Can I publish pictures of criminals on a web site and what will happen if I do?

In the last 3 days I have had two run ins with criminals on illegal motorbikes. One bike had two boys on it and they had hoodies, no helmets, no number plates etc. They rode the bike amongst the children going home from school, partly on the road and partly on the pavement. I tried to follow them so I could find their homes but lost them. If I had a camera I would have been able to take their pictures and publish them on a site.

If I take these peoples pictures, and put them on a web site so they can be identified, what can anyone do about it?

I don't think you can.

This is not allowed as criminals have a right to anonymity.
Or summit along them lines

I don't think you can.

I was hoping that someone would explain exactly why I can't and what law I would be breaking.

No KenH, it wouldn't be allowed. Why not take the pictures and give them to the police instead?

I hope you can Ken

I'll post a few on it too
The ******* sods are always up and down my road on their pathetic hairdryers !!!!! :rant:

Bloomin sick of the whinny noise they make :suspect:
Just hope they fall off and really hurt themselves !:hihi:

I was hoping that someone would explain exactly why I can't and what law I would be breaking.

Because everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Take them to the police so that they can be proven guilty.

I was hoping that someone would explain exactly why I can't and what law I would be breaking.

I don't think you take pictures of anyone without their permission, I think they made mobile phones make a noise so people couldn't take pictures without being heard. Taking pictures of children especially could land you in the brown stuff.

I don't think you take pictures of anyone without their permission, I think they made mobile phones make a noise so people couldn't take pictures without being heard. Taking pictures of children especially could land you in the brown stuff.
And especially that!

No, you can't.

The laws that could be used against you include :

Libel - if you get the wrong person, by putting them on a site for criminals you're libelled them. When the Police put out 'wanted' notices they're covered by 'privelege' similar to that that works in Parliament; you won't be.

Breach of the Peace - the local police might argue (and have done so agaisnt people diplaying photos of ne'er do wells in their shop windows) that such behaviour is likely to cause a breach of the peace.

Data Protection Act - if you've taken digital images of people on a public place, it might be argued that under the Data Protection Act you're not taking proper care of the data that makes up those images by allowing it to be displayed without the permission of the subjects. As far as I know (from my film making days) taking photographs per se is not illegal - using them without the permission of the subjects can get you in hot water.

Sub Judice - if the alleged bad 'uns portrayed are up in court on soemthing else, a canny brief might argue that by having their images published in such a way it can damage their chances of getting a fair trial.

I'm not a lawyer, but I THINK this is correct. :)

Where abouts are you from? I don't think you can until the criminals have been tried and convicted as they are not criminals until proven guilty in a court of law... could be wrong. But I am interested in where your from, round here we've got a few lads on scooters going round.

Not suprised !!!

We cannot do anything these days can we .....
Burgal yer house
Let em knock yer kids down
Destroy the peace
Damage yer car
spray on yer walls

the list goes on

And all we are ever told is
You can't do ANYTHING about it ......:rant:

also if it is children under 16 i think then their identity is no to be released to the public even if they are proven guilty

If you're talking about raising awareness for a blog etc, you could just take the photos and blur out their faces and motorbike number plates. It wouldn't be as good as the original photos, but it'd still show people what these idiots are up to in their local area.

I assume that if you do see them again and take their photos, that you'd give these photos to the police? That's the bare minimum that you should do.

Can I publish pictures of criminals on a web site and what will happen if I do?

If I take these peoples pictures, and put them on a web site so they can be identified, what can anyone do about it?

If they are minors, you could find yourself in deep trouble with the child protection people because if they are caught as a result of it, you can guarantee that their brief 'legal aid or not' will use it

Can I publish pictures of criminals on a web site and what will happen if I do?

In the last 3 days I have had two run ins with criminals on illegal motorbikes. One bike had two boys on it and they had hoodies, no helmets, no number plates etc. They rode the bike amongst the children going home from school, partly on the road and partly on the pavement. I tried to follow them so I could find their homes but lost them. If I had a camera I would have been able to take their pictures and publish them on a site.

