Abstract
This article considers the legal regime related to the use of Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) by reference to Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Charter). This area is problematic in that it involves the extent to which we can claim privacy in public spaces. The article argues that the right to privacy is engaged both because of the systematic storage of data by public authorities and because of the impact of location privacy. Locational privacy is a concept that has not been addressed directly in domestic literature and the article explains its nature and how it relates to ANPR. The article then considers whether the regimes in place satisfy the three stage test found in Article 8(2) ECHR and the analogous provision in the Charter bearing in mind the recent case on mass surveillance in the communications sector. The article concludes that the regime is open to challenge as it lacks a clear legal base and most likely would fail a proportionality assessment. A legislative regime specifying adequate safeguards and oversight mechanisms would seem, therefore, desirable.
Highlights
The Investigatory Powers Act (IPA) was a response to concerns about surveillance in the light of a series of cases from both European courts[1] which found the challenged regimes to be inadequately specified in law and disproportionate
The IPA is not, a complete regime for all types of surveillance and intelligence gathering. This article considers another such area, the use of Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR), which raises the difficult issue of privacy in public places and which in the main lies outside the IPA
As well as the concerns arising from systemic retention of data and inadequate handling arrangements, this article addresses the question of whether ANPR constitutes an intrusion into locational privacy, a subset of privacy that has not been directly discussed yet in domestic legal literature
Summary
The Investigatory Powers Act (IPA) was a response to concerns about surveillance in the light of a series of cases from both European courts[1] which found the challenged regimes to be inadequately specified in law and disproportionate. The IPA is not, a complete regime for all types of surveillance and intelligence gathering This article considers another such area, the use of Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR), which raises the difficult issue of privacy in public places and which in the main lies outside the IPA. As well as the concerns arising from systemic retention of data and inadequate handling arrangements, this article addresses the question of whether ANPR constitutes an intrusion into locational privacy, a subset of privacy that has not been directly discussed yet in domestic legal literature. As other surveillance technologies which contribute to the erosion of privacy in public spaces, notably drones (UAV) and body worn video (BWV), become increasingly used, the questions raised here have more general significance
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of Information Rights, Policy and Practice
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
