Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi, I’m seeking some advice regarding an activist who filmed me while I was holding a mobile phone while my car was stationary at a traffic light.

I have admitted the offence and fully accept that I should not have been using the phone. I regret doing so.

However, the individual has now posted the video of me twice on X, together with my identifying/vehicle details and the location where the incident occurred. I am extremely distressed about this and concerned that publishing these details could potentially expose me to unwanted attention or targeting.

I appreciate that this is not straightforward, as the filming took place in a public place and the individual may argue that the publication is in the public interest. Nevertheless, do I have any right to ask X to remove the video, particularly given that it has been reposted and contains information that could identify me?

I would be grateful for any advice on whether there are grounds for requesting removal under X’s privacy policies or applicable data-protection law.

Thank you.

Do the police have a policy where anything reported via OpSnap shouldn't be posted online?
Maybe contact them as well.

Yes unfortunately Musk destroyed Twitter and their privacy policy is very poor deliberately so they do not have to employ humans to review the cases of violating privacy. So activist are exploiting this loop hole in X and using is it as their platform of choice to publish video of motorist. I am trying hard to remove my posts but my messages have to pass their AI models before a human reviews it. I will let you know the outcome. Thanks for the message.     

It is not straight forward - Under GDPR, activist / member of public is exempt from data laws if they use a dashcam/mobile phone camera for personal security. The moment they publish that footage to a public social media page, they lose this exemption and legally become a Data Controller, making them liable for data breaches.

The problem is the ICO cannot handle this and they do not engage and help because if they do, they will inodiated with thousands of requests daily and it is not practical therefore ICO focuses on corporate breaches where they can impose fines. The same applies to the police so the issue I believe lack of resources to tackle this problem. The only way to solve it is to make social media platforms accountable and they also only focus on serious breaches or stop public reporting all together just like we used to cope before.

I hope anyone has some advise to add.

Many thanks and much appreciated.

* £200 & 6 points.

I personally wouldn't be worried about it. I've seen enough of these videos* and I can honestly say I do not remember a thing about the star or their vehicle. How many people really are going to be outraged enough by someone on their phone, while sat stationary at the lights, that they would want to be confrontational in the future?

Ultimately the posters are doing it for content and the more they can annoy someone into reacting the better. Any moral story they may want to plead about doing it for dead relatives is generally a load of old **** to attempt to garner sympathy over criticism.

* Usually because I want to see if someone gets out their vehicle and head butts him, the cycling nonce.

I suppose, looking at it in another way, passer-by sees a crime being committed, someone smacking someone round the head and running off with their mobile phone. Passer-by records it on his mobile phone, posts it on social media and sends a copy to the police. Now instead of nicking a phone which is breaking the law, insert using a hand-held device whilst driving, which is also breaking the law.

Isn't the point, though, that if the case ends up in a jury trial, there is a chance that a juror would have seen the video and all the comments made about it, and have formed an opinion prior to the trial, thus prejudicing the whole process? Hence the general guidance of "don't post" stands. For example, Cycling Mikey doesn't upload his stuff to YT until he knows the judicial process is complete.

Isn't the point, though, that if the case ends up in a jury trial, there is a chance that a juror would have seen the video and all the comments made about it, and have formed an opinion prior to the trial, thus prejudicing the whole process?

Using a mobile while driving isn’t going to end up in front of a jury though. So not particularly relevant in this case.