Illegal To Post Your CCTV Footage In Ireland

By IPVM Team, Published Feb 19, 2014, 12:00am EST (Info+)

Surveillance videos and images are regularly posted publicly. They're entertaining, shocking and even funny, but they also have a real impact in solving crimes and are being embraced by U.S. police. But being fined more than $100,000 for posting images of a crime online? Sounds farcical.

However, in Ireland, the rules are surprisingly different.

***** * *** ********* **** ***** of * **** ** *** ************ his ***** ** ***** ******, **'* him *** *** **** *********. *** this ****, ** *********** *** *** and **** * **** ** *******’* strict ******* ***. **** ** * case ***** *** *********’ ******* ****** outweighed * *********’* ****** ** ***** them.

**********

****** ****** *** **** **** **** when **** *** ****** * ***** to *** ******** *** *********** *** house. *** *** **** ****, ********** and ** *** *** *** ***** within *******. **** **** **** *** police ******* ********** ** *** ****’* burglary *****. ******, *** *** ******* cameras ** *** ********, *** ******* of *** *****:

“* **** *** ****** * **** of *** *******, *** **** *** their ************* ******* *** * *** the **** **** ** * *** the ******* ** *** ****** ****** for *** ****** ** **** ** maybe **** ***** ******** ******* ***,” he ****. ** ****** *** ***** along **** *** ****** ** * police *** **** *** ********* ****** for *** ****.

** ******* *** ***** * **** thing **** ******* *** ******* *********.*** [link ** ****** *********] ** ***** other ****** ** ******* ** **** videos **** ***** ******* ** ****.

***** *** ******* **** ****, ******* there *** ******* **** **** ** in *******, ** **** *** ****. Technically, *** ****** *** *** **** authority **** *** ***** ** **** videos ** ****** ** *********, *** they ***** **, ****** ****.

“** ******* ** ***’* **** ********* like *** *** *** ** ****. It *****’* *****. ** ******* ** the ****** ** ***’* ****** **** who *** **** *** ******* ***,” he ****.

****** ******* ***** *** ***** ***** appearance, * ***** *********, ** *** contacted ** *******’* **** ********** ************ by *****. *** ******* **** *** commissioner [**** ** ****** *********]******* *** he *** ******** *** *** ** posting *** ****** ****** *** ********** a ***,*** **** ****.

“** **** *** ***** ********** ** the **** ** ****** ** *** identification ** ********* *** **** ******** on **** ******* ** ******** ****. This ****** ***** * ********** ** image ** ** ********** ** ******** data,” *** ******* ****.

“** ********** **** *** **** ********** Acts **** & ****, * **** controller *** **** ******* *** ******** data ** ** ********** **** ***** consent ** ** * ******* ****** of ************* ****** ************ *** *** **** ********** ****.******* * * ** *** **** Protection ********** ******* ************ ** *** ********** of '*********' ******** ****. *** ********** or ******* ********** ** ** ******* is ********** ** ** '*********' ******** data."

*** ****** **** ** ** *** that ** ***’* **** *** ********* in *** *** **** ***** ***** a ****** ***** **** *** *********** to **** **** ****** ******. *******, it **** ** ** ****** ******* videos ******** **** ***** ******* ** the ******, “*** **** ****** ******** a ********* **** ** **********, ** would **** ****** **** **** *** website ** ** ****** ** *** Data ********** ****."

“*** ** ** ** ** *****,” Waters ****. “* ***** **** ** get ********** **** ***** ***********, ***** is **** ** *****. *** ***** expect ***** ***** ** *********** *** members ** *** ******* **** ********, but ** ******* **** **** *** commission ** * ******** ******* ** regarded ** ‘*********’ *** ****** ******* protections?”

** **** ** ****** *** ***** worries **** ********* ****** ***** ********* a *****. ******* *** ******* **********’* ***** response ** *** ***** *********, **** still **** *** ********* ** *** email ****** *** *************. *** ****** have **** ******* **** *** *******, but ******** ********* ** *******.

