RODO and cameras at home, do you have to prepare yourself somehow?

Hello.

I have several cameras installed on the house, the sidewalk and the street are also registered. Is this somehow to the RODO? That is, a neighbor can come and get used to data administrators etc. etc? Do I have to do something to adapt in some way to sleep well (because I do not hide that there are some cosmic penalties)? Are there any threats to me until the data is shared?

Greetings,

You know text

AND Other

I read this and I do not know how to interpret it ...

Quote:

Regardless of the acceptance, whether the monitoring record consists of many personal data of a pictorial nature, or because of the degree of their organization and indexation is a collection of personal data, it should be recognized that the operator of the monitoring system processes personal data within the meaning of art. 7 point 2 uodo

picture is a separate personal good. This concept consists of all external features that characterize a given person. In other words, the image is defined as a man's appearance, his likeness, his physical image.

The term " personal data e 'is very roomy. Any information (in its broad sense) that allows a particular person to be identified is personal data protected by law. So not only the name and address, but also the image of another person recorded on the recording, if it is sufficiently clear, which is not difficult for even the simplest industrial cameras, we must treat as personal data.

Quote:

From 25 May 2018, the ability to process personal data through the use of video monitoring will depend on the existence of a direct statutory authorization enabling its use. Currently, such authorization is included only in regulations concerning law enforcement agencies, casinos or specific situations (eg mass events). However, there is no regulation directly authorizing the use of monitoring by local government units.

This is a bit of a general monitoring of your path and what about driving recorders and videos uploaded with the image of people involved in the event and outsiders. Anyway, it's sharing something else to show someone a recording and what else to copy and share to a private or public person.

Probably nothing will change so much and will be so far that if someone does not want to be his image, someone who shared the recording will have to blur his face or even the entire figure.

Slowly everything is done like in Germany I will be able to google maps to prohibit the sharing of satellite photos of my yard.

A lot of confusion with this ROPE and even more ambiguities and understatements. However, one thing seems to be certain: private use is not subject to the GDPR. Otherwise, you would have to keep a record of Outlook emails or paper correspondence, such as Christmas cards.

polmark2 wrote:

A lot of confusion with this ROPE and even more ambiguities and understatements. However, one thing seems to be certain: private use is not subject to the GDPR. Otherwise, you would have to keep a record of Outlook emails or paper correspondence, such as Christmas cards.

He forgot a friend about the phone book on his smartphone ....

So it seems that nothing is known yet. But I understand that, for example, I can make the recording available to the police if there is an offense registered by my equipment? Can a passerby make problems for me that I made his image available?
I wonder how it will be in schools or offices, for example. My kid is monitoring and at the request of the parents added a camera in the locker room (where kids leave their jackets and backpacks, not in fs) because sometimes someone was lost in their pockets. Now I am afraid that some parent may interfere with this and will refer to RODO.
Or another matter, monitoring in stores ... the topic of the river, and unless someone can find the punishment, it's not clear how to interpret it all.

Sawik7500 wrote:

But I understand that, for example, I can make the recording available to the police if there is an offense registered by my equipment?

As much as possible. Only when Janusz comes to you and will want to record because eg your camera has registered that his car in the car park was scratched Grażyna backing only you can give him access and he must already go to the police and the police to pick you up.

Sawik7500 wrote:

Can a passerby make problems for me that I made his image available?

Rather, not if you do not share this recording on the network or bystanders.

Sawik7500 wrote:

My kid is monitoring and, at the request of the parents, a camera in the cloakroom has been added (where the kids leave their jackets and backpacks, not in f)

Monitoring in public institutions is usually explicitly described and marked and parents are responsible for minors as children, and if they agreed that monitoring should record what is happening in the locker room and if someone is stealing something, then there is no problem.

