Man can’t access photo of car thief because it would violate the criminal’s rights
A TALE OF the bizarre: a man has his car nicked, the vehicle is reported stolen to the police, and a few days later the victim gets a fine for a traffic violation he never committed.
It gets weirder: police have the picture of the traffic offender – who is most probably the car thief – but cannot use this information because that would be violating his/her privacy.
In June this year, Kyriacos Ioannides left his Mitsubishi Pajero parked outside his daughter’s house in Larnaca. The woman and her husband, a stewardess and pilot respectively, were away from home at the time.
The couple reported the car stolen to police on June 19. A few days later, Ioannides was cited for a traffic offence involving the stolen Pajero.
According to the ticket, the offence was committed on the Larnaca-Ayia Napa highway on June 16 – while the car was supposedly parked at the front of the house.
In addition, the citation said the fine was processed on the 21 – two days after the car was reported stolen. The ticket, however, made no mention of the report.
Ioannides could not believe his bad luck and went back to the police. After sifting through paperwork, officers discovered that indeed the theft had been reported and duly cancelled the fine.
But with the Pajero still missing, Ioannides requested police make use of the picture taken by the traffic cameras, to identify the vehicle’s driver.
To his amazement, he was told this was not possible, because that would violate the privacy of the person pictured.
Under privacy laws, data of a personal nature may be used only for the purpose at hand. In other words, had someone borrowed Ioannides’ car and then got flashed by the cameras, Ioannides would contest the fact that he was not driving at the time.
In that instance the offender’s picture could have been used because that would have a direct bearing on the case.
But here, perversely, because a theft is involved – a different crime altogether – authorities’ hands are tied.
To get around these privacy protection laws, Ioannides was told that he needed permission from the chief of police or a court order.
In its cruel irony, Ioannides’ misadventure is only the tip of the iceberg in the tug of war between privacy rights and crime solving.
Police have been hammering away at the legislature in a bid to convince deputies to amend privacy provisions enshrined in the Constitution, saying these pose a severe hindrance to investigating crime.
The broader issue was highlighted last October, when police were unable to access the mobile phone records of murder victim Roulla Panteli, despite the fact that the records might have provided crucial information about her last movements and the identity of her killer.
??
??
??
??
