Recently, Kenneth Sleijpen wrote a blog for Data&Privacyweb about the smart doorbell and whether or not it is AVG-proof. His conclusion: video doorbell? No, unless. Privacy lawyer Herman ten Velde read his blog and thought his way. A smart doorbell? Yes, if three conditions are met.
Kenneth Sleijpen, lawyer and Privacy Officer within the municipality of Sittard-Geleen, gives in his blog indicates that having a video doorbell is only allowed if it is not aimed at the public road. "Are we as a society really waiting for all these cameras? On the side, it's about public space. Everyone can be captured on camera there. On the other hand, you can expect some privacy in our country. If I walk down the street, I don't have to expect to be filmed by a doorbell, right?" To add, "I am not in favor of the smart doorbell aimed at the street."
Also, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (GBA) reportedly fined a citizen for this.
To start with the latter. The GBA did indeed fine a citizen but this was about having cameras, a few of which, among other things, were pointed at the public road, recording images of neighbors - not entirely unimportant in the context of third-party privacy.
Basically, the discussion is who was actually guilty of pointing the cameras at the public road: the supplier (he should have given better information) or the citizen (he should have known better). So in fact it is not about video doorbells but about (surveillance) cameras that were pointed at the public road. As an aside - and in itself not an issue: the BAP is under fire at the European Commission for not being completely independent.
Be that as it may: may or may not you install and then own a video doorbell? Privacy involves three criteria: expediency, necessity and legality. Do these three criteria apply to having/installing a video doorbell. I am happy to walk through them. Note: I focus in this blog only on having/placing a video doorbell. It goes too far to discuss all types of video doorbells. In fact, there are several types of video doorbells: those that do/do not record camera images, those that only "turn on" when one comes within a certain area of the video doorbell, and camera images that can still be retrieved after several hours.
Is there a need? You should be able to explain for yourself whether having/placing a video doorbell is appropriate. I can well imagine that it may be necessary nowadays because the 'wrong' persons regularly ring the doorbell with equally 'wrong' intentions. In such cases, is it not necessary to be able to remotely assess and even communicate with these persons? The elderly in particular regularly fall victim to 'wrong' persons.
The effectiveness: the purpose of a video doorbell is to ensure that your goods and home - let's say your personal property - are better protected. Obviously, the purpose cannot be to keep an eye on the public road and/or neighbors. In most cases, when having a video doorbell, it is inevitable that a piece of the public road will be taken. I would venture to say that the purpose in 99% of cases is to monitor your own home and your own safety.
But then the key question: is there legality? Does the presence of these two criteria make such a placement lawful? You can have an entirely different discussion about this. Suppose it is not lawful, then the possession of a video doorbell may well be lawful. Assuming that the doorbell was installed with some necessity and purpose and it is unavoidable that an unavoidable piece of public property is being viewed then there is a legitimate interest for the person in question.
If this involves weighing the personal interest and the public interest then I wonder why there should be any discussion about having a video doorbell. As with surveillance cameras, it's about purpose, necessity and legality/justice. And again, there is no difficulty about the fact that inevitably pieces of public roads are recorded.
So look carefully to see if there is a need and a purpose for installing a video doorbell. With the right intentions, by which I mean acting honestly to the situation, you have a legitimate interest.
Sleijpen's message was: a video doorbell? No unless. So my message is: video doorbell? Yes, if the three criteria (actually four: including legality) are met.