If I take these peoples pictures, and put them on a web site so they can be identified, what can anyone do about it?

There are a few laws that it would contravene, not least the Human Rights Act. I'll have a search about and post the links for you.

Thank you for all the replies. Here is what I think.

I must be allowed to take pictures of anyone I feel like, I don't believe there is any obligation to ask someone. The reason that I don't believe this is the case is that there are people who make their living from taking pictures of celebrities who clearly don't always want to be photographed. When it comes to taking pictures of minors then things might be different, but I am surely allowed to take pictures of my beach holiday which might include other children in the background. When schools hold performances they often ask that you don't take pictures, but these are private performances and you are a guest.

If I publish pictures of someone who turns out to be a minor then there may be an issue. However, I would argue that I reasonably assumed they were adults because they were riding a motorcycle and it was during school time. If someone comes forward and claims they are minors then they would have to demonstrate that this was the case by identifying them.

What consitutes a breach of the peace is so woolly that I have no idea if I would be committing one or not. However, it quite different to posting the images in a shop window as that is a physical location where people could congregate and cause such a breach. If people view the pcitures from home than can I still cause such a breach?

The data protection is something which I am unsure about, but it normally covers being able to personally identify someone. I could always register with the data protection registrar and allow people to ask me if I hold any images of them. My answer would be that I don't know, but if they send me proof of their identity, such as a passport, I will check and send them their images.

Clearly if they people have committed an offence then certain aspects must be sub-judice. However, if a bank is robbed and there is a CCTV image of the robber then is the bank not entitled to publish that picture along with an offer of a reward? If the police arrest someone then the bank can remove the posters. In my case once someone is identified then I could remove their image if they are charged. If they aren't ever charged then can it be sub-judice?

I can't see that someone could bring an action for libel unless I state their names along with the image. If I am simply providing images which show someone driving an illegal motorbike without the name then can they be libelled?

Any comments on my position?

If you wish to take personal responsibility for doing this, and putting the images on a personal website, then that is your choice KenH, but you take the choice in the knowledge of the potential issues that this creates.

There is also the possibility that your ISP could close down your website or cut off your service if your website is found to be infringeing privacy or human rights acts.

Don't let us tell you what you can or can't do- you take the choice in the knowledge of why this is a tough call to make.

(Oh, and BTW- please don't post links on SF if you choose to do it. It would definitely be against our privacy rules.)

If you wish to take personal responsibility for doing this, and putting the images on a personal website, then that is your choice KenH, but you take the choice in the knowledge of the potential issues that this creates.

There is also the possibility that your ISP could close down your website or cut off your service if your website is found to be infringeing privacy or human rights acts.

Don't let us tell you what you can or can't do- you take the choice in the knowledge of why this is a tough call to make.

(Oh, and BTW- please don't post links on SF if you choose to do it. It would definitely be against our privacy rules.)

I am not really saying I am about to do this, I am just opening up a discussion of the legalities. I personnaly can't see why I shouldn't be allowed to do this, as I would have pictures of unidentified criminals and the best way of catching them is for lots of people to see those images. If an image shows someone clearly committing an offence then should they have any right to privacy? For example, last week I passed a driving instructor in a car which was coved in adverts/phone numbers for his service, making a call on a mobile while driving down a dual carriageway. Wouldn't a newspaper publish a picture of this if I had taken one, or would then obscure his face but leave the company name? If the company was a one man band then is there any difference?

What about not identifying the yobs, but doing it this way.
Everytime you see it, take a picture put it online with time and date.

Also a comment that POLICE weren't there or didn't attend after called.

I'm sick of reporting this and nothing happening. It goes on near me also.
A couple of weeks I've called 01142202020 every night at the same time, told 'em the bikes are outside, had been for a while, illegal bike, no plates, no helmet, even told them where the prat lived.

