[Privacy] All bugged, the Guarantor updates the rules on video surveillance.
In recent years it has increased exponentially the number of devices used for video surveillance. The cities are full of cameras, commercial activities were equipped with advanced systems for video surveillance, thousands of quotidinamanente cameras are ready to take pictures of cars that exceed the speed limits imposed by the Highway Code, the public transportation resume our movements and so on and so forth. Nowadays, it is really difficult to do business in public without being filmed by surveillance cameras. Of this condition has finally realized also the Privacy Guarantor which emenato the measure April 8, 2010 to update the now obsolete rules videosoveglianza dating back to 2004. What will change for those who install these systems? And most importantly, you can ensure a good level of privacy for citizens? In this short article I will not dwell on all the formalities to be carried out to comply with the new provision of the Guarantor, but I will try to highlight some aspects of the "story observation" that I consider interesting.
At a first reading of the measure in question, it is immediately evident that the Privacy deemed it necessary to intervene in a matter which in the last few days has taken on a very different scale from that of just five years ago. It is not surprising, therefore, to read in the introduction that:
[...] Certain provisions of the law have attributed to the mayors and municipalities specific skills to ensure public safety and urban security, and other standards, state and regional activities also forms of economic incentives in favor of government and private entities in order to increase the use of video surveillance as a form of passive defense, control and deterrence of criminal phenomena and vandalism.
In fact, especially if you are used to walking, the number of cameras watching us, is nothing short of impressive. In my town ( power ) in a few months have been installed over a hundred cameras and, in fact, it is impossible to move without being taken. I'm honestly not very happy about this because, even because I think too much having to "observe" tens of thousands of people in transit daily for 1-2 crimes each year (if anything were identified thanks to the cameras). What worries me even more there are two other data. The first is the study that was done back in 2005 in England - home of video surveillance - which highlights the almost total uselessness of these methods for the prevention of crimes. The second is the cost of video surveillance in the big city assumes the importance of digits to 6 zeros! But it is really worth it?
My thoughts are why, after reading the premise of the decision of 8 April 2010 of the Data Protection Authority, I would expect to find at least a more stringent regulation in the case of use of video surveillance for the purposes of public security. Instead, I see that once again when the cameras are utilized for these purposes is still not mandatory to signaling the presence of the instrument, even if the Guarantor "hopes" turnaround and "hopes" that you are using the signs signaling the presence of video surveillance. Honestly it's a bit 'little hope, but the effort of the Guarantor, given its limited powers in this area, it must be appreciated, however, because even if the objective of the telelcamere is to prevent the risk'm not a contradiction to the alert. If, however, the cameras were installed by the city for urban security purposes only, it will be mandatory to be notified of the entrance in an area under surveillance, unless the procedure is not carried out for the purpose of protecting public safety, prevention, detection or suppression of crime, in which case, as I said, no obligation thenar!
I found it very interesting also the provisions on video surveillance with the use of tools that require prior authorization. In particular, in paragraph 3.2 of the Provision of 8 April 2010 he was enlarged compared to the past, the scope of the preliminary investigation of devices that use software that can carry out "the recognition of the person through connection or intersection, or compare the images obtained (eg morphology of the face) with other specific personal data, in particular with biometric data, or based on a comparison of its image with a pre-established sampling of subjects to detect the same "
Are then introduced preventive controls also called intelligent instruments, namely:
you do not just shoot and record images, but they are able to automatically detect abnormal behavior or events, report, and possibly record them.
And to follow, even more interesting is what the Ombudsman says about such systems:
In principle, such systems should be considered excessive in relation to routine surveillance, as they can cause effects particularly invasive on the sphere of self-determination of and, consequently, its behavior
Another new feature introduced in April with the provision regarding the use of cameras or webcams with online promotional purposes. In this case it is essential to use systems that make it impossible to identify people who are resumed. The reason is easy to understand and it says the same Guarantor: the data are collected and placed online. It 'clear that the damage could be caused to those who were involuntarily taken and identified online in places where it should not be
Video surveillance has become a widespread phenomenon and, alas, to some extent uncontrollable. The ruling dated 8 April 2010, slightly amended the previous situation, but did not and could not solve the biggest problem is the need on the part of citizens to have faith in those who use / handle these tools in the hope that the ' use this data only fully respect the laws. For the rest it is important to at least know our rights. So, for a more complete picture on the new rules on the subject of video surveillance, you can consult the full text of the measure that you find here or you can read the handbook you will find at this address .
I can only conclude by saying that the new rules should be adopted in accordance with this scheme:
a) within twelve months, make the information visible even when the system is v ideosorveglianza may be active during the night;
b) within six months, submit treatments that present specific risks to the rights and freedoms of the fundam ental concerned, the preliminary verification pursuant to art. 17 of the Code;
c) within twelve months, adopt safety measures to protect the data recorded by video surveillance systems;
d) within six months, to adopt the necessary measures to ensure compliance with the following Sections 4.6 and 5.4 of the order of 8 April 2010 concerning the integrated video surveillance systems;
Did you like this article? Subscribe to our Newsletter to receive updates from the blog: