 |
|
|
| Video-surveillance and privacy |
| 01st june 2010 |
|
Today, video-surveillance is an instrument adapted in different situations, often to the detriment of privacy. About this topic, the personal data protection Guarantor has intervened, often sanctioning the owners of the video-surveillance systems for the lack of respect of the information duty expected by the Art. 10 of the Law 675/96. In fact, at the same time as the installation of mobile and fixed cameras, inside and outside of buildings – and even if active for security reasons – the owner has to inform the users about the presence of cameras with appropriate signs. Such signs have to be visible and explain the presence of the cameras. A specific discipline in matter of video-surveillance was divulged by the Guarantor through the adoption of a general measure dated to 29th November 2000, according to which, those who want to carry out the video-surveillance activity has to follow cautions, constantly following the principles between the employeed measures and the projected goals. Firstly, all the interested people have to determine exactly the goals projected through video-surveillance and verify it being illegal, according to the Law in force (if the actvity is executed in the presence of a concrete danger or for the prevention of specific crimes, it is necessary to respect the competences that the rules award to for such aims only to specific civil services, foreseeing that only these civil services can access to this collected information). Secondly, data treatment has to be handled according to the Law and in conjunction with predetermined, explcit and legitimate goals, and in cases where the Law imposes the notification to the personal data treatment Guarantor effected by determined subjects, these have to indicate among the treatment ways also the collection of information through video-surveillance devices. It is necessary to respect pertinence and non excessness principles, collecting only the strictly necessary data for the attainment of the projected goals, recording the only necessary images, limiting the visual angle of the resumptions, avoiding - when not indispensabile – deatiled images, enlarged or non relevant details, and therefore establishing the localisation of the cameras and the video shot courses. It is essential to inform the people that may be subjected to the video shoting, of clear directions, even if synthetic, that warn of the presence of video-surveillance systems. Moreover, the owner of the treatment has to indicate the time of a possible conservation of images, before their deletion, and foresee their maintenance only in relation to crimes that have verified or to investigation of legal authority or police. Another important phase is the designation in writing of responsible and appointed subjects of the data treatment, who have exclusive access to the use of systems and to the records. Moreover, it is necessary to have in mind that the data collected for determined goals (safety and security reasons, estate protection) can’t be used for different or further goals (such as advertisement, analysis of consumption behaviour) and can’t be widespread or comunicated to third parties (except for police or justice reasons). Finally, the exact localisation of the cameras and the shot courses in coherence with the goals that have suggested the installation of video-surveillance systems, will have to be done in the respect of basic principles fixed by the art. 9 Law 675/96, especially in order to the pertinence and non surplus of data respect to the projected goals, that is to say the personal data which are the treatment object have to be: a) treated in accordance to Law;Today, video-surveillance is an instrument adapted in different situations, often to the detriment of privacy. About this topic, the personal data protection Guarantor has intervened, often sanctioning the owners of the video-surveillance systems for the lack of respect of the information duty expected by the Art. 10 of the Law 675/96. In fact, at the same time as the installation of mobile and fixed cameras, inside and outside of buildings – and even if active for security reasons – the owner has to inform the users about the presence of cameras with appropriate signs. Such signs have to be visible and explain the presence of the cameras. A specific discipline in matter of video-surveillance was divulged by the Guarantor through the adoption of a general measure dated to 29th November 2000, according to which, those who want to carry out the video-surveillance activity has to follow cautions, constantly following the principles between the employeed measures and the projected goals. Firstly, all the interested people have to determine exactly the goals projected through video-surveillance and verify it being illegal, according to the Law in force (if the actvity is executed in the presence of a concrete danger or for the prevention of specific crimes, it is necessary to respect the competences that the rules award to for such aims only to specific civil services, foreseeing that only these civil services can access to this collected information). Secondly, data treatment has to be handled according to the Law and in conjunction with predetermined, explcit and legitimate goals, and in cases where the Law imposes the notification to the personal data treatment Guarantor effected by determined subjects, these have to indicate among the treatment ways also the collection of information through video-surveillance devices. It is necessary to respect pertinence and non excessness principles, collecting only the strictly necessary data for the attainment of the projected goals, recording the only necessary images, limiting the visual angle of the resumptions, avoiding - when not indispensabile – deatiled images, enlarged or non relevant details, and therefore establishing the localisation of the cameras and the video shot courses. It is essential to inform the people that may be subjected to the video shoting, of clear directions, even if synthetic, that warn of the presence of video-surveillance systems. Moreover, the owner of the treatment has to indicate the time of a possible conservation of images, before their deletion, and foresee their maintenance only in relation to crimes that have verified or to investigation of legal authority or police. Another important phase is the designation in writing of responsible and appointed subjects of the data treatment, who have exclusive access to the use of systems and to the records. Moreover, it is necessary to have in mind that the data collected for determined goals (safety and security reasons, estate protection) can’t be used for different or further goals (such as advertisement, analysis of consumption behaviour) and can’t be widespread or comunicated to third parties (except for police or justice reasons). Finally, the exact localisation of the cameras and the shot courses in coherence with the goals that have suggested the installation of video-surveillance systems, will have to be done in the respect of basic principles fixed by the art. 9 Law 675/96, especially in order to the pertinence and non surplus of data respect to the projected goals, that is to say the personal data which are the treatment object have to be: a) treated in accordance to Law; b) collected and recorded for predetermined explicit and legitimate goals; c) exact and, if necessary, be updated; d) being relevant, complete and not exceed the goals for which they were collected; e) kept in a way that allow the identification of the person concerned for a period of time not longer than the necessary goals for which they have been collected.
