GLUKHIN v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT records are used and processed and the results that may be obtained (see S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 67, ECHR 2008). 66. Since there are occasions when people knowingly or intentionally involve themselves in activities which are or may be recorded or reported in a public manner, a person’s reasonable expectations as to privacy may be a significant, although not necessarily conclusive, factor in this assessment. As to the monitoring of an individual’s actions using photographic or video devices, the Convention institutions have taken the view that the monitoring of the actions and movements of an individual in a public place using a camera which did not record the visual data does not constitute in itself a form of interference with private life. Private-life considerations may arise, however, once any systematic or permanent record of such personal data comes into existence, particularly pictures of an identified person. A person’s image constitutes one of the chief attributes of his or her personality, as it reveals the person’s unique characteristics and distinguishes the person from his or her peers. The right of each person to the protection of his or her image is thus one of the essential components of personal development and presupposes the right to control the use of that image. While in most cases the right to control such use involves the possibility for an individual to refuse publication of his or her image, it also covers the individual’s right to object to the recording, conservation and reproduction of the image by another person (see López Ribalda and Others, cited above, § 89, with further references). 67. The Court has previously found that the collection and storing of data by the authorities on particular individuals constituted an interference with those persons’ private lives, even if that data concerned exclusively the person’s public activities (see Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, §§ 65-67, ECHR 2000-II, and Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, §§ 43-44, ECHR 2000-V), such as participation in anti-government demonstrations (see Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania, nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, § 170, 24 May 2011, and Catt v. the United Kingdom, no. 43514/15, § 93, 24 January 2019). It has also found that the following instances of collection of data in a public place constituted an interference with the persons’ private lives: the recording of a questioning in a public area of a police station (see P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, §§ 56-60, ECHR 2001-IX); recording by CCTV cameras in a public place and the subsequent disclosure of the video-footage to the media (see Peck v. the United Kingdom, no. 44647/98, §§ 57-63, ECHR 2003-I); recording of video-footage at a police station and its subsequent use in criminal proceedings (see Perry v. the United Kingdom, no. 63737/00, §§ 36-43, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); the collection, through a GPS device attached to a person’s car, and storage of data concerning that person’s whereabouts and movements in the public sphere (see Uzun 22