclosure should be made by the organisation" doesn't mean you are the law.

 

You'll get fined just like any other law breaker if you break it.

[mthomas08]

where their needs outweigh those of the individuals whose information is recorded.

 

A parent does not need to see the footage of other pupils. Therefore their need cannot outweigh the privacy of the other individuals, because their need does not exist.

 

 

Exactly. That word will be used a lot.. just because some one thinks they must have it.. doesn't always mean they need it. And what legal reason do they need it? to confirm their child has done wrong.. that's not a legal reason at all.

Edited May 25, 2018 by mthomas08

[mjk]

Incorrect. The line "Judgements about disclosure should be made by the organisation" doesn't mean you are the law.

 

You'll get fined just like any other law breaker if you break it.

 

Not for the example that was given by the OP.

I agree that if I put our school CCTV server live on the internet with no or little security I might get told off, or in a severe case, I could get a fine.

Showing a parent a CCTV image isn't going to worry anybody except those who are going fully out on GDPR, which seems to be half the internet today.

Edited May 25, 2018 by elsiegee40
Mind your language please: elsiegee40

[leegcvcc]

i'm not sure it's "full retard on GDPR", it's about people being more concerned than some about being compliant. Those who cut corners and have it all sussed out mentally, may well be right and save themselves a lot of work, good on you people.

 

For us that are just trying to ensure our procedures are tight and legal, these sorts of scenarios need more consideration than I want to give it, for sure!

 

It's rare that clips are shown to parents, but it's a great deterrent apparently after siding with their child over the alleged account, and CCTV is needed to demonstrate they shouldn't always believe their child!!!

 

I think I will look at blurring if a clip is used for parental viewing, and then re-assess it if it increases to a point where is overly time sapping. There are some pretty quick and cheap blurring software so will look at that.

 

Thanks for all the input folks... it's been emotional

[Garacesh]

I think I will look at blurring if a clip is used for parental viewing, and then re-assess it if it increases to a point where is overly time sapping. There are some pretty quick and cheap blurring software so will look at that.

 

Thanks for all the input folks... it's been emotional

 

As a point, if you manage to somehow find something that's the holy trinity of 'free', 'easy' and 'fast', probably worth dropping a link in this thread. I know I'd be interested in something like that.

[PotNoodleTech]

As a point, if you manage to somehow find something that's the holy trinity of 'free', 'easy' and 'fast', probably worth dropping a link in this thread. I know I'd be interested in something like that.

 

Me too! Desperately need something like that.

[localzuk]

It's could be the schools need to get the parent to accept responsibility. ie to use the data for behaviour management as we said we would.

Again, there's no NEED for the parent to see the other, uninvolved, people. You are perfectly entitled to show CCTV of a child to that child's parent, but not the other people in the same clip. Hence the blurring.

 

You have to think of a CCTV recording as being data about each individual within it, not just "video of this incident". Each person within it is entitled to privacy.

[DrCheese]

Showing a parent a CCTV image isn't going to worry anybody except those who are going full retard on GDPR, which seems to be half the internet today.

It's not "full retard" on GDPR, christ. These rules have been around for years.

[localzuk]

To be completely honest, it just seems to be a couple of users who seriously misunderstand data protection rules, both old and the new ones. The rules for CCTV haven't really changed much between the 2 sets of rules. Just because you've not complied previously does not give justification to continue not to be compliant. Its just more evidence against you should something go wrong.