A theatre group made a complaint to me on behalf of a number of women. The respondent was a contractor retained to install television monitors in a theatre for a musical production. While performing that contract the respondent concealed a video camera inside a monitor installed in the women's dressing room. He then used the video camera to record images of the women using the dressing room.

The respondent admitted doing this and said he made the video for his own personal use. He said he had not shown the video to anyone else. The respondent said he made recordings on three occasions. Each time he watched the video and then recorded over it. None of the women were aware that the recordings were being made.

The complaint raised issues under information privacy principles 1 and 3.

Information privacy principle 1

Principle 1 prohibits agencies from collecting personal information unless it is collected for a lawful purpose connected with a function or activity of the agency and the collection is necessary for that purpose.

The respondent was contracted to install television monitors at the theatre. That was the only capacity in which he had access to the premises. He was not authorised to install a video camera in the dressing room or to make video recordings of the women's dressing room. In making the video recordings, the respondent collected personal information for a purpose which was not a lawful purpose connected with his functions and activities as a contractor.

I formed the opinion that he had collected personal information about the women using the dressing room in breach of principle 1.

Information privacy principle 3

When personal information is collected directly from an individual, principle 3 requires that the person be made aware of a number of matters, including:
- the fact that the information is being collected;
- the purpose of collection;
- the intended recipients of the information;
- the name and address of the agency collecting the information.

There are a number of exceptions to principle 3. The respondent did not seek to rely on any of the exceptions and I was satisfied that none applied in the circumstances. I formed the opinion that the respondent had breached principle 3 by failing to alert the women to the existence and use of the video camera.

Interference with privacy

Section 66 defines an interference with privacy. For a collection to cause an interference with privacy, it must breach one of the collection principles and cause some harm to the individual concerned. Having formed the opinion that the respondent had breached principles 1 and 3, I also considered that his actions had caused the women significant humiliation, significant loss of dignity and significant injury to their feelings (s 66(1)(b)(iii)). I formed the opinion that the respondent had caused an interference with the women's privacy.

I attempted to reach a settlement of the complaint. The respondent was prepared to make a modest financial settlement and this was accepted by most of the women concerned. In the circumstances, I considered it appropriate to use my power under s74 to seek an assurance that there would be no repetition of the covert video recording. I had reason to believe he had done this before.

The respondent acknowledged that he had caused an interference with the women's privacy and gave me an assurance that he would not to do it again. He also acknowledged that if he contravened the assurance, I could refer it to the Proceedings Commissioner to decide whether proceedings should be instituted against him.

The assurance and the financial settlement resolved the complaint for all but one of the women. She elected not to participate in the settlement. I advised her of my opinion and her right to take proceedings before the Complaints Review Tribunal. As his name and conduct had been made public, I decided no further action was required.

- The respondent was subsequently convicted under the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 for making an objectionable publication. The video had been found to be objectionable by the Office of Film and Literature Classification and this was confirmed by a decision of the Film and Literature Board of Review.

Indexing terms: Collecting personal information - Contractor - Covert video recording of women's dressing room - Collection not connected with contractor's function - Collection caused significant humiliation, significant loss of dignity and significant injury to feelings - Assurance against repetition of action - Privacy Act 1993, s 66(1)(b)(iii), s74 - Information privacy principle 1

Collecting personal information - Contractor - Covert video recording of women's dressing room - Women not informed of collection - Collection caused significant humiliation, significant loss of dignity and significant injury to feelings - Assurance against repetition of action - Privacy Act 1993, s 66(1)(b)(iii), s 74 - Information privacy principle 3

June 2001