IT and Internet Law

A REPORT ANALYSIS ON
THE LEGAL AND REGULATORY STRUCTURE PREVAILING IN THE UK
RELATED TO DATA PRIVACY AND PUBLIC SURVEILLANCE
ISSUE: THE USE OF CCTV IN PUBLIC PLACES
By DF
R2104D12054733
University of East London
IT and Internet Law UEL-CN-7015- 46363
Ireen Mlongoti Theu
December 20th
, 2023

Data Privacy and Public Surveillance Issues in the UK
1
Table of Contents
Topic Description..........................................................................................................................................2
Facts of The Matter.......................................................................................................................................4
Relevant Acts (Statues).................................................................................................................................7
Human Rights Laws..................................................................................................................................7
Data Privacy Laws....................................................................................................................................9
Public Surveillance Laws........................................................................................................................10
Analysis of Relevant Case Laws.................................................................................................................12
Definition of Public Place and Video Surveillance.................................................................................12
Legal Case Analysis................................................................................................................................13
Peck vs United Kingdom (2003).........................................................................................................13
Fairhurst vs Woodard (2021) ..............................................................................................................15
Conclusion & Recommendation.................................................................................................................17
References...................................................................................................................................................20

2
TOPIC DESCRIPTION
In contemporary democratic societies, where technology is pervasive, the right to privacy
remains a fundamental human right that pertains to an individual’s ability to keep their personal
or identifiable information, activities, and private life free from unwanted intrusion or
interference by public authorities except in accordance with law (Caprioli, et al., 2006). In a
recently published journal article, Chadha (2022) noted that this right to privacy is granted under
Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and Article 17 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which state that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary
or unlawful interference with their privacy, family, home, or correspondence, nor to unlawful
attacks on their honour and reputation” (p.191). In addition to specific rights to privacy in
Europe, Chadha (2022) added that the legal framework for rights to privacy in Europe is
established by Article 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the
right to respect for private and family life. Additionally, Article 8(2) stipulates that public
authorities are prohibited from interfering with this right unless such interference is in
compliance with the regulatory framework that governs privacy laws.
Further efforts have been implemented to bolster rights to privacy in Europe by enforcing
the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). According to Wolford (n.d.), the GDPR is a
privacy and security law that was drafted and passed by the European Union (EU) in 2016. It is
globally recognized as one of the most rigorous privacy and security regulations and imposes set
guidelines for organizations that collect and process personal information from individuals who
live both inside and outside the EU. Despite the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the
European Union, it has established its own version of the General Data Protection Regulation

3
(GDPR) designated as the UK GDPR. This legislation was implemented on May 25, 2018, as
stated by the Information Commission's Office (n.d.). Both the UK GDPR alongside the Data
Protection Act 2018 forms the legal basis for privacy rights and provides the data protection
framework within the UK.
In the United Kingdon one of the major issues surrounding infringement on human rights
to privacy is the use of closed-circuit television (CCTV) in public places for surveillance
purposes. Although privacy laws balances individual freedoms with societal needs for security
and order, the prevalent use of CCTV in public places continues to be a subject of much debate
and legal interpretation particularly in today’s world, where technology has enabled the
collection and analysis of vast amounts of personal data (Griffin, 2007). The use of such
surveillance systems continues to develop in areas such as facial recognition in public places,
vehicle license plate tracking, traffic management and in the general public for security and
crime prevention (ICO, n.d.). Despite the potential advantages of implementing surveillance
systems in public spaces, there is a valid argument that such systems can be intrusive,
particularly when data processing occurs without the individual's awareness. As a result, the
remainder of this document will first provide an accurate analysis of the use of the issue
regarding the use of CCTV in public places. It then discusses the relevant statues, directives,
regulations, and rules relating to the topic under discussion. Followed by a contextual application
of appropriate statues, directives, regulations, and case laws to the subject in hand. Subsequently,
a conclusion with recommendations for the future.