No one attended

This way you're not necessarily naming and shaming the yobs, but the police for a lack of concern

I think it may make criminals famous (infamous) and more likely to offend to improve their rankings and get more photos of themselves online.

Thank you for all the replies. Here is what I think.

I must be allowed to take pictures of anyone I feel like, I don't believe there is any obligation to ask someone. The reason that I don't believe this is the case is that there are people who make their living from taking pictures of celebrities who clearly don't always want to be photographed. When it comes to taking pictures of minors then things might be different, but I am surely allowed to take pictures of my beach holiday which might include other children in the background. When schools hold performances they often ask that you don't take pictures, but these are private performances and you are a guest.

All true.

If I publish pictures of someone who turns out to be a minor then there may be an issue. However, I would argue that I reasonably assumed they were adults because they were riding a motorcycle and it was during school time. If someone comes forward and claims they are minors then they would have to demonstrate that this was the case by identifying them.

I see your point, but I'm not sure how the law would regard this.

What consitutes a breach of the peace is so woolly that I have no idea if I would be committing one or not. However, it quite different to posting the images in a shop window as that is a physical location where people could congregate and cause such a breach. If people view the pcitures from home than can I still cause such a breach?

Yes. A breach of the peace itself isn't an offence (oddly). A breach of the peace is an action which could lead to a criminal act. So, publishing photographs could lead to a smack in the chops, if your location could be identified from the website, they know who you are, etc.

The data protection is something which I am unsure about, but it normally covers being able to personally identify someone. I could always register with the data protection registrar and allow people to ask me if I hold any images of them. My answer would be that I don't know, but if they send me proof of their identity, such as a passport, I will check and send them their images.

I'm not sure about this, but I would have thought that the DPA wouldn't cover this, as although someone may be identified by the picture, nothing else about that person could be identified. I think the DPA relates more to records of finances, government files, etc. For example, if a Jobcentre employee were to access someones files without good reason, they would be in breach of several Acts of Parliament, including the DPA.

Clearly if they people have committed an offence then certain aspects must be sub-judice. However, if a bank is robbed and there is a CCTV image of the robber then is the bank not entitled to publish that picture along with an offer of a reward?

Only if an investigation has been started. Obviously, in the scenario you give, there will be an immediate investigation. Publishing pictures of people who may be identified, and may have commited an offence, could land you in hot water.

If the police arrest someone then the bank can remove the posters. In my case once someone is identified then I could remove their image if they are charged. If they aren't ever charged then can it be sub-judice?

It wouldn't be sub judice, obviously, but ........

I can't see that someone could bring an action for libel unless I state their names along with the image. If I am simply providing images which show someone driving an illegal motorbike without the name then can they be libelled?

Any comments on my position?

Yes, is the simple answer. If they are identifiable, and an offence hasn't been committed, then you have breached their Human Rights for a start, and there may be problems if they are minors. The inference I take is that you would be putting a rubric of sorts with the images alleging illegal activity. Should there be no such activity, then you would have put permanent record of the alleged offence in the public domain, and, if anyone could be identified, defamed them in the process. That is libel.

I'm no lawyer, but I would think very carefully before doing anything. Take care and hope this helps.

ken,

You asked for the legal issues and as far as I know what I gave is the current standing; you may disagree with them, but that's certainly my (albeit conservative) interpretation of the law.


Re. Breach of the Peace - it's not where you do it, it's what's done. If you post a picture up of Billy Scroggins, and someone goes to Mr Scroggins's house and bricks a window after seeing the image on your website, then that's a breach of the peace that would probbably NOT have happened had you not posted the image.

The actions of the police and such in detecting criminals are, I believe, covered by various forms of 'privelege' - and a guy picked up on CCTV pointing a shooter at someone is definitely breaching a law. The yobs you mention may be in a grey area.

