today It is not uncommon for individuals to have cameras installed as a complement to locks and alarms on their houses. A lot of times legitimate and reasonable measure to strengthen the security around their home and property. At the same time, the data Inspection board may enter a variety of complaints from neighbors who perceive it as unpleasant or offensive to the neighbor’s cameras filming them, their children, home and visitors.
I understand the concern. You have a belief and expectation that have to be in peace in their home. Is there somewhere in the community where we all have the right to a private sphere so it is in the home.
kamerabevakningslagen and data protection regulation (GDPR) that govern how surveillance cameras may be used.
the Swedish data Inspection board, in the autumn, examined a number of cases where individuals have complained that a neighbor’s camera is directed towards the own the property. On Monday, we publish the results from nearly ten such audits.
Many individuals are not aware that a camera is watching the neighbor’s property or in a public place must comply with the requirements of the data protection regulation.
In some of the reviews of the camera indicated that the camera taken down. In other cases, the camera has been diverted or that there is not a real camera used, without a dummy. The complaints come to the Inspection data clearly shows that grannbevakning is a real problem and can pose a serious intrusion into the privacy of citizens.
We have therefore developed a guidance document for individual camera monitoring.
It is allowed to set up a camera that only covers their own property, such as driveway, garage and entrance doors. If you want to point the camera outside the area, for example to the neighbor or to the street outside, a number of conditions be met:
• There must be a legitimate interest, such as repeated theft or vandalism.
• The producer must be able to show that the neighbors approved the coverage or that the need for coverage outweighs the neighbor’s or the public’s right to not be watched.
• The producer must be able to demonstrate that they considered other alternatives to the camera monitoring that is less intrusive.
• It must be provided with clear information about the monitoring is done, who monitors, for what purpose and how to get further information on the follow-up.
the Board’s ability to intervene against individuals who monitor their neighbors, however, is limited. The number of cameras is extensive. The questions are difficult to investigate when the conditions can change before, during and after the investigation. The Swedish data inspection board has limited powers to force their way into a property in order to get access to the data and examine the conditions in the sometimes infected granntvister.
Since 2013, the crime of insulting the photography in the law. The provision means that it is prohibited to secretly photographing or filming someone who is in their private environment or in another location that is intended to be private, on a toilet, in a dressing room or similar. For a shooting to be criminal is also required that this is done without the permission of the photographed. The punishment is a fine or imprisonment not exceeding two years.
They therefore do not fall under the legal classification of the offence of offensive shooting. The data inspection board’s view is that legislation should be supplemented with a legal classification of the offence aimed at a person monitors another person’s private space in an intrusive way and without the approval.
the Book 1984 by George Orwell paints a society where the individual in detail is monitored and controlled by the state. It is from the book that the expression ”big brother is watching you” is downloaded. In society to be balanced in the day a variety of interests through legislation and control functions, which limit the state’s ability to monitoring and mapping by the citizens.
at the same time, we live today in an increasingly digitized world, and there is a rapid and continuous development of technology and products that create value for society and increases the quality of life for citizens. Drones, surveillance cameras and body-worn cameras are just a few examples of equipment that today is available for all of us. It does that now, to paraphrase Orwell, can talk about ”little brother is watching you”. The prevalence and effects of individuals ‘ opportunities to identify and monitor the other is not yet fully known and the balance between the various interests need to be balanced carefully.
the Monitoring, however, requires that the use of such equipment complies with the rules. Here we see the need to knowledge is increased so that respect for others ‘ integrity can be maintained in a good way.
at the same time, society has a need to more effectively intervene against serious infringements. The gap in the current legislation need to be closed.
A new offence would make it possible to more powerful able to tackle offensive and unlawful camera monitoring but also has an important preventive effect. A more effective protection of our right to a private sphere in the home is important and contributes to a safer society.
