The period of leniency for businesses to adapt old data systems to comply with the Data Protection Act came to an end in October, yet many companies are still ignoring its requirements, warns the British Security Industry Association.
Those companies are now subject to criminal and civil action and subsequent hefty fines. Says the BSIA: “They do so at their peril because the Information Commissioner, who is responsible for overseeing the Act’s implementation, has powers to impose fines of up to GB pound 5000 on non-compliant companies, and even close them down if they are persistent offenders.”
The Act applies to all businesses processing personal data, which covers personnel and customer records, records of sales calls, mailing lists and other forms of data including closed circuit television images.
CCTV installation companies or any non-specialist installers who occasionally work in this sector should also be aware of their customers’ responsibilities.
Appoint a Data Controller
Businesses must appoint a Data Controller and notify the Information Commissioner of the data being held and the person responsible for it.
Since March 2000, all personal data systems initiated or significantly adapted since 24 October 1998 have had to comply with the 1998 Data Protection Act. Systems initiated before 24 October 1998 were allowed a transitional period to ensure compliance, which ended on 24 October 2001.
Closed Circuit Television
Businesses recording images of people on CCTV must notify the Information Commissioner immediately if they haven’t already done so. The Information Commissioner produced a code of practice in 2000 specifically for CCTV, which outlines good practice that will ensure compliance with the Act.
It includes requirements such as:
Information Disposal
Disposal of confidential information is a part of data processing that has often been overlooked to damaging effect by organisations.
Stories of confidential documents turning up on landfill sites and making the newspaper headlines should be warning enough, says the BSIA. Now, such incidents could be the subject of prosecution under the Act. The BSIA has produced a factsheet on secure information disposal, including advice such as:
Customers so confused
One company says that its customers have been so confused over the legislation that it has launched a series of seminars presenting the new code in “simple, practical terms.”
Says Simon Edgar, UK Commercial General Manager of Checkpoint Meto CCTV: “In the majority of cases non-compliance has nothing to do with complacency – it’s simply due to the fact that many organisations are unaware that the law has changed. Because of the low-key way in which the legislation was bought in and the complicated clauses of the DPA, a lot of businesses are either completely unaware of the legislation, or just confused as to what they are expected to do.”
Despite the publication of the Code which also provides “good practice” guidelines for users, Checkpoint Meto says the majority of its customers were either uninformed or confused.
As a result, the company, a multinational which provides tagging and labelling systems as well as CCTV, teamed up with lawyers from Coffin Mew and Clover to devise a series of seminars entitled ‘CCTV and The Law’.
Aimed at presenting the code in simple, practical terms, corporate law expert Amanda Brockwell and Checkpoint Meto’s Simon Edgar, set out to shed light on the basic legal obligations. Comments Brockwell; “Among the host of safeguards necessary under the new legislation, CCTV operators are now obliged to erect signs informing the public if cameras are in operation. If signs aren’t in place, the surveillance is termed covert, which is only permitted in extreme circumstances involving crime detection and catching criminals – and even then, users must have incontestable proof that making the presence of that camera known would hinder its crime-fighting purpose.
“… I suspect for people not working in the legal field, establishing what is and what isn’t acceptable would be extremely hard work. Through our series of seminars, we have been able to dispel a lot of the confusion that surrounds the Code of Practice and offer businesses some sound advice on how best to fulfil their obligations at the same time.”
Edgar concludes; “… with so much confusion still surrounding the subject, (we) intend to continue running them for some time yet.”
ADT is also urging CCTV users to comply with the ACT and has put out a “simplified” list of requirements. Says the company: “In the past decade the use of CCTV for surveillance has grown to unprecedented levels.
It is estimated that in Britain 300,000 cameras are currently monitoring shopping areas, housing estates, car parks and public facilities in thousands of towns and cities.”
The company adds that it provides its customers with “the necessary signage to comply with the regulations.”