Libel - if you showed an identifiable picture of me, for example, with a caption saying 'This man drove without a licence or insurance', then it's libel, even if you don't name me. Someone can see that image, spot me in the street, or recognise me, and they will have the erroneous impression that I'm a felon. If the person is identifiable, and you tell an untruth about tehm, it's libel. Simple as that.

As I said about taking pictures in the streets, there's no law against doing it but you CAN get in to trouble re. libel. Again - if you took a photograph of Mr Smith with a young lady, published it with the statement that the couple appeared 'very much in love', then Mr Smith could sue you if the young lady turned out to genuinely be his neice and other people had accused him of having an affair based on your photo and caption. As I said, it's not whether you take the photos, it's what you do with them.

Do what you will - just be aware that there may be consequences.

As far as I'm aware there is nothing legally wrong with posting the pictures because photographs by Kens description are technically public property and more importantly in the public interest if indeed the pictures could warrent a police or/and a public enquiry.

The issue of the pictures themselves. The pictures would however need to be removed if there is a case and people have been charged with the offense, atleast until the end of any court action.

As far as I'm aware there is nothing legally wrong with posting the pictures because photographs by Kens description are technically public property and more importantly in the public interest if indeed the pictures could warrent a police or/and a public enquiry.

The issue of the pictures themselves. The pictures would however need to be removed if there is a case and people have been charged with the offense, atleast until the end of any court action.

How are they public property? Are all the pictures you have personally taken, of anything at all, public property?

As far as I'm aware there is nothing legally wrong with posting the pictures because photographs by Kens description are technically public property and more importantly in the public interest if indeed the pictures could warrent a police or/and a public enquiry.

The issue of the pictures themselves. The pictures would however need to be removed if there is a case and people have been charged with the offense, atleast until the end of any court action.

The photos themselves are actually Ken's copyright, so he may publish them in any way he sees fit providing other laws are not broken by him doing so. The subjects of the photographs, from the description given, will be individuals on the public highway.

HOWEVER, that's not the issue. the issue is whether any laws regarding :

Libel
Human Rights
Sub-Judice
Data Protection
Breach of the Peace

have been broken.

This was mentioned is some photography mag I was reading the other day. Out in public you are allowed to photograph whatever you want. IIRC (and IANAL), you have no legal right to privacy in the UK. Obviously trespassing is something to be careful of.

The mag did mention that you should be "sensitive" if photographing children. I.e. don't look like a paedo or you might get beaten up ;)

I stil wanna know where she's from:|

I believe it is correct that you can be photographed at any point in public without permission. I thought you couldn't be videoed though, at least not without notification that you are being recorded?

Where ever there is a CCTV camera don't they have to notify that its there? I think I remember reading on another thread that it could be illegal to point a webcam from one of the flats down to West Street if it was a good enough camera to show peoples faces?

Also aren't the traffic cameras that show how busy Sheffield’s roads are deliberately unfocussed so you can't get any vehicle details i.e. registration plate, or see who is in the car?

hi ken which area is this happening for you:)

Oh Ken where's your Liberal attitude gone?

They're only kids having a little fun for pitys sake. :roll:

If you want a pic of a real criminal piece of scum, then heres one! (http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i159/Doppler1/SANY0041.jpg)

A real maggot who is at home behind bars with his rodent "Girlfriend".

Oh Ken where's your Liberal attitude gone?

They're only kids having a little fun for pitys sake. :roll:
Well said Don.
PS Ken, you might be better swapping your camera for an "Pretend" automatic shotgun.
I have one you can lend. :thumbsup:

Oh Ken where's your Liberal attitude gone?

They're only kids having a little fun for pitys sake. :roll:

The ones I have seen are putting themselves and the kids coming out of school in danger. If they ride around on a bike with only a hoodie for protection, and with two of them on the same bike, then any minor fall will result in a serious injury. Needless to say, it will be you and I that pay the bills for their months in hospital and their years on the sick with 24 hours nursing. When they eventually hit an old lady of a small child then there will be an outcry and the police will do something for a fortnight. Something needs doing now before someone is killed.