4
FACTS OF THE MATTER
The utilization of Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) in public places is progressively
becoming more prevalent within the United Kingdom. According to Statista, a credible source
for statistical information, estimated that there are 5.2 million CCTV cameras in the United
Kingdom with one camera for every 13 individuals (Role of CCTV Cameras, 2021; statista,
n.d.). Additionally, in the year 2019, it was noted that the city of London was the most heavily
surveilled city in Europe and in 2021, the third most surveilled city in the world (Statista, 2019;
Statista, 2021). It is also important to note that, in recent years, the UK government has
consistently allocated resources and finances towards the implementation of CCTV systems in
public places for the purpose of monitoring public places, recording incidents such as suspicious
or criminal activities, conducting investigations, or serving as a deterrence (POST, 2002).
In the United Kingdom, the use of CCTV in public places has prompted much debate and
security concerns. While some individuals feel more secure with the CCTV cameras, other
citizens and privacy advocates feel nervous about the fact that they are under surveillance every
time they are out in public places (Li, 2023). The key concerns regarding the use of CCTV in
public places are invasion of privacy and abuse of surveillance systems as reported by Li (2023).
Additional concerns include automatic facial recognition, which is susceptible to modifications
and raises concerns over their reliability as evidence (POST, 2002). Furthermore, images
obtained by CCTV systems have the potential to be disseminated or shared without the explicit
consent of knowledge of the individuals involved (POST, 2002).

5
Although the government of the United Kingdom considers the use of CCTVs in public
places an essential step in ensuring public safety and security, in order to maintain the necessary
balance between security concerns and the privacy rights of its citizens, public confidence and
trust in such systems must be established (ICO, n.d.). According to a report published in 2015
titled "Public Feeling on Privacy, Security, and Surveillance," the use of CCTVs in public places
for surveillance purposes has yielded mixed results from public opinion (Bakir, et al., 2015). The
findings indicated that in relation to the United Kingdom's public opinion on privacy, 63% of
respondents expressed concerns regarding the privacy of the general public, whereas 66%
expressed concern regarding their own personal privacy. As a result, 76% of the respondents
believed that the information collected about their personal life may be too excessive and an
additional 74% believed that the information may not be accurate. A significant majority of 96%
think that their personal information is shared without their permission while another 68% think
that the collected information can be used against them.
In regard to surveillance technologies such as CCTV, Bakir, et al. (2015), found that
regardless of the privacy concerns a significant amount of public opinion in the UK seems to
hold the view that surveillance technologies such as CCTV does improve national security.
Irrespective of the extent of support for surveillance technologies as discussed, it is noteworthy
that more than half of the participants (55%) hold the belief that governmental institution
responsible for overseeing these systems have the potential to abuse their authority and
compromise human rights to privacy. Although there exists a certain level of public support for
the use of CCTV systems in public places for the purpose of safeguarding national security,
some member of the British public exhibit reluctance in sacrificing their right to privacy as seen
by the findings discussed in this section.

6
The prevalence of CCTV in public places remains a subject of ongoing concern,
prompting a demand from the general public to strike a balance between the rights of individuals
and the implementation of CCTV surveillance in public areas (POST, 2002). The main argument
is that the general public must be assured that the use of surveillance systems is ethical, fair, and
compliant with all other requirements set forth in data protection law (ICO, n.d.). In order to
achieve this level of assurance from the UK public, trust and confidence in both the surveillance
systems and the agencies governing these systems must first be established (ICO, n.d.). The
Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) is responsible for upholding the privacy rights in the
public’s interest and regulates the use of CCTV by state agencies in public places and for
personal residential use as well. According to the ICO, the public must have faith that the
implementation of surveillance systems complies with all other requirements of data protection
law and is lawful, equitable, and transparent (Home Office, 2013). The ICO argues that the
fundamental rights and freedom of individuals cand be adversely affected when decisions
concerning them are based on intrusive methods of processing their personal data without their
consent. Moreover, the implementation of surveillance cameras in public areas can have a
substantial influence on individuals' behaviour and their ability to navigate public spaces without
constraint. As a result, it is therefore important that organizations whether public or private who
uses video surveillance systems to collect and process personal data stay within the legal
requirements of the United Kingdom that governs the use of CCTV in public places (Home
Office, 2013; ICO, n.d.).

