Home > Law , Policy , Privacy > [Privacy] All bugged, the Guarantor updates the rules on video surveillance.

[Privacy] All bugged, the Guarantor updates the rules on video surveillance.

In the last few years has increased exponentially the number of devices used for video surveillance. The cities are full of cameras, business activities have advanced systems for video surveillance, thousands of cameras quotidinamanente 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 carry out activities in public without being filmed by surveillance cameras. This circumstance has finally realized also the Privacy Guarantor that has emenato the measure April 8, 2010 to update the now obsolete rules dating back to 2004 videosoveglianza What will change for people installing these systems? And most importantly, you can ensure a good level of privacy for citizens? La piramide con occhio 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 has taken over the last few days brought very different 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 powers to ensure public safety and urban security, while other rules, 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 that are watching is nothing short of impressive. In my city ( 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 for which, 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 the use of video surveillance in the interests of public safety. Instead, I see that once again when the cameras are utilized for these purposes is still not compulsory to carry signaling the presence of the instrument, even if the Guarantor "hopes" a turnaround and "hopes" that you are using the signs signaling the presence of video surveillance. Honestly it's a little 'little hope, but the effort of the Guarantor, given its limited powers in this area, it must be appreciated, however, because even if the goal of 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 required to be notified in the input area under surveillance, unless the procedure is not carried out for the purpose of protecting public safety, the 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 instruments that require prior authorization. In particular, in paragraph 3.2 of the Provisions of 8 April 2010 was extended compared to the past, the extent of prior approval for devices that use software to perform "recognition of the person through connection or intersection, or compare the images obtained (eg. Morphology of 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 "

They are then introduced preventive controls also called intelligent instruments, ie:

that are not limited to film and record the images, but they are able to automatically detect abnormal behaviors or events, report them, 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 the person concerned and, consequently, its behavior

Another innovation introduced with the measure last April regards 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 put online. It 'clear that the injury 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 provision of the Guarantor on 8 April 2010 has slightly changed the previous situation, but it did not and could not solve the biggest problem that concerns the need on the part of citizens to have faith in those who use / manage these tools in the hope that l ' use of data collected 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 read the full text of the measure that you find here , or you can read the handbook that you will find in 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, take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with the recommendations in Sections 4.6 and 5.4 of the order of 8 April 2010, with regard to the integrated video surveillance systems;

Did you like this article? Subscribe to our Newsletter to receive updates from the blog:


Categories: Law , Politics , Privacy
  1. Alessandra
    March 6, 2012 at 12:07 | # 1

    Good evening, I work in a business with video surveillance, but ... .parlo 4 cameras on a surface of 90 square meters, in addition to a camera store, to which the owners of the company are connected directly to 24 hours of 24.Volevo know if this type of behavior is legal, but because the contract is not absolutely mensionava to a situation like that! I knew that by law if you do not subscribe to in the contract acceptance of this clause (non-existent) to the Law on praivacy, I can sue them, is not it? Kindly, look your feedback, thanks in advance, good evening,
    Alessandra.

  1. May 2, 2010 at 20:31 | # 1
  2. May 2, 2010 at 20:33 | # 2
  3. May 2, 2010 at 20:34 | # 3
  4. May 2, 2010 at 22:29 | # 4
  5. May 3, 2010 at 22:21 | # 5
  6. May 7th, 2010 at 14:51 | # 6