Hollywood in your high street

The legal protection of privacy has been the subject of much debate recently because of the high-profile case brought by actors Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones against a magazine they believed to have infringed their privacy. Hollywood weddings may seem a world away from social housing but the privacy debate has much relevance for housing professionals as it is closely linked to the use of images obtained by CCTV cameras put up for crime prevention – so closely linked, in fact, that the judge in Douglas and Zeta-Jones' case referred to a recent case involving a local authority's use of CCTV images in his deliberations on their claim to privacy.

That case revolved around a man whose attempt, in August 1995, to commit suicide in his local town centre was captured on the council's CCTV system. Footage of the incident was subsequently shown in a TV programme on the use of CCTV in crime prevention. The man's face was obscured, but it was held in a complaint to the Independent Television Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Commission that there had been a breach of privacy and that the man would have been easily recognisable to anyone who knew him. He was unsuccessful in an application for judicial review of the council's action, but was recently awarded damages of ¤11,800 (£8460) by the European Court.

The court found that there was no relevant or sufficient reason that justified the local authority's disclosure, that its action was a disproportionate and unjustified interference with the man's private life and that it infringed article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – even though it happened in a public place and the man subsequently made voluntary TV appearances. It was held that the local authority should have first sought the man's consent or effectively masked his identity.

The use of identifying images amounts to the processing of personal data under the 1998 Data Protection Act. Conscious of the potential for misuse, the Information Commissioner published a comprehensive code of practice in June 2000, setting specific standards for the disclosure of images or access to them. For example, if the purpose of the CCTV system is the prevention and detection of crime, disclosure to third parties should be limited to:

• law enforcement agencies where the images would assist in a specific criminal enquiry
  
• prosecution agencies
  
• relevant legal representatives
  
• the media where it is decided that the public's assistance is needed
  
• people whose images have been recorded and retained (unless disclosure would prejudice criminal enquiries or proceedings).

Hollywood may seem a world away from social housing but the privacy debate is relevant to the use of CCTV images

Recorded images should not be made more widely available; for example, they should not be routinely made available to the media or placed on the internet. If images are to be disclosed to the media, other than in the circumstances outlined above, the images of individuals will need to be disguised or blurred so that they are not readily identifiable.

This may all seem common sense; however, CCTV images are not the only ones obtained by social landlords. The use of photographs or video footage in promotional or educational materials is common. Problems with these can be avoided by asking the right questions before use:

• what was the purpose for which the image was taken? If it was obviously taken with a view to publication for promotional purposes – a photographer from the local newspaper taking pictures at a fundraising event, for example – any members of the public caught on film must give their consent
  
• is the use of the image consistent with the purpose for which it was taken? A secondary use may require the subject's consent – for example, if photographs of tenants kept for identification purposes are used in a housing association's annual report
  
• is the image used in a fair way? People may object to their pictures being used in a context, for example, that suggests they are users of a drug addicts' drop-in centre, as opposed to simply visitors or supporters.