7
RELEVANT ACTS (STATUES)
The United Kingdom has established a comprehensive legal and regulatory framework
that oversees the protection of individuals' privacy rights in the context of public surveillance
conducted by closed-circuit television (CCTV) systems. In this regard, the remainder of this
section will accurately identify the relevant statues, directives, and regulations pertaining to the
subject matter.
Human Rights Laws
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
According to Kaci (2015), on December 10, 1948, representatives from all parts of the
globe gathered at the United Nations General Assembly in Paris to draft the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR has been translated into more than 500
languages and it serves as the main source from which rules and regulations concerning
fundamental human rights derived their authority. It consists of thirty (30) articles covering
topics such as individual, civil, economic, social, and cultural rights, as well as the duties of
nations and individuals. The UDHR has been adopted into UK laws and has influenced the
development of data protection laws such as the Data Protection Act of 1998 and 2018. With
regard to the protection of privacy rights, the UDHR specifies the right to private life in article
(12) and the right to freedom of expression in article (19). It is important to note that these rights
are not absolute, and a careful balance should be achieved when applying them as stated in
article 29(2).

8
European Convention on Human Rights
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is a legally binding international
treaty that seeks to safeguard human rights and political freedom among the signatory states
withing Europe. It was drafted in 1950 by the Council of Europe and entered in effect in 1953
(ECHR, n.d.). The convention establishes the European Court of Human Rights, an institution
with the authority to adjudicate cases involving violations of human rights and provide
compensations. The rights mentioned are explicitly outlined in Section 1 of the convention,
which serves to protect various fundamental human rights such as the right to freedom of
expression, the right to privacy and family life, and the right to personal liberty and security
(ECHR, n.d.).
The Human Rights Act 1998
The Human Rights Act of 1998 is a legislative enactment in the United Kingdom that
was implemented on October 2, 2000. The primary objective of this legislation is to integrate the
rights and freedoms contained in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into the
domestic legal framework of the United Kingdom (HRA, 2023). These rights include the right to
liberty and security in article (5), right to respect for private and family life in article (8),
freedom of expression in article (11), and many more. The Human Right Act 1998 was a
significant development in the field of human rights in the UK, bringing about a shift in the legal
landscape by allowing individuals to enforce their rights directly in domestic courts rather than
having to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (Ministry of Justice , 2009).

9
Data Privacy Laws
Data Protection Act (2018)
The Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) is the most recent legislative measures in the United
Kingdom. It has been in effect since May 25th
, 2018, and it aims to provide a framework for
protecting individuals' rights and freedoms concerning their personal data used by organizations,
businesses, or the government (Gov.UK, n.d.). The DPA 2018 supersedes the Data Protection
Act of 1998 and incorporated the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European
Union designated the UK GDPR (Gov.UK, n.d.). The DPA 2018 applies to all personal data
processed in the UK, regardless of whether a public or private entity processes the data. One of
the important aspects of the DPA 2018 act is that it grants individuals the right to know what
personal data is being processed about them and how it is being used (Gov.UK, n.d.). In addition,
under certain conditions, individuals also have the right to access their personal data, request its
correction or deletion, and object to its processing in certain circumstances. Furthermore,
organizations are required to obtain individuals' consent for processing their data, ensure its
security, and comply with principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability (Gov.UK,
n.d.).

10
Public Surveillance Laws
The Protection of Freedoms Act of 2012/2022
The Protection of Freedoms Act of 2012 is a legislation in the United Kingdom that
governs the appropriate use of surveillance camera systems in public places by local authorities
and the police (Gov.UK, 2021). The act was introduced in 2012, however, an updated version
was implemented on November 19, 2021, and came into effect on January 12, 2022, (Gov.UK,
2021). The act was passed in response to concerns about the erosion of civil liberties and privacy
pertaining to the use of CCTV in public places in the UK. Its purpose is to guarantee public trust
and maintain the use of these surveillance camera systems. The act sets out the codes of practice
for planning, technical requirements, and implementation.
Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) Code of Practice
The regulatory authority responsible for overseeing the code of practice pertaining to the
utilization of closed-circuit television (CCTV) and video surveillance in public areas within the
United Kingdom is the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). The code of practice provided
by the ICO is applicable to both private and public sectors who use video surveillance systems to
collect and process individuals’ personal data. These public video surveillance systems may
include drones, CCTV, facial recognition technology, automatic number plate recognition, body
cam word by police officers, and camera enabled doorbells (ICO, n.d.). The purpose of the code
of practice is to help the public and private sector stay within the legal framework of the United
Kingdom’s General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018
(DPA 2018).