The ones I have seen are putting themselves and the kids coming out of school in danger. If they ride around on a bike with only a hoodie for protection, and with two of them on the same bike, then any minor fall will result in a serious injury. Needless to say, it will be you and I that pay the bills for their months in hospital and their years on the sick with 24 hours nursing. When they eventually hit an old lady of a small child then there will be an outcry and the police will do something for a fortnight. Something needs doing now before someone is killed.
You can actually ring 999 on this sort of thing, as if you see a crime that puts anyone's life in danger (in this case the brats') then you can ring 999.

You can actually ring 999 on this sort of thing, as if you see a crime that puts anyone's life in danger (in this case the brats') then you can ring 999.
You could, but I would like to bet it does not get classed as "Immediate response" so the culprits will be well gone by the time Police arrive.

This is probably a first for me but I agree with Ken!!

ken,
Re. Breach of the Peace - it's not where you do it, it's what's done. If you post a picture up of Billy Scroggins, and someone goes to Mr Scroggins's house and bricks a window after seeing the image on your website, then that's a breach of the peace that would probbably NOT have happened had you not posted the image.

It also would not have happened if Billy wasn't doing something he wasn't suppose to be doing. Who is more culpable in such a circumstance - the person committing a crime or the person bring it to the publics attention? As long as you don't add commentary that could be construed as inciting others than I can't see anything coming of it.

The BBC doesn't get done for breach of the peace when they show young criminals at work (there was a program on the other night showing S. Yorkshire Police chasing motorist) so why should anyone else?


Libel - if you showed an identifiable picture of me, for example, with a caption saying 'This man drove without a licence or insurance', then it's libel, even if you don't name me. Someone can see that image, spot me in the street, or recognise me, and they will have the erroneous impression that I'm a felon. If the person is identifiable, and you tell an untruth about tehm, it's libel. Simple as that.

True, so it would be wise to keep speculative comments to yourself e.g. that they have no insurance. However, if you post a picture of someone riding a motorbike on the pavement without a helmet and say this is illegal then how could they sue you for libel when it is true?

Well said Don.
PS Ken, you might be better swapping your camera for an "Pretend" automatic shotgun.
I have one you can lend. :thumbsup:
If you had young kids and people were riding motorbikes down the pavement outside you house, then I suspect you're opinion would be different.

Personally, I couldn't care less how much danger they put themselves in in the pursuit of fun (I've been there, done it and got the t-shirt) but when your actions start putting other people in danger then it's out of order.

To be fair, I posted this thread about the legalities of posting images as I am interested in what you can and can't do.

I am more than happy to debate how much of a nuisance the people who ride these bikes are, but there is no need because they are illegal. I simply picked an example of a common illegal act that I have come across twice in the last few days. It is a good example because the image would clearly show an illegal act, for example two people riding an obviously illegal single seat motorbike on the pavement without helmets. I know the motorbike is "obviously illegal" because it had no plates and bits of bodywork missing but I might also deduce that they won't have passed a CBT let alone a bike test and won't have an MOT. Such a vehicle, even if driven on the road by a licenced driver is a danger because there is no way of knowing if the brakes will even work. In the event that it hits a car then the car owner will only be able to claim on his own insurance (if he is fully comp) as these bikes won't have insurance. If one of these bikes hits a person and that person is off work or disabled then there is no insurance company to claim against.

I am grateful for the replies about the web site, particularly from Joe who have explained some of the aspects in ways that hadn't occurred to me. I wouldn't have thought that having something on a web site could actually result in a breach of the peace elsewhere and so the police could take action, until he pointed out that scenario. I wonder why the police don't use this power to close down web sites run by facist and anti-fascist organisations that openly publish images of their oponents, sometimes even with their telephone numbers? Perhaps they prefer them to be out in the open or perhaps it is looking like state censorship when politics might be involved? If this is the case then I could presumably form a political party "residents against local criminals" and post images as part of a manifesto.

