Covert recordings of face to face conversations & suspended from duty

[Inapickle63]

Hi,

I'd really like to get some as accurate as possible advise on my current situation. I am currently suspended from duty whilst a breach of data protection investigation is conducted after a complaint was made about me to my employer.

In brief, i have been made aware that my employer has been passed two recordings of me in a face to face conversation with my neighbour that were recorded covertly without my knowledge. These recordings have then been passed to another neighbour who has then passed them to my employer & complained. I have not had them disclosed to me yet so I'm not aware of the full content but irrespective of this, I have concerns over the way that these were obtained (covertly after coming into my home to chat with me!) and that they have been passed to my other neighbour and listened to before being given to my employer.

What are the legalities surrounding this & it being shared without my consent or knowledge!? I'm aware so far it wasn't illegal for my neighbour to tape me covertly, is this correct?

any help would be greatly appreciated whilst I'm waiting for official contact from my union rep.

[Johnboy007]

Re: Covert recordings of face to face conversations & suspended from duty

In this day and age you can buy recording devices from high street shops to a standard that even MI5 would be proud of.
It is surprisingly easy. However, recording conversations without the participant’s knowledge is essentially considered a breach of that person’s right to privacy. When the evidence that is recorded is central to proving a fact in a dispute however, how does the law balance the protection of the individual rights against ensuring justice is carried out?
Between two private individuals it is not prohibited to record conversations. The problem arises however if that conversation is then provided to a third party for whatever reason, without the consent of both parties. Consent can be obtained retrospectively or argued to be within the public’s interest. As an example, reporters frequently record conversations covertly, but their defence is that the content is in the public’s interest and should be disclosed; in that knowledge of the recording would alter the content of the conversation significantly. A thin line is trodden here and many court battles have ensued to determine what is and what is not considered in the public’s interest. Injunctions are the most effective option available to the recorded individual who believes recordings have been made without consent, along with any claims for damages flowing from it.

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) permits a company to lawfully record conversations only to:

• Establish facts;
• Ensure regulatory compliance; or
• demonstrate standards that are achieved or need to be achieved by training.

Any recording retained must be relevant to that business and only used for that business. Also all reasonable efforts must be made to inform the parties that the conversation is or was recorded.
A company must do whatever is reasonable to advise the party so as not to fall foul of these regulations. Also, if they are storing personal information the Company must be registered with the Data Protection Commissioner.
If the data has been obtained illegally or unfairly then a party can address this by alternative means outside of the proceedings. It can issue a claim for breach of the Data Protection Act or under the above legislation claim damages for any losses suffered as a result of the recording.

Hope this helps you.......
JB:tinysmile_twink_t2:

[Inapickle63]

Re: Covert recordings of face to face conversations & suspended from duty

Thanks for this John. It is much of the info that I have already obtained & read. I have called the information commissioner to our the scenario to them after receiving legal advise but I was point blank told by the data protection act 'expert' that the exemption of S36 is so wide that it would most likely not cover it! So right to privacy as far as I'm aware falls under the human rights act so if I want anything to happen to my back stabbing neighbour then is have a hefty solicitor bill on my hands I think!!