11
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA)
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) is a legislative framework in
the United Kingdom that regulates the investigatory authority of public entities with regard to
communication interception and surveillance (RIPA, 2000). The act requires that public
investigatory bodies such as the government, state agencies or the police obtain a warrant before
conducting covert surveillance or intercepting communications (RIPA, 2000).
The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA)
The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA) is another law that regulates surveillance in the
United Kingdom. The act consolidates and updates the investigatory powers of public authorities
such as law enforcement and intelligence agencies (IPA, 2016). It also, provides a legal
framework for the lawful acquisition of communications data, including information about who,
where, when, how, and with whom a communication was made, but not the content of the
communication itself (IPA, 2016). In addition to regulating the use of intrusive investigative
powers by public authorities, the Act mandates that an authorization body issue a warrant.

12
ANALYSIS OF RELEVANT CASE LAWS
Definition of Public Place and Video Surveillance
Public Places
In the context of this study, a public place refers to an area that is easily accessible to and
may be enjoyed by members of the public without any obstacles or restrictions (Bosetti, et al.,
2019). In another study conducted by Piza, et al. (2019), the term is defined as an open area that
is universally accessible to all individuals, without any kind of prejudice, regardless of time or
under any circumstances. The authors further noted that members of the public are given the
benefit of free access to public places and that these public places are often owned and operated
by various public authorities.
Video Surveillance
Piza, et al. (2019), states that video surveillance is a technology system consisting of a
system closed circuit television (CCTV) security cameras for the purpose of monitoring and
reviewing recordings. In addition, video surveillance systems are monitored and managed from a
control room, where an operator views and monitor recordings of public and private activities. In
the context of this study, video surveillance of public areas raises many concerns regarding
personal data and infringed upon the privacy right of individuals (Piza, et al., 2019). One could
argue that video surveillance does not constitute a violation of an individual's privacy because a
public place is not deemed to be a private space. Nevertheless, under these circumstances,
individuals should not experience any lesser degree of privacy in public spaces and their right to
freedom of expression ought not to be violated. In this regard, the subsequent section examined
two case laws that involve the use of CCTV systems in Peck v UK and Fairhurst v Woodard.

13
Legal Case Analysis
Peck vs United Kingdom (2003)
In the case of Peck vs. United Kingdom (Application no. 44647/98), the plaintiff Mr.
Geoffrey Dennis Peck, filed an official complaint on April 22, 1996, to the European Court of
Human Rights, contending that his rights to a private life under Article (8) of the European
Convention of Human Rights had been violated by the local media and the investigative powers
of the police. Additional information from the official case document reveals that Mr. Peck, the
plaintiff, was suffering from depression because of personal family circumstances (ECHR,
2003). Consequently, Mr. Peck decided to take matters in his hand and decided to end his own
life. The court files indicated that on August 20, 1995, Mr. Peck was filmed by CCTV owned
and operated by the Brentwood Borough Council with a kitchen knife and attempted to commit
suicide by slitting his wrists (ECHR, 2003). At the time of the incident, Mr. Peck was unaware
that he was being recorded, the police were notified of the occurrence and subsequently visited
the location to apprehend him. Some months later, CCTV recordings of the incident were
released to public authorities and later to various media outlets which were later publicized and
broadcast on various TV shows (ECHR, 2003). This disclosure led to Mr. Pecks’ complaint that
his identity was not properly obscure therefore his right to a private life was violated.
In this particular case, the Courts primary objective is to determine whether the disclosure
of the CCTV footage by the Brentwood Borough Council violated the complaints right to a
private life under the Article (8) of the European Commission on Human Rights (ECHR).
According to the official case document, the Government of the United Kingdon contended that
the rights the complainant was not violated and base this claim on the notion that the location of
the CCTV was not part of his private life, he did not complained about being filmed and that the