If you had young kids and people were riding motorbikes down the pavement outside you house, then I suspect you're opinion would be different.

Hold on Zamo, were off the same hymn sheet here.
That's why I said swap the camera for something a little more "Pro-active"

Zamo,

The BBC have a very well paid and capable legal department.

KenH doesn't.

You can guarantee that every bit of footage shown on the Beeb is vetted. I spent several years involved with journalism - print and radio - and it is incredibly easy to fall foul of the law.

Everyone can do what the Hell they like - it's no skin off my nose who gets sued as long as it isn't me, my family or Sheffield Forum. :)

I am grateful for the replies about the web site, particularly from Joe who have explained some of the aspects in ways that hadn't occurred to me. I wouldn't have thought that having something on a web site could actually result in a breach of the peace elsewhere and so the police could take action, until he pointed out that scenario. I wonder why the police don't use this power to close down web sites run by facist and anti-fascist organisations that openly publish images of their oponents, sometimes even with their telephone numbers? Perhaps they prefer them to be out in the open or perhaps it is looking like state censorship when politics might be involved?

KenH - the law could be used in these cases, BUT in many cases the web sites are hosted outside the jurisdiction of English Law. In these cases the police have to track down the posters of the information, and prosecute tehm - a more difficult proposition. For example, getting an ISP to release details of a user is INCREDIBLY difficult - I've trie don a couple of occasions went going after cyber-stalkers.

The US offers a fair amount of protection to ISPs under the First Amendment to the Constitution, which is why there are so many headnbanging web sites on US servers. And other countries don't give a toss, anyway. :)

The US offers a fair amount of protection to ISPs under the First Amendment to the Constitution, which is why there are so many headnbanging web sites on US servers. And other countries don't give a toss, anyway. :)

So I could set up a site in the US and post images of criminals in my local area? I should point out that I have been asking all these questions on behalf of a friend and that I would never do such a thing!

Hold on Zamo, were off the same hymn sheet here.
That's why I said swap the camera for something a little more "Pro-active"
My hangover must have blurred the words on the hymn sheet! :confused:
Apologies! :thumbsup:

Zamo,

The BBC have a very well paid and capable legal department.

KenH doesn't.

JoeP,

As always you provide sensible and pragmatic advice. However, as a natural born risk-taker myself, I feel compelled to encourage others to do things that the sensible probably wouldn't do! :D

KenH... do it, do it! :thumbsup:

I was hoping that someone would explain exactly why I can't and what law I would be breaking.


Why don't you just take them to the police station & give a statement ?

No, you can't.

The laws that could be used against you include :

Libel - if you get the wrong person, by putting them on a site for criminals you're libelled them. When the Police put out 'wanted' notices they're covered by 'privelege' similar to that that works in Parliament; you won't be.

How can a photo be libel? And also how can it be untrue?


Breach of the Peace - the local police might argue (and have done so agaisnt people diplaying photos of ne'er do wells in their shop windows) that such behaviour is likely to cause a breach of the peace.

The onus would be on them to prove the offence, and I'd like to see that in court.


Data Protection Act - if you've taken digital images of people on a public place, it might be argued that under the Data Protection Act you're not taking proper care of the data that makes up those images by allowing it to be displayed without the permission of the subjects. As far as I know (from my film making days) taking photographs per se is not illegal - using them without the permission of the subjects can get you in hot water.

DPA only covers companies and organisations which store information about you, it doesn't cover private indivduals nor does it cover photographs.


Sub Judice - if the alleged bad 'uns portrayed are up in court on soemthing else, a canny brief might argue that by having their images published in such a way it can damage their chances of getting a fair trial.
Probably true, although why the same can't be argued for photofits/cctv images that are displayed on the news i'd be interested to hear.


