Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection is frequently and continuously addressed by citizens who are seeking an opinion on the legality and justification of the use of video surveillance, particularly in residential buildings, while often pointing out abuse of surveillance, as well.
Stating that the perennial ignorant attitude towards relevant issues related to video surveillance serious source of threat and violation of human rights, the Commissioner Rodoljub Sabic has stated the following:
"Pursuant to the Constitution, video surveillance would have to be regulated by law. However, none of the provisions of the Law on Personal Data Protection specifically regulate processing of personal data through video surveillance, and the general principles (proportionality, appropriateness), which it proclaims are not elaborated in respective lex specialis.
Thus, we have no answers to a number of very important questions with respect to video surveillance in general, particularly in residential buildings, although its use has assumed enormous proportions. Who and in what manner decides on the introduction of video surveillance in residential buildings? What is actually being monitored, and can it be monitored? Who and under what conditions has the right of access to databases of personal data generated through recording? How long and in what manner are these databases protected from unauthorized access?
It is worth recalling that, due to the risks to privacy, introduction of video surveillance in a building is not considered just an ordinary technical decision in a great majority of countries and the adoption of such a decision in general requires a qualified majority, which is much larger than usual. For example laws of Slovenia and Montenegro define it as consent of 70%, and the law of Macedonia even of 100% of owners of apartments.
In addition, in many countries, video surveillance involves monitoring of the entrance to and exit from common areas, but not monitoring during the stay in the area. Some countries have a ban on placing certain common areas under video surveillance, including elevators, and many countries explicitly prohibit placing entrances of individual apartments under video surveillance.
From the standpoint of the most widely accepted standards, it is unacceptable to access "recordings" of the video surveillance system via internal or public cable television, because it allows an unlimited wide range of users, without actual need and reason, to impinge on the privacy of citizens.
Introduction of video surveillance can certainly be justified for a number of reasons: the security of people and property, detection, prevention and control of offenses, the availability of evidence etc. However, this is precisely why it is very important for video surveillance to be governed by law and allowed, i.e. appropriate and proportionate to the purpose, because otherwise it turns into its opposite and becomes a source of violations of the law and a threat to citizens' rights, especially the right to privacy.
I have repeatedly warned the authorities about this fact. Back in December 2011, in an effort to provide assistance, the Commissioner prepared and made available to the Ministry of Justice the text of amendments to the Law on Personal Data Protection which would also govern video surveillance, and 10 months ago he prepared and made available to the Ministry and to the Government the model of a completely new Law on Personal Data Protection. Without going into reasons why this remained without effect, I must say that this is incomprehensible to me."
