Citizens who share camera footage with the police run the risk that their home address can be traced. Online judgments contain so many details that it is easy for others to find out where a camera hangs. The Council for the Judiciary recognizes the problem and is looking at structural measures. So writes BNR, which conducted research (1).
To protect the privacy of citizens, victims and defendants, the Judicial Council uses anonymization guidelines (2). Instead of giving names, addresses, places of residence, dates of birth, license plate numbers and other identifying terms in full, these are omitted in online judgments and replaced with terms such as [witness], [victim] and [address]. The premise of the anonymization guidelines is that any data that tells more about the identity of a victim or offender should be anonymized.
BNR research shows that anonymization guidelines fall short when it comes to citizens who submit camera images to the police. The investigative editors were able to trace the address of citizens who had supplied images from doorbell or surveillance cameras in several online judgments. The judgments contained such detailed information about the camera images that the editors were able to verify the location of the camera using Google Streetview.
The people who provided the video footage knew nothing about it and reacted with shock at this finding. Most said they would have preferred to have been informed about this in advance.
Lawyers recognize that ensuring the anonymity of defendants, witnesses and others involved is sometimes a wash. This applies not only to civil cases -lawsuits between individuals, foundations or corporations- but also to criminal cases.
As video footage increasingly plays an important role in criminal cases and more judgments can be reviewed online, new risks lurk. BNR recently reported that police are now increasingly demanding footage from doorbell cameras (3) from citizens. Names and other private data of owners of doorbell cameras can thus end up unwanted in criminal files.
Legal experts say the judiciary is doing everything it can to ensure the privacy of data subjects. From the perspective of transparency, however, it is inevitable that identifying data can be found in online judgments. Several lawyers and jurists BNR spoke to feel that publishing data traceable to witnesses' home addresses goes too far. ICT lawyer Arnoud Engelfriet therefore says the anonymization guidelines may be in need of "a refresh.
The Judicial Council said in a response that it recognizes the problem. "Developments in the areas of security, technology and privacy, among others, sometimes raise new dilemmas when anonymizing judgments," a spokesperson told BNR's investigative editorial board. The Council is currently mapping the impact of new technological developments. "Possibly this will lead to new adjustments to the anonymization guidelines," the spokesman said.
The Judicial Council does not comment on individual cases. The spokesman does confirm that a number of judgments in which BNR was able to identify the witness's home address have been "brought to the attention" of the courts. One file has already been adjusted.
Victims and witnesses who discover that their address is discoverable from anonymized information in a judgment can request removal. Court staff then look to see if the anonymization guidelines were not properly applied. "If this is the case, the anonymization will be adjusted immediately," the spokesperson promises."
(1) https://www.bnr.nl/nieuws/juridisch/10540803/thuisadressen-getuigen-vindbaar-via-online-vonnissen
(2) https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Uitspraken/paginas/anonimiseringsrichtlijnen.aspx
(3) https://www.vpngids.nl/nieuws/politie-vordert-steeds-vaker-videobeelden-deurbelcameras/