Sawik7500 wrote:

at the request of parents

Sawik7500 wrote:

I am afraid that some parent may be disturbing

Not everyone can be satisfied just as with the parking lots in front of the block one who lives downstairs and the closest do not bother and does not stink that someone parked and the one from the 10th floor will have a grudge, let only the rest of the neighbors get angry ...
As for the RODO itself, in most cases people have no idea that such a thing is and has an impact on their lives.

Sawik7500 wrote:

Or another matter, monitoring in stores ... the topic of the river, and unless someone can find the punishment, it's not clear how to interpret it all.

Now even in the church in hospitals and in the forest there are cameras or on the bridge .... On the one hand, people want to feel safe and on the other they are outraged that someone wants some data from them ... The biggest stupidity is the government from the people of the proof scan and yet greater possibility of taking a loan for scanned proof. The proof is kept with you and is only for inspection ... but now and anyway, it will suffice to phone no. As long as there is no left card with a number from eg from the Czech Republic xD

Quote from the article in Gazeta Wyborcza :

"(... you can still install cameras in school toilets or changing rooms without any major obstacles, where they most seriously violate students' privacy and intimacy (... .
The provisions of the RODO do not preclude the installation of cameras in such places, but they specify that schools must "use techniques to prevent the identification of persons staying in these rooms" (... ".

treborsz wrote:

use techniques that make it impossible to recognize people staying in these rooms

HEHE blur the silhouettes by wrapping the cameras with XD stretch

From what I see, if someone does not have facial recognition systems, the new law practically does not change in CCTV. It's different when the system can recognize a face and assign a name to it, for example.

Incorrect conclusions drawn (or a problem with the eyes ).

So how should the correct conclusions be sound?

First of all - what does this statement (conclusions) have to the topic of conversation?

Secondly (analyzing the first sentence of the statement) - whether the law (RODO) changes something in terms of CCTV requirements (specifically: using the CCTV system) does not depend on whether someone is or is not the owner of the face recognition system.
On the sidelines - to recognize the face can even recognize virtually any smartphone, is not it?

Third (analysis of the second sentence of the statement) - if a group of people expresses an irresistible desire to publicize their personal data - even the best regulations on the protection of personal data will not change anything in this matter.
Incidentally - having a system that allows identification (it should be noted that this word has a slightly different meaning than the word recognition) of a person based on image analysis and automatic linking it with specific data (eg name) always required appropriate rights to collect and process data (sensitive).

Here is everything explained:
https://www.giodo.gov.pl/pl/1520056/9840

I warmly welcome.
And now such a question.
The area of the housing community, I am a co-owner of the area on which the multi-family building (block) is located. A neighbor in front of my balcony installed a rotating WiFi camera. A certain camera setting allows you to observe what is happening on my balcony. At the same time, none of the co-owners of the land agreed to monitor the area. lack of any signs that the area is being monitored.
The camera installed by the neighbor allows monitoring the area that does not belong to our community, including the intersection of streets and the area owned by the Housing Cooperative.
What to do in this case, because I do not want to be watched by my neighbor and I do not know for what purpose the neighbor monitors the community area.
Greetings.
PS
As for the monitoring of stores - it suffices to have appropriate markings and information that the customer can submit a written request for sharing a monitoring video in POK. Store employees should be informed about the monitoring of the store and that they can write in writing by the human body to provide a monitoring recording.

According to the law, observing a public place does not violate the right to protect the image, privacy or other personal good, because everyone can look at what is happening in this place.

But as this community is, for example:
Installation of any devices on the staircase by the owner of the premises is not permitted without the consent of the property manager, housing community or cooperative.
Only such a meatball that this particular slice of a balcony apartment is his.
This information should give you some hints.
link1
LINK2
There is a question of monitoring on the balcony

"If the installation of the camera would involve interference with the façade of the building, the owner must obtain the consent of the housing community, while screwing the camera on the handle to the balcony railing, window sill or window frame, and the more its position on the balcony stand, like hanging on the railing the balcony of the flowerbed, no such consent required. "