Sales of dashcams are starting to take off in France, with most car-parts shops offering models from €50, but their use falls into a legal grey area. Exact figures are hard to come by, but a survey in 2015 estimated there were at least 300,000 dashcams bought in France that year.
It is now not uncommon to see the cameras in cars parked on the street, even in small rural towns. Some even have features that set off the camera if anyone is close to the parked car, or if the car is touched by another vehicle. Images are usually sent to the owner's smartphone, where they can then be stored.
[...] France has very strict privacy laws, and among them is a law that states that while it is legal to film or photograph people in public spaces in France, you cannot use the images without the express consent of all the people who might be identified, either through their features or through the car they drive.
Obviously, people who have recorded someone driving into their car, or filmed another driver being aggressive towards them, will want to use the images, but doing so can be complicated.
Some years ago, the German insurance company Allianz, which has a big presence in the French market, offered a discount to clients who used dashcams. Now the company seems to have removed the offer.
Similarly, carmaker Citroën, which offers dashcams as factory-fitted options on new C3 and C4 models, went silent when asked how the images they record might be used.
The CNIL data protection commission told The Connexion there was no specific legislation relating to them but it "strongly advised" that people did not use them. "While we are waiting for government or parliament to come up with laws governing their use, we are vigilant on the question and have carried out legal exercises within the CNIL considering various scenarios," it said.
"As a result, we strongly recommend that taxis, vehicles with a chauffeur (VTC) and individuals do not have any device which records, even partially, public spaces."
[...] "If you are in an accident where another driver is at fault, to be strictly within the law you have to tell them straight away that you have a camera and the incident was filmed," he said.
"You then have to transmit the images to the other driver as quickly as you can, and also to the police if they are involved, because if you wait, the presumption is that you have manipulated the images.
"Obviously, the best way of doing that is through your lawyer or insurance company, but you have to be quick about it, and it is not always easy to get personal details so you can send the images."
He said that if someone tells you that you have been recorded, you can say you do not give consent for the images to be used if you think that you might be at fault.
"But while you have the right to oppose the images, which may or may not help your case with the insurance company, the courts also have the right to use the images gathered as evidence against you, if they are presented to them by the authorities."
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Wednesday May 10, @08:17PM
I was hit by a car while cycle-touring in France. The guy stopped - more to look at the damage my bike had done to his car than to check on me - told me to "park over there" to fill up the accident report, and sure enough, he climbed back in his car and took off.
Bad luck for him, I was wearing a pair of camera sunglasses, and I had both his ugly mush, his license plate, the original accident and his fleeing the scene in glorious details.
15 minutes later, I gave the footage to the gendarmerie (a kind of alternative police force in France that's part of the armed forces) who certainly had no qualms downloading my video. The officer asked me if I needed a doctor, then sent me on my way and told me they'd call me when they get the guy.
They did get him in the end. 8 months later. The guy didn't have a valid driver's license nor was he insured, and that's why he had fled. I was invited to his day in court but couldn't go because it was a bit far. Also, my French isn't so hot. Long story short: he was sentenced to 3 month in the slammer based solely on my footage.
So yeah, I don't think judges have that much trouble using dashcam footage if it really matters. Maybe not for road rage incidents in which only insults were exchanged. But fleeing the scene of an accident... I'm here to tell ya, the French fuzz and the French justices will totally use your video!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by gnuman on Wednesday May 10, @08:33PM (2 children)
What they don't want is people posting this stuff on youtube.
Giving video immediately over to police seems reasonable..
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday May 10, @09:12PM (1 child)
This is good thinking- keep the video private- do not post it or spread it around to anyone other than the other party, insurance, police, any relevant authority.
FTFS the other thing they're worried about is someone altering the video. I don't know how that can be guaranteed unless video cameras transmit the video to some 3rd-party or govt. server.
That said, it seems it would be appropriate to blur faces of people not involved in the incident.
I'm a huge fan of dashcams and other surveillance video, as long as it's not violating privacy. 10 or so years ago I was blamed for an accident that was not my fault at all. Someone was slowing down to make a right turn. They were completely in the right-hand lane. At the last possible instant she veered into my lane. I could not possibly stop, and cars were coming at me in the other lane. I hit the brakes hard but still collided. If I had had a dashcam, the other driver's very bad move would have proven it wasn't my fault, she would have been ticketed, and my car's damage would have been paid for. I never drive without it. I take it with me to any other vehicle I may drive.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Wednesday May 10, @09:56PM
The thing is, if you have a dashcam video, it may or may not be admissible as evidence in court. If you don't have a dashcam video, you ain't got no evidence.
