Datainspektionen - DI-2019-7782: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
===Facts=== | ===Facts=== | ||
On 2 May 2019, the Swedish DPA received a complaint from a relative of the data subject | On 2 May 2019, the Swedish DPA received a complaint from a relative of the data subject according to which Gnosjö's Social Affairs Committee (Socialutskott) processes personal data of a resident at one of the municipality's LSS homes (housing with special services for adults), through CCTV cameras. The Social Affairs Committee placed the CCTV cameras to increase the security of the resident, as the resident has demonstrated serious self-harming behaviour. | ||
===Dispute=== | ===Dispute=== | ||
The complainant | The complainant claimed that the Social Affairs Committee should have stated that CCTV camera surveillance takes place and ask the consent from the resident's family or guardian. | ||
===Holding=== | ===Holding=== | ||
The Swedish DPA held that, although the intention of the Social Affairs Committee was to protect the resident from harming himself, the installation of CCTV cameras in the resident's bedroom is considered a big intrusion of the resident's privacy. This means that the processing of personal data has been disproportionate to the purpose. The | The Swedish DPA held that, although the intention of the Social Affairs Committee was to protect the resident from harming himself, the installation of CCTV cameras in the resident's bedroom is considered a big intrusion of the resident's privacy. This means that the processing of personal data has been disproportionate to the purpose. The processing of personal data that has taken place through the camera surveillance has thus not complied with Articles 5(1)(a)(i), 6, 9(2), and 13 GDPR. | ||
processing of personal data that has taken place through the camera surveillance has | |||
thus not complied with Articles 5 (1)(a)(i), | |||
==Comment== | ==Comment== | ||
Revision as of 07:59, 7 December 2020
| Datainspektionen - DI-2019-7782 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Authority: | Datainspektionen (Sweden) |
| Jurisdiction: | Sweden |
| Relevant Law: | Article 5(1)(a) GDPR Article 6(1) GDPR Article 9(2) GDPR Article 13 GDPR Article 35 GDPR Article 36 GDPR Kamerabevakningslagen (2018:1200) |
| Type: | Complaint |
| Outcome: | Upheld |
| Started: | |
| Decided: | 24.11.2020 |
| Published: | 24.11.2020 |
| Fine: | 200000 SEK |
| Parties: | n/a |
| National Case Number/Name: | DI-2019-7782 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | n/a |
| Appeal: | n/a |
| Original Language(s): | Swedish |
| Original Source: | Datainspektionen (in SV) |
| Initial Contributor: | Elisavet Dravalou |
The Swedish DPA (Datainspektionen) held that installation of CCTV cameras in an LSS home (housing with special services for adults) breached Articles 5(1)(a), 6(1), 9(2), 13, 35 and 36 GDPR and Section 15 Camera Surveillance Act. The DPA imposed a fine of SEK 200,000 (approx. €19500).
English Summary
Facts
On 2 May 2019, the Swedish DPA received a complaint from a relative of the data subject according to which Gnosjö's Social Affairs Committee (Socialutskott) processes personal data of a resident at one of the municipality's LSS homes (housing with special services for adults), through CCTV cameras. The Social Affairs Committee placed the CCTV cameras to increase the security of the resident, as the resident has demonstrated serious self-harming behaviour.
Dispute
The complainant claimed that the Social Affairs Committee should have stated that CCTV camera surveillance takes place and ask the consent from the resident's family or guardian.
Holding
The Swedish DPA held that, although the intention of the Social Affairs Committee was to protect the resident from harming himself, the installation of CCTV cameras in the resident's bedroom is considered a big intrusion of the resident's privacy. This means that the processing of personal data has been disproportionate to the purpose. The processing of personal data that has taken place through the camera surveillance has thus not complied with Articles 5(1)(a)(i), 6, 9(2), and 13 GDPR.
Comment
Share your comments here!
Further Resources
Share blogs or news articles here!
English Machine Translation of the Decision
The decision below is a machine translation of the Swedish original. Please refer to the Swedish original for more details.
