A reader raised the question on the use of speed cameras and CCTVs for the enforcement of traffic offences and how this could affect our privacy rights under data protection. This is a topic that was hotly discussed and publicly debated also in the media.
As in similar cases, the Office of the Commissioner for Data Protection enquired into the allegations that were made in the press and the complaints received. Proper investigations were made and site-inspections carried out.
In terms of data protection a distinction is to be made between registering (recording) visual images and simply monitoring without capturing the images on record. Data protection only applies where the event is registered on film, electronically or otherwise.
Just viewing does not constitute an infringement of personal data. Also, the image has to identify or be identifiable to a natural person. Therefore, both facial recognition and the car registration number, which is identifiable to its owner, fall under the definition of personal data.
Who is authorised to install these cameras in public places and why? In the context of traffic offences, only the authorities who by law have the responsibility to enforce these offences can capture the visual images; that is, the Police and the Local Councils as represented by the warden agency.
In the case of the councils, the authority is limited to the enforcement of such offences, which have been delegated to them. In the case of the Police, these cameras may also be used for the prevention of crime. A sign indicating the presence of a camera is to be displayed to be seen visibly by the public.
CCTVs are used to enforce illegal parking; monitoring is controlled by authorised officers in real time; and only images required for the enforcement of a contravention are captured. In this case, two photographs are taken, a wide-angle shot where persons happening to be in the area are not identifiable and a close-up shot that only captures the vehicle registration number.
In the case of speed cameras, these automatically film the images and store them on site in the case of over-speeding. Although the driver is identifiable in one shot, if a passenger happens to be in the car, the face will be blurred to render the person unidentifiable. The second shot will capture the vehicle registration number; these are used for evidence.
Where two vehicles are captured in the same shot, thus creating a doubt as to which of the vehicles was overspeeding, the image is completely disregarded and destroyed.
Public surveillance in general is creating growing privacy concerns in Europe. Following the September 11, 2001, disaster and the terrorist attacks in Spain and London, surveillance cameras have mushroomed in central public places. The citizens' rights to privacy will be put in the balance against the effective security gains of public surveillance, during the International Conference for Data Protection being held in London next November.
Readers are invited to address any queries on data protection, which may be discussed in this column, to the Office of the Commissioner for Data Protection by e-mail commissioner.dataprotection@gov.mt or at its address, 2, Airways House, High Street, Sliema SLM 16.
www.dataprotection.gov.mt