Hope this is the right section.

I'm a member of a motorsport forum and someone has had a bad experience with a company. So he has stated the fact's although seem somewhat exaggerated the company in question are responding.

But the said company have showed a picture of the vehicle arriving at their site (cannot see car reg due to poor camera) and then leaving (or turning around) needless to say it's got a bit heated

Then they posted this comment

"would you like us to post the entire video up with all 6 different camera angles including the less than a minute workshop walk in then walk out? not a problem for us."

How does this stand up because my impression is surely they cannot post a cctv recording on a public forum??

Any advice guys

Regards

they can post the imfomation and the video however the target (or any target for that matter) must not be identifiable.

SO of they blank his face and reg etc then it is fine.

But to be fair if they have the cctv and it proves your mate is wrong... might not be the best idea to push it.

Thanks

Wasn't so much about pushing the case there isn't an exact case just a bit of aggro. Just didn't want them throwing their weight around and making a threat if it wasn't within the law

Im not to sure about that one, the new revised ICO cctv code of practice 2008 states

8.2 Disclosure

Disclosure of images from the CCTV system must also be controlled and consistent with the

purpose for which the system was established. For example, if the system is established to help

prevent and detect crime it will be appropriate to disclose images to law enforcement agencies

where a crime needs to be investigated, but it would not be appropriate to disclose images of

identifiable individuals to the media for entertainment purposes or place them on the internet.

Images can be released to the media for identification purposes; this should not generally be

done by anyone other than a law enforcement agency.

If its a business that has released the footage onto the internet, then they would be subject to the DPA.

If they are directly identifing the persons in the footage, and placing that footage on the internet

then the fact that the images are unlcear could be regarded as less important than the fact they have

stated who is in the image that they have released.

Im not a lawyer, but it could be a grey area.

Data Protection Act.

The individual threatening to publically play CCTV footage needs to be very careful, as Redbull indicates. It isn't so much just that there would be a need to balnk the person's face/index mark of his vehicle - ANY personally identifiable information can contravene the Act if permission is not first obtained.

That could mean the relative "uniqueness" of a vehicle too - if a vehicle is identifiable as belonging to someone specific, say because of a unique paint job, or graphics - it would be construed as being an idenitfying feature.

Certainly, as below again, there would be an issue of use of the data as being consistent with what the registration listed as the purposes for collecting the data. It may be only that, or it may encroach upon other principles too, if identification of a person is possible.

Bill.