AEPD (Spain) - AI-00173-2022
|AEPD - AI-00173-2022|
|Relevant Law:||Article 5(1)(b) GDPR|
Article 5(1)(c) GDPR
|National Case Number/Name:||AI-00173-2022|
|European Case Law Identifier:||n/a|
|Original Source:||AEPD (in ES)|
The Spanish DPA held that the use of a doorbell camera did not constitute processing of neighbors' personal data, but it cautioned that the device must be used like a traditional peephole and not as video surveillance.
English Summary[edit | edit source]
Facts[edit | edit source]
The data subject complained to the Spanish DPA that a neighbor in their building had installed a doorbell camera that captured part of a common area. They did not know what their neighbor did with the recorded images but worried their 16-year-old daughter and another neighbor's 10-year-old grandson being recorded on the way to lay out or hang laundry on the landing.
The owner of the camera claimed to have installed it in response to their door being vandalized, and the complainant themselves acknowledged that the door had suffered various scratches.
Holding[edit | edit source]
The DPA held that there was no data processing in the facts presented and that intervention would only be necessary if improper use of the recordings infringed on data privacy rights. The DPA analogized the doorbell camera to a traditional front door peephole, noting that such peepholes are not generally seen as invasive. Because there was no expectation of privacy in the common area immediately outside a neighbor’s front door, a doorbell camera was a reasonable and proportional step to deter further vandalism.
The DPA recommended that the neighbors resolve their disagreements according to “the minimum rules of good neighborliness” or else settle them in an appropriate judicial framework.
Comment[edit | edit source]
Share your comments here!
Further Resources[edit | edit source]
Share blogs or news articles here!
English Machine Translation of the Decision[edit | edit source]
The decision below is a machine translation of the Spanish original. Please refer to the Spanish original for more details.
1/5 File No.: EXP202204806 RESOLUTION OF FILE OF ACTIONS Of the actions carried out by the Spanish Agency for Data Protection and te- based on the following FACTS FIRST: A.A.A. (*hereinafter, the complaining party) dated December 6, 2021 filed a claim with the Spanish Data Protection Agency. the re- outcry is directed against B.B.B. with NIF ***NIF.1 (hereinafter, the claimed party). The grounds on which the claim is based are as follows: “…you have installed a peephole of the make and model: EZVIZ DP1C. We have evidence that he uses it to record and know which neighbors go up to the landing or to hang clothes on the roof” “The neighbor across the street has a 10-year-old grandson and I have a 16-year-old daughter. who goes up to lay out or pick up the clothes. We don't know what exactly he does with the recorded images” (folio nº 1). SECOND: In accordance with article 65.4 of Organic Law 3/2018, of 5 December, of Protection of Personal Data and guarantee of digital rights (in hereinafter LOPDGDD), said claim was transferred to the claimed party in fe- date 12/16/21, to proceed with its analysis and inform this Agency on the period of one month, of the actions carried out to adapt to the foreseen requirements cough in the data protection regulations. No response has been received to this transfer letter, nor has any explanation been provided. duced for this purpose, recording in the system the Notification as "finished" in the di- direction indicated by the claimant. THIRD: On February 18, 2022, in accordance with article 65 of the LOPDGDD, the claim filed by the claimant was admitted for processing. FOUNDATIONS OF LAW Yo In accordance with the functions that article 57.1 a), f) and h) of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation, hereinafter RGPD) confers each control authority and according to the provisions of articles 47 and 48.1 of the Or- Law 3/2018, of December 5, on the Protection of Personal Data and guarantee of digital rights (hereinafter LOPDGDD), is competent to resolve these investigative actions the Director of the Spanish Agency for the Protection of Data cough. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es, 2/5 Likewise, article 63.2 of the LOPDGDD determines that: "The formal procedures ted by the Spanish Agency for Data Protection will be governed by the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, in this organic law, by the regulatory provisions dictated in its development and, as long as they do not contradict them, with a sub- sidiario, by the general rules on administrative procedures." II In the present case, the claim dated 12/06/21 is examined by me- gave from which the following is transferred as the main fact: “…a peephole of the make and model has been installed: EZVIZ DP1C. We have evidence that he uses it to record and know which neighbors go up to the landing or to hanging clothes on the roof” (folio nº 1). The facts are therefore concretized in the presence of a digital peephole that According to the claimant's statement, it is used "to record and know who is close to his door according to comments from the defendant himself. The above facts may constitute a presumed infringement of art. 5.1 c) RGPD, which provides: “Personal data will be: c) adequate, pertinent and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed (“data minimization”) (…)”. It should be noted that the device (digital peephole) is installed on the door pro- property of the defendant and not in a common area, which is why it differs from other cases analysed. two by this Agency in which a camera is installed on a communal wall capturing extensive landing area. Currently there are various types of digital peepholes on the market, which are easily purchased by consumers and users on various platforms online sale, and can be considered "devices with lenses equipped with a camera exterior that allows to see towards the outside of the house with an angle of vision”. Their operation is varied, with multiple possibilities depending on the model and brand, sometimes allowing an image to be transmitted to a mobile device. vile (eg in case of someone knocking at the door), without any image recording (only visualization in real time, like any other traditional peephole) or it allows have a frame in case of programming when approaching the door of the apartment of the owner of the same, serving as a security device against attacks on property (vgr. Crime of robbery with force—articles 238 and ss CP). The use of the installed devices must be carried out in accordance with the purpose of the same, which is to replace the traditional peepholes, for reasons of safety/comfort of the property, not being able to act as camera video-surveillance, affecting the rest of the residents of the property. C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es, 3/5 