Regulations for Displaying Monitored Object Plaque in Private Home Monitoring Systems

I searched the forum but I couldn't find the answer and I don't know the regulations, so the question is: if I have a monitoring system in my own home, do I have to put a monitored object plate?
One more thing, if there is no such need, is it better to post such a board as an "additional scare" or not to post it - because why inform a potential thief that he should be careful and thus not be caught?

Not far from me, two almost neighbors have signs on their fences: "Protected object". I am wondering with my closer neighbor whether or not to hang similar plates on the fence? For now, I have a sign: "Caution, very dangerous dog", and I don't have one.
Dummy cameras that can be bought for little money are a good scare.
Coming back to the monitoring, if I installed one, I wouldn't spread the word about it to all and sundry.

The fact that there is a sign "Protected Object" is a small pico, but a better number is a sign with the name of the security company and the top is the phone number of this company.

Added after 8 [minutes]:

aodbg1 wrote:

do I need to put a monitored object sign

there is no compulsion

In fact, there is no compulsion, but what you record you have only for yourself. If you want to use it against someone, they have more rights than you. This is how the law is constructed in Poland.

Thieves can break all alarm systems except for exceptions, namely amateur constructions. Why? Because the former will be bought and deciphered and the latter are not for sale.

zybex wrote:

Thieves can break all alarm systems except for exceptions, namely amateur constructions. Why? Because the former will be bought and deciphered and the latter are not for sale.

You don't buy systems, my friend, you install systems tailored to the needs of the client's solutions. At most, devices for systems are purchased. Their "deciphering" as you called it is not necessary because the description of operation and assembly and programming instructions are on the manufacturers' websites.

However, I agree that solutions - let's say - unconventional are a good solution.

My usual slip of the tongue (the word systems). Everyone knows what I meant.

First, we must ask ourselves a question.
Is the system effective in deterring?
Should I have "weak evidence" of possible perpetrators? (after calculating the associated losses).

I think prevention is very important so...
Any action that discourages hacking is good, and it doesn't just apply to tablets (which some companies give away for free, doing their own advertising for free).
The ideal solution is an efficient system and applied warnings...

It's better to have a plate, but something to hang on the house. I have a monitored object myself, of course I have a surveillance camera directed at the gate and gate and the square. The story related to it was interesting, I had everything hung, there was no camera in the housing yet, I was waiting for the order Romanians were walking around with blankets of some kind and the gate was slid open and they did not cross the threshold. It happened that they were wandering around the square with some saws, etc. I would like to point out that giving a plaque and hanging a "pathetic" dummy does nothing.

The neighbor has 2 plates regarding monitoring, it has been hanging there for several years.
No one bothers him about it

Most, however, are behind the plate.
Thank you all for your comments.

Good morning,

Sorry for writing in such an old topic, but due to the change in regulations (GDPR), I think it is justified.
I have read that currently it is required to mark the monitored area. I am wondering about the need to provide data of the administrator of personal (image) data. As long as the monitoring is administered by the company, it is clear, the name of the company is given and that's it. And what about private individuals? When installing a camera in the yard, am I also obliged to provide my full personal data on the plate at the entrance? From what I can see from the templates of the plates, it is necessary to enter the name, address, e-mail and telephone number. As far as company data is concerned, it's normal, but giving my personal data to every passer-by on a platter seems average to me..
If I cut out part of the recording outside the property (a piece of road in the frame, etc.), is there still an obligation to post the information?

Thank you for any replies
Regards
k

moon09 wrote:

(GDPR) I think it is legitimate.
I have read that currently it is required to mark the monitored area

The GDPR does not apply to natural (private) persons.

I see. So, assuming that I record only what is mine (possible pieces of the frame where I will remove the mask) I do not have to post any signs/warnings, etc.?

He can look at the public road, if you don't set it directly on the neighbor's window, or maliciously so that it only watches his property, it shouldn't be a problem. No tabs needed.

kood wrote:

moon09 wrote:

(GDPR) I think it is legitimate.
I have read that currently it is required to mark the monitored area

The GDPR does not apply to natural (private) persons.

I assume you missed it.
This applies strongly. It does not apply only to the dead. You cannot monitor public land (no justification for processing data - image of people) or your neighbor's property (right to privacy). You can monitor your own property, but you cannot store or publish recordings. Because it can be protested by e.g. the postman or anyone else who visited you. So much for the theory. You don't have to post the information.

Added after 1 [minutes]:

kood wrote:

He can look at the public road, if you don't set it directly on the neighbor's window, or maliciously so that it only watches his property, it shouldn't be a problem. No tabs needed.

Neither the window nor his property is allowed to be observed. Neither is the public road. The latter would require papers.

palmus wrote:

you cannot store the recordings

What would be the point of monitoring then?

palmus wrote:

I assume you missed it.
This applies strongly. It does not apply only to the dead. You cannot monitor a public area (no justification for processing data - the image of people) or your neighbor's property (the right to privacy). You can monitor your own property, but you cannot store or publish recordings. Because it can be protested by e.g. the postman or anyone else who visited you. So much theory.

I haven't read more nonsense in a long time. So, according to my colleague, the deceased cannot process personal data, well, in fact, they cannot, but not in connection with the GDPR, but for slightly different reasons.

