A live broadcast of the MBC Dossier program just ended some minutes ago. Overall, it was very nice and informative. Today’s session concerned Road safety. They talked about speed cameras, alcohol test drives, awareness campaigns and how this department of the police, the Traffic Branch works.
For once, Keep it up the “Dossier Team“!
[except the few technical problems as usual, but we understand “Les inconvénients du directe!”
Perhaps you were expecting a rant on police or something, but in fact, I am quite unsure about something, that’s the reason why I decided to write this post to clear my doubts.
During this live program, the cameras recorded live video of the police officers stopping vehicles and performing routine checks. Of course, nothing was planned and the car driver together with the passengers were shot by the cameras. The cameras captured every single moment from the moment the police officer waived his hand till the moment the cars left the police stop. Also, there was nothing like a warning or some permission asked for the use of those tv cameras.
My questions :
- Does the MBC has the right to record you and broadcast that video live without your consent?
- What about the right for privacy? Can this be considered as a violation to this right?
- What would have been the scene if you were stopped by the police and you refused that the cameras are recording and broadcasting live without your permission?
My understanding
My poor knowledge says :
Following the recent introduction of speed cameras and surveillance cameras in Mauritius, privacy concerns did rise. For this reason, all officers working with the surveillance cameras are supposed to sign a confidentiality agreement to ensure that the proper use of these videos by authorized persons. If am not mistaken, the speed cameras also focus mainly on the vehicle’s number plate instead of the car occupants. These announced measures are done to ensure our privacy.
Simple example :
You were broadcast live on tv while You were with some people in some car. This caused You loads of problems for your personal live has reached the whole of Mauritius.
4. How do you feel and how would you react?
I would be grateful to you for providing the answers and your feedback on this excellent live tv program. Please note that the main objective of this post is purely informative. mainly about our right to privacy.
Yashvinblogs 
QuestionL 1.Does the MBC has the right to record you and broadcast that video live without your consent?
I think that the live video is unfair. Imagine you in place of the man who was drunked and has an alcohol test to carry out.
What do you think Yashvin?
LikeLike
@Christopher :
I dont believe that the ‘drunk’ man was actually someone who took too much alcohol on a wednesday night and was so stupid to go through the police control when there was so much cameras and police vehicle there.
Probably some family members or friends who wanted to warn him that he was live on tv. Too late!
Personally, I would not have allowed cameras to record myself drunk, undergoing police controls and being broadcasted live on tv.
@TL : Totally true… Thats the reason why I am asking for your comments to clear those doubts.
LikeLike
Good initiatives. And yes, I believe they should have asked for your approval before showing your face/picture on TV. Especially its a live programme. Same rules apply for the newspaper – they cannot use your picture without permission.
LikeLike
Yes they are allowed to
LikeLike
after the debate. Make another article with the answers. (if any) 😛
LikeLike
In public places they CAN take photos and videos of you FREE! It’s allowed!
But in private places, they don’t have that privilege!
And, just for “ethical” purposes, it’s good to confirm by asking the person(s) wish(es) if they want to appear on TV or on the press!
LikeLike
It would be good to find the terms in Mauritian law concerning privacy and data protection. Is it available on a website?
LikeLike
@Bhooks, @ritzz : Thanks for your reply.
Does this mean that the next time I go out for shooting in a public place, I can simply take the picture of anyone without their consent? and upload them on the net? The context is practically the same here.
Thats nice…
Nice point by ritzz… ethics… Thats another great topic for discussion!
@Mike : indeed! We should find out what our constitution says abt that.
@Sun : lol, still waiting for your answers.
LikeLike
I don’t know whether showing the face of the driver and the passenger are legally allowed or not, but it certainly is unethical. We are used to seeing them blurred out on French TV reports for example, which is the best way to proceed, cause the people have not been informed that they were being filmed.
The situation would have been different had those people been contracted actors or even policemen playing a role, pretending to be passengers, like on TV adverts, then MBC could have shown their face.
LikeLike
Hi,
Thats a nice reflection yashvin,
1 Does that mean individuals have the right to take pictures and videos of other people and just upload them on the internet or send it by mail?