I'm not a lawyer, but I THINK this is correct. :)

IANAL either.

ken where is this and at wat school:)

ken where is this and at wat school:)

Charnock school. They went across the field opposite the school and then round the estate. I gave chase but they they got away.

Cyclone,

A photograph may not be libellous; the context and caption you give it can be.

An individual CAN be covered by the DPA - if you store information on someone, you may need to be registered. It is NOT just about organisations.

http://www.dca.gov.uk/ccpd/faqdp.htm#2a

It covers any digital information stored - including images, CCTV, etc.

Breach of the Peace - yes, the onus is on the police. Doesn't mean it's not against the law.

Sub Judice and photofit / cctv - if the police are releasing such material it's done to further the investigation. We've been asked to remove information from teh Forum by the Police on a couple of occasions because the investigation has now progressed to a point where continued availability of teh ifnormation might prejudice a case.

Cyclone,

A photograph may not be libellous; the context and caption you give it can be.
.

It is also possible to have an action against you for saying something which is entirely true but completely out of all proportion, for example by handing out leaflets about how rubbish a shop is to thousands of people when the loss I suffer is only a few pence.

How are they public property? Are all the pictures you have personally taken, of anything at all, public property?

Any pictures taken in a public place are public property i.e they cannot be deemed as intrusive and unless used for profit (which is a whole different issue) not illegal to use. This is after all in response to a question of the legality of posting the pictures up.

Any pictures taken in a public place are public property i.e they cannot be deemed as intrusive and unless used for profit (which is a whole different issue) not illegal to use. This is after all in response to a question of the legality of posting the pictures up.

No they're not. They are actually private property of the taker unless deemed to be illegal in content, by dint of content, or the physical location where the photo was taken (e.g. trespass, etc.), in which case the CPS would be involved.

If I were to take a photo in a public place of anything I felt like, it's mine and nobody else's unless I say so, so not public property. I'm sorry, but you're talking a lot of brown stuff.

Cyclone,

A photograph may not be libellous; the context and caption you give it can be.

An individual CAN be covered by the DPA - if you store information on someone, you may need to be registered. It is NOT just about organisations.

http://www.dca.gov.uk/ccpd/faqdp.htm#2a

It covers any digital information stored - including images, CCTV, etc.

Breach of the Peace - yes, the onus is on the police. Doesn't mean it's not against the law.

Sub Judice and photofit / cctv - if the police are releasing such material it's done to further the investigation. We've been asked to remove information from teh Forum by the Police on a couple of occasions because the investigation has now progressed to a point where continued availability of teh ifnormation might prejudice a case.

Do you mean this?

(including individuals, such as self-employed financial advisors and accountants)

Presumably this would apply

The only exception is where, as an individual, you hold personal information only for domestic reasons (eg an address book or Christmas card list) in which case the DPA does not apply at all.

The definition of personal data
Personal data/information

Information relating to a living individual, from which that individual can be identified, or which can be used to identify a living individual in conjunction with other information held, (or likely to be held) by a data controller. Personal data/information includes expressions of opinions about that person, or indications of intent towards them.



There's also this
Photographs taken purely for
personal use are exempt from the Data Protection Act (DPA).

from dataProtection.gov.uk (http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk/upload/documents/pressreleases/2005/photography%20guidnace%2026705.pdf#search=%22dpa%2 0photographs%22)
Which seems fairly unambigous, as ken's proposed use is a personal one, personally publishing them on a website.

Hopefully this puts any DPA fears to rest.
If the police are capable of contacting the forum to ask for information to be removed then the same would apply to Ken, so no problem there.

Pretty much the only potential problem left is the 'breach of the peace' one.

No they're not. They are actually private property of the taker unless deemed to be illegal in content, by dint of content, or the physical location where the photo was taken (e.g. trespass, etc.), in which case the CPS would be involved.