14
gave up his province the moment he ventured out in a public place to commit a suicidal act
(ECHR, 2003).
On the other hand, the Court determined, after analyzing the case, that the complainant,
Mr. Peck, was unconcerned by the fact that a publicly installed CCTV system was recording
him. Neither was he concerned about the police's involvement, given that their intervention
resulted in his survival (ECHR, 2003). As per the official case document, it was discovered that
the dispute arose from the way the CCTV footage was disclosed to the public without the
complainant’s prior knowledge or consent. In deliberating the case facts prior to arriving at a
conclusive ruling, The Court referred to several pre-existing rules including Rotaru v. Romania
(2000), Herbecq v. Belgium (1998), and Amann v. Switzerland (2000) were among these rules.
The Court established that several elements infringed upon the complainants right to privacy.
Firstly, the Court noted that the complainant was recorded in a public area where there should be
freedom of expression and of assembly. Secondly the complainant’s identity in the CCTV
footage and photographs was not sufficiently obscured in the disclosed publications. Thirdly, the
complainant was not aware that a CCTV system was filming him (ECHR, 2003).
Considering these reasoning, the Court determined that the disclosure of the CCTV
footage that exposed Mr. Pecks identity lacked sufficient support. In addition, no safeguards
were implemented to secure the identity and personal information of Mr. Pecks. As a result, the
Court ruled that Mr. Pecks right to a private life was infringed upon which us guaranteed under
Article (8) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, 2003). The Court also found a
breach of Article (13) of the Convention was also breached since Mr. Peck was initially denied
access to an effective remedy.

15
Based on the rule of law and the evidence brought forward, the Court concludes that the
applicant was devoid of any effective remedy under Article (13) of the Convention with regards
to the infringement upon His right to a private life under Article (8). In addition, the Court
disregarded the Government of the United Kingdom's arguments that the complainant's right to
privacy had not been violated and that an effective remedy was unnecessary which is also a
breach of Mr. Pecks freedom of expression guaranteed under Article (10) of the Convention.
Additionally, the Court reached the determination that the Brentwood Borough Council and the
media had the ability to adequately conceal the face of Mr. Pecks, thus protecting his identity
from potential acquaintances.
Fairhurst vs Woodard (2021)
According to a recent burglary statistic from the United Kingdom, it was reported in 2023
that there was a total of 191,490 residential burglaries recorded by the police in England and
Wales. The London metropolitan area accounted for the highest number of burglaries reported to
the police totaling 37,466 in number. The Greater Manchester area followed suit with 16,141,
while the West Midlands and Yorkshire both received 15,797, and 10,413 reports respectively.
(UK Burglary Statistics, 2023). Based on the given statistics, it can be argued that citizens of the
United Kingdom have the right to implement certain measures, such as the installation of CCTV
systems, to increase their personal safety and security of their property. However, while
safeguarding personal security and property, the use of CCTV systems must be approached with
due diligence and the privacy of others should be respected.

16
In the context of Fairhurst v Woodard 2021 (case No: G00MK161), the claimant Mary
Fairhurst has filed a claim against the defendant Mr. John Woodard, in the Oxford County Court
for the offences of nuisance, harassment, and violation of her rights guaranteed under the Data
Protection Act (2018). The claim is based on the defendant's use of multiple security cameras
and lighting around his property (Fairhurst v Woodard, 2021). According to the official case
document, both the claimant and defendant were identified as neighbors and have access to a
shared driveway (Fairhurst v Woodard, 2021). The claimant argued that the Defendant had
invaded her privacy by installing several motion sensor video and audio surveillance cameras on
and around his property including a video capturing doorbell at the front door of his property
which due to its range also picked up audio and video along the street beyond the boundary of
his property. Conversely, the defendant contended that the installation of the surveillance
cameras was for the purpose of securing his property and as a deterrent against potential
intruders. Despite that the evident rational presented by the defendant, the claimant maintains
that the defendant has no regard for the privacy concerns of his neighbors and wasn’t honest with
her about the devices.
Based on the facts brought forward, two rules of law were applied to test the case: the
Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and the Data Protection Act 2018. In the jurisdiction of
the United Kingdom, the Data Protection Act 2018 guarantees protection and processing of
personal data. The DPA 2018 covers a wide range of data protection-related areas, such as
individual rights to privacy, the obligations of data controllers and processors, and the means of
enforcing compliance (DPA, 2018). What was relevant to this case was the claimant’s right to
privacy and the protection of her personal data captured by the defendant’s surveillance system.

