Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

The installation of a video surveillance system inside the classrooms of municipal kindergartens could be proportionate in the face of reasonable indications of the possible commission of a serious illegal act by a person working any of the children, exceptionally and for a limited time, and provided that information is provided in accordance with article 89 of the LOPDGDD. The person in charge, however, would not have sufficient legitimacy to install this system so that parents and/or legal guardians can view live images of the activities carried out by their children.

The treatment that is the object of the AIPD presented would go against what is established by the RGPD, given that the person responsible for the treatment does not have a legal basis that legitimizes video surveillance on public roads.

The installation of a video surveillance system in municipal property buildings intended for social rental could have as its legal basis Article 6.1.e of the GDPR, justified in the competences attributed to municipalities by local regulation and housing regulations in the field of social housing and Article 22.1 of the LOPDGDD, insofar as the system of video surveillance cameras is installed in enclosed and delimited spaces and is intended to preserve the safety of persons and goods, as well as their facilities. The controller must draw up a Memory, in the terms of Article 10 of the Instruction 1/2009, which describes in detail the characteristics of the treatment to be carried out and the weighting required to determine whether the measure exceeds the proportionality judgment. If the measure goes beyond the proportionality judgment, the city council could instruct the local police to control the cameras of the video surveillance system.

It can be concluded from the information provided that the company would not be legitimate to install the intended surveillance system as it would involve capturing images of the public road. In the event that the collection of images within the facilities managed is limited, in order to evaluate the suitability to the right of processing, this Authority should have a Memory, in the terms of Article 10 of the 1/2009 Instruction, which describes in detail the characteristics of the processing that is intended to be carried out, the necessary weighting is carried out in order to be able to apply the legal authorisation based on the legitimate interest (Art. 6.1.f) GDPR) and which allows the proportionality of the data being processed and the scope of the processing intended to be carried out, in addition to the other extremes required by Article 10 of the 1/2009 Instruction.

The processing of images by cameras for safety purposes is not based on the consent of the person concerned, but on the fulfilment of a mission in the public interest. Camera location should not be reported. The right to information is made effective by means of information posters on the existence of cameras, which must be supplemented by other means.

The data protection representative of a town hall requests that the Authority issue an opinion on the legal feasibility and legitimacy of recording images of people at sea for the development of a software and subsequently to implement a system consisting in the real-time capture of images of the beaches (without recording) with the purpose of serving as support in maritime rescue tasks. Current regulations do not give the City Council sufficient authority to implement video surveillance systems that involve the capture of images of identifiable physical persons in the bathing areas of the beaches for the purpose set out in the consultation.

The City Council does not have sufficient empowerment to install a video monitoring system in a delimited space that is part of the public track in order to control and, if applicable, exercise sanctioning power over inactive conductions relating to the waste deposit in the collection areas. In the event of installation to control vandalism against public security, it could be considered legitimate if carried out by the local police in accordance with obtaining prior authorisation from the Directorate-General for Security Administration.

The recording of images by police forces, without prior administrative authorisation, by mobile devices, is covered by the rules governing the collection of images on the public road. This rule states that such authorisation is not necessary in cases of the utmost urgency and if the circumstances in the case prevent the aforementioned authorisation from being obtained in time, a situation that occurred in the case under consideration.

Cameras installed for traffic control, regulation, surveillance and discipline are regulated by the specific regulation and, supplely, by the personal data protection regulation. The poster can be limited to reporting the existence of the camera or speed control device. Additional information on the processing of personal data must also be provided.

The right of access of the person is estimated by claiming their own data held by the City Council, including the images captured by the video surveillance camera located in the consistory building, and the right to access images and/or voices of third people that may appear in the reference camera recordings is dismissed.