# data[].attributes.body
Hi! Welcome to our mini-lesson Padlet.
We are Mergime and Carlijn.
Our mini-lesson is about Surveillance & CCTV (Privacy & Protection)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most of us are getting caught on camera once we leave our homes. Are you uncomfortable with almost constantly being under surveillance?

# data[].attributes.body
Group 6

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
State of Surveillance: Police, Privacy and Technology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"State of Surveillance" examines new technologies police departments are using to fight crime and the civil liberties concerns raised by these tools. Law enforcement agencies say that many of the technologies make it easier to solve and, in some cases, even prevent crime.

# data[].attributes.body
Group 6

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Haroon Siddique

Images captured on a household surveillance camera could breach data-protection rules if the person filmed was on a public footpath when videoed, the European court of justice (ECJ) has ruled.

By clarifying European legislation, the judgment could have significant consequences for householders in the UK who use CCTV and keep or try to use the images, according to a legal expert.

The case related to a Czech man, František Ryneš, who installed a surveillance camera after he and his family were subjected to attacks by unknown individuals. The camera filmed areas including a public footpath and the entrance to the house opposite.

After someone fired a catapult at his home, breaking a window, Ryneš gave the recordings to the police, allowing them to identify two suspects, who were subsequently prosecuted.

However, one of the suspects challenged the legality of Ryneš recording and holding the images. The Czech office for the protection of personal data, found that although Ryneš had been trying to expose the perpetrators of a crime, he had infringed data-protection rules and issued him with a fine.

Ryneš appealed against the ruling and the supreme administrative court in the Czech Republic referred the case to the ECJ, asking whether European data-protection directive rules on the processing of personal data applied.

The court decided Ryneš was not liable for a fine because he had acted to help prosecute a criminal. However, the judgment suggested that if a crime had not been committed he would have breached European data regulations. The directive has an exception in the case of data processing carried out "by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity", but the court found that the exception would not always apply if a camera is recording images of a public space such as a footpath.

The judges said: "The operation of a camera system, as a result of which a video recording of people is stored on a continuous recording device such as a hard disk drive, installed by an individual on his family home for the purposes of protecting the property, health and life of the homeowners, but which also monitors a public space, does not amount to the processing of data in the course of a purely personal or household activity, for the purposes of that provision."

This contradicts the application of the directive in the UK. Kathryn Wynn, senior associate at Pinsent Masons, said the UK Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) had always taken the view that a camera on someone's house was outside of the law.

Householders who have surveillance cameras that capture public space would have to put up a notice informing people they are being filmed and make sure footage was not unduly retained, she said.

"The overarching concern is if you have two neighbours in dispute and one installs CCTV to capture their neighbour doing whatever they are complaining about, the other will run off to the ICO and complain about use of the film," she said. "The ICO will start to get pulled into domestic property disputes." However, she emphasised that the ruling made it clear that footage of criminal activity could still be used.

An ICO spokesman said: "We are just considering the ruling and what implications might have."
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Home surveillance CCTV images may breach data protection laws, ECJ rules

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Haroon Siddique Images captured on a household surveillance camera could breach data-protection rules if the person filmed was on a public footpath when videoed, the European court of justice (ECJ) has ruled. By clarifying European legislation, the judgment could have significant consequences for householders in the UK who use CCTV and keep or try to use the images, according to a legal expert.

# data[].attributes.body
Group 6

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Wed 17 Aug 2011 04.18 EDT First published on Wed 17 Aug 2011 04.18 EDT

've lost track of the number of people who've asked me to comment on David Cameron's insane plan to cripple Britain's internet in times of civil unrest by blocking Twitter and other services. In case you're wondering where I come down on it, well, let's say that it's not just a bad plan, it's also an ineffective one.

It's only been a week, after all, since Cameron's government concluded that the Digital Economy Act's web censorship plan wouldn't be implemented because downloaders would have no trouble getting around the blocks it would throw up. If people who want to download movies can evade Britain's censorwall, then so can people who want to organise riots. Duh.

But for me, the use of BlackBerrys in organising riots (if "organise" is the correct verb here) is just a sideshow. Though as a Canadian, I'm fascinated to see that our national technology success story, the businesslike BlackBerry, has now enduringly entered pop culture's lexicon as the tool of choice for disaffected and violent youth.

The real story for me is about surveillance, and not the mere use of CCTV footage to apprehend rioters after the fact. It's about the total failure of CCTV to deter people from committing crimes in the first place.

After all, that's how we were sold on CCTV - not mere forensics after the fact, but deterrence. And although study after study has concluded that CCTVs don't deter most crime (a famous San Francisco study showed that, at best, street crime shifted a few metres down the pavement when the CCTV went up), we've been told for years that we must all submit to being photographed all the time because it would keep the people around us from beating us, robbing us, burning our buildings and burglarising our homes.

