Blog » IS IT ENOUGH TO HAVE A WARNING STICKER FOR APPLYING CCTV ACCORDING TO GDPR?
IS IT ENOUGH TO HAVE A WARNING STICKER FOR APPLYING CCTV ACCORDING TO GDPR?
05 November 2018
Do you operate video cameras for observing employees or customers? Do the cameras make recordings or is it only a live broadcasting? If you think that a warning sticker about CCTV operation solves all the problems related to GDPR, that’s a big mistake. In our newest article we explain one of the decisions of the Data Protection Authority in Hungary.
The procedure at the authority
The Data Protection Authority in Hungary has recently published a decision where they investigated the CCTV operation at a company. In this particular case the company committed several data breaches, that could have happened at any company, so it is worth to consider the following points as a guideline and check whether your company meets the data protection expectations.
You should always have a legal basis
The Data Protection Authority highlighted a very important, basic misunderstanding that might happen at many companies: having an aim for CCTV is not the same as having a legal basis for it.
The company that was under investigation gave the following answer after being asked about the legal base: “we operate CCTV for the safety of the vehicles, because several owners have already accused us of causing damage to their vehicles.”
However, the above mentioned description does not create a legal basis for recording, it is rather an answer to the question what their aim is. The legal basis means that something provides you a possibility, allows you to make CCTV recording. Due to the earlier Hungarian regulation, the concept that such a right can originate only from the consent of the data subjects or direct permission of the law is still widespread.
However, according to the General Data Protection Regulation that is to be applied from 25th May this year, there are way more potential legal bases – altogether six cases – from which the followings might be useful for indicating in case of operating CCTV:
- consent: you have to be careful that the consent must be freely given, made in writing or orally upon receiving information, and in case of employees – due to the hierarchical relationship – it cannot be applied. Furthermore, there are cases for example in stores, where it is not practical, because it is not reasonable that all the customers entering the observed territory will make a declaration about giving a consent for the recording.
On the contrary, if you operate a warehouse, and you know that the recordings might concern your business partners (such as sub-contractors), you can give information and receive their consent before entering the area affected.
- necessary for exercising a legitimate interest of your company or a third party: in most cases this might be the best, as neither the direct permission of a legal regulation, nor the consent of the data subject is necessary. You just have to indicate your legitimate interests that you want to protect, and do a balance of interests to prove your interests overwrite the data subjects’ interests, and it doesn’t cause unnecessary restrictions for the data subjects.
- it serves the vital interests of the data subject or of another person: for example, in case the employee works in a dangerous position, where the CCTV might help in the detection and fast troubleshooting of accidents or life-threatening situations.
It is very important that you should always choose a legal basis for operating CCTV – the same way as in other data processing activities.
Inform the persons being observed
If somebody applies CCTV, it is common to put a sticker outside to warn the people that a video recording is being made. After doing so, many companies think they have nothing else to do, and they don’t provide further information to the data subjects.
This is a serious mistake, because the Security Services Act – that should be also applied in this case – requires that the observed persons should be informed at least about the followings:
- the aim of the observation and making and storing the recordings
- the legal basis of the data processing
- the place where the recordings are available
- the duration of storage
- the person applying (operating) CCTV system
- the persons being entitled to have access to the recordings
- the process how the data subjects can exercise their rights
The Data Protection Authority added the followings to the above mentioned list that should also be included in the information:
- the position of each video camera, the territory and subjects being observed, and information whether it is a livestreaming camera or does it make recordings
- the data protection measures taken by the company
- rules on how someone can watch the recordings and how the company can use the recordings
The above mentioned information should be provided in a way that anyone can become aware of its content before entering the observed area.
Warning! Information is necessary even in the lack of recording!
The Data Protection Authority confirmed the interpretation of the Security Service Act, that says one must inform the observed persons even if the video cameras don’t make recordings, just observes the territory in a livestreaming system.
What is the conclusion?
Probably many companies have made the same mistakes as the one in this particular case, operating CCTV without legal base and providing insufficient information.
Please be careful that in case you make recordings with CCTV system, you should always have a strong legal basis that you choose from the six points being available under the GDPR. In addition, the information should go beyond showing a sticker at the door with a simple warning, and provide information with the obligatory content according to the guidelines of the Data Protection Authority.
IS THE JUDGE BIASED BECAUSE OF UNFAVOURABLE JUDGMENT IN OTHER CASE?
Can a judge be disqualified from deciding the legal dispute on the grounds of bias if he has delivered a judgment unfavourable to the plaintiff in another case? Can a court be biased if the plaintiff has "challenged" a previous decision of the court before the European Court of Human Rights? In this article, we answer these questions by analysing a recent judgment of the Hungarian Supreme Court.Read more »
CAN INCOMPATIBLE WORKPLACE BEHAVIOUR BE A GROUND FOR DISMISSAL IN HUNGARY?
Refusal of employer 's instructions, unjustified absence, intentional damage: some cases where the justification for dismissing an employee is relatively easy to determine. What happens, however, if the employee does not commit a severe breach of duty similar to the one above, but his or her colleagues consider him incompatible, with whom it is impossible to cooperate, or even afraid of him or her. Can dismissal be justified by behaviour that is incompatible with others and creates disharmony in the working environment? In our article, we seek the answer to this question in the light of Hungarian judicial practice.Read more »
CAN A JUDICIAL ERROR CREATE HUNGARIAN JURISDICTION DESPITE A PLACE OF PERFORMANCE ABROAD?
Can a defendant, domiciled abroad, be sued in Hungary under the Brussels I Regulation in the event of defective performance of an international sales contract if the place of performance is abroad? Can the jurisdiction of a Hungarian court be established based on the fact that the lower court expressly established its jurisdiction at the beginning of the litigation? How is the EXW clause to be interpreted within the meaning of the Brussels I Regulation? In our article, we analyse the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Hungary.Read more »