If I were to take a photo in a public place of anything I felt like, it's mine and nobody else's unless I say so, so not public property. I'm sorry, but you're talking a lot of brown stuff.

It looks like in you effort to come across as 'clever' and maybe 'educated', rather than take note of what is being said you prefer to try and belittle what I'm saying. I'm not here to argue or put folk down, particularly if they are 'only trying to help'. Not sure what your problem is but I'll be more than happy to meet up with you and discuss any problems you might have?

You seem hell bent on acting like a prick and in all fairness you are doing an excellent job and I am definately not in a position to argue with you on that. You also seem to be missing the point.

Secondly, I have been in the position that KenH has been in so don't start giving me grief because I took action into my own hands which resulted in me being charged with assault. There are plenty of folk on here who know me and have done for 20+ years and know that asking for police intervention is not usually my style and I am more than capable of fighting my own battles.

Now heres some advice. Quit the internet warrior crap. By all means talk to me and I'm more than happy to hear advice, constuctive critisism or any errors that might need correcting, just quit the 'holier than thou' attitude because you are making a fool of yourself and we are going to achieve nothing but stray away from the content of this thread. If this is still a problem then I'll be more than happy to meet you and discuss your attitude problem. If that is not an alternative then just stfu and ignore me. Problem solved!

...btw the 'public' in property refers to the taker of the picture who is (more than likely) a member of the public and its their property to do with as they wish. Maybe I should write it in crayon in big letters so you can comprehend it better?

Cyclone,

What Ken is discussing is NOT the same as keeping a Christmas Card list - and the data stored would almost certainly fall under the category of Personal Data - you can identify someone from a picture, after all. I know from our various discussions in the past that whatever I say you find fault with, so it's always entertaining to do this. :)

Tommy Bass - the original question KenH asked was to do with the legalities - and that's teh sort of thing that HappyHippy is discussing. We're answering teh question asked. Even if you are the copyright holder 'owner' of an image, what you can do with that image is still restrained by civil and criminal law.

KenH - in principle, those images could be hosted 'offshore', and action would then need to be taken against the person who posts and maintains the data in the UK, rather than the ISP hosting the data.

JoeP, I think in the battle to come across as some kind of cyber martyr some posters always feel the need to come across as patronising and due to their own probable lack of wedding tackle this is how they get their jollies, its just a shame that some no-mark feels the need to attack other posters rather than discuss etc? As I said before, I'm always open to discussion but if folk feel the need to flex their cyber muscles I have no time for them or their poxy sad little lives but the next time you lot meet up make sure I get an invitation because I prefer the real world to that of the internet.

btw, in a nutshell, I think your signature sums up what I'm trying to say? ;)

Cheers

Cyclone,

What Ken is discussing is NOT the same as keeping a Christmas Card list - and the data stored would almost certainly fall under the category of Personal Data - you can identify someone from a picture, after all. I know from our various discussions in the past that whatever I say you find fault with, so it's always entertaining to do this. :)


That's not true Joe, we just disagree on this issue and our interpretations of the law around the area.
I'm convinced that Ken wouldn't fall under any of the DPA restrictions. You disagree, we've both tried to prove out points with quotes from the legislation.
I'll have to disagree again as well and say that we have in the past agreed on things :hihi:

Mod. Note

Just one thing, folks - try to keep the language here civil.

Things get emotive, but it should be possible to debate things civilly.

Thanks!

Ok folks - let's PLEASE keep this on topic.

There is no need to start a personal row here - let's move on with the topic.

Thanks.

I'm convinced that Ken wouldn't fall under any of the DPA restrictions.

I think you're right Cyclone, as the data is simply a picture, which may identify someone. It doesn't contain any personal information as far as I can see. It may be possible to use it/them in a criminal action against the subject of the pictures, but I really don't see how it wold contravene the DPA.