Aug 132015
 August 13, 2015  Posted by  Breaches, Business, Non-U.S., Surveillance

Jimmy Ellingham reports:

A drone owned by Sky TV did not breach a finger-pulling apartment-dweller’s privacy when it flew within metres of his property, the Privacy Commission has ruled in its first investigation into the controversial unmanned flying craft.

In a decision released today, the commission said the drone flew within 10 metres of an apartment.

Read more on New Zealand Herald.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner published this case note about the complaint:

Case Note 267458 [2015] NZ PrivCmr 6 : Man objects to drone filming near his apartment

12/08/2015 9:00am

We recently completed our first investigation into a complaint about a drone. This concerned Sky TV using a drone with a camera to film a cricket match. During the game the drone flew close (within 10 metres) to the complainant’s apartment which overlooked the cricket venue. The complainant was irritated by this and gave the drone “the fingers”.

The complainant complained to us that he thought the drone may have captured highly sensitive information in an unreasonably intrusive manner. He said he was unsure whether the drone had been filming or who may have seen the footage. He had not given consent.

This complaint raised issues under principles 1 – 4 of the Privacy Act 1993 which deal with the collection of personal information. These principles specify when personal information can be collected and for what purpose; what an individual should be told when their information is collected, and how information should be collected.

We contacted Sky TV about the complaint. Sky TV said that when their producer wanted to look at footage from the drone, he would radio the drone operator and inform him that he would begin recording the drone visuals from the air. Sky TV said that despite how it appeared, the drone was not recording footage the entire time it was in the air.

Sky TV accepted that its drone may have flown past the complainant’s property, but said the drone had not recorded or broadcast images of the complainant, or the inside of his property. Sky TV also said the TV control room did not view any footage of the complainant or his property.

Sky TV said it did record and broadcast coverage of two women who were on the balcony of an apartment. The Sky TV drone operator who was standing on a tower could, by line of sight, see the two women on their balcony. He indicated by hand gestures that he wanted to film them and by return hand gestures they indicated their consent to that recording. This was the only footage that was broadcast of identifiable individuals.

For us to find a breach of principles 1 – 4 of the Act, personal information needs to be collected. There was no evidence in this instance that Sky TV had collected information about the complainant, therefore in this case we found no breach of the Privacy Act.

Note: This complaint was also investigated by the Broadcasting Standards Authority, who also found no breach under the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.