Taxi Driver Online

Should every taxi in Worcester have CCTV? City council floats idea for compulsory cameras

https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/16 ... y-cameras/

CCTV cameras may soon have to be fitted in every taxi in the city as the council floats the idea of making them compulsory.

With nine months of work already behind them, city council officers will continue to look at the idea before joining the likes of Hereford in adopting the mandatory camera policy.

But no decision should be expected soon as councillors voted to give more time to officers to draw up reports with further discussion expected sometime in the next year.

Currently, taxi drivers are not required to install cameras as mandatory but can do so if they want to. If the idea did come to fruition, every taxi in the city would be required to install CCTV cameras before they were handed a licence.

Initial consultation by council officers found that taxi companies and drivers did not support the compulsory installation of CCTV – mainly because of the cost in purchasing, installing and maintaining the equipment.

The requirement to install CCTV in every taxi hopes to address three big issues – deterring passengers from making off without payment, preventing passengers from physically attacking taxi drivers and lastly to provide evidence when complaints are made against a taxi driver.

The debate over mandatory cameras was first proposed at a licensing and environment health committee meeting in January but further discussions and decisions were deferred until last week (September 10) so officers could cast a new eye over the idea following the GDPR overhaul in April – with particular attention paid to who would be allowed to store the footage.

Initial support for the cameras included Cllr Roger Knight, who said he was “very much in favour” both for the benefit of drivers and for passengers and looked forward to hearing the latest article.

“I hope it allows us to do what we should be doing,” he said.

"CCTV is nothing new. CCTV is everywhere. We look at it wrongly as an invasion of privacy rather than the protection of people."

The council has used an article by Kings Chambers barrister Ben Williams QC which has outlined a number of issues with GDPR and CCTV in taxis and is waiting for a follow-up article due to be published at the start of next year, as well as Local Government Association guidelines, before making any further decisions.

Not aware of this Sussex presumably as Britains no1 fan of CCTV in taxis you have read it ?

What are the issues highlighted ?

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

Can't find any trace of the article online, but there was this recent piece by on the Taxi Defence Barristers website, which also appeared on TaxiPoint.

Doesn't really address the GDPR thing, but couple of interesting points nonetheless, especially about the council as data controller if they make CCTV compulsory.


CCTV in taxis – What is the law on continuous recording?

https://www.taxidefencebarristers.co.uk ... recording/

CCTV systems installed in taxis and private hire vehicles is becoming an increasingly common feature. An increasing amount of councils are either allowing CCTV cameras to be installed or making it a mandatory requirement as a way to combat crime, to protect drivers and vulnerable passengers.

The Information Commissioner (ICO) recently reported that they have seen an increase in cases of CCTV in taxis and more particularly, taxi CCTV systems that continuously record.

Continuous recording CCTV systems are systems that start recording whenever a vehicle is running and continues to record until the vehicle engine is switched off. When a taxi or private hire vehicle is used privately (i.e. not for hire or reward), the CCTV system continues to record.

Is continuous recording CCTV systems installed in taxis lawful?

As a starting point, capturing a person’s movements on camera is accepted as particularly intrusive and as such subject to strict data protection rules and human rights law. The legislation referred to specifies that information captured and processed via CCTV must, among other things, be necessary and proportionate.

When a taxi or private hire driver is working, clearly the use of CCTV would be proportionate and arguably necessary in light of its purpose; to combat crime, to protect drivers and vulnerable passengers. However, when a taxi or private hire driver is off duty, the continued use of CCTV recording is likely to be unlawful, unfair and excessive in light of data protection and human rights legislation.

The ICO’s view is that in most instances, continuous recording CCTV systems in taxis and private hire vehicles are unlawful. Licensed holders need to take steps to protect themselves from complaints of excessive use of CCTV systems in their licensed vehicles. The use of CCTV in taxis must be limited to instances where it is necessary and proportionate. As such, CCTV should only be recording when you are working and switched off then you are off duty.

Additionally, cases where CCTV systems in taxis are a mandatory requirement, the ICO’s view is that the relevant data controller is the council not the individual vehicle licence holder. In other words, in most circumstances where a council instructs CCTV systems to be installed, the instructing council will be responsible for controlling and processing the data even though it is being recorded in a taxi or private hire vehicle.

Taxi Defence Barristers act for taxi and private hire licence holders who are facing difficulties with their licences – Licence revocations, refusals, suspension and all criminal matters.



There's also this more general piece from the same website, which was apparently published in PHTM in June 2018. It's specifically about GDPR, but not specific to the trade, and don't think I'll be reading it

https://www.taxidefencebarristers.co.uk ... compliant/

Edit: duplicate post

Can't really see the point in declaring continuous CCTV illegal when driver is off-duty - then the only person being recorded is the driver and other private individuals with some sort of relationship with the driver, not members of the public.

As such, CCTV should only be recording when you are working and switched off then you are off duty.

so if you have an accident whilst off duty it is not available to your insurance ?

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

If a Council by making it mandatory become the data controller,they must accept the cost of purchase,installation and maintenance of the system.

There is not a hope in hell of me agreeing to a requirement that it would be recording when being used privately,that would be an intrusion of my family members human rights.

No idea, but quite why anyone would ask for guidance from a QC when you can get clear free guidance from the ICO, is beyond me.

_________________
IDFIMH

That's what is happening down here.

Changes nothing, installers still install, down-loaders still download, administrators still administrate.

All approved by the council.

_________________
IDFIMH

The on/off switch is down to the driver to decide if he wants it on or off.

So the answer to your question is if the driver turns the switch off then more fool him.

_________________
IDFIMH

So isn't it a bit pointless having mandatory CCTV if the driver can switch it on and off at leisure?

But we're surely talking here about cameras pointing inside the car rather than out, thus accident footage wouldn't be an issue anyway, unless you're talking about a dashcam, which opens up a whole host of other questions, but I can't see a taxi driver with a dashcam being any different to Joe Public.

That's what I was getting at about off-duty recording - all you'd be doing is filming family and others in your ca that you know - not members of the public.

But ICO will promote its interpretation of the law - if you want to challenge it, or highlight ambiguities/incompatibility with other legislation/human rights, say, then presumably a third party legal opinion is worth having.

In respect of public protection yes, but not so much in protection of driver safety.

However the ICO doesn't indicate where, in my view doesn't care where, the exact location said switch should be.

Thus if a council says the switch should be located in the boot, then that might address some of the issues behind your question.

_________________
IDFIMH