Buivids: Rage posting to YouTube may qualify as “Journalistic Activity”

This is a photo of Toronto’s 1947 LaFrance rescue squad. “Urban Legend” had it that this rig was heavily damaged in an accident within a couple of years of going into service, and later repaired and re-entered into service as a “booster car” at the Lombard St. firehall. I bought into the legend even though I had never seen proof of said accident- Reprinted from the Third Alarm newsletter of the Ontario Fire Buff Associates

SERGEJS BUIVIDS v. THE AUGSTĀKĀ TIESA / C-345/17 / (14 February 2019) (“BUIVIDS”)

This case in a nutshell…

Mr. Buivids recorded a video at a police station of activity that he considered unlawful and posted it to YouTube. The Datu valsts inspekcija (the Latvian Data Protection Authority) issued a decision finding the recording and posting unlawful because Mr. Buivids did not comply with data protection requirements (including the requirement to notify individuals.)

The easy part here is the legal analysis as to whether the EU Data Protection Directive (and now GDPR) applies to the facts. It clearly does. Mr. Buivids both used a digital recording camera to record the video and then uploaded the video to a website, therefore there is automated processing. Since the video includes images and voices that enable the identification of individuals, there is personal data. The household exception could have came to the rescue, but not under the narrow interpretation that the CJEU has for many years followed.

The hard part is how does this work in practice. The impact of being subject to GDPR is substantial. Not only would the Mr. Buivids need to notify everyone on the video, he would also have to respond to access requests or other…