A HUGE fuss has been created over police officers filming farmers during last week’s violent demonstration outside the presidential palace.
Among the detractors was the commissioner for the protection of personal data Yiannos Danielides, who said the police action was a form of personal data processing and should cease. “Any processing has to be legal, have a specific purpose and not be excessive,” he said.
Police chief Michalis Papageorgiou responded angrily yesterday saying it was perfectly within the force’s right to take video footage at violent protests. He said no filming was done up to the point the violence broke out. Also he asked several other member states what their policies were.
What is very strange here is that since personal data protection is regulated under an EU directive, how is it possible that neither the police chief nor the commissioner were able to state their facts for certain.
A cursory search for the directive reveals that it “does not apply to the processing of data in the course of an activity which falls outside the scope of Community law, such as operations concerning public security, defence or State security”.
This clearly puts the police well within their rights to film at the protest.
We live in an age of technology where surveillance is the norm. There are CCTV cameras in banks, kiosks, shops and airports; often they help to solve crime.
There is a huge difference between a ‘surveillance society’ where authorities randomly or secretly film people going about their daily business, and police taking precautionary measures during a demonstration.
Like it or not there is a bigger chance of trouble happening at a protest, or a football match and if someone was hurt or killed, everyone would be critical if police failed to catch the culprits.
In fact people who participate in protests or football matches should expect to be filmed as a matter of routine.
But police should do it more openly instead of posing as civilians as was reported after the farmers' demo. Police officers running around clandestinely do not inspire trust.
The real danger with data collection is not the act of collecting information but for what it might be used by the collector, which is where the commissioner’s role comes in but he may need to be a little less zealous.
There needs to be some perspective when personal data regulations clash with other laws.
During the term of the previous commissioner, the former mayor of Strovolos thought he was doing a good thing by taking photos of cars parked on pavements and using them to fine the culprits, until he was stopped under the personal data law – a decision upheld by the Supreme Court.
Was any thought was given to the fact that these selfish drivers were not only breaking traffic laws, but were also violating the rights of pedestrians and the disabled?