Just read Article 2 of the GDPR, there is point 2 which reads:

2. This regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data:
(c) by a natural person in a purely personal or household activity;

No nonsense, buddy. It's about the dead. It was simple.
Point c applies to the situation when you create, for example, your own budget for yourself, your wife and children. You collect photos
families and birthday videos, make a family tree, etc.
But the purpose of the monitoring is to protect your property, and therefore to film strangers - potential intruders. You will "by the way" record bystanders, and the collection of such recordings is no longer allowed.

Added after 6 [minutes]:

sosarek wrote:

palmus wrote:

you cannot store the recordings

What would be the point of monitoring then?

He would, when you hook the camera to an area outside your private area, then you start processing data. That is, plates, administrator, etc. Or if you want to watch builders who are building a garage for you. Then you create paperwork.

Apparently, it is not allowed to record, store, and if something happens in the area, they look for and ask for recordings.

It's true. I once presented my own recording in court, the opponent attacked that it was illegal. I convinced the court of legality with the blackened area outside my plot.

The same applies to car video recorders. Apparently you can't, but in the event of an incident, especially an escape from the scene, they ask drivers driving a given route to provide recordings.

palmus wrote:

Point c applies to the situation when you create, for example, your own budget for yourself, your wife and children. You collect photos
families and birthday videos, make a family tree, etc.

After all, it is clearly explained in the regulation:

"This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity, i.e. without any connection to a professional or commercial activity."

"...by observing the area with cameras, you process the data of the observed people who fall within the range of your camera? Did you know that as the owner of the camera you are considered the data controller and you have many responsibilities..."
It is worth reading and not creating your own interpretations:
https://uodo.gov.pl/pl/138/1455

Apparently, you can't connect high voltage to the fence, so as not to expose bystanders to the loss of life (even a thief). I'm curious, however, can I only attach high voltage warning signs to the fence? Like many people, he mounts signs and warns about a dangerous dog, and there is none at all.

kood wrote:

After all, it is clearly explained in the regulation:

"This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity, i.e. without any connection to a professional or commercial activity."

If you record part of your neighbor's plot, garage or public area (pavement, etc.), it is no longer a purely personal or household activity and you are obliged to comply with the provisions of the GDPR

If you only record your area, the provisions of the GDPR do not apply to you.

There's a lot about it on the internet.

cichy koksik wrote:

it is no longer a purely personal or domestic activity and you are obliged to comply with the provisions of the GDPR

cichy koksik wrote:

There's a lot about it on the internet

Maybe instead of searching the Internet, it is better to take the GDPR regulation in your hand and read it, it clearly describes what it concerns in a way that leaves no doubt:

kood wrote:

in the course of a purely personal or domestic activity, i.e. unrelated to a professional or commercial activity.

kood wrote:

kood wrote:

in the course of a purely personal or domestic activity, i.e. unrelated to a professional or commercial activity.

You're posting stuff you don't understand yourself
Understand that recording part of a neighbor's property or public property is beyond a purely personal or domestic activity and does not necessarily have to be related to a professional or commercial activity...
You can argue, but you are wrong and you as a specialist should know about it and inform your clients about it - otherwise they may face unpleasant consequences.

And here is one of many court judgments:

The Court of Appeal in Gdańsk in its judgment of October 30, 2019 issued in case No. no.: V ACa 440/19, awarding the plaintiffs (marriage) compensation from the defendants jointly and severally in the amount of PLN 4,000. for both the claimant and the claimant. He also pointed out that the monitoring of the neighbor's yard violated his privacy. Therefore, he has the right to feel under surveillance and demand compensation.

And another:

Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw of February 14, 2019, reference number: V ACa 20/18:
”The recording of the image itself and the possibility of its reproduction by persons who were not authorized by the plaintiff are a violation. Directing the monitoring, even in part, at the neighboring property, constitutes an unacceptable interference in the privacy of the owners of this property, even if there is no publication or other use of recordings and photographs obtained from these cameras. Therefore, it is not decisive that the recordings have not been published anywhere or made available to third parties. Such actions would only increase the scale of the infringements and the intensity of the measures that would have to be taken to reverse the infringements.”

cichy koksik wrote:

And here is one of many court judgments:

The Court of Appeal in Gdańsk in its judgment of October 30, 2019 issued in case No. no.: V ACa 440/19, awarding the plaintiffs (marriage) compensation from the defendants jointly and severally in the amount of PLN 4,000. for both the claimant and the claimant. He also pointed out that the monitoring of the neighbor's yard violated his privacy. Therefore, he has the right to feel under surveillance and demand compensation.

And another:

Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw of February 14, 2019, reference number: V ACa 20/18:
”The recording of the image itself and the possibility of its reproduction by persons who were not authorized by the plaintiff are a violation. Directing the monitoring, even in part, at the neighboring property, constitutes an unacceptable interference in the privacy of the owners of this property, even if there is no publication or other use of recordings and photographs obtained from these cameras. Therefore, it is not decisive that the recordings have not been published anywhere or made available to third parties. Such actions would only increase the scale of the infringements and the intensity of the measures that would have to be taken to reverse the infringements.”

I would like to ask you to indicate where the court refers to the GDPR ?

In addition, I see that in these cases the cameras were installed not to protect their property but to spite the neighbor, and it is described in the justification of the judgment that the recordings were sent to the police because the neighbor was driving without a helmet or did not turn on the indicator .