Re: You can bet...
From the ICO's own guidelines on CCTV.
'5.2.2 Disclosure
Disclosure of information from surveillance systems must be controlled and consistent with the purpose(s) for which the system was established. For example, it can be appropriate to disclose surveillance information to a law enforcement agency when the purpose of the system is to prevent and detect crime, but it would not be appropriate to place them on the internet in most situations. It may also not be appropriate to disclose information about identifiable individuals to the media.'
Now, it matters not what Mr Corbyn's lot were up to here, but Virgin, as operators of the CCTV cameras and Data Controllers of the resultant footage have made a declaration somewhere as to the 'purposes' of said CCTV systems (can't find it on a quick browse...but must be out there somewhere), 'countering BS/Bad Publicity' I'll bet ain't a listed 'purpose'..
The ICO saying that this breach is somehow 'justifiable' on 'potentially damaging to its reputation and commercial interests' grounds without there being any legal judgements confirming said damages in their favour just beggars belief..even if there was some sort of legal action, release of said CCTV footage would be up to the courts..
Don't give a shit about Corbyn, don't care much for the hydra that is Virgin either, what I really don't care for here is the way the ICO seem to be saying 'fuck you' to both the law and their guidelines, and, in doing so, creating a horrible precedent for others to similarly abuse the system in the future.
(And people wonder why I no longer do any CCTV and DP Act nonsense..years of telling idiots that 'no, you cant use personal data gathered explicitly for purpose X, for purposes Y,Z,A,B,C...' finally got to me - head, brick wall, butting, butting, lots of feckin butting....)