Taxi Driver Online

That is their choice.

_________________
Grandad,

They shouldn't be in the job then. I called ours Hitler, he just laughed.

But the council would have to have reason to view that data, following a complaint.

Councils, like individuals, can't just view data willy nilly.

_________________
IDFIMH

Yes they can, and more and more councils are insisting on it.

But are enforcing the trade, or are they insisting on drivers defending their living and their livelihoods?

_________________
IDFIMH

Yes more and more councils are insisting on it , however in car CCTV has been around for many years now , yet it is only since the CSE issue came about that they are all reacting in a knee jerk fashion and insisting on it . And at our expense . The ICO code says :

Using surveillance systems can be privacy intrusive. They are capable of placing large numbers of law-abiding people under surveillance and recording their movements as they go about their day-to-day activities. You should therefore carefully consider whether or not to use a surveillance system. The fact that it is possible, affordable or has public support should not be the justification for processing personal data. You should also take into account the nature of the problem you are seeking to address; whether a surveillance system would be a justified and an effective solution, whether better solutions exist, what effect its use may have on individuals, and whether in the light of this, its use is a proportionate response to the problem.

Note the part that says ( You should also take into account the nature of the problem you are seeking to address; whether a surveillance system would be a justified and an effective solution, whether better solutions exist, what effect its use may have on individuals, and whether in the light of this, its use is a proportionate response to the problem. ) clearly CCTV is not an effective solution to the issues of criminality amongst drivers , although it is good as a deterrent for crimes against drivers , and to prove against malicious allegations . However that should be a drivers choice whether to have the protection of CCTV and not a condition of licence .

By all means add conditions to a licence if that condition will solve the problem it was put in place to solve , blanket CCTV is not one of those conditions . What next body worn cameras for when your loading luggage or assisting passengers .

Maybe im missing something here , my understanding is CCTV is being insisted upon to prevent rogue drivers committing crime , yet ive yet to hear any convincing reasoning as to how it does that .

As I've previously said if you have CCTV and want to commit a crime you just turn the CCTV off.

Sure, it then raises suspicion as to why the camera was disabled, but the authorities then do not have any CCTV evidence to back up any allegations and would then have to rely on other evidence.
You could of course then be done for turning the camera off if it's a condition of the licence but I'm sure the penalty would be less than if there was footage of you commiting a serious offence.

So, leave the camera running - bang to rights, book thrown at you, out of work and/or prison. Depending on the nature of the offence.
Turn the camera off - done for disabling CCTV, warning, small fine, suspension, licencing commitee but probably keep your job and no criminal legal action (unless there is other evidence to prove your guilty).

It's hard to prove a negative, as even a thick thug or sicko driver isn't going to commit dodgy stuff on CCTV.

I must have read 1000s of pages of stuff on CCTV/data protection, and it could all summed up in a sentence or two.

If the data controller deems it necessary to have CCTV, then that passes the legal test. If a punter makes a complaint about CCTV, then that complaint can be dealt with by the ICO.

There are safeguards, but only folks with something to hide, or those too tight to buy it, are the ones bellyaching.

_________________
IDFIMH

And that will be an aggravating factor in any disciplinary or court process.

_________________
IDFIMH

But there usually is, and even if there's not a council can revoke a license on the balance of probabilities.

_________________
IDFIMH

Exactly , not fit for purpose . So the question is why are we being forced to pay for compulsory CCTV ? .

So we can agree that , even a thick thug or sicko driver isn't going to commit dodgy stuff on CCTV. If thats the case why are we being forced to pay for something that the powers that be believe will prevent rogue drivers from committing crime. When clearly that is not the case . The only real benefit of CCTV is to drivers IE deterrent , malicious allegations etc etc , and as such should therefore be a choice for those drivers to make , not to be forced upon them .

With reference to the comments on the data controller . How does that work in reality . As i am the data controller for my system ( and have been for many years ) i would have to say that for the reasons cited by various authorities IE to prevent rogue drivers offending , and bearing in mind that CCTV will not prevent this , i would deem it unnecessary to have compulsory CCTV . My licencing authority (as are many others ) although reluctant to be data controller for taxi systems are the ones insisting upon it . How does that relate to the legal test you mention as they are not data controllers how can they insist on it being a licencing condition .

As for the labeling of anyone who disagrees as having something to hide i think is somewhat unfair . Too tight to buy , maybe i give you that one . I believe it to be a matter of principle , should we just roll over and accept everything regardless . I dont think we should .

At last someone who shares a NATURAL sentiment - WHY should we just take it? If THEY want it - then THEY should contribute/pay, instead of passing the buck.

_________________
Common sense........is just not that Common.

Then challenge it through the proper channels. You wont get it changed by moaning on a forum.

_________________
Grandad,

Because Santa Claus doesn't exist.

_________________
IDFIMH

Sometimes drivers need protecting from themselves. Or are we saying seatbelts/abs and air-bags should be an option?

And drivers who have had a malicious complaint thrown out, or has not been bashed on the head because of the deterrent effect seldom moan about CCTV.

You also miss the 10s of 1000s of drivers who don't own the car they are working in, are they not entitled to be protected?

_________________
IDFIMH