Another aspect pertains to the adoption of minimal safety and security measures to assure a correct data use, avoiding the risk that these can accessed people extraneous to the structure or non authorized. In only one case, the guarantor reaffirms – as it is confirmed on numerous occasions – that the obligation of adoption of such cautions have to be considered excluded : in fact in case the image recorded doesn’t allow a precise representation of the subject concerned, not damaging any right, it won’t be necessary to equal what it is foreseen above
b) collected and recorded for predetermined explicit and legitimate goals; c) exact and, if necessary, be updated; Today, video-surveillance is an instrument adapted in different situations, often to the detriment of privacy. About this topic, the personal data protection Guarantor has intervened, often sanctioning the owners of the video-surveillance systems for the lack of respect of the information duty expected by the Art. 10 of the Law 675/96. In fact, at the same time as the installation of mobile and fixed cameras, inside and outside of buildings – and even if active for security reasons – the owner has to inform the users about the presence of cameras with appropriate signs. Such signs have to be visible and explain the presence of the cameras. A specific discipline in matter of video-surveillance was divulged by the Guarantor through the adoption of a general measure dated to 29th November 2000, according to which, those who want to carry out the video-surveillance activity has to follow cautions, constantly following the principles between the employeed measures and the projected goals. Firstly, all the interested people have to determine exactly the goals projected through video-surveillance and verify it being illegal, according to the Law in force (if the actvity is executed in the presence of a concrete danger or for the prevention of specific crimes, it is necessary to respect the competences that the rules award to for such aims only to specific civil services, foreseeing that only these civil services can access to this collected information). Secondly, data treatment has to be handled according to the Law and in conjunction with predetermined, explcit and legitimate goals, and in cases where the Law imposes the notification to the personal data treatment Guarantor effected by determined subjects, these have to indicate among the treatment ways also the collection of information through video-surveillance devices. It is necessary to respect pertinence and non excessness principles, collecting only the strictly necessary data for the attainment of the projected goals, recording the only necessary images, limiting the visual angle of the resumptions, avoiding - when not indispensabile – deatiled images, enlarged or non relevant details, and therefore establishing the localisation of the cameras and the video shot courses. It is essential to inform the people that may be subjected to the video shoting, of clear directions, even if synthetic, that warn of the presence of video-surveillance systems. Moreover, the owner of the treatment has to indicate the time of a possible conservation of images, before their deletion, and foresee their maintenance only in relation to crimes that have verified or to investigation of legal authority or police. Another important phase is the designation in writing of responsible and appointed subjects of the data treatment, who have exclusive access to the use of systems and to the records. Moreover, it is necessary to have in mind that the data collected for determined goals (safety and security reasons, estate protection) can’t be used for different or further goals (such as advertisement, analysis of consumption behaviour) and can’t be widespread or comunicated to third parties (except for police or justice reasons). Finally, the exact localisation of the cameras and the shot courses in coherence with the goals that have suggested the installation of video-surveillance systems, will have to be done in the respect of basic principles fixed by the art. 9 Law 675/96, especially in order to the pertinence and non surplus of data respect to the projected goals, that is to say the personal data which are the treatment object have to be: a) treated in accordance to Law; b) collected and recorded for predetermined explicit and legitimate goals; c) exact and, if necessary, be updated; d) being relevant, complete and not exceed the goals for which they were collected; e) kept in a way that allow the identification of the person concerned for a period of time not longer than the necessary goals for which they have been collected.