Irish **** **** ********** *****

*** **** ********** *********** ******** ********** **** ** ******* privacy (**** ** **** ****** **** a ****** ***** ** ********** ** in *** ****** ******).

*** *******, ******* ** ** *** Act ******** **** * ****** ***** filmed ** ******** ** *** ** recording, *** **** *** *********, *** any ***** ******* **** *** *********** may ** ********.

“**** *** ******* ** ******** ** placing ******- **** *** ****-*** ***** in ********* *********. * **** ** all ********* **** ******** *******,” *** Data *********** ************’* **** ****.

*** ******* **** ****, “***** ****** of ******* ***** **** *** ********** data ******* ****** ** *** **** footage *** **** **** ** *** data ********** ** ******** ** ********* redact ** ****** *** *** ****** of ***** ***** ******* ****** ********* a **** ** *** ******* ** stills **** *** *******.” ****** ************ is "********* ********."

****’* *********, *******, ** **** *** Act **** **** ***** ********** ** not ***** ** **** **** ******* [link ** ****** *********], *** *** commissioner *** ******** ******.

** ******** ** ********* ***** **** section ** *** ***, *** ************'* Office ******** * ********* ******, "**** exemption ******* ***** *** ********* ****** to *** *********** ** ******* **** such ******* ** *** ******** *** would *** ****** ** ************, **** is *** * *** *********** *********, to ******* **** ******* ******. ***** would ** ** ***** **** *** provision ** ******* **** ******** **** systems ** ** ***** ******** (***** Police *****) ** ****** **** ***** investigations ***** ********."

****** ***** *** **** ************'* **** of ******** ** *** ****** ***** he ** ************* *** *** *** would ***** ** **** **** *** that **** **** *** *** ******** of ******* **** ******* ******, *** he's *** ******* *** ******.

"* **** ********* **** ******, *** everyone ** **** ** ******* ** the *********** ** ******* **** *** see ***** ** **** **** *****," he ****.

Comments (5)

This is the same British Isles that if the perps were to slip and fall, or cut themselves on broken glass, it would be the homeowner who would get sued.

Now that's ridiculous.

I break your windows to burglarize you, but I sue you because I cut myself on that same broken glass. Sounds like an admission of guilt to me. :) Can anyone say Darwin Awards?

I'd be curious to know how often that scenario has actually played out. Probably not very.

I'm thinking the publishing of video of a crime being perpetrated being published by someone other than the police could be viewed as interfering with an investigation, since you could inadvertently be alerting the perpetrators someone knows about their illegal act and aiding them, in a way.

However, in Ireland, the rules are surprisingly different

Not just 'across the pond' but even just 'across the puddle':

Though ultimately shut down last year Internet Eyes UK was in business crowdsourcing live cctv monitoring of shops in the UK from as far away as Australia!

Mind you these were not even criminals 99.9% of the time, just people being watched by 'human analytics'. Shops paid a monthly fee and users could win $1000 depending what they reported watching their 4-way multiplexed window.

Somehow they stayed in business for several years... Who in their right mind would want to watch cctv footage, live no less, for hours at a time?

Now if they gave you control of a decent p-t-zed speed dome, that would something else altogether...

After a man published CCTV video of a team of men burglarizing his house in South Dublin, it's him who may face penalties.

Carlton, although this is literally true in a temporal sense, it implies a causal relationship between the two phrases where one doesn't exist:

Again, we note your intentions in creating this website and note also that currently there is only your own cctv footage available. However, if footage supplied from other individuals was to be posted on the site and this Office received a complaint from an individual, we would most likely find that the website is in breach of the Data Protection Acts.

Carlton, you don't need to sensationlize the story early on to keep us reading, I promise to read it to the end regardless. ;)

IMO, the commissioner is just trying to prevent an unvetted avalanche of "crime scene" videos from being posted, possibly violating citizens rights. Sure in the original video its seems ludicrous to imagine the robbers rights being violated. But other videos no doubt would be less clear cut and include incidental images of innocent citizens.

Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts reporting, tutorials and software funded by subscriber's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.
Loading Related Reports