Taking videos or photographs over a farm fence does not necessarily constitute a breach of privacy – but how those images are used can fall foul of the law.
Privacy Commissioner Michael Webster said the Privacy Act is designed to protect personal information that can identify a person, their address, contact details, employment or medical records, bank details or facial images.
Technology has evolved, with drones and cameras with powerful lens that can take detailed images from vast distances – and spread them on social media.
Webster declined to talk specifically about a case in Southland where an animal welfare activist is alleged to have posted images of a cows being wintered and identified the address of the property through Google Maps.
This provoked a flood of complaints, which led to an investigation by the Ministry for Primary Industries.
Webster said that, in general, publishing images that can identify a person or their address without their permission can be a breach of privacy.
“As a golden rule, don’t do anything that your neighbour would view as creepy,” he said
The Privacy Act is backed by 13 principles or governing rules such as knowing when your information is being collected, how it is being used and shared appropriately, that it is kept safe, and that you can have access to your information.
Webster said in the first instance a complainant should approach the agency or individual who is alleged to have breached their privacy.
The activist in the Southland case published on social media a letter from the farmer’s lawyer.
It stated the published images were taken without the farmer’s knowledge, were made public without comment from the farmer and used in a way that “fundamentally violates our client’s privacy and identify the property location”.
It said the footage is being used for anti-dairy farming purposes.
“The photos/video have been put out in the public domain with associated commentary that makes it plan there is a blatant misuse of the recorded footage and images for a political purpose, i.e. the furtherance of an agenda your agency has about perceived issues with dairy farming.”
The complainant sought copies of all “personal information” held by activist, the immediate cessation of all photographic activity of his farm, an unreserved apology and a contribution to the farmer’s legal costs.
News media are not covered by the Privacy Act, so they can undertake news-gathering activities. Complaints of privacy breaches against the media can be lodged through entities such as Broadcasting Standards Authority.
To assess whether a breach has occurred, Webster said questions to ask include, Why was the image or information gathered? Did it infringe on your privacy? Was it offensive or done in a way to harass?
If an approach for redress to the alleged holder of the offensive material is not successful, then a complaint can be lodged with the commissioner, the Human Rights Commission or Netsafe.
They each have different sanction powers.
Individuals can also seek access to information held by an agency about them.
Last year the Privacy Commissioner dealt with 1000 complaints, most of them from people refused access to their own private information.
Webster said farmers who are employers also have privacy obligations.
They are obliged to ensure that personal information held on staff is relevant and securely stored.