So get the dashcam. For the price, it would be too bad to miss an opportunity to use the video if it's allowed.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Wednesday May 10, @10:01PM (4 children)
Remove it before you bring your car in for service in any garage. Mechanics HATE dashcams, Most will gently disconnect if if they see one, some will be less gentle, and some will disconnect it and sabotage the work out of spite.
The former happened to me multiple times, and the latter happened to a friend. Of course, he couldn't prove anything. Now, I just bring the car in and physically unscrew the camera in front of them. So does he.
(Score: 3, Informative) by redback on Wednesday May 10, @11:23PM (2 children)
I have had the SD cards stolen.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday May 10, @11:47PM (1 child)
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11, @01:23PM
So I'd leave the stuff there and use a different shop if my stuff gets stolen. If they can't resist something like that they'd probably take other shortcuts too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11, @01:29PM
If they can mess up my dashcam they can mess up my car. My car and its parts are more expensive than those made in China dashcams.
(Score: -1, Troll) by dwilson98052 on Thursday May 11, @03:27AM (3 children)
...now it's dash cams too.... dropped once, never used. Cowards.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Thursday May 11, @06:07AM (2 children)
I think your post was partly in jest - but I have lived in France for over 16 years now and can see the other side of the coin.
I appreciate their views on privacy. They are sensible and often have very good reasoning behind them. No country does everything perfectly - and France is of course no exception - but while their laws may be different to your own they work pretty well.
But I disagree with your view that they are cowards. America has led the way into many wars and asked for other nations to support them. The Balkans, Iraq (x2), Afghanistan, etc. Have you noticed which other countries are also always there beside them? Yep, it includes France. And they are still fighting today against various Islamic terrorist groups in North Africa - with the USA notably absent in this instance. You will undoubtedly quote the one historic event during WW2 that most people recall as total surrender. When the alternative is the complete annihilation of your population, in much the same way as Germany was already treating the Jews and other minorities in Europe, there was a logic behind that terrible and regrettable decision made by the Vichy government of the day. It was not a proud moment in history for France.
Do you recall which side the French were on during the US Revolutionary War [wikipedia.org]?
I was laying a wreath locally at a war memorial on 8 May, as was the rest of Europe. I was standing among a group of old men and women who were proudly recalling the efforts of their parents, uncles, grandparents to keep France free. I too was remembering many who fought as partisans against the Germans during that war, as well as their armed forces. They were known by different names in different regions - the Resistance, the Maquis [wikipedia.org], etc. They did not surrender nor did many other regions of occupied France (and Belgium, Holland, and others too). The partisans were equipped and supported by the UK and the USA. They were not, and are not, cowards.
These same old French men and women also took a more active role in various wars since WW2, and were recalling many others that did not come home again. Do you call those Americans who finally withdrew out of Vietnam cowards? Did the USA solve the problems in Afghanistan and leave with their heads held high, or do you consider them too to be cowards? It is funny how selective one's memory can become....
(Score: 4, Interesting) by inertnet on Thursday May 11, @08:39AM (1 child)
The reason why France didn't support the USA in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, was that their own intelligence revealed that the "weapons of mass destruction" claim was bogus [wikipedia.org].
That's why the "freedom fries" smear campaign was so funny and wrong for those who were aware of this fact.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by janrinok on Thursday May 11, @03:21PM
Well it wasn't the only reason, but It was certainly another contributory factor.
The bigger problem was that , during the first war, Iraq had quite a bit of French weaponry including aircraft, and it became increasingly difficult for some forces to tell each other apart. Why the allies couldn't rely on the use of IFF and similar technology could not be explained. As the air force having the biggest problem was the USAF who were wanting to achieve air superiority very early on, the contribution from the FAF was effectively grounded by the allied commanders only a short period after hostilities began. French ground forces were told that they could not have the air support they had brought with them and expected, as other nations were all trying to support their own forces.
French forces were deployed in theatre during the first war but were told that similar rules would apply to their participation in the second war, even though much of the French weaponry had already been neutralised.
France has also had significant success selling weapons in that region of the world. Some other countries, including the UK, did not like the idea that they might be positioning themselves for some good deals after any wars and tensions had reduced.
There is an amusing anecdote that came out of the first war. France was asked to provide precise EW parameters for their missile systems (particlularly Crotale) in Iraq so that the other allies could program their own jammers and ESM. French companies did not want to release proprietory information such an action could affect weapon sales elsewhere in the region, and they did everything they could to avoid doing so. Various 'war only' settings had not yet been seen by the West. This continued up to very nearly the start of hostilities when French air forces were told that they would all be in the first wave against some very heavily defended targets which was explained that this was because they were the only ones who knew the parameters. The French government stepped in and instructed the French companies to pass the information over to the other allies. I wasn't personally involved in this incident but was told of it by a friend who was. The French air force though did not shy away from the task, much to their credit.