17
The use of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 in this case prohibits the pursuit of a course
of conduct that amounts to harassment of another (PHA, 1997).
In accordance with the applicable rules of law, the Court ruled in favor of Mary Fairhurst
and concluded that the conduct of the defendant was a clear sign of harassment under the terms
of the Protection of Harassment 1997. This decision was determined by the evidence which
indicates that the defendant threatened to install additional surveillance cameras in response to
Ms. Fairhurst's concerns to intimidate or scare her. Additionally, the Court also ruled that the
audiovisual data collected by Mr. Woodard’s CCTV cameras included personal and identifiable
data about Ms. Fairhurst. As a result, the Court deemed it unlawful under Article 4(1) of the Data
Protection Act 2018, since it infringed upon her right to privacy (Fairhurst v Woodard, 2021).
The claimants claim of nuisance was rejected because the Court had determined in a previous
case law that mere overlooking from one property to another is not capable of giving rise to a
cause of action in private nuisance (Fairhurst v Woodard, 2021).
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION
The case of Fairhurst v Woodard shows how the Court interprets and applies the relevant
rules of law in cases that involve the domestic use of surveillance camera systems. It is evident
from the preceding case analysis that the defendant, Mr. Woodard, failed to consider the rules of
law and the consequences of noncompliance when installing audiovisual security systems on his
property. It is therefore imperative for homeowners who are considering using surveillance
cameras to protect their property, exercise due diligence and consider the privacy right of their
neighbors. Additionally, it is also ethical and accountable to be transparent and honest with
neighbors regarding the scope of operation of any audiovisual recording system. The Court ruled

18
in favor of Dr. Fairhurst and determined that she was entitled to compensation for the distress
and harassment she endured as a result of a violation of her right to privacy. In addition, the court
ordered that the defendant be barred from future violations of her rights in the same or a
comparable fashion.
It is important to note that the use of surveillance camera systems in public places
remains a subject of dispute. It can be argued that although some individuals may feel a sense of
security with CCTV cameras in public places, there are others who feel concerned about the fact
that they are under surveillance while they are out in a public place. Given the prevailing
conditions, it is imperative for individuals to comply with regulatory bodies and the rules of law
when making decisions to implement a security camera system on their premises. For this
reason, several recommendations were formulated in accordance with information obtained from
the UK Home on surveillance camera code of practice.
Recommendations
UK Home Office: Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, June 2013
1. The first thing to consider when deciding whether to use security cameras for
surveillance is to ensure that the need for their use is legitimate and that it is intended
only for a specific purpose.
2. It is imperative for the operators to exercise due regard for the privacy and concerns of
any individuals who might be in direct line of sight of the camera systems prior to their
installation.

19
3. The operators of security cameras in public places should be honest and transparent about
their use.
4. Operators must have a thorough understanding of the rules of law that govern the
personal information that security cameras frequently collect.
5. It is recommended that operators erect noticeable warning signs to inform individuals that
the vicinity is under surveillance.
6. The audio and visual data acquired by security cameras should never be disseminated
with malicious intent or utilized to harass or intimidate an individual.

