| Author (Person) | Cronin, David |
|---|---|
| Series Title | European Voice |
| Series Details | Vol.10, No.9, 11.3.04 |
| Publication Date | 11/03/2004 |
| Content Type | News |
|
By David Cronin Date: 11/03/04 THE mushrooming of video cameras used for surveillance in public places should not result in "unjustified restrictions" on citizens' rights, a study by EU data experts has warned. The report by the "Article 29 Committee" - named after a clause in a 1995 directive on data protection - states the requirement to sometimes resort to surveillance in preventing crime does not provide a pretext for using cameras to deter what it considers "minor offences". Smoking in schools and leaving rubbish bags next to public litter bins are among such misdemeanours cited. The report notes that the protection of privacy is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. Somebody moving about in public spaces "may well expect a lesser degree of privacy but not expect to be deprived in full of his rights and freedoms, as also related to his own private sphere and image". Under the 1995 directive, the processing of data obtained through video surveillance is only legal if at least one of several criteria is met. These include the clear consent of an individual or evidence that processing is in the public interest. Based on an evaluation of data protection rules in EU countries, the report finds that some authorities believe video surveillance has gone too far. Portugal's Constitutional Court ruled in 2002 that the monitoring of individuals by private security firms breached privacy limits in national law, while a Belgian court has declared images filmed undercover by an animal rights organization inadmissible on data protection grounds. Any "groundless extension of the scope" of the criteria listed in the 1995 directive "should be absolutely banned", the report adds. In particular, any surveillance by electronic means in the workplace - designed to monitor the productivity of employees or how long they work - should "not be permitted as a rule". The report states that surveillance should be related to "specific risks" - such as robberies or attacks in shops closing late at night. But it says that there is a "risk of blurring roles" when police and public authorities jointly undertake surveillance. A report by the 'Article 29 Committee' warns that the rise in use of surveillance cameras in public places can result in 'unjustified restrictions' on citizens' rights. |
|
| Source Link | http://www.european-voice.com/ |
| Related Links |
|
| Subject Categories | Values and Beliefs |