In various pronouncements, this body has stated its opposition to acts of vandalism carried out furtively, in such a way that an interpretation restrictive regulation of the norm may suppose a double damage to the victim of the same mos, not being able to protect themselves from these. As the Constitutional Court has pointed out (vgr. STC 39/2016, March 3, 2016) it suffices to remember that in order to verify whether a restrictive measure of a fundamental right mental exceeds the judgment of proportionality, it is necessary to verify if it meets the three following requirements or conditions: if such a measure is likely to achieve the objective proposed vo (judgment of suitability); if, in addition, it is necessary, in the sense that it does not There is another more moderate measure to achieve such purpose with equal effectiveness. cia (judgment of necessity); and, finally, if it is weighted or balanced, by de- derive from it more benefits or advantages for the general interest than harm on other assets or values in conflict (judgment of proportionality in the strict sense). In the written claim itself it is made clear that the door of the claimed (a) has "suffered various scratches" and this type of device can meet a dissuasive function against the aforementioned vandalism attacks that sometimes they occur in communities of owners, where it is not uncommon for various llas between neighbors (as) for the most varied reasons. This type of images can be made available to the competent authority. either judicial or State Security Forces and Bodies, in order to con- establish the authorship of the facts, for an alleged crime of damage to property (vgr. art. 263 CP). Respect for the alleged affectation of the privacy of third parties (eg their granddaughters) It should be noted that the landing area near the door of the requested party is not a intended for privacy, being able to develop the recreational activities of the same in private or public areas (eg nearby parks), without otherwise stating that a "data treatment" of the same has been carried out. In this regard, the ruling (...), dated April 22, is especially illuminating. of 2015 of the Criminal Court No. 1 of Vigo includes in its Foundation of Law First: (…) “There is an abundant and peaceful jurisprudence that, when dealing with the recordings videos, considers that these only affect the right to privacy if they have been carried out in what constitutes the dwelling or spaces where the citizen develops develops their private activity but that said attack does not occur if the recording is made takes place in open spaces or common areas of a building, as is the case that we occupies having recorded images in a garage that is a common area (...) It cannot be understood that a garage of a community of owners exists a privacy such that it prevents making recordings, taking into account that it is a common space, as well as the access stairs to community homes, foreign to all privacy, understood from the point of view of personal intimacy constitutionally protectable, as it is an area of access to interested persons. community, and, therefore, public, in the sense of allowing access to di- this zone of all the members of the community, circumstance is relevant to the C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es, 4/5 time to apply the existing jurisprudence on this issue, in which the 2nd Chamber of the T.S. has been affirming that the recording of the image of people in open spaces to the public does not require judicial authorization, being regulated the use of the same in the Organic Law 4/1997, of August 4, regulating the use of video cameras by the Security Forces and Bodies in public places (In this sense STS of 18-3-2005, 27-9-2002 and 15-2/1999 among others). The STS of 10-14-2002 affirms the legitimacy of recording the image of people, without implying a violation of the right to privacy or to one's own image when it says that the rights established by the L.O. 5-5-82 regulating the Civil Protection of Law to Honor, to Personal and Family Intimacy and to One's Own Image, cannot be considered be absolutely limitless." In general, with this type of peepholes a "treatment of data" because its function is exactly identical to traditional peepholes, being able to owner of the same to know the entrances/exits of the neighbors close to the same way that I knew him with a traditional peephole, being on the other hand personal. companies that coexist in a wide space of time for reasons of co-ownership in based on rules of behavior determined in the Horizontal Property Law (Law 49/1960, July 21). III According to the above, the question raised is not considered to be at the time current supposes an affectation to the rights protected by this organism, whose in- Intervention will only occur in the event of a deviation in the alleged use of the same (vgr. data obtained with the device in question), this aspect that does not has been accredited, the above reasons that justify the filing of this process. The rest of the issues would, where appropriate, be accommodated in the civil framework, recommended by this Agency that the parties adapt their behavior to the minimum re- rules of good neighborliness or by resolving them in the appropriate judicial instances. prickly pears Thus, in accordance with what was indicated, by the Director of the Spanish Agency for Pro- data protection, HE REMEMBERS: FIRST: PROCEED TO FILE these proceedings. SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution to A.A.A. and B.B.B. In accordance with the provisions of article 50 of the LOPDGDD, this Re- The solution will be made public once it has been notified to the interested parties. Against this resolution, which puts an end to the administrative procedure as prescribed by the art. 114.1.c) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on Administrative Procedure C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es, 5/5 Common to Public Administrations, and in accordance with the provisions of the art. 112 and 123 of the aforementioned Law 39/2015, of October 1, interested parties may inter- optionally file an appeal for reconsideration before the Director of the Spanish Agency Data Protection Regulation within a month from the day following the notification of this resolution or directly contentious-administrative appeal before the Contentious-administrative Chamber of the National High Court, in accordance with the provisions placed in article 25 and in section 5 of the fourth additional provision of the Law 29/1998, of July 13, regulating the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction, in the period of two months from the day following the notification of this act, in accordance with the provisions of article 46.1 of the aforementioned Law. 940-110422 Sea Spain Marti Director of the Spanish Data Protection Agency C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es