20
REFERENCES
Bakir, V. et al., 2015. Public Feeling on Privacy, Security and Surveillance , London: DATA-
PSST and DCSS.
Bosetti, N., Brown, R., Belcher, E. & Ihieme, M., 2019. Public London: the regulation,
management and use of public spaces. London: Centre for London.
Caprioli, E., Saadoun, . Y. & Cantero, I., 2006. The Right to Digital Privacy: A European
Survey. Rutgers Journal of Law and Urban Policy, 3(2).
Chadha, V., 2022. Balancing The Privacy vs. Surveillance Argument: A Perpective From The
United Kingdom. JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations, 13(1), pp. 190-203.
DPA, 2018. Data Protection Act 2018, Norwich: The Stationery Office.
ECHR, 2003. Peck v. The United Kingdom. Strasbourg: The European Court of Human Rights.
ECHR, n.d. European Convention on Human Rights. Strasbourg: European Court of Human
Rights.
Fairhurst v Woodard (2021) Ofxod County Court.
GDPR, n.d. What is GDPR, the EU’s new data protection law?. [Online]
Available at: https://gdpr.eu/what-is-gdpr/
[Accessed 7 November 2023].
GDPR, n.d. What is GDPR, the EU’s new data protection law?. [Online]
Available at: https://gdpr.eu/what-is-gdpr/
General Assembly, 2019. Resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly on 17 December
2018. [Online]
Available at: https://documents-dds-
ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N18/449/97/PDF/N1844997.pdf?OpenElement
Gov.UK, 2021. Update to Surveillance Camera Code of Practice. [Online]
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/update-to-surveillance-camera-code
Gov.UK, n.d. Data Protection. [Online]
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/data-protection
Griffin, J., 2007. The Human Right to Privacy. San Diego Law Review, 44(4), pp. 697-719.
Home Office, 2013. Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, London: London: Stationery Office .

21
HRA, 2023. Human Rights Act 1998. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office and Queen's
Printer of Acts of Parliament .
ICO, n.d. Video surveillance (including guidance for organisations using CCTV). [Online]
Available at: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/cctv-and-
video-surveillance/guidance-on-video-surveillance-including-cctv/
Information Commission's Office, n.d. The UK GDPR. [Online]
Available at: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/data-protection-and-the-eu/data-protection-and-
the-eu-in-detail/the-uk-gdpr/
IPA, 2016. Investigatory Powers Act 2016. [Online]
Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/25/contents/enacted
[Accessed 4 December 2023].
Jha, A., 2023. A Study On The Data Protection Laws In The Uk After Brexit. Journal of
Namibian Studies, 3(1), pp. 2197-5523.
Kaci , . Y. A., 2015. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. New York: United Nations.
Li, A., 2023. Top 8 Pros and Cons of Surveillance Cameras in Public Places. [Online]
Available at: https://reolink.com/blog/pros-cons-of-surveillance-cameras-in-public-places/
Ministry of Justice , 2009. The Human Rights Act 1998: the Definition of “Public Authority”.
London: The Stationery Office Limited on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery
Office .
PHA, 1997. Protection from Harassment Act 1997 , Norwich: The Stationery Office.
Piza, E. L., Welsh, B. C., Farrington, D. P. & Thomas, A. L., 2019.
CCTVsurveillanceforcrimeprevention. Criminology and Public Policy, 18(1), pp. 135-159.
POST, 2002. CCTV, London: Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.
POST, 2002. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology: CCTV. [Online]
Available at: chrome-
extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documen
ts/post/pn175.pdf
RIPA, 2000. Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. [Online]
Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents

22
Role of CCTV Cameras, 2021. Role of CCTV Cameras: Public, Privacy and Protection.
[Online]
Statista, 2019. The Most Surveilled Cities in Europe. [Online]
Available at: https://www.statista.com/chart/19268/most-surveilled-cities-in-europe/
Statista, 2021. The Most Surveilled Cities in the World. [Online]
Available at: https://www.statista.com/chart/19256/the-most-surveilled-cities-in-the-world/
The Commissioner's Office, n.d. The UK GDPR. [Online]
Available at: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/data-protection-and-the-eu/data-protection-and-
the-eu-in-detail/the-uk-gdpr/
UDHR, n.d. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [Online]
Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
UK Burglary Statistics, 2023. UK Burglary Statistics (2023). [Online]
Available at: https://www.cladcodecking.co.uk/blog/post/uk-burglary-statistics

IT and Internet Law

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to IT and Internet Law

Similar to IT and Internet Law (20)

More from DamaineFranklinMScBE

More from DamaineFranklinMScBE (12)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

IT and Internet Law