Another aspect pertains to the adoption of minimal safety and security measures to assure a correct data use, avoiding the risk that these can accessed people extraneous to the structure or non authorized. In only one case, the guarantor reaffirms – as it is confirmed on numerous occasions – that the obligation of adoption of such cautions have to be considered excluded : in fact in case the image recorded doesn’t allow a precise representation of the subject concerned, not damaging any right, it won’t be necessary to equal what it is foreseen above
d) being relevant, complete and not exceed the goals for which they were collected; Today, video-surveillance is an instrument adapted in different situations, often to the detriment of privacy. About this topic, the personal data protection Guarantor has intervened, often sanctioning the owners of the video-surveillance systems for the lack of respect of the information duty expected by the Art. 10 of the Law 675/96. In fact, at the same time as the installation of mobile and fixed cameras, inside and outside of buildings – and even if active for security reasons – the owner has to inform the users about the presence of cameras with appropriate signs. Such signs have to be visible and explain the presence of the cameras. A specific discipline in matter of video-surveillance was divulged by the Guarantor through the adoption of a general measure dated to 29th November 2000, according to which, those who want to carry out the video-surveillance activity has to follow cautions, constantly following the principles between the employeed measures and the projected goals. Firstly, all the interested people have to determine exactly the goals projected through video-surveillance and verify it being illegal, according to the Law in force (if the actvity is executed in the presence of a concrete danger or for the prevention of specific crimes, it is necessary to respect the competences that the rules award to for such aims only to specific civil services, foreseeing that only these civil services can access to this collected information). Secondly, data treatment has to be handled according to the Law and in conjunction with predetermined, explcit and legitimate goals, and in cases where the Law imposes the notification to the personal data treatment Guarantor effected by determined subjects, these have to indicate among the treatment ways also the collection of information through video-surveillance devices. It is necessary to respect pertinence and non excessness principles, collecting only the strictly necessary data for the attainment of the projected goals, recording the only necessary images, limiting the visual angle of the resumptions, avoiding - when not indispensabile – deatiled images, enlarged or non relevant details, and therefore establishing the localisation of the cameras and the video shot courses. It is essential to inform the people that may be subjected to the video shoting, of clear directions, even if synthetic, that warn of the presence of video-surveillance systems. Moreover, the owner of the treatment has to indicate the time of a possible conservation of images, before their deletion, and foresee their maintenance only in relation to crimes that have verified or to investigation of legal authority or police. Another important phase is the designation in writing of responsible and appointed subjects of the data treatment, who have exclusive access to the use of systems and to the records. Moreover, it is necessary to have in mind that the data collected for determined goals (safety and security reasons, estate protection) can’t be used for different or further goals (such as advertisement, analysis of consumption behaviour) and can’t be widespread or comunicated to third parties (except for police or justice reasons). Finally, the exact localisation of the cameras and the shot courses in coherence with the goals that have suggested the installation of video-surveillance systems, will have to be done in the respect of basic principles fixed by the art. 9 Law 675/96, especially in order to the pertinence and non surplus of data respect to the projected goals, that is to say the personal data which are the treatment object have to be: a) treated in accordance to Law; b) collected and recorded for predetermined explicit and legitimate goals; c) exact and, if necessary, be updated; d) being relevant, complete and not exceed the goals for which they were collected; e) kept in a way that allow the identification of the person concerned for a period of time not longer than the necessary goals for which they have been collected.
Another aspect pertains to the adoption of minimal safety and security measures to assure a correct data use, avoiding the risk that these can accessed people extraneous to the structure or non authorized. In only one case, the guarantor reaffirms – as it is confirmed on numerous occasions – that the obligation of adoption of such cautions have to be considered excluded : in fact in case the image recorded doesn’t allow a precise representation of the subject concerned, not damaging any right, it won’t be necessary to equal what it is foreseen above
e) kept in a way that allow the identification of the person concerned for a period of time not longer than the necessary goals for which they have been collected.
Another aspect pertains to the adoption of minimal safety and security measures to assure a correct data use, avoiding the risk that these can accessed people extraneous to the structure or non authorized. In only one case, the guarantor reaffirms – as it is confirmed on numerous occasions – that the obligation of adoption of such cautions have to be considered excluded : in fact in case the image recorded doesn’t allow a precise representation of the subject concerned, not damaging any right, it won’t be necessary to equal what it is foreseen above.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
