Here's a breakdown:
* Legitimate use, unlikely to breach the Act: If a tracker is installed with the owner's informed consent (e.g., for insurance purposes, fleet management, or to recover a stolen vehicle), it's unlikely to breach the Act. The interference with privacy is minimal, and the purpose is legitimate.
* Potentially problematic uses, possibly breaching the Act: The use of trackers becomes more problematic in the following scenarios:
* Secret tracking without consent: This is a clear violation of Article 8. The individual has no knowledge their movements are being monitored, leading to a significant breach of privacy.
* Tracking for illegitimate purposes: Using a tracker to stalk or harass someone is a clear abuse and highly likely to breach the Act.
* Excessive data collection and retention: Even with consent, collecting and storing far more location data than necessary would be disproportionate and potentially unlawful.
* Lack of transparency and control: The individual should be aware of how their data is being used, how long it's stored, and ideally have a mechanism to access and delete it. Lack of transparency and control makes the interference with privacy more severe.
* Use by law enforcement without proper legal authorization: Police using trackers require warrants and strict adherence to legal procedures to avoid violating Article 8.
In short, car trackers themselves aren't inherently illegal under the Human Rights Act. Their legality depends entirely on the circumstances surrounding their use, especially consent, purpose, and proportionality. If the tracking is done secretly, for illegitimate purposes, or without proper legal justification, it's highly likely to violate the Act. A court would need to assess the specific facts of each case to determine whether a breach has occurred.