2 Are some institutions above the law? Or is the written consent THE OBLIGATION?
3 If anyone knows the legal aspect of this,please do provide info? its a far more interesting debate.
Thanks…..
LikeLike
Intéressant: Téléréalité ou non, concernant l’image, même dans un lieu public, je ne me souviens pas très bien mais il me semble que nous suivions le Code Civil français à ce niveau, donc la jurisprudence.
Voici pioché de Wikipédia:
“Le seul texte capital concernant la vie privée en France est l’article 9 du Code civil français « Chacun a droit au respect de sa vie privée ». (…) Mais il n’y aucune définition légale de la vie privée. C’est la jurisprudence qui est chargée de dire ce qui est protégé. Elle inclut : le domicile, l’image, la voix, le fait d’être enceinte, l’état de santé, la vie sentimentale, la correspondance (y compris sur le lieu de travail)… La jurisprudence ne protège pas en revanche contre la divulgation de la situation patrimoniale d’une personne menant une vie publique (tel un dirigeant de grande entreprise), ni sa pratique religieuse… Les faits révélés par les comptes rendus de débats judiciaires ne sont pas protégés non plus.
Le fait que la personne ait elle même révélé des faits n’autorise pas la redivulgation de certains de ces faits (droit à l’oubli). La redivulgation est soumise à autorisation spéciale, sauf lorsque la publication des faits ne vise pas à nuire et obéit à un intérêt légitime.”
Déjà , si elle est reconnaissable sur la photo ou l’image vidéo, c’est une règle élémentaire de demander, si c’est possible, la permission de la personne. Ou si ça se joue sur un clic, de demander l’autorisation avant publication.
Et de dire quelle sera l’utilisation. La caméra est avant tout un outil de communication qui véhicule un message. Parfois plus fort car on n’a pas besoin de process.
Parfois un sourire suffit. Les ennuis commencent si la photo est à contr’emploi (faut le prouver) ou si elle va être légendée par une fausse info ou un commentaire défavorable.
Si vous parlez de junk food et prenez la photo d’un produit particulier qui ne l’est pas, les ennuis…
La plupart des gens ne refusent pas d’être pris en photo à Maurice. Et cela se règle par un simple geste de courtoisie. Mais on peut imaginer que la personne change d’avis.
J’observe aussi que ce sont de plus en plus des personnalités, hommes publiques, qui cherchent à contrôler leur image qui peuvent vous menacer de procès et mettent la pression.
Certains “artistes” aiment se faire photographier d’un côté uniquement (Le bon d’habitude).
Il y a des bâtiments qui sont “branded” et donc protégés par des droits. C’est le cas de certaines tours en Amérique et peut-être de banques ici(?).
Au Canada, il y a eu récemment un débat sur la présentation en images du Parlement dans des contenus en ligne. L’image au sens large de l’institution est protégée. Mais la liberté d’expression aussi.
A Maurice les reporters ne prennent pas de photos lors des débats parlementaires. Mais j’ai vu la photo du Parlement vide dans un journal.
Autre point, je pense qu’il faut être prudent dès qu’il y a des mineurs. Pas de photos d’enfants donc sans autorisation expresse des parents.
Parfois la presse s’interdit de publier la photo d’un mineur qui a commis un crime grave. La photo ne “condamne” pas nécessairement plus l’enfant que l’adulte. Mais je suis pour la présomption d’innocence.
Dans le cas présent j’ai pas vu le reportage, je crois qu’au niveau éthique on pourrait flouter les visages surtout quand le délit n’est pas très sérieux et qu’il y a un vrai risque de nuire à la réputation de quelqu’un.
N’empêche, quand on est suffisamment aguerri en matière de com, on a des tas de façons de nuire à l’image d’une personne, tout en ayant l’air de montrer ce qu’on démontre.
LikeLike
Précision: dans le cadre du Parlement, des autorisations spéciales peuvent être accordées à des photographes de presse, mais vous l’aurez noté c’est assez rare.
LikeLike
Tarrr. Kifer ene policier pan gagne ene bribe live lor TV do LMAO!!
LikeLike
Yashvin. You are not a representative of the PRESS. So you cant
LikeLike