Video Surveillance images of rugby star Mike Tindall out drinking with some of his England teammates in a Queenstown bar made front pages around the world in 2011.
The surveillance images were taken in the midst of England’s uninspiring 2011 Rugby World Cup campaign in an eight-day break between matches against Argentina and Georgia. Players were given a night off by then-coach Martin Johnson, who later defended his player’s behaviour, saying, “Rugby player drinks beer, shocker.”
The surveillance images were of particular interest to tabloid newspapers as they showed Tindall — who weeks before had married the Queen’s Granddaughter Zara Phillips — getting uncomfortably close (for Buckingham Palace) to a blonde woman in the bar.
But almost two years after the images were leaked and posted on YouTube, a New Zealand bouncer has been sentenced to four months of home detention and 300 hours of community service for stealing the images and trying to sell them to British newspapers.
Jonathon Dixon was sentenced last week after jurors found him guilty of theft when he accessed the nightclub’s computer and downloaded the images without any right to do so.
Click here to view Figure 1.
He then reportedly sought as much as GB pound 1.3 million from newspapers for the images, but when none of them expressed any interest — presumably because they were aware that the images could only have been obtained illegally, without justification — he instead posted the video to YouTube.
Of course, the media cannot be held up as having showed complete integrity over the use of the images. Although he may not have received any cash for the images, The Sun printed them alongside the headline “Mike Tindall gropes blonde: Zara’s hubby puts head in girl’s boobs at dwarf-throwing contest”.
A separate set of pictures showing players, including Tindall and Chris Ashton, were posted on Facebook under the heading Mad Midget Weekender: Leprechaun Wars, the final ingredient in what ranks high in the annals of bizarre sporting stories. These however were not from video surveillance cameras.
Rules on Controlling CCTV images
Regulations issued by New Zealand’s Privacy Commissioner on the use of CCTV surveillance images are clear in their interpretation:
In the Privacy Act, principles 10 and 11 say that you may only use or disclose personal information [i.e., surveillance images] for the purpose you collected it, or for a directly related purpose.
It’s fair to say that capturing images of England rugby stars cavorting with blondes and midgets was probably not the intended purpose of the surveillance cameras in question.
The New Zealand guidelines are similar in tone and content to those issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office in the UK, covered by the Data Protection Act. Additionally, the ICO’s CCTV code of practice states:
Recorded material should be stored in a way that maintains the integrity of the image. This is to ensure that the rights of individuals recorded by the CCTV system are protected and that the material can be used as evidence in court. To do this you need to carefully choose the medium on which the images are stored, and then ensure that access is restricted.
The last part of this paragraph is crucial; businesses have to ensure that access to stored video surveillance images is restricted. In practice this could mean a physical restriction, such as a locked room that only specific individuals have access to, or a password-restricted computer. Ideally, one would use a combination of the two, but that may not always be possible.
Of course, there are other rules in different parts of the world. We would recommend you seek the appropriate guidance for the use and control of surveillance images in whatever territory you are using or installing equipment. However, the ICO’s guidance pursuant to the Data Protection Act is a good place to start.
Related posts:
Free Download: The Video Surveillance Report 2023
Discover the latest developments in the rapidly-evolving video surveillance sector by downloading the 2023 Video Surveillance Report. Over 500 responses to our survey, which come from integrators to consultants and heads of security, inform our analysis of the latest trends including AI, the state of the video surveillance market, uptake of the cloud, and the wider economic and geopolitical events impacting the sector!
Download for FREE to discover top industry insight around the latest innovations in video surveillance systems.
So the bouncer “stole” the images. What would have happened if the club owner had sold those same images? Who was driving the prosecution of the bouncer, was it the Rugby Club, the player or the owner of the club? As for who should have access to these images I would suspect that a bouncer would be part of your security team and in many instances they should have access to security systems in cases of small businesses like a bar because they are the head of security.
interesting question in the world digital security… who have right to access images… digital copyrights… who owns it… ???
and in a very small business how do you separate tasks vs responsibility? If a bouncer is head of security and he is supposed to be reviewing surveillance systems why would it be unusual for him to be looking at them. I know the issue is that he sold the images but chances are the owner of the club wouldn’t even know the images existed had the bouncer not made them public.
The legislation would define who owns the system and it become stheir responsibility to ensure the integrity of the data on it. All Data should be kept securly with access to those who are lawfully and with good reason and intent to do so. Clearly this is where the individual in this case has been found in breach, however, it could also be mentioned that the Data controller did not ensure that the systems integrity was fully secure with access only by those identified above.
yes, you are right, as things came to light, only after the fact owner found out images exist….
It did seem to be odd that the owner of the system (which would presumably be the licencee) was not also on trial.
Possibly that gets to the heart of the matter. If he was head of security then he was the person in charge of access to the surveillance. He then abused such a position to share the images online. Maybe.
It could be, as you allude, that the owner can defer his responsibility to his head of security.
Oh I do think it’s an abuse to post them online/sell them but walking backward through the situation if the owner of the club is the one who is up in arms about the situation it makes me wonder who was in charge of the surveillance system and if this is a matter of the owner doesn’t want bad press over this because it will keep big spenders away from his club.
I would think the owner of the system in this case would only see court time if the persons depicted in the footage or stills sought damages because it is the owners responsibility to reasonably secure the system. The owner could then try to prove no fault by saying that the bouncer had the right to review the data but did not own it or have a right to duplicate it. That would direct fault back at the bouncer who in the course of his job had the right to review but not duplicate and distribute. The law states it… Read more »