For the question if a piece of information is personal, it is not of
importance if the name and address are known, the ability to identify
an individual is sufficient (§ 3 Sec 1 BDSG). As far as video
surveillance is concerned, this means that the collected pictures are
at least theoretically so detailed that persons can be recognized and
identified. Recordings for general overview as like as switched-off
cameras are not an interference with the informational fundamental
rights. But if there is a chance of performing an individualization by
technological methods later on, even the recording itself is an
interference.
The controller responsible for video
surveillance must make
available (on demand) to everyone in an appropriate way at least the
following information:
- the person in charge,
- the purpose,
- a description of the categories of
those affected,
- the data recipients, a general
description of the measures taken to guarantee the data security.
Only the surveillance of public areas should be seized by data
protection law, no matter if these areas are open air or under a roof,
if a private person or a public authority is the owner or has the right
of use, if there is domestic authority or not. The only thing which is
relevant is that these areas are either open to the public or are to be
entered or used by indeterminate persons. Warehouses and shopping malls
are affected too. It is not a question of where the cameras are
installed. The decisive point is if public areas are/can be monitored
by it (too).
Systems that record only the general
overview and need for a personally
triggered zoom and recording procedure to collect personal data take
priority over systems which work with permanent expansion. Monitor
systems that are intended to include disguises in areas that are
frequented by persons and are not relevant for security are more data
protection friendly than those which deliver totally sharp pictures.
There are many possible interesting technological developments that
limit the risks for the right to privacy caused by video surveillance.
The camera
was intended to show the weather and not persons, therefore the company
was
allowed to keep it, but it was forced to register, as a "data
controller."