3 ms·

Pointing a permanent security camera at a public space as a private person really is illegal. This is different from occasionally using a handheld camera. Bec

by rocqua 7y ago

Pointing a permanent security camera at a public space as a private person really is illegal. This is different from occasionally using a handheld camera. Because one is surveillance that is meaningfully different from what you could do just by watching someone, and the other is not (this is my argument, not sure whether this is the legal argument in NL)

AmericanChopper 7y ago
Well that scenario is prohibited by the GDPR (though I’m not sure if different authorities would have differing views on that). But the statement that you cannot film public scenes or the people who happen to be in them is simple false.
- bkor 7y ago
  This article is about a Ring camera and something installed on a door. These things are static and do not move around. That is what I was referring to. You could read this as something else, but IMO it was pretty obvious what I was referring to. And for static cameras I'm entirely correct. For other cameras there's been various new restrictions for them as well. Your summary of "cannot film public scenes or the people who happen to be in them is simple false" for one distorts what I wrote, secondly, if you do this with a static camera, you will have a problem and your statement is _not_ true. Friends had a "crazy lady" with cameras pointing at public space. It took a while, but eventually the cameras were removed. Something similar you can find via Google, plus (work) building security mentions the same.
- hyperman1 7y ago
  Most of Western Europe has pretty strict surveilance laws. The GDPR applies even when recording people in private space, e.g. visitors, employees or ATMs inside bancs. Recording public space on a permanent base is a big nono. Accidentally recording strangers for a one off video is no problem. Then again, after the Brussels terrorist attacks, the police managed to reconstruct the path of a terrorist pretty well by puzzling together all kinds of recordings, so my impression is enforcement is lax as long as nobody complains.

by rocqua 7y ago

AmericanChopper 7y ago

Well that scenario is prohibited by the GDPR (though I’m not sure if different authorities would have differing views on that). But the statement that you cannot film public scenes or the people who happen to be in them is simple false.

bkor 7y ago
This article is about a Ring camera and something installed on a door. These things are static and do not move around. That is what I was referring to. You could read this as something else, but IMO it was pretty obvious what I was referring to. And for static cameras I'm entirely correct. For other cameras there's been various new restrictions for them as well. Your summary of "cannot film public scenes or the people who happen to be in them is simple false" for one distorts what I wrote, secondly, if you do this with a static camera, you will have a problem and your statement is _not_ true. Friends had a "crazy lady" with cameras pointing at public space. It took a while, but eventually the cameras were removed. Something similar you can find via Google, plus (work) building security mentions the same.
hyperman1 7y ago
Most of Western Europe has pretty strict surveilance laws. The GDPR applies even when recording people in private space, e.g. visitors, employees or ATMs inside bancs. Recording public space on a permanent base is a big nono. Accidentally recording strangers for a one off video is no problem. Then again, after the Brussels terrorist attacks, the police managed to reconstruct the path of a terrorist pretty well by puzzling together all kinds of recordings, so my impression is enforcement is lax as long as nobody complains.