In camera surveillance in public spaces to maintain public order, the municipality and the police both play a role. The municipality is usually responsible for the deployment of camera surveillance, the police process the camera images. Find out who is responsible for what on this page.
Responsible for processing
In camera surveillance in public spaces to maintain public order, the municipality and the police often both play a role:
Municipalities can use camera surveillance to monitor public places if it is necessary to maintain public order. The rules are found in article 151c of the Municipal Law. The mayor, together with the city council, decides in which cases, where and for how long camera surveillance will be used.
The police are responsible for processing the camera images.
Chief of police is data controller
In a political-administrative sense, the mayor is responsible for camera surveillance. But the mayor is not the controller for the further processing of the camera images. That is the chief of police.
This is because the processing of the camera images falls under the Police Data Act (Wpg). This means that the camera images are police data. And that the chief of police is the data controller, because he is designated through the Wpg as the data controller for the processing of police data by the police.
Conditions for processing camera images
Important conditions for processing camera images are:
processing is necessary;
a "data protection impact assessment" (DPIA) is conducted in advance;
there is a duty to inform;
specific retention periods apply;
good security is important;
there is, when a processor is engaged, a processor agreement.
Necessity
The processing of camera images must be necessary for the purpose of camera surveillance. And this purpose must not also be achievable with less intrusive measures.
DPIA
One of the situations in which a DPIA is mandatory is when personal data is processed to widely and systematically monitor people in a publicly accessible area. This is the case of camera surveillance in public places.
Duty to inform
Under the Wpg, the police must inform data subjects about the processing of camera images. In doing so, the police must, for example, provide information about the purpose of the processing and the privacy rights of those involved. Such as the right of inspection.
Under the Municipal Law, the presence of cameras must be clear to anyone entering the area in question. For example, the municipality can put up a sign informing people about camera surveillance. Police and municipality can make agreements on the implementation of this information obligation.
Retention periods
Police may not retain camera images for longer than necessary for the purpose for which they were taken.
Regular camera surveillance
Is it about camera images made with regular camera surveillance (pursuant to article 151c of the Municipal Law)? Then the police may retain the images for a maximum of 4 weeks. Are there concrete suspicions that the camera images contain criminal offenses? Then the police may keep the footage longer in order to trace those offenses.
Incidental camera surveillance
Is it about camera images taken by the police with incidental camera surveillance (under Article 3 of the Police Act)? Then the police may not keep the images longer than necessary for the purpose for which they were made. The rules for incidental camera surveillance are in the Wpg.
Security of and access to camera images
The police must take appropriate security measures to ensure that camera images are not processed unlawfully or unauthorized. Only persons authorized by the chief of police (as the data controller) have access to the images.
Processor Agreement
Do the police engage other organizations to process camera images? Then the police must enter into a processing agreement with those organizations. Think of an external party that monitors the camera images. The external party then acts exclusively under the instruction of the police.
Note: In addition to the above conditions, all other requirements and obligations under the Wpg obviously apply to the processing of camera images.
Police and municipal responsibilities
The police are responsible for processing camera images. And thus for complying with the requirements of the Wpg. The chief of police must also be able to demonstrate this (as the processing responsible party). It is obvious, however, that the police and the municipality work closely together in implementing camera surveillance.
Use of camera images in regular camera surveillance
The police may view and use camera images to maintain public order. For example, to combat unsafe situations or regular disorder. Are incidents recorded on the camera images, such as a fight? Then the police may also use the camera images to track down the perpetrators of criminal acts.
Incidental camera surveillance: camera footage also police data
The police may incidental camera surveillance deployed. Even then, the processing of the camera images falls under the Wpg. Even with incidental camera surveillance, the chief of police is therefore the data controller, the processing must comply with the Wpg, and the chief of police must be able to prove this.
Provision of camera images
The police may only provide the camera images if this is permitted under the Wpg. So the municipality does not have access to the camera images just like that. The police must monitor this.
Conducting DPIA
The fact that the chief of police is the data controller also means that he or she is responsible for conducting a DPIA. The chief of police conducts the DPIA before the start of camera surveillance and thus the processing of camera images.
Because in regular camera surveillance, the mayor decides, among other things, the location of the camera surveillance and its duration, it is obvious that the chief of police should involve the mayor in conducting the DPIA.
If necessary, the chief of police shall also request a prior consultation with the Personal Data Authority (AP).
Agreements police and municipality
It is obvious that the police and the municipality are in close contact about the implementation of camera surveillance. For example, about informing citizens, which the municipality and the police are both obliged to do.
