Cameras out of surveillance - Biznes w INTERIA.PL

BIZNES INTERIA on Facebook and you are up to date with the latest eventsWarsaw authorities, in which the monitoring system consists of over 18 thousand. cameras, recently announced the installation of more. They believe that this will increase the safety of residents. 10,000 will prove it. events that the operators of the municipal monitoring system reported to the police, municipal guards or other services.

A few months ago, the ABW applied to Tramwaje Warszawskie to give it permanent access to cameras installed in vehicles. So it is no longer about reporting crimes to the services, but about providing them with a current view of passengers. Reason? Threat prevention. In a letter to the Internal Security Agency, the Commissioner for Citizens' Rights expressed concern about such far-reaching interference in privacy and asked for what purpose the service requests access to the cameras. He received an answer, but we will not know it, because its content has been classified.

Advertisement

In Poland, cameras are installed everywhere, without any supervision, what is worse, it is often unknown who and on what terms has access to the recordings. In other EU countries, the trend is exactly the opposite.

- In many countries, permission from a designated authority is required to install and run a monitoring system. It must be conducted in accordance with the law, only for a specific purpose and ensuring the transparency of data processing and control - notes Tomasz Borys, an expert in the field of personal data protection.

- In mid-January, the Administrative Court in Cologne, at the request of a citizen, banned the police from monitoring the square at the Breslauer Platz railway station. The police have not shown that the place is particularly at risk of crime, and the existing police station there is sufficiently deterrent, he gives an example.

Norwegian data protection authority found that Norwegian customs illegally used cameras at the country's borders and imposed a fine of 400,000. euro. Brandenburgski issued a warning about unacceptable video surveillance at several Potsdam locations. Night monitoring was agreed, but the authorities carried it out around the clock and increased the established area. In Liechtenstein, there are fines of 5,000 zlotys for failure to report monitoring. euro. Such examples can be multiplied and they all show that our country is increasingly different from the rest of the EU with its carefree approach to ubiquitous cameras.

Million fines

The difference between Poland and other countries is even more visible in the approach to private cameras. Penalties are plentiful abroad. There is a widespread belief that private surveillance cannot cover public spaces. Simply put - the camera on the house can film its own garden, but not the street or the neighbor's area. Last year The Greek authority imposed a fine of 8,000 euros for breaking this rule.

This also applies to companies. The Spanish authority considered that the surveillance of the premises could be achieved by pointing the cameras towards the façade of the building, which is a less invasive method than extending it to the street. Fine 3 thousand euro. The owner of several apartments rented to tourists received the same in this country. He installed four cameras in the corridors of the building where they were located and in the entrance to it. The data protection authority found a violation of the principle of minimization - the cameras recorded shared areas of the building, the monitoring of which was not necessary to protect the property. The approach to employee tracking is also very rigorous. In January this year, an online retailer that claimed the cameras were used to track goods was fined more than €10 million for violating workers' rights.

In Poland, decisions on monitoring are rare. The loudest concerned the monitoring in the apartment building where the president of the Constitutional Tribunal, Julia Przyłębska, lives (the inspection was ordered after the publication of a photo of Jarosław Kaczyński entering the building). Earlier, in 2018, the president of the Office for Personal Data Protection considered the installation of cameras in a block of flats by a cooperative to be a violation.

- The beginnings of the UODO's operation were promising. In June 2018, he prepared "Guidelines for the use of video surveillance" and conducted extensive consultations. Unfortunately - for reasons unknown to me - no further steps were taken: the announced final version of the guidelines was not adopted, and no proceedings regarding the processing of data in monitoring were carried out, the result of which could play an important educational role for administrators - comments Wojciech Klicki, a lawyer from the Panoptykon Foundation .

- Currently, the gap between regulation and practice is huge. It is true that we can meet in the public space the fulfillment of the information obligation resting on administrators, but the most important rules - including minimalism and restrictions for the purpose of monitoring - are often disregarded - he adds.

The principle of minimization mentioned by him means that before installing the cameras, it should be checked whether the intended purpose cannot be achieved by less invasive means (fencing, physical security, better access security, lighting). And if they must be installed, it is also important where they are placed.

- Each case of using monitoring, apart from those required by law, should be preceded by an assessment of whether monitoring is really necessary to achieve the assumed goal, i.e. to ensure security. This must be assessed in a specific case, taking into account such parameters as, for example, the resolution of the recorded image, the field of view of the cameras or the storage time of the recording - as well as respecting the rights of the persons who would be monitored - emphasizes Dr. Paweł Litwiński, attorney at Barta Litwiński.

The practice is completely different, which can be seen not only by entering the first store, bank or restaurant, but simply by walking down the street.

- Almost every public building, every company and institution and many private houses have external cameras. We are so used to it that we do not pay attention to the violation of our privacy by monitoring in restaurants, cafes or other places where we spend our private time - regrets Tomasz Borys.

No regulations

There are no comprehensive regulations regarding video surveillance in Poland. In 2013, the Ministry of the Interior and Administration prepared a draft assumptions for a separate act, but that was the end of it. The entry into force of the GDPR was supposed to improve the situation.

- Only that the GDPR was not written with monitoring in mind, it is a general regulation. Hence, a law on monitoring would be useful, but no one wants to pass it. And such regulations are needed - believes Dr. Paweł Litwiński, an attorney at Barta Litwiński.

A simple example - it is not even known how long surveillance recordings may be stored. This is regulated in some sectoral regulations - the education law, the act on commune self-government, and the Labor Code, which stipulate a three-month retention period. However, there is no comprehensive regulation.

Interestingly, most Poles not only do not mind cameras, but they even believe that there should be more of them. At least that's what the research conducted by Julia Skórzyńska-Ślusarek in 2013 showed. As many as 56 percent. of respondents felt that there should be more cameras in public spaces. Less than 10 percent felt that their numbers should be reduced.

The reason for this approach is the belief that cameras improve our security.

- Available scientific research, however, clearly shows that the use of surveillance cameras not only does not increase the level of security in the monitored area, but sometimes reduces this level. Since there is a camera, someone will help, and I may not react - notes Dr. Paweł Litwiński.

Enthusiasts think otherwise. Poznan officials refer to statistics - between 2014 and 2016, the number of criminal offenses in this city decreased from 13,000 to 20,000. up to 10 thousand The decrease in the number of thefts was 20 percent, the decrease in car thefts - 28 percent, the decrease in the number of fights and beatings - 24 percent. The problem is that it is not known what influence monitoring had on this, and what other factors.

Slawomir Wikarak

04.05.2021Dziennik Gazeta Prawna