A year before the Vancouver Winter Olympics, a reporter from a one of the local papers called me to ask whether I thought an aggressive plan to use CCTVs in the Gastown neighbourhood would help pacify the notorious high-crime heroin district. I said that the deterrence theory of CCTV relied on the idea that the deterred were making smart choices about their futures and would avoid crime if the consequences might catch up with them.

Then I recounted my last trip through Gastown, where the pavements were thronged with groaning and unconscious emaciated addicts, filthy and covered in weeping sores, and asked if those people could be reasonably characterised as "making smart choices about their future." I explained how my hire car had been broken into by a thief who'd left four perfect fingerprints on the passenger window, not caring whether the crime was associated with her or his biometrics forever.

Funnily enough, I was in Vancouver during the riots, which took place quite close to my home in London. I went through Gastown, which is utterly transformed into a pleasant shopping and university district. Simon Fraser University very carefully and cleverly slotted a new campus into the middle of Gastown, and hired only local people to work in it.

It was the very model of giving people a chance and a stake in their neighbourhood. And while there are still some sad and disfigured junkies here and there, you'd never know that Gastown was recently notorious as the most drug-blighted neighbourhood in the city that is the major port of ingress for heroin into the Americas.

I won't pretend to understand the forces that led my neighbours to take to the street and smash and burn and hurt each other. I don't think I know what "pure and simple criminality" is - presumably, it's some imperceptible pollen that drifts through society and alights on people, which is awfully convenient for government because "pure and simple" criminality has no cause and therefore no one to blame and nothing that can be done to prevent it.

But I do understand one thing: the deterrence theory of surveillance had no nexus with the motivations of the rioters. The theory of street crime as a rational act is bankrupt. Evidence-led CCTV deployment shows us where CCTV does work, and that's in situations where crimes are planned, not pulled off in the heat of the moment.

Parking garages, banks and jewelry stores, yes. And CCTVs make perfect sense as part of burglar alarms that switch on when the glass breaks (or buffer continuously, but only save the few seconds before a break-in). But the idea that we can all be made to behave if only we are watched closely enough all the time is bunkum. We behave ourselves because of our social contract, the collection of written and unwritten rules that bind us together by instilling us with internal surveillance in the form of conscience and aspiration. CCTVs everywhere are an invitation to walk away from the contract and our duty to one another, to become the lawlessness the CCTV is meant to prevent.

After the London riots, one thing is certain: anyone promoting CCTVs for deterrence is most likely selling something, probably CCTVs.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wed 17 Aug 2011 04.18 EDT First published on Wed 17 Aug 2011 04.18 EDT 've lost track of the number of people who've asked me to comment on David Cameron's insane plan to cripple Britain's internet in times of civil unrest by blocking Twitter and other services.

# data[].attributes.body
Privacy is a subject that became a very important last year. Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves, or information about themselves, and thereby express themselves selectively. Privacy means a lot to us. This because it is part of our life. When someone comes too close to our data, there is fear. There is a lot of discussion about how the government can protect society without violating privacy. Until today, there is still no clear policy on this.

The ways of protection

If we are talking about the ways of protection, we can think of more camera surveillance. Also more police on the street works positive. In some situations people are scared when there is too much police, so you have to find a way. Cybercrime is also a big problem, so it is necessary to protect people on te internet. The last problem is terrorism. If the government save all data from people, you can find a perpetrator really fast. There are more ways to protect people, but in case of privacy the government is very careful.

Privacy vs. Security

The government wants to protect its citizens more and more after the threat of terrorism has increased. The government does this mainly by providing much more information from citizens and visitors to the country. This is a positive point for the government because they actually want to use a lot of resources to protect us. But if the government has our own privacy, many people find it a scary idea and often disagree.

The government must find a way of the measures they can apply for the citizens. In the Netherland there has been a referendum about
the "sleepwet". This law says that the government may use multiple personal data and store them so they can caught the perpetrator faster. The Dutch residents were allowed to give their opinion whether they agreed or disagreed with the law. In accordance with the response, the government knows how the citizens think about this in the interests of their safety.

# data[].attributes.body
Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves, or information about themselves, and thereby express themselves selectively.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The distinction or overlap between secrecy and privacy is ontologically subtle, which is why the word "privacy" is an example of an untranslatable lexeme, and many languages do not have a specific word for "privacy".

# data[].attributes.headline
On the other hand, the new technology is safer for the citizen. Because data is collected. Identification and detection is much easier. That results in dangerous people getting behind bars.

# data[].attributes.subject
On the other hand, the new technology is safer for the citizen. Because data is collected. Identification and detection is much easier. That results in dangerous people getting behind bars.

# data[].attributes.body
Protection is the act of protecting or the state of being protected; preservationfrom injury or harm.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Protection definition, the act of protecting or the state of being protected; preservation from